Showing posts with label HIT Policy Committee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HIT Policy Committee. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Summary of the HIT Policy Committee Report to Congress

Below is a summary of the HIT Policy Committee Report: "Challenges and Barriers to Interoperability" submitted to Congress today:

The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 was signed by the President on December 1, 2014. It reads in part:

Interoperability.--The agreement directs the Health IT Policy Committee to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and the appropriate authorizing committees no later than 12 months after enactment of this act regarding the challenges and barriers to interoperability. The report should cover the technical, operational and financial barriers to interoperability, the role of certification in advancing or hindering interoperability across various providers, as well as any other barriers identified by the Policy Committee.

Past Health IT Policy Committee recommendations in the following categories of barriers to interoperability:

  • Lack of universal adoption of standards-based EHR systems
  • Impact on providers’ day-to-day workflow
  • Complex privacy and security challenges associated with widespread health information exchange
  • Need for synchronous collective action among multiple stakeholders
  • Weak or misaligned incentives

Interoperability is defined as the ability of two or more systems to exchange information and the ability of those systems to use the information that has been exchanged without special effort. Although substantial interoperability amongst all stakeholders in American health care has not been achieved to date, there are pockets of meaningful health information exchange developing.

The following new recommendations were developed by the Interoperability Task Force of the HITPC to build upon work that ONC has undertaken to identify solutions to some of the barriers identified within this report, most notably, ONC’s updated version of the Shared Nationwide Interoperability Roadmap (Interoperability Roadmap).

Three Recommendations

Develop and implement meaningful measures of HIE-sensitive health outcomes and resource use for public reporting and payment

HIE-sensitive measures are those which require health information to be exchanged and effectively used in order for the applicant to earn high scores. In order to enhance the strength of incentives that drive interoperability, a set of specific measures should be developed that focus on the delivery of coordinated care, facilitated by shared information across the entire health team (including the individuals and families) and throughout the continuum of care settings. An example of an HIE-sensitive measure would look at medically unnecessary duplicate testing. Payers could provide incentive clout by declining to reimburse for medically unnecessary duplicate testing.

Develop and implement HIE-sensitive vendor performance measures for certification and public reporting

While use of HIE-sensitive quality and value measures for provider organizations may serve as an indirect incentive for vendors to improve their systems, we believe that direct measures of HIE-sensitive vendor performance will bolster market forces behind vendor business practices that promote interoperability. Today, purchasers of EHR systems lack such measures to inform purchasing decisions or to use as a lever to put pressure on vendors to improve. Although vendors have strong incentives to pass the interoperability requirements for EHR certification, this process is “one-time” and occurs in a lab. It has not been shown to translate into interoperability that is affordable or easy to implement in the field.

Accelerate Payment Incentives for Interoperability: Set specific HIE-sensitive payment incentives that incorporate specific performance measure criteria and a timeline for implementation that establishes clear objectives of what must be accomplished under alternative payment models

Payers have existing mechanisms through which to incentivize providers to meet HIE-sensitive outcome measures, and Medicare is the logical payer to lead such efforts (particularly as CMS operationalizes new payment requirements under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA). We note that these measures do not require defining interoperability as a new domain of performance incentives as they could easily be incorporated into incentive programs that target dimensions of provider performance that are HIE-sensitive, such as care that is coordinated, high-value, and safe, as well as integrated across the health and social services continuum. For example, a payment policy that denies claims for medically unnecessary duplicate testing for high-cost imaging would require coordination, or at least awareness, of orders and results by all providers involved in the care of an individual patient. Providing a roadmap for specific HIE-sensitive performance measures for future payment incentives, with enough lead time, will motivate and catalyze specific actions to speed the pace of achieving effective health information exchange that facilitates high priority use cases.

Monday, May 17, 2010

A National Strategy for eCare

Eric Dishman director of Health Innovation and Policy for Intel’s Digital Health Group, which he helped launch in 1999. He founded the Product Research and Innovation team responsible for driving Intel’s worldwide healthcare research, new product innovation, strategic planning, and health policy and standards activities. Eric is widely recognized as a global leader in driving healthcare reform through home and community-based technologies and services, with special focus on enabling independent living for seniors.

On April 27, 2004 Eric testified before the Senate Special Subcommittee on Aging and now six years later on April 22, 2010 he returned to give testimony again to the committee hearing "Aging in Place: The National Broadband Plan and Bringing Health Care Technology Home." While in Washington, D.C. on April 20, 2010 he also testified before the Meaningful Use workgroup of the HIT Policy Committee.

I had the opportunity to hear some of his thoughts and insights. He shared some of what he sees as the current landscape in health IT, how he feels the ONC is doing so far, and where the future of healthcare is heading. His focus is generally on home care and aging in his work with the Continua Health Alliance and Intel's new Health Guide medical device.

Below is the audio from our conversation:

Download




Thursday, April 8, 2010

Strategic Plan Workgroup Listening Session

The Strategic Plan Workgroup of HIT Policy Committee held a public listening session on April 6, 2010, 12pm ET, to obtain feedback on the Health IT Strategic Framework. This Framework will be a key input to the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan. Register for the session here: https://www.signup4.net/Public/ap.aspx?EID=HITS10E

Here is the Agenda [PDF] and here is the Draft Framework [PDF]

This is the audio:

Download



This is the presentation for the session:



Tuesday, April 6, 2010

VA Investment in Open Source Electronic Health Records Pays Off

A new study by the Center for Information Technology Leadership (CITL), a nonprofit research center at Partners HealthCare System, found that the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) investments in health information technology (IT) were related to improvements in quality of care and potentially produced $3.09 billion in net value over the 10-year period studied. The findings, published in the April 2010 issue of Health Affairs, are the result of a two-year study of the value of the VA investments in health IT.

