1. HIT Policy Committee Information Exchange Workgroup Micky Tripathi, Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative, Chair David Lansky, Pacific Business Group on Health, Co-Chair February 2, 2011

2. Agenda Update on Provider Directory Recommendations Next Steps for Information Exchange Workgroup 2

3. Presentation to HIT Standards Committee Presented the Entity-Level Provider Directory recommendations during the January 12 th HIT Standards Committee meeting.

4. ILPD framework Users and Uses FunctionsContent Operating rqmts Business models Policy issues Policy actions Who wants an ILPD? What do they want to use it for? What functions do users need for their desired uses? What data will be required in order to enable desired functions? What operating business requirements will be needed in order for this to be used? What are possible business models for meeting needs? Which business models should the government promote? What are the policy issues related to each of the suggested business models? What policy actions should be taken to address the policy issues? Directory Requirements and OptionsRecommendations Recommendations to IE WG January Consensus conclusions and recommendations 4

5. 5 Revised Workplan for ILPD Recommendations DateMeetingTopic Feb 7PD TFRecommendations on users, uses, content, functional capabilities Finalize business requirements Discuss policy issues Feb 11PD TFFinalize policy issues and actions Feb 28PD TF/IE WG Approve Recommendation Mar 2HITPCRecommendations to HITPC on Individual-level Provider Directories 5

6. Proposed Next Steps for IE WG With provider directory recommendations set to wrap up in March need to begin discussions of next steps for the Workgroup. With the large scope of exchange issues that would benefit from Workgroups insights moving forward the Workgroup plans to take a more lightweight approach to selected topics focusing on identifying issues inhibiting or limiting exchange and potential levers for addressing as opposed to developing detailed recommendations Meaningful Use Stage 2 will be the lens through which the Workgroup does this

7. MU Stage 2 Process (as far as we know) MU WG public comments: through Feb 25 MU WG plan: –“Following analysis of the comments received through the 45-day public comment period, the HITPC intends to revisit these recommendations in its public meetings in the Spring of 2011. At that time, the HITPC will be able to review public comments in the context of the early feedback from providers on experience with stage 1 MU. In addition, the HITPC will consider additional input from its other workgroups working on quality measures, information exchange, and privacy and security.” Proposed Approach for input: –Develop formalized recommendations for HITPC in alignment with anticipated spring meetings 7

8. Targeted Topic Areas, Timeline, Approach Potential Areas to focus on –Stage 2 MU and S&I Framework: Feb-March –Public health: April –Transitions in care: May –Quality reporting: June –Consumer engagement: May –Administrative simplification: August –HIE and HIX: September Address –Current status/achievement of goals (focus on stage 1 where relevant) –Issues and challenges: business, policy, regulatory, technology –Most promising/high yield solutions, levers including: Policy levers Meaningful Use levers Standards levers State HIE Program levers Assumptions on how to address tactical topics starting in April –Two meetings per topic: 1 st issue identification, 2 nd outline key opportunities, key issues that need to be resolved, levers –Leverages offline work: one workgroup member as topic lead, ONC staff and consultants support issue identification, outline key opportunities

9. An approach for tackling specific issues As we go through MU Stage 2 recommendations, we will undoubtedly identify specific issues that require more detailed assessment Scan the field on selected topic to identify key challenges stakeholders are facing and present potential levers to address. –For each selected topic a lead Workgroup member who is an expert on the topic will take the lead in developing the agenda for meetings addressing the topic –Where relevant/necessary outside experts will be brought in to augment the groups expertise