About Mike Squires

Mike Squires is a marketing and sales executive with 12 years focused on e-Healthcare initiatives that helped physicians change the way they work for better patient care. Experienced in introducing new online products to physicians, healthcare professionals, and the pharmaceutical and medical device industries with innovative sales and marketing strategies at start-up and traditional healthcare publishers. Helped position Medscape as the market leader to the industry and accelerate e-product offerings of Elsevier’s International Medical News Group and F-D-C Reports. Directed marketing, sales, client relations, sales support, and implementation of medical education and promotion programs. Entrepreneurial and enthusiastic; excellent mentor and motivator.

ONC Dir of Policy & Planning Jodi Daniel: Bio & Role Added to Web

Jodi DanielONC Director of Office 
of Policy & Planning
Jodi Daniel, JD, MPH
Role & Bio
 
Added to Web site
Having served since October 2005, Jodi Daniel is one of the longest standing members of the Office of the National Coordinator (ONC) for Health IT and a regular presence at the HIT Policy and Standards Committee meetings. Daniel’s role, bio, and picture were put up in the ONC site on March 26, 2010.

“Jodi Daniel has served as Director in the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), since October 2005. In her current role as Director of the Office of Policy and Planning, she is responsible for considering and addressing the policy implications of key health information technology (HIT) activities. This includes establishing new policies and working with other Federal agencies and organizations and State governments to coordinate efforts and assure that existing and developing policies are consistent (HIT) and health information exchange activities and nationwide goals. She leads ONC’s regulatory and legislative activities and manages ONC’s federal advisory committees, which provide advice on all HIT policy and standards related matters. She is also responsible for the development of ONC’s HIT strategic plan to shape the direction of Federal HIT activities.

“Ms. Daniel developed expertise in legal issues and HHS’s strategies regarding HIT as the first Senior Counsel for Health Information Technology in the Office of the General Counsel of HHS. In this role, she was responsible for coordinating all legal advice regarding health information technology for HHS, and was the lead attorney for ONC. Ms. Daniel founded and chaired the health information technology practice group within OGC and worked closely with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in the development of the e-prescribing standards regulations and the proposed Stark and anti-kickback rules regarding e-prescribing and electronic health records.

“Ms. Daniel also brings with her a strong background in health information privacy. As an Attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the Office of General Counsel, she was a senior member of the core team responsible for developing policies and drafting the final HIPAA Privacy Rule, the Privacy Rule modifications, and the HIPAA Enforcement Rule.

“Before joining HHS, Ms. Daniel was a health care associate at Ropes & Gray, where she advised health care providers and payers on transactional, regulatory, and legislative issues. She also worked at MetLife as an internal management consultant and a health benefits consultant.

“Ms. Daniel earned a law degree from Georgetown University and a Masters in Public Health from Johns Hopkins University.”

Leveraging Health IT for Patient Empowerment Webinar – Apr 8 from AHRQ

Leveraging Health IT for Patient Empowerment Webinar
Sponsored by AHRQ National Resource Center for Health IT

April 8, 2010               3:00 – 4:30 p.m., EDT
Emailed and accessed on Web March 25, 2010.

“Free 90-minute teleconference will explore the latest research on how patients can utilize health IT to increase participation in their healthcare. Sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s (AHRQ) National Resource Center for Health IT.”

Presenters:

  • “Alexander Krist, M.D., M.P.H., serves as an Assistant Professor in the Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) School of Medicine’s Department of Family Medicine. The majority of his research is conducted through the VCU Department of Family Medicine’s multidisciplinary research team and its practice-based research network (the Virginia Ambulatory Care outcomes Research Network) of more than sixty primary care practices, spanning six health systems assembled to coordinate on research projects. In 2004 he helped direct his practice to implement a paperless electronic health record including e-prescribing, laboratory and radiology interfaces, electronic billing, performance monitoring, and a registry for population management.  
  • “Christine Ritchie, M.D., M.S.P.H., is an Associate Professor at the University of Alabama Birmingham (UAB) School of Medicine’s Center for Palliative Care. She holds the title of Director of the UAB Center for Palliative Care and Director of the Palliative Care Section within the Division of Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine. She served as the VA Network 9 Palliative Care Consult Team mentor, a member of the VA Network 9 Health Systems Council, and co-chair of the Network 9 Geriatrics and Extended Care Committee.
  • “Christine Sinsky, M.D., B.S., is a General Internist at Medical Associates Clinic and Health Plans, in Dubuque, Iowa.  She is a frequently invited lecturer on practice innovation, redesign, and the patient centered medical home (PCMH) and has been a presenter at the Patient Centered Primary Care Collaborative Stakeholder meeting. She serves on the physician advisory panel for the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) physician recognition programs and is a Director on the American Board of Internal Medicine.

“Dr. Sinsky will introduce the topic by providing an overview of challenges and innovations facing patient empowerment and health IT systems. Building on this foundation, Dr. Krist will discuss findings from a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of a personal health record (PHR).  In his presentation he will explain how this PHR links patients to their health information in their physician’s electronic medical record (EMR) and provides personally tailored prevention recommendations to patients. Dr. Ritchie will discuss ongoing research in developing evidence-based tools to support patient-centered care. She will explain the findings from a randomized controlled trial investigating how to utilize IT systems to support patients with complex medical conditions as they transition from hospital to home-based care.  To conclude our presentation, Dr. Sinsky will discuss her on-the-ground experience with empowering patients via IT systems in clinical settings and the key barriers and enablers to success.”

