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

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
2009 HIMSS Analytics Mapping EMRAM and the Ambulatory EMR Adoption Model to Meaningful Use Criteria September 9, 2009 Mike Davis.
Advertisements

Meaningful Use and Health Information Exchange
Dedicated to Hope, Healing and Recovery 0 Dec 2009 Interim/Proposed Rules Meaningful Use, Quality Reporting & Interoperability Standards January 10, 2010.
R OAD M AP TO M EANINGFUL U SE. What is Meaningful Use in the Hospital?
Quality Measures Vendor Tiger Team December 13, 2013.
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.
Meeting Stage 1 Meaningful Use Criterion Carlos A. Leyva, Esq. Digital Business Law Group, P.A.
HIT Policy Committee Meaningful Use Workgroup Paul Tang, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Chair George Hripcsak, Columbia University, Co- Chair October 20,
GOVERNMENT EHR FUNDING: MEANINGFUL USE STAGE 2 UPDATE October 25, 2012 Jonathan Krasner Healthcare IT Consultant BEI
CMS NPRM proposes requirements for Stage 3 of EHR Incentive Programs (in FR March 30, 2015) In conjunction with.
Proposed Meaningful Use Criteria for Stage 2 and 3 John D. Halamka.
HIT Policy Committee Meaningful Use Workgroup Presentation Paul Tang, Chair Palo Alto Medical Foundation George Hripcsak. Co-Chair Columbia University.
Meaningful Use, Standards and Certification Under HITECH—Implications for Public Health InfoLinks Community of Practice January 14, 2010 Bill Brand, MPH,
Meaningful Use The Catalyst for Connected Health Sameer Bade Strategic Product Planner.
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.
HIT Policy Committee Meaningful Use Workgroup Paul Tang, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Chair George Hripcsak, Columbia University, Co- Chair December 13,
Linette T Scott, MD, MPH Chief Medical Information Officer, DHCS “Population Health” HIMSS NCal Educational Program, Sacramento, CA| February 4, 2014.
Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs HIT Policy Committee June 5, 2013.
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.
Moderator Kevin Larsen, MD Medical Director, Meaningful Use Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology Washington, D.C. Using.
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.
New Opportunity for Network Value: Using Health IT to Improve Transitions of Care 600 East Superior Street, Suite 404 I Duluth, MN I Ph
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.
INFLUENCE OF MEANINGFUL USE AMONG HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS Neely Duffey, Olivia Mire, Mallory Murphy, and Dana Sizemore.
NWH TRANSITION OF CARE DOCUMENT FOR MU STAGE 2 JUNE 6, 2014.
Christopher Geer, MBA Meaningful Use Project Manager Unity Health System
A First Look at Meaningful Use Stage 2 John D. Halamka MD.
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.
Implementation days 10 Days Onsite Training Additional Hardware Automated Workflow Paperless Environment MD with PC Tablet / iPad Workflow Analysis.
Patient Engagement Some of the events that will shape your definition. 1.Meaningful Use – strong emphasis on patient engagement w Stage 2 MU 2.Growth.
INTRODUCTION TO THE ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD CHAPTER 1.
Configuring Electronic Health Records Meaningful Use and Implementation Lecture a This material (Comp11_Unit8a) was developed by Oregon Health & Science.
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.
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.
HIT Policy Committee Meaningful Use Workgroup Presentation to HIT Policy Committee Paul Tang, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Chair George Hripcsak, Columbia.
Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs Jason McNamara Technical Director for Health IT.
Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs Robert Anthony HIT Policy Committee March 7, 2012.
HIT Policy Committee Meaningful Use Workgroup Presentation to HIT Standards Committee 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.
HIT Policy Committee Meaningful Use Workgroup Paul Tang, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Chair George Hripcsak, Columbia University, Co- Chair December 13,
HIT Policy Committee Stage 2 Recommendations Presentation to HIT Standards Committee June 22, 2011.
HIT Standards Committee Meaningful Use Workgroup Presentation to HIT Policy Committee on July 16, 2009 As Presented by:Paul Tang, Chair Palo Alto Medical.
Component 11/Unit 2a Meaningful Use of the Electronic Health Record (EHR)
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: Stage 2 Changes An overall simplification of the program aligned to the overarching goals of sustainability as discussed in the Stage.
HIT Policy Committee Meaningful Use Workgroup Update Paul Tang Palo Alto Medical Foundation George Hripcsak Columbia University January 13, 2010.
CMS Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Programs Final Rule Overview 1 Robert Anthony.
HIT Policy Committee Meaningful Use Workgroup Presentation to HIT Standards Committee Paul Tang, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Chair George Hripcsak, Columbia.
HIT Standards Committee Meaningful Use Workgroup Update Paul Tang, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Chair George Hripcsak, Columbia University, Co- Chair.
HIT Policy Committee Meaningful Use Workgroup Paul Tang, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Chair George Hripcsak, Columbia University, Co- Chair October 27,
The Impact of Proposed Meaningful Use Modifications for June 23, 2015 Today’s presenters: Al Wroblewski, Client Services Relationship Manager.
Meaningful Use Workgroup Subgroup 2 - Engaging Patients and Families Christine Bechtel, Subgroup Chair Paul Tang, MU WG Chair July 2,
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,
Clinical Documentation Hearing Recommendations Meaningful Use and Certification and Adoption Workgroups Paul Tang, MU Workgroup Chair Larry Wolf, C&A Workgroup.
The Value of Performance Benchmarking
Presentation transcript:

