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

["Dick Brooks" <dick@xxxxxxxx>]

Gunther,

> if not absolutely necessary. You mention ebXML -- we have some interest
> in ebXML but we're not sure if any of this is ready for prime time, but
> would like to get your thoughts on this.

ebXML is still in a very formative stage so it's still a bit early...


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: Gunther Schadow [mailto:gunther@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 5:40 PM
> To: Dick Brooks
> Cc: Kepa Zubeldia; Rishel,Wes; 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,
>
> yes, I think that the HL7 and HIPAA profiles would be similar if not the
> same. My goal is to get all the healthcare standards together (in fact
> it is only two of them, HL7 and NCPDP, since X12 is covered already) and
> develop one profile with options to account for the specific EDI payload
> used. We have an AS#1 profile already for HL7 and I'd like to take this
> to go over a couple of issues that we found. As much as I can see why
> AS#2 is very useful, I would not want to throw out the AS#1/email option
> if not absolutely necessary. You mention ebXML -- we have some interest
> in ebXML but we're not sure if any of this is ready for prime time, but
> would like to get your thoughts on this.
>
> regards
> -Gunther
>
>
> 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>
> > > > > >
> > >
> > >