To register for the teleconference, please visit: https://ahrq.peachnewmedia.com/store/seminar/seminar.php?seminar=4324 and select “Register.”

DEA: The Electronic Prescribing of Controlled Substances IFR is now available

The Electronic Prescribing of Controlled Substances IFR
To be Issued by DEA for Public Comments
The Drug Enforcement Administration is revising its regulations ”to provide practitioners with the option of writing prescriptions for controlled substances electronically.”

Office of National Coordinator (ONC) for Health IT  emailed this notice on March 25, 2010. Summary from Interim Final Rule (IFR) can be seen below text from email.
“Yesterday (3/24) the Office of the Federal Register made available for public inspection an Interim Final Rule with Request for Comments from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Department of Justice on Electronic Prescribing of Controlled Substances.  The Interim Final Rule specifies the rules that health care providers will need to follow in order to electronically prescribe controlled substances in accordance with the law.  Since DEA published the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for electronic prescribing of controlled substance, ONC, CMS, AHRQ and other HHS staff have worked closely with DEA to develop the policies in the Interim Final Rule.   The Interim Final Rule is expected to be published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, March 31 and will include a 60 day comment period.  To view the Interim Final Rules go to:  http://www.federalregister.gov/inspection.aspx#spec_D
                                                                    # # #

Electronic Prescriptions for Controlled Substances
Excerpts from IFR for inspection at site of Federal Register
Federal Register                        PDF of Interim Final Rule
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
21 CFR Parts 1300, 1304, 1306, 1311
[Docket No. DEA-218I]
RIN 1117-AA61

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Department of Justice
ACTION: Interim Final Rule with Request for Comment.

SUMMARY: The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is revising its regulations to provide practitioners with the option of writing prescriptions for controlled substances electronically. The regulations will also permit pharmacies to receive, dispense, and archive these electronic prescriptions. These regulations are an addition to, not a replacement of, the existing rules. The regulations provide pharmacies, hospitals, and practitioners with the ability to use modern technology for controlled substance prescriptions while maintaining the closed system of controls on controlled substances dispensing; additionally, the regulations will reduce paperwork for DEA registrants who dispense controlled substances and have the potential to reduce prescription forgery. The regulations will also have the potential to reduce the number of prescription errors caused by illegible handwriting and misunderstood oral prescriptions. Moreover, they will help both pharmacies and hospitals to integrate prescription records into other medical records more directly, which may increase efficiency, and potentially reduce the amount of time patients spend waiting to have their prescriptions filled.

DATES: This rule has been classified as a major rule subject to Congressional review. The effective date is [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. However, at the conclusion of the Congressional review, if the effective date has been changed, the Drug Enforcement Administration will publish a document in the Federal Register to establish the actual effective date or to terminate the rule. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted on or before [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after Midnight Eastern Time on the last day of the comment period.

ADDRESSES: To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. DEA-218” on all written and electronic correspondence. Written comments sent via regular or express mail should be sent to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODL, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 22152. Comments may be sent to DEA by sending an electronic message to dea.diversion.policy@usdoj.gov. Comments may also be sent electronically through http://www.regulations.gov using the electronic comment form provided on that site. An electronic copy of this document is also available at the http://www.regulations.gov web site.

Listening Session for Health IT Strategic Framework: April 6

Listening Session for Health IT Strategic Framework: April 6, 2010
Preview HIT Strategic Framework:  Strategic Themes, Principles, Objectives, and Strategies
Review 2008 Strategic Plan
ONC emailed and posted  information March 24, 2010, about the listening session scheduled for April 6, 2010. The plan dated March 23, 2010 is marked as version 30, and a version has been previously shared online and discussed as part of at least one HIT FACA public meeting.  Information on session is excerpted from ONC email and Web site.

“The Strategic Plan Workgroup of HIT Policy Committee will hold 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.* 

 ”The objective of the listening session is to obtain feedback from the healthcare community regarding the Health IT Strategic Framework which will become foundation for the updates to the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan. The Health IT Strategic Plan will focus on 2011 through 2015 time period as well as lay the ground work for the period beyond 2015 to create a learning health system through the effective use of HIT.”

Draft Framework (pdf) has been posted on ONC Health IT Web site for review.

“Registration
for this event will be required in order to accommodate the number of interested parties. Visit http://events.signup4.com/hitstrategic to register to attend the session.  Meeting materials will be posted at http://healthit.hhs.gov/StrategicPlanWG as they become available.  Thank you for your interest.”

“*The HITECH Act requires the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), in consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies, to update the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan published in June 2008.” 

Health IT Strategic Framework: Strategic Themes, Principles, Objectives, and Strategies
PDF version with selected excerpts below.


Strategic Planning Scope
“–
The Federal Health IT Strategic Plan Update will encompass three levels:
          –The full array of entities in the public and private sectors who have a role in affecting and implementing the use of HIT to improve health and health care;
          –The broad array of Federal HIT policies, regulations, systems, and activities; and
          –The specific mandate, authorities, and role of the ONC.

