Why Transparent Health Was Created

Over the past few years, I've begun or contributed to a number of open source projects.  These have mostly been centered around health technology while supporting the Unites States federal government agencies such as CMS, HHS, and NIST.

TransparentHealth.org and https://github.com/TransparentHealth were first created as a place to consolidate these open source projects into one place.  Other people seemed to like the idea.  Not only is open source software a good idea, but so is the adoption of open standards.  We made facilitating the adoption of standards a priority as well.

To ensure the long term maintenance of these projects and goals it became increasingly apparent that software foundation was needed.


Hence Transparent Health was created. In April of 2018, Transparent health became a non-profit organization.  The directors of the organization are Mark Scrimshire, and myself.  Other people are helping out too. We are just getting started!

We encourage your code contribution to our current projects. We also provide a good home for select open source projects. We curate included projects based on its relevance to patient access, openness, and the maturity of the project.

There are a number of reasons why you or your organization might consider contributing code.
Here are a few of those reasons:

  • You or your  organization wants to amplify impact by making open source contributions more visible and in a shared location.
  • You or your organization would prefer to manage the repository outside of  existing accounts.  (There are a lot of situations where this makes sense, but I won't go into that here.) 
  • You and your organization can still maintain and manage your repository.
  • Your uncertain that a useful repository will be removed from public view  and you want to make a copy.

If you would like to discuss your project's inclusion, please send us an email.


Let's all work together to improve the patient experience through sharing, openness and transparency.


Alan Viars, Director
Transparent Health


Comments

  1. Albert SnowJanuary 11, 2019 at 8:59 PM

    Thanks for sharing such a informative post. Great content for the health benefits. I really like this post. For More Information Visit Here:  Albert Snow

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gasper GuarrasiJanuary 17, 2019 at 10:35 PM

    This post contains huge information. Interesting and informative content. Thank you so much for sharing this post. Get More Information Visit Here:   Gasper Guarrasi

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Conveying Identity and Authenticator Assurance Levels in OpenID Connect and Beyond in Healthcare

Conveying Identity and Authenticator Assurance Levels in OpenID Connect and Beyond in Healthcare 1. Standards and the Proposed Rule NIST's Special Publication 800-63-3 Digital Identity Guidelines outlines 3 identity assurance levels, "1", "2", and "3" to codify how well a person is or isn't, with 1 being a low confidence a person is who they say they are.  Similarly, Authentication Assurance Levels (AALs) of "1", "2", and 3" are also defined in NIST guidelines.  IAL details the  "login" or Authentication event. In ONC's proposed rule, " 21st Century Cures Act: Interoperability, Information Blocking, and the ONC Health IT Certification Program ", OpenID Connect is proposed in the following passage:   To enable and support persistent user authentication and app authorization processes, we propose to adopt a standards and additional implementation specification for the FHIR standard. First, w
Read more

A National Patient Identifier Would Be Totally Awesome!

Fun Fact:  Did you know that congress actually has a gag order preventing Health and Human Services(HHS) from even discussing the idea of a national health identifier?  Well fear no more... word on the street is that this might finally change . America's multi-payer system is already complex enough. We also have to contend with a lack of a national health identifier?  Certainly national health identifiers have issues, but it is still a monumental step in the right direction.  While a national patient identifier will not fully solve the patient linking and matching problem, it will go quite a long way in improving the status quo.  I've spent way too much time thinking about how such an identifier should be constructed and issued.  Here are some main points: It should be numeric so it is easy to enter via a number pad/telephone. It should, in-part, be defined by the end user.  For example the first 10 digits could be someone's phone number It should contain a check d
Read more