Stream: implementers
Topic: Practitioner.identifier system url for TIN
Susan Crawford (Jan 30 2018 at 21:56):
I'm trying to find a system url to use for Practitioner.identifier when the identifier type is a Provider's Tax Identification Number. The Tax Identification Number (TIN) is assigned by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Is anyone aware of a url or oid that would be appropriate?
John Moehrke (Jan 30 2018 at 22:00):
those would be regional, so would not be in the core specification.
Brian Postlethwaite (Jan 30 2018 at 22:01):
So might be in US-Core (or belong there)
Eric Haas (Jan 30 2018 at 22:08):
Its here: file:///Users/ehaas/Documents/FHIR/working-build/publish/identifier-registry.html
Susan Crawford (Jan 30 2018 at 22:18):
@Eric Haas Hi Eric. Thank you for the quick response. When I click on the link you provided, I'm not able to open it up.
Eric Haas (Jan 30 2018 at 22:27):
oops try this...http://build.fhir.org/identifier-registry.html
Susan Crawford (Jan 30 2018 at 22:30):
That worked but I'm still not seeing anything that represents the TIN. I see the NPI and SSN but not TIN.
Susan Crawford (Jan 31 2018 at 00:55):
FYI. I found the OID for Employer Identification Number (EIN), which appears to be the same as the Provider Tax ID. While the preference is to have a resolvable URL, the OID can be used instead. It's registered in the HL7 OID registry. The OID is 2.16.840.1.113883.4.4. Thanks for everyone's help.
Kenny Blanchette (Jul 02 2018 at 15:31):
@Susan Crawford It sounds like you used Practitioner.identifier to directly associate a Tax ID to the provider. Conceptually, my perspective is that a Tax ID is an identifier of the medical group, and that the association to provider should be through the medical group. Prior to reading this thread, I was planning to model this relationship by associating a Practitioner to an Organization by using PractitionerRole, and then listing the Tax ID as an identifier of Organization.
Did you consider this? Do you see any drawbacks to this approach?
Eric Haas (Jul 03 2018 at 17:07):
I too had a need for a TIN and it is not listed in core. I am torn whether to request it be added to core since there is US Realm specific even the core include a bunch of us core system prn, ssn, state drivers licenses. etc or put the whole wack of US Realm systems id in a separate US FHIR registry or US Core. But to be expedient. GF#17440
Eric Haas (Jul 03 2018 at 17:07):
Actually the EIN is commonaly called the TIN and there are ITINs and other tax ids I never knew about too...
Kenny Blanchette (Jul 03 2018 at 19:35):
Thanks @Eric Haas - I'm curious, what is your perspective on TIN being an identifier of Practitioner vs Organization?
jassy (Jul 03 2018 at 20:43):
@Kenny Blanchette, for your question to Susan, I think your suggestion makes sense too. However, I believe there are situations that a Practitioner may not associate with an Organization but one can still have a TIN. In this case where are you going to put it?
Eric Haas (Jul 03 2018 at 22:01):
EIN (TIN) is an org. list of other Tax ids here....
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/taxpayer-identification-numbers-tin
Kenny Blanchette (Jul 05 2018 at 16:47):
Thanks @Eric Haas, this helps clarify!
@jassy It may be that we are interpreting the meaning of an Organization differently. As an example, let's consider a single-provider practice. In the resource description, it does state that an Organization is a "grouping of people or organizations", implying that a single-provider practice would not be an Organization. However, it also states that an Organization can act as "support for other resources that need to reference organizations, perhaps as a document, message or as a contained resource." This would imply that you could could represent the single provider practice as an Organization with one associated Practitioner. It would also allow you to associate documents and devices to the organization (using DocumentReference.custodian and Device.owner), which cannot reference a Practitioner.
Kenny Blanchette (Jul 05 2018 at 16:50):
There are many important use cases where a provider needs to be associated to a Tax ID Number (e.g. billing, quality reporting). Both approaches seem valid, but I'm curious if there is somewhat of a consensus on which approach is more widely used. @Bryn Rhodes @Jenni Syed (in case you have a perspective)
Eric Haas (Jul 05 2018 at 17:01):
I disagree that " a single-provider practice would not be an Organization." It would and it should. The practitioner and the practice are separate things.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
