HIT Policy Committee Adoption/Certification Workgroup Comments on NPRM, IFR Paul Egerman, Co-Chair Retired Marc Probst, Co-Chair Intermountain Healthcare.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Meaningful Use and Health Information Exchange

Advertisements

Dedicated to Hope, Healing and Recovery 0 Dec 2009 Interim/Proposed Rules Meaningful Use, Quality Reporting & Interoperability Standards January 10, 2010.

ARRA Meaningful Use Update Mount Auburn Hospital Information Systems Update March 2011.

Meaningful Use Stage I Core Objectives

Understanding Meaningful Use Presented by: Allison Bryan MS, CHES December 7, 2012 Purdue Research Foundation 2012 Review of Stage 1 and Stage 2.

2014 Certification Criteria associated with MU Menu Stage 2: 2014 Certification Criteria associated with MU Core Stage 2: 2014 Certification Criteria associated.

Implementing the American Reinvestment & Recovery Act of 2009.

Meaningful Use Performance Measures Report Carmen Land Meaningful Use National Team Business Analyst Data Networks Corporation contractor for US Indian.

Meeting Stage 1 Meaningful Use Criterion Carlos A. Leyva, Esq. Digital Business Law Group, P.A.

Proposed Establishment of Certification Programs for Health Information Technology Notice of Proposed Rulemaking HIT Standards Committee Presentation.

TWS July2011 Stimulation Part 2. TWS July 2011 Objective: Implement drug formulary checks. Measure: The EP has enabled this functionality and has access.

GOVERNMENT EHR FUNDING: MEANINGFUL USE STAGE 2 UPDATE October 25, 2012 Jonathan Krasner Healthcare IT Consultant BEI

HIT Standards Committee Clinical Operations Workgroup Report Jamie Ferguson, Chair Kaiser Permanente John Halamka, Co-chair Harvard Medical School 21 July,

The Standards Rule and the NPRM for Meaningful Use John D. Halamka MD.

Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) Certification Program June 19, 2013 Lauren Fifield, Policy Adviser, Practice Fusion.

Series 1: Meaningful Use for Behavioral Health Providers From the CIHS Video Series “Ten Minutes at a Time” Module 2: The Role of the Certified Complete.

MEANINGFUL USE UPDATE 2014 Mark Huang, M.D. Chief Medical Information Officer Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago Associate Professor Department of PM.

Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs HIT Policy Committee June 5, 2013.

Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs

August 12, Meaningful Use *** UDOH Informatics Brown Bag Robert T Rolfs, MD, MPH.

2010 UBO/UBU Conference Health Budgets & Financial Policy Briefing: ARRA ARRAn't You Going to Make Some Changes Too? Date: 23 March 2010 Time: 1010–1100.

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.

Meaningful Use: A Physician Practice View Jason M. Mitchell, MD Assistant Director Center for Health-IT at the AAFP.

EHRS as a Tool to Improve BP Control 1.Brief history of OQIUN, CCI. Began 1999 using data cards. Started working with multiple practice sites using different.

Installation and Maintenance of Health IT Systems Unit 8-2 System Selection- Software and Certification Component 8/Unit 2 1 Health IT Workforce Curriculum.

Series 1: Meaningful Use for Behavioral Health Providers From the CIHS Video Series “Ten Minutes at a Time” Module 2: The Role of the Certified Complete.

New Jersey Institute of Technology Enterprise Development Center (EDC) 211 Warren Street, Newark, NJ Phone: Fax:

NWH TRANSITION OF CARE DOCUMENT FOR MU STAGE 2 JUNE 6, 2014.

17 th Annual Scottsdale Institute Spring Conference April 14-16, 2010 Healthcare Leaders Embrace Reform Camelback Inn Scottsdale, AZ.

Christopher Geer, MBA Meaningful Use Project Manager Unity Health System

A First Look at Meaningful Use Stage 2 John D. Halamka MD.

What Did I Work on in Washington? John Glaser April 16, 2010.