HIT Policy Committee Meaningful Use Workgroup Proposed Recommendations on MU Notice of Proposed Rule Making Paul Tang, Chair Palo Alto Medical Foundation George Hripcsak, Co-Chair Columbia University February 17, 2010

2 Proposed MU NPRM Recommendations – 1 Reinstate HITPC recommendation to include progress note documentation for EP Stage 1 MU –Progress notes are key to delivering high quality, coordinated care (not just a legal requirement): Legibility – quality & efficiency implications Important for documenting complete record (otherwise lost) Hybrid systems (part electronic, part paper) causes fragmentation of the record and inefficient workflow Paper progress notes impede patients’ access to information (no structured way to provide patients with context to those data) Sharing electronic progress notes fundamental to care coordination Textual progress notes used to know patient as a human being –Signal clinical documentation for hospitals in Stage 2

3 Proposed MU NPRM Recommendations – 2 Remove “core measures” from Stage 1 –Attributes considered: Based on the Institute of Medicine’s Six Aims and priorities identified by the National Priorities Partnership Have an evidence-based link to improvement in outcomes Can be measured using coded clinical data in an EHR (to minimize burden) Is captured as a byproduct of the care process (fits clinician workflow) Applies to virtually all eligible providers Measures outcome, to the extent possible –None of the proposed “core” measures satisfied the criteria (nor did our examples) –Support use of key HIT-sensitive health priorities drive selection of quality measures –Will re-explore concept of shared or common measures in future

4 Proposed MU NPRM Recommendations – 3 Reinstate HITPC recommendation to stratify quality reports by disparity variables –Providers should produce quality reports stratified by race, ethnicity, gender, primary language, and insurance type –CMS has stated that an explicit health outcomes policy priority is to “reduce health disparities” –No assessment of disparity reduction can be made without stratifying data reports by these variables

5 Proposed MU NPRM Recommendations – 4 Providers should maintain up-to-date lists (not just one-time entries) –Maintaining key patient summary information in EHR is critical for care quality & coordination –Measure: Attestation that the problem lists, medication lists, and medication allergy lists are up-to-date ( CMS audit could be conducted by chart review of a set of randomly selected charts)

6 Proposed MU NPRM Recommendations – 5 Reinstate HITPC recommendation to include recording of advanced directives for Stage 1 MU –EPs and hospitals should be expected to record presence or absence of advance directives for patients > 65 as part of the Stage 1 MU criteria –Particularly for Medicare providers, recording of advance directives should apply to virtually everybody