–The Update will emphasize the implementation of legislative imperatives to achieve widespread adoption and meaningful use of HIT.

–The Update will also focus on features that would be essential to continue the adoption and value of HIT beyond ARRA funding.

–The Health IT Strategic Plan Update will focus on 2011 through 2015 time period.

–It will also focus on laying the ground work for the period beyond 2015 to create a learning health system through the effective use of HIT.”

VISION AND PREAMBLE
“Vision
– A learning health system that is patient-centered and uses information to continuously improve health and health care of individuals and the population.

“A learning health system is a system that is designed to generate and apply the best evidence for the collaborative health care choices of each patient and provider; to drive the process of new discovery as a natural outgrowth of patient care; and to ensure innovation, quality, safety, and value in health care. A learning health system focuses on the needs of individuals and population health and aims to create a health system that is Patient-centered, Safe, Timely, Effective, Efficient, Equitable. An effective learning health system is where individuals can make informed decisions about their health and health care; patients can exercise choices about sharing of their data; decision makers have access to the right information at the right time in a secure environment; the health delivery system is more efficient; and the health care industry continues to improve population health.

“Health Information Technology (HIT) provides a critical infrastructure for an effective learning health system. HIT offers tools that can expand current capabilities to collect and manage data that can help creation of a sustainable system that facilitates getting the right care to people when they need it and then captures the results for improvement in care, and create and share knowledge.

“Despite the important role of HIT to a learning health system, only a small number of health care organizations have implemented a comprehensive EHR. Getting to widespread adoption and use of HIT is one component of a reformed system – necessary, but not sufficient to effect, the broad change needed in our health system.

“Inherent in the vision of a learning health system is a set of values that provide the foundation for public policies at the Federal and state levels aimed at reforming and improving the health system. The HITECH Act specifies this broader set of values and helps to focus Federal health policy regarding information technology in the following areas:

–Improving privacy and security protections for health information;

–Facilitating individual access to his or her health information;

–Improving quality of health care by improving care coordination, reducing medical errors, reducing chronic disease, reducing health disparities, improving population health, and advancing research and education;

–Addressing the needs of children and other vulnerable populations;

–Collecting information for quality reporting, biosurveillance, public health, medical and clinical research, and drug safety; and

–Improving efficiency and reducing the burden on patients and health care professionals.

“The HIT policies and programs of ONC and its Federal partners aspire to achieve this vision and its inherent values, leveraging the programs authorized by the HITECH Act. To achieve this vision, a transformation of our current health care delivery system is required.

“To begin this transformation, the Federal government proposed a set of priorities for meaningful use of HIT which can also be applied broadly to help achieve the vision. They include:

–Improve quality, safety, efficiency and reduce health disparities;

–Engage patients and families in their health care;

–Improve care coordination;

–Improve population and public health; and

–Ensure adequate privacy and security protections for personal health information.

“Implicit in enabling the HITECH Act and addressing the health priorities are a number of roles that only the Federal government can play in promoting the adoption and use of HIT. One key role involves the provision of resources to support the public-good infrastructure (serving public health, biomedical research, quality improvement, and emergency preparedness). The government also has a role to play when information asymmetries hinder the development of a private market. The efforts involving standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria are a solution to such problems. Government action is also necessary to spur the adoption of HIT and the development of means for health information exchange to assure the critical mass of users necessary to create a self-sustaining system of interoperable HIT. Finally, working to improve the efficiency of public and population health programs is clearly a government responsibility.

“The Health IT Strategic Framework enumerates critical government roles in the pursuit of a health system that uses information to empower individuals and to improve the health of the population.”

Premable to Strategic Framework (Selected sections)
“The proposed Federal HIT strategies are grouped into four Themes:
1) Meaningful Use of Health Information Technology,
2) Policy and Technical Infrastructure,
3) Privacy and Security, and
4) Learning Health System.

“Themes 1, 2 and 3 focus on establishing the foundation and infrastructure to support a learning health system and Theme 4 focuses on leveraging these resources to create a learning system. These themes are interrelated and must work together to achieve the vision set forth in this Framework.

“Theme 1 focusing on Meaningful Use describes steps towards using HIT to improve care and support a learning health system.

“Themes 2 and 3 focus on the infrastructure for HIT.

“Theme 2 focuses on Policy and Technology infrastructure that is necessary to support Meaningful Use as well as the learning health system for broader HIT i.e. not only EHR but also health information exchange, and other HIT components.

“Theme 3 addresses Privacy and Security issues and challenges related to broader HIT as well.

“Finally, Theme 4 focuses on leveraging these resources to create a learning health system. 

“Each Theme… includes a goal, guiding principles, objectives and strategies. The ONC strategic plan will include specific tactics and measures for each Theme.”

Referenced Documents
The (2008) ONC-Coordinated Federal Health IT Strategic Plan: 2008-2012 (pdf)
Dated: June 3, 2008

Nationwide Privacy and Security Framework for
Electronic Exchange of Individually Identifiable Health Information (pdf)

Dated: December 15, 2008. Still considered the benchmark document, the framework describes eight principles that “are expected to guide the actions of all health care-related persons and entities that participate in a network for the purpose of electronic exchange of individually identifiable health information. These principles are not intended to apply to individuals with respect to their own individually identifiable health information.”