The net value of $3.09 billion was determined after careful examination of both the total investment made in health IT at the VA ($4.07B) and by projecting the total value of improved patient care and enhanced clinical efficiencies ($7.16B). CITL assessed the potential impact of the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA) in a range of areas, including reducing inappropriate and redundant care and replacing paper-based practices with electronic processes and information exchange. According to CITL’s analysis, these and other impacts were projected to have avoided significant costs and increased efficiency across the VA system.

“While the VA historically has spent a higher proportion of its budget on health IT, it has achieved a very high level of HIT adoption when compared to industry norms,” said Dr. Colene Byrne, CITL Senior Analyst, and Principal Investigator of the study. Dr. Byrne added, “The VHA greatly exceeds industry norms in outpatient electronic health record (EHR) adoption and in selected outpatient quality measures that are reflective of the use of automated clinical reminders. The VA’s quality measures for diabetes care averaged around 16 percentile points higher than private sector benchmarks based on the Medicare population.”

The study reports on two complementary analyses of health IT value: 1) a benchmarking analysis comparing the adoption, cost, and quality-related impacts of health IT across the VA relative to private sector healthcare organizations; and 2) cost-benefit models that estimate the financial value of key components of VistA.
The VA has more recently initiated systematic tracking of VistA costs and impacts, but historical costs and benefit data were not readily available. Thus, CITL calculated retrospective, high-level estimates of annual and cumulative costs and benefits. CITL researchers employed a rigorous, multiphase research process in its analyses, including literature reviews, evidence synthesis, VistA functionality assessment, expert interviews, and simulation model development.

Dr. Byrne explained: “We modeled the costs and impacts of four VistA applications that were nationally adopted and supported by the VA and for which there was strong evidence of benefit, including the VA’s EHR – the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) – which includes computerized provider order entry of medications and tests and decision support. CPRS was a major driver of the estimated benefit.” CITL was not able, however, to assess the extent to which the VA actually realized or captured the projected benefits.

CITL’s value modeling analysis represents a major contribution to policymakers and others who seek to quantify the financial value of health IT. “This analysis presents a systematic way to understand the relationships between cost and quality measures and other important factors, such as system adoption, capability, and sophistication”, said Dr. Blackford Middleton, CITL Chairman, and Corporate Director, Clinical Informatics Research and Development, Partners HealthCare System. “Our hope is that this study provides a framework and methods for evaluating health IT and its impact across a system. Public and private-sector policies and programs alike should work towards developing a common set of health IT performance measures.”

For over 20 years, the VA has invested in VistA as a tool to improve the quality of care delivered to veterans. Today, the VA stands as one of the few national, health-IT enabled healthcare systems in the U.S. As such, noted Dr. Byrne, the VA is an important source of information and experience for understanding the potential clinical and financial impacts of health IT. Dr. Byrne added, “This is particularly true as federal incentive programs are rolled out under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of the 2009 stimulus package.”

$267 Million in Recovery Act Funds for New Health IT Regional Extension Centers

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced today that more than $267 million has been awarded to 28 additional non-profit organizations to establish Health Information Technology Regional Extension Centers (RECs). This investment, funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, will help grow the emerging health information technology (health IT) industry which is expected to support tens of thousands of jobs ranging from nurses and pharmacy techs to IT technicians and trainers.

Grantees in the second series of awards (announced April 6, 2010)

REC Awardees

Federal Share

Alaska eHealth Network, Anchorage, AK

$3,632,357

University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL

$7,519,969

Arizona Health-e Connection, Phoenix, AZ

$10,791,644

Local Initiative Health Authority for Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, CA

$15,625,910

eHealthConnecticut, Inc., Rocky Hill, CT

$5,749,309

National Indian Health Board, Washington, DC

$15,625,910

Quality Insights of Delaware, Inc., Wilmington, DE

$5,859,716

University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL

$7,669,328

Community Health Centers Alliance, Inc, St. Petersburg, FL

$10,982,866

University of South Florida, Tampa, FL

$5,884,132

Hawaii Health Information Exchange, Honolulu, HI

$5,859,716

University of Kentucky Research Foundation, Lexington, KY

$6,005,467

Louisiana Health Care Quality Forum, Baton Rouge, LA

$6,207,802

HealthInfoNet, Manchester, ME

$4,777,483

Chesapeake Regional Information System for our Patients, Baltimore, MD

$5,535,423

eQHealth Solutions, Inc , Baton Rouge, LA

$4,289,613

The Curators of the University of Missouri, Columbia, MO

$6,836,335

Mountain-Pacific Quality Health Foundation, Helena, MT

$5,020,754

New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ

$23,048,351

Quality Insights of Pennsylvania, Inc. (Eastern), King of Prussia, PA

$28,810,271

Quality Insights of Pennsylvania, Inc. (Western), King of Prussia, PA

$15,625,910

Ponce School of Medicine, PR

$19,280,795

South Carolina Research Foundation, Columbia, SC

$5,581,407

Dakota State University, Madison, SD

$5,687,168

The TAMUS Health Science Center Research Foundation. College Station, TX

$5,279,970

University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX

$15,274,327

Dallas- Fort Worth Hospital Council Education and Research Foundation, Irving, TX

$8,488,513

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center. Lubbock, TX

$6,666,296

Total

$267, 616, 742
Grantees in the first series of awards (announced February 12, 2010)

RECs Awardee

 Federal Share

 Arkansas Foundation For Medical Care

 $7,400,000

 Northern California Regional Extension Center

$17,286,081

 Southern California Regional Extension Center

$13,961,339

 Colorado RHIO

 $12,475,000

 District of Columbia Primary Care Association

 $5,488,437

 Health Choice Network, Inc., Florida

$8,500,000

 Morehouse School of Medicine, Inc., Georgia

$19,521,542

 Northern Illinois University

$7,546,000

 Northwestern University

$7,649,533

 Iowa IFMC

 $5,508,019

 Purdue University

$12,000,000

 Kansas Foundation for Medical Care Inc.

