1 / 17

CCA-NAMSS (Credentialing Consensus Alliance)

CCA-NAMSS (Credentialing Consensus Alliance). Facilitator: Cris Mobley (NCF rep to CCA) Panel members: Annette Van Veen Gippe-AOA Rob Nelson - ABMS Betsy Ranslow HRSA, Pract. Data Banks Dick Galica - CAQH. NAMSS Vision.

nerice
Download Presentation

CCA-NAMSS (Credentialing Consensus Alliance)

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. CCA-NAMSS(Credentialing Consensus Alliance) • Facilitator: Cris Mobley (NCF rep to CCA) • Panel members: • Annette Van Veen Gippe-AOA • Rob Nelson - ABMS • Betsy Ranslow HRSA, Pract. Data Banks • Dick Galica - CAQH Nat'l Cred Forum - Feb. 12, 2005

  2. NAMSS Vision To establish the simplest set of consistent requirements for credentialing that meets the needs of the community • Discussion on this statement with tendency to “wordsmith” but in the end, not changed • Agreed that variations &/or redundancy increase costs Discussion began with: • Commitment to single pathway of credentialing elements • What else can we do • Can common ground be found Nat'l Cred Forum - Feb. 12, 2005

  3. Organizations Represented • NAMSS • National Quality Forum (absent) • NCQA • JCAHO • FSMB • URAC • NCF • AMA-OMSS • AMA Credentialing products • AOA • CAQH • AHA (absent both meetings) • ACGME • CMS • Practitioner Data Banks • ABMS • ABIM • CVO rep Nat'l Cred Forum - Feb. 12, 2005

  4. Summary of Expectations • Define high bar • Is “operationalization” possible • Trust-share data • Guiding principles • Collaboration • Unnecessary duplication • Best practice • Implementation • Reduce redundancy • Win Win for all organizations • Turf issues Nat'l Cred Forum - Feb. 12, 2005

  5. Organizations Weigh In • CAQH – updating application (3/31) using NAMSS and NCF core data elements • Problems with each state with mandated forms • MGMA estimates cred costs 1.85 billion • New Hampshire–licensure/hosps apps uniform • Central data set others can access • Practitioners enter once Nat'l Cred Forum - Feb. 12, 2005

  6. Organizations Weigh In • JCAHO • Task force on credentialing and privileging • “competency” focus • What info necessary to make decisions for new procedures, new privileges, ability to treat • #s and procedures a possibility?? • Value in static information (to be centralized) • July ’05 – PSV for all with license, certification • Sidebar • Capitalize on technology to decrease cost • Avoid dup of PSV but reluctance to accept that which has been verified • Focus on common data set vs. base • Long term – single source (now there’s pushback) Nat'l Cred Forum - Feb. 12, 2005

  7. Organizations Weigh In • NCQA • No changes in credentialing standards • Don’t address privileging • Stds more structural (than JCAHO) • There are requirements for recred and ongoing monitoring (sanctions, etc) • Where NCQA has “delegation” Stds with MCO oversight, JCAHO has “principles” for use of CVOs Nat'l Cred Forum - Feb. 12, 2005

  8. Organizations Weigh In • URAC • 80 CVOs nationally – top ones accredited • PPOs have the most presence for their credentialing stds • Health plan, network cred stds changing – see web site for public information (field review); e.g., medical director vs. cmte approval will change this quarter Nat'l Cred Forum - Feb. 12, 2005

  9. Organizations Weigh In • CMS • Rep sits on PTAC and CMS on JCAHO Bd • Require periodic appraisals (std practice every two years but # not in regulation) – encouraged to discuss 3 yr recred with JCAHO task force • Must maintain individual files • Must maintain credentials on license, training, experience • Bylaws describe qualifications to be candidate for membership and criteria for determining privileges • CMS only sites against regulations; interpretative guidelines not enforceable • Cannot endorse forms, g-lines from other orgs but can say it’s a good idea • Great if there’s a national data element bank; “we’ll play but can’t endorse” Nat'l Cred Forum - Feb. 12, 2005

  10. Organizations Weigh In • CMS continued • Relies on JCAHO to revise stds • Minimum stds to get funding; they are not setting the high bar • They issue memos of clarification on interpretation but regs don’t change • e.g., go to CMS if don’t like surveyor interpretation; they frequently give benefit of doubt to org if they’re doing a good job • Clarified hard copy of license not required • Check Fed’l Register March 25 Nat'l Cred Forum - Feb. 12, 2005

  11. Organizations Weigh In • NPDB • Still 2 yr query – may change; looking into proactive disclosure • Betsy to discuss NPDB news later (good stuff) Nat'l Cred Forum - Feb. 12, 2005

  12. General Discussion • We all: • OBTAIN • VERIFY • Some ASSESS • Some REVIEW • What do we have in common that’s workable??? No advantage to doing differently Nat'l Cred Forum - Feb. 12, 2005

  13. General Discussion • Baby Steps • Place to go to get the information (raw data) • Later decide how to verify (now an organization-specific process), turf issues • Some baseline agreement • JCAHO, NCQA acknowledge 5 equivalent sources: AMA, AOA, FSMB, ABMS, plus NPDB Nat'l Cred Forum - Feb. 12, 2005

  14. Concepts for Discussion • Focus on obtaining, verifying, assessing data • Focus on obtaining and verifying data but not assessing data (qualitative) • Process of review for approval (red flag guidance ensuring completeness and accuracy) • Future – identify best practice for verification of information Nat'l Cred Forum - Feb. 12, 2005

  15. Next Steps • NAMSS to consider doing white paper on needs of organizations re: the credentialing core data elements to include on application • All should get comments on list of elements put tog. by CAQH using their current form, input from NAMSS, NCF, and CCA input at meeting (and afterwards) • NAMSS needs to be pro-active vs reactive in the industry; i.e., electronic app vs paper – take us into next generation • Suspend CCA, not disband (“innovation” could be future theme of group) Nat'l Cred Forum - Feb. 12, 2005

  16. Next Steps • NAMSS should define other areas to be explored and come back as a whole or as subsets to discuss; e.g., reduce redundancy (or someone else will) • Litigation based on negligent credentialing; someone should do white paper on this • CAQH thanked for all work done on collecting and integrating info over last 6 months (some believed they have the set up to be a central source of data repository). Nat'l Cred Forum - Feb. 12, 2005

  17. Panel comments • Annette • Dick • Betsy • Rob • Open Discussion Nat'l Cred Forum - Feb. 12, 2005

More Related