Comments from ISDS on proposed rule for meaningful use March 15, 2010 Introduction Structure of comments



Similar documents
Summary of the Final Rule for Meaningful Use for 2015 and Meaningful Use Objectives for 2015 and 2016

EHR Incentive Programs for Eligible Professionals: What You Need to Know for 2015 Tipsheet

CMS Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Programs 2015 Final Rule Overview Meaningful Use

The HITECH Act and Meaningful Use Implications for Population and Public Health

Increase Participation Through Partial Incentives

ARRA HITECH Meaningful Use Objectives & Implications to Public Health Lab

EHR Incentive Programs: 2015 through 2017 (Modified Stage 2) Overview

Eligible Professionals

Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs- Past, Present, & Future. Travis Broome, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 12/18/2012

EHR/Meaningful Use

Meaningful Use Modification Rules for Oct. 26, 2015 Author: Jennifer Swinnich, Associate Director, PAMED Practice Support

Medicaid EHR Incentive Program

Consensus Framework for Advancing Public Health Informatics

Meaningful Use Objectives

Program Year 2015: Public Health Reporting Objective & Supporting Documentation

Meaningful Use in 2015 and Beyond Changes for Stage 2

Eligible Professional Menu Measure Frequently Asked Questions

How To Qualify For EHR Stimulus Funds Under

Presented by. Terri Gonzalez Director of Practice Improvement North Carolina Medical Society

WISHIN Comments Regarding CMS EHR Incentives Proposed Stage 2 Meaningful Use Objectives

Achieving Meaningful Use with Centricity EMR

Understanding Meaningful Use. Review of Part 1 and Part 2

Damon A. Ferlazzo, MPA Clinical Use and Benefits of State Immunization Information Systems August 21, 2014

Proving Meaningful Use of a Certified EMR

Agenda. Overview of Stage 2 Final Rule Impact to Program

Executive Brief: Cloud-Based Communication Service for Hospitals Fulfills Meaningful Use Requirement for State Reporting

Summary of the Proposed Rule for the Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Records (EHR) Incentive Program (Eligible Professionals only)

Stage 1 vs. Stage 2 Comparison Table for Eligible Professionals Last Updated: August, 2012

Stage 2 EHR Incentive Programs Supporting Documentation For Audits Last Updated: February 2014

Meaningful Use. Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs

Stage 2 Overview Tipsheet Last Updated: August, 2012

Meaningful Use Criteria for Eligible Hospitals and Eligible Professionals (EPs)

Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs

REQUIREMENTS GUIDE: How to Qualify for EHR Stimulus Funds under ARRA

Medicare and Medicaid Programs; EHR Incentive Programs

LIS Vendor Landscape and Options for Meeting ELR Meaningful Use

Stage 1 vs. Stage 2 Comparison for Eligible Professionals

Client Alert. CMS Releases Proposed Rule On Meaningful Use Of Electronic Health Record Technology

Meaningful Use Stage 3 Proposed Rule: What it Means for Hospitals, Physicians & Health IT Developers

9/9/2015. Medicare/Medicaid Incentive Program. Medicare/Medicaid Incentive Program. Meaningful Use, Penalties and Audits

Stage 1 vs. Stage 2 Comparison Table for Eligible Hospitals and CAHs Last Updated: August, 2012

Stage 2 Public Health Core Objective. Eligible Professionals

Meaningful Use Stage 2: What s Next?

MEANINGFUL USE STAGE FOR ELIGIBLE PROVIDERS USING CERTIFIED EMR TECHNOLOGY

Public Health Infrastructure and Health Information Technology

Proposed Stage 3 Meaningful Use Criteria

Eligible Professional EHR Incentive Program Objectives and Measures for 2016 Objective 10 of 10 Date updated: February 4, 2016

The Meaningful Use Stage 2 Final Rule: Overview and Outlook

COMMUNICATIONS PLAN FOR ELECTRONIC LABORATORY REPORTING COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT PLAN

Saving the Details for Guidance EXAMPLE 1:

MEDICFUSION / HERFERT. MEANINGFUL USE STAGE 1 and 2 ATTESTATION GUIDE 2015

Contact Information: West Texas Health Information Technology Regional Extension Center th Street MS 6232 Lubbock, Texas

Summary of Public Health Related Aspects of Recent ONC and CMS Final Rules Version 1.0

VIII. Dentist Crosswalk

MEANINGFUL USE STAGE 2 REQUIREMENTS FOR ELIGIBLE PROVIDERS USING CERTIFIED EMR TECHNOLOGY

Meaningful Use Stage 2 Requirements Primer

How to prepare for an EHR incentive audit

EHR Incentive Programs

APPENDIX A: OBJECTIVES AND MEASURES FOR 2015 THROUGH 2017 (MODIFIED STAGE 2) EP Objectives and Measures

Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program. Stage 2 Final Rule Update

EHR Incentive Programs Supporting Documentation For Audits Last Updated: February 2013

AAP Meaningful Use: Certified EHR Technology Criteria

The EP/eligible hospital has enabled this functionality

Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs

MEANINGFUL USE and POPULATION HEALTH

Reporting Period: For Stage 2, the reporting period must be the entire Federal Fiscal Year.

ONC Regulations FAQs. Last updated: 9/21/10 Page 1 of 20

Michigan Medicaid EHR Incentive Program Update Jason Werner - MDCH

March 15, Dear Dr. Blumenthal:

WHAT JUST HAPPENED TO THE EMR PROGRAM?

The EP/eligible hospital has enabled this functionality. At least 80% of all unique patients. seen by the EP or admitted to the

Certification Guidance for EHR Technology Developers Serving Health Care Providers Ineligible for Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Payments

Modifications to the Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program for 2014 Final Rule Summary

MEDICAL ASSISTANCE STAGE 2 SUMMARY

EMR Name/ Model. Cerner PowerChart Ambulatory (PowerWorks ASP)

Stage 2 Meaningful Use What the Future Holds. Lindsey Wiley, MHA HIT Manager Oklahoma Foundation for Medical Quality

Meaningful Use Stage 1 and Public Health: Lesson Learned

Understanding Meaningful Use with a Focus on Testing the HL7 V2 Messaging Standards

FCDS Webinar Meaningful Use

CMS Meaningful Use Proposed Rule

Meaningful Use Update

Meaningful Use Stage 2

Stage 2 of Meaningful Use: Ten Points of Interest

Modified Stage 2 Meaningful Use Measures

June 15, 2015 VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION

Latham & Watkins Corporate Department

EMR Name/ Model. meridianemr 4.2 CCHIT 2011 certified

Re: Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Electronic Health Record Incentive Program Stage 2

Meaningful Use Rules Proposed for Electronic Health Record Incentives Under HITECH Act By: Cherilyn G. Murer, JD, CRA

CMS EHR Incentive Programs:

The EP/eligible hospital has enabled this functionality

HL7 & Meaningful Use. Charles Jaffe, MD, PhD CEO Health Level Seven International. HIMSS 11 Orlando February 23, 2011

MEANINGFUL USE Stages 1 & 2

T he Health Information Technology for Economic

Achieving Meaningful Use in Presented by the SFREC

Meaningful Use 2015 and beyond. Presented by: Anna Mrvelj EMR Training Specialist

CMS Proposed Electronic Health Record Incentive Program For Physicians

STAGE 2 MEANINGFUL USE FOR ELIGIBLE HOSPITALS AND CRITICAL ACCESS HOSPITALS (CAHS)

Stage 2 Final Rule Overview: Updates to Stage 1 and New Stage 2 Requirements

The EP/eligible hospital has enabled this functionality

Transcription:

Comments from ISDS on proposed rule for meaningful use Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Electronic Health Record Incentive Program 42 CFR Parts 412, 413, 422, and 495 CMS- 0033- P RIN 0938- AP78 March 15, 2010 Introduction The mission of the International Society for Disease Surveillance (ISDS) is to improve population health by advancing the field of disease surveillance. In support of this mission, the Society provides an educational and scientific forum where epidemiologists, informaticists, public health practitioners, health care providers, statisticians, and others can work together to explore and address population health monitoring across institutional and professional boundaries. ISDS is currently working in partnership with State and Local public health departments, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and other stakeholders including the Public Health Informatics Institute (PHII), the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE), and the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) to improve surveillance for influenza- like illness. This initiative leverages the Distribute syndromic surveillance project (ISDSdistribute.org), developed and piloted by ISDS, to enhance and support Emergency Department (ED) surveillance by making aggregate level data available to experts in public health. Distribute complements existing surveillance methods by providing a more comprehensive and detailed situational awareness of geographic and age- specific patterns of influenza- like illness. Structure of comments ISDS makes comments from the perspective of public health professionals who develop, operate, evaluate, or utilize syndromic surveillance data on a daily basis. Society members and Distribute project epidemiologists and technical staff were surveyed regarding the proposed measures for meaningful use of electronic health record (EHR) technology, particularly those measures that will affect the quality of automated public health surveillance using electronically- available clinical and laboratory data. Survey results inform the following comments made by the ISDS Board. Comments are organized in two sections: 1) General; 2) specific to section found in the 42 CFR Parts 412, 413, 422, and 495, RIN 0938- AP78. 1

