IT Committee Meeting 2

1. California State Systems Interoperability and Integration Project IT CommitteeMeeting 2 July 24, 2013

2. Original Agenda for Meeting #2 • Update work from first meeting • Identify existing and emerging capabilities that could be expanded, shared, leveraged • Identify candidate core IT services and related information to be shared • Standards: consider national models for adoption in California • Preparation for meeting 3

3. Revised Agenda for Meeting #2 • Any comments regarding vision, concepts, common business processes, roadmap elements from the first meeting? • Action items from first meeting • Common processes: priorities and starting points/systems? • What data needs to be shared with whom and when? • Capabilities that could be expanded, shared, leveraged • What good capabilities do you bring to the table? • What capabilities do you wish you had? • Identify candidate core IT services and related information to be shared • What should be on the list of foundational IT services? • What standard information exchanges are needed first? • Standards: consider national models for adoption in California • Preparation for meeting 3

4. Comments related to material from first meeting? • Vision, concepts, common business processes, roadmap elements

5. Action items / status from first meeting • Project staff: Will post slides about key concepts in our folder for review and comment. Done. • Committee members: Review and comment on key concepts. • Project staff: Opt in or opt out/consent. Refer to Legal committee. Done. • Project staff: Track dependencies across committees. Done. • Suggestion: Plan for ways to learn about planned upgrades across departments and county systems. • Project staff: Ask Legal committee to look at county-to-county information sharing. Done. • Linette Scott: Provide links to HIE information. • Linette Scott or designee: Provide details re CalHEERS approach to identity management and master data management.

6. Common Processes, Shared Capabilities, Shared Information Benefit Everyone Benefit across programs Identity and Access Management Confidentiality and Privacy Agreement Master Person Index Case Portfolio Provider Registry Eligibility Determination Benefit across stakeholders, state, counties, etc. Enrollment Performance Management Population Health Health Care/ Health Info Exchange Public Health Child Support Enforcement Adult/Senior Services Financial Assistance Food Nutrition Home Energy Assistance Adoption/ Foster Care Child Protection Mental Health Child Care

7. Priorities and starting points/systems

8. Identity and access management approaches/ideas

9. Leverage POC and other projects

10. What data needs to be shared with whom and when?

11. Identify existing and emerging capabilities that could be expanded, shared, leveraged • What good capabilities do you bring to the table? • What capabilities do you wish you had?

12. National Standards • Architecture frameworks • Identity management and access control • Information exchange • Technical protocols

13. Preparation for Meeting #3

14. DRAFT Agenda for Meeting # 3 • Comments related to previous meetings • Action items from previous meetings • Review draft recommendations related to: • Enterprise architecture; • IT initiatives to be leveraged for interoperability; and • Identify top priorities for data sharing in CHHS that can realistically be initiated within the next 5 years and implemented within the next 10 years. • Staff will post draft recommendations on the SharePoint site by close of business on Friday, 26 July. Committee members should review and be ready to offer suggestions for improvement at the next meeting on Tuesday, 30 July.

15. Background - Backup

16. IT Committee Charge The Information Technology (IT) Subcommittee’s charge is to develop technology-related recommendations for the State plan focused on: • Enterprise architecture; • IT initiatives to be leveraged for interoperability; and • Identify top priorities for data sharing in CHHS that can realistically be initiated within the next 5 years and implemented within the next 10 years. Note: All of the project’s subcommittees are working on this.

17. ProcessInitial members of the IT committee: • Provided information to guide the development of the Proof of Concept Request for Demonstration. • Generated information about the “As-Is” technology landscape within the California Health and Human Services Agency. The information was reviewed at the first SSIIP Symposium and will inform the final State plan. • Drafted a “To-Be” vision of interoperability supportive of the ACF’s three goals for this funding opportunity (improvement in client service delivery, reduction in errors/integrity improvement, improvement in administrative efficiency).

18. ProcessThe full IT committee: • Will develop short and long term IT-related recommendations for the State plan, building on the draft “To-Be” vision and the roadmap exercise at the first SSIIP Symposium. The IT Subcommittee will convene three times with additional small group work between meetings to create inputs for the Systems Interoperability and Integration Plan. The subcommittee, based on outputs from the Symposium, will identify and prioritize candidate: • Common business processes • Core IT services and related information to be shared • Projects to make the changes happen • How to leverage ongoing/upcoming projects

19. Candidate information type categories (1)

20. Candidate information type categories (2)

21. Candidate information type categories (3)

22. Candidate core information exchanges (1)

23. Candidate core information exchanges (2)

24. Candidate core information exchanges (3)

25. Candidate core information exchanges (4)

26. Candidate core information exchanges (5)

27. Candidate core information exchanges (6)

28. Candidate core information exchanges (7)

29. California Child Welfare Council Statement on Information Sharing and Data Standardization “The Council recommends and urges all information technology efforts involved in the exchange of information regarding children and families served by the child welfare system to: • Establish a common data element vocabulary; • Promote the development, sharing, use, and reuse of information technology processes, applications, data structures, and infrastructures required to enable data exchanges; • Use common frameworks and models, such as the Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) model, to encourage flexible applications; • Use interoperable standards developed and maintained by Federal entities and intergovernmental partnerships, such as the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM) standard, as the basis for information exchanges; and • Use common or uniform confidentiality/privacy agreements consistent with Federal and State laws.” http://www.chhs.ca.gov/initiatives/Olmstead/Documents/CaliforniaChildWelfareCouncil_2012DataStatement.pdf

30. Core capabilities provide foundational capabilities or information • Find and get basic and/or summary information about key entities (e.g., person, case, provider, and program) to improve information sharing and enable improved delivery of health and human services • Verify information against authoritative sources to support eligibility, enrollment, and other program-related rules • Collect, aggregate, and analyze key operational performance information across programs, the agency, departments, organizations, and jurisdictions to improve effectiveness and efficiency

31. Foundation: Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) and Identity Management Key: IT Service ID Management &Access Control SOA Infrastructure Portal User • Single sign-on • Access control • SOA: Service-Oriented Architecture • Critical systems are service-enabled • Common access control mechanisms • SOA allows software on one computer to use a service (e.g., to access information) on another networked computer.

32. Components of SOA From: CA Enterprise Architecture Framework. Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA). Reference Architecture (RA) Overview. Draft Version 0.1

33. Establish a Common Trust Environment approach across CHHS • Align with state-level enterprise architecture. Effort underway to define approach. • HIE’s trust environment for exchange is defined by: • a set of policies for establishing and recognizing organizational and individual identities, • operational procedures for how to provision, manage, monitor, and revoke identities, and • technical services to support discovery of communication services and verify identity. • Directory Services establish a mechanism to identify technical services of exchange partners. Likely to use a decentralized, federated approach. • Trust Services establish the identity of exchange entities and individuals. • Build these services on existing and emerging standards. From: CA Health Information Exchange (HIE) Strategic and Operational Plan (SOP) 2012-10-26. 1.5.2.1 Trust Environment • Consider Global Federated Identity and Privilege Management • http://it.ojp.gov/gfipm

34. National Initiatives • US Department of Health and Human Services • National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) • HL7 • National Information Exchange Model (NIEM) • American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) • National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO)