1 / 13

Inter-State Sharing of an Immunization Registry Application

Inter-State Sharing of an Immunization Registry Application. Thomas Maerz Wisconsin Department of Health & Family Services Wisconsin Immunization Registry (WIR). Karen White Minnesota Department of Health Minnesota Immunization Information Connection (MIIC).

chiara
Download Presentation

Inter-State Sharing of an Immunization Registry Application

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Inter-State Sharing of an Immunization Registry Application Thomas Maerz Wisconsin Department of Health & Family Services Wisconsin Immunization Registry (WIR) Karen White Minnesota Department of Health Minnesota Immunization Information Connection (MIIC) The Wisconsin-Minnesota Experience

  2. Session Objective For participants to learn about practical issues faced in inter-state sharing of a registry application, including: • legal and other policy issues • identifying and sharing costs on future enhancements • testing and deployment

  3. Main Points • Sharing of publicly funded applications is needed and generally desirable • Differences between projects make it unlikely an application can be imported and deployed without changes • The opportunities are there for projects to work together on ongoing enhancements • Such collaboration takes thoughtful planning and implementation, usually more time than working alone, and regular communication

  4. Issues in Making WIR Available • Time commitment • Immunization functionality questions and is it really free • Technical question regarding architecture and platform • Providing documents (user manual, technical documentation, license), license discussion and negotiation • Creation and distribution of software CD with updated documentation • CDC enhancement requests

  5. License Agreement Provisions • Current version of the WIR software is provided • Licensee cannot sell or give away any of the licensed materials • Possibility of sharing in code enhancements • Acknowledgement in publications of Wisconsin’s development efforts

  6. Minnesota as Recipient • Chose WIR because of its functionality, privacy protections, and potential benefits to border providers and families • Problems with old applications • Considered 11 vendors • Regional registry staff made the choice

  7. Minnesota Immunization Information Connection A statewide network of regional immunization services Community Health Information Collaborative (CHIC) Communities Caring for Children (CCC) Not yet affiliated with an immunization registry Cass CrowWing North Central Immunization Connection (NCIC) Central Minnesota Immunization Connection (CMIC) Southwest Minnesota Immunization Information Connection (SW-MIIC) 71 ImmuLink Immtrack Southeast Minnesota Immunization Connection (SEMIC)

  8. Minnesota as Recipient • Needed small change to license agreement because of our data practices law • Install and manage in-house or source out? • Choosing a vendor

  9. Sharing in Enhancements • Each state has a list of priorities • Identify mutually beneficial items • Divide enhancement list • Develop and approve change definitions • Testing both sets of enhancements • Deploying in each environment

  10. Challenges • Requires more definition time than working alone • Differences in models (e.g., centralized vs. decentralized) can lead to differences in priorities and even differences in definitions (e.g., “historical data”).

  11. Benefits • More enhancements in a shorter period of time • Cost savings to partners

  12. Summary – Effective sharing requires… • Reasonable expectations • Commitment to finding mutual benefits • Understanding that an application must reflect the needs of each project and they may not be identical • Realization that we can learn from each other

  13. Questions? Thomas Maerz WIR Project Manager 608-261-6755 maerztr@dhfs.state.wi.us Eloise Gelner MIIC Project Manager 612-676-5471 eloise.gelner@health.state.mn.us

More Related