PC-2. Do you have easy access to your own and all your loved ones' health information in one location (for example, in a single patient portal or another software system)? ๐
Easy access to complete health information in one location is currently the exception, not the rule, for most patients and caregivers. Obstacles include:
- Limited Scope of Current APIs: Often restricted to USCDI, excluding much of the complete EHI.
- Lack of API Access to Full EHI: EHI exports are often manual and not computable.
- Difficult Image Access: Images are rarely available via patient-facing APIs.
- Fragmented Identity and Portal Logins: Managing numerous accounts is a burden. Our recommendation for Ensure Patient Access to Remote, High-Assurance Portal Account Provisioning and broader adoption of federated identity could alleviate this.
Achieving comprehensive access is fundamental and is directly supported by several of our guiding principles and recommendations:
Guiding Principles:
Key Recommendations for enabling comprehensive access:
PC-5. What can CMS and its partners do to encourage patient and caregiver interest in these digital health products? ๐
CMS's primary role should be to ensure foundational data access and protect patient rights, rather than reviewing or approving most digital health products, especially those individuals choose or develop for their own use. Our approach is guided by:
Guiding Principles:
Recommendations to encourage interest and adoption by ensuring robust and trustworthy data access and functionality:
CMS should avoid becoming an app "approver" for general health tools, which could stifle innovation. Focus on open, secure, comprehensive data pipes and core functionalities, allowing the market and patients to determine value.
PC-8. In your experience, what health data is readily available and valuable to patients or their caregivers or both? ๐
While basic structured data (USCDI) is increasingly available, much of the richest data remains difficult to access programmatically.
Guiding Principle:
Readily Available & Valuable (Increasingly):
- USCDI data elements via FHIR APIs.
- Medicare claims data via Blue Button 2.0.
Valuable but Hard to Access (PC-8a):
Making the following valuable data types more accessible programmatically is crucial. Many of these challenges can be significantly addressed by two overarching recommendations: ensuring comprehensive data availability via Mandate API-Accessible, Computable Full EHI Export, Aligning with Industry Specifications and by expanding standardized data elements through Steward USCDI Development for Pragmatic Interoperability. Specific data types include:
- Diagnostic quality medical images: Critical but rarely API-accessible (though imaging reports may sometimes be available, the images themselves are harder to obtain programmatically). This is primarily solved by Ensure Programmatic and Automated Access to Medical Images, and also supported by the EHI export.
- Full flowsheet data: Comprehensive view of patient status and interventions. Addressed by EHI export and potentially USCDI expansion.
- Detailed/granular lab results (e.g., cancer, microbiology): Beyond simple numerics, including narratives, structured reports, and interpretations.
- Schedules/appointment information: Programmatic access is rare.
- Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs). Addressed by EHI export and USCDI expansion.
- Price information (patient-specific cost estimates). Addressing this likely takes new functional requirements on providers and certified EHR technology.
PC-10. How is the Trusted Exchange Framework and Common AgreementTM (TEFCATM) currently helping to advance patient access to health information in the real world? ๐
TEFCA's impact on individual patient-initiated access is still nascent. Its potential requires significant evolution towards patient empowerment.
Guiding Principles for TEFCA Evolution:
Changes Suggested for TEFCA (PC-10b):
Our recommendations aim to make TEFCA truly serve individuals:
Impactful Use Cases if Implemented Through a Reformed TEFCA (PC-10c):
Patient-initiated aggregation of complete health records; secure sharing with new specialists; individual research with consented data.
Adequate Alternatives Outside TEFCA (PC-10g):
Direct patient access via certified EHR FHIR APIs remains crucial, especially if enhanced by our EHI export recommendations. TEFCA's unique value for querying unknown data holders will only be realized if it fully incorporates patient-centric reforms. Otherwise, direct-to-EHR API access will remain the preferred, more trustworthy pathway for patients.
PC-14. Regarding digital identity credentials (for example, CLEAR, Login.gov, ID.me, other NIST 800-63-3 IAL2/AAL2 credentialing service providers (CSPs)): ๐
b. What could be the benefits to patients/caregivers if digital identity credentials were more widely used?
d. How would encouraging the use of CSPs improve access to health information?
e. What role should CMS/payers, providers, and app developers have in driving adoption?
