Data exchange in California has yet to approach its full potential, with participation concentrated in specific networks and communities and limited to certain data types. The state is working to change that with the adoption of Assembly Bill 133, mandating a data sharing agreement by January 2023 and requiring data sharing for most health care providers a year later. The Data Exchange Explainer Series looks at other states’ approaches in critical areas — incentives for participation, governance, digital identity management, and data sharing agreements — and their implications for successful implementation in California.

Incentives for Participation in California’s Data Exchange

The first paper in the series, Incentives for Participation in California’s Data Exchange, highlights other states’ paths to provide incentives to participation in data exchange and highlights opportunities for California. Currently, financial and regulatory incentives that could drive broader participation are not aligned across organizations in California or do not exist. Other states have demonstrated that exercising a coordinated and multifaceted strategy to offer incentives for data exchange can alter the trajectory of adoption.

Mark Elson, PhD, CEO of Intrepid Ascent, developed this fact sheet with Alexandra Milutin, MHA, and other members of his team. Intrepid Ascent supports communities in the exchange and use of data to improve health.

Governance Structures for Statewide Data Exchange in California

The second paper in the series, Governance Structures for Statewide Data Exchange in California, highlights approaches to governance adopted by policymakers for other California executive branch organizations and health information exchange entities in other states.

Karen Ostrowski, MBA, vice president of policy innovation at Intrepid Ascent, developed this fact sheet with Rachel Goldberg, MPH, and Mark Elson, PhD.

Designing an Effective Statewide Data Sharing Agreement

Currently, data exchange in California occurs under a patchwork of voluntary data sharing agreements established by state and national networks and under a multitude of community and program-specific deals. CalHHS is building a statewide contract — with feedback from an advisory group of state policymakers and stakeholders — that defines the essential requirements and expectations among signatories and that meets California’s unique needs.

This third installment in the series explores standard data sharing provisions, critical considerations in the context of AB 133, and potential data sharing agreement models for California.

Karen Ostrowski, MBA, vice president of policy innovation at Intrepid Ascent, developed this fact sheet with Rachel Goldberg, MPH.

Digital Identity Management for California’s Health Data Exchange

Meaningful statewide health information exchange requires that patient data from different organizations and information technology systems can be associated with a unique person. This capability requires an effective approach to digital patient identity. This final installment in the series explores considerations for digital identity management in California, the strategies and tools available to policymakers, and different state-level approaches.

Brian Dillon, MBA, a consultant with Intrepid Ascent’s Technology Strategy Group, developed this fact sheet with Alex Horowitz, vice president of technology strategy at Intrepid Ascent.