1 / 14

HIT Policy Committee

HIT Policy Committee. Meaningful Use Workgroup Proposed Recommendations on MU Notice of Proposed Rule Making Paul Tang, Chair Palo Alto Medical Foundation George Hripcsak , Co-Chair Columbia University February 17, 2010. Proposed MU NPRM Recommendations – 1.

mike_john
Télécharger la présentation

HIT Policy Committee

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. HIT Policy Committee Meaningful Use Workgroup Proposed Recommendations on MU Notice of Proposed Rule Making Paul Tang, Chair Palo Alto Medical Foundation George Hripcsak, Co-Chair Columbia University February 17, 2010

  2. Proposed MU NPRM Recommendations – 1 • Reinstate HITPC recommendation to include progress note documentation for EP Stage 1 MU • Progress notes are key to delivering high quality, coordinated care (not just a legal requirement): • Legibility – quality & efficiency implications • Important for documenting complete record (otherwise lost) • Hybrid systems (part electronic, part paper) causes fragmentation of the record and inefficient workflow • Paper progress notes impede patients’ access to information (no structured way to provide patients with context to those data) • Sharing electronic progress notes fundamental to care coordination • Textual progress notes used to know patient as a human being • Signal clinical documentation for hospitals in Stage 2

  3. Proposed MU NPRM Recommendations – 2 • Remove “core measures” from Stage 1 • Attributes considered: • Based on the Institute of Medicine’s Six Aims and priorities identified by the National Priorities Partnership • Have an evidence-based link to improvement in outcomes • Can be measured using coded clinical data in an EHR (to minimize burden) • Is captured as a byproduct of the care process (fits clinician workflow) • Applies to virtually all eligible providers • Measures outcome, to the extent possible • None of the proposed “core” measures satisfied the criteria (nor did our examples) • Support use of key HIT-sensitive health priorities drive selection of quality measures • Will re-explore concept of shared or common measures in future

  4. Proposed MU NPRM Recommendations – 3 • Reinstate HITPC recommendation to stratify quality reports by disparity variables • Providers should produce quality reports stratified by race, ethnicity, gender, primary language, and insurance type  • CMS has stated that an explicit health outcomes policy priority is to “reduce health disparities” • No assessment of disparity reduction can be made without stratifying data reports by these variables

  5. Proposed MU NPRM Recommendations – 4 • Providers should maintain up-to-date lists (not just one-time entries) • Maintaining key patient summary information in EHR is critical for care quality & coordination • Measure: Attestation that the problem lists, medication lists, and medication allergy lists are up-to-date (CMS audit could be conducted by chart review of a set of randomly selected charts)

  6. Proposed MU NPRM Recommendations – 5 • Reinstate HITPC recommendation to include recording of advanced directives for Stage 1 MU  • EPs and hospitals should be expected to record presence or absence of advance directives for patients > 65 as part of the Stage 1 MU criteria • Particularly for Medicare providers, recording of advance directives should apply to virtually everybody

  7. Proposed MU NPRM Recommendations – 6 • Reinstate HITPC recommendation to include patient-specific education resources for Stage 1 MU • EHR-enabled links to relevant educational resources critical to CMS health outcome priority to “engage patients and families” • Provider vetting of consumer educational content represents a much better than unguided searching of the Internet • Several EHR vendors and health education content providers have developed partnerships that facilitate EHR-enabled connections to patient-specific content  • EPs & hospitals should report on % of patients for whom they use the EHR to suggest patient-specific education resources

  8. Proposed MU NPRM Recommendations – 7 • Reinstate HITPC recommendation to include clinical efficiency measures for Stage 1 MU • CMS did not include clinical efficiency measures although “improve efficiency” is a CMS-stated priority • All EPs report % of all medications entered into EHR as a generic formulation, when generic options exist in relevant drug class • On page 1987 of the NPRM, CMS cites “prompt providers to prescribe cost-effective generic medications” as one of the key “Benefits to Society” in its impact analysis • CMS should explicitly require that at least 1 of 5 CDS rules address efficient diagnostic test ordering

  9. Proposed MU NPRM Recommendations – 8 • CMS should create a glidepath for Stage 2 & 3 MU • Vendors need more time to develop appropriate functionality • Providers need more time to integrate it into clinical workflow • Recognize that CMS needs experience from on Stage 1 implementation before finalizing Stage 2 & 3 recommendations • Strong signal of intentions would be very helpful to make the realization of future expectations more feasible • To extent possible, CMS should consider publishing the Stage 2 MU NPRM earlier than anticipated December 2011

  10. Proposed MU NPRM Recommendations – 9 • CPOE should be done by authorizing provider • CPOE numerator should be number of orders entered directly by authorizing provider

  11. Proposed MU NPRM Recommendations – 10 • Amend prevention/follow-up reminders criterion to apply to a broader range of the population and allow for provider discretion in targeting reminders • For a chosen/relevant preventive health service or follow-up, report on the percent of patients who were eligible for that service who were reminded • Denominator: All patients who were potentially eligible (e.g., meet demographic criteria) and had not received the service

  12. Proposed MU NPRM Recommendations – 11 • Clarify “transitions of care” and “relevant encounters” • Under Care Coordination category • Define “transition of care” to occur when a patient changes “setting of care” (e.g., hospital, ambulatory primary care practice, ambulatory specialty care practice, long term care, home health, rehabilitation facility) • Delete “relevant encounter” (not precise)

  13. Proposed MU NPRM Recommendations – 12 • Allow some flexibility in meeting meaningful use criteria • “All-or-nothing” approach may not accommodate legitimate, unanticipated, local circumstances or constraints • Permit flexibility while preserving a floor • Allow provider to defer fulfillment of a small number of MU criteria and still receive incentive • Allow EPs & hospitals to qualify for Stage 1 MU incentives if they defer no more than (mandatory may not be deferred): • 3 of the criteria in the quality domain • 1 of the criteria in the patient/family engagement domain • 1 of the criteria in the care coordination domain • 1 of the criteria in the population/public health domain • All must meet the privacy & security domain criterion • All must report clinical measures to CMS/state

  14. Proposed MU NPRM Recommendations – 12

More Related