Wider use of high-assurance digital identity is key to simplifying and securing patient access. However, identity credentials alone are insufficient without robust, bound authorization credentials that specify what data an identified user is permitted to access and for what purpose. We expand on this in our recommendation for a Trustworthy and Accountable Architecture for All TEFCA Individual Access Services.
Guiding Principle:
Benefits (PC-14b) and Improved Access (PC-14d):
Reduced login fatigue, enhanced security, and critically, simplified and secure account provisioning.
Role in Driving Adoption (PC-14e):
- CMS/ONC: Mandate CEHRT support for IAL2 CSPs for portal account creation/login, as per Ensure Patient Access to Remote, High-Assurance Portal Account Provisioning, and encourage for CMS/TEFCA services.
- Providers & Payers: Offer IAL2 CSP-based login options.
- App Developers: Integrate with IAL2 CSPs.
Focusing on account provisioning using trusted digital identities is crucial for adoption.
C. Providers
PR-3. How important is it for healthcare delivery and interoperability in urban and rural areas that all data in an EHR system be accessible for exchange, regardless of storage format (for example, scanned documents, faxed records, lab results, free text notes, structured data fields)? Please address all of the following: ๐
a. Current challenges in accessing different data formats.
b. Impact on patient care quality.
c. Technical barriers to full data accessibility.
It is critically important for all data in an EHR to be accessible for exchange to ensure patient safety and effective care.
Guiding Principle:
Importance and Impact (PR-3b):
Missing data negatively impacts patient safety, care coordination, diagnostic accuracy, and efficiency.
Key Recommendations for Addressing Challenges (PR-3a, PR-3c):
- Mandate API-Accessible, Computable Full EHI Export, Aligning with Industry Specifications: This is the core solution, ensuring the EHI export includes all EHI (structured, notes, scans, etc.) via API with documentation for computability, overcoming current format-based access barriers.
- Technical barriers are less about format and more about lack of certified capabilities to package and expose all data via APIs, which this recommendation addresses.
D. Payers
PA-1. What policy or technical limitations do you see in TEFCA? What changes would you suggest to address those limitations? To what degree do you expect these limitations to hinder participation in TEFCA? ๐
Payers will find TEFCA more valuable if it evolves to prioritize individual control, transparency, and broader innovation.
Guiding Principles for TEFCA Evolution:
Policy/Technical Limitations and Suggested Changes (Consistent with PC-10):
These limitations hinder payer participation; a member-trusted TEFCA is more valuable to payers.
PA-4. What would be the value to payers of a nationwide provider directory that included FHIR end points and used digital identity credentials? ๐
A nationwide provider directory with FHIR endpoints that included provider credentialing informtaion (e.g. signed digital assertions about the states in which a provider is licensed to practice) would be immensely valuable to payers.
Guiding Principle:
Technology Policy Recommendation:
Value to Payers:
Streamlined provider data management, facilitated interoperability for API-based workflows (prior auth, quality data), support for VBC, improved member experience (knowing provider digital capabilities), and enhanced network management.
E. Technology Vendors, Data Providers, and Networks
TD-1. What short term (in the next 2 years) and longer-term steps can CMS take to stimulate developer interest in building digital health products for Medicare beneficiaries and caregivers? ๐
Developer interest hinges on an open, accessible, and reliable data ecosystem.
Guiding Principles:
Short-Term Steps (Next 2 Years):
Longer-Term Steps:
Make access to comprehensive data less about gatekeepers and more about open, standardized interfaces.
TD-5. How could a nationwide provider directory of FHIR endpoints improve access to health information for patients, providers, and payers? Who should publish such a directory, and should users bear a cost? ๐
A nationwide, free, publicly accessible directory of provider FHIR endpoints is foundational.
Guiding Principle:
Technology Policy Recommendation:
How it Improves Access:
Enables apps to easily discover and connect to provider FHIR APIs for patients; facilitates provider-to-provider exchange; aids payers (as in PA-4); and drastically reduces complexity for app developers.
