blockchain healthcare application development: Reference Architectures for Claims, Consent, and Credentials

Short description: A practical, standards-aligned blueprint for building blockchain-powered healthcare apps that automate prior authorization, operationalize computable consent, and issue verifiable provider/patient credentials—mapped to current U.S./EU regulations and the latest HL7, W3C, OpenID, and TEFCA guidance.

---

Why this matters now: the policy and standards window just opened

• CMS finalized the Interoperability and Prior Authorization rule on January 17, 2024. Payers must implement Patient Access, Payer-to-Payer, and Prior Authorization APIs by January 1, 2027; shorter decision timeframes (72h expedited, 7 days standard) and public reporting start January 1, 2026. HIPAA enforcement discretion allows FHIR-only prior auth APIs (no X12 278), giving builders latitude to implement Da Vinci IGs end-to-end. (cms.gov)

• TEFCA moved from concept to reality: first QHINs designated in December 2023; by 2025 TEFCA reported millions of documents exchanged and expanding QHIN designations, with governance SOPs and additional exchange purposes rolling out. Plan to integrate with QHINs (directly or via participants) for national-scale exchange. (rce.sequoiaproject.org)

• ONC’s HTI‑1 Final Rule makes USCDI v3, US Core IG 6.1.0, and SMART on FHIR v2 capability sets the certification baseline by January 1, 2026 (with recent enforcement discretion shifting developer update delivery to March 1, 2026). Design APIs against these targets now. (healthit.gov)

• HHS modernized 42 CFR Part 2 (effective April 16, 2024; compliance by February 16, 2026) to allow a single consent for TPO and HIPAA‑aligned redisclosure—critical for computable consent and cross‑network workflows. (hhs.gov)

• Verifiable credentials matured: W3C VC Data Model v2.0 advanced to Recommendation (2025), and OpenID for Verifiable Presentations 1.0 and OpenID for Verifiable Credential Issuance 1.0 were approved as Final Specifications in 2025—unlocking mainstream, interoperable issuance/presentation flows. (w3.org)

• In the EU, the European Health Data Space Regulation entered into force in March 2025, with staged application through 2029–2031. If you operate in both U.S. and EU, align consent/credentialing now for cross‑border reuse. (consilium.europa.eu)

What this means: you can ship real, compliant value with blockchain as the trust/audit/credential backbone, while your data exchange stays FHIR/SMART/TEFCA‑native.

---

Architectural principles we use at 7Block Labs

• FHIR-first, blockchain-light: Store PHI in FHIR servers/HIEs; anchor hashes, attestations, consents, and credentials to a permissioned ledger. Avoid on‑chain PHI. Align to HL7 FHIR R4/R5 resources (especially Consent, Provenance, AuditEvent). (hl7.org)

• Standards-backed consent and credentials: Represent consent as both an operational FHIR Consent resource (enforceable in workflows) and as a W3C Verifiable Credential “consent receipt” for portability and cross-network verification. Use W3C VC v2.0 + OpenID OID4VCI/OID4VP for issuance/presentation. (hl7.org)

• Privacy-preserving revocation at scale: Use VC Status List 2021 bitstrings for revocation/suspension; adopt BBS+ selective disclosure where needed to minimize data exposure. (w3.org)

• Regulatory alignment: Map workflows to CMS prior auth timelines and Da Vinci CRD/DTR/PAS IGs; honor 42 CFR Part 2 consent constraints with DS4P labels. (cms.gov)

• TEFCA-aware topology: Integrate with a QHIN/Participant for nationwide exchange; persist definitive exchange evidence as notarized on‑chain events to strengthen audit and non‑repudiation. (rce.sequoiaproject.org)

• Wallet strategy: Support both user-controlled wallets and enterprise custodial agents for providers and patients; rely on OIDC credential flows for low-friction issuance into existing identity stacks. (openid.net)

---

Reference Architecture 1: Prior Authorization and Claims Eventing

Goal: Reduce denials and latency by automating coverage discovery, documentation capture, and prior auth submission, while immutably recording decisions and consents.