ONC Releases Whitepaper on Consumer Consent Options for Electronic HIE

ONC Releases Whitepaper on Consumer Consent Options for Electronic Health Information Exchange
Emailed from ONC on March 24, 2010
“The whitepaper examines issues regarding whether, to what extent, and how individuals should have the ability to exercise control over their health information in an electronic health information exchange environment.  It looks at existing approaches and details policy options, considerations, and analysis.  This whitepaper will serve as input to, and be reviewed by, the HIT Policy Committee’s Privacy and Security Workgroup as it prepares to make recommendations related to consumer consent in an electronic health information exchange environment.  The whitepaper is the first in a series of privacy and security reports developed by George Washington University under contract with ONC.”

Privacy and Security Whitepaper Series
Consumer Consent Options for Electronic Health Information Exchange: Policy Considerations and Analysis

  • Cover Page and Executive Summary [PDF - 40 KB]
  • Consumer Consent Options — Complete Whitepaper [PDF - 735 KB]
  • Appendix A: State Model Table [PDF - 73 KB]
  • Appendix B: State Law Table [PDF - 62 KB]
  • Appendix C: Other Countries [PDF - 60 KB]
  • Privacy and Security and Health Information Technology
    Excerpted from ONC on March 24, 2010.
    “Electronic health information exchange promises an array of potential benefits for individuals and the U.S. health care system through improved clinical care and reduced cost. At the same time, this environment also poses new challenges and opportunities for protecting individually identifiable health information. In health care, accurate and complete information about individuals is critical to providing high quality, coordinated care. If individuals and other participants in a network lack trust in electronic exchange of information due to perceived or actual risks to individually identifiable health information or the accuracy and completeness of such information, it may affect their willingness to disclose necessary health information and could have life-threatening consequences. Coordinated attention at the Federal and State levels is needed both to develop and implement appropriate privacy and security policies. Only by engaging all stakeholders, particularly consumers, can health information be protected and electronically exchanged in a manner that respects variations in individuals’ views on privacy and access.”

    (The section above labelled “Privacy and Security Whitepaper Series” contains the links to the first White Paper. ONC shared additional resources shown below.)

    Other Resources

    HIT Standards Committee Mtg: Consumer Permissions, Consent Mgmt- March 24, 2010

    HIT Standards Committee–Consumer Permissions, Consent Management
    March 24, 2010

    9:00 a.m. to 2:15 p.m. [Eastern Time]
    Below agenda, key points are excerpted from Privacy and Security Workgroup about consumer permissions and consent management, including schedule for educational sessions.

    A G E N D A (pdf)
    Washington, DC

    9:00 a.m. CALL TO ORDER – Judy Sparrow
    Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology
    9:05 a.m. Opening Remarks – David Blumenthal, MD, MPP
    National Coordinator for Health Information Technology
    9:15 a.m. Review of the Agenda – John Halamka, Vice Chair
    9:20 a.m. Priority Setting & Synchronization with the HIT Policy Committee
    John Halamka, Vice Chair
    9:45 a.m. Implementation Workgroup Report on Implementation Starter Kit Hearing
    Aneesh Chopra, Chair
    Liz Johnson, Workgroup member
    Cris Ross, Workgroup member
    10:30 a.m. NHIN Direct Interoperability Framework
    Doug Fridsma, Office of the National Coordinator
    11:15 a.m. Clinical Operations Workgroup/Vocabulary Task Force Update
    Jamie Ferguson, Chair
    11:45 a.m. Clinical Quality Workgroup Update
    Janet Corrigan, Chair
    Floyd Eisenberg, Workgroup member
    12:15 p.m. LUNCH
    1:00 p.m. Privacy & Security Workgroup Update (PPT)
    Dixie Baker, Chair
    Steve Findlay, Co-Chair
    1:30 p.m. Report on Certification NPRM (PPT)
    Carol Bean, Office of the National Coordinator
    Steven Posnack, Office of the National Coordinator
    2:00 p.m. Public Comment
    2:15 p.m. Adjourn

    To Participate
    Webconference
    Audio:
    You may listen in via computer or telephone.
    US toll free:   1-877-705-6006
    International Direct:  1-201-689-8557
    Confirmation Code: HIT Committee Meeting  

    Key Notes Excerpted from
    Privacy and Security Workgroup Slides
    Focus on Consumer Permissions, Consent Mgmt
    PPT Slides
    Progress
    –Updated IFR Review to incorporate comments from the HIT Standards Committee – submitted to HITSC Chairs
    –Supporting HIT Policy Committee’s Privacy and Security Policy Workgroup, and aligning our standards efforts to their priorities
              Consent management
              Review of existing security policy inherent in HIPAA Security Rule
    –Launching educational sessions on standards activities around consent management

