Presentation on theme: "Advanced Health Models and Meaningful Use Workgroup: Roadmap Charge Overview Paul Tang, chair Joe Kimura, co-chair."— Presentation transcript:
1Advanced Health Models and Meaningful Use Workgroup: Roadmap Charge Overview Paul Tang, chairJoe Kimura, co-chair
2Purpose Of Use Cases & Prioritization The HIT Policy Committee has charged the AHM Workgroup with developing a repeatable process that identifies the priority use cases that would have the greatest impact on triple aim goals of healthier people/communities, better care, and more affordable care.ONC has asked the Advanced Health Models Workgroup to:Make a recommendation on a repeatable process for the prioritization of use cases.Test that process and prioritize the use cases featured in the Appendix H of the Roadmap in order to:Test to process to see if it works and is repeatableCome up with a preliminary set of prioritized uses casesInform the Interoperability RoadmapRecommend a set of actors who should be involved in the prioritization process and in maintaining the list of priority uses cases.
3Roadmap Use Cases Overview A use case is a descriptive statement that defines a scope (or boundary), interactions (or relationships) and specific roles played by actors (or stakeholders) to achieve a goal. The methodology is commonly used to support the identification of requirements and is a simple way to describe the functionalities or needs of an organization.Roadmap Appendix H provides a list of the priority use cases for nationwide interoperability most commonly submitted to ONC by federal, and other public and private stakeholders prior to release of the draft Roadmap.A defined process should help refine and prioritize this list of use cases to inform priorities for the development of technical standards, policies and implementation specifications.
4Prioritization Process Development Timeline Time frameTaskDetailFeb 17, 2015Discuss Draft Process & CriteriaDiscuss Draft Prioritization ProcessConfirm Criteria for process, (e.g. Impact, Timing of Need, Readiness)Feb 24, 2015Subgroup meeting: Rate all use cases based on Impact criteriaSubgroup edits/combines use cases as neededSubgroup ranks each use case according to triple aim impactResults shared with full WG prior to 2/27 mtgFeb 27, 2015Review Findings and Refine ProcessFull WG reviews small group experience with impact criteria and refines process accordinglyWG members have an opportunity to highlight use cases not identified by small groupWG tests rest of the prioritization process using high priority use cases identified by small groupTBDSubgroup meeting if neededAdditional time to complete scoring as neededMar 17, 2015Finalize recommendation to HITPCIncorporate final lessons from prioritization process experienceFinalize illustrative list of prioritized use cases from roadmapApr 7, 2015HITPC PresentationAHM co-chairs to brief HITPC on prioritization process and share preliminary set of priority use casesMay 2015 and beyondSequence use case related standards activitiesWork with HITSC to validate standards readiness issues on prioritized use cases and refine linkages to standards development work
5Conceptual Overview of Prioritization Elements Which use cases would be most impactful on triple aim goals?Priorities for policy and standards workPrioritized Use CasesUse Case AUse Case BUse Case C…Low hanging fruitReadinessGap in Policies or StandardsThe prioritization of use cases should not be a feasibility analysis, but instead an assessment of which use cases would be the most impactful (against the 6 NQF priorities which are derived from the 3 HHS Goals/Triple Aim). These may or may not have the necessary policies and standards, but are indeed where stakeholders should be investing resources. The feasibility or readiness assessment must also be performed in order to then catalyze action in order to advance the nation towards meeting the needs of the use cases (likely a combination of policies, standards and implementation guidance).Impact/Value of Use Case
6Process Overview Prioritization Elements Outputs Advanced Health Model InputProgram Timelines & Policy InputOperational Impacts & Adoption InputIntegrated AssessmentHHS Final Strategic DecisionsI. Triple AimII. Programmatic NeedsIII. Operational ReadinessIV. BeneficiariesV. Deliverable: Objective Assessment, Priorities Transparent RationaleIV. Strategic PrioritizationPrioritization ElementsOutputsComplete List of Submitted Use CasesPrioritized Short list of Use Cases
7I. Prioritization Element: Impact ObjectiveConsider how important the use case is to make progress on triple aim goals.Criteria DetailHealthy People/Healthy Communities: Improve the health of the U.S. population by supporting proven interventions to address behavioral, social and, environmental determinants of health in addition to delivering higher-quality care.Better Care: Improve the overall quality, by making health care more patient-centered, reliable, accessible, and safe.Affordable Care: Reduce the cost of quality health care for individuals, families, employers, and government.EvaluationDetermine a value from 1 – 3 for each aim to derive a score from 0 – 9.
8II. Prioritization Element: Programmatic Need ObjectiveConsider the timeframe in which the use case is needed to support key national goals.Criteria DetailNational Quality Strategy PrioritiesSafety. Making care safer by reducing harm caused in the delivery of carePatient Engagement. Ensuring that each person and family is engaged as partners in their care.Care Coordination. Promoting effective communication and coordination of care.Prevention. Promoting the most effective prevention and treatment practices for the leading causes of mortality, starting with cardiovascular diseaseCommunity. Working with communities to promote wide use of best practices to enable healthy living.Affordable. Making quality care more affordable for individuals, families, employers, and governments by developing and spreading new health care delivery models.HHS GoalsBetter care, Smarter spending, Healthier peopleHHS Delivery System Reform Goals30% of Medicare payments through alt. payment models by 2016, 50% by 201890% of FFS payments linked to quality and value by 2018Interoperability Roadmap2015 – Year: Send, receive find and use common clinical data set2018 – Year: Expand interoperability and HIT users to improve health and lower cost2021 – 2024 – 10 year: Achieve a nationwide learning health systemEvaluationRate impact on each need as “0” (no impact), “-” (minimal impact), or “+” (large impact).
10IV. Prioritization Element: Beneficiaries ObjectiveIdentify the stakeholder(s) that are the primary beneficiaries of adoption of the use case.Criteria DetailConsumer/PatientCommunityProviderPublic HealthResearchPayerEvaluationRate significance of impact on each beneficiary as “0” (not relevant), “-” (minor beneficiary), or “+” (primary beneficiary).
11Outputs V. Workgroup Deliverable Transparently conveys logic of prioritization processOpportunity for WG to provide additional context:What are critical dependencies for the use case?How will adoption of the use case accelerate other priorities?What are major areas of effort needed to support adoption of use case?VI. Strategic PrioritizationLeadership evaluates results of objective assessmentDetermines resource allocation and timing based on consideration of current strategic priorities.