Who Should Publish and Cost:
ONC should lead/govern. The directory must be publicly available and free of charge to maximize utility and adoption.
TD-6. What unique interoperability functions does TEFCA perform? ๐
a. What existing alternatives should be considered?
b. Are there redundant standards, protocols or channels or both that should be consolidated?
TEFCA's intended unique function is nationwide querying of unknown data holders under a common trust agreement. Its current realization needs strengthening.
Guiding Principles for Evaluating TEFCA:
Critique and Necessary Evolution to Bolster Unique Value:
Existing Alternatives (TD-6a):
Direct EHR FHIR APIs (strengthened by Mandate API-Accessible, Computable Full EHI Export, Aligning with Industry Specifications); regional/state HIEs; proprietary vendor networks.
TEFCA should complement, not replace, direct patient-to-EHR API access, offering value for discovery, provided it fully embraces patient empowerment.
TD-7. To what degree has USCDI improved interoperability and exchange and what are its limitations? ๐
a. Does it contain the full extent of data elements you need?
b. If not, is it because of limitations in the definition of the USCDI format or the way it is utilized?
c. If so, would adding more data elements to USCDI add value or create scoping challenges? How could such challenges be addressed?
d. Given improvements in language models, would you prefer a non-proprietary but less structured format that might improve data coverage even if it requires more processing by the receiver?
USCDI is a valuable baseline but limited in scope and granularity.
Guiding Principle:
Technology Policy Recommendations:
Limitations (TD-7a, TD-7b):
Primarily scope; USCDI is intentionally a "core" set.
Adding More Data Elements to USCDI (TD-7c):
Yes, thoughtfully adding more elements via the process in Steward USCDI Development for Pragmatic Interoperability adds value. Address scoping via iterative expansion and clear value propositions.
Less Structured Formats and LLMs (TD-7d):
We need both: expanding standardized USCDI and API access to complete EHI (including less structured data) via Mandate API-Accessible, Computable Full EHI Export, Aligning with Industry Specifications. LLMs can process the unstructured parts of EHI, while standardized USCDI remains vital for precision tasks.
TD-10. For EHR and other developers subject to the ONC Health IT Certification Program, what further steps should ASTP/ONC consider to implement the 21st Century Cures Act's API condition of certification (42 U.S.C. 300jj-11(c)(5)(D)(iv)) that requires a developer's APIs to allow health information to be accessed, exchanged, and used without special effort, including providing access to all data elements of a patient's electronic health record to the extent permissible under applicable privacy laws? ๐
The Cures Act's vision of data being accessed, exchanged, and used "without special effort" extends beyond simple retrieval. It encompasses the full lifecycle of patient interaction with their data, including ensuring its accuracy and completeness.
Guiding Principle:
Primary Technology Policy Recommendation:
Further Supporting Recommendations ensuring "without special effort" for access and use:
By mandating these capabilities through the ONC Health IT Certification Program, ONC can ensure that "without special effort" becomes a practical reality for patients seeking to truly engage with and manage their complete health information.
TD-11. As of January 1, 2024, many health IT developers with products certified through the ONC Health IT Certification Program are required to include the capability to perform an electronic health information export or โEHI exportโ for a single patient as well as for patient populations (45 CFR 170.315(b)(10))... ๐
a. Should this capability be revised to specify standardized API requirements for EHI export?
b. Are there specific workflow aspects that could be improved?
c. Should CMS consider policy changes to support this capability's use?
Yes, the EHI export capability urgently needs revision to specify standardized API requirements.
Guiding Principle:
Technology Policy Recommendation:
Standardized API Requirements for EHI Export (TD-11a):
- Yes, unequivocally. The current non-API approach is insufficient. ONC should require alignment with or equivalence to the Argonaut Project's EHI Export API IG, as detailed in our recommendation.
Workflow Aspects for Improvement (TD-11b):
CMS Policy Changes to Support Use (TD-11c):
Promote beneficiary awareness, ensure TEFCA can eventually support full EHI exchange, and reinforce that API-accessible EHI export must be free to patients.
