Child pages
  • 2021-04-15 Meeting notes

Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.


  • Per distributed agenda

Discussion items

5 MinCall to order and roll callTom Sullivan
  • Quorate
  • Recording!
5 MinApproval of draft minutes of  3/18 and 4/1  meetings.Tom SullivanDone
10 mins

Noteworthy news and member activities--


Discuss – Pop health and new Admin

Martin Smith Asks about whether "population health" initiatives are gaining more traction given the new Administration's  focus on underserved

.Health equity officer

populations.  Tom Sullivan says population health has remained a policy priority and mentions a healthcare organization that has has a Health Equity Officer.  

Jim St.Clair – PatientID Coalition has a WG on how verifiable identity can improve health equity.


Martin says follow-up

is key. 

with patients has been what's missing in the pay-for-service model. Tom S agrees that follow-up


has been dependent on patient or individual doctor, and the doctor has generally not be compensated for follow-up efforts. Now the


responsibility is shifting to more healthcare admin staff or

orther staff. IN tech world, we are focused on meds managment

more junior clinical staff. Particular focus has been on medications management

Barry R. Hieb


Follow-up requires good identity.

Tom Jones

complains about getting info

 Cites his bad personal experience getting information from his own records from sources who should have this readily available.  


VA EHR – Cerner overbudget, etc.  Requirements not fit.  Jim St.Clair

Martin asked about recent news stories regarding problems the VA has been having with their Cernerr EHR implementation. Jim St.Clair says he hears from a contact close to the VA project that the project is over-budget and that the system is a poor fit to some of VAs requirements. 

10 mins

Discussion of PatientID 


Coalition (remove prohibition on HSS funding of research for national health ID)   –  proposed position paper now in voting for adoption by Coalition members. 

Barry R. Hieb  – discuss his org's (GPII)  position on the PatientID Now Coalition's

posiiton.  Made progress by getting

position now being voted on. He feels they made some progress by advocation for changing language relating to a goal for patient matching performance, from "improving"


performance to "eliminating" matching errors.

Jim St.Clair Consensus in the Coalition is that there are no NIST-approved


standards for "patient matching" 

Barry R. Hiebcan get to perfect matching if you have a process for correction ("healing") Resistance is that group want to be "solution agnostic"

Martin Smith

patient matching vs records matching @carmen: we have a term,

Suggests that  the goals should be for "records matchings" and not "patient matching." Carmen Smiley acknowledges the distinction but says that "patient matching" is the term everyone uses and it's not useful to try to change that: "we're stuck with it.



Martin SmithDo we need a healthcare ID or good strong IDs for multiple uses, including healthcare?

Carmen – think
this is
healthcare has the most
urgent requirement
. Others agree
for better ID. Some others agreed

Jim Kragh

All costs will be required to

Notes that the existing requirement that all medical procedure costs must be disclosed by hospitals

for procedures. WSJ resurrected the issue and he thinks it has legs

has just been spotlighted by a WSJ article, and he believes it will get renewed policy attention

the 5 mins

Martin Smith updates on IAWG comments on NIST 800-63-4 issues, and place-holding response to UK request for comments. 

10 minsNew Business: 


5 minsAction follow-ups, next meeting date, and adjourn

Next meetings: April 29, 2021