Information Exchange Workgroup’s Recommendations on the HIE Request for Information April 3, 2013 Information Exchange Workgroup Micky Tripathi.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Longitudinal Coordination of Care LTPAC SWG Monday August 19, 2013.
Advertisements

Functional Requirements and Health IT Standards Considerations for STAGE 3 Meaningful Use for Long-Term and Post-Acute Care (LTPAC) Update to the HITPC.
Accountable Care Workgroup December 13, Agenda Call to Order/Roll Call Discussion – Discuss Key Messages/Takeaways from the Accountable Care Workgroup.
Quality Measures Vendor Tiger Team December 13, 2013.
Quality Measures Vendor Tiger Team January 30, 2014.
Electronic Submission of Medical Documentation (esMD) Face to Face Informational Session esMD Requirements, Priorities and Potential Workgroups – 2:00pm.
Understanding Meaningful Use Presented by: Allison Bryan MS, CHES December 7, 2012 Purdue Research Foundation 2012 Review of Stage 1 and Stage 2.
Building the Digital Infrastructure for Vermont’s Learning Health System ONC HIT Policy Committee Testimony September 14, 2011 Hunt Blair, Deputy Commissioner.
Truven Health Analytics State Exchanges - Data Collection & Analysis April 2014.
Overview of Longitudinal Coordination of Care (LCC) Presentation to HIT Steering Committee May 24, 2012.
Interoperability and Health Information Exchange Workgroup April 17, 2015 Micky Tripathi, chair Chris Lehmann, co-chair.
Data Gathering HITPC Workplan HITPC Request for Comments HITSC Committee Recommendations gathered by ONC HITSC Workgroup Chairs ONC Meaningful Use Stage.
July 3, 2015 New HIE Capabilities Enable Breakthroughs In Connected And Coordinated Care Delivery. January 8, 2015 Charissa Fotinos.
Better, Smarter, Healthier Delivery System Reform Presentation to the Health IT Policy Committee March 10, 2015 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Connecting Health and Care for the Nation: A Shared Nationwide Interoperability Roadmap – DRAFT Version 1.0 Joint FACA Meeting Chartese February 10, 2015.
Meaningful Use, Standards and Certification Under HITECH—Implications for Public Health InfoLinks Community of Practice January 14, 2010 Bill Brand, MPH,
Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) Certification Program June 19, 2013 Lauren Fifield, Policy Adviser, Practice Fusion.
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
Protecting and Promoting the Practice of Good Medicine Getting Started with Meaningful Use: The impact on the professional eligible provider MMIC Health.
August 12, Meaningful Use *** UDOH Informatics Brown Bag Robert T Rolfs, MD, MPH.
Meaningful Use Stage 2 Esthee Van Staden September 2014.
Electronic Submission of Medical Documentation (esMD) Face to Face Informational Session Charter Discussion – 9:30am – 10:00am October 18, 2011.
HIE Request for Information March 26, 2013 Information Exchange Workgroup Micky Tripathi.
HIT Policy Committee Accountable Care Workgroup – Kickoff Meeting May 17, :00 – 2:00 PM Eastern.
WHAT'S AHEAD? Kathy Whitmire Dale Gibson February 15, 2011 HIPAA 5010, ICD-10, ACO's, VBP, HIGLAS, PECOS.
Kevin Larsen MD Medical Director, Meaningful Use Office of the National Coordinator of Health IT Improving Outcomes with HIT ASCO Oct
August 10, 2011 A Leading Provider of Consulting and Systems Engineering Services to Public Health Organizations.
INFLUENCE OF MEANINGFUL USE AMONG HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS Neely Duffey, Olivia Mire, Mallory Murphy, and Dana Sizemore.
An Opportunity for Transformation in Puerto Rico Jessica Kahn, MPH Technical Director for Health IT Center for.
Exchange: The Central Feature of Meaningful Use Stage Meaningful Use and Health Care Innovation Conference Craig Brammer Office of the National.
Chapter 6 – Data Handling and EPR. Electronic Health Record Systems: Government Initiatives and Public/Private Partnerships EHR is systematic collection.
Data Intermediaries and Meaningful Use: Quality Measure Innovation, Calculation and Reporting Recommendations from Data Intermediary Tiger Team.
Medicaid HIT Program Jon Barley, Ph.D., Chief Bureau of Health Services Research Office of Ohio Health Plans
State HIE Program Chris Muir Program Manager for Western/Mid-western States.
HIT Policy Committee NHIN Workgroup Recommendations Phase 2 David Lansky, Chair Pacific Business Group on Health Danny Weitzner, Co-Chair Department of.
Component 11: Configuring EHRs Unit 2: Meaningful Use of the Electronic Health Record (EHR) Lecture 1 This material was developed by Oregon Health & Science.
1 Meaningful Use Stage 2 The Value of Performance Benchmarking.
Draft – discussion only Advanced Health Models and Meaningful Use Workgroup June 23, 2015 Paul Tang, chair Joe Kimura, co-chair.
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.
2012 Annual Meeting “Towards Public Health Sector Transformation and Section Unity” ACHIEVING PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS THROUGH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STANDARDIZATION.
Larry Wolf Certification / Adoption Workgroup May 13th, 2014.
Component 11/Unit 2a Meaningful Use of the Electronic Health Record (EHR)
This material was developed by Oregon Health & Science University, funded by the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the National Coordinator.
Health Information Technology EHR Meaningful Use Milestones for HIT Funding Michele Madison
A health department-led initiative to advance and monitor the statewide HIT infrastructure to support public and population health in Minnesota Karen Soderberg.
Improving Patient-Centered Care in Maryland—Hospital Global Budgets
DISPARITIES COUNCIL Legislative Working Group Hank J. Porten Steve Shestakofsky Camille Watson.
Draft Provider Directory Recommendations Begin Deliberations re Query for Patient Record NwHIN Power Team July 10, 2014.
Health Management Information Systems Unit 3 Electronic Health Records Component 6/Unit31 Health IT Workforce Curriculum Version 1.0/Fall 2010.
Moving the National Health Information Technology Agenda Forward The Fourth Health Information Technology Summit March 28, 2007 Robert M. Kolodner, MD.
Discussion - HITSC / HITPC Joint Meeting Transport & Security Standards Workgroup October 22, 2014.
Creating an Interoperable Learning Health System for a Healthy Nation Jon White, M.D. Acting Deputy National Coordinator Office of the National Coordinator.
Overview of ONC Report to Congress on Health Information Blocking Presented to the Health IT Policy Committee, Task Force on Clinical, Technical, Organizational,
Electronic Clinical Quality Measures – Session #1 ONC Resource Center.
HITPC Meaningful Use Stage 3 RFC Comments July 22, 2013 Information Exchange Workgroup Micky Tripathi.
Larry Wolf Certification & Adoption Workgroup Recommendations on LTPAC/BH EHR Certification May 6, 2014.
Status Update Deven McGraw, Chair Center for Democracy & Technology Micky Tripathi, Co-Chair Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative May 19, HIT Policy.
Interoperability Workgroup Governance Subgroup September 19, 2014 Christoph Lehmann, Co-Chair Carol Robinson, Co-Chair.
Certification and Adoption Workgroup HIT Policy Committee April 28, 2014 Discussion on Incremental Rulemakings.
ACWG Charge Make recommendations to the Health IT Policy Committee on how HHS policies and programs can advance the evolution of a health IT infrastructure.
Health IT for Post Acute Care (HITPAC) Stratis Health Special Innovation Project Candy Hanson, BSN, PHN December 5, 2012.
1 Expanded Support for Medicaid Health Information Exchanges Thomas Novak Medicaid Interoperability Lead Office of Policy Office of the National Coordinator.
Pharmacy Health Information Technology Collaborative Date: April 28, 2016 Presenter:Shelly Spiro, RPh, FASCP Pharmacy HIT Collaborative Executive Director.
Pennsylvania Health Information Exchange NJHIMSS - DVHIMSS Enabling Healthcare Transformation Through Information Technology September, 2010.
Interoperability Measurement for the MACRA Section 106(b) ONC Briefing for HIT Policy and Standards Committee April 19, 2016.
HIT Policy Committee Health Information Exchange Workgroup Comments on Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) and Interim Final Rule (IFR) Deven McGraw,
History of Health Information Technology in the U.S. The HITECH Act Lecture b – Meaningful Use, Health Information Exchange and Research This material.
The Value of Performance Benchmarking
Presentation transcript:

