1 / 14

Inter-Jurisdictional Exchange Agreement for 2008 - 2012

Inter-Jurisdictional Exchange Agreement for 2008 - 2012. June 2007 Revision. The 2005 – 2009 agreement has worked fairly well, but because of the changing environment, it was felt certain changes should be made.

joseph-garrison
Download Presentation

Inter-Jurisdictional Exchange Agreement for 2008 - 2012

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-Jurisdictional Exchange Agreement for 2008 - 2012 June 2007 Revision

  2. The 2005 – 2009 agreement has worked fairly well, but because of the changing environment, it was felt certain changes should be made. • The IJE Committee has had a telephone conference call almost every month for the past year.

  3. WHY • The legal staff in Ohio reviewed the existing agreement and felt it was not firm enough to ensure the protection of their data. They proposed certain modifications. Most of these have been integrated in the new agreement. • National Violent Death Reporting System and others have requested being added to the matrices. • In anticipation of STEVE

  4. The Agreement • Replaces the 2005 – 2009 Agreement • Applies to vital events that occur from 2008 through 2012 inclusive

  5. New Terminology • Trading Partners • Sending Jurisdiction • Receiving Jurisdiction

  6. Paper Documents • The requirement of establishing a schedule for final disposition of the paper documents has been dropped because: • With electronic exchange it is becoming moot • It is not enforceable

  7. IV.1.c • The jurisdiction of death of an infant has the burden of requesting the birth certificate information from the jurisdiction of birth

  8. IV.2 • Places the burden on the Sending Jurisdiction (the owners) to complete the addendums (matrices) • The Receiving Jurisdictions are to adhere to them

  9. IV.3 • The exchange will be electronic whenever possible and will be in the standard NAPHSIS IJE format. • Any agreement to a non-standard exchange will have to be done on an individual basis.

  10. IV.6.d • Permits release of identifying information to researchers as long as it will not be publicly released • You can opt out of this in the addendums (matrices)

  11. Programs in the Matrices 2005-2009 2008 - 2012 • Death 15 12 • Birth 9 11 • Fetal death 0 7

  12. 2005 - 2009 Cancer Registry Parkinson’s Registry Alzheimer’s Registry AIDS Registry 2008 – 2012 Disease Registries

  13. New Programs • NVDRS • Other Federally-funded surveillance programs operated by the state • Research as per IJE agreement item IV.6 (this is where you would opt out) • Private Sector Organizations operating on behalf of jurisdiction • Other

  14. Inter-Jurisdictional Exchange Agreement for 2008 - 2012 June 2007 Revision

More Related