PMIX Working Group Operations Subcommittee Meeting

Transcription

1 PMIX Working Group Operations Subcommittee Meeting M I N U T E S 2/27/2017 1:00-2:00p ET TTAC Conference Line: Dial-in Meeting: ID ## Roll Call Approval of Last Meeting s Minutes Status Updates Security Review Future Business Requirements Other Business Next Meeting

2 M E E T I N G N O T E S Roll Call Invited: Sheila Sullivan (HID), Danna Droz (NABP), Anita Murray (NY), Dave Flashover (NY), Rebecca Poston (FL), Parul Vaid (MA), Chad Zadrazil (WI), Sherry Green (NAMSDL), Denise Robertson (AR), Wesley Sargent (CDC), Tina Farales (CA), Jim Giglio (TTAC), Patrick Knue (TTAC), Jean Hall (KY), Tara Kunkel (BJA) Attendees: Sheila Sullivan (HID), Dave Flashover (NY), Rebecca Poston (FL), Chad Zadrazil (WI), Sherry Green (NAMSDL), Denise Robertson (AR), Wesley Sargent (CDC), Tina Farales (CA), Jim Giglio (TTAC), Patrick Knue (TTAC), Jean Hall (KY) Approval of Last Meeting s Minutes Motion to approve minutes was made by Denise Robertson (AR); seconded by Dave Flashover (NY). Unanimously approved. Status Updates Security Review Jean Hall (KY) stated that the subcommittee is reviewing the various families listed in the NIST Security Standards and have eliminated the families that were not applicable. The subcommittee is now reviewing the subtopics within each family and providing context to each that are appropriate. When completed, it will be sent to the PMIX Executive committee for approval. She added that Hazem Eldadoky (BJA) recommended that the group mark the subtopics as required or preferred. Doing this would allow states/vendors to show, where applicable, that they are going beyond the required standards. Denise Roberston (AR) asked were the preferred items would be if they are not part of the PMIX Architecture Security standard. Jean Hall (KY) envisioned that they could be issued in a toolkit format detailing which are required and which are preferred.

3 Future Business Requirements Chad Zadrazil (WI) reminded the members of the Operations Subcommittee of requirements that were discussed at last meeting: MME fields to calculate Wes Sargent (CDC) stated that the CDC s conversion table could now be used to assist with clinical decision-making, not replace clinical judgement, instead of research only since many PDMPs are using the spreadsheet provided to TTAC for assessing risk. Jim Giglio (TTAC) asked if any official notice has been issued by CDC to say that the conversation table could now be used for clinical purposes. He will check to see if any official announcement to that effect has been issued. Chad Zadrazil (WI) stated that this group should discuss whether or not the MME value or the fields used to calculate MMEs be included in interstate transactions. Becki Poston (FL) asked if data from multiple states would be calculated individually or as a total MME calculation? Denise Robertson (AR) cautioned that some PDMPs may have an issue with comingling of data from different states to calculate the patient s overall MME value. During discussion, several areas to consider were mentioned: a) confidence in other state data that the data returned is the same patient; b) will receiving state calculate total MME or let each reporting state calculate MMEs based on their own records; c) will the MME calculation be stored with the report; and d) does every state transmit enough data elements during an interstate data transaction to calculate the MME. Denise Robertson (AR) recommended that this be discussed by the Executive Committee at their meeting in June. Data Fields Transmitted During and following the discussion of MME data elements, a discussion ensued concerning the need for PDMPs to transmit the same data elements on interstate transactions. In addition, the date filled and date sold fields were discussed. Chad Zadrazil (WI) mentioned that some state laws specifically require the date filled, but pharmacies may be reporting date sold. Tina Farales (CA) stated that California s preference is for pharmacies to transmit data sold, however it is not a requirement. Chad Zadrazil (WI) inquired as to which field is provided in a patient report. Tina Farales (CA) stated that the California report included the date filled, but, if the data is

4 provided in an Excel format, it includes additional data including date sold.

5 Differing Information Returned on Interstate Transaction Chad Zadrazil (WI) mentioned that they have seen different patient records returned when querying the PDMP directly as opposed to performing a query through the interstate portal. Jean Hall (KY) recommended that each state should send the same data regardless of the query method and that each state could select which data elements to include or exclude. She added that this issue also occurs with queries through integration with a health information exchange. Jean Hall (KY) added that the returned data elements can impact proper patient linking. The algorithms to match patients used by Kentucky and Ohio were discussed in a TTAC webinar. Chad Zadrazil (WI) stated that other items for this subcommittee to consider addressing are the types of information collected that is specific to law enforcement and information in reference to overdoses and naloxone distributions. Jean Hall (KY) added that some states are using the PMIX Architecture for HIE integration and she would like to see the ability to send additional data that are state specific (i.e., regulations, treatment locator) included; currently, there is no place to send that information. Other Business No other business discussed due to time. Next Meeting Monday, March 20 th at 1-2p ET