    Consumer Health Permissions
    –Privacy Consent (or Consent Directive) – Consumer’s written or verbal permission to collect, use, and/or disclose individually identifiable health information (IIHI)
    –Privacy Authorization – A signed, written document that contains all of the elements required by the HIPAA Privacy Rule and that gives a covered entity permission to use or disclose specified IIHI for specified purposes
    –Informed Consent – Consumer’s written permission to perform a specific medical procedure, or to participate in a specific research study or clinical trial, that is given only after the consumer has been fully informed of the purposes, risks, benefits, confidentiality protections, and other relevant aspects of the activity

    Consent Management Today
    –Consumer permissions captured as manual signature on paper form
    –Paper forms filed in each organization who holds consumer’s private health information

    Consent Management Tomorrow
    –Consent/Authorization: Consumer digitally signs consent or authorization
    –Permissions and updates captured as part of health record
    –Permissions interpretable by humans & computers
    –Permissions cross-validated & translated into consent rules enforced by security access control mechanisms
    –Rules inexorably tied to information exchanged – updates propagated to all data instances throughout life cycle

    Standards Needed
    –Digital signatures
    –•Privacy policies •Data model & schema •Permission syntax & vocabulary
    –•Cross-validation of consumer permissions •Maintaining and retrieving permissions •Translating permissions into access-control rules •Enforcement and auditing of permission-related activities
    –•Exchanging permissions & access rules •Propagating permission revocations & modifications

    Educational Sessions Re: Standardization Efforts Relating to Consent Management
    April 1, 2:00-4:00pm ET:  Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS) / International Security Trust and Privacy Alliance (ISTPA) Privacy Management Reference Model (PMRM); Speakers – John Sabo, Michael Willett
    April 23, 2:00-4:00pm ET:  Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise (IHE) Basic Patient Privacy Consents (BPPC) Profile; Speaker – John Moehrke
    •[Schedule TBD]:  Health Level 7 (HL7) Version 3 Domain Analysis Model: Medical Records; Composite Privacy Consent Directive – Speaker (TBD)
    [Schedule TBD]:  OASIS Cross-Enterprise Security and Privacy Authorization (XSPA) and eXtensible Access Control Markup Language (XACML) – Speaker (TBD)

    ONC names managers for ‘Beacon’ grants program

    ONC names managers for ‘Beacon’ grants program
    Mary Mosquera of Government HealthIT News reported on March 23, 2010, that “ONC named Aaron McKethan, a research director at the Brookings Institution’s Engelberg Center for Health Reform as the Beacon program director.”

    “Craig Brammer, a project director at Cincinnati’s Aligning Forces for Quality, an initiative of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, was named deputy director,” and will report to McKethan.

    Which Medical Dictionary? Vocabulary Task Force Meets March 23

    Vocabulary Task Force Meeting
    Clinical Operations Workgroup of  HIT Standards Committee
    March 23, 2010

    9:00am to 4:30pm EDT   Webconference/Audio (see access below)
    Meeting focuses on Best Practices and lessons learned from stakeholders in vocabulary infratructure as well as governance values for various vocabularies.

    Questions for Vocabulary Owners/Custodians
    1. What vocabulary subset or value set creation and distribution services do you provide?
    2. Who uses your services and what is the level of use?
    3. What, if any, additional services and capabilities are in active development?
    4. If applicable, what process is used to establish and revise any subsets or value sets that you distribute?
    5. Based on your experience, what advice would you offer regarding best practices and pitfalls to avoid?

    Questions for those involved in Governance Value Sets
    1. Who should determine which value sets are needed?
    2. Who should produce the value sets?
    3. Who should review and approve value sets?
    4. How should value sets be described, i.e., what is the minimum set of metadata needed?
    5. In what format(s) and via what mechanism should value sets be distributed?
    6. How and how frequently should value sets be updated, and how should updates be coordinated?
    7. What support services would promote and facilitate their use?
    8. What best practices/lessons learned have you learned, or what problems have you learned to avoid, regarding value set creation, maintenance, dissemination, and support services?
    9. Do you have other advice or comments on value sets and their relationship to meaningful use?
    10. What must the federal government do or not do with regard to the above, and/or what role should the federal government play?
    11. Some have expressed concerns about intellectual property with respect to the specific value sets (i.e., the effort and expertise required to create them), and regarding the specific codes used (i.e., value sets developer from proprietary code sets). How do you envision sharing value sets while accounting for these intellectual property issues?

  • Agenda [PDF - 415 KB]
  • Welcome, Purpose of the Meeting
              – Jamie Ferguson, Chair
  • Summary & Key Points from February Hearing
            – Jamie Ferguson, Chair
            – Betsy Humphreys, Co-Chair
  • Panel 1: Office of the National Coordinator, Interoperability Framework
    • Douglas Fridsma, MD
  • Panel 2:  Federal Provider Organizations
  • Panel 3:  Best Practices & Lessons Learned: Vocabulary Infrastructure
  • Panel 4:  Best Practices & Lessons Learned, con’t
  • Panel 5:  Level 1 Governance Value Set
    • Sharon Sprenger, The Joint Commission [PDF - 229 KB]
      “While The Joint Commission has its roots in hospital accreditation, over the years it has developed evaluation programs for a diverse array of health care settings. Today, The Joint Commission evaluates and accredits more than 17,000 health care organizations and programs in the United States, including ambulatory care, behavioral health services, durable medical equipment providers and suppliers, home care, hospices, hospitals and critical access hospitals, laboratories and long term care facilities.” –From Joint Commission Statement
    • Karen Kmetik, American Medical Association
    • Greg Pawlson, National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) [invited]
    • Janet Corrigan, National Quality Forum (NQF)

