Patient Matching Sample Clauses

Patient Matching. The CP shall use best efforts based upon industry standards to prevent inaccurate patient matching. In doing so, the CP may enjoy flexibility in approach, but shall at a minimum perform in accordance with P3N Policies and industry standards in a professional and workmanlike manner. The CP shall notify PA eHealth through processes established by PA eHealth within the timeframes established by PA eHealth should it determine that there is an error or mismatch in PHI provided by the CP.

Patient Matching this NPRM rightly calls for input into patient matching. While we believe it is better for the industry to be able to continue to evolve patient matching techniques and strategies, a “rising floor” of patient matching capability is clearly required. We refer ONC back to our comments on the Information Blocking NPRM. To summarize, we specifically support the mandatory usage of a more robust set of demographic elements nationwide for patient-matching purposes, in particular the use of USPS-standardized addresses, email addresses and mobile numbers immediately where available, as well as the subsequent use of strong identifiers and other techniques. We support the notion of transparent measurement of the patient matching accuracy for QHINs, but defer to future consensus (presumably facilitated by the RCE) in terms of what measures and thresholds would provide a meaningful floor to performance expectations. We are supportive of the notion of the Recognized Coordinating Entity (RCE), insomuch as it provides a mechanism for strong public- and private-sector input into the governance of TEFCA. We underscore that the RCE should be a neutral, transparent, and objective governance body, working closely with ONC to fulfill the vision described by TEFCA. The governing body should be balanced so that all stakeholders are adequately represented. In particular the RCE should: a) Have relatively equal weighting of participants, advocates or representatives from across the care spectrum, particularly: X. Xxxxx and very small provider organizations (e.g., physician practices of <10 clinicians, independent physician associations), community and critical access hospitals, academic medical centers, and multi-EHR health systems; II. Ambulatory, acute care and post-acute care technology innovators; III. Representatives of the various intended use cases, where not already covered by I and II, e.g., patient advocates; federal agencies; state agencies; payers; etc. b) Include a representative set of QHINs, complementary to (a) above. In fact we would be concerned about an RCE that has too much “industry stakeholder” representation and not enough “implementer” representation, or vice versa. c) We agree with the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) requirements that the RCE should not run, operate, or govern a particular exchange, as that creates irremediable conflicts of interest.