tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384692836709903146.post623734553640491700..comments2024-03-27T09:55:23.143-07:00Comments on Dispatch from the Digital Health Frontier: A Strawman HIE Directory SolutionJohn Halamkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04550236129132159307noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384692836709903146.post-3043949914284409182011-06-02T12:43:07.491-07:002011-06-02T12:43:07.491-07:00I think we should investigate leveraging the work ...I think we should investigate leveraging the work of The NPI Registry. The NPI Registry already includes all enumerated providers, enables search and there is no change to use it. The data base is updated daily. CMS contracted with Fox Systems, Inc. to serve as the NPI Enumerator and to develop the data base. It seems that we could work with CMS to add the IP Address and digital certificate to this data base that was a huge undertaking by CMS and Fox, thereby shortcutting our efforts. <br />The data currently included is data that is disclosable under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and all of it is disclosed to the public. The addition of a secure portion of the site may be required to accomplish the goals of our effort, however, it is a great starting point and would save time and money. NPI data is available in two forms:<br />1.A query-only database, known as the NPI Registry.<br />2.A downloadable file.<br />Some of the key data elements currently included are:<br />•NPI<br />•Entity Type Code (1-Individual or 2-Organization)<br />•Replacement NPI<br />•Provider Name (First Name, Middle Name, Last Name, Prefix, Suffix, Credential(s), OR the Legal Business Name for Organizations)<br />•Provider Other Name (First Name, Middle Name, Last Name, OR ‘Doing Business As’ Name, Former Legal Business Name, Other Name. for Organizations)<br />•Provider Business Mailing Address (First line address, Second line address, City, State, Postal Code, and Country Code if outside U.S., Telephone Number, Fax Number)<br />•Provider Business Location Address (First line address, Second line address, City, State, Postal Code, and Country Code if outside U.S., Telephone Number, Fax Number)<br />•Healthcare Provider Taxonomy Code(s)<br />•Other Provider Identifier(s)<br />•Other Provider Identifier Type Code<br />•Provider Enumeration Date<br />•Last Update Date<br />•NPI Deactivation Reason Code<br />•NPI Deactivation Date<br />•NPI Reactivation Date<br />•Provider Gender Code<br />•Provider License Number<br />•Provider License Number State Code<br />•Authorized Official Contact Information (First Name, Middle Name, Last Name, Title or Position, Telephone Number)<br />https://nppes.cms.hhs.gov/NPPES/NPIRegistryHome.do<br />Many of the issues that will need to be dealt with such as changes in location, status etc. are already considered in the NPI Registry. <br />Thank you for your consideration of this idea.<br /><br />Sandra Schafer<br />VP Marketing and Business Development<br />Holon Solutions<br />www.holonsolutions.com<br />678-324-2039Sandrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00405132300301264524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384692836709903146.post-80415749568746873462011-05-25T21:55:10.344-07:002011-05-25T21:55:10.344-07:00Jon Postel said in the early 80s (when he was help...Jon Postel said in the early 80s (when he was helping invent the DNS), "This is a naming system not a general directory assistance system." <br /><br />Do we have some people who think Postel was fundamentally wrong on this point?Peter Bachmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12252983630493459378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384692836709903146.post-30483535865007073822011-05-25T08:17:08.482-07:002011-05-25T08:17:08.482-07:00I have been advocating a TLD for healthcare for so...I have been advocating a TLD for healthcare for some time (http://ahier.blogspot.com/2009/12/top-level-domain-for-healthcare.html), but Wes seems to think it is a bad strategy (http://blogs.gartner.com/wes_rishel/2009/12/20/simple-interop-why-we-dont-seek-a-top-level-domain-name)<br /><br />I still think the idea is worth exploring...Ahierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13398190978662246852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384692836709903146.post-65336132045607361342011-05-24T14:23:21.521-07:002011-05-24T14:23:21.521-07:00On the issue of finding information about health-c...On the issue of finding information about health-care providers (organizations or personel) on the internet: I don't think anyone is suggesting screen scrapping human-readable contact pages. Such stuff would have to be published as structured, linked-data and, for that, tools and know-how are openly (and freely) available (more here: http://www.caregraf.org/datasets )<br /><br />Open data - about providers, organizations, procedures, conditions, is easy to publish for re-use, meaning there's no good reason to pass around CCDs laden with details about organizations and personel (or even medication types).<br /><br />While it is essential to safe guard the private, successful communication also needs re-usable publication of the public and open, and URIs, internet, RDF, linked-data makes that easy.<br /><br />As an aside: one thing I like about talk of URIs etc is that it represents a much needed move away from the "document-motif of exchange" everyone's been fixed on.conor dowlinghttp://www.caregraf.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4384692836709903146.post-31675763439436070282011-05-24T05:22:07.827-07:002011-05-24T05:22:07.827-07:00I see many problems with this approach, and it see...I see many problems with this approach, and it seems that this approach includes things that add no value.<br /><br />Here is my alternative. The HIT Standards committee has already recommended to HHS/ONC that there would be great value to Healthcare exchanges (both direct and discovery/retrieve) if the certificates used were issued off of a Certificate Authority that is bridged to the Federal PKI. I will assert that this would result in a small number of Certificate Authorities. This is the good part of your #2, but there is no need for a TLD or restrictions on query.<br /><br />What I would augment is #3, very simply with adding that these ELPD suppliers would also be compelled to publish using the LDAP model recommended by the HIT Standards P&S committee. Given that there is only a few of these, they surely could work out federation between them. You will note, I am not against the DNS model as an alternative, I am just against a model that is not supported by off-the-shelf solutions. The community must understand that the DNS model for certificate distribution is not working perfectly for the Direct Project, and has well known issues.<br /><br />I am very worried about your approach to discoverability through faith in internet search engines. Your proposal is not any different than what we have today (http://www.bidmc.org/ContactUs.aspx), and I can't find reliable provider contact information. A program surely couldn't find reliable provider contact information from this page. I fail to see how this can be called 'standards' based.John Moehrkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04526719420117446030noreply@blogger.com