Affordable Healthcare IT Solutions. MU RX Compliance with Meaningful Use Stage 2.

Implementation days 10 Days Onsite Training Additional Hardware Automated Workflow Paperless Environment MD with PC Tablet / iPad Workflow Analysis.

PHDSC session Readiness of public health information systems to support Meaningful Use of EHRs through health information exchanges.

Stage 2 Eligible Hospital and Critical Access Hospital (CAH) Meaningful Use Core and Menu Objectives.

Larry Wolf, chair Marc Probst, co-chair Certification / Adoption Workgroup March 19, 2014.

State HIE Program Chris Muir Program Manager for Western/Mid-western States.

GloStream and Meaningful Use August, Table of Contents Final rule from the ONC and CMS The gloStream path to truly meaningful use Medicare payment.

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.

Component 11: Configuring EHRs Unit 2: Meaningful Use of the Electronic Health Record (EHR) Lecture 1 This material was developed by Oregon Health & Science.

HIT Standards Committee Clinical Operations Workgroup Report Jamie Ferguson, Chair Kaiser Permanente John Halamka, Co-chair Harvard Medical School 20 August,

Unit 1b: Health Care Quality and Meaningful Use Introduction to QI and HIT This material was developed by Johns Hopkins University, funded by the Department.

1 Meaningful Use Stage 2 The Value of Performance Benchmarking.

Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs Jason McNamara Technical Director for Health IT.

Recommendations to the HIT Policy Committee on ONC Standards and Certification NPRM May 2, 2012 Certification and Adoption Workgroup Marc Probst, Intermountain.

Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs Robert Anthony HIT Policy Committee March 7, 2012.

©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.

Larry Wolf Certification / Adoption Workgroup May 13th, 2014.

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 Made Easy Step by Step Approach to Stage 1 Compliance and 2013 Changes My Vision Express Practice Management and EMR Software Presented.

HIT Standards Committee Overview and Progress Report March 17, 2010.

Meaningful Use: Stage 2 Changes An overall simplification of the program aligned to the overarching goals of sustainability as discussed in the Stage.

HIT Standards Committee Clinical Quality Workgroup Comments & Discussion on the Notice for Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) Electronic Health Record Incentive.

Washington and Idaho Regional Extension Center: Job Shadow Program Peggy Evans, PhD, CPHIT WIREC Director John Hartgraves WIREC Technical Manager Bellevue.

Creating an Interoperable Learning Health System for a Healthy Nation Jon White, M.D. Acting Deputy National Coordinator Office of the National Coordinator.

Configuring axiUm for Meaningful Use

Terminology in Healthcare and Public Health Settings Electronic Health Records Lecture a – Introduction to the EHR This material Comp3_Unit15 was developed.

2014 Edition Test Scenarios Development Overview Presenter: Scott Purnell-Saunders, ONC November 12, 2013 DRAFT.

Moving Toward HITECH Healthcare EHR Adoption at the Dawn of a New Era

HIT Policy Committee Health Information Exchange Workgroup Comments on Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) and Interim Final Rule (IFR) Deven McGraw,

 By phone: 1) Dial ) Enter conference ID: # Join the audio conference:  Via internet: 1) Click the phone icon 2) Click “Connect”

Stage 2 Beyond the First Year on MU in 2014 Presenters: Randy Marsden – Chief Client Officer Leo Vilenskiy – Senior Customer Support Representative Rebecca.