Core components

• FHIR layer

  • US Core/Da Vinci‑aligned FHIR server (R4.0.1 baseline) for clinical data and prior auth bundles. (hl7.org)
  • SMART v2 authorization server exposing required capability sets (Patient Standalone, Clinician EHR Launch). (build.fhir.org)

• Da Vinci orchestration

  • CRD service (CDS Hooks) to check payer rules during ordering. (hl7.org)
  • DTR SMART app to pre-populate payer questionnaires with CQL and SDC. (hl7.org)
  • PAS gateway to submit/track prior auth (FHIR↔X12 intermediary optional; CMS allows FHIR‑only). (hl7.org)

• Consent and provenance

  • FHIR Consent resources + DS4P security labels for 42 CFR Part 2 segregation.
  • VC “consent receipt” anchored on-chain with pointer to Consent.id and hash of the PDF consent artifact. (build.fhir.org)

• Ledger and audit

  • Permissioned ledger records: hashed prior auth request/response bundle IDs, decision timestamps, and credential proofs from participating entities (provider org DID, payer DID).
  • Event model: each state change (Submitted, Pended, Approved/Denied, Extended) emits an on‑chain event linked to FHIR resource versionId.

• TEFCA integration

  • Query patient longitudinal data (with consent) via TEFCA networks; log correlation IDs from QHIN transactions in the on‑chain audit trail. (rce.sequoiaproject.org)

Data flow example (MRI lumbar spine prior auth)

1. Clinician orders MRI; EHR calls CRD (CDS Hooks order-select), receives coverage rules and PA requirement. (hl7.org)
2. Launch DTR; app retrieves payer Questionnaire(s), pre-populates from FHIR; clinician completes missing answers. (hl7.org)
3. PAS submits FHIR Bundle to payer; system records on-chain the bundle hash, payer endpoint, and a VC proof of clinician role. If the payer requests info, each iteration is hashed and anchored. (hl7.org)
4. Payer decision within 7 days (72h expedited); decision payload is hashed and anchored; Patient Access API is updated for transparency by 1/1/2027. (cms.gov)

Implementation tips

• Timelines: Build to publish metrics by 3/31/2026; achieve API compliance by 1/1/2027. (cms.gov)
• Standards: Da Vinci PAS v2.1.0 (R4), CRD v2.1.0+, DTR v2.1.0+; track ballot updates (e.g., PAS 2.2.0-ballot). (hl7.org)
• Enforcement discretion: You can implement FHIR‑only PAS while remaining compliant under HIPAA Administrative Simplification enforcement discretion. (cms.gov)
• On‑chain schema: Use minimal, non‑PHI event structures: {subjectRef, resourceType, resourceId, versionId, sha256, ts, actorCredentialId}.

KPIs to track

• Initial‑submission approval rate; cycle time per auth; percentage ePA via API; appeal rate.
• Denial reason codification completeness; DTR pre-population coverage by payer line.
• On‑chain vs off‑chain reconciliation success (hash matches).

---

Reference Architecture 2: Computable Consent that travels

Goal: Express granular patient permissions once, enforce them across FHIR, TEFCA, and data reuse, and present them as verifiable credentials to any relying party.

Core components

• Consent modeling

  • FHIR Consent (R5 preferred for richer fields) with scope, period, grantee/grantor, and computable rules; DS4P security labels for segmentation (e.g., SUD, mental health). (hl7.org)
  • Policy language linkage via Consent.policyRule (XACML/ODRL) for advanced constraints. (hl7.org)

• Credentialization

  • Issue a “Consent Receipt VC” to the data subject’s wallet and the covered entity’s agent wallet using OIDC4VCI; verifiers request proof via OID4VP at access time. (openid.net)
  • Use Status List 2021 for revocation/suspension to reflect consent withdrawal or scope change. (w3.org)

• Enforcement points

  • FHIR API gateway enforces Consent + DS4P; SUD data rules must respect new 42 CFR Part 2 aligned redisclosure and single TPO consent semantics by 2/16/2026. (hhs.gov)
  • TEFCA participant gateway: honor Consent artifacts, log exchange purposes, and anchor exchange events on‑chain for auditability. (sequoiaproject.org)

• Privacy tech

  • BBS+ VC signatures for selective disclosure (e.g., prove “consent valid for treatment for this provider” without disclosing other scopes). (w3.org)

Operational patterns

• Consent lifecycle

  1. Capture: Patient signs digital consent; store FHIR Consent + PDF artifact.
  2. Issue: Generate a Consent VC with references to Consent.id, scope, effective period, and a hash of the artifact; deliver via OIDC4VCI. (openid.net)
  3. Enforce: At API calls, verify VC proof (OID4VP), check Consent.status and DS4P labels. (openid.net)
  4. Revoke/modify: Update FHIR Consent; set status list bit for the VC; record on‑chain revocation event. (w3.org)

• Edge cases to pre‑solve

  • TPO vs research reuse: Distinct consents; configure different VC types and status lists.
  • 42 CFR Part 2 redisclosure audit: store redisclosure events with Consent reference, not the payload. (troutman.com)
  • Cross‑jurisdiction (EU EHDS): map primary vs secondary use to EHDS purposes; make consent VCs portable across borders. (health.ec.europa.eu)

---

Reference Architecture 3: Verifiable Provider and Patient Credentials

Goal: Issue and verify digital credentials (licenses, network participation, care team roles, age/identity) with privacy-preserving revocation and zero-click wallet flows.

