RE: HL7 Standards Process (was RE: EDIINT and HIPAA)

["Rishel,Wes" <wes.rishel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

For many reasons it would be more desirable to be a Standard, but I am not
sure that there aren't some shades of gray, particularly if the difference
in the required time is important. I will wait to hear from Gunther about
the HIPAA issue, but I am suspecting that the following is true:

a) there is interest in having a healthcare group give its imprimatur to
AS2, since it "rounds out" the Internet protocols to make a complete package
for HIPAA-compliant, B2B messaging based on ubiquitous Internet protocols
such as HTTP, FTP and SNMP.

b) there is some despair at seeing AS2 get out of IETF before quantum
computers pretty much obsolete everything based on computers with
deterministic states (this last was an attempt at humor)

c) there is a sense that being an ANSI Standard is a requirement if one
desires to get the government to mandate its use.

I would take issue with item (c). It is surely helpful to be a standard, but
it is also helpful to be any sort of publication of an ANSI-accredited
standards development organization. Furthermore, unless someone knows
something specific, I would be skeptical that the current administration
would introduce another delay in the final rule on security by attempting to
add AS2 at this late date.

Rather than a government mandate, I suspect that the benefit of an HL7
imprimatur, and perhaps a profile or two, would be to assist in promoting
the Internet and AS2 as means to exchange the HIPAA transactions without
reliance on value added networks. At the same time it would be very valuable
to HL7 to have ways to exchange standard (old syntax) HL7 messages and
HL7-XML messages over the Internet using the same infrastructure
(integration brokers and servers) as are being sold for other B2B
applications in healthcare, the power industry, etc.

If this model is correct a Standard is better, but a Recommendation also
provides substantial benefit. One approach would be to create a
Recommendation first and follow it up with a Standard after some operational
experience has been obtained.






> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gunther Schadow [mailto:gunther@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2000 8:06 PM
> To: dick@xxxxxxxx
> Cc: Rishel,Wes; Rik Drummond; Kepa Zubeldia; CLEM; Gary Crough; Beth
> Morrow; David@Drummondgroup. Com; GISB1@xxxxxxx; ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: HL7 Standards Process (was RE: EDIINT and HIPAA)
> 
> 
> Dick Brooks wrote:
> > 
> > Thanks Wes.
> > 
> > Based on your description I would anticipate the EDIINT AS2 
> spec taking the
> > "Recommendation" route, IF the group decides to go forward. 
> Do you see it
> > the same way?
> 
> Dick, I actually do see it the other way. The EDIINT work in 
> HL7 as we 
> discussed it in relation to HIPAA is only useful if we end up 
> with an ANSI 
> approved standard. That must be a standard, not a recommendation.
> 
> I'll fill in Wes on the HIPAA issue under separate cover. Glad you can
> make it for 1/8/2001. Thank you for your help.
> 
> regards,
> -Gunther
>