1 / 45

HITPC - Information Exchange Work Group Meaningful Use Stage 3 Subgroup 1: Quality and Efficiency

HITPC - Information Exchange Work Group Meaningful Use Stage 3 Subgroup 1: Quality and Efficiency. Chair: Dave Goetz Members: Cris Ross, Chris Tashjian, Steve Stack. Agenda. Controlled substance e-prescribing Presentation from Ken Whittemore , Surescripts Medication history

addison
Télécharger la présentation

HITPC - Information Exchange Work Group Meaningful Use Stage 3 Subgroup 1: Quality and Efficiency

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. HITPC - Information Exchange Work GroupMeaningful Use Stage 3 Subgroup 1: Quality and Efficiency Chair: Dave Goetz Members: Cris Ross, Chris Tashjian, Steve Stack

  2. Agenda • Controlled substance e-prescribing • Presentation from Ken Whittemore, Surescripts • Medication history • Presentation from Jon D. Duke, Regenstrief Institute • Review lab orders language

  3. IE Workgroup Timeline

  4. Recommendation Options • The Subgroup is tasked with reviewing and developing prioritized recommendation in four key areas. The Subgroup has a number of options for addressing these areas including: • Stage 3 • Explore in RFC • Certification only • No recommendation • Push to Stage 4

  5. Status of Electronic Prescribing for Controlled Substances (EPCS) Implementation and Related Surescripts Initiatives: Briefing for the Information Exchange Workgroup of the ONC HIT Policy Committee Ken Whittemore, Jr., RPh, MBA Senior VP, Professional & Regulatory Affairs September 4, 2012 5 PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL

  6. General EPCS Issues PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL

  7. Summary of EHR/e-prescribing andpharmacy application requirements • DEA EPCS compliant systems must: • Allow access controls for EHR/e-prescribing and pharmacy systems • Require two-factor credential use for prescription signing • Incorporate internal audit trails for EHR/e-prescribing and pharmacy systems • Have the ability to digitally sign and archive records at prescriber and pharmacy ends* • Include all DEA-required information in prescription records • Be able to import, display, and store DEA information in pharmacy records • Be capable of generating records of controlled substance prescriptions for review from EHR/e-prescribing and pharmacy applications *(Intermediaries should also have this capability.)

  8. Surescripts support of EPCS • Beyond what is required by the DEA EPCS IFR: • RestrictEPCS messaging to applications that have passed DEA Part 1311 auditas well as Surescripts EPCS certification • EHR/e-prescribing and pharmacy application vendors will not be enabled for EPCS until third-party audit documentation is received by Surescripts • Enhance new prescription, refill, and change message formats to support DEA requirements: • Prescriber DEA numbers will be validated at signup • Electronic faxing of controlled substance prescriptions to pharmacies will be blocked • NDC codes will be required on all prescriptions to facilitate controlled substance checking • Controlled substance, compound drug, and supplies flags will also be utilized • Support for state EPCS rules will be developed • Add the EPCS service to the Surescripts directory (additional validation for DEA and NPI numbers)

  9. Surescripts approach to EPCS implementation • Barriers to implementation: • Substantial development and coding of systems to comply. • New prescriber workflow regarding authentication. • Certification of systems by Systrust, Webtrust, CISA auditors, InfoGard and Drummond Group. (Significant cost factor.) • Conflicting state laws. • Surescripts two-phase approach to implementation: • Limited availability (LA) • A controlled roll-out within specific geographic areas (CA, DC, MD, TX & VA), with measurements for limited participants, for a defined period of time. • Four prescriber vendors • DrFirst, NextGen, GE Healthcare, RxNT • Two chain retail pharmacies • SuperValu, Walgreens • One pharmacy vendor (independents, small chains) • Cerner/Etreby • Intermediary - RelayHealth • General availability (GA) (full rollout). • Product is released for all participants.

  10. EPCS Limited Availability (LA) process • All vendors and pharmacies actively exchanging EPCS messages in production have completed the DEA-required third-party audit and Surescripts Certification process • Surescripts EPCS Participants: • Pharmacy • Cerner Etreby • RiteAid • SUPERVALU • Walgreens • Intermediaries • RelayHealth • Prescriber Software Vendors • DrFirst • NewCrop • NextGen • RxNT

  11. General industry readiness and plans • Most major chain pharmacies have indicated that they will be certified for EPCS by the end of 2012. • EHR/e-prescribing vendors that support approximately 35 percent of physicians connected to Surescripts have indicated that they will be certified for EPCS by the end of 2012. • In general, prescriber vendors seem to be slower to adopt EPCS. • Remaining prescriber and pharmacy vendors are expected to be certified by the end of 2013. • Education on the value of EPCS may be required to ensure that all prescribers and pharmacists adopt. Confidential and Proprietary

  12. State EPCS Issues PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL

  13. State EPCS Rules • EPCS for all schedules is okay in • AK, AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, DE, IA, ID, IL, KY, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, NC, ND, NH, NM, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC,SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, WV & WY (Total = 33 states) • EPCS for schedules III through V is okay in: • FL, KS, ME, MO, NV, & WA (Total = 7 states) • Surescripts is assisting with state EPCS rule compliance • State controlled drugs • EPCSs transmitted across state lines • I-STOP (Internet System for Tracking Over-Prescribing) Act recently signed by Gov. Cuomo in New York • Allows e-prescribing for controlled substances (EPCS) in the state by making e-prescribing mandatory for both controlled and non-controlled substances • Creates a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) for NY that requires real-time reporting of PDMP information PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL

  14. State EPCS Status Map (see website for latest information) PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL

  15. Useful EPCS InformationLinks • Surescripts EPCS page: http://www.surescripts.com/about-e-prescribing/e-prescribing-of-controlled-substances.aspx • EPCS 101 Slides: http://www.surescripts.com/media/646521/surescripts-epcs-101-slides.pdf • State Status Map:http://www.surescripts.com/about-e-prescribing/e-prescribing-of-controlled-substances/regulatory-status-map.aspx • Surescripts Update for State Authorities: http://www.surescripts.com/media/864815/surescripts%20epcs%20update%20for%20pharmacy%20stakeholders%2005-17-2012.pdf PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL

  16. Questions? ken.whittemore@surescripts.com (703) 921-2114 16 PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL

  17. Electronic Prescribing of Controlled Substances • How does the subgroup want to proceed? • Stage 3 • Explore in RFC • Certification only • No recommendation • Push to Stage 4 HITPC: MU Workgroup Stage 3 Recommendations

  18. Improving Drug Adherence through Advanced Clinical Decision Support Jon D. Duke, MD, MS Regenstrief Institute

  19. Background • Communicating drug adherence information effectively to providers remains a challenge • Reviewing dispensing histories is not practical within the timeconstraints of typical visit

  20. Enhanced medication history

  21. Background • Often physicians do not ask about adherence, assuming the patient is taking as prescribed • Cost of non-adherence > $290B annually, $106B for DM, HTN, and dyslipidemia alone K Nasseh, SG Frazee, J Visaria, A Vlahiotis, Y Tian. Cost of Medication NonadherenceAssociated With Diabetes, Hypertension, and Dyslipidemia. Am J PharmBenefits. 2012;4(2):e41-e47.

  22. Project Goals • Improve provider awareness of non-adherence to diabetic medications • Increase conversations between providers and patients regarding adherence • Evaluate impact of 2 clinical decision support interventions on adherence rates and glycemic control in DM patients

  23. Clinical Decision Support at Regenstrief Institute • Active in CDS research for past 30 years • Performed seminal work on CPOE, preventative reminders, corollary ordering • Cited as a benchmark institution in generating high quality evidence for CDS

  24. 1984 - 2010 1984 2010

  25. Regenstrief’s New Platform: G3

  26. Clinical Decision Support in G3

  27. Context-Aware Alerting Original Alert Patient Context Institutional Context Physician Context Final Alert

  28. Alerting Zones

  29. IFTTT (If this, then that) CDS Model • Triggers • Orders, diagnoses, observations • Chart opening / data lookup • NLP-based concept detection • Actions • Alerts • Generate patient handout • Add structured observations to chart • Detailed logging

  30. Study Interventions • Intervention 1 • Chart opening  alert with diabetic medication adherence rates, recommendations for patient discussion • Visit documentation: diagnosis of DM or diabetic drug order  alert with medication adherence rates, one-click renewals

  31. Intervention 1

  32. Intervention 1

  33. Interventions • Intervention 2 • Chart opening  non-interruptive alert with medication adherence rates • Visit documentation: diagnosis of DM or diabetic drug order  alerts adherence rates, orderable ‘Drug Adherence Review’

  34. Intervention 2

  35. Intervention 2

  36. Intervention 2

  37. Adherence Metric • Proportion of Days Covered (PDC) • the total number of medication-covered days divided by the number of days in a time period • Data source • SureScripts and Wishard hospital dispensing data • Indiana Health Information Exchange • Medications • Oral meds only • NDC / GPI mapping

  38. Target Medications • Acarbose • Acetohexamide • Chlorpropamide • Glimepiride • Glipizide Powder • Glipizide-Metformin • Glyburide • Glyburide-Metformin • Linagliptin • Linagliptin-Metformin • Metformin • Metformin SR • Miglitol • Pioglitazone • Pioglitazone -Glimepiride • Pioglitazone-Metformin • Repaglinide-Metformin • Rosiglitazone • Rosiglitazone -Glimepiride • Rosiglitazone -Metformin • Saxagliptin • Saxagliptin-Metformin • Sitagliptin • Sitagliptin-Metformin • Sitagliptin-Simvastatin • Tolazamide • Tolbutamide • Troglitazone

  39. Study Timeline and Outcomes • Two-wave, 3-arm, randomized study will be conducted using HIT clinical decision support and user acceptability methodology • 3 types of outcomes will be elicited: • improvement in patient adherence / HbA1c (patient health outcomes measure) • increase in frequency of provider conversations with patients (process measure) • ability of the system to engage physicians (user acceptability measure)

  40. Study Status • Study launching 9/15/2012 • Final results expected Fall 2013

  41. Conclusions • Adherence is a high-priority area for multiple stakeholders including patients, providers, payors, pharma • We look to leverage our advanced CDS platform to evaluate a range of novel approaches to increasing medication adherence

  42. Questions? jduke@regenstrief.org Thank you to Paul Dexter, Heather Black, Kim Heithoff, LinasSimonaitis

  43. Medication History • MU WG recommendation • Does the IE WG have any suggestions or does the group concur? HITPC: MU Workgroup Stage 3 Recommendations

  44. Lab Order Recommendation Language • Certification Only for EPs: The EHR must have the ability to electronic order of laboratory test within a providers workflow. • Are the existing standards for laboratory adequate to support including this certification criteria?

  45. Next Steps • Finalize recommendation language to present on the IE WG call tomorrow.

More Related