Page History

...

• California created and operates a federated provider directory. It stores no data at the state level, but produces a logical statewide directory by consolidating information from other data sources in real time in response to a request. The primary use case is to support electronic exchange of health information for transitions of care.
  
  • California describes the provider directory as a component of the trust framework for statewide health information exchange. It has published a set of policies for the use of provider directory information and contribution of information to the federated structure, as well as a minimum data set for directory contributors based on the HPD data model.

  • Use of California’s provider directory is decreasing as a result of dwindling vendor support for HPD; the directory had six participants in 2015 but has only two today. It anticipates a transition to a new interoperability standard as soon as 2016, but to maintain the federated structure.

  • See the section on Technical Standards for more on California’s experience with HPD.

• Michigan has created a centralized provider directory with distributed management based on the Salesforce platform.

  • Michigan emphasizes support of valuable use cases as the core to achieving sustainability and high data quality. It has interfaced to NPPES through the pilot for NPPES Modernization, supports the HPD data model, has deployed an extension to the FHIR framework for RESTful APIs, and has incorporated support for provider-patient associations, care teams, and alerts.

  • See the section on Technical Standards for more on Michigan’s support for multiple provider directory standard APIs.

...