HIT Policy Committee May 19 Meeting: Workgroup Updates

Updates on Meaningful Use, NHIN, Health IT Strategic Plan,
Information Exchange, Privacy & Security Plus
Opening Remarks from Blumenthal and ONC Update from Daniel

May 19, 2010        
10:00 a.m. to 2:45 p.m. [Eastern Time]
Washington, DC
See documents and how to participate below:
AGENDA  (PDF Version)
10:00 a.m. CALL TO ORDER – Judy Sparrow
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology
10:05 a.m. Opening Remarks – David Blumenthal, MD, MPP
National Coordinator for Health Information Technology
10:15 a.m. Review of the Agenda
– Paul Tang, Vice Chair of the Committee
10:30 a.m. Strategic Plan Workgroup: Health IT Strategic Framework
–Paul Tang, Chair
–Jodi Daniel, Co-Chair
11:15 a.m. Information Exchange Workgroup Update
–Deven McGraw, Chair
–Micky Tripathi, Co-Chair
11:45 a.m. LUNCH BREAK
12:45 p.m. Meaningful Use Workgroup Update
–Paul Tang, Chair
–George Hripcsak, Co-Chair
1:15 p.m. Privacy & Security Policy Workgroup Update
–Deven McGraw, Chair
–Rachel Block, Co-Chair
2:00 p.m. NHIN Workgroup Update
–David Lansky, Chair
–Farzad Mostashari, Co-Chair
2:15 p.m. ONC Update
–Jodi Daniel, Office of the National Coordinator
2:30 p.m. Public Comment
2:45 p.m. Adjourn

Meeting Documents

  • Agenda [PDF - 304 KB]
  • Strategic Plan Workgroup: Health IT Strategic Framework [PPT - 1.78 MB]
  • Information Exchange Workgroup [PPT - 427 KB]
  • Meaningful Use Workgroup [PPT - 664 KB]
  • Privacy & Security Policy [PPT - 1.18 MB]
  • How to Participate
    Webconference:

    • At least 10 minutes prior to the meeting start time, please go to: http://altarum.na3.acrobat.com/HITpolicy
      • (If for any reason the link does not work, simply copy and paste the URL into your browser’s address bar)
      • Select “enter as a guest” 
      • Type your first and last name into the field 
      • Click “enter room” 
    • Test Your System:
      • You will need to have an up-to-date version of Flash Player to view the webconference.  Please test your system prior to the meeting by visiting http://altarum.na3.acrobat.com/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm Exit Disclaimer
      • When running this system test, you do not need to install the Adobe Connect Add-in (step 4 of the test), as that is not relevant to this meeting.
    * Please note:  Space in the Web conference is limited.  If for any reason you are unable to log in, you can still dial in via phone to listen to the audio (numbers below). 

    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  

    iPhone:

    • You can now watch & listen via your iPhone or iPod Touch (requires Wi-Fi). Here is how:
      • You must acquire the Connect Pro App for the iPhone/IPod Touch
        • On a computer – iTunes> Applications folder
        • On your mobile device – App Store
      • Search for the “Adobe Connect Pro” App
      • Follow the App Store steps to download the application
      • Once you have the app installed on your mobile device, you can simply follow the link & instructions above for participating in the Web conference.

    For more information, please go to: http://www.connectusers.com/tutorials/2010/02/connectpromobile/index.php Exit Disclaimer If you have any technical questions, please send an email to webmeeting@altarum.org

    Blumenthal Letter #15: No ‘One-Size-Fits-All’ in Building a Nationwide Health Information Network

    There Is No ‘One-Size-Fits-All’ in Building
    a Nationwide Health Information Network

    Dr. David Blumenthal

    Dr. David Blumenthal

    A Message from Dr. David Blumenthal, National Coordinator for Health Information Technology 
    Emailed May 14, 2010 (and copied below)

    Private and secure health information exchange enables information to follow the patient when and where it is needed for better care.  The Federal government is working to enable a wide range of innovative and complementary approaches that will allow secure and meaningful exchange within and across states, but all of our efforts must be grounded in a common foundation of standards, technical specifications, and policies.  Our efforts must also encourage trust among participants and provide assurance to consumers about the security and privacy of their information.  This foundation is the essence of the Nationwide Health Information Network (NHIN).

    The NHIN is not a network per se, but rather a set of standards, services, and policies that enable the Internet to be used for the secure exchange of health information to improve health and health care.  Different providers and consumers may use the Internet in different ways and at different levels of sophistication.  To make meaningful use possible, including the necessary exchange of information, we need to meet providers where they are, and offer approaches that are both feasible for them and support the meaningful use requirements of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Electronic Health Record Incentives Programs.  As with the Internet, it is likely that what is today considered “highly sophisticated” will become common usage.  Moreover, users may engage in simpler exchange for some purposes and more complex exchange for others.

