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

[Kepa Zubeldia <Kepa.Zubeldia@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dick,

Probably the requirements are identical, except that the content will be
in X12 or NCPDP syntax instead of HL7 or XML.

Kepa

Dick Brooks wrote:
> 
> Kepa,
> 
> > Are you volunteering to create an interoperability profile for digital
> > signatures of the HIPAA standard transactions ?
> 
> My offer to assist in the development of an interoperability profile was in
> response to a need identified within HL7. However, I would be willing to
> help the HIPAA folks create an interoperability profile, provided it's based
> on a technology that I'm familiar with (e.g. EDIINT AS2, GISB EDM, ebXML).
> 
> I would hope the investment in developing an interoperability profile for
> HL7 could be leveraged in other areas (e.g. HIPAA, ASTM), without any
> additional work. Do you see HIPAA's requirements being significantly
> different enough from HL7 to require a separate interoperability profile?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dick Brooks
> Group 8760
> 110 12th Street North
> Birmingham, AL 35203
> dick@xxxxxxxx
> 205-250-8053
> Fax: 205-250-8057
> http://www.8760.com/
> 
> InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kepa Zubeldia [mailto:Kepa.Zubeldia@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 6:13 PM
> > To: Dick Brooks
> > Cc: Rishel,Wes; Gunther Schadow; Rik Drummond; CLEM; Gary Crough; Beth
> > Morrow; David@Drummondgroup. Com; GISB1@xxxxxxx; ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: HL7 Standards Process (was RE: EDIINT and HIPAA)
> >
> >
> > Dick,
> >
> > Are you volunteering to create an interoperability profile for digital
> > signatures of the HIPAA standard transactions ?  X12, NCPDP, and X12+HL7
> > (in which the signature could be on the HL7 or on the X12 components)
> > are the immediate needs.  However, keep in mind that NCPDP could also be
> > in EDIFACT syntax (e.g. prescriptions) and HL7 could be in different
> > syntaxes.  But, for HIPAA purposes, at this time we need something for
> > the 275 attachment only.  Other HL7 messages could come later through
> > other interoperability profiles.
> >
> > If we have a very narrow scope (HIPAA transactions as they were released
> > in the Final Rule, plus attachments as we know them) then it is possible
> > to get an agreement, even if there is not yet an agreement on other
> > issues or on PKI issues.
> >
> > Other volunteers ?
> >
> > Kepa
> >
> > 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?
> > >
> > > FYI - other groups that have adopted AS2 have found it
> > necessary to define
> > > "interoperability profiles". These profiles identify the exact set of
> > > "options" from AS2 that everyone in the "trading community" agrees to
> > > follow, in order to ensure interoperability. For example, GISB
> > has already
> > > defined an AS2 interoperability profile and the New York
> > Collaborative, in
> > > accordance with the Public Service Commission regulations, is
> > in the process
> > > of defining their interoperability profile. I'm familiar with both these
> > > groups and the process used to develop their profiles. I could help HL7
> > > develop an AS2 interoperability profile, if the group decides
> > to pursue this
> > > approach.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Dick Brooks
> > > Group 8760
> > > 110 12th Street North
> > > Birmingham, AL 35203
> > > dick@xxxxxxxx
> > > 205-250-8053
> > > Fax: 205-250-8057
> > > http://www.8760.com/
> > >
> > > InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Rishel,Wes [mailto:wes.rishel@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 8:32 PM
> > > > To: 'dick@xxxxxxxx'; Gunther Schadow
> > > > Cc: Rik Drummond; Kepa Zubeldia; CLEM; Gary Crough; Beth Morrow;
> > > > David@Drummondgroup. Com; GISB1@xxxxxxx; ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx
> > > > Subject: HL7 Standards Process (was RE: EDIINT and HIPAA)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As the chair-elect of HL7 I would like to respond to DB's
> > > > question about HL7
> > > > process.
> > > >
> > > > HL7 has two kinds of specifications that are published using slighly
> > > > different processes: a Standard is submitted to ANSI for