F. Value-Based Care Organizations
VB-3. What are essential health IT capabilities for value-based care arrangements? ๐
a. Examples (not comprehensive) may include: care planning, patient event notification, data extraction/normalization, quality performance measurement, access to claims data, attribution and patient ID matching, remote device interoperability, or other patient empowerment tools.
b. What other health IT capabilities have proven valuable to succeeding in value-based care arrangements?
VBC success depends on timely, comprehensive data access, robust analytics, and proactive engagement.
Guiding Principle:
Essential Health IT Capabilities Supported by Our Recommendations:
VB-15. How could a nationwide provider directory of FHIR endpoints help improve access to patient data and understanding of claims data sources? What key data elements would be necessary in a nationwide FHIR endpoints directory to maximize its effectiveness? ๐
A nationwide provider directory of FHIR endpoints would greatly benefit VBC organizations.
Guiding Principle:
Technology Policy Recommendation:
Benefits for VBC Organizations:
Improved data access for attributed populations, facilitated care coordination, better understanding of claims data by linking to clinical sources, support for transitions of care, and identification of technically capable partners.
Key Data Elements (as detailed in req_public_discovery_infrastructure
):
FHIR API base URLs, supported FHIR versions/IGs, TEFCA participation details, authentication mechanisms, organizational affiliations, and certified Health IT product info.
Key Recommendations for Technology Platform and Cloud Vendors
Several recommendations within this document are particularly pertinent for major technology and cloud platform vendors (such as Microsoft, Google, AWS) to consider supporting, as they align with fostering a robust, innovative, and scalable digital health ecosystem. Publicly supporting these could accelerate progress in critical areas:
- Mandate API-Accessible, Computable Full EHI Export, Aligning with Industry Specifications:
- Relevance: Foundational for enabling advanced analytics, AI/ML applications, and patient-centric tools that rely on comprehensive, computable data. Cloud platforms are ideal for hosting and processing such large-scale EHI.
- Steward USCDI Development for Pragmatic Interoperability:
- Relevance: Expanded and well-defined standardized data elements (USCDI) simplify data integration, improve data quality for AI, and reduce the burden on developers building cross-platform solutions.
- Keep Bulk Data API Certification Current with FHIR Bulk Data Specifications & Ensure Foundational Design and Performance for Bulk Data API:
- Relevance: Efficient, performant, and standardized bulk data access is critical for population health analytics, research, and training AI models at scaleโall key workloads for cloud health data platforms.
- Mandate FHIR Subscriptions for Event-Driven Workflows:
- Relevance: Enables modern, real-time data synchronization and event-driven architectures, which are well-suited for cloud-native applications and services, improving efficiency and timeliness of information flow.
- Mandate CDS Hooks for Seamless Clinical Decision Support Integration:
- Relevance: Provides a standardized way to integrate innovative CDS services, including those powered by AI/ML, into clinical workflows. Platform vendors can offer tools and services to build and deploy such CDS Hooks.
- Ensure Programmatic and Automated Access to Medical Images:
- Relevance: Medical imaging AI is a rapidly growing field. Standardized, programmatic access to images is essential for developing, training, and deploying imaging AI solutions on cloud platforms.
- Keep Single-Patient API Certification Current with SMART App Launch & Backend Services Specifications:
- Relevance: Supports a vibrant ecosystem of secure, interoperable applications. Platform vendors benefit from a standardized environment that makes it easier for developers to build and deploy innovative health apps.
- Establish Public Foundational Infrastructure for Nationwide Discovery:
- Relevance: Publicly accessible directories for discovery (e.g., of FHIR endpoints) reduce friction for developers and organizations seeking to connect and exchange data, fostering a more interconnected ecosystem that benefits platform providers.
- Mandate a Trustworthy and Accountable Architecture for All TEFCA Individual Access Services (IAS):
- Relevance: Strong security, identity, and consent mechanisms are crucial for building trust in digital health platforms and services. Supporting robust architectures aligns with enterprise-grade security expectations.
Supporting these recommendations would not only align with the business interests of technology platform vendors by creating a larger, more standardized, and more innovative market for their services but also contribute significantly to advancing the national health IT infrastructure for the benefit of patients, providers, and the entire healthcare ecosystem.