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

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.

2014 Edition Release 2 EHR Certification Criteria Final Rule.

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

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.

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

Interoperability and Health Information Exchange Workgroup April 17, 2015 Micky Tripathi, chair Chris Lehmann, co-chair.

Interoperability and Health Information Exchange Workgroup March 10, 2015 Micky Tripathi, chair Chris Lehmann, co-chair.

CMS NPRM proposes requirements for Stage 3 of EHR Incentive Programs (in FR March 30, 2015) In conjunction with.

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

Electronic Health Records – Meaningful Use, Certification, and the Regulatory Rulemaking Process June 18, 2015 Lori Mihalich-Levin,JD

Meaningful Use, Standards and Certification Under HITECH—Implications for Public Health InfoLinks Community of Practice January 14, 2010 Bill Brand, MPH,

ONC Policy and Program Update Health IT Standards Committee Meeting July 17, 2013 Jodi Daniel Director, Office of Policy and Planning, ONC 0.

1 Dinetia M. Newman Balch & Bingham LLP MEANINGFUL USE: HISTORY AND TIPS ON IMPLICATIONS FOR FORREST GENERAL HOSPITAL Presented.

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

Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs

Criteria for HIT Stimulus Funding: Meaningful Use and Certification Requirements May 4, 2010 Meaningful Use Critical Access Hospital September 16, 2010.

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.

Saeed A. Khan MD, MBA, FACP © CureMD Healthcare ACOs and Requirements for Reporting Quality Measures Meaningful Use Are you still missing out? © CureMD.

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:

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.

HIT Policy Committee Meaningful Use Workgroup Proposed Recommendations on MU Notice of Proposed Rule Making Paul Tang, Chair Palo Alto Medical Foundation.

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

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

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

Configuring Electronic Health Records Meaningful Use and Implementation Lecture a This material (Comp11_Unit8a) was developed by Oregon Health & Science.

HIT Policy Committee NHIN Workgroup Recommendations Phase 2 David Lansky, Chair Pacific Business Group on Health Danny Weitzner, Co-Chair Department of.

Page 0 10/19/201510/19/2015 Meaningful Use of Health IT: Laboratory Data Capturing and Reporting Nikolay Lipskiy, MD, DrPH, MBA CDC, PHITPO.

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

Certification and Adoption Workgroup – Policy Committee Update on the ONC Standards and Certification NPRM Marc Probst, workgroup co-chair Larry Wolf,

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.

Information Exchange WG HIT Policy Committee Information Exchange Workgroup Micky Tripathi, MA eHealth Collaborative CHAIR 04/04/2012 Office of the National.

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

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

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

©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.

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)

Information Exchange Workgroup Recommendations to HIT Policy Committee October 3, 2012 Micky Tripathi, Larry Garber.

Maine Health Information Technology (HIT)Status Report for MaineCare and Office of the State Coordinator for HIT Project Team: Andy Coburn Cathy McGuire.

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 Clinical Operations Workgroup Jamie Ferguson Kaiser Permanente John Halamka Harvard University February 24, 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.

HIT Policy Committee Health Information Exchange Workgroup Deven McGraw, Center for Democracy & Technology Micky Tripathi, Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative.

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

Electronic Clinical Quality Measures – Session #1 ONC Resource Center.

Privacy and Security Tiger Team Potential Questions for Request for Comment Meaningful Use Stage 3 October 3, 2012.

Meaningful Use Measures Series – Session 3 Objectives related to interoperability and exchanging data to outside entity 1.

Status Update Deven McGraw, Chair Center for Democracy & Technology Micky Tripathi, Co-Chair Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative May 19, HIT Policy.

CDSS, queries and statistics FLL July 2011 Claudia Wente-Waedlich.

Medicaid EHR Incentive Program Updates eHealth Services and Support September 24, 2014 Today’s presenter: Nicole Bennett, Provider Enrollment and Verification.

The Impact of Proposed Meaningful Use Modifications for June 23, 2015 Today’s presenters: Al Wroblewski, Client Services Relationship Manager.

Certification and Adoption Workgroup HIT Policy Committee April 28, 2014 Discussion on Incremental Rulemakings.

Electronic Exchange of Clinical Information Configuring RPMS-EHR for Meaningful Use Resource Patient Management System.

Interoperability Measurement for the MACRA Section 106(b) ONC Briefing for HIT Policy and Standards Committee April 19, 2016.

Regulatory Roundtable Meaningful Use & HIPAA Kathy Branca Ray Harms.

Rural Health Summit June 11, 2010.