> > > > certification once
> > > > it has passed ballot; a Recommendation is published by HL7 but is not
> > > > submitted to ANSI and does not become an ANSI standard. Some
> > > > Recommendations
> > > > have had substantial acceptance among the HL7 community,
> > including it's
> > > > "lower level protocols" which define ways to reliably pass
> > > > discrete messages
> > > > over RS-232 and TCP, and were published sometime in the early 1990s.
> > > >
> > > > A Standard originates under the sponsorship of a Technical
> > > > Committee. If HL7
> > > > were to create a Standard for EDIINT it would be the Control/Query
> > > > committee. It is balloted at the committee level. (Actually anyone can
> > > > participate in the committee ballot, but in practice those who
> > > > choose to do
> > > > so are usually those who participate in, or follow the work of, the
> > > > Technical Committee.) When it passes a committee level ballot it is
> > > > submitted for ballot by the full HL7 Working Group (which is
> > the entire
> > > > organization). If it passes at this level it is automatically
> > submitted to
> > > > ANSI for certification. The ANSI review allows time for public
> > > > comment, but
> > > > it is primarily a certification that the process was fair and
> > consistent
> > > > with our bylaws. To date, have never had an issue arise that
> > prevented or
> > > > delayed the certification process.
> > > >
> > > > In addition to Technical Committees HL7 has Special Interest
> > > > Groups. Gunther
> > > > is co-chair of our SIG on security. Strictly speaking, a SIG
> > > > cannot initiate
> > > > the balloting of a standard; but SIGs can prepare such a document, and
> > > > obtain the consent of a Technical Committee which sponsors the ballot.
> > > >
> > > > The other kind of document, the Recommendation, is easier to
> > get out the
> > > > door. It can be originated by a SIG, and it has only one level of
> > > > balloting.
> > > > The majority that is required to pass a Recommendation is
> > less severe than
> > > > the majority required to pass a Standard (67% vs. 90%).
> > > >
> > > > Ballots are conducted using the Web. Assuming that both
> > ballots pass an
> > > > energetic committee can easily complete the entire process in
> > two of our
> > > > three-per-year Working Group meetings (roughly 8 months
> > elapsed time). (Of
> > > > course most committees have substantial time invested in debating the
> > > > document before it begins the process.)
> > > >
> > > > Most of the meetings required at certain points in the process can be
> > > > handled using conference calls; in theory a REALLY motivated
> > > > committee could
> > > > accomplish the two-level ballot in five months and then wait
> > about three
> > > > months for ANSI certication. (That is a theoretical figure
> > that has never
> > > > been realized in practise.)
> > > >
> > > > Recommendations can be passed in roughly four months.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > > Wes Rishel
> > > > Research Director
> > > > Healthcare Industry Research & Advisory Services
> > > > GartnerGroup
> > > > Alameda, CA
> > > > Client inquiries: call +1-203-316-1288 or email to indapps@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > wes.rishel@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > 510 522 8135
> > > > 510 521 2423 (fax)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Dick Brooks [mailto:dick@xxxxxxxx]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 10:27 AM
> > > > > To: Gunther Schadow
> > > > > Cc: Rik Drummond; Kepa Zubeldia; CLEM; Gary Crough; Beth Morrow;
> > > > > David@Drummondgroup. Com; GISB1@xxxxxxx; ietf-ediint@xxxxxxx; Dick
> > > > > Brooks
> > > > > Subject: RE: EDIINT and HIPAA
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <DB> I'm not familiar with the HL7 standards process, all of
> > > > > my experience
> > > > > has been with IETF, DISA, GISB and recently ebXML. Each of these
> > > > > organizations has a different process for developing
> > standards. If we
> > > > > brought AS2 to HL7 today, how long would it take to become an
> > > > > ANSI standard?
> > > > > I would like to read HL7's operational process document, can
> > > > > you provide a
> > > > > pointer?
> > > > > </DB>
> > > > >
> >
> >