Credential types to prioritize

• Provider credentials: License active/in good standing, NPI assertion, DEA registration (where applicable), network participation, hospital privileges.
• Patient credentials: Relationship/guardian status; age/identity for consent; insurance coverage proof.

Core components

• Issuance

  • Source systems (state boards, NPPES, payer/provider directories) act as Issuers; adopt OIDC4VCI for wallet‑friendly issuance from existing OAuth stacks. (openid.net)
  • Derive claims from authoritative APIs (e.g., NPI/NPPES, payer directories, CMS esMD FHIR provider registration) before issuing. (clinicaltables.nlm.nih.gov)

• Verification

  • RPs (EHR apps, payer portals, TEFCA gateways) request presentations via OID4VP. Maintain a cache of issuer metadata and trust lists. (openid.net)
  • Use Status List 2021 for credential status checks; minimize call‑home privacy leaks. (w3.org)

• Wallets

  • Support device wallets and enterprise custodial wallets (for hospitals issuing staff credentials). For government identity bridges, note TSA’s acceptance trajectory for state mobile driver’s licenses (mDLs) and the REAL ID waiver process—not a substitute for healthcare credentials but useful for identity bootstrapping. (tsa.gov)

Practical issuance examples

• Provider License VC

  • Subject: Practitioner DID + NPI
  • Claims: license number, board, jurisdiction, status, expiration
  • Evidence: link to board registry entry, timestamp
  • Status: Status List 2021 “revocation” bit
  • Presentation: Required for PAS submissions or OR privileges workflow

• Network Participation VC (Payer)

  • Subject: PractitionerRole/Organization
  • Claims: product lines, effective dates, network regions
  • Status: suspension/termination via status list entry

Security and privacy

• Selective disclosure with BBS+: prove “licensed‑active” without disclosing license number; prove network affiliation for a specific plan. (w3.org)
• Avoid correlatability: don’t publish per‑credential status URLs—use aggregated status lists. (w3.org)

---

Choosing your ledger stack: what fits healthcare

• Hyperledger Fabric: private data collections let only entitled orgs see sensitive data while all channel members see hashes for audit; great for consortium claims/consent anchoring, with chaincode‑level ABAC and fine‑grained collections. (hyperledger-fabric.readthedocs.io)

• Hyperledger Besu/GoQuorum + Tessera: EVM smart contracts with private transactions scoped to privacy groups; use Tessera for private payloads and group management. Good fit when you need Solidity and enterprise Ethereum tooling. (docs.tessera.consensys.io)

• R3 Corda: UTXO‑style DLT with no global broadcast; notaries provide uniqueness and timestamps; strong fit for bilateral workflows (e.g., payer‑provider contract states) with built‑in privacy. (docs.r3.com)

Selection tips

• If your team wants EVM and flexible tokenized incentives (e.g., directory data quality bounties), pick Besu/GoQuorum + Tessera. If your priority is rich endorsement policies and channel governance, pick Fabric. If your workflows are bilateral with strict privacy, consider Corda.

• Keep PHI off‑chain in all cases; persist hashes, timestamps, DIDs, VC IDs, and status list pointers only.