 $7,000,000

 Massachusetts Technology Park Cooperation

$13,433,107

 Altarum Institute, Michigan

$19,619,990

 Key Health Alliance (Stratis Health), Minnesota – North Dakota

 $19,000,000

 CIMRO of Nebraska

$6,647,371

 LCF Research, New Mexico

$6,175,000

 New York eHealth Collaborative (NYeC)

 $26,534,999

 Fund for Public Health New York

$21,754,010

 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

$13,569,169

 Greater Cincinnati HealthBridge (Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana)

$9,738,000

 Ohio Health Information Partnership

 $28,500,000

 Oklahoma Foundation for Medical Quality, Inc.

 $5,331,685

 OCHIN Inc. (Primary), Oregon

$13,201,499

 Rhode Island Quality Institute

 $6,000,000

 Qsource (Tennessee)

$7,256,155

 HealthInsight, Utah-Nevada

 $6,917,783

 Vermont Information Technology Leaders, Inc.

 $6,762,080

 VHQC and the Center for Innovative Technology, for The Virginia

 Consortium

 $12,425,000

 Qualis Health, Washington - Idaho

$12,846,482

 West Virginia Health Improvement Institute Inc.

 $6,000,000

 MetaStar, Inc, Wisconsin

$9,125,000




Total

 $375,173,281

Monday, April 5, 2010

Paving the Path to Progress with a Roadmap for Health IT


The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) is responsible for putting forward a vision for nationwide, interoperable health IT.  Our work requires that we also support the creation of a learning health system that is patient-centered and uses information to continuously improve health and health care of individuals and the population.  We have begun to get input for a detailed roadmap outlining goals, principles, objectives, strategies, and tactics toward this effort. This roadmap will pave the way to our vision and help keep us accountable.

The original Federal Health IT Strategic Plan was published in June 2008.  As part of the 2009 HITECH Act, included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the ONC is required to update the 2008 Strategic Plan.  The updated Federal Health IT Strategic Plan will outline objectives, milestones, and metrics related to health information exchange and associated privacy and security protections, electronic health record utilization, and will address the needs of underserved populations to reduce health disparities.  It will primarily address the time period of 2011 through 2015 but also will lay the groundwork for continued innovation and progress beyond 2015. 

The strategic planning process will require your insights and experience.  We want the process to be highly participatory, with broad involvement across the health care sector, and opportunities for public input and discussion.  To this end, the HIT Policy Committee’s Strategic Plan Workgroup is tasked with developing for the Policy Committee the Health IT Strategic Framework to inform the strategic planning process and providing a vehicle for public and private input.

The Framework will include recommendations for the Committee for updates to the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan.  The current draft Framework organizes key strategies into four themes: meaningful use of health IT; policy and technical infrastructure; privacy and security; and learning health systems.  For each theme there is a goal, principles, objectives, and strategies. Ultimately, the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan will go two steps further by outlining specific tactics and measures per theme.

Last week, the ONC posted a draft of the HIT Policy Committee Strategic Plan Workgroup’s Health IT Strategic Framework for public review. Comments can be provided via the FACA Blog and via a public listening session, scheduled for April 6, 2010. Registration is required and complete details are available at http://healthit.hhs.gov/StrategicPlanWG.

I encourage you to review the draft Framework and offer your feedback.  The HIT Policy Committee and the ONC staff will carefully review comments and consider how to incorporate public input into the Strategic Framework and ultimately into the Plan update. Please join us in developing a dynamic strategic plan to pave our road to progress.


Sincerely,
David Blumenthal, M.D., M.P.P.

National Coordinator for Health Information Technology

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) encourages you to share this information as we work together to enhance the quality, safety and value of care and the health of all Americans through the use of electronic health records and health information technology.
For more information and to receive regular updates from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, please subscribe to our Health IT News list.

Friday, April 2, 2010

SHARP Focus: Patient-Centered Cognitive Support

Last December the Office of the National Coordinator announced the Strategic Health IT Advanced Research Projects (SHARP) Program. The SHARP Program was created to fund research focused on achieving breakthrough advances to address well-documented problems that have impeded adoption of health IT. With scalpel-like precision, the hope is that this research will accelerate progress towards achieving nationwide meaningful use of health IT in support of a high-performing, continuously-learning health care system. Under the recently announced SHARP funding program the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston will get $15 million to focus on the research area of Patient-Centered Cognitive Support. Along with $15 million each for the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign to study Security of Health Information Technology, Harvard University for research on Healthcare Application and Network Platform Architectures, and the Mayo Clinic of Medicine to focus on Secondary Use of EHR Data.

While all of these other areas may be familiar to most, it seems not many are aware of patient-centered cognitive support. So what is it and why should we focus on this area of study? The report by the National Research Council (pdf) of the National Academies concluded that a serious gap in in the implementation of health IT is the failure to deliver patient-centered cognitive support. According to the report:
During the committee's discussions, patient-centered cognitive support emerged as an overarching grand research challenge to focus health-related efforts of the computer science research community, which can play an important role in helping to cross the health care IT chasm...

