Facilitator:  Christol Green 

Scribe: Robin Isgett  


Antitrust Statement

Professional Associations, such as HL7, which bring together competing entities are subject to strict 
scrutiny under applicable antitrust laws. HL7 recognizes that the antitrust laws were enacted to promote 
fairness in competition and, as such, supports laws against monopoly and restraints of trade and their 
enforcement. Each individual participating in HL7 meetings and conferences, regardless of venue, is 
responsible for knowing the contents of and adhering to the HL7 Antitrust Policy as stated in §05.01 of 
the Governance and Operations Manual (GOM).

Agenda Topics

Agenda Outline

Agenda Item

Meeting Minutes from Discussion

Decision Link


HL7 ANSI Anti-Trust Policy

HL7 adheres to the ANSI Anti-Trust policy.  We should avoid sharing any information on this call that could be interpreted as anti-competitive.  If there are topics that you don’t normally speak about in other public settings, such as conferences or trade shows, then it’s probably best to save those topics for another time as this is a public call. If you have any questions you can refer to the GOM section 05.01 or consult your companies legal division.

Christol reviewed the policy.

 Minutes Approval  -   Feb 21, 2023 Weekly WG meeting

Minutes were approved by consent after Stan stated that there was an incomplete comment, which has been corrected.  Alix reminded the group that we did not talk about RFIs or APIs in the document and that comments are due early next week.

New Proposals and PSS for review - PIE comments or interest

  1. Project Proposals:  

    Adverse Event Clinical Research Implementation Guide.

  2. Project Scope Statements
No new proposals or PSSs to review.


HL7 CDA R2 Attachment Implementation Guide: Exchange of C-CDA Based Documents, Release 2

Lisa Nelson:  

At this point, a lot of what we have to do is fit prior work into the new paradigm as best we can.  I think, as Linda said, the priorities should be to have the version number match in JIRA and on the document, and for it to make sense given what people know the document to be named. So, if it's only known as "R2", then maybe we should call it  v2.0.0.  We definitely want to eliminate multiple uses of the word "Release" in the title.

If the document did get balloted once, then I also would be in favor of selecting v2.1.0 and doing the errata release to fix up the name and version of the document on the cover page.  That would be a bit more work but would result in a higher quality solution.  If PIE thinks this IG is going to start getting some good attention, it might be worth them doing an errata release to update the version info.

Just let us know what you (PIE) decides they would like to do, and CMG can update the Asset List based on your selected path forward.

This was tabled until next week.  Durwin showed that the R1 (expired) and R2 versions can be found on the PIE home page in Confluence.
Update CDex

Viet Nguyen MD will join our PIE WG call at 3:00 pm to socialize this work with Questionnaire and example use cases

We gained approval to move forward with building out example sets with Clinical Data Exchange CDex last week at DV member meeting.  I’m introducing all of you to additional PMO, Crystal Kallem, our partner and Project Manager for DV use case work, and our two existing CDex leads, Christol Green and Durwin Day. Yan Heras is our deputy tech director on this use case and will be helping to define how and where we capture examples.

You are here because have either expressed interest, or offered up connections to MD/provider support on this work in the past.  The group is slowly getting organized, so want to make sure you know each other, so you can join calls/send colleagues our way in the coming weeks.

Team, Drs. Waldren, Suarez, Lane and Giannulli are active members of Da Vinci’s Clinical Advisory as well as each seen as thought leaders/drivers for clinical data exchange in the industry. Their collective practical knowledge here is priceless.

This was tabled until next week.

CMS Proposal to Adopt Standards for Health Care Attachments Transactions and Electronic Signatures; Modify Referral Certification and Authorization Transaction Standard

Discussion Guide with some comments loaded to our Documentation/Presentations area for review and others comments

The following sections were discussed.  See document for final comments.

  •  Electronic Healthcare Attachment transaction 275
  • Healthcare attachments vs Healthcare Claims attachments
  • Compliance deadlines
  • Solicited
  • Unsolicited
  • Implementation Guide
  • Electronic signatures
  • Referral certification
  • Left off at Burden reduction, so this will be the starting point for next week.

PIE WG Healthcare Attachments NPRM Discussion Guide revised (2-21-2023).docx

Open Floor
Bob asked how to introduce a new LOINC code.  The PIE WG has to put in a request for it.  Bob would need to give a description and once submitted and approved, it may be published by July. 
Management Next agenda


Continue with comments to the NPRM discussion guide.

Adjourned at 3:33 PM EST.

Supporting Documents

Outline Reference

Supporting Document

Minute Approval

Action items