    You may participate
    Webconference
    Audio:
    You may listen in via computer or telephone.
    US toll free:   1-877-705-2976
    International Direct:  1-201-689-8798

    “Safeguarding Health Information: Building Assurance through HIPAA Security”– Conference Sponsored by HHS/OCR and NIST

    “Safeguarding Health Information: Building Assurance through HIPAA Security”– Conference Sponsored by HHS/OCR and NIST
    May 11-12, 2010
    Excerpts from NIST site on March 22, 2010

    Sponsors: Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

    Audience:
    “CIOs & Information Security Officers of HIPAA covered entities & business associates; others responsible for the security of electronic health info; HIT consultants & attorneys.”

    Purpose: “The HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces the HIPAA Privacy Rule, which protects the privacy of individually identifiable health information; the HIPAA Security Rule, which sets national standards for the security of electronic protected health information; the confidentiality provisions of the Patient Safety Rule, which protect identifiable information being used to analyze patient safety events and improve patient safety; and, the Breach Notification regulations requiring HIPAA covered entities and their business associates to notify individuals when their health information is breached.”

    “NIST’s mission, as a non-regulatory federal agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce, is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life.”

    “This conference will provide a forum to discuss the current HIT security landscape, as well as practical strategies, tips, and techniques for implementing the requirements of the HIPAA Security Rule.”

    Topics: “Plenary sessions will discuss a variety of current and important HIT and HIPAA Security Rule topics, including updates on OCR’s administration and enforcement of the HIPAA Security Rule, risk assessments and contingency planning, logging and auditing in a healthcare context, security of health devices, and security considerations for mobile/wireless technologies and new media in healthcare, industry panels discussing breach notification rules and the state of compliance with the Security Rule and much more.”

    Location:
    Voice of America
    Wilbur Cohen Building, Auditorium
    330 Independence Avenue, SW
    Washington, DC 20237
    (Public Entrance on C Street, SW)

    Website:
    http://csrc.nist.gov/news_events/HIPAA-May2010_workshop/
    Agenda Draft
    Registration:
    On-Line Registration
    Registration Fee: $75
    Registration closes on 05/04/2010
    Refund requests must be submitted in writing by 05/04/2010 

    Joseph Goedert, HealthDataManagement, broke story on March 19, 2010.

    Health Reform Bill References to Health Information Technology–Part I

    Health Reform Bill References to Health Information Technology–Part I
    Plus: Roundup of Health IT articles on Reform         (Link to Part II)
    Through the first 1,050 pages of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” approved by the House of Representatives on March 21, 2010 and passed by the Senate in December 2009, here are the references to health information technology and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT with page numbers from Senate pdf:
    [PDF of Senate version which was approved by House]