Today, clinicians spend a great deal of time and energy searching and sifting through raw data about patients and trying to integrate the data with their general medical knowledge to form relevant mental abstractions and associations relevant to the patient's situation…The health care IT systems of today tend not to provide assistance with this sifting task…

The availability of these models would free clinicians from having to scan raw data, and thus they would have a much easier time defining, testing, and exploring their own working theories. What links the raw data to the abstract models might be called medical logic—that is, computer-based tools examine raw data relevant to a specific patient and suggest their clinical implications given the context of the models and abstractions. Computers can then provide decision support—that is, tools that help clinicians decide on a course of action in response to an understanding of the patient's status. At any time, clinicians have the ability to access the raw data as needed if they wish to explore the presented interpretations and abstractions in greater depth…The decision support systems would explicitly incorporate patient utilities, values, and resource constraints…They would support holistic plans and would allow users to simulate interventions on the virtual patient before doing them for real.
We can conclude from this that patient-centered cognitive support can be of great value to successfully using health IT. According to their definition of the patient-centered cognitive support process, it would use a computerized model of a "virtual patient" that reflects an actual patient. The health IT tool would use this virtual patient to guide the selection and analysis of data. These targeted data would be:
  • relevant to a specific patient and suggest their clinical implications
  • provide decision support
  • help clinicians decide on a course of action in response to an understanding of the patient's status
  • take into account a patient utilities, values, and resource constraints…
  • support holistic plans of care
The report also states:
These virtual patient models are the computational counterparts of the clinician's conceptual model of a patient. They depict and simulate the clinician's working theory about interactions going on in the patient and enable patient-specific parameterization and multicomponent alerts. They build on submodels of biological and physiological systems and also exploit epidemiological models that take into account the local prevalence of diseases. The availability of these models would free clinicians from having to scan raw data, and thus they would have a much easier time defining, testing, and exploring their own working theories. What links the raw data to the abstract models might be called medical logic—that is, computer-based tools examine raw data relevant to a specific patient and suggest their clinical implications given the context of the models and abstractions. Computers can then provide decision support—that is, tools that help clinicians decide on a course of action in response to an understanding of the patient's status. At any time, clinicians have the ability to access the raw data as needed if they wish to explore the presented interpretations and abstractions in greater depth.
With the deluge of data surging through EHR systems healthcare providers are struggling to stay afloat with all the clinical information and they inevitably become overloaded. This can impede the adoption of evidence-based research in clinical practice. I believe using innovative patient-centered cognitive support tools can help providers overcome some of the barriers that have stood in the way of health IT adoption. I'm really looking forward to seeing the results of this research. As Dr. Blumenthal said, "this is not ivory tower research; its goal is to quickly infuse the dynamic health IT sector with new thinking, ideas, and solutions."

HHS/ONC Awards $144 Million in Funds

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has enlisted the talent and resources of some of the nation’s leading universities, community colleges, and major research centers to advance the widespread adoption and meaningful use of health information technology (health IT).

Awards totaling $84 million to 16 universities and junior colleges will support training and development of more than 50,000 new health IT professionals. Additionally Strategic Health IT Advanced Research Projects (SHARP) awards totaling $60 million were provided to four advanced research institutions ($15 million each) to focus on solving current and future challenges that represent barriers to adoption and meaningful use of health IT. Both sets of awards are funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Today’s awards are part of the $2 billion effort to achieve widespread meaningful use of health IT and provide for the use of an electronic health record (EHR) for each person in the United States by 2014.

“Training a cadre of new health IT professionals and breaking down barriers to the adoption of meaningful use of health IT are both critical to the national effort to use information technology to realize better patient care,” stated David Blumenthal, MD, MPP, national coordinator for health information technology. “The institutions receiving awards today will develop necessary roadmaps to help health care providers and hospitals implement and effectively use electronic health records.”

Workforce Award recipients, by program area, include:

Community College Consortia Program ($36 million):
The Community College Consortia Program provides assistance to five regional recipients to establish a multi-institutional consortium within each designated region. The five regional consortia will include 70 community colleges in total. Each college will create non-degree training programs that can be completed in six months or less by individuals with appropriate prior education and/or experience. First year grant awards are estimated at $36 million. An additional $34 million is available for year two funding of these programs after successful completion of a mid-project evaluation.
Institution Amount of Award
Bellevue College, Bellevue, Wash. $ 3,364,798
Cuyahoga Community College District, Cleveland, Ohio $ 7,531,403
Los Rios Community College District, Sacramento, Calif. $ 5,435,587
Pitt Community College, Winterville, N.C. $10,901,009
Tidewater Community College, Norfolk, Va. $ 8,492,793


Curriculum Development Center ($10 million):
The Curriculum Development Centers will develop educational materials for key health IT topics to be used by the members of the Community College Consortia program. The materials will also be made available to institutions of higher education across the country. One of the centers will receive additional assistance to act as the National Training and Dissemination Center (NTDC) for the curriculum materials.
Institution Amount of Award
University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Ala. $1,820,000
The Trustees of Columbia University, New York City, N.Y. $1,820,000
Duke University, Durham, N.C. $1,820,000
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. $1,820,000
Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Ore. $2,720,000*
*Will also receive the NTDC award.


University-Based Training Programs ($32 million):
The University-Based Training programs will produce trained professionals for vital, highly specialized health IT roles. Most trainees in these programs will complete intensive courses of study in 12-months or less and receive a university-issued certificate of advanced training. Other trainees supported by these grants will study toward masters’ degrees.
Institution Amount of Award
The Trustees of Columbia University, New York City, N.Y. $3,786,677
University of Colorado Denver College of Nursing, Denver, Colo. $2,622,186
Duke University, Durham, N.C. $2,167,121
George Washington University, District of Columbia $4,612,313
Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind. $1,406,469
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. $3,752,512
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn. $5,145,705
Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Ore. $3,085,812
Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas $5,421,205


Competency Examination Program ($6 million):
This program will support the development and initial administration of a set of health IT competency examinations. The program will create an objective measure to assess basic competency for individuals trained in short-term, non degree health IT programs and for members of the workforce seeking to demonstrate their competency in certain health IT workforce roles.
Institution Amount of Award
Northern Virginia Community College, Annandale, Va. $6,000,000


Strategic Health IT Advanced Research Projects (SHARP) Program ($60 million):
The SHARP program recognizes the critical importance of research to support improvements in the quality, safety, and efficiency of healthcare by creating “breakthrough” advances in information technology. The SHARP program targets four areas where improvements in technology are needed. The four SHARP award recipients, their areas of research focus and funding are:
  • University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Ill. - Security of Health Information Technology – Developing security and risk mitigation policies and the technologies necessary to build and preserve the public trust as Health IT systems gain widespread use. $15 million.
  • The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Texas - Patient-Centered Cognitive Support – Harnessing the power of Health IT so that it integrates with, enhances and supports clinicians’ reasoning and decision-making. $15 million.
  • President and Fellows of Harvard College, Boston, Mass. - Healthcare Application and Network Platform Architectures – Developing new and improved architectures that will leverage benefits of today’s architecture and focus on the flexibility and scalability needs for the future to address significant increases in capture, storage and analysis of data. $15 million.
  • Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. – Secondary Use of EHR Data– Strategies to make use of data that will be stored in EHRs for improving the overall quality of health care, while maintaining data privacy and security. $15 million.
Information about the HITECH awards available through the workforce development program is available at http://HealthIT.HHS.gov/ and www.grants.gov.

The following was sent out via email from the ONC:


Research and Innovation that Translates into Practice

 Message from Dr. David Blumenthal, National Coordinator for Health Information Technology

April 2, 2010


Our quest to improve the health of Americans and the performance of our health care system depends critically on the use of electronic health records (EHRs) and the electronic exchange of health information. The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) has created a solid foundation of programs and initiatives to support health care practitioners and hospitals in implementing meaningful use of certified EHR technology, but we are admittedly at the beginning of our journey. ONC is keenly aware that technology needs to continuously advance, bringing new solutions that will make it even more beneficial. While I’m proud of what ONC has achieved so far, I’m humbled by the size of the task still in front of us. The HITECH Act — in its very design — clearly recognized a need for progressive and innovative thinking to overcome barriers and ensure the long-term viability of our health care system. 
To this end, today ONC launched a major initiative aimed at promoting research and innovation. Four  renowned institutions — Mayo Clinic of Medicine, Harvard University, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston,  and University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign — were awarded research grants totaling $60 million through the Strategic Health IT Advanced Research Projects (SHARP)program.
Each institution’s research projects will identify short-term and long-term solutions to address key challenges, including ensuring the security of health IT (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), enabling patient-centered cognitive support for clinicians (The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston), making progress toward new health care application and network-platform architectures (Harvard University), and promoting the secondary use of EHR data while maintaining privacy and security (Mayo Clinic of Medicine).
These projects will be conducted by multidisciplinary teams led by recognized public and private sector leaders in health, including researchers, the technology industry, and health care providers. The results of these diverse teams’ work will be translated into practice to produce innovative health IT solutions that can be deployed nationwide.  This is not ivory tower research; its goal is to quickly infuse the dynamic health IT sector with new thinking, ideas, and solutions.
The SHARP grants announced today represent an important investment in the long-term future of health care for our nation. I am excited by the promise of these projects to fundamentally change the trajectory of health IT in support of better health and care.


Sincerely,

David Blumenthal, M.D., M.P.P. National Coordinator for Health Information Technology
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Thursday, April 1, 2010

Additional Funding for RECs to Support Critical Access Hospitals

This program contains Recovery Act funding.

There has been a notice of funding on the federal register for supplemental funding for RECs. RECs are eligible for $12,000.00 for each Critical Access and Rural Hospital they plan to assist. This is supplemental funding, so when awarded it would be incorporated into the existing cooperative agreement.

Supplemental American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Health Information Technology Extension Program: Regional Centers

Here is the synopsis of the funding announcement:
The two-year expansion supplement will be available to recipients of the REC awards and is intended to ensure the provision of services to CAHs and Rural Hospitals in the REC’s service area. This award will be supplemental to the REC’s existing award, and the plans, metrics and reporting requirements will be included in the REC’s cooperative agreement. It is anticipated that each REC will need an additional $12,000 per CAH and Rural Hospital that it supports through this program. The supplemental funds will be used to ensure the delivery of the support services for CAH and Rural Hospitals and will be tied to the same milestones that are identified in the original REC FOA (EP-HIT-09-003). As with other funding milestones identified in the original FOA, recipients will be required to use the customer relationship management tool to help in meeting the milestones associated with this project. Biennial Evaluation The evaluation of the CAH/Rural Hospital program will be included in the REC’s biennial evaluation. A separate report (or report section) will be required for those activities covered by supplemental funding.

April 1, 2010 Privacy & Security Standards Workgroup

The Privacy & Security Standards Workgroup of the HIT Standards Committee met on April 1, 2010. The workgroup is tasked with making recommendations to the HIT Standards Committee on specific privacy and security safeguards that should be included in the definition of Meaningful Use, with a specific focus on the eight (8) areas listed in Section 3002(b)(2)(B):

(1) Technologies that protect the privacy of health information and promote security in a qualified electronic health record, including for the segmentation and protection from disclosure of specific and sensitive individually identifiable health information with the goal of minimizing the reluctance of patients to seek care (or disclose information about a condition) because of privacy concerns, in accordance with applicable law, and for the use and disclosure of limited data sets of such information;

(2) A nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and accurate exchange of health information;

(3) The utilization of a certified electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014;

(4) Technologies that as a part of a qualified electronic health record allow for an accounting of disclosures made by a covered entity (as defined for purposes of regulations promulgated under section 264(c) of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) for purposes of treatment, payment, and health care operations (as such terms are defined for purposes of such regulations);

(5) The use of certified electronic health records to improve the quality of health care, such as by promoting the coordination of health care and improving continuity of health care among health care providers, by reducing medical errors, by improving population health, by reducing health disparities, by reducing chronic disease, and by advancing research and education;

(6) Technologies that allow individually identifiable health information to be rendered unusable, unreadable, or indecipherable to unauthorized individuals when such information is transmitted in the nationwide health information network or physically transported outside of the secured, physical perimeter of a health care provider, health plan, or health care clearinghouse;

(7) The use of electronic systems to ensure the comprehensive collection of patient demographic data, including, at a minimum, race, ethnicity, primary language, and gender information; and

(8) Technologies that address the needs of children and other vulnerable populations.

Below are the slides from a presentation by the International Security Trust and Privacy Alliance (ISTPA)during the meeting.

Monday, March 29, 2010

Certification/Adoption Workgroup 3-29

The Certification/Adoption Workgroup met on March 29, 2010. Following up on the previousMarch 12, 2010 meeting and the February 25, 2010 meeting, the committee reviewed the revised set of recommendations to the ONC, and discussed concerns expressed about the potential for increased FDA regulation of EHR systems and possible ways that the ONC and FDA could possibly collaborate.

They considered a draft proposal today that outlined best practices for electronic reporting of patient safety hazards. The practices are expected to be included in the second phase of meaningful use starting in 2013. “Most unsafe conditions are not the result of a single software error. Instead, multiple factors are involved, including challenges with usability, processes, and interoperability,” says the draft proposal.

One of the concerns of increased FDA regulation expressed is that the FDA focuses on vendors who market their products. As a result, the FDA’s efforts do not cover open-source software and might not cover some self developed EHR modules. This “uneven playing field” is a significant concern because a patient centered approach to safety should not depend on the source of the software involved.

They identified a couple ways that the ONC and the FDA might collaborate. They recommended that the two agencies collaborate on certification criteria that improve patient safety and also that they focus on health IT areas that are creating safety risks for EHR implementations. One example of such a safety risk is retail pharmacies which do not process electronic order cancellations, which can result in over-medication of patients.

They also recommended that ONC commission a formal study to thoroughly evaluate health IT patient safety concerns and audit trails for health information exchange activities.

The audio from the meeting is posted with the agenda and meeting materials below:

Download




  • Agenda


  • Patient Safety Working Document


  • FDA Recommendation Working Document
  • Friday, March 26, 2010

    Discussion with Dr. David Blumenthal

    I was honored to have a wide ranging conversation with Dr. David Blumenthal today. The primary topics centered around transparency at the ONC, HITREC and communities of shared learning, Personal Health Records and how they fit within the strategic vision of the ONC, and finally overcoming challenges to adoption of electronic health records for rural providers, critical access hospitals and small practices.

    Some of the material that is helpful as you listen along:

    ONC Blog - http://healthit.hhs.gov/blog/onc/

    Institute for Health Improvement - http://www.ihi.org/ihi

    Electronic Health Records in Ambulatory Care — A National Survey of Physicians
    by Catherine M. DesRoches, Dr.P.H., Eric G. Campbell, Ph.D., Sowmya R. Rao, Ph.D., Karen Donelan, Sc.D., Timothy G. Ferris, M.D., M.P.H., Ashish Jha, M.D., M.P.H., Rainu Kaushal, M.D., M.P.H., Douglas E. Levy, Ph.D., Sara Rosenbaum, J.D., Alexandra E. Shields, Ph.D., and David Blumenthal, M.D., M.P.P. - http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/1/50

    "Information Technology Comes to Medicine" by David Blumenthal, M.D., M.P.P., and John P. Glaser, Ph.D. - http://www.ipalc.org/EMR/Information%20Technology%20Comes%20to%20Medicine%20(NEJM%206-14-2007).pdf

    Download



    Thursday, March 25, 2010

    Vocabulary Task Force

    The HIT Standards Committee’s Clinical Operations Workgroup set up a Vocabulary Task Force to address vocabulary subsets and value sets as facilitators and enablers of “meaningful use.” The Vocabulary Task Force met on March 23, 2010 after seeking input.

    As John Halamka, MD said in his blog:
    "To ensure the right subsets are available and maintained, we need governance - who decides what goes into the vocabularies, what mappings are created, and how disputes/redundancies are resolved? We need a place to store vocabularies that makes them easily accessible to all. We need a roadmap for future work."
    The audio is posted with the agenda and meeting materials below:

    Download






  • Agenda




  • Summary and Key Points from February Hearing




  • Panel 1: Office of the National Coordinator, Interoperability Framework

    • Douglas Fridsma, MD


  • Panel 2: Federal Provider Organizations



  • Panel 3:  Best Practices and Lessons Learned: Vocabulary Infrastructure



  • Panel 4:  Best Practices & Lessons Learned, con’t



  • Panel 5: Level 1 Governance Value Set

    • Sharon Sprenger, The Joint Commission
    • Karen Kmetik, American Medical Association
    • Greg Pawlson, National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) [invited]
    • Janet Corrigan, National Quality Forum (NQF)
  • Tuesday, March 23, 2010

    CMS Reorganization

    BILLING CODE: 4120-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority

    Part F of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority for the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 248, pp. 73847 - 73850, dated Friday, December 28, 2007) is amended to reflect changes to the current structure of CMS.

    In an effort to improve the value and service that CMS provides to the Nation, the CMS has modified its structure to align similar functions under common executive leadership and allow CMS to establish a Center for Program Integrity and to strengthen its focus on beneficiary services and strategic planning.

    The structure includes the following, which all report to the Administrator, CMS: 1) Center for Medicare, 2) Center for Medicaid, CHIP and Survey & Certification, 3) Center for Strategic Planning, 4) Center for Program Integrity, and 5) Office of External Affairs and Beneficiary Services. In addition, the current role of the Chief Operating Officer (COO) has been formalized and remains responsible for operations, information systems, contracts, finance, E-health standards and services, and the Consortia. The COO continues to report to the Administrator, CMS. The following organizations remain substantively unchanged and continue to report to the Administrator, CMS: Office of Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights, Office of Legislation, Office of the Actuary, Office of Clinical Standards and Quality, and the Office of Strategic

    Operations and Regulatory Affairs (will be renamed the Office of Executive Operations and Regulatory Affairs to more accurately reflect the work of the organization). New administrative codes were assigned to all organizations, including the immediate office of the Administrator.

    Given the complexity and importance of CMS’ programs, this realignment of existing functions positions CMS to consistently excel in serving our beneficiaries and strategically positions CMS for the future. Additionally, this effort ensures common core functions are under common executive leadership and share a consistent vision.

    The specific amendments to Part F are described below:

    I. Under Part F, CMS, Office of the Administrator, FA.10 Organization is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

    FC.10 Organization. CMS is headed by the Administrator, CMS, and includes the following organizational components:

    Office of the Administrator (FC) Office of Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights (FCA) Office of External Affairs and Beneficiary Services (FCB) Office of Legislation (FCC) Office of the Actuary (FCE)

    Office of Executive Operations and Regulatory Affairs (FCF)

    Office of Clinical Standards and Quality (FCG) Center for Medicare (FCH) Center for Medicaid, CHIP and Survey & Certification (FCJ) Center for Strategic Planning (FCK) Center for Program Integrity (FCL) Chief Operating Officer (FCM)

    II. Under Part F, CMS, Office of the Administrator, FA.20 Functions is replaced with FC.20 Functions. The functions of the new organizations read as follows:

    Office of External Affairs and Beneficiary Services (FCB)
    • Serves as CMS’ focal point for beneficiary communications and services, provides leadership for CMS in the areas of intergovernmental affairs, and media relations. Advises the Administrator and other CMS components in all activities related to these functions and on matters that affect other units and levels of government.
    • Contributes to the formulation of policies, programs, and systems as well as oversees beneficiary services, intergovernmental affairs, media relations, and tribal affairs, including CMS’ Ombudsman program, call center operations, web sites, and Medicare contractor communications. Coordinates with the Office of Legislation on the development and advancement of new legislative initiatives and improvements.
    • Oversees the analysis and evaluation of customer data for the purpose of improving beneficiary communication tools (including but not limited to brochures, program/media campaigns, handbooks, websites, reports, presentations/briefings) and identifying best practices for the benefit of beneficiaries and other CMS customers. Coordinates this data with other CMS components to resolve customer and beneficiary issues through continuous quality improvement.
    • Oversees all CMS interactions and collaboration with key stakeholders relating to beneficiary communications and services, media relations, and intergovernmental affairs (e.g., external advocacy groups, Medicare beneficiary customer service, the media, contractors, Native American and Alaskan Native tribes, HHS, the White House, other CMS components, and other Federal government entities).
    • Formulates and implements a customer service plan that serves as a roadmap for the effective treatment and advocacy of customers and the quality of information provided to them.
    • Coordinates communications, messaging, media relations, partner relations and Tribal Affairs outreach with the CMS Regional Offices.
    • Serves as senior advisor to the Administrator in all activities related to the media. Provides consultation, advice, and training to CMS' senior staff with respect to relations with the news media.
    • Serves as liaison between CMS and State and local officials, and individuals representing State and local officials and advocacy groups.
    • Serves as coordinator of tribal affairs issues and liaison between CMS and State and local officials representing tribal affairs groups.

    Center for Medicare (FCH)
    • Serves as CMS’ focal point for the formulation, coordination, integration, implementation, and evaluation of national Medicare program policies and operations.
    • Identifies and proposes modifications to Medicare programs and policies to reflect changes or trends in the health care industry, program objectives, and the needs of Medicare beneficiaries. Coordinates with the Office of Legislation on the development and advancement of new legislative initiatives and improvements.
    • Serves as CMS’ lead for management, oversight, budget and performance issues relating to Medicare Advantage and prescription drug plans, Medicare fee-for-service providers and contractors.
    • Oversees all CMS interactions and collaboration with key stakeholders relating to Medicare (e.g., plans, providers, other government entities, advocacy groups, Consortia) and communication and dissemination of policies, guidance and materials to same to understand their perspectives and to drive best practices in the health care industry.
    • Develops and implements a comprehensive strategic plan, objectives and measures to carry out CMS’ Medicare program mission and goals and position the organization to meet future challenges with the Medicare program and its beneficiaries.
    • Coordinates with the Center for Program Integrity on the identification of program vulnerabilities and implementation of strategies to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse.

    Center for Medicaid, CHIP and Survey & Certification (FCJ)
    • Serves as CMS’ focal point for the formulation, coordination, integration, implementation, and evaluation of all national program policies and operations relating to Medicaid, CHIP, Survey & Certification, and the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act (CLIA).
    • In partnership with States, evaluates the success of State agencies in carrying out their responsibilities for effective State program administration and beneficiary protection, and, as necessary, assists States in correcting problems and improving the quality of their operations.
    • Identifies and proposes modifications to Medicaid and CHIP program measures, regulations, laws and policies to reflect changes or trends in the health care industry, program objectives, and the needs of Medicaid and CHIP beneficiaries. Collaborates with the Office of Legislation on the development and advancement of new legislative initiatives and improvements.
    • Oversees the planning, coordination and implementation of the survey, certification and enforcement programs for all Medicare and Medicaid providers and suppliers, and for laboratories under the auspices of CLIA.
    • Serves as CMS’ lead for management, oversight, budget and performance issues relating to Medicaid, CHIP and Survey and Certification, and the related interactions with the States.
    • Coordinates with the Center for Program Integrity on the identification of program vulnerabilities and implementation of strategies to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse.
    • In conjunction with the Office of External Affairs, oversees all CMS interactions and collaboration relating to Medicaid and CHIP with beneficiaries, States and territories and key stakeholders (i.e., health facilities and other health care providers, other Federal government entities, local governments) and communication and dissemination of policies, guidance and materials to same to understand their perspectives, support their efforts, and to drive best practices for beneficiaries, in States and throughout the health care industry.
    • Develops and implements a comprehensive strategic plan, objectives and measures to carry out CMS’ Medicaid and CHIP mission and goals and position the organization to meet future challenges with the Medicaid, CHIP and Survey & Certification, and CLIA programs.
    Center for Strategic Planning (FCK)
    • Serves as CMS’ focal point for the planning, formulation and coordination of long-term strategic plans, and future program policy and proposals for CMS.
    • Collaborates with the Office of Legislation on the development and advancement of new legislative initiatives and improvements.
    • Conducts environmental scanning, identifying, evaluating and reporting emerging trends in health care delivery and financing and their interactions with CMS programs and implications for future policy development and planning.
    • Oversees strategic, cross-cutting initiatives in coordination with other CMS components and external stakeholders.
    • In collaboration with other CMS components, designs, coordinates, conducts research, demonstrations, analyses and special studies, and evaluates the results for impacts on beneficiaries, providers, plans, health care programs and financing, States and other partners, designing and assessing potential improvements, and developing new measurement tools.
    • Oversees the development and dissemination of publications, data analyses, graphics, and briefing materials related to health care issues.

