1 / 77

Meaningful Use Workgroup Meaningful Use Stage 3 Recommendations

Meaningful Use Workgroup Meaningful Use Stage 3 Recommendations. Paul Tang, chair George Hripcsak, co-chair. Meaningful Use Workgroup Membership. Paul Tang, Chair, Palo Alto Medical Center George Hripcsak, Co-Chair, Columbia University David Bates , Brigham & Women’s Hospital *

Download Presentation

Meaningful Use Workgroup Meaningful Use Stage 3 Recommendations

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.


Presentation Transcript

  1. Meaningful Use Workgroup Meaningful Use Stage 3 Recommendations Paul Tang, chair George Hripcsak, co-chair

  2. Meaningful Use Workgroup Membership • Paul Tang, Chair, Palo Alto Medical Center • George Hripcsak, Co-Chair, Columbia University • David Bates, Brigham & Women’s Hospital* • Christine Bechtel, National Partnership for Women & Families * • Neil Calman, The Institute for Family Health • Tim Cromwell, Department of Veterans Affairs • Art Davidson , Denver Public Health Department * • Paul Egerman, Software Entrepreneur • Marty Fattig, Nemaha County Hospital (NCHNET) • Joe Francis, MD, Veterans Administration • Leslie Kelly Hall, Healthwise • David Lansky, Pacific Business Group on Health • Deven McGraw, Center for Democracy & Technology • Marc Overhage, Siemens Healthcare • Greg Pace, Social Security Administration • Marty Rice, HRSA • Robert Tagalicod, CMS/HHS • Charlene Underwood, Siemens * • Michael H. Zaroukian, Sparrow Health System • Amy Zimmerman, Rhode Island Department of Health and Human Services * Subgroup Leads

  3. Stages of Meaningful UseImproving Outcomes Stage 3 2016-17 Stage 2 2014-15 Stage 1 2011-13

  4. Original Principles for Stage 3 Recommendations • Supports new model of care (e.g., team-based, outcomes-oriented, population management) • Addresses national health priorities (e.g., NQS, prevention, Partnerships for Patients, Million Hearts) • Broad applicability (since MU is a floor) • Provider specialties (e.g., primary care, specialty care) • Patient health needs • Areas of the country • Not "topped out" or not already driven by market forces • Mature standards widely adopted or could be widely adopted by 2016 (for stage 3)

  5. Lessons from Stages 1Implications for Stage 3 Stage 1 Experience • Substantial increase in adoption rates and effective use • Mandatory floor creating network effects • Thresholds consistently exceeded • Consistent use across the years • Reporting requirements have considerable costs and burden • Prescriptive, “forced march” impacts available resources for innovation or to address local priorities Implications for Stage 3 • Creating critical mass of users and data in electronic form • Rising tide is floating boats (e.g., setup for patient engagement, HIE) • Once MU functionality is implemented, it is used • Gains from stage 1 (and 2) will persist • Stage 3: Simplify and reduce reporting requirements • Stage 3: Rely more heavily on market pull (e.g., new payment incentives); promote innovative approaches i.e., reward good behavior

  6. Additional Goals for Stage 3 • Address key gaps (e.g., information exchange, patient engagement, reducing disparities) in EHR functionality that the market will not drive alone, but are essential for all providers: • to create level playing field • to create network effects • to fulfill need for a public good • Consider alternative pathway where meeting performance and/or improvement thresholds deems satisfaction of subset of relevant MU functionality implicitly required to achieve performance/improvement • Consolidate MU objectives where higher level objective implies compliance with subsumed process objectives

  7. Deeming Pathway

  8. Deeming Assumptions • Cannot reliably achieve good performance (or significantly improve) without effective use of HIT • Therefore: in order to promote innovation, reduce burden, and reward good performance, deemhigh performers (or significant improvers) in satisfaction of a subset of MU objectives as an optionalpathwayto qualifying for MU

  9. Example Criteria for Deeming for EPs • Demonstrate high (top quartile) or improved performance (20% reduction of gap between last year's performance and top quartile). Select two items from each of the categories below: • Prevention of high priority diseases (pick 2 from) [could be a dynamic set vs static] • Colon cancer (colonoscopy screening) • Influenza (flu vax) • Pneumonia (pneumococcal vaccine) • Obesity (BMI screening and follow up) • Cardiovascular disease (LDL screen) • HTN (BP screen and follow up) • Control of high priority chronic health conditions (pick 2 from) [could be a dynamic set vs static] • HTN (BP control or improvement) • Diabetes (A1c control) • Heart attack (LDL control) • Asthma (controller med) • CHF (ACEI or ARB meds) • MI (beta blocker)

  10. Example Criteria for Deeming for EHs • Demonstrate high (top quartile) or improved performance (20% reduction of gap between last year's performance and top quartile). Select two items from each of the categories below: • Patient safety (pick 2 from) • Clostridium difficile Infection (outcome measure) • Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection (outcome measure) • Central Line-Associated Blood Stream Infection (outcome measure) • MRSA (outcome measure) • Specific Surgical Site Infection (SSI) Outcome Measure • Severe sepsis and septic shock: Management bundle • Late sepsis or meningitis in very low birth weight (VLBW) neonates (risk-adjusted) • Measure of pressure ulcers • Care coordination (pick 2 from) • Experience of care (from HCAHPS) • Hospital-wide-all-cause unplanned readmission measure (HWR) • CTM-3, 3-item care transition

