Download
hit policy committee meaningful use workgroup n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
HIT Policy Committee Meaningful Use Workgroup PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
HIT Policy Committee Meaningful Use Workgroup

HIT Policy Committee Meaningful Use Workgroup

155 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

HIT Policy Committee Meaningful Use Workgroup

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. HIT Policy CommitteeMeaningful Use Workgroup Paul Tang, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Chair George Hripcsak, Columbia University, Co-Chair October 20, 2010

  2. Workgroup Membership Co-Chairs: Paul Tang Palo Alto Medical Foundation George Hripcsak Columbia University Members: • David Bates Brigham & Women’s Hospital • Michael Barr American College of Physicians • Christine Bechtel National Partnership/Women & Families • Neil Calman Institute/Family Health • Art Davidson Denver Public Health • James Figge NY State Dept. of Health • Linda Fischetti Department of Veterans Affairs • David Lansky Pacific Business Group/Health • Deven McGraw Center/Democracy & Technology • Latanya Sweeney Carnegie Mellon University • Charlene Underwood Siemens

  3. Agenda • Recap of stage 1 recommendation process • Process for development of stage 2 recommendations • Directional strategies for discussion

  4. Recap of Stage 1 Recommendation Process • Apr 29, 2009: NCVHS Meaningful Use hearing • May 11, 2009: First HIT Policy committee meeting • May 28, 2009: First Meaningful Use (MU) workgroup meeting • Jun 16, 2009: First Draft “Meaningful Use matrix” presented at HITPC for feedback • Draft released for public comment • Jul 16, 2009: HITPC approved MU recommendations • Jan 13, 2010: MU NPRM • Jul 13, 2010: MU Final Rule

  5. Developing Recommendations for Stage 2 (and 3)Deliberative Process • Hearings over past year: • Specialists; smaller practices and hospitals • State issues • Health care disparities • Patient and family engagement • Population and public health • Care coordination • CMS Final Rule on Meaningful Use • ONC Final Rule on EHR certification • MU WG deliberations on stage 2/3 criteria

  6. Discussion of Philosophical Approaches to Stages 2 and 3 Recommendations • Positioning of stage 2 • Incremental change over stage 1 • Stepping stone to stage 3 • Migration to outcomes • Stage 3 outcomes based • Stage 2 introduction of outcomes orientation • Patient engagement information sharing • Access vs. copy vs. “clinical summaries” • Deeming of external criteria • Accrediting groups • Professional accrediting boards • Other CMS programs

  7. Positioning of Stage 2Discussion • Incremental change over stage 1 • Pro: Extends current implementation plans • Con: Continues uncertainty for market for stage 3 • Stepping stone to stage 3 • Pro: Establishes a roadmap (and timeline) • Con:

  8. Migration to OutcomesDiscussion • Set Stage 3 outcomes-based measures • Setting performance thresholds • Direct measure of benefits of HIT • Deem satisfaction of process measures by achieving threshold performance measure • Supports value-based purchasing • Reduce dependence on process measures • Reduce emphasis on “how” (in favor of “what”); allows for innovation • Reduce burden of measuring structure and process • Introduce outcomes orientation in Stage 2 (merely examples) • Apply clinical decision support to achieve outcome (vs. use specific type of CDS) • Reduce prescribed major drug interactions (for prescribed drug categories) by x% • Reduce 30-day readmission rate by 10%

  9. Patient Engagement Information SharingDiscussion • Move towards innovative patient use of data • Re: “access” vs. “copy” vs. “clinical summaries” vs. “discharge instructions” • Setting differences and information purposes • Ambulatory care [ongoing care] • Hospitals [episodic major event] • Types of information sharing • “Access”: real-time, on-demand availability of shared EHR content [could replace “copy” in the future] • “Copy” / “Download”: point-in-time copy of existing electronically available information [transitional stage from paper] • Specific-use documents (examples) • Hospital: discharge instructions • Ambulatory care: visit summaries

  10. Explore Deeming of External CertificationDiscussion • Use external certification to deem satisfaction of specific MU criteria (hypothetical examples) • E.g., Does satisfaction of MU care-coordination criteria satisfy HIT component of PCMH OR does PCMH accreditation  deemed to satisfy care coordination criteria? • E.g., Does satisfaction of MU category 1 criteria (quality, safety, efficiency) satisfy HIT component of professional maintenance of certification (MOC) for medical boards OR does MOC  deemed to satisfy a subset of MU criteria? • MU deeming of HIT infrastructure for ACO qualification?

  11. MU Work Plan Timeline • Oct 20, 2010: directional guidance from HITPC • Nov 19, 2010: present draft MU stages 2/3 criteria • Dec, 2010: refine draft MU criteria, prepare for RFC • Jan, 2011: release draft MU criteria RFC • Feb, 2011: analyze RFC submissions and revise MU draft criteria • Mar, 2011: present revised draft MU criteria to HITPC • 2Q11: CMS report on initial MU submissions • 3Q11: Final HITPC recommendations on stage 2 MU • ~4Q11: CMS MU NPRM