Meaningful Use Workgroup Population and Public Health – Subgroup 4 Art Davidson, Chair September 11, 2012.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Meaningful Use and Health Information Exchange
Advertisements

Vendor Orientation Meaningful Use Informatics Division.
Understanding Meaningful Use Presented by: Allison Bryan MS, CHES December 7, 2012 Purdue Research Foundation 2012 Review of Stage 1 and Stage 2.
Meaningful Use Workgroup Stage 3 Recommendations Paul Tang, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Chair George Hripcsak, Columbia University, Co-Chair.
Meaningful Use Stage 2 Proposed Rule
Meeting Stage 1 Meaningful Use Criterion Carlos A. Leyva, Esq. Digital Business Law Group, P.A.
Meaningful Use Workgroup Subgroup 4 – Population and Public Health May 13, 2013 Art Davidson, subgroup chair George Hripcsack, MU WG co-chair.
Meaningful Use Workgroup Improve Quality Safety, Efficiency and Reducing Health Disparities Subgroup 1 Meaningful Use Workgroup Improve Quality Safety,
Meaningful Use Workgroup Pathways for Meaningful Use Stage 3 1.
TWS July2011 Stimulation Part 2. TWS July 2011 Objective: Implement drug formulary checks. Measure: The EP has enabled this functionality and has access.
Sanjeev Tandon, MD, MS Public Health and Electronic Health Records Meaningful Use Office of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services Public.
Meaningful Use, Standards and Certification Under HITECH—Implications for Public Health InfoLinks Community of Practice January 14, 2010 Bill Brand, MPH,
Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs HIT Policy Committee June 5, 2013.
Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs
Montana Medicaid Electronic Health Records Incentive Program for Eligible Hospitals This presentation will focus on information related to your registration.
August 12, Meaningful Use *** UDOH Informatics Brown Bag Robert T Rolfs, MD, MPH.
A First Look at Meaningful Use Stage 2 John D. Halamka MD.
Meaningful Use Stage 2 Esthee Van Staden September 2014.
Meaningful Use Measures. Reporting Time Periods Reporting Period for 1 st year of MU (Stage 1) 90 consecutive days within the calendar year Reporting.
Saeed A. Khan MD, MBA, FACP © CureMD Healthcare ACOs and Requirements for Reporting Quality Measures Meaningful Use Are you still missing out? © CureMD.
Meaningful Use Workgroup Stage 3 – Preliminary Recommendations Paul Tang, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Chair George Hripcsak, Columbia University, Co-Chair.
HIT Policy Committee: Meaningful Use Workgroup Stage 3 – Preliminary Recommendations Debrief Paul Tang, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Chair George Hripcsak,
HIT Policy Committee: Meaningful Use Workgroup Stage 3 – Preliminary Recommendations Paul Tang, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Chair George Hripcsak, Columbia.
Health IT Policy Committee Request for Comment (RFC) Michelle Consolazio, ONC.
Meaningful Use Workgroup Paul Tang, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Chair George Hripcsak, Columbia University, Co-Chair July 27, 2012.
DRAFT Paul Tang, Chair George Hripcsak, Co-Chair Meaningful Use Workgroup October 28, 2013.
Prepared by: Health Technology Services Regional Extension Center A division of Mountain-Pacific Quality Health.
Review of Population and Public Health Objectives Stage 3 MU
A First Look at Meaningful Use Stage 2 John D. Halamka MD.
Meaningful Use Workgroup Subgroup 4 – Population and Public Health June 12, 2013 Art Davidson, subgroup chair George Hripcsak, MU WG co-chair.
Meaningful Use Workgroup Stage 3 Recommendations Paul Tang, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Chair George Hripcsak, Columbia University, Co-Chair.
Medicaid EHR Incentive Program For Eligible Professionals Overview of the Proposed 2015 Modification Rule Kim Davis-Allen Outreach Coordinator
Universal Adoption of the EHR What is Meaningful Use and why should it be important to me?
Affordable Healthcare IT Solutions. MU RX Compliance with Meaningful Use Stage 2.
Meaningful Use Workgroup Subgroup 4 – Population and Public Health May 1, 2013 Art Davidson, subgroup chair George Hripcsack, MU WG co-chair.
