[KI-LC] A couple of suggested topics for tomorrow's LC leads call
Colin Wallis Kantara
colin at kantarainitiative.org
Mon Aug 24 02:23:50 UTC 2020
It goes without saying really that the draft text in the second point
should not be shared anywhere in any forum with anyone.. It is here only to
help with context . Thanks.
On Sun, 23 Aug 2020, 22:23 Colin Wallis Kantara, <
colin at kantarainitiative.org> wrote:
> If you are having a call tomorrow, a couple of things that have come up
> this past week might be worth discussion.
> 1) John W has a window of free time in the next couple of months or so and
> has volunteered to pick up a piece of the mDL Privacy work that he spoke to
> on STA's Webinar #3 at the end of June.
> The LC might like to consider where that work might be hosted .. a new
> ISI-WG project stream? spin up the proposed mDL WG? Other alternatives?
> 2) The HIAWG has been collecting comments for a submission to ONC on
> Kantara's behalf at ONC's request by Sept 4, to go into a report to
> Congress on patient identity matching and the notion of a unique health
> identifier. I also have a small 10 minute presentation slot on ONC's forum
> for the same next Monday Aug 31st and ONC has advised that a few
> congresspeople may listen in. I am not proposing to read the written
> submission but broadly summarise it, and if I have personal views (I have
> not even started the deck), make it clear that they are indeed my own and
> not a formal position from Kantara. There are politics associated with
> this unique health identifier conundrum and for years the Appropriations
> Act has banned any HHS/ONC funding related to the general topic in general
> terms. However, the draft 2020 Appropriations Act, indicates a softening of
> the position to date. See below..
> 'Patient Matching.-The general provision limiting funds for actions related
> to promulgation or adoption of a standard providing for the assignment of
> a unique health identifier does not prohibit efforts to address the growing
> problems faced by health systems with patient matching. The agreement
> encourages HHS to continue to provide technical assistance to
> private-sector-led initiatives to develop a coordinated national strategy
> that will promote patient safety by accurately identifying patients to
> their health information. Additionally, the agreement directs ONC, in
> coordination with other appropriate Federal agencies, to provide a
> report to the Committees one year after enactment of this Act studying the
> current technological and operational methods that improve identification
> of patients. The report shall evaluate the effectiveness of current methods
> and recommend actions that increase the likelihood of an accurate match of
> patients to their health care data. Such recommendations may or may not
> include a standard for a unique patient health identifier. The report shall
> include the risks and benefits to privacy and security of patient
> Kantara's comments are mostly related to smartphone based Identity
> Assurance but include references to UMA and Consent Receipt. But in the
> Introduction, current text includes the following..
> "Kantara does not believe that patient identity matching is sustainable
> and scalable, even if process improvements are made to reduce false
> matching rates. Kantara does believe that lifting the prohibition on
> spending HHS funds on the notion of a unique patient (ed; change to health)
> identifier is appropriate to enable constructive discussion around
> innovative ways for patients to choose to leverage an existing identifier
> they hold together with processes that ensure its uniqueness but Kantara
> does not believe a single national patient identifier should be
> promulgated. Rather, the emphasis should be on identity assurance processes
> relating to the existing identity and binding of the identity to a
> credential identifier".
> While there is substantive WG support for this, one participant makes the
> point that Kantara is straying into political waters that (while it could
> engage in being a 501 c6 and therefore able to undertake advocacy) it
> should stay clear of, because while we will please some people it will
> anger others. Moreover this participant argues that as a matter of policy,
> Kantara should never ever take a position that could be perceived as
> The LC leads might like to discuss this matter also, to see if there's
> consensus on the policy of taking positions that some might perceive as
> I've added the applicable WG folks to this email, together with the bridge
> details for them.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the LC