---

Example deployment patterns we’ve delivered

Pattern A: Prior Auth “Audit Spine” for a multi‑payer region

• Stack: FHIR R4 server + CRD/DTR/PAS services, Besu + Tessera for event anchoring, OIDC provider, VC issuance microservice.
• What we store on‑chain: SHA‑256 of PAS bundles, decision metadata, issuer/verifier DIDs, and revocation list URIs, never PHI.
• Outcomes to target: 30–50% faster auth decision cycle; measurable reduction in appeals; cryptographically provable audit trail meeting payer reporting rules by March 31, 2026. (cms.gov)

Pattern B: Cross‑network computable consent

• Stack: R5 Consent service, DS4P labeling, Fabric with private data collections for consent disputes, VC “consent receipt” issuance (OIDC4VCI), OID4VP verification on gateway.
• Outcomes: Patient‑managed consents honored across TEFCA exchange; revocation reflected across verifiers via Status List updates within minutes. (build.fhir.org)

Pattern C: Provider directory cleanup with credential incentives

• Inspiration: Provider data sharing consortia show strong ROI when multiple payers share updates on a shared ledger. Add VC issuance for verified changes and app‑layer incentives. (synaptichealthalliance.com)

---

Implementation roadmap (180 days)

• Days 0–30: Compliance baseline

  • Map CMS 0057‑F obligations (metrics, APIs, decision timeframes).
  • Pick IG versions (PAS 2.1.0, CRD 2.1.0, DTR 2.1.0) and SMART v2 capability sets; evaluate TEFCA integration point. (hl7.org)

• Days 31–90: Minimal viable flows

  • Stand up PAS + DTR path for a top 10 CPT family; anchor events on Fabric/Besu.
  • Issue first Consent VCs and verify via OID4VP at the API gateway. (openid.net)

• Days 91–150: Scale and harden

  • Add payer network participation VCs; integrate Status List 2021; DS4P enforcement for SUD data paths; TEFCA pilot connectivity. (w3.org)

• Days 151–180: Governance and ops

  • Define DID method strategy (did:web for regulated issuers initially), key rotation, issuance SLAs, incident playbooks.
  • Validate metrics collection for CMS reporting and on‑chain/off‑chain reconciliation.

---

Emerging best practices

• Use SMART v2 scopes and capability discovery; publish endpoint metadata per HTI‑1. This reduces app friction and improves security posture for third‑party apps accessing your FHIR APIs. (himss.org)

• Separate “consent to disclose” (FHIR Consent + VC) from “identity/age” VC; don’t overload a single credential.

• Adopt revocation “suspension” for temporary holds (e.g., board investigation) rather than destructive revocation—Status List 2021 supports both. (w3.org)

• For licensure and network proof, reference authoritative registries in VC evidence; cache issuer metadata; verify signature suites (EdDSA for broad support, BBS+ for selective disclosure when needed). (w3.org)

• Keep your QHIN/Participant agreements explicit about treatment of on‑chain audit artifacts and dispute resolution; align with TEFCA governance SOPs. (sequoiaproject.org)

• Design for EU expansion if applicable: partition purposes (primary vs secondary use) to match EHDS application dates; plan for implementing acts through 2027. (health.ec.europa.eu)

---

Risk checklist (and how to dodge them)

• Putting PHI on-chain: never do it. Store hashes/pointers only; keep payloads in FHIR/HIE with DS4P labels. (build.fhir.org)

• Treating VC revocation as a per‑credential URL: switch to aggregated Status Lists to avoid correlating holders and verifiers. (w3.org)

• Ignoring 42 CFR Part 2 redisclosure: enforce redisclosure policies and audit; align compliance for February 16, 2026. (troutman.com)

• Over‑custom PAS/CRD/DTR dialects: stick to published versions to avoid expensive rewrites when regulators point to specific IGs. (hl7.org)

• Wallet UX cliff: use OIDC4VCI/OID4VP to leverage existing OAuth/OIDC infrastructure; reduce user friction. (openid.net)

---

What success looks like

• Prior authorization cycle times meet the 72h/7‑day thresholds with high initial‑approval rates; payer metrics published on time with cryptographic audit evidence available for regulators. (cms.gov)

• Patients and providers carry consent and credential VCs that are instantly verifiable across networks; revocations propagate in minutes via status list updates. (w3.org)

• Your APIs meet HTI‑1 SMART/USCDI v3 expectations and are ready for TEFCA exchange growth—positioning your org for U.S. and EU interoperability programs through 2029 and beyond. (himss.org)

---

How 7Block Labs can help

We design, build, and operate the pieces that make this real:

• Architecture sprints to map Da Vinci/SMART/TEFCA/Part 2 controls to your environment.
• Reference implementations for PAS + consent VC + on‑chain audit spine (Fabric or Besu/Tessera).
• Issuer/Verifier services using OIDC4VCI/OID4VP with Status List 2021 at scale.
• Governance packs: DID method policy, key management, TEFCA/QHIN alignment, and CMS reporting pipelines.

Ready to pilot one of these reference architectures in 90 days? Let’s scope it.