    1. Table of Contents: “Sec. 1561. Health information technology enrollment standards and protocols.” p. 5
    2.  Table of Contents:  “Sec. 6114. National demonstration projects on culture change and use of information technology in nursing homes.” p. 13
    3. QUALITY REPORTING.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Secretary, in consultation with experts in health care quality and stakeholders, shall develop reporting requirements for use by a group health plan, and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage, with respect to plan or coverage benefits and health care provider reimbursement structures that… (C) implement activities to improve patient safety and reduce medical errors through the appropriate use of best clinical practices, evidence based medicine, and health information technology under the plan or coverage;” p. 31
    4. Administrative Simplification: Operating Rules for Health Information Transactions…(9) OPERATING RULES.—The term ‘operating rules’ means the necessary business rules and guidelines for the electronic exchange of information that are not defined by a standard or its implementation specifications as adopted for purposes of this part.’’  p. 60
    5. ‘‘REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS.—The National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics shall…(D) evaluate whether such operating rules are consistent with electronic standards adopted for health information technology;” p. 65
    6. ‘‘(B) COORDINATION OF HIT STANDARDS.—In developing recommendations under this subsection, the review committee shall ensure coordination, as appropriate, with the standards that support the certified electronic health record technology approved by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.” p. 73
    7. American Health Benefit Exchanges…”(C) the implementation of activities to improve patient safety and reduce medical errors through the appropriate use of best clinical practices, evidence based medicine, and health information technology.” p. 149
    8. ESTABLISHMENT OF PRIVATE PURCHASING COUNCIL.—(1) “IN GENERAL.—Qualified nonprofit health insurance issuers participating in the CO–OP program under this section may establish a private purchasing council to enter into collective purchasing arrangements for items and services that increase administrative and other cost efficiencies, including claims administration, administrative services, health information technology, and actuarial services. p. 178
    9.  SEC. 1561. HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENROLLMENT STANDARDS AND PROTOCOLS. ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—
     ‘‘(1) STANDARDS AND PROTOCOLS.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this title, the Secretary, in consultation with the HIT Policy Committee and the HIT Standards Committee, shall develop interoperable and secure standards and protocols that facilitate enrollment of individuals in Federal and State health and human services programs, as determined by the Secretary.
    ‘‘(2) METHODS.—The Secretary shall facilitate enrollment in such programs through methods determined appropriate by the Secretary, which shall include providing individuals and third parties authorized by such individuals and their designees notification of eligibility and verification of eligibility required under such programs.
    ‘‘(b) CONTENT.—The standards and protocols for electronic enrollment in the Federal and State programs described in subsection (a) shall allow for the following:
    ‘‘(1) Electronic matching against existing Federal and State data, including vital records, employment history, enrollment systems, tax records, and other data determined appropriate by the Secretary to serve as evidence of eligibility and in lieu of paper based documentation.  ‘‘(2) Simplification and submission of electronic documentation, digitization of documents, and systems verification of eligibility. ‘‘(3) Reuse of stored eligibility information including documentation) to assist with retention of eligible individuals. ‘‘(4) Capability for individuals to apply, recertify and manage their eligibility information online, including at home, at points of service, and other community-based locations.‘‘(5) Ability to expand the enrollment system to integrate new programs, rules, and functionalities,  operate at increased volume, and to apply streamlined verification and eligibility processes to other Federal and State programs, as appropriate. ‘‘(6) Notification of eligibility, recertification, and other needed communication regarding eligibility, which may include communication via email and cellular phones.‘‘(7) Other functionalities necessary to provide eligibles with streamlined enrollment process.’
    ‘‘(c) APPROVAL AND NOTIFICATION.—With respect to any standard or protocol developed under subsection (a) that has been approved by the HIT Policy Committee and the HIT Standards Committee, the Secretary— ‘‘(1) shall notify States of such standards or protocols; and ‘‘(2) may require, as a condition of receiving Federal funds for the health information technology investments, that States or other entities incorporate such standards and protocols into such investments.
     ‘‘(d) GRANTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF APPROPRIATE ENROLLMENT HIT.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall award grant to eligible entities to develop new, and adapt existing, technology systems to implement the HIT enrollment standards and protocols developed under subsection (a) (referred to in this subsection as ‘appropriate HIT technology’).
    ‘‘(2) ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.—To be eligible for a grant under this subsection, an entity shall—‘‘(A) be a State, political subdivision of a State, or a local governmental entity; and ‘‘(B) submit to the Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and containing—‘‘(i) a plan to adopt and implement appropriate enrollment technology that includes–‘‘(I) proposed reduction in maintenance costs of technology systems; ‘‘(II) elimination or updating of legacy systems; and ‘‘(III) demonstrated collaboration with other entities that may receive a grant under this section that are located in the same State, political subdivision, or locality; ‘‘(ii) an assurance that the entity will share such appropriate enrollment technology in accordance with paragraph (4); and Title XXX of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 10 300jj et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:‘‘Subtitle C—Other Provisions ‘‘SEC. 3021. HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENROLLMENT STANDARDS AND PROTOCOLS. ‘‘(iii) such other information as the ecretary may require.
    ‘‘(3) SHARING.—|
    ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall ensure that appropriate enrollment HIT adopted nder grants under this subsection is made available to other qualified State, qualified political subdivisions of a State, or other appropriate qualified entities (as described in subparagraph (B)) at no cost.
    ‘‘(B) QUALIFIED ENTITIES.—The Secretary
    shall determine what entities are qualified to receive enrollment HIT under subparagraph (A)taking into consideration the recommendations of the HIT Policy Committee and the HIT Standards Committee.’’ p.368
    10. SEC. 2703. STATE OPTION TO PROVIDE HEALTH HOMES FOR ENROLLEES WITH CHRONIC CONDITIONS…‘‘(f) MONITORING.—A State shall include in the State plan amendment—‘‘(1) a methodology for tracking avoidable hospital readmissions and calculating savings that result from improved chronic care coordination and management under this section; and ‘‘(2) a proposal for use of health information technology in providing health home services under this section and improving service delivery and coordination across the care continuum (including the use of wireless patient technology to improve coordination and management of care and patient adherence to recommendations made by their provider).”
    11. ‘‘(g) REPORT ON QUALITY MEASURES.—As a condition for receiving payment for health home services provided to an eligible individual with chronic conditions, a designated provider shall report to the State, in accordance with such requirements as the Secretary shall specify, on all applicable measures for determining the quality of such services. When appropriate and feasible, a designated provider shall use health information technology in providing the State with such information.
    12. Subtitle J—Improvements to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission(MACPAC): ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The membership of MACPAC shall include individuals who have had direct experience as enrollees or parents or caregivers of enrollees in Medicaid or CHIP and individuals with national recognition for their expertise in Federal safety net health programs, health finance and economics, actuarial science,health plans and integrated delivery systems, reimbursement for health care, health information technology, and other providers of health services, public health, and other related fields, who provide a mix of different professions, broad geographic representation, and a balance between urban and rural representation.” p. 555
    13. PART II—NATIONAL STRATEGY TO IMPROVE HEALTH CARE QUALITY…”‘‘(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The strategic plan shall include provisions for addressing, at a minimum, the following:…‘‘(F) Incorporating quality improvement and measurement in the strategic plan for health information technology required by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5).” p. 686
    14.  SEC. 3012. INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP ON HEALTH CARE QUALITY…”(1) IN GENERAL.—The Working Group shall be composed of senior level representatives of—…(G) the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; (H) the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology;” p. 689
    15. ‘SEC. 931. QUALITY MEASURE DEVELOPMENT…‘‘(c) GRANTS OR CONTRACTS FOR QUALITY MEASURE DEVELOPMENT.—‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall award grants, contracts, or intergovernmental agreements to eligible entities for purposes of developing, improving, updating, or expanding quality measures identified under subsection (b).‘‘(2) PRIORITIZATION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF QUALITY MEASURES.—In awarding grants, contracts,or agreements under this subsection, the Secretary shall give priority to the development of quality measures that allow the assessment of—…‘‘(D) the meaningful use of health information technology;” p. 694
    16. “PART III—ENCOURAGING DEVELOPMENT OF NEW PATIENT CARE MODELS SEC. 3021. ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTER FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID INNOVATION WITHIN CMS”(models include)‘‘(v) Supporting care coordination for chronically-ill applicable individuals at high risk of hospitalization through a health information technology-enabled provider network that includes care coordinators, a chronic disease registry, and home telehealth technology.” p. 716
    17. ”SEC. 3024. INDEPENDENCE AT HOME DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM…‘‘(vi) uses electronic health information systems, remote monitoring, and mobile diagnostic technology;” p. 755
    18. ‘‘(4) PREFERENCE.—In approving an independence at home medical practice, the Secretary shall give preference to practices that are—‘‘(A) located in high-cost areas of the country;‘‘(B) have experience in furnishing healthcare services to applicable beneficiaries in the home; and‘‘(C) use electronic medical records, health information technology, and individualized plans of care.” p. 761
    19. ”SEC. 3201. MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PAYMENT.‘‘(viii) Health information technology programs, including clinical decision support and other tools to facilitate data collection and ensure patient-centered, appropriate care.” p. 871
    20. The Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (shall) ‘‘(G) expand demonstration projects for improving the quality of children’s health care and the use of health information technology, such as through Pediatric Quality Improvement Collaboratives and Learning Networks, consistent with provisions of section 1139A of the Social Security Act for assessing and improving quality, where applicable…”(2) LINKAGE TO HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.—The Secretary shall ensure that research findings and results generated by the Center are shared with the Office of the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology and used to inform the activities of the health information technology extension program under section 3012, as well as any relevant standards, certification criteria, or implementation specifications…PRIORITIZATION.—The Director (of the Agency) shall identify and regularly update a list of processes or systems on which to focus research and dissemination activities of the Center,taking into account—…‘‘(6) the evolution of meaningful use of health information technology, as defined in section 3000…(f) COORDINATION.—The entities that receive a grant or contract under this section shall coordinate with health information technology regional extension centers under section 3012(c) and the primary care extension program established under section 399W regarding the dissemination of quality improvement, system delivery reform, and best practices information.’’” p. 1040
    21. SEC. 3502. ESTABLISHING COMMUNITY HEALTH TEAMS TO SUPPORT THE PATIENT-CENTERED MEDICAL HOME…‘‘(f) COORDINATION.—The entities that receive a grant or contract under this section shall coordinate with health information technology regional extension centers under section 3012(c) and the primary care extension program established under section 399W regarding the dissemination of quality improvement, system delivery reform, and best practices information.’’…(2) support patient-centered medical homes, defined as a mode of care that includes,(A) personal physicians; (B) whole person orientation; (C) coordinated and integrated care; (D) safe and high-quality care through evidence-informed medicine, appropriate use of health information technology, and continuous quality improvements; (E) expanded access to care; and (F) payment that recognizes added value from additional components of patient-centered care; quality improvements;” p. 1050