HIT Policy Committee: Meaningful Use Workgroup Stage 3 – Preliminary Recommendations Debrief Paul Tang, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Chair George Hripcsak,
Meaningful Use Workgroup Stage 3 – Preliminary Recommendations Paul Tang, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Chair George Hripcsak, Columbia University, Co-Chair.
State HIE Program Chris Muir Program Manager for Western/Mid-western States.
HIT Policy Committee: Meaningful Use Workgroup Stage 3 – Preliminary Recommendations Debrief Paul Tang, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Chair George Hripcsak,
Making better healthcare possible ® Meaningful Use Stage 2 The Changing Seasons of Healthcare Conference WV-HFMA/WV-HIMSS September 27, 2012.
Stage 2 Meaningful Use Improve Population and Public Health 1.
Syndromic Surveillance Configuring RPMS-EHR for Meaningful Use Resource Patient Management System.
1 Meaningful Use Stage 2 The Value of Performance Benchmarking.
Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs Stage 2 Final Rule Travis Broome HIT Standards Committee
DRAFT Paul Tang, Chair George Hripcsak, Co-Chair Meaningful Use Workgroup October 24, 2013.
HIT Policy Committee: Meaningful Use Workgroup Stage 3 – Preliminary Recommendations Paul Tang, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Chair George Hripcsak, Columbia.
©2011 Falcon, LLC. All rights reserved. Proprietary. May not be copied or distributed without the express written permission of Falcon, LLC. Falcon EHR.
June 18, 2010 Marty Larson.  Health Information Exchange  Meaningful Use Objectives  Conclusion.
Stage 3 Update Paul Tang, Chair George Hripcsak, Co-Chair Meaningful Use Workgroup January 28, 2014.
Syndromic Surveillance Data Submission EHR & MU for HIM Professionals Resource Patient Management System.
Christopher H. Tashjian, MD, FAAFP July 23, 2013, Washington D.C.
Public Health Reporting Initiative Stage 3 Sprint: Implementation Guide Development 1.
HIT Policy Committee Stage 2 Recommendations Presentation to HIT Standards Committee June 22, 2011.
Component 11/Unit 2a Meaningful Use of the Electronic Health Record (EHR)
Meaningful Use Workgroup Improving Care Coordination – Subgroup 3 Charlene Underwood, Chair September 2012.
Meaningful Use: Stage 2 Changes An overall simplification of the program aligned to the overarching goals of sustainability as discussed in the Stage.
CMS Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Programs Final Rule Overview 1 Robert Anthony.
Meaningful Use Workgroup New Pathways for Meaningful Use Stage 3 April 3, 2013 Paul Tang, MD George Hripcsak, MD Christine Bechtel 1.
New Jersey Institute of Technology Enterprise Development Center (EDC) 211 Warren Street, Newark, NJ Phone: Fax:
Health IT Policy Committee Meeting November 4, 2014 Data Analytics Update 1.
Final Rule Regarding EHR Certification Flexibility for 2014 Today’s presenters: Al Wroblewski, Client Services Relationship Manager Thomas Bennett, Client.
Meaningful Use Workgroup Subgroup 2 - Engaging Patients and Families Christine Bechtel, Subgroup Chair Paul Tang, MU WG Chair July 2,
Electronic Exchange of Clinical Information Configuring RPMS-EHR for Meaningful Use Resource Patient Management System.
Moving Toward HITECH Healthcare EHR Adoption at the Dawn of a New Era
Meaningful Use Workgroup Stage 3 Recommendations Paul Tang, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Chair George Hripcsak, Columbia University, Co-Chair.
HIT Policy Committee Health Information Exchange Workgroup Comments on Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) and Interim Final Rule (IFR) Deven McGraw,
Meaningful Use Objectives Overview Massachusetts Medicaid EHR Incentive Program September 16, 2016 Today’s presenters: Brendan Gallagher Thomas.
2017 Modified Stage 2 Meaningful Use Objectives Overview Massachusetts Medicaid EHR Incentive Program September 19 & 20, 2017 September 19,
Modified Stage 2 Meaningful Use: Objective #10 – Public Health Reporting Massachusetts Medicaid EHR Incentive Payment Program July 21, 2016 Today’s presenter:
Presentation transcript:

