[eng] SC | Update private medical records section to more accurately represent 4142 and 4142a

[eileen-coforma]

Value Statement

As a Veteran applying for Supplemental Claim

I want to understand that by submitting private medical records, I am also filing out the 4142 and 4142a

So that I know that the online process includes these forms

---

Background Context

Kayce pointed out that the way we currently include the 4142 and 4142a inline within the form is not compliant, and should not have passed OMB OIRA approval. By including the 4142 and 4142a within 0995 without identifying them as separate forms could increase respondent burden time. We need to clarify that the sections which include the 4142 and 4142a are separate from the 0995 form, even if the Veteran can fill it out at the same time.

Outcome, Success Measure, KPI(S), and Tracking Link

• It would be helpful to get a baseline measure of Veterans submitting private medical records now VS after we update the form language.

Acceptance Criteria

• [ ] Private medical records screens are updated to say they are part of 4142 and 4142a
  • [ ] ~https://staging.va.gov/decision-reviews/supplemental-claim/file-supplemental-claim-form-20-0995/supporting-evidence/request-private-medical-records~
  • [x] https://staging.va.gov/decision-reviews/supplemental-claim/file-supplemental-claim-form-20-0995/supporting-evidence/private-medical-records-authorization
  • [x] https://staging.va.gov/decision-reviews/supplemental-claim/file-supplemental-claim-form-20-0995/supporting-evidence/private-medical-records
  • [x] https://staging.va.gov/decision-reviews/supplemental-claim/file-supplemental-claim-form-20-0995/supporting-evidence/add-private-record-limitations
• [x] Veterans are aware of the OMB form number and respondent burden times, and can choose to fill it out separately. (is the omb form number and respondent burden necessary?)
• [ ] Design is complete and reviewed by enablement

Designs and Build Notes

• FIGMA

Enablement team (if needed)

@jstrothman

Out of scope

• Other SC form updates

Open questions

• What is necessary for an online form to be legally compliant? Does the OMB and respondent burden need to be surfaced before the Veteran chooses to enter the form?

Tasks

• [ ] Update private medical records page to show that by selecting yes, they are optionally filling out the 4142 and 4142a forms
• [ ] Update private medical records pages to reflect the addition of the inline addition of 4142 and 4142a forms in the header
• [ ] Update authorization error message to let Veterans know they can optionally fill out the 4142 and 4142a forms later

Definition of Ready

• [ ] Clear value description
• [ ] Testable acceptance criteria
• [ ] Accessibility added to acceptance criteria
• [ ] Sample data provided where appropriate
• [ ] Dependencies and blockers linked

Definition of Done

• [ ] Meets acceptance criteria
• [ ] Reviewed and approved by product and/or design

[eileen-coforma]

Initial designs are done and linked in ticket. Waiting for Amy and Julie to get more information about digital form compliance, and requirements to fulfill them.

We still need to determine if new sub-urls are needed, and if we need to change how it is represented on the review pages (evidence review and review and submit).

[jstrothman]

Regarding the open question in the main issue description:

What is necessary for an online form to be legally compliant? Does the OMB and respondent burden need to be surfaced before the Veteran chooses to enter the form?

VADS OMB info component page has useful quotes re the requirement to display it and re the placement.

In Figma, I'm recommending (to be reviewed with CAIA) we take an approach of:

1. Adjust the sub-header (form number line) throughout the form to indicate it's VA Form 20-0995 with optional VA Forms 21-4142 and 21-4142a
2. On the intro page bottom, show OMB info for both forms (with heading for each)
3. Keep the url structure, i.e. it always has file-supplemental-claim-form-20-0995 even on the 4142-related pages
4. Explanatory text as you suggested, @eileen-coforma, on the initial question to explain that by answering yes, we'll ask you questions from the 4142+4142a and submit it along with your Supplemental Claim (which we've been doing but not explicitly saying on this page)

[shaunburdick]

@skylerschain and @Mottie will sync up on the H1/Breadcrumb content

[Mottie]

I opened a draft pull request with these updates, but I still have some questions that need to be addressed before merging:

• Julie's last comment in Figma says we should keep the H1 & H2 the same and change the H3 of the page?
• If we change the H1:
  • When we navigate into the 4142 pages, the focus goes to the H3 and scrolls it to the top of the browser window, so the page title and subtitle aren't visible unless you scroll up. What do we do?
  • Within the 4142 flow, should we also update the breadcrumbs to match the H1? Skyler doesn't think so, but in the design we're only seeing the collapsed breadcrumb, not the full breadcrumb. From my understanding, the H1, breadcrumb and document title (browser tab name) should all match exactly.
• What do we do about the subtitles? Julie suggested to update the subtitle to include both the main & support form. And do we change it based on the page?
• The introduction page will have 2 OMB info sections and both with the "View Privacy Act Statement" button - I haven't gotten a response from the Design System Team about hiding the modal button yet - so, should we continue to pursue this and should we? Do forms 4142 and 995 have the same privacy act statement?
• The alert that appears when you unselect the non-VA medical record authorization includes this text: "Or, go back a page and select No where we ask about private medical records." Does this need to be changed to "non-VA medical records"?

[anniebtran]

Still waiting on some feedback about H1s and subtitles, etc.

[eileen-coforma]

Approval from Julie to move on updates. FIGMA link has been updated.

[Mottie]

Work merged in and ready for review in staging

[eileen-coforma]

@Mottie so fast. A few minor things

Introduction: This should read VA Form 21-4142 and 21-4142a

Authorize: H3 should read Authorize the release of non-VA medical records to the VA

[Mottie]

Fix has been merged in and ready for re-review

[jstrothman]

@Mottie When I click Continue on https://staging.va.gov/decision-reviews/supplemental-claim/file-supplemental-claim-form-20-0995/supporting-evidence/va-medical-records?index=0 the h3 "Would you like us to request your non-VA..." has a black outline, and I would have expected it to be yellow.

This also happens when I land on https://staging.va.gov/decision-reviews/supplemental-claim/file-supplemental-claim-form-20-0995/supporting-evidence/will-add-supporting-evidence

[jstrothman]

@Mottie @eileen-coforma On the intro page, the OMB info for 4142 has an expiration date of: 7/31/2024

At first I thought we should change the OMB info, as the pdf form we're generating has the previous expiration date. However, I see in reginfo.gov that the current expiration date of 7/31/2024 was assigned as an approval without any change to the form.

We should still update the form we generate, as described in this ticket -- and should make sure that the endpoint the stand-alone 4142 uses will be updated to the next version of the form at some point over the next year.

[Mottie]

h3 "Would you like us to request your non-VA..." has a black outline, and I would have expected it to be yellow.

This is a known issue and has been reported to the DST

• https://github.com/department-of-veterans-affairs/vets-design-system-documentation/issues/2521
• https://github.com/department-of-veterans-affairs/vets-design-system-documentation/issues/2936