1 / 5

BAT Committee Update

BAT Committee Update. Business Case Assessment DIRECT March 28, 2012. Activity to-date. Established working group (November/December 2011) Charles Anderson, Computer Aid, Inc Sam Milligan, LANTek Sanjay Mittal, eHealth Objects Michael Nelson, Health Market Science

gefen
Download Presentation

BAT Committee Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. BAT Committee Update Business Case Assessment DIRECT March 28, 2012

  2. Activity to-date • Established working group (November/December 2011) • Charles Anderson, Computer Aid, Inc • Sam Milligan, LANTek • Sanjay Mittal, eHealth Objects • Michael Nelson, Health Market Science • Sean O’Rourke, Consilient Solutions • Review of background materials and development of Business Assessment Template (1/12) • DIRECT Primer • BAT Committee presentation on DIRECT (from 8/11) • PAeHI project vetting form • Initial team meeting with the volunteers to discuss the scope and approach for the project (2/7/12) • Draft ‘mission statement’ for BAT DIRECT Project (2/12) • Follow up team meeting 3/13/12

  3. Background • Activity to-date (see previous) • Combination of top down assessment of HIE overall and bottom up DIRECT/related services assessment: • Makes the most sense • Affords the best opportunity to add value • Rationale: • Focus exclusively on DIRECT and it is not found to be an attractive opportunity, we are ‘back to square one’ • Including the top down perspective will make the DIRECT business assessment better by considering the broader context in which it would be implemented

  4. Two Pronged Approach Top down • Start with the PA eHealth Collaborative Strategic Plan • Assess the components of the proposal and the PA HIE in terms of: • Broader market input (e.g., what other HIE’s found to be of value (e.g., Indiana); PAeHI’s sustainability white paper, etc) • High level evaluation criteria for each component in terms of business opportunity (e.g., fit with/value to PAeHI constituent’s needs, complexity of business/business model (ability to offer as a service)) Bottom up • Focus on specifics of DIRECT project and supporting services (e.g., Provider directory, HISP services) • Competing activities and fees currently being experienced by the provider • The fact that PA’s HIE, as a recipient of federal funding, is required to offer DIRECT services and is choosing to allow for multiple, certified entrants is a positive consideration • Additional considerations include: • Support for DIRECT from PA HIE (e.g., $2mm in incentives being identified by PA for Providers who utilize DIRECT) • Ability of DIRECT to satisfy connectivity requirements for MU Stage 2 • Existing service offerings and price points for DIRECT solutions

  5. Issues and Next Steps • Issue(s): • Top down approach seems to be very similar to or at least a part of activity that would be more broadly addressed as the PAeHI Board decides whether to continue to assess and possibly compete for a longer term governance role for PA HIE • Bottom up approach would seem to really fall more appropriately within the context of HIE committee (or at a minimum have significant active participation from HIE committee) • Next Steps: • Discussion with PAeHI leadership 3/26/12 • Presentation at 3/28/12 PAeHI breakout session (today) • Request for additional participation • Provider representation • Other interested parties Contact: Sean O’Rourke orourkesa@gmail.com

More Related