Health Information Exchange for Eligible Clinicians 2019

Presentation transcript:

HIT Policy Committee Health Information Exchange Workgroup Comments on Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) and Interim Final Rule (IFR) Deven McGraw, Chair Center for Democracy & Technology Micky Tripathi, Co-Chair Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative February 17, 2010

- 1 - BACKGROUND 1.EPs required to incorporate significant amount of structured data, but IFR and NPRM do not make it any easier for providers to accomplish that objective. No content exchange standard for EHR systems to receive structured data Hospitals deliver majority of labs across the country, but NPRM and IFR impose no requirements on hospitals to send structured data to EPs, and no standards if they do 2.Even where standards are specified, they are ambiguous and do not provide the amount of clarity needed to motivate vendor innovation and development. 3.Without significant strengthening of the lab portions of the NPRM and IFR, may need to consider weakening other NPRM Stage 1 objectives that rely on availability of structured lab data. 4.The federal government has a wide variety of levers it can use to reinforce the NPRM and IFR.

- 2 - RECOMMENDATIONS THAT DIRECTLY ADDRESS LABS EPHospitalStage 1 measure NPRM Incorporate clinical lab-test results into EHR as structured data Incorporate clinical lab test results into EHR as structured data At least 50% of all clinical lab tests ordered whose results are in a positive/negative or numerical format are incorporated in certified EHR technology as structured data na Capability to provide electronic submission of reportable lab results (as required by state or local law) to public health agencies and actual submission where it can be received Performed at least one test of the EHR system's capacity to provide electronic submission of reportable lab results to public health agencies IFR na Submission of lab results to public health agencies (content exchange) HL (Cx) LOINC when LOINC received from lab (V) na Submission to public health agencies for surveillance or reporting HL or (Cx) Locally defined (V) na

- 3 - RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE INDIRECTLY AFFECTED BY RECOMMENDATIONS ON LABS EP or hospitalStage 1 measure NPRM Generate lists of patients by specific conditions to use for quality improvement, reduction of disparities, and Outreach Generate at least one report listing patients of the EP or eligible hospital with a specific condition. Report ambulatory quality measures to CMS or the States For 2011, provide aggregate numerator and denominator through attestation as discussed in section II(A)(3) of this proposed rule. For 2012, electronically submit the measures as discussed in section II(A)(3) of this proposed rule Implement 5 clinical decision support rules relevant to specialty or high clinical priority, including diagnostic test ordering, along with the ability to track compliance with those Rules Implement 5 clinical decision support rules relevant to the clinical quality metrics the EP/Eligible Hospital is responsible for as described further in section II(A)(3). Provide patients with an electronic copy of their health information (including diagnostic test results, problem list, medication lists, allergies), upon Request At least 80% of all patients who request an electronic copy of their health information are provided it within 48 Hours Provide patients with timely electronic access to their health information (including lab results, problem list, medication lists, allergies) within 96 hours of the information being available to the EP At least 10% of all unique patients seen by the EP are provided timely electronic access to their health Information

- 4 - RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO NPRM AND IFR Stage 1 - Labs Adopt the HL Implementation Guide, which specifies HL and LOINC specifications, as the definition of “structured data” for EHR lab results (NPRM) Extend the same HL certification criteria for hospital lab reporting to all lab result reporting (not just to public health reporting as currently specified) (IFR) Require hospitals to demonstrate this capability through at least one test (parallel with public health reporting requirement) (NPRM) Include HL content exchange standard in certification criteria for EP and hospital EHR technology (not just vocabulary standard as currently specified) (IFR) Reduce options for public health reporting content exchange and vocabulary standards, or at a minimum explain the circumstances in which each of the standards would be required (IFR & NPRM) Stage 1 - eRX eRX – refine eRX measure to account for markets in which 75% eRX may not be possible (for example, due to low pharmacy participation in Surescripts) (NPRM) Stage 2 - Labs IFR and NPRM: Signal requirements for ordering

- 5 - OTHER RECOMMENDED ONC ACTIONS The Office of the National Coordinator (ONC) should support efforts to release CLIA Survey and Cert Letter as soon as possible. CLIA is policy lever that can be used more aggressively to get labs more quickly into compliance ONC does not oversee CLIA but has worked closely on these rules with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) ONC’s support of stronger CLIA guidance will bolster HHS’ efforts overall to promote lab result standardization State HIT Coordinator should be required or encouraged to work with state CLIA administrators to align state-level lab approach with national CLIA, standards, and certification requirements. Federal and state employee health programs could require contractors to use such standards.