[Openid-specs-heart] HEART 2015-05-11 rough meeting notes
Kinsley, William
BKinsley at nextgen.com
Tue May 12 18:30:33 UTC 2015
To address Adrian’s initial question, the principal goal is to start simple with two FHIR based systems (assuming they are compatible) and how the key components interact with each other at a process, system and profile level (not necessarily all at once). My thought is that this would provide a base understanding that we can build on either by expanding on with additional use cases or can be applied to other postposed used cases, whichever the group decides.
As with any use case, it describes a user workflow from the user’s perspective, which we can use as a tool to discuss how and what under lying processes, systems and profiles operate and the discussion on Monday was starting to do just that. For example, following up from our conversation, the initial step “Alice has an account from her PHR and then has an account from her new PCP”. This context has provided us with some good discussion and questions, one of which Justin elaborates on in a different thread:
What are the “Certification Levels”, if any that would measure the validity of the PHR proofing and credentialing of Alice?
How does Alice present these?
Can another source (in the case the PCP) escalate them to a higher level?
How can these be used for SSO?
Bill
From: Openid-specs-heart [mailto:openid-specs-heart-bounces at lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Adrian Gropper
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 7:50 PM
To: Debbie Bucci
Cc: openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-heart] HEART 2015-05-11 rough meeting notes
I'm not sure how many common understandings we will end up with. I do think it would be helpful for folks that propose a use case to make clear their primary goal in proposing that particular use case. Doing so, enables all of us to design based on modern technology rather than paving the cow path of paper and parochial business practices.
Adrian
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Debbie Bucci <debbucci at gmail.com<mailto:debbucci at gmail.com>> wrote:
If we do not have a common understanding - how do we know when we are conflating the issues? I found it helpful to walk stepwise through the use case and understand the complexities. If we have bucket to sort them into - great.
There are a lot different parts/issue to consider within each component - which was primarily registration today
Does solving the patient portal = Alice’s PHR (or PCP portal or vendor health app) can be her single point of truth via the use of FHIR APIs ?
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:12 PM, Justin Richer <jricher at mit.edu<mailto:jricher at mit.edu>> wrote:
I’m with Adrian in terms of decomposing the problem into its components. There was a lot of conflation of authentication, authorization, trust, assurance, and different actors in the discussion today. If we don’t keep the parts clearly-defined we’ll never make progress.
— Justin
On May 11, 2015, at 5:52 PM, Adrian Gropper <agropper at healthurl.com<mailto:agropper at healthurl.com>> wrote:
I interpreted the principal goal of Bill's Use Case to be a desire to solve the multiple portals problem. I'm aware of parents of seriously ill children that have as many as 11 separate portals to deal with.
Is this the principal goal of this conversation? If so, then we can begin to decompose the goal of solving the multiple portals problem into registration, authorization and authentication components for the various actors. If there's another goal, please make it clear.
Adrian
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Debbie Bucci <debbucci at gmail.com<mailto:debbucci at gmail.com>> wrote:
All
Great idea from Justin to post now and great discussion ... If other post - I will try to merge before the weekend for next week.
1. Alice calls the practice and schedules her initial appointment.
A. The Scheduler does not find an existing account for Alice and creates a new account.
i. Local account – Alice may not know
ii. Could bind an external account/identity to it – binding ceremony
iii. Object at database/table – that point to Alice OIDC + Public key or other stuff
B. The Scheduler creates an appointment with the PCP Alice has selected.
2. Alice arrives at the practice and registers with the front desk.
A. Alice provides the Registrar with her driver’s license and insure card(s).
i. – id proofing process
ii. online eligibility checking – what is covered? payment
iii. collect and scan – but how about verification ?
B. The Registrar scan the cards and updates Alice’s account.
i. Id proofing
ii. Can this ID process be re-used “known to the practice?” How can we represent that within the protocols?
iii. FITS into vectors of trust in IETF work
1.1.1.2.B.iii.1. Verify holder of claims/document with identity– high level of confidence
1.1.1.2.B.iii.2. Onboarding ceremony can bind and verify separately
1.1.1.2.B.iii.3. Quick photograph and imbed into record for evidence of practice.
iv. How does the profiles represent the level of trusts – two levels of proofing - trust elevation -
1.1.1.2.B.iv.1. (bill concerns) Login to phr - portals will create login account – Alice has a choice – PCP or PHR - potential to use multiple accounts with different levels of trust – how does the levels of trust get described across relying parties/resource servers (?) How do we know Alice is Alice?
1.1.1.2.B.iv.2. Alice should have the choice to use whatever. Identity to bind external accounts with local accounts is powerful
1.1.1.2.B.iv.3. When alice goes to specialist – why would alice need an additional proofing? Specialist can always do their own binding process.
1.1.1.2.B.iv.4. Who is the system of record – not bound in OAUTH world. Alice could prove in multi- ways.
1.1.1.2.B.iv.5. FHIR Referral message – between provider – I am referring to alice –I know here as 1234 – she used cred (issuer/subject) – if you trust me - let her in – save binding ceremony. Who’s to trust bits of information –
1.1.1.2.B.iv.6. If FHIR API increases patient engagement going forward …once Alice has set up credential –next system –if level of trust – should be able to transfer /share information.
v. More info – vectors of trust and binding … take advantage of capabilities that did not exist in paper world
_______________________________________________
Openid-specs-heart mailing list
Openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net<mailto:Openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net>
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-heart
--
Adrian Gropper MD
Ensure Health Information Privacy. Support Patient Privacy Rights.
http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/
_______________________________________________
Openid-specs-heart mailing list
Openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net<mailto:Openid-specs-heart at lists.openid.net>
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-heart
--
Adrian Gropper MD
Ensure Health Information Privacy. Support Patient Privacy Rights.
http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-heart/attachments/20150512/bae969b1/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Openid-specs-heart
mailing list