The Value of Performance Benchmarking

Presentation transcript:

HIT Policy Committee Adoption/Certification Workgroup Comments on NPRM, IFR Paul Egerman, Co-Chair Retired Marc Probst, Co-Chair Intermountain Healthcare February 17, 2010

Administrative Burden of 16 EP Metrics 1.CPOE Usage Percentage 2.Percentage of relevant prescriptions transmitted electronically with e-prescribing 3.Percentage of unique patients with electronic up to date problem list 4.Percentage of unique patients with active medication list maintained 5.Percentage of all unique patients with an active allergy list 6.Percentage of all unique patients with recorded demographics 7.Percentage of all unique patients with vitals recorded and charted 8.Percentage of patients 13 years and older with smoking status recorded in EHR

Administrative Burden of 16 EP Metrics (continued) 9.Percentage of EHR records with structured laboratory data 10.Percentage of all unique patients sent reminders 11.Percentage of patients whose eligibility status is electronically checked 12.Percentage of claims submitted electronically 13.Percentage of patients provided with electronic copies of medical records 14.Percentage of patients with timely access to health information 15.Percentage of office visits in which clinical summaries are provided 16.Percentage of relevant encounters with med reconciliation

Detailed Recommendations 1.Greater detail needed on how to calculate reporting metrics for items involving the percentage of electronic usage versus manual usage. Specifically, for each metric: –Are rough estimates accepted or is the metric expected to be precisely calculated? –Is manual review and counting of records expected, and if so, over what time period? –Can a statistical process be used? For example, is it acceptable to review all encounters for a single week to extrapolate percentages?

Detailed Recommendations (continued) 2.The IFR should include certification criteria for a section called “Reporting Metrics,” which would ensure automatic calculation of all metrics that are required to be reported. 3.The reporting process for Stage 2 of Meaningful Use should not require manual review of records or subjective judgments.

2009 Cert/Adopt WG Recommendations (reminder) 1.Focus Certification on Meaningful Use 2.Leverage Certification process to improve progress on Security, Privacy, and Interoperability 3.Improve objectivity and transparency of the certification process 4.Expand Certification to include a range of software sources: Open source, self-developed, etc. 5.Develop a Short-Term Transition plan

Pleased with Response to many WG Recommendations IFR did focus on MU (recommendation #1) Specifying LOINC and RxNorm is a significant forward step toward interoperability (recommendation #2) Pleased to see Privacy and Security emphasis (recommendation #2) We applaud the emphasis on modular systems (recommendation #4)

Concern about IFR Interoperability Statement IFR:”We will consider adopting implementation specifications, though, for any or all adopted standards provided that there is convincing evidence submitted in public comment of the specifications’ maturity and widespread usage.”

Leveraging Certification for Interoperability Government needs to provide leadership in critical areas where use of mature standards may not exist— e.g., Laboratory. Evolving implementation specifications (guides) should be designated with a plus, indicating that subsequent revisions also meet regulations. This WG supports the Information Exchange WG’s recommendations to extend use of HL for laboratory exchange.

Greater Specificity of Interoperability Standards For each function with more than one standard, we recommend the adoption of a single standard for exchange. Alternatively, we request that ONC explain why more than one standard was specified and the circumstances for which a particular specification should be used. This comment refers to: –Submission to Public Health Agencies for Surveillance or Reporting (Table 2a, Row 7) –Submission to Immunization Registries (Table 2a, Row 8) –Problem List use of ICD 9 or SNOMED-CT (Table 2a, Row 1) –Use of Vocabularies LOINC, UCUM, and SNOMED-CT for laboratory reporting (Table2a, Row 6-Stage 2)

Transition Plan to New Certification Process Establish a transition plan, or make a transition statement about how Certification will be handled until the new process is put into place.

HIT Safety Hearing Thursday, February 25, 2010 Topics for review – Identifying the Issues –Stakeholders –Possible Approaches

Appendix

Lab Recommendations—Agree with Info Exchange WG 1. For laboratory transactions, adopt the implementation guide for HL which has been approved by the HIT Standards Committee. 2. For Hospitals, extend the certification criteria for HL for the submission of lab results to other providers (in addition to state public health agencies). 3. Extend the certification criteria for HL to also include receipt of laboratory data.

Additional Detailed Recommendations 4. When there exists an important interoperability need and there does not exist mature standards or Implementation Specifications (guides), the government should adopt standards and implementation specifications (guides) with a “plus sign”. The “plus sign” indicates that future revisions also meet regulations.