LOI Interface
Subject
Facilitator
Location
Attendees
LOI Ballot Reconciliation Call
Date /
8/20/2013
Time
3:00 – 4:00 PM ET
Ken McCaslin
Scribe
Riki Merrick
Conf. Call/WebEx
Materials
Caroline Rosin, Cindy Johns, Craig Newman, David Burgress, Freida Hall, Kathy Walsh,
Lester Keepper, Mark Jones, Pam Banning, Preston Law, Rob Snelick, Ron Van Duyne,
Bob Dieterle, Sara Stewart, Scott Robertson, Sheryl T, Hans Buitendijk, Ken McCaslin,
Virginia Lu
Agenda
1. LOI IG Ballot Reconciliation – Ken McCaslin
Key Discussion Points
Update from 8/20 LOI call:
 Voters: 14
 #184
 Discussion of the ACLA Cardinality Proposal 20130812
 Ken Included the optional fields and subsequently sent out the note that optionals were not part of
the discussion. More often than not, the optionals will be sent out to 0.
 Most often, every NTE represents a line,
 Discussion:
 Bob and Ken: If we always did it NTE, do we really want to say we have to do it FE? This is a two-way
street. We want to protect the sender from not having to change the data. Do we have to burden
the receiver then to accept all 3? What do we think?
 Bob displaying his Cardinality Segment Field Management
 On the LRI side, it can send between 1 and 35. The EHR would be able to receive them.
 Ken: Are Cornell etc dealing with ambulatory setting or acute care?
 Bob: It starts to bring together LOI and LRI. Does that work for you, Ken?
 Ken: Does anyone disagree with Bob’s proposal?
 Order codes – if we can’t get them reimbursed, what is the correct number? How do we figure out
that governor? No one can definitively say that Medicare and Medicaid can reimburse the diagnosis
code.
 We’re talking being bound or required to implement.
 We start talking about writing the guide and what NIST will test to. Testing is a secondary product
that ultimately based on what to implement.
 When we implement, someone puts it in, there will not be any surprises. If someone does more,
then we can have a conversation.
 Bob D: The fields that we care about are Order-Sender Maximum, Order-Receiver Minimum,
Results-Sender Maximum, Results-Receiver Minimum. Where does it apply?
 Hans B: Those answers could be different depending on the different challenges. If you don’t have a














good scope. The if PVI-20 is valued “T”, the Lowest level to support sending.
Ken: I’m confused as to what minimum and maximum mean. I’m unclear as to what we are trying to
do.
Sender one for each OBR-28, Receiver O
The way I understand it is that we’re using minimum and maximum are being used in 2 different
ways. Order-Receiver: 2, results-sender maximum – 2, and results receiver minimum is 4.
1) Maximum you will test for to send; 2) Minimum you must be able to receive; 3)
Ken: I’m not convinced that ACLA understood that and I think posting those numbers will be
problematic. ACLA members?
ACLA Members: Absolutely correct
Ken: We need to remove their names/numbers.
Ken: When we change the rules, then we need to let them retract what they originally said.
Bob D: I will re-write this sheet and then we can re-touch base with ACLA.
Attendee: Maybe we could use at least, instead of minimum or maximum
Ken: What’s the distinction between a vendor and an integrator?
Attendee: I would distinguishing between a vendor and an installation.
Attendee: How cardinality is specified and what is operational aspects and not the implementation
requirements.
We are going to wait for lab work group feedback and hope to talk about it on8/27 meeting.



#201 Neg Minor
The CWE_CRE1-5 is conditional while WE_CR1-5 is optional. It seems
Based on the Table 3-7, Coded with exceptions – code required… they are both optional. 6 is
conditional.


Recommend that CX_GU3 be “O”. Hans Buitendijk, seconded by Mark Jones.
Field components is a dot. Data Type components is a dash.

Motion to provide language that encourages that the Assigning authority is provided, however we
believe we were cautioned with making it stronger than RE. By Hans B, seconded by Cindy Johns.

The suggestion is to make EI_GU an RE instead of an R.

See #53

Motion to make this not persuasive. Craig Newman, Seconded by Freida Hall.
#46
#48
#51
#52
#53
#54
#55