Interoperability and Health Information Exchange for Public Health

  • Brian E. DixonEmail author
  • Saurabh Rahurkar
  • Nate C. Apathy
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)


Health care data are collected and managed by multiple organizations, often residing in information systems that are disconnected from the rest of the health system. Interoperability and health information exchange (HIE) are concepts that describe methods for data to be shared among these data siloes. Public health organizations are both senders and receivers of data, and there exist multiple efforts to facilitate HIE and interoperability in health systems around the world. This chapter explores HIE and interoperability in the context of public health. The chapter describes how HIE efforts are enabling health care providers to report infectious as well as chronic disease data to public health agencies. Furthermore, the chapter examines activities such as syndromic surveillance and public health registries from an interoperability perspective. The chapter also examines the drivers and barriers to HIE from a public health context, and it explore trends likely to influence interoperability in the future.


Health information exchange Interoperability Health policy Information blocking Electronic laboratory reporting Electronic case reporting Learning health system Application programming interface 


  1. 1.
    Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Non-federal acute care hospital electronic health record adoption. In: Health IT Quick-Stat #47. 2017. Accessed 3 Oct 2019.
  2. 2.
    Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Office-based Physician Electronic Health Record Adoption. In: Health IT Quick-Stat #50. 2019. Accessed 3 Oct 2019.
  3. 3.
    Lee Y-T, Park Y-T, Park J-S, Yi B-K. Association between electronic medical record system adoption and healthcare information technology infrastructure. Healthcare Inform Res. 2018;24(4):327–34. Scholar
  4. 4.
    The Commonwealth Fund. What is the status of electronic health records? Accessed 25 Sep 2019.
  5. 5.
    Washington V, DeSalvo K, Mostashari F, Blumenthal D. The HITECH era and the path forward. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(10):904–6. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bates DW, Samal L. Interoperability: what is it, how can we make it work for clinicians, and how should we measure it in the future? Health Serv Res. 2018;53(5):3270–7. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duncan KA. Evolving community health information networks. Front Health Serv Manage. 1995;12(1):5–41. Discussion 2–3, 60–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dixon BE. What is health information exchange? In: Dixon BE, editor. Health information exchange: navigating and managing a network of health information systems. Waltham: Academic; 2016. p. 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sun-Sentinel. Gingrich: ‘rethink medicare’ house speaker charts his vision on health care. Final ed. Sun-Sentinel. 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schwartz J. Health-care bill limits privacy critics say patients’ records will be exposed. Washington Post; 1996. p. a07.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics. A strategy for building the national health information infrastructure. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2001.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lohr S. Some specialists foresee a gigantic computer network taking health care into a new age of shared information. New York Times. 2004.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bush stops in Baltimore to push health proposal; President advances use of computer technology to improve medical care. Final ed. [database on the Internet]; 2004. Accessed 3 Oct 2019.
  14. 14.
    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. HHS awards $139 million to drive adoption of health information technology; 2004. Accessed 27 May 2020.
  15. 15.
    Turner K, Ferland L. State electronic disease surveillance systems—United States, 2007 and 2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011;60(41):1421–3.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NBS overview. In: National electronic disease surveillance system (NEDSS) base system. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2019. Accessed 21 Jul 2019.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Effler P, Ching-Lee M, Bogard A, Ieong MC, Nekomoto T, Jernigan D. Statewide system of electronic notifiable disease reporting from clinical laboratories: comparing automated reporting with conventional methods. JAMA. 1999;282(19):1845–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Overhage JM, Grannis S, McDonald CJ. A comparison of the completeness and timeliness of automated electronic laboratory reporting and spontaneous reporting of notifiable conditions. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(2):344–50. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Panackal AA, M’Ikanatha NM, Tsui FC, McMahon J, Wagner MM, Dixon BW, et al. Automatic electronic laboratory-based reporting of notifiable infectious diseases at a large health system. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002;8(7):685–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nguyen TQ, Thorpe L, Makki HA, Mostashari F. Benefits and barriers to electronic laboratory results reporting for notifiable diseases: the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene experience. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(Suppl 1):S142–5. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lombardo JS, Buckeridge DL, editors. Disease surveillance: a public health informatics approach. Hoboken: Wiley; 2007.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Doyle TJ, Glynn MK, Groseclose SL. Completeness of notifiable infectious disease reporting in the United States: an analytical literature review. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;155(9):866–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Health Level Seven International. HL7 CDA® R2 implementation guide: public health case report, release 2—US realm—the electronic initial case report (eICR). 2018. Accessed 21 Jul 2019.
  24. 24.
    Digital Bridge. Implementation overview. 2019. Accessed 1 Jul 2019.
  25. 25.
    Dixon BE, Taylor D, Duke JD. Integration of FHIR to facilitate electronic case reporting: results from a pilot study. In: Studies in health technology and informatics. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2019;264:940–4.
  26. 26.
    Overhage JM. The Indiana health information exchange. In: Dixon BE, editor. Health information exchange: navigating and managing a network of health information systems. 1st ed. Waltham: Academic; 2016. p. 267–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Health Level 7. FHIR overview. 2017. Accessed 25 Oct 2018.
  28. 28.
    Grannis SJ, Stevens K, Merriwether R. Leveraging health information exchange to support public health situational awareness: the Indiana experience. J Public Health Inform. 2010;2:2.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    McFarlane TD, Dixon BE, Gibson PJ. Using electronic health records for public health hypertension surveillance. J Public Health Inform. 2018;10(1):e193. Scholar
