HL7 publishes coordinated 2026 updates to CRD, DTR, and PAS
The three Da Vinci implementation guides define connected but distinct stages for discovering requirements, assembling documentation, and exchanging authorization requests and responses.
Editorial figure by Prior Auth Monitor. Source context: HL7 International Da Vinci Project.
One workflow, three implementation guides
Prior authorization is often described as a single API, but the Da Vinci guides divide the problem into stages. CRD helps a provider system learn whether requirements may apply, DTR supports structured retrieval and completion of needed information, and PAS carries the authorization request and response. A product may support one stage without supporting all three.
Enterprise evaluations should therefore request a version-specific conformance statement and a representative transaction trace. The trace should identify the initiating system, payer endpoint, intermediaries, code systems, attachments, errors, response state, and the final record presented to operational users.
Conformance is necessary but not sufficient
A vendor's participation in standards work or support for an implementation guide is meaningful evidence of technical direction. It does not establish the breadth of connected payers, the freshness of rules, the quality of documentation, or the behavior of a workflow under real exceptions.
Prior Auth Monitor will distinguish published conformance documentation, certification or test evidence where available, live production connections, and general marketing claims. That separation allows standards support to remain useful without becoming a proxy for total product quality.
Enterprise buyer test
Translate this change into the exact population, record type, workflow stage, decision owner, effective date, and evidence that could be affected. Ask current or prospective providers to demonstrate the named workflow with representative data and an exception—not a polished feature tour. Record what official documentation establishes, what a provider states, what the team observes, and what remains unresolved.
A defensible review also identifies the dependency outside the product. Authority interpretation, policy configuration, data quality, integrations, human judgment, approval rights, release governance, training, and retained evidence may remain customer or service responsibilities. The evaluation should preserve those boundaries instead of treating a technology claim as the complete operating model.
What we will watch next
Prior Auth Monitor will watch the named source and affected market records for later evidence that changes status, scope, availability, implementation timing, workflow consequence, or the limits of the initial report. A later announcement does not silently overwrite this dated account; the change ledger preserves the sequence.