  11. Reduce Disparities • For two of the four selected population reports, demonstrate improvement from the prior year for a disparity population (e.g., race, ethnicity, LGBT, SES) • Improvement is reduction of the gap between the mean performance for the disparity subset and the mean performance for the rest of the patient population

  12. Deemed MU Objectives Deemed in Satisfaction of: • CDS • Reminders • Electronic notes • Test tracking • Clinical summary • Patient education • Reconcile problems, meds, allergies • *View, download, transmit (VDT), consider adding if stage 2 reports good uptake • *Secure patient messaging, consider adding if stage 2 reports good uptake Remaining Items: • Advance directive • eMAR • Imaging results • EH: provide lab results • Patient generated data • *VDT • *Secure patient messaging • Care summary • Notification of health event • Immunization registry • Electronic lab reporting • Syndromic surveillance • Reporting to registries NB: There is not a 1:1 mapping of QMs used for deeming and the MU functional objectives being deemed in compliance

  13. Additional Considerations • Propose baselinereporting period to be the 12 months prior to the performance reporting period • Providers anticipating that they will participate in the deeming pathway are advised that the deeming program uses the prior year’s performance as the baseline for determining “improvement performance”   • Specialists may have fewer options for deeming as determined by available NQF QMs.  If not able to report on at least 4 performance measures, then may not be eligible for the deeming pathway • Since effective use of HIT is an enabler for many of the performance improvement programs at CMS, we recommend that qualification for MU in a given year should be deemed partial satisfaction of other CMS programs (e.g., ACO, PCMH, eRx, CPCI, PQRS)

  14. Consolidation Work

  15. Consolidation Summary • 43 objectives, consolidated to 25 • Assumptions • The full WG will consider RFC feedback and update criteria • All criteria will be included in certification • Focus on advanced uses (e.g. recording data vs. use data) • Give credit for objectives that should be standard of practice after stages 1 and 2

  16. Types of Consolidation • Advanced within concept of another objective • Duplicative concepts • objective becomes certification only • Demonstrated use and can trust that it will continue

  17. Advanced within Concept of Another Objective Demographics Added as an additional element Patient education, per patient preference Patient preferred means of communication (SGRP208) Reminders, per patient preference Clinical Summary, per patient preference Key: Maintained Objective Certification Criteria

  18. Duplicative Concepts CDS (113) Interventions include preventative care for immunizations Immunization intervention (SGRP401B) Included in care summary (303) Structured lab results (SGRP114) Included in view, download, transmit (204A) Key: Maintained Objective Certification Criteria

  19. Demonstrated Use • Patient lists and dashboards (SGRP115) • Needed for population management and quality measurement • How to measure use? • Existing external drivers that will drive use (new models of care)

  20. CPOE - Advanced within concept of another objective, duplicative concept, demonstrated use Needed to provide meds within care summary (303) CPOE for Medication Orders Needed to provide meds within VDT (204A) Key: Maintained Objective Certification Criteria

  21. Consolidation Overview Quality, safety, reducing health disparities Engaging patients & families Improving care coordination Population & public health eRx Order tracking VDT Immunization registry ToC – Care summary Amendment CPOE - referrals ELR Advanced directive CPOE Referral loop CDS Electronic notes ABBI Case reports to PHA CDS for immun Pt list/dashboard Patient education Reconciliation Synd Surveillance CDS for lists Comm preference Demographics Notify of health event Registries Reminders Smoking Cancer registry Care plan Clinical summary Comm preference Specialty registry Inter prob list Vitals Comm preference HAI reports EH: eMAR RxHx PDMP Secure Messaging Imaging results Adverse event PGHD EH: Lab results EP Clinical trials Family Hx Key: Maintained Objective Certification Criteria Changed after consolidation work Future Stage

  22. Subgroup 1: Improving quality, safety, efficiency and reducing health disparities David Bates, Subgroup Lead George Hripcsak, MU WG Co-Chair

  23. SGRP112: Advance Directive

  24. SGRP113: Clinical Decision Support

  25. SGRP116: Reminders

  26. SGRP117: eMAR

  27. Imaging - 118

  28. Family History - 119

  29. Electronic Notes - 120

  30. Hospital Labs - 121

  31. Order Tracking - 122

  32. UDI - 123 Stage

  33. CPOE - 101 Certification ONLY

  34. SGRP103: ePrescribing Certification ONLY

  35. Demographics – SGRP104 Certification ONLY

  36. Problem List- 105 Certification ONLY

  37. Medication List - 106 Certification ONLY

  38. Med Allergy Certification ONLY

  39. Vitals – 108 Certification ONLY

  40. Smoking - 109 Certification ONLY

  41. Lab results - 114 Certification ONLY

  42. Patient List -115 Certification ONLY

  43. CPOE Referrals - 130 Certification ONLY

  44. Subgroup 2 - Engaging Patients and Families Christine Bechtel, Subgroup Lead Paul Tang, MU WG Chair

  45. Subgroup 2 • Review of Objectives for full workgroup discussion • Review view, download, transmit (VDT) – 204A • Amendment – 204D • Review patient generated health data (PGHD) – 204B • Review clinical summary/AVS – 205 • Review patient education - 206 • Review secure messaging - 207 • Review communication preferences – 208 • Clinical trial query – 209

  46. VDT - 204 A (I)

  47. Amendments - 204 D (I)Consolidated with VDT

  48. PGHD – 204B

  49. Clinical Summary/AVS - 205

  50. Patient Education - 206 (I)

More Related