Implementation Group Call for Consensus: Direct Project Compliance document

DUE: 3/28/11

Consensus voting on: Direct Project Compliance


Organization
Endorsement
(Yes or No)
Comments (If "No," what can be changed to make it a "Yes")
Disposition
ABILITY (formerly VisionShare)
Yes


Alere



Allscripts
Yes


American Academy of Family Physicians



Atlas Development



Avisena Inc.
Yes


Axolotl



CareEvolution, Inc.



CareSpark



Cautious Patient



Cerner Corporation
Yes


Christus Health



Clinical Groupware Collaborative
Yes


CMS



Covisint



CSC



DoD



eClinicalWorks



Emdeon



Epic



FEI



Health-ISP, a service of Garden State Health Systems
Yes


GE
Yes
As an informative specification this is useful. I have always had a problem calling this a compliance document, as the compliance document is the applicability statement. This is a guidance toward compliance. Or a guidance on deployment models toward compliance.

Google



Greenway Medical Technologies



Harris Corporation
Yes


High Pine Associates



HLN Consulting, LLC
Yes


IBM



ICA



Indiana State Department of Health



Inpriva



Intel



Kryptiq



LabCorp



Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative



MedAllies
No
I think the backstop seems to be the spec that uses the SMTP backbone, etc. The enabling technology stuff is great and necessary, but this one sentence seems to have a circular reference that i think negates the enabling technologies stuff. Therefore I propose the following edit: "Similarly, when evaluating enabling technology, the simplest test to demonstrate Direct Project compliance is that the technology enables, for the users or other endpoints served by the technology, Direct Project-compliant transmission to and from other Direct Project-compliant addresses that are themselves served by technology implemented according to the Applicability Statement for Secure Health Transport ." This might seem to rule out a network comprised entirely of enabling technology, but I think that a test of compliance would necessarily enjoin a some node that is accessible according to the referenced applicability statement. The ability to transact in a compliant manner (not actual end-to-end homogeneity in a given deployment) is what is being tested.

MEDfx
Yes


Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc./
NoMoreClipboard.com



Medical University of SC, South Carolina Research Authority



Medicity



MedNet



MedPATH Networks



MedPlus/Quest Diagnostics
Yes


Microsoft



Mirth Corporation
Yes


Misys Open Source Solutions (MOSS)



MobileMD



NextGen Healthcare Information Systems, Inc.



NIH NCI



NIST



NYC Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene’s PCIP



Oregon HIE Planning Team
Yes


Redwood MedNet



RelayHealth



Rhode Island Quality Institute
Yes
Agree with the MedAllies/Siemens caveats

SAFE-BioPharma



SCHIEx - South Carolina Health Information Exchange



Secure Exchange Solutions



Serendipity Health, LLC
Yes


Siemens
Yes with comment
I agree w. the spirit of the document that the proof is in the pudding (sending from any Direct-compliant address to any other, whether through the pure Applicability Statement or through "enabling technology"). But I also get the point raised by MedAllies about what appears to be a "circular reference" that defines "Direct compliance" in terms of itself. So I am OK with MedAllies' proposed wording change, or a shorter version thereof.

Surescripts



Techsant Technologies
Yes


TN State HIE



VA
Yes


Verizon Business





Documentation and Testing Consensus Results Below

DO NOT MODIFY THIS TABLE -- For Reference Only

Workgroup Participant Organization
Endorsement (Yes or No)
Comments (If "No," what can be changed to make it a "Yes")
ABILITY (formerly VisionShare)
Yes

Akira Technologies, Inc.


Alere


Allscripts
Yes
with recommendation that we remove the phrase "that do not use Direct Project-compliant means for all local community exchange"
American Academy of Family Physicians


Atlas Development


Axolotl


CareSpark/Serendipity Health


Cautious Patient


Cerner


Christus Health


Clinical Groupware Collaborative


CMS


Covisint


CSC


DoD


eClinicalWorks


Emdeon


Epic
Yes
With suggestion that we remove first person voice ("When I call you")
FEI


Garden State Health Systems
Yes

GE


Google


Greenway Medical Technologies


Harris Corporation


Healthcare Information Xchange of NY


High Pine Associates


HLN Consulting, LLC


IBM


ICA


Inpriva


Intel


Kryptiq


Labcorp


Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative


MedAllies


Medical University of SC, South Carolina Research


Medical Informatics Engineering, (MIE)


Medicity


MedNET


MedPATH Networks


MedPlus/Quest Diagnostics


Microsoft


Mirth Corporation


Misys Open Source Solutions (MOSS)


NextGen Healthcare


NIH NCI


NIST


NoMoreClipboard.com


NYC Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene's PCIP


Oracle Health Sciences Global Strategies


Oregon HIE Planning Team


Redwood MedNet


RelayHealth


Rhode Island Quality Institute


Secure Exchange Solutions


Siemens
Yes

SureScripts


Techsant Technologies
Yes

TN State HIE


VA


Others: