Agreed, allow the specification of Quality #, Quality Domain, and Meaningful Measure Area as attributes of the appearance of a measure in a quality program. Requires three extensions to the QualityProgram profile: cqfm-programIdentifier 0..* Identifier An identifier for the measure within a quality program cqfm-qualityDomain 0..1 CodeableConcept The quality domain for a measure within a quality program cqfm-meaningfulMeasureArea 0..1 CodeableConcept The meaningful measure area for a measure within a quality program. Note that although this information could (and sometimes would) be specified as useContext elements within the measure itself, these are really attributes of the appearance of a measure within a quality program (i.e. the same measure may be assigned different quality domain and meaningful measure areas in different quality programs). In addition, the timing is different, in that the assignment of a particular measure to a quality domain or meaningful measure area within a quality program happens after the measure is already finalized and released as part of an annual update. Add to the definition of the Quality Program description that this is supporting the definition of Quality Programs, and that the set of identified quality programs is not exhaustive and this IG is not prescribing codes for programs, that's a content concern. Also add this to the binding description, value set and code system descriptions, and element descriptions for programs to make sure that from whatever perspective a user sees this information, it's clear that it is not prescriptive.