General Comments ISDS applauds improving population and public health as a policy priority for the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs. There is widespread support among ISDS members for EHR technology standards that enhance the ability of public health authorities to monitor community and population health. ISDS applauds the presence of measures that concretely demonstrate data transmission to public health agencies. Furthermore, ISDS strongly supports the specific consideration given to syndromic surveillance within these measures. Although beyond the scope of this proposed rule, ISDS emphasizes that without a concomittant investment to develop the information and workforce capabilities of public health agencies, the ambitious goals of this program to enhance population and public health are unlikely to be fully realized. ISDS applauds the effort to ensure interoperability among electronic immunization, syndromic, and laboratory patient records, because it is crucial for realizing the future potential of these data for improved public health surveillance. Specific Comments II. Provisions of the Proposed Regulations d. Stage 1 Criteria for Meaningful Use; (2) Health IT Functionality Measures Eligible Hospital Objective: Capability to provide electronic submission of reportable lab results to public health agencies and actual submission where it can be received. ELIGIBLE HOSPITAL MEASURE: PERFORMED AT LEAST ONE TEST OF CERTIFIED EHR TECHNOLOGY CAPACITY TO PROVIDE ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF REPORTABLE LAB RESULTS TO PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCIES (UNLESS NONE OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCIES TO WHICH ELIGIBLE HOSPITAL SUBMITS SUCH INFORMATION HAVE THE CAPACITY TO RECEIVE THE INFORMATION ELECTRONICALLY). THE CAPABILITY TO SEND REPORTABLE LAB RESULTS IS INCLUDED IN THE CERTIFICATION STANDARDS FOR CERTIFIED EHR TECHNOLOGY (TO BE DEFINED BY ONC IN ITS UPCOMING INTERIM FINAL RULE). MEANINGFUL USE SEEKS TO ENSURE THAT THOSE CAPABILITIES ARE UTILIZED. HOWEVER, THIS OBJECTIVE IS RELIANT ON THE ELECTRONIC EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION. WE ARE COGNIZANT THAT IN MOST AREAS OF THE COUNTRY, THE INFRASTRUCTURE NECESSARY TO SUPPORT SUCH EXCHANGE IS STILL BEING DEVELOPED. THEREFORE, FOR THE STAGE 1 CRITERIA OF MEANINGFUL USE WE PROPOSE THAT ELIGIBLE HOSPITALS TEST THEIR ABILITY TO SEND SUCH INFORMATION AT LEAST ONCE PRIOR TO THE END OF THE EHR REPORTING PERIOD. THE TESTING COULD OCCUR PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE EHR REPORTING PERIOD. MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS MAY BE ESTABLISHED FOR HOSPITALS UNDER THE MEDICAID PROGRAM IN STATES WHERE THIS CAPABILITY EXISTS. THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF A POSSIBLE STATE PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO MEANINGFUL USE IN THE MEDICAID EHR INCENTIVE PROGRAM. STATES MAY PROPOSE ANY MODIFICATION OR ADDITION TO CMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DISCUSSION IN II.A.2.C. OF THIS PROPOSED RULE. 2