    Part Two of these references will follow later this week. Please share any additional references or comments with e-Healthcare Marketing blog. Thank you.

    Roundup of Health IT articles
    Joseph Goedert on March 22, 2010 reported in HealthDataManagement on revamping of EDI requirements noting the bill has “language to significantly revamp the HIPAA transaction standards.  The bill also has significant new administrative simplification provisions.”

    Diana Manos of Healthcare IT News reported on March 22, 2010, “The new law builds on a platform of pay-for-performance and includes provisions to simplify healthcare administration, calling for the widespread use of healthcare IT.”

    Marianne McGee of InformationWeek posted a column on March 22, 2010, titled “Healthcare Reform Already Underway” about the role Health IT is already playing in changing healthcare .

    Joseph Conn, HITS staffer for ModernHealthcare.com, reported March 22, 2010, on feedback from HIT industry leaders, who were not yet clear on what was and was not included in final bill.

    iHealthBeat’s Roundup on March 22, 2010: “House OKs Senate Health Reform Bill With Health IT Measures.”

    Erik Sherman, of BNET.com, wrote a post on March 22, 2010, titled “Healthcare Reform May Trigger Big Tech Spending” highlighting more than a dozen references to health information technology in the bills passed by the house. It’s a quick check list though points to government units or processes already in place, and does not acknowledge the specialized role of Health IT vendors.