Prior authorization follow-up is the work between "submitted" and "approved": reading the payer's pend, finding the missing document, resubmitting and chasing a decision. The final status records only the end of that story. A platform change is the moment to find out whether the middle survives.
What should be inventoried before a revenue cycle platform change affects prior authorization follow-up history?
Record classes, time coverage, system owners and the real access deadline, asked at metadata level. The risk in a platform change is specific: the new system may import open authorizations and final statuses but not the closed version history or the work queue tasks between versions.
Questions for the revenue cycle director:
- Which record classes exist: submission versions, attachments per version, pend messages, work queue tasks, status history, payer requirement logs?
- How many years of closed authorizations sit in the current platform, and how many in systems already retired?
- Will the migration bring over closed requests with every version, or only the latest version and its status?
- Are clearinghouse 278 logs retained separately, and for how long under that contract?
- Where are payer policy changes recorded, if anywhere other than email?
- When does read access to the old platform end under the vendor contract or project plan?
- Roughly how many authorization requests a year are pended at least once?
Record the answers, not the records. Do not ask for exports, screenshots or logins, and do not recommend keeping data beyond the company's retention policy or authority. A platform change is a real reason to talk now; manufactured urgency is not.
Which layers of the history a platform change keeps
Think of each authorization as five layers, from the summary down to the work. Migration scopes are usually written from the top down; ask how far down this one goes.
| Layer | What it shows | Risk of being left behind | Where else a copy may exist |
|---|---|---|---|
| Final status and reason | The payer's decision | Low | Payer portal, if the payer keeps it |
| Latest submission | What was finally approved | Medium | Clearinghouse logs |
| Earlier submission versions | What was sent first and why it fell short | High | Clearinghouse logs, if retained |
| Missing-document requests | The requirement the payer cited | High | Pend messages, fax archive, email |
| Work queue tasks | Who acted, when, and what they attached | Highest | None, once the platform is retired |
Two external facts make the lower layers worth naming. The HIPAA standard transaction for prior authorization and referrals is ASC X12N 278 Version 5010, so electronic requests and responses often pass through a clearinghouse that may hold its own logs under a separate contract. And under the CMS Interoperability and Prior Authorization Final Rule, beginning primarily in 2026, impacted payers must send decisions within 72 hours for expedited requests and seven calendar days for standard ones, and must give a specific reason for a denial. The rule covers medical items and services, not drugs, and excludes QHP issuers on the federally facilitated exchanges from those timeframes. For a company with history on both sides of 2026, the inventory should note whether older and newer requests are stored the same way.
An illustrative inventory sheet
Illustrative only; the company and figures are fictional. A 450-person revenue cycle management company serving physician groups is moving to a new platform. Its revenue cycle director fills in the sheet from the project plan.
| Record class | System | Years held | Owner | Moves to the new platform? | Readable until |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Final statuses | Old revenue cycle platform | 2017 to now | Revenue cycle director | Last three years | Old platform contract end |
| Submission versions and attachments | Old revenue cycle platform | 2017 to now | Revenue cycle director | Latest version only | Old platform contract end |
| 278 transaction logs | Clearinghouse | Per clearinghouse contract | IT and vendor management | Not affected | Clearinghouse retention term |
| Missing-document requests | Platform pend messages, fax archive | 2018 to now | Authorization team lead | No | Fax archive retention rule |
| Work queue tasks | Old revenue cycle platform | 2019 to now | Authorization team lead | No | Old platform contract end |
Reading the sheet: the decisions survive, but the version chain and the work between versions depend on one contract end date, and the clearinghouse term may be shorter or longer than that. Both dates belong in the handoff.
Which date is the real deadline?
The date read access to the old platform ends, from the vendor contract or the decommission plan. Record the clearinghouse log retention term beside it, since it may be the only other place earlier versions exist. If neither is set, write "not set"; do not estimate one.
Who decides, and does the company qualify?
The revenue cycle director knows coverage. The CEO, CFO or COO decides whether a licensing discussion fits, and the privacy officer and counsel check client agreements and business associate terms. Any discussion of these records would turn on de-identification: HIPAA's de-identification standard can be met by Expert Determination or Safe Harbor, compared in Safe Harbor vs Expert Determination.
The introduced company needs 50+ full-time employees at peak (contractors excluded), a documented operating history, rights to license the records, and an authorized contact. Companies in the U.S., Canada and the EU qualify, as do companies in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, India, Singapore, South Africa, Latin America, the UAE and Saudi Arabia when at least 90% of the data is in English.
What stays unknown until SourceX reviews it: dataset demand, the rights review result, what de-identification requires, and whether any offer follows. Partners sign the Channel Partner Agreement before submitting introductions, and the first valid introduction within the 90-day window is credited when the company submits a verified application. Related pages: revenue cycle management companies, healthcare operations and the industries hub.
Go deeper on prior authorization follow-up
- Prior authorization follow-up exception examples: one pended request worked through step by step, from first version to approval.
- Prior authorization follow-up records across systems: a system map of the identifiers that join platform, clearinghouse and payer records.
- Who can license prior authorization follow-up records: a decision tree for which executive to introduce and what needs privacy sign-off.
- Prior authorization follow-up referral brief template: a fill-in, metadata-only brief for the introduction.
Next step
Refer a company. Earn up to $100,000. Default reward: 25% of Actual Supplier Payout, capped at $100,000 cumulatively per referred company. Eligibility and payment conditions apply, and a signed Schedule A or addendum can differ. A lead, meeting or signature alone does not trigger payment.
If a client is replacing its revenue cycle platform and years of authorization version history could be left behind, register as a partner, check the company against who qualifies, and read the program terms before you send the handoff.