We agree that the infrastructure for exchanging reportable lab results electronically with public health authorities is generally not in place. However, the absence of such infrastructure in a specific jurisdiction should not excuse EPs and providers from the requirement that they demonstrate their capacity to submit information electronically to public health. Testing the capability of EP s and Hospitals to transmit these data to public health agencies is necessary, but not sufficient, to demonstrate the meaningful use of EHR for public health surveillance. If the public health agency in a jurisdiction is not able to participate in testing, ISDS recommends that testing and verification be done by an independent entity under the authority of public health In future stages, ISDS looks forward to measures that demonstrate an ability to routinely exchange EHR data between public health agencies and EP s and Hospitals. EP/Eligible Hospital Objective: Capability to provide electronic syndromic surveillance data to public health agencies and actual transmission according to applicable law and practice. EP/Eligible Hospital Measure: Performed at least one test of certified EHR technology s capacity to provide electronic syndromic surveillance data to public health agencies (unless none of the public health agencies to which an EP or eligible hospital submits such information have the capacity to receive the information electronically). The capability to send electronic data to immunization registries is included in the certification standards for certified EHR technology (to be defined by ONC in its upcoming interim final rule). Meaningful use seeks to ensure that those capabilities are utilized. However, this objective is reliant on the electronic exchange of information. We are cognizant that in most areas of the country, the infrastructure necessary to support such exchange is still being developed. Therefore, for the Stage 1 criteria of meaningful use we are proposing that EPs and eligible hospitals test their ability to send such information at least once prior to the end of the EHR reporting period. The testing could occur prior to the beginning of the EHR reporting period. EPs in a group setting using identical certified EHR technology would only need to conduct a single test, not one test per EP. More stringent requirements may be established for EPs and hospitals under the Medicaid program in States where this capability exists. This is just one example of a possible State proposed modification to meaningful use in the Medicaid EHR incentive program. States may propose any modification or addition to CMS in accordance with the discussion in II.A.2.c. of this proposed rule. We agree that the infrastructure for the electronic exchange of syndromic surveillance data per ONCHIT s proposed certification standards is largely not in place. Testing the capability of EP s and Hospitals to transmit these data to public health agencies is crucial to demonstrating meaningful use and ISDS is supportive of testing. If the public health agency in a jurisdiction is not able to participate in testing, ISDS recommends that testing and verification be done by an independent entity under the authority of public health. 3

495.6 Meaningful use objectives and measures for EPs, eligible hospitals, and CAHs (c) Stage 1 criteria for EPs and eligible hospitals or CAHs. An EP, eligible hospital or CAH must satisfy the following objectives and associated measures: (16) (i) Objective. Capability to provide electronic syndromic surveillance data to public health agencies and actual transmission according to applicable law and practice. ISDS supports this objective. We note that existing systems either transmit individual- level records or daily batch files to public health agencies. The objective should clarify that both approaches are acceptable from a public health perspective. ISDS strongly recommends that syndromic surveillance data be defined. A useful definition, and one that will best support improved public health surveillance, will include a minimum set of variables for syndromic surveillance data. (16)(ii) Measure. Performed at least one test of certified EHR technology s capacity to provide electronic syndromic surveillance data to public health agencies (unless none of the public health agencies to which the EP, eligible hospital or CAH submits such information have the capacity to receive the information electronically). ISDS supports a demonstration of an EHR technology s ability to transmit electronic syndromic surveillance data. We note, however, that transmission of data on its own is necessary but not sufficient for meaningful use of EHR technology from a public health perspective. Informatics infrastructure and trained personnel are also essential. Syndromic surveillance is widely practiced by public health authorities at local and state levels of government. Among its members and the Distribute Community of Practice, ISDS finds excitement that increasing the availability of electronic health data for public health authorities has tremendous potential to enhance surveillance for syndromes as well as other health indicators. ISDS does not agree with the exception clause of this proposed measure. If the public health agency in a jurisdiction is not able to participate in testing, ISDS recommends that testing and verification be done by an independent entity under the authority of public health. Once a public health agency has infrastructure established, EP s and hospitals should then be able to initiate routine transmission with minimal additional effort. In future stages, ISDS looks forward to measures that demonstrate an EHR technology s ability to routinely exchange data between public health agencies and EP s and Hospitals. Barriers to effective use of clinical data for surveillance may emerge only after repeated transmission of data in the context of usual practice. Accordingly, subsequent measures should examine the quality of transmission over an interval. 4

(d) Additional Stage 1 criteria for EPs. An EP must meet the following objectives and associated measures: (6)(i) Objective. Capability to provide electronic submission of reportable lab results (as required by State or local law) to public health agencies and actual submission where it can be received. ISDS is supports this objective. (6)(ii) Measure. Performed at least one test of certified EHR technology capacity to provide electronic submission of reportable lab results to public health agencies (unless none of the public health agencies to which the eligible hospital submits such information have the capacity to receive the information electronically). ISDS does not agree with the exception clause of this proposed measure. ISDS agrees that it is unreasonable to expect tests of this capacity when public health agencies lack the appropriate infrastructure. In keeping with this position, it is important that EP s and hospitals demonstrate this capability once the appropriate infrastructure is in place. In future stages, ISDS looks forward to measures that demonstrate an EHR technology s ability to routinely exchange data between public health agencies and EP s and Hospitals. 5