    Center for Program Integrity (FCL)
    • Serves as CMS’ focal point for all national and State-wide Medicare and Medicaid programs and CHIP integrity fraud and abuse issues.
    • Promotes the integrity of the Medicare and Medicaid programs and CHIP through provider/contractor audits and policy reviews, identification and monitoring of program vulnerabilities, and providing support and assistance to States. Recommends modifications to programs and operations as necessary and works with CMS Centers and Offices to affect changes as appropriate. Collaborates with the Office of Legislation on the development and advancement of new legislative initiatives and improvements to deter, reduce, and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse.
    • Oversees all CMS interactions and collaboration with key stakeholders relating to program integrity (i.e., U.S. Department of Justice, HHS Office of Inspector General, State law enforcement agencies, other Federal entities, CMS components) for the purposes of detecting, deterring, monitoring and combating fraud and abuse, as well as taking action against those that commit or participate in fraudulent or other unlawful activities.
    • In collaboration with other CMS Centers and Offices, develops and implements a comprehensive strategic plan, objectives and measures to carry out CMS’ Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP program integrity mission and goals, and ensure program vulnerabilities are identified and resolved.

    Chief Operating Officer (FCM)
    • Overall responsibility for facilitating the coordination, integration and execution of CMS policies and activities across CMS components, including new program initiatives.
    • Promotes accountability, communication, coordination, and facilitation of cooperative corporate decision-making among CMS senior leadership on management, operational and programmatic cross-cutting issues.
    • Tracks and monitors CMS performance and intervenes, as appropriate, to ensure key milestones/deliverables are successfully achieved. Keeps the Administrator and Principal Deputy Administrator advised of the status of significant national initiatives and programs that affect beneficiaries and/or the health care industry and makes recommendations regarding necessary corrective actions.
    • Provides executive leadership to CMS’ Consortia operations, including facilitating all required interaction and coordination between Consortia and other CMS components.
    • Oversees all planning, implementation and evaluation of administrative and operational activities for CMS, including enterprise-wide information systems and services, acquisition and grants, financial management, electronic health standards, facilities, and human resources.

    DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY

    All delegations and re-delegations of authority made to officials and employees of affected organizational components will continue in them or their successor organization pending further re-delegation, provided they are consistent with this realignment. (Authority: 44 U.S.C §3101) Dated: March 18, 2010

    Kathleen Sebelius Secretary

    [FR Doc. 2010-6429 Filed 03/23/2010 at 8:45 am; Publication Date: 03/24/2010]

    Thursday, March 18, 2010

    3-17 HIT Policy Meeting

    On March 17, 2010 the HIT Policy Committee met. There were reports from the Strategic Plan Workgroup, which outlined its vision of a “learning health system,” where patients, providers, government and technology will work together to generate knowledge to improve quality and clinical outcomes. The Certification/Adoption Workgroup reported on its patient safety focused meeting. And the NHIN Workgroup reported on its work and gave an update on the NHIN Direct project. There was also an update from the HIT Standards Committee and a report on the Certification NPRM. Tony Trenkle from CMS gave remarks on the over 200 NPRM comments received (of which 1/2 have been already read) and the process going forward (see analysis on Health System CIO Blog), while Jessica Kahn, also from CMS, discussed the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments(CLIA).

    Certification was a very important topic of the meeting. The NPRM proposing the establishment of certification programs for purposes of testing and certifying health information technology was issued earlier this month with a request for comments. The NPRM proposes a temporary certification program to assure the availability of Certified EHR Technology prior to the date on which health care providers seeking the incentive payments would begin to report demonstrable meaningful use of Certified EHR Technology. A permanent certification program will ultimately replace the temporary certification program.

    My favorite slide is this one during the presentation on the Certification NPRM which Carol Bean, a Standards Harmonization Analyst at the Office of the National Coordinator, did a fine job of explaining:


















    Another great slide was the animated version of Steven Posnak's explanation of how it works:



    The audio is posted with the meeting materials below:

    Download




    Tuesday, March 16, 2010

    NHIN Workgroup 3-16

    The NHIN Workgroup met on March 16, 2010. The committee is working to create a set of recommendations for a policy and technical framework that allows the internet to be used for the secure and standards-based exchange of health information in a way that is both open to all and fosters innovation. This meeting focused primarily on the trust framework and the role of trust enabling organizations, while also touching on identity proofing and authentication. Another important discussion dealt with the implications of NHIN Direct for existing State HIE grantees planning efforts.

    Understanding NHIN Direct will be very important to inform the work of states as they plan for HIE efforts. I love Dr. Fridsma's analogy: the NHIN Workgroup are providing the recipe (of specifications and services) that will allow the bakery (including state and local HIOs) to produce these delicious cakes of secure and meaningful exchange.

    The audio is posted with the meeting slides below:

    Download