BFD-3683: Evaluate Feature/samhsa2.0 POC #2550
Conversation
…-alerts Slack channel (#2485) Co-authored-by: aschey-forpeople <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Michael J Burling <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Anna Hawk <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: aschey-forpeople <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: aschey-forpeople <[email protected]>
adding missed dependency
…s in the response (#2530) Co-authored-by: aschey-forpeople <[email protected]>
dondevun
requested review from
mjburling,
aschey-forpeople and
malessi
as code owners
dondevun
force-pushed
the
feature/samhsa2.0
branch
from
e7492e4 to
9841ec7
Compare
apps/bfd-server/bfd-server-war/src/test/resources/endpoint-responses/v1/eobReadInpatient.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
dondevun
force-pushed
the
feature/samhsa2.0
branch
from
f254067 to
c081a01
Compare
| static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(CCWSamhsaBackfill.class); | ||
|
|
||
| /** The table to process in this thread. */ | ||
| private final TableEntry tableEntry; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This variable is unused
| // original query. | ||
| if (!tableEntry.getLineItem()) { | ||
| dates = Optional.of(new Object[] {claim[1], claim[2]}); | ||
| codesOffset = 3; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Don't necessarily need to change this right now, but I'm a bit concerned about the robustness of relying on column ordering here. It would be fairly easy to break this by accidentally changing the order of the select statement. Maybe it would be possible to use named parameters instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree, this was top of mind for me, as well, when I was working on it. Changing it now would require another round of testing in the pipeline, so we can talk about whether we want to postpone the deployment for this; but I agree that there may be a better way to do it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Your call. I think we can address it as a follow-up since it's not currently problematic.
| @Override | ||
| public Map<Supplier<Optional<String>>, String> getClaimLineMethods(CarrierClaimLine line) { | ||
| return Map.ofEntries( | ||
| entry(line::getDiagnosisCode, "line_icd_dgns_cd"), entry(line::getHcpcsCode, "hcpcs_cd")); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Might be nice to have a centralized set of constants for these column name strings. A lot of these are repeated several times among a few different files.
| @AllArgsConstructor | ||
| public class TableEntry { | ||
| /** The query for the table. */ | ||
| String Query; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should be camel-cased
| String Query; | |
| String query; |
| String column; | ||
|
|
||
| /** The line entry in the table. Will correspond to either rdaPosition, or idrDtlNumber */ | ||
| Integer clm_line_num; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should be camel-cased
| Integer clm_line_num; | |
| Integer clmLineNum; |
| for (Coding code : coding) { | ||
| org.hl7.fhir.dstu3.model.Coding securityTag = new org.hl7.fhir.dstu3.model.Coding(); | ||
| securityTag | ||
| .setSystem("http://terminology.hl7.org/CodeSystem/v3-Confidentiality") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should use the constant
| .setSystem("http://terminology.hl7.org/CodeSystem/v3-Confidentiality") | |
| .setSystem(TransformerConstants.SAMHSA_CONFIDENTIALITY_CODE_SYSTEM_URL) |
| @@ -149,6 +149,9 @@ | |||
| /bfd/${env}/pipeline/nonsensitive/rda/job/batch_size: "20" | |||
| /bfd/${env}/pipeline/nonsensitive/rda/job/write_thread_count: "20" | |||
| /bfd/${env}/pipeline/nonsensitive/rda/job/process_dlq: "true" | |||
| /bfd/${env}/pipeline/nonsensitive/rda/samhsa/backfill/enabled: "true" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we want to start the backfill immediately on deployment or should we default this to false and enable it as a subsequent step?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see any drawback to starting it immediately, but we can start with it off if you think that would be better.
JIRA Ticket:
BFD-3876
What Does This PR Do?
Code for SAMHSA 2.0 Filter. This is being merged in order to start the pipeline SAMHSA tag creation; the feature flag will remain off pending the merge of BFD-3875.
What Should Reviewers Watch For?
If you're reviewing this PR, please check for these things in particular:
What Security Implications Does This PR Have?
Please indicate if this PR does any of the following:
Adds any new software dependencies
Modifies any security controls
Adds new transmission or storage of data
Any other changes that could possibly affect security?
I have considered the above security implications as it relates to this PR. (If one or more of the above apply, it cannot be merged without the ISSO or team security engineer's (
@sb-benohe) approval.)Validation
Have you fully verified and tested these changes? Is the acceptance criteria met? Please provide reproducible testing instructions, code snippets, or screenshots as applicable.