Resources on Underserved Populations
- Noreen Whysel
"Digital Identity Ecosystems and their associated Trust Registries use a Trust Framework (such as the PCTF) to define how Issuers, Verifiers, Holders, and Digital Wallets should or must operate to be considered trustworthy." https://diacc.ca/trust-framework-components/pctf-trust-registries/
The Canadian Trust Registry is one example of standards that are not inclusive that need input of the sort we are trying to produce in Kantara. It subjects human holders of digital wallets to Trust Criteria that may well have the result of preventing human beings from accessing their rights and privileges. This is why I would like to see an early report on Inclusivity.
Tom Jones requested a change and got the following responses:
The Trust Framework defines the “how”, which may or may not include an entry in a Trust Registry. Holders belong on that list because they can be in a position to compromise the trustworthiness of an ecosystem.
Additionally, a person may be the holder of credentials, a business may be a holder of credentials, an IoT thing may hold credentials, and the wallet may hold (be the holder) of credentials for a person or a business. In this context, a Holder is more than just a person.
It's a person's decision whether they want to use a digital credential or not. Much like a person can choose to pay for an item with cash or use their biometrics on their smartphone to tap payment. A person's rights or privileges are not determined by this nor is it being insinuated nor is it being enforced on citizens.
At the end of the day, it's the individual's decision and choice, which Canadians have and will continue to do so, how they want to interact with the digital ecosystem. Something that is not so evident in the countries you mentioned. [Russia and China]
As we can see from the following example of a First Nations grandfather seeking to set up a bank account for his daughter; underserved populations are AT RISK from thinking like the above. This is a good example of why technologists should not be permitted to define standards that impact normal people. They just have no clue!
A Heiltsuk man, granddaughter handcuffed outside Vancouver bank settle human rights case against police. Vancouver: CBC. Retrieved from Heiltsuk man, granddaughter handcuffed outside Vancouver bank settle human rights case against police | CBC News
Contributed by @tomjones on
LNovember 23, 2023
Everson, Jordan, Vaishali Patel & Bob Phillips. The Digital Health Divide for Populations that have been Marginalized. (Nov 13, 2023). Health IT Web. The Digital Health Divide for Populations that have been Marginalized - Health IT Buzz
ONC has consistently that rates of interoperable exchange for smaller, rural, and independent hospitals have notably lagged behind other hospitals. For example, in both 2017 and 2021, rural hospitals were 23 percentage points less likely to engage in interoperable exchange compared to urban hospitals. A fundamental challenge we identified is that there are several ways to identify hospitals that disproportionately treat economically and socially marginalized populations. In our research, we assessed four ways based upon key federal, state, and local government programs:
Medicaid caseload
Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Index
Uncompensated care burden
Critical Access Hospital (CAH) designation
Social Deprivation Index (SDI)
A fifth measure is the Social Deprivation Index (SDI) A relatively new type of measure, SDI draws on US census data about social drivers of health that collectively reflect the relative deprivation of a geographic area and its residents – and that have been validated to predict health outcomes better than poverty alone...
Notes:
Is it possible to map this? Has HHS?
Interesting that they adopted drivers instead of determinants. That was suggested in an earlier UCLA presentation at the Health IT Summit, I believe.
--Added by Bev on November 17, 2023
Federal Reserve/FDIC/OCC report on distressed or underserved geographies
Comments of EPIC, ACLU, CDT, and EFF to the TSA on Interim Waiver Process Rulemaking for Mobile Driver’s Licenses
The following from the report should be considered in our work I believe.
https://epic.org/documents/comments-of-epic-aclu-cdt-and-eff-to-the-tsa-on-interim-waiver-process-rulemaking-for-mobile-drivers-licenses/
The current standards govern how an mDL should transmit information from the phone to the verifying party (e.g. the TSA agent in the airport), and they govern how an mDL reader should verify the validity of the license.11 But the standards do not govern provisioning (how states install an mDL on a phone). They do not provide sufficient protections for data storage on the phone, sufficient guidance for mobile wallet design or user experience, or accountable constraints that would limit invasive or unwarranted requests from abusive mDL verifiers. Standards for the issuing authority to load mDLs onto a phone are in development as the ISO/IEC 23220 series.12 Standards for digital wallet privacy, security, and consent management are even less developed.
--Added by Tom Jones on October 23
Measurement Spec Sheets on the Proposed Rule
ONC is now accepting public comments by June 20, 2023. What data will be collected: Individual Access Spec Sheet [PDF – 139 KB]
Recorded Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 1pm ET Video Recording
Impacts for Patients and Caregivers Information Session Information Slides PDF [ 3.4 MB]