Healthcare Data Sharing Agreements

During stakeholder participation in early data exchange discussions and support agreements, advocacy communities found that some training was often required to convey the crucial importance of data exchange between health care and patient communities, as well as directly at each level of leadership in potential partner organizations. Given the multiple and competing demands faced by health care players (e.g. B initiatives to provide care and reforms of public and private payments and health care innovation programs), many beacon communities have been forced to ensure that beacon efforts are consistent with these ongoing activities in their respective health markets. In doing so, beacon teams had to determine how to communicate, that cooperation with them could help these stakeholders promote their other goals, such as demonstrating the judicious use of EHRs.B implementing responsible public care organization or patient-centered medical needs, and reducing readmission to hospitals , including programs and incentives. In the case of Southeast Michigan, some beacon communities also adopted flexible agreements that allowed organizations to get involved as they felt good. They have developed different DSAs for different purposes and levels of participation in data sharing activities. An abbreviated ASD was designed to allow the sharing of unidentified and aggregated data between private payers, health systems, hospitals, an IQ, Medicaid, an uninsured local initiative and laboratories, to enable the evaluation of qi interventions. Another ASD allowed participating health systems, hospitals, federally qualified health centres (FQHCs) and outpatient clinics to share individually identifiable patient data on EIH for treatment, including care management and coordination. An additional DSA enabled data exchange at the regional level and facilitated data exchange between community-based IEDs and IEVs at the national level. This tailor-made approach of adopting one application case at a time has resulted in several agreements, but has contributed to the data being provided to support their initiatives. The Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) in 2008 issued a national privacy and security framework for the electronic exchange of individually identifiable health information and, in early 2013, a governance framework for trusted Electronic Health Information Exchange.7 , and do not contain specific guidelines for the development of ASDs.

Given the above and the many reasons for the development of ASDs, the types, components and approaches to their development vary widely; Because this type of effort to share health information is a relatively young development, published knowledge of good practices or data governance strategies is also limited. In the United States, unprecedented efforts are underway at the community, national and national levels to collect and exchange information electronically to improve health care and population health and reduce costs1. to facilitate the coordination of health care. and aggregated and analysed to support quality improvement (IQ), population health management and research. These electronic clinical data can improve health and health by improving patient accuracy, accessibility and useful information2. electronic collection and communication of patient information raises issues of data management in the areas of data protection, information security, organizational responsibility and market competition between

Print Friendly, PDF & Email