  30. 30.
    Newton-Dame R, McVeigh KH, Schreibstein L, Perlman S, Lurie-Moroni E, Jacobson L, et al. Design of the New York City macroscope: innovations in population health surveillance using electronic health records. EGEMS. 2016;4(1):1265. Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dixon BE, Zou J, Comer KF, Rosenman M, Craig JL, Gibson PJ. Using electronic health record data to improve community health assessment. Front Public Health Serv Sys Res. 2016;5(5):50–6. Scholar
  32. 32.
    Perlman SE, McVeigh KH, Thorpe LE, Jacobson L, Greene CM, Gwynn RC. Innovations in population health surveillance: using electronic health Records for chronic disease surveillance. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(6):853–7. Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gliklich RE, Dryer NA, Leavy MB, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Outcome Sciences, Inc. Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: a user’s guide. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014. Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dixon BE, Tao G, Wang J, Tu W, Hoover S, Zhang Z, et al. An integrated surveillance system to examine testing, services, and outcomes for sexually transmitted diseases. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;245:361–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Batteiger TA, Dixon BE, Wang J, Zhang Z, Tao G, Tong Y, et al. Where do people go for gonorrhea and chlamydia tests: a cross-sectional view of the Central Indiana population, 2003–2014. Sex Transm Dis. 2019;46(2):132–6. Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rahurkar S, McFarlane TD, Wang J, Hoover S, Hammond F, Kean J, et al. Leveraging health information exchange to construct a registry for traumatic brain injury. Spinal Cord Injury and Stroke in Indiana AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2017;2017:1440–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    McFarlane TD, Love J, Hanley S, Dixon BE, Hammond FM. Increased risk of stroke among hospitalized and younger traumatic brain injury patients. J Head Trauma Rehab. 2020;35(3):E310–E9. PubMed PMID: 31834059.
  38. 38.
    Furukawa MF, King J, Patel V, Hsiao CJ, Adler-Milstein J, Jha AK. Despite substantial progress in EHR adoption, health information exchange and patient engagement remain low in office settings. Health Aff. 2014;33(9):1672–9. Scholar
  39. 39.
    Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Non-federal acute care hospital health it adoption and use. US Department of Health and Human Services. 2019. Accessed 3 Oct 2019.
  40. 40.
    Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Office-based physician health it adoption and use. US Department of Health and Human Services. 2019. Accessed 3 Oct 2019.
  41. 41.
    State of Michigan. Michigan approved to begin implementation of the Michigan health information network. Community Health, Lansing, MI. 2010.,5885,7-339--248053--,00.html. Accessed 3 Oct 2019.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Schmit CD, Wetter SA, Kash BA. Falling short: how state laws can address health information exchange barriers and enablers. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25(6):635–44. Scholar
  43. 43.
    Minnesota Department of Health. Health information exchange oversight. Office of Health IT, St. Paul, MN. Accessed 3 Oct 2019.
  44. 44.
    Minnesota Department of Health. Minnesota state-certified health information exchange service providers. Office of Health IT, St. Paul, MN. Accessed 3 Oct 2019.
  45. 45.
    Lamb E, Satre J, Hurd-Kundeti G, Liscek B, Hall CJ, Pinner RW, et al. Update on progress in electronic reporting of laboratory results to public health agencies—United States, 2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64(12):328–30.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yeung T. Local health department adoption of electronic health records and health information exchanges and its impact on population health. Int J Med Inform. 2019;128:1–6. Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dixon BE, Jones JF, Grannis SJ. Infection preventionists’ awareness of and engagement in health information exchange to improve public health surveillance. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41(9):787–92. Scholar
  48. 48.
    Mello MM, Adler-Milstein J, Ding KL, Savage L. Legal barriers to the growth of health information exchange—boulders or pebbles? Milbank Q. 2018;96(1):110–43. Scholar
  49. 49.
    Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Information blocking. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC. 2019. Accessed 26 Oct 2019.
  50. 50.
    Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Trusted exchange framework and common agreement (TEFCA) draft 2. Health and Human Services, U.S., Washington, DC. 2019. Accessed 3 Oct 2019.
  51. 51.
    Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Are there different types of personal health records (PHRs)? Accessed 3 Oct 2019.
  52. 52.
    Bower JK, Bollinger CE, Foraker RE, Hood DB, Shoben AB, Lai AM. Active use of electronic health records (EHRs) and personal health records (PHRs) for epidemiologic research: sample representativeness and nonresponse bias in a study of women during pregnancy. EGEMS. 2017;5(1):1263. Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bonander J, Gates S. Public health in an era of personal health records: opportunities for innovation and new partnerships. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(3):e33. Scholar
  54. 54.
    King RJ, Garrett N, Kriseman J, Crum M, Rafalski EM, Sweat D, et al. A community health record: improving health through multisector collaboration, information sharing, and technology. Prev Chronic Dis. 2016;13:E122. Scholar
  55. 55.
    Institute of Medicine. The learning healthcare system: workshop summary. In: Roundtable on evidence-based medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mullins CD, Wingate LMT, Edwards HA, Tofade T, Wutoh A. Transitioning from learning healthcare systems to learning health care communities. J Comparat Effect Res. 2018;7(6):603–14. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian E. Dixon
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Saurabh Rahurkar
    • 3
    • 4
  • Nate C. Apathy
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Epidemiology, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public HealthIndiana UniversityIndianapolisUSA
  2. 2.Center for Biomedical InformaticsRegenstrief InstituteIndianapolisUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biomedical InformaticsThe Ohio State Univeristy College of MedicineColumbusUSA
  4. 4.The Center for Advancement of Team Science, Analytics and Systems Thinking in Health Services and Implementation Science (CATALYST)The Ohio State University Wexner Medical CenterColumbusUSA
  5. 5.Department of Health Policy and Management, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public HealthIndiana UniversityIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations