The IP approach CMS applies today is a reasonable model and should continue: anything built as part of a paid contract is government property, as is any data generated or collected through that work, while genuinely pre-built commercial products that require no customization appropriately remain vendor IP. If the government pays for code to be written, the government owns that code. There is no reasonable basis for a vendor to retain rights over work the public funded.
The extension worth making as part of the standards program: pair government ownership with open publication as the default, and let publication do the assurance work that standards checklists currently pretend to do. In the mechanism I have drafted as proposed legislation, every delivered solution, including source code, frameworks, and documentation, is published quarterly to a public repository under an OSI-approved open source license, with personally identifiable and health information removed or synthesized. Each published solution is then open to comment and review by any person in the country across four dimensions: accessibility, privacy, security vulnerabilities, and whether existing solutions better achieve the same outcome. Findings are collected, triaged, and reported publicly. This is not publication after a security review; the publication is the review, and it is more rigorous than any checklist because the reviewers are unlimited, motivated, and uninvited. The fourth review dimension deserves particular attention: a standing public mechanism for surfacing better existing alternatives is the cheapest duplicate-spend prevention the ecosystem could have, and it directly serves the reuse goals this RFI describes.