Meaningful Use Workgroup Population and Public Health – Subgroup 4 Art Davidson, Chair September 11, 2012

Guiding Principles Supports new model of care (e.g., team-based, outcomes-oriented, population management) Addresses national health priorities (e.g., NQS, Million Hearts) Broad applicability (since MU is a floor) − Provider specialties (e.g., primary care, specialty care) − Patient health needs − Areas of the country Promotes advancement -- Not "topped out" or not already driven by market forces Achievable -- mature standards widely adopted or could be widely adopted by 2016 Reasonableness/feasibility of products or organizational capacity Reasonableness/feasibility of products or organizational capacity − Prefer to have standards available if not widely adopted − Don’t want standards to be an excuse for not moving forward MU Workgroup Stage 2 Final Rule2

Key to reviewing items Red items are changes from Stage 1 to Stage 2 Blue items are changes from Stage 2 to Stage 3 recommendations MU Workgroup Stage 2 Final Rule3

4 ID Stage 1 Final Rule Stage 2 Final RuleStage 3 RecommendationsStage 4 Placeholder SGRP4 01A MENU: Perform at least one test of the capability to submit electronic data to immunization registries EP/EH Objective: Capability to submit electronic data to immunization registries or immunization information systems except where prohibited, and in accordance with applicable law and practice EP/EH Measure: Successful ongoing submission of electronic immunization data from Certified EHR Technology to an immunization registry or immunization information system for the entire EHR reporting period EP/ EH Objective (New): Capability to receive a patient’s immunization history supplied by an immunization registry or immunization information system, and to enable healthcare professionals to use structured historical immunization events in the clinical workflow, except where prohibited, and in accordance with applicable law and practice. Measure: Documentation of timely and successful electronic receipt by the Certified EHR Technology of vaccine history (including null results) from an immunization registry or immunization information system for 30% of patients who received immunizations from the EP/EH during the entire EHR reporting period. Exclusion: EPs and EHs that administer no immunizations or jurisdictions where immunization registries/immunization information systems cannot provide electronic immunization histories. Certification criteria: EHR is able to receive and present a standard set of structured, externally- generated, immunization history and capture the act and date of review within the EP/EH practice. Stage 4 EP/EH Objective: Add submission of vaccine contraindication(s) and reason(s) for substance refusal to the current objective of successful ongoing immunization data submission to registry or immunization information systems. Improve Population and Public Health MU Workgroup Stage 2 Final Rule

Improve Population and Public Health MU Workgroup Stage 2 Final Rule5 IDStage 1 Final RuleStage 2 Final RuleStage 3 Recommendations Stage 4 Placeholder SGRP4 01B New for Stage 3 EP/EH Objective (New): Capability to receive, generate or access appropriate age-, gender- and immunization history-based recommendations (including immunization events from immunization registries or immunization information systems) as applicable by local or state policy. Measure: Implement an immunization recommendation system that: 1) establishes baseline recommendations (e.g., Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices), and 2) allows for local/state variations. For 20% of patients receiving an immunization, the EP/EH practice receives the recommendation before giving an immunization. Exclusion: EPs and EHs that administer no immunizations. Certification criteria: EHR uses a standard (e.g., national, state and/or local) rule set, plus patient age, gender, and prior immunization history to recommend administration of immunizations; capture the act and date/time of recommendation review.

6 IDStage 1 Final RuleStage 2 Final RuleStage 3 RecommendationsStage 4 Placeholder SGRP4 02A Perform at least one test of the capability to submit electronic data on reportable lab results to public health agencies and actual submission in accordance with applicable law and practice EH Objective: Capability to submit electronic reportable laboratory results to public health agencies, except where prohibited, and in accordance with applicable law and practice Measure: Successful ongoing submission of electronic reportable laboratory results from Certified EHR Technology to public health agencies for the entire EHR reporting period as authorized. EH Objective (unchanged): No change from current requirement for electronic lab reporting which generally is sent from the laboratory information system Improve Population and Public Health MU Workgroup Stage 2 Final Rule

Improve Population and Public Health MU Workgroup Stage 2 Final Rule7 IDStage 1 Final RuleStage 2 Final Rule Stage 3 Recommendations Undetermined SGRP4 02B More information from RFC - New RFC ONLY (Stage undetermined): EP Objective (new): Capability to use externally accessed or received knowledge (e.g. reporting criteria) to determine when a case report should be reported and then submit the initial report to a public health agency, except where prohibited, and in accordance with applicable law and practice. Measure: Attestation of submission of standardized initial case reports to public health agencies on 20% of all reportable disease or conditions during the entire EHR reporting period as authorized, and in accordance with applicable state/local law and practice. Certification criteria: The EHR uses external data to prompt the end-user when criteria are met for case reporting. The date and time of prompt is available for audit. Standardized (e.g., consolidated CDA) case reports are submitted to the state/local jurisdiction and the data/time of submission is available for audit RFC ONLY

8 IDStage 1 Final RuleStage 2 Final Rule Stage 3 Recommendations Stage 4 Placeholder SGRP4 03 Perform at least one test of the capability to submit electronic syndromic surveillance data to public health agencies and actual submission in accordance with applicable law and practice EP MENU Objective: Capability to submit electronic syndromic surveillance data to public health agencies, except where prohibited, and in accordance with applicable law and practice EH Objective: Capability to submit electronic syndromic surveillance data to public health agencies, except where prohibited, and in accordance with applicable law and practice EP/EH Measure: Successful ongoing submission of electronic syndromic surveillance data from Certified EHR Technology to a public health agency for the entire EHR reporting period No change from current requirements. Improve Population and Public Health MU Workgroup Stage 2 Final Rule