Information Exchange Workgroup’s Recommendations on the HIE Request for Information April 3, 2013 Information Exchange Workgroup Micky Tripathi

Summary HIE is advancing rapidly, however, it is being held back by demand- and supply-side friction created by variation in Federal and State programs and policies that give unequal and sometimes conflicting emphasis to interoperability An HHS-wide review of the main areas of such friction, and the most effective combination of levers for eliminating it, would do much to advance HIE adoption across the country 1

HIE RFI Response Framework With limited time to develop recommendation the Workgroup decided to narrow their focus to four topic areas ripe for federal action to advance HIE – Payment Policy – Providers Ineligible for Meaningful Use – State-level program/policy variation – Leveraging HHS infrastructure As the Workgroup developed recommendations in the various topic areas we considered the following levers: – Regulation – Payment – Certification – State action – Reporting and public reporting – Convening authority 2

Payment Policy Background The diffusion of advanced payment models has successfully spurred provider demand for information exchange through a combination of “carrots” (e.g., gain-sharing) and “sticks” (e.g., hospital readmission penalties) These models are still nascent, however, and there a number of areas where they could be improved: – Complexity of requirements – Lack of alignment across payor programs, both across public programs as well as across public and private – Relatively slow diffusion of advanced payment models and “long tail” of fee-service model 3

4 1.HHS should work to simplify and harmonize requirements across advanced payment models for public and private payors. This will help providers focus on the desired outcomes rather than the often complex mechanics of the current programs 2.Since there is still a lag in adoption of HIE capabilities through advanced payment models: −Highly focused supplemental payments to capitated and fee-for-service models to motivate HIE-enabled activities (e.g., higher E&M coding for “cognitive activities” using HIE, such as information reconciliation) 3.Voluntary certification program for HIE functions that enhance enablement of value-based purchasing activities Payment Policy Recommendations

Providers Ineligible for Meaningful Use Background While MU Stages 2 and 3 are expected to create significant incentives for broader and deeper HIE adoption, significant sectors of the care continuum do not qualify for financial incentives, nor are they subject to the corresponding regulatory authority – Long-term and post-acute care providers (LTPAC), includes skilled nursing, home health, rehabilitative, custodial, etc – Pharmacists – Commercial laboratories The inapplicability of MU to these types of providers leaves gaps in the HIE incentive and regulatory framework that result in structural impediments to progress in interoperability across the care continuum 5

Providers Ineligible for Meaningful Use Recommendations 1.HHS should harmonize required documentation and reporting across programs and with the MU framework – Harmonization of CMS-required documentation with CCDA – Incentives to Part D providers to motivate HIE-enabled and HIE-enabling activities – Advance administrative simplification where it intersects with clinical standardization, such as prior authorization documentation requirements 2.Laboratories – Provide safe harbor from certain CLIA requirements if providers are compliant with MU and using certified technology – Increase aggressiveness of Stage 3 eligible hospital laboratory results delivery requirements to move the market faster 3.Require (if possible) or facilitate (if not) voluntary certification of technology used by providers ineligible for meaningful use, in alignment with MU requirements 6

