🛠 Inter-State transfer via AIMS Interpartner

Utah has an Interpartner ELR exchange feed set up with Idaho and Nevada. Something that we have found is that both jurisdictions must decide on which field to route based on. For Utah, we route based on state code, not zip. This is easier than programming each zip code, nationally, to figure out what jurisdiction to route the message to. If the other jurisdiction doesn't route based on the same field, it can create an infinite loop of routing messages back and forth if the state code and zip code are discordant.

Also, I think it was North Carolina who brought up security/encryption with using AHPL/AIMS for ELR Interpartner. In Utah, we had similar concerns - Briefly, this is our requirement for ELR Interpartner feeds using APHL/AIMS:

Outbound ELR from Utah to jurisdiction - We are not able to send messages to AIMS unless they are encrypted so that AIMS can't open them or the recipient jurisdiction tells us in writing that AIMS is their authorized agent to receive them unencrypted.

Inbound ELR messages to Utah - We can't tell other jurisdictions to send messages to us unencrypted through AIMS unless they have told us in writing that AIMS is their authorized agent to report for them or we get an agreement in place to allow AIMS to do this work for us.

We also have set up a direct sFTP connection with another jurisdiction for ELR transfer due to the encryption requirements being too much of a lift for them. So that could be an option, but it is another sftp connection to manage.

Let me know if you have any questions! Thanks!

Emily Roberts
Utah Department of Health

With regards to the encryption process, the AIMS team has both Rhapsody filters and Mirth components for the encryption and decryption pieces.  These filters allow the outbound messages to be encrypted using the receiving partners certificate (either physical or via the DNS Server) in the same manner as the PHINMS RNR process.  Encrypted messages received can also easily be decrypted (if you are using Rhapsody or Mirth) 

In Iowa, we validate 3 addresses up front (Rhapsody sends a call to Melissa service) on patient address, ordering provider address, ordering facility address and we also consider the condition (STD and HIV programs operate a little differently than other infectious disease and environmental health surveillance programs) to determine the appropriate jurisdiction to
A) Keep
B) Redirect
C) Keep & Redirect

We also have a rules table (see attachment) - all of this was built in Rhapsody back in 2015 and has configurable tables so it can be customized by the jurisdiction. It can be requested through the web site: https://www.gggllc.com/

Here's an overview of our process from back then: https://www.cste.org/blogpost/1084057/232701/The-Public-Health-ELR-Network

Rules to ID Jurisdiction with notes.xlsx 16.3 KB • Download

Thanks all for this thread. 

It seems there may be 2 possible options (one or both) for this - pass through of messages to another state and interpartner. Is this topic worth a more detailed call?

Agreed a more detailed call would be good. There are major pros and cons to each option.

Thanks!  Brooke  -- is there room on the Sept ELR monthly call for this? 

Hi all,

Does anyone have a contact at AIMS for interstate ELR Exchange work?

Thanks!

Andrew

Hi Andrew ,

Here is the Interpartner Dashboard, which includes a link to submit a technical assistance request. 

Please reach out to me at brooke.beaulieu@aphl.org if you need additional information on Interpartner data exchange not encompassed by that dashboard or request form.

Thanks!

Brooke