Improve Population and Public Health MU Workgroup Stage 2 Final Rule9 ID Stage 1 Final Rule Stage 2 Final RuleStage 3 RecommendationsStage 4 Placeholder SGRP4 04 N/AEP MENU Objective: Capability to identify and report cancer cases to a public health central cancer registry, except where prohibited, and in accordance with applicable law and practice. EP MENU Measure: Successful ongoing submission of cancer case information from CEHRT to a public health central cancer registry for the entire EHR reporting period EH/EP Objective (New, pending Stage 2 Rule): Capability to electronically participate and send standardized, commonly formatted reports to a mandated jurisdictional registry (e.g., cancer, children with special needs, and/or early hearing detection and intervention) from Certified EHR to either local/state health departments, except where prohibited, and in accordance with applicable law and practice. This objective is in addition to prior requirements for submission to an immunization registry. Measure: Documentation of ongoing successful electronic transmission of standardized reports from the Certified EHR Technology to the jurisdictional registry. Attestation of submission for at least 20% of all patients who meet registry inclusion criteria during the entire EHR reporting period as authorized, and in accordance with applicable State law and practice. Certification criteria: EHR is able to build and then send a standardized report (e.g., standard message format) to an external mandated registry, maintain an audit of those reports, and track total number of reports sent. Exclusion: where local or state health departments have no mandated registries or are incapable of receiving these standardized reports

10 ID Stage 1 Final Rule Stage 2 Final Rule Stage 3 Recommendations Stage 4 Placeholder SGRP4 05 N/A EP MENU Objective: Capability to identify and report specific cases to a specialized registry (other than a cancer registry), except where prohibited, and in accordance with applicable law and practice. EP MENU Measure: Successful ongoing submission of specific case information from Certified EHR Technology to a specialized registry for the entire EHR reporting period RFC ONLY (Stage undetermined): EP Objective (New, pending Stage 2 Rule): Capability to electronically submit standardized reports to an additional registry beyond any prior meaningful use requirements (e.g., immunizations, cancer, early hearing detection and intervention, and/or children with special needs). Registry examples include hypertension, diabetes, body mass index, devices, and/or other diagnoses/conditions) from the Certified EHR to a jurisdictional, professional or other aggregating resources (e.g., HIE, ACO), except where prohibited, and in accordance with applicable law and practice. Measure: Documentation of successful ongoing electronic transmission of standardized (e.g., consolidated CDA) reports from the Certified EHR Technology to a jurisdictional, professional or other aggregating resource. Attestation of submission for at least 20% of all patients who meet registry inclusion criteria during the entire EHR reporting period as authorized, and in accordance with applicable state/local law and practice. Certification criteria: EHR is able to build and send a standardized message report format to an external registry, maintain an audit of those reports, and track total number of reports sent. Note: This objective is the same as the previous, but adds a second registry and does not need to be jurisdictional. Improve Population and Public Health MU Workgroup Stage 2 Final Rule RFC ONLY

Improve Population and Public Health MU Workgroup Stage 2 Final Rule11 IDStage 1 Final RuleStage 2 Final RuleStage 3 RecommendationsStage 4 Placeholder SGRP4 07 New for Stage 3 EH Objective (new): Capability to electronically send standardized Healthcare Associated Infection (HAI) reports to the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) using a common format from the Certified EHR, except where prohibited, and in accordance with applicable law and practice. Measure: Documentation of successful electronic transmission of standardized healthcare acquired infection reports to the NHSN from the Certified EHR Technology. Total numeric count of HAI in the hospital and attestation of Certified EHR electronic submission of at least 20% of all reports during the entire EHR reporting period as authorized, and in accordance with applicable State law and practice. Certification criteria: EHR is able to sending a standard HAI message to NHSN, maintain an audit and track total number of reports sent.

MU Workgroup Stage 2 Final Rule12 IDStage 1 Final RuleStage 2 Final RuleStage 3 RecommendationsUndetermined SGRP4 08 RFC ONLY RFC ONLY (Stage undetermined): EH/EP Objective (new): Capability to electronically send adverse event reports (e.g., vaccines, devices, EHR, drugs or biologics) to the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) and/or Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from the Certified EHR, except where prohibited, and in accordance with applicable law and practice. Measure: Attestation of successful electronic transmission of standardized adverse event reports to the FDA/CDC from the Certified EHR Technology. Total numeric count (null is acceptable) of adverse event reports from the EH/EP submitted electronically during the entire EHR reporting period as authorized, and in accordance with applicable State law and practice. Certification criteria: EHR is able to build and send a standardized adverse event report message to FDA/CDC and maintain an audit of those reports sent to track number of reports sent Improve Population and Public Health RFC ONLY