State-level program/policy variation Background State-level variation in program requirements and policies impedes HIE adoption by making it more difficult for multi-state care organizations and technology vendors to create scaleable processes, services, and products Some of this variation lies in differences in programs that have Federal and State components (e.g., Medicaid reimbursement, Medicaid waivers, public health, etc) Other types of variation lie in differences that are solely rooted in areas where States have independent policy authority (e.g., privacy, liability, etc) 7

State-level program/policy variation Recommendations 1.CMS should include HIE requirements in all programs including state waivers and future advanced payment demonstrations, and require coordination as much as possible with the State HIT Coordinators 2.CDC should continue and increase its work to harmonize the variability across states in the standards utilized for public health reporting to enhance use of HIE 3.HHS should create model language available for inclusion in state-level programs (e.g., Medicaid MCO contracts, state employee health plans, etc) to encourage HIE activities 4.HHS should identify and encourage any opportunities for reducing state-level variation in privacy and liability policies related to HIE activities 8

Infrastructure Background HHS maintains a large infrastructure to manage its various programs related to health care payment, health care delivery, public health, and product regulation Some of these infrastructure components and associated services can be opened up for public use to catalyze and enhance development of market-based HIE products and services 9

Infrastructure Recommendations 1.CMS should repurpose existing data and business infrastructure to facilitate market development of HIE capabilities 1.Apply open data principles to provider databases (NPES, MU, NPI) to make data available to market for provider directory creation 2.Build on credentialing of patients and providers to support validation needs for HIE activities (e.g., provisioning patients with Direct addresses) 3.Enable patient access to immunization information contained in public health immunization registries 2.Alignment of FDA programs with MU framework, such as device interoperability (facility and home), structured product labeling standards, and event reporting standards 10

Appendix 11

12 1.HHS should work to simplify and harmonize requirements across advanced payment models for public and private payors. This will help providers focus on the desired outcomes rather than the often complex mechanics of the current programs −Harmonize quality and outcome measures across HHS programs −Allow deeming of process measures that are nested within corresponding outcomes measures and goals −Convene with private payors to align outcomes measures and the use of electronic clinical quality measures (eCQMs) 2.Since there is still a lag in adoption of HIE capabilities through advanced payment models: −For those already in advanced payment model, highly focused supplements to capitated payments for desired process enhancements, such as more use of HIE-enabled care coordination −For those still in fee-for-service payment model, highly focused payments to support HIE-enabled “cognitive activities” (e.g., allow higher E&M codes for completion of HIE-enabled medication, allergy, care plan or problem list reconciliation prior to and after a transition-of-care) Payment Policy Detailed Recommendations

13 3.HHS should consider opportunities for certifying technology to facilitate value-based purchasing activities that go beyond the MU foundation −Depth: deeper integration into EHR workflows; tighter content/vocabulary requirements; more robust reconciliation capabilities such med/problem/allergy reconciliation, etc; eCQM and eCDS −Breadth: interoperability with broader set of health care settings (e.g., LTPAC, etc); inclusion of broader set of functions (eg, population care management and aligned CDS), measures/CDS (e.g., ACO-specific measurement and reporting capabilities), and data management and analytic capabilities (e.g., claims, risk stratification); ability to consume externally generated alerts Payment Policy Detailed Recommendations (continued)

Providers Ineligible for Meaningful Use Detailed Recommendations 1.HHS should harmonize required documentation and reporting both across programs and with the MU framework – ONC should harmonize the care plan requirements so that meaningful use eligible providers are able to receive care plans from non-meaningful use eligible providers (e.g., nursing facilities) – The clinical elements of CMS-required documentation should be harmonized to the CCDA: Minimum Data Set (MDS), Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS) and Care Tool, Home Health Plan of Care (CMS 485) and IRF-PAI (Part A fee-for-service rehabilitative inpatient) – HHS should align the MTM and Stars Programs to incent the sending and receiving of a meaningful use harmonized CCDA – CMS should accelerate levers in Part D to support cognitive activities such as medication therapy management by pharmacists – HHS should continue its efforts to advance administrative simplification that would leverage HIE enablement, such as harmonization of prior authorization data requirements with CCDA structured data requirements 14

