The neutral-table posture
No vendor money. No single-platform allegiance. Every position we publish starts from a named, published standard — and we correct ourselves when the evidence changes.
What 'neutral table' actually means
What 'neutral table' actually means
Neutrality is easy to claim and hard to keep. For AzHeC it has a concrete definition: we accept no vendor sponsorship, hold no allegiance to any single platform or product, and ground every position in a standard that anyone can read for themselves — HL7, FHIR, GS1, UDI, EPCS, the HIPAA rules, and their peers.
The result is guidance a stakeholder can trust regardless of which systems they run, because it never depends on us preferring one vendor over another.
Our four-check method
Before we publish a position, it passes four checks. Each one asks a different question, and a position that fails any of them goes back for revision.
Standard
Is this grounded in a named, published standard or rule — HL7, FHIR, GS1, UDI, an NCPDP/EPCS specification, or a HIPAA requirement — rather than a vendor's marketing? If we can't cite the source, we don't publish the claim.
Interoperate
Does it hold up across systems? A position that only works inside one platform isn't interoperability — it's lock-in. We test guidance against the reality of mixed-vendor environments.
Operate
Will it survive contact with day-to-day operations? We weigh the practical trade-offs — workflow, identity matching, consent, alert fatigue — not just the theoretical ideal.
Govern
Are the privacy, security and consent implications addressed? Exchange without governance is a liability. Every position accounts for who may see what, under which consent model, with what audit trail.
We correct ourselves
Standards evolve. FHIR advances, regulations are updated, supply-chain rules phase in, and field experience teaches lessons no specification anticipated. A neutral convener that never revises its guidance is not neutral — it is merely stale.
When better evidence emerges, we update the relevant page and say what changed. Being publicly correctable is part of how we earn the trust a statewide table requires.
Frequently asked questions
01Do you recommend specific products or vendors?
No. AzHeC is in a deliberate authority-building posture: we explain standards and approaches, but we never name a product to recommend or accept vendor sponsorship. The 'Standard' check exists precisely to keep marketing out of our guidance.
02What standards do you anchor to?
The published, public ones: HL7 v2 and FHIR for exchange; UDI and GS1 for device and supply identification; NCPDP SCRIPT and EPCS for prescribing; and the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules for governance — among others, all cited by name on the relevant pages.
03How do you handle disagreement among stakeholders?
We return to the published standard. Where the standard leaves genuine room for choice, we describe the trade-offs neutrally rather than declaring a winner — that is the 'Operate' check at work.
Hold us to it
If a page is out of date or a standard has moved, tell us. Correctability is part of the method.