Kantara HIAWG Teleconference

Date and Time

Date: Thursday, July 21, 2011
Time: 10am PST | 1pm EST | 5pm UTC | 7pm CEST (Time Chart)

Attendees

Chris Miles
John Fraser
Laurie Tull
Pete Palmer
Barry Hieb
Dazza Greenwood
Dan Combs
Rick Moore
Daniel Bennett
Lara Zimberoff

Apologies

No apologies.

Agenda

Intro
1. Roll Call (5 minutes)
2. Approval of Minute (5 minutes)
PIDS Document (partial draft) https://join.me/citizencontact (40 minutes)## Review and gathering of HIA WG input
Other Business
Adjourn

Minutes

1. Intro

- Roll call (see above)

- Approval of minutes: call not in quorum, approval of 7/7/11 minutes postponed to next quorate call.

2. PIDS Document

Dazza: We have incorporated key feedback into version 0.9. One of the features in this version is the separation of and scope for phase 1.5, which will be when we identify who the participants, such as funders, will be. We’d like to use this call to see if we can gain any further feedback. Later, Dan Combs will have an updated on his recent exciting discussions with HIMSS.

Barry: I was puzzled that in the current version of the document, there is no discussion of VUHID.

Dazza: We need to discuss VUHID with you further.

Daniel: there are a couple sections that were reworked based on previous conversations, and references to VUHID were removed but will be added back in after we discuss further.

Dazza: We will need description of VUHID. (item will be discussed by eCitizen and VUHID offline)

Barry: I think what we need to do is talk about how this system can support various privacy models and the fact that by itself, it does not present a privacy threat.

Dazza: We may include a section called privacy and patient control to address that issue.

The architecture diagram distributed by Dan Combs is an oversimplified graphic showing that many different vendors and solutions working within each of these layers

John Fraser: When a VUHID is incorporated into an identifier for a person, how do you share it?

Barry: The mechanisms are going to be different for different credentials and techniques.

Daniel Bennett: The idea is that there will be multiple identifiers and PIDS service will be bound to those identifiers will credentials.

John: Does OpenID itself create a credential?

Daniel Bennett: OpenID is a standard, in a sense, for how to identify control of an identifier. The question of how that URL is initially controlled is an open question. The OpenID Itself has to be bound to a credential, usually through an OpenID provider. If the identifier already is bound, than insufficient authentication would have to go through step-up identification.

Dazza: We would like to give an update about recent conversations with HIMSS.

Dan Combs: Rich Furr introduced us to Richard Hodge at HIMSS. Rich is running a Patient Identity Coalition. They are focusing on the prohibition against HHS participation in development of a patient credential. They are attempting to lobby for changes to that restriction. The restriction is a recurring rider on appropriations for HHS. We’ve also opened up conversations with Rich to schedule some kind of event during HIT week that would put together members of the health community and NSTIC community. We would like NSTIC to talk to the HIMSS people, and schedule an event focusing on PIDS and general patient identity issues. We had some interesting conversations about patient matching and patient identity. We’re going to continue that conversation to elaborate on that intersection.

John: If we got legislative support, it’s not clear to me that the community would accept it.

Dan: One of the reasons that we’ve been so intent on working with NSTIC is Peter Alterman’s efforts to involve the government. Our hope that NSTIC will endorse PIDS during these conversations as a private-sector led project. One of the questions we have for the group is does the restriction on HHs effect this project? Are there concerns related to that restriction?

John: I don’t see anything that would cause that restriction to impact our project. As long as we keep the project open source, for example, by adopting OpenID, I don’t think anyone will care.

Daniel Bennett: So you think that despite the prohibition, HHS can get involved?

John: Yes, since it’s private-sector, non-profit, and open source.

Daniel Bennett: I have received questions on how meaningful use could help the PIDS project down the line.

Rick: The meaningful use payment- looks like the plan is to push it out for one more year into phase 2. That pushes out the requirements to be connected and exchanging information across the HIE?

Dan: Are they moving the whole timeframe, or just pushing it back a year?

Rick: They’re looking at keeping the bar low out for another year. I think that that bar will include connectivity to the HIE and other systems and any technology needed to accomplish that. What we’re going to see is that the HIE connection may not be a real driver here until the second or third phase. Also, I know that you’re putting the document into a new format, but it looks like we’re losing a lot of ideas and content, such as in the objectives section. It appears that our ideas, even as simple as what the model is, are not even in here (cited page 4 as example). It would be nice that in some place in the document, the Kantara Initiative HIA WG be referenced.

Dazza: When this comes out of Kantara, it will have Kantara branding. Due to the nature of our partnership, that was omitted since we are still gathering feedback on the document.

Rick: It would be great to do a presentation during healthcare week, but those meetings are often focused on legislative visits. You may find that based on where the meetings are located, you may not get the audience you want. It may be different this year, but this has been my experience in the past. I don’t want to discourage having a joint meeting.

Daniel Bennett: We’ll contact you to get some better ideas about how to interact.

If you want to talk with us in the near future, please contact us and we’d be happy to go over any issues.

John Fraser: In terms of timing, when do you think eCitizen will be ready to wrap up version 1 of the draft document?

Dan Combs: Part of this requires input from the group/leadership. It’s easier from a selling point of view to state we’re working on the document, so to some extent, we’ve been intentionally developing the document slowly. We’ve been balancing the issue of promoting involvement vs. promoting completion of the phase.

John: Pete, what is your sense of the final spec to get rolling on phase 2?

Pete: I think it’s a matter of identifying resources.

John: What do we need to get done on the spec/architecture? Maybe in the next meeting, we can review the whole architecture again. I would encourage eCitizen to get the document close to done, then we can have our architects look at it, and at that point, we’d be far enough along to start raising some money. We won’t get enough attention until we are operational. Let’s try to get to a final spec – not call it a 1.0, but use the near finished document to start getting some funding. It should be referred to as an “early release”.

WG - Healthcare ID Assurance

HIA WG Concall 2011-07-21 Minutes