7 Proposed MU NPRM Recommendations – 6 Reinstate HITPC recommendation to include patient-specific education resources for Stage 1 MU –EHR-enabled links to relevant educational resources critical to CMS health outcome priority to “engage patients and families” –Provider vetting of consumer educational content represents a much better than unguided searching of the Internet –Several EHR vendors and health education content providers have developed partnerships that facilitate EHR-enabled connections to patient-specific content –EPs & hospitals should report on % of patients for whom they use the EHR to suggest patient-specific education resources

8 Proposed MU NPRM Recommendations – 7 Reinstate HITPC recommendation to include clinical efficiency measures for Stage 1 MU –CMS did not include clinical efficiency measures although “improve efficiency” is a CMS-stated priority –All EPs report % of all medications entered into EHR as a generic formulation, when generic options exist in relevant drug class On page 1987 of the NPRM, CMS cites “prompt providers to prescribe cost-effective generic medications” as one of the key “Benefits to Society” in its impact analysis –CMS should explicitly require that at least 1 of 5 CDS rules address efficient diagnostic test ordering

9 Proposed MU NPRM Recommendations – 8 CMS should create a glidepath for Stage 2 & 3 MU –Vendors need more time to develop appropriate functionality –Providers need more time to integrate it into clinical workflow –Recognize that CMS needs experience from on Stage 1 implementation before finalizing Stage 2 & 3 recommendations –Strong signal of intentions would be very helpful to make the realization of future expectations more feasible –To extent possible, CMS should consider publishing the Stage 2 MU NPRM earlier than anticipated December 2011

10 Proposed MU NPRM Recommendations – 9 CPOE should be done by authorizing provider –CPOE numerator should be number of orders entered directly by authorizing provider

11 Proposed MU NPRM Recommendations – 10 Amend prevention/follow-up reminders criterion to apply to a broader range of the population and allow for provider discretion in targeting reminders –For a chosen/relevant preventive health service or follow-up, report on the percent of patients who were eligible for that service who were reminded –Denominator: All patients who were potentially eligible (e.g., meet demographic criteria) and had not received the service

12 Proposed MU NPRM Recommendations – 11 Clarify “transitions of care” and “relevant encounters” –Under Care Coordination category –Define “transition of care” to occur when a patient changes “setting of care” (e.g., hospital, ambulatory primary care practice, ambulatory specialty care practice, long term care, home health, rehabilitation facility) –Delete “relevant encounter” (not precise)

13 Proposed MU NPRM Recommendations – 12 Allow some flexibility in meeting meaningful use criteria –“All-or-nothing” approach may not accommodate legitimate, unanticipated, local circumstances or constraints –Permit flexibility while preserving a floor –Allow provider to defer fulfillment of a small number of MU criteria and still receive incentive –Allow EPs & hospitals to qualify for Stage 1 MU incentives if they defer no more than (mandatory may not be deferred): 3 of the criteria in the quality domain 1 of the criteria in the patient/family engagement domain 1 of the criteria in the care coordination domain 1 of the criteria in the population/public health domain –All must meet the privacy & security domain criterion –All must report clinical measures to CMS/state

Priority area# objectives that may be deferred by EP or hospital (all EPs and hospitals must fulfill “mandatory” objectives) Mandatory objectives (all EPs and hospitals must meet these) Improving quality, safety, efficiency, and reducing health disparities 3  Have demographics recorded as structured data  Report ambulatory/hospital quality measures to CMS or the States  Use CPOE/Use of CPOE for orders (any type) directly entered by authorizing provider (for example, MD, DO, RN, PA, NP)  Generate and transmit permissible prescriptions electronically (eRx) Engage patients and families in their health care 1  Patients discharged are provided electronic copy of their instructions and procedures Improve care coordination1  Test EHR capacity to electronically exchange key clinical information Improve population and public health 1 Ensure adequate privacy and security protections for personal health information 0  Protect electronic health information created or maintained by the certified EHR technology through the implementation of appropriate technical capabilities 14 Proposed MU NPRM Recommendations – 12