Providers Ineligible for Meaningful Use Detailed Recommendations (continued) 15 2.Specifically related to laboratories – A safe harbor to CLIA’s visual verification requirements should be established for commercial labs if they utilize the meaningful use standards for transmitting labs to an EHR that is meaningful use certified – In Stage 3 of meaningful use CMS should make the eligible hospital objective to provide structured electronic lab results to ambulatory providers a core measure and increase the required measure as aggressively as possible 3.ONC should encourage voluntary certification programs to support Meaningful Use ineligible provider participation in health information exchange, either formally (if statute allows) or in collaboration with private certification entities – Standardize certification of Home Health providers across the country and harmonize documentation requirements with the CCDA – Certify technology to support CCDA-harmonized documentation (e.g., MDS for nursing facilities, OASIS and Home Health Plan of Care for home health, IRF-PAI for inpatient rehabilitative facilities) – Certify EP EHR technology to receive relevant CCDA-harmonized structured documents from MU ineligibles (eg. Home Health Plan of Care from home health providers) – Authorize relevant MU ineligibles for other HHS electronic documentation programs, such as esMD

State-level program/policy variation Detailed Recommendations 1.When CMS approves state waivers for advanced payment models, where applicable, they should require the alignment of the outcomes and process measures with those established in Medicare advanced payment programs 2.CDC should continue and increase its work to harmonize the variability across states in the standards utilized for public health reporting to enhance use of HIE 3.CMS should continue to include HIE requirements in future advanced payment models, programs and solicitations 4.Where appropriate, HHS should require coordination with the State HIT Coordinator when releasing state level programs and solicitations, and also require ongoing coordination during implementation of these programs/solicitations and strongly encourage such coordination in all other relevant areas 16

State-level program/policy variation Detailed Recommendations (continued) 5.HHS should establish a framework for HIE maturity similar to the MITA framework. This framework can provide a roadmap to ACOs, health care providers, exchange entities, States and others that have to enable HIE to support their work. – e.g., States submitting an IAPD for 90/10 funding are currently required to describe how their HIE activities will mature over time 6.HHS should work with states to implement common language across state employee health plans, Medicaid (including Medicaid managed care organizations) etc, that will help advance HIE. – For example states could require in solicitations for MCOs and/or the state employee health plan that applicants require participating providers to electronically exchange health information at care transitions 7.On privacy policy variation, HHS should review the recommendations developed by the Health Information Security and Privacy Collaboration (HISPC) to determine if there are items that could be productively advanced today 8.HHS should review whether variations in liability related to HIE activities is a current or possible future barrier to adoption 17

Infrastructure Detailed Recommendations 1.CMS should continue their open data efforts by publishing NPI, MU attestation, NPPES data to support the establishment of provider directories. 2.HHS should explore opportunities available through their existing credentialing infrastructure for organizations and individuals to see if this infrastructure could be leveraged to support validation/authentication needs for HIE. – e.g., Leverage/repurpose the validation that occurs for a patient to access their Medicare claims information to issue and manage Direct addresses 3.CDC should work with states to enable patients to access to their immunization information, as a number of states do today. CDC and ONC should work together to develop a roadmap of methods that states can utilize to give patient access to immunization information either through patient-controlled applications and/or through provider-tethered applications 4.FDA should require or encourage device interoperability to make it easier for information to be extracted from medical devices, including home monitoring devices (e.g., home blood pressure monitor) for both providers and patients. 5.FDA should align its structured product labeling standard with those adopted by ONC and NLM. FDA should harmonize with NDC with RxNorm. 6.FDA should harmonize its event reporting standards with SNOMED 18