ehr incentive program stage 3 request for comment approach and questions n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
EHR Incentive Program Stage 3 Request for Comment: Approach and Questions PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
EHR Incentive Program Stage 3 Request for Comment: Approach and Questions

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 18
wesley-stout

EHR Incentive Program Stage 3 Request for Comment: Approach and Questions - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

60 Views
Download Presentation
EHR Incentive Program Stage 3 Request for Comment: Approach and Questions
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. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

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

  1. EHR Incentive Program Stage 3 Request for Comment: Approach and Questions Jim Walker, MD Quality Measures Work Group CMIO, Geisinger Healthcare October 3, 2012

  2. Step Back and Look Forward For Stage 2 the QMWG contributed CQM sub-domains and concepts to the RFC and Transmittal Letter. For Stage 3 the QMWG intends to focus not only on the individual CQMs, but also on the measure components (logic and value sets), on the environment in which the measures operate and on the extent to which they drive QI.

  3. Conceptual Framework • Purpose • E-measures • QI Platform • CQM Pipeline • What problem are we trying to solve? • We want to use HIT to enhance data capture, calculation and exchange for the sake of clinical quality improvement by using input from and providing output to both providers and patients. • How do we achieve this with better measures? • - Package Process-Outcome suites • -Develop de novo instead of legacy CQMs • -Align CQMs and components with functional objectives • How can we better leverage CQMs for QI? • -Support flexible standardization architecture and standards to meet provider QI needs • -Encourage development of Population Management Tools • Which measures should we choose? • -Review Prioritized Domains • -Identify Exemplars: Expand or Refine • -Promote innovation: ”Democratize “the measure set In the RFC for Stage 3 the QMWG will test these ideas with the general public.

  4. Program Purpose • The measures should leverage data routinely captured in the EHR and PHR during the process of care. • Support for CQM calculations should be flexible and adaptive to future requirements, which may include new measures or changes to measure definitions at minimal cost. • Providers should be able to configure the CQM calculation to use data elements appropriate to local workflow. • An end goal is to shift quality measurement and reporting from sampled retrospective/human chart reviews/ accounting to concurrent/ machine-automated/ improvement support while recognizing that there will remain a place for human abstracted quality measurement. We understand the fundamental mission of the EHR Incentive Program CQM set is to promote the capabilities of EHRs to capture relevant data and to calculate and report measures used by public recognition and payment programs as efficiently and reliably as possible in order to improve the quality of care and experience of care for providers and patients.

  5. eCQM: de novo or Legacy • Is a shift away from retooling legacy paper-based CQMs in exchange for designing eCQMs de novo a reasonable and desirable course of action? The QMWG will make recommendations both on the types of measures that are developed and on the process for measure development. The QMWG understands that “retooling”, the process of translating legacy measures into XML code, at times does not fully preserve the original intent of measures and measure components (logic and value sets). Furthermore, retooled measures often do not take full advantage of the richness of clinical data in the EHR.

  6. QI Support: Population Management • Is there an evidence basis for clinical population management platform use? Is there a business case?? • What are the technological challenges to widespread release and adoption? Can the HITPC encourage technology in this area without being prohibitively prescriptive? The QMWG intends to encourage the development of HIT tools that leverage use of eCQMs for population management. The work group is especially interested in development of CQM population mapping and task-management platforms that allow users to view, track, and identify care gaps and assign tasks both for individual patients and for user-determined cohorts. The workgroup understands that this technology is desired by providers and requests comments on the potential role of the HITPC and HHS in this space.

  7. CQM Pipeline: Innovation Track • We have considered two approaches to provider-initiated eCQMs. • - A conservative approach might allow “Certified Development Organizations”, to develop, release and report proprietary CQMs for MU. • - An alternate approach might open the process to any EP/EH but constrain allowable eCQMs via measure design software(e.g., Measure Authoring Tool). • What constraints should be in place? To leverage CQM innovation from health systems and professional societies, the QMWG has discussed a proposal to allow EPs or EHs to submit a locally developed CQM as a menu item in partial fulfillment of MU requirements (in lieu of one of the existing measures specified in the MU program). Health care organizations choosing this optional menu track would be required to use a brief submission form that describes some of the evidence that supports their measure and how the measure was used in their organization to improve care.

  8. Discussion To members of and contributors to the QMWG: We appreciate your time, insights, suggestions, comments and edits. Thank-you, -David Lansky, Jim Walker and ONC Staff

  9. ADDENDUM RFC SLIDES • Patient-Centeredness • CQM Pipeline • Process and Outcomes • Measure Development • Objective Alignment • Domains and Exemplars • CQM Innovation Track • Quality Improvement Support • Architecture and Standards • Measure Development

  10. Person Centeredness

  11. CQM Pipeline: Process and Outcomes

  12. CQM Pipeline: Measure Development

  13. CQM Pipeline: Objective Alignment

  14. CQM Pipeline: Domains and Exemplars

  15. CQM Pipeline: CQM Innovation, 1

  16. CQM Pipeline: CQM Innovation, 2

  17. Quality Improvement Support: Architecture and Standards

  18. CQM Pipeline: Measure Development