    Current NHIN exchange capabilities are the result of a broad and sustained collaboration among Federal agencies, large provider organizations, and a variety of state and regional health information organizations that all recognized a need for a high level of interoperable health information exchange that avoided “one-off” approaches.  Based on this pioneering work, a subset of these organizations is now actively exchanging information.  This smaller group currently includes the Department of Defense, Social Security Administration, Veterans Health Administration, Kaiser Permanente, and MedVirginia.  They initially came together to show, on a pilot scale, that this type of highly evolved exchange was possible.  Having succeeded, they continue to expand the level of exchange among their group and with their own respective partners in a carefully phased way to demonstrate and learn from these widening patterns of exchange. The robust exchange occurring at this level has several key attributes, including the:

    1. Ability to find and access patient information among multiple providers;
    2. Support for the exchange of information using common standards; and
    3. Documented understanding of participants, enabling trust, such as the Data Use and Reciprocal Support Agreement (DURSA).

    Not every organization and provider, however, needs or is ready for this kind of health information exchange today.  Nor do the 2011 meaningful use requirements set forth by CMS in the recent proposed rule require it. Direct, securely routed information exchange may meet the current needs of some providers for their patients and their practices, such as receiving lab results or sending an electronic prescription. 

    To enable a wide variety of providers – from small practices to large hospitals – to become meaningful users of electronic health records in 2011, we need to ensure the availability of a reliable and secure “entry level” exchange option that aligns with the long-range information exchange vision we have for our nation.  Such an option should balance the need for a consistent level of interoperability and security across the exchange spectrum with the reality that not all users are at the same point on the path to comprehensive interoperability.  In an effort to provide the best customer service possible, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) will consider what a complete toolkit would be for all providers who want to accomplish meaningful health information exchange.

    Broadening the use of the NHIN to include a wider variety of providers and consumers who may have simpler needs for information exchange, or perhaps less technically sophisticated capabilities, is critical to bolstering health information exchange and meeting our initial meaningful use requirements.  Building on the solid foundation established through the current exchange group mentioned above and the recommendations of the HIT Policy Committee (which originated with the Committee’s NHIN Workgroup), ONC is exploring this expansion of NHIN capabilities to find solutions that will work across different technologies and exchange models. 

    The newly launched NHIN Direct Project  is designed to identify the standards and services needed to create a means for direct electronic communication between providers, in support of the 2011 meaningful use requirements.  It is meant to enhance, not replace, the capabilities offered by other means of exchange.  An example of this type of exchange would be a primary care physician sending a referral and patient care summary to a specialist electronically.

    We are on an aggressive timeline to define these specifications and standards and to test them within real-world settings by the end of 2010.  Timing is critical so that we may provide this resource to a broader array of participants in health information exchange as a wave of new, meaningful users prepare to qualify for incentives provided for in the HITECH Act and ultimately defined by CMS. This model for exchange will meet current provider needs within the broader health care community, complement existing NHIN exchange capabilities, and strengthen our efforts toward comprehensive interoperability across the nation.

    A natural evolution in NHIN capabilities to support a variety of health information exchange needs is being reinforced by trends that are leading us toward widespread multi-point interoperability. The current movement toward consolidation in health care, coupled with health reform’s encouragement of bundled payments for coordinated care, will mean more providers need it.  Quality improvement, public health, research, and a learning health care system all require it.  Ultimately, simple exchange will be part of a package of broader functions that allows any provider, and ultimately consumers, to exchange information over the Internet, enabled by NHIN standards, services, and policies.

    Your continued input will help guide us toward and maintain a direction that is in harmony with the rapid innovations in health IT today.  The NHIN Direct Project will conduct an open, transparent, and collaborative process throughout its development by using a community wiki, blogs, and open source implementation already available on the project’s website (http://nhindirect.org/ ).  I encourage you to participate through the website, via public participation at the implementation group meetings, and by deploying and testing the resulting standards and specifications.  For those of you who are participants in the current exchange group, I urge you to take every opportunity to share your experiences.  Lessons learned from the NHIN Direct Project and the exchange group will inform the evolution of the NHIN as new uses and users come forward, and as continued innovation occurs to meet the growing needs of our community.

    As we head into the next stage in the development of nationwide health information exchange, we should all take a moment to reflect on how far we have come and evaluate our plans for the future.  ONC is committed to providing resources and guidance to stakeholders at all levels of exchange through HITECH programs, such as the Health IT Regional Extension Centers, the national Health IT Research Center, and the State Health Information Exchange Program.  As you assess your own needs for exchange, please take advantage of the many Federal resources available to you on the ONC website and the online resources of the programs mentioned above, as well as through the “NHIN University” education program hosted by our public-private partner, the National eHealth Collaborative Exit Disclaimer.

    We have done a great deal of work in the short period of time since the passage of the HITECH Act.  We at ONC appreciate your willingness to stay engaged and involved in every step of our journey, and we look forward to our continuing collaboration to improve the health and well-being of our nation.

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

    The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) encourages you to share this information as we work together to enhance the quality, safety and value of care and the health of all Americans through the use of electronic health records and health information technology.

    ONC Launches “Health IT: Stories from the road”

    ONC Launches “Health IT: Stories from the road”

    Health IT: Stories from the road

    Health IT: Stories from the road

    Looking to share success stories on Health IT implementation, the Office of the National Coordinator (ONC) for Health IT launched a new section on its Web site called “Health IT Journey: Stories from the road” on April 13, 2010. The following excerpt was selected on April 14, 2010. Please see the ONC site to keep up-to-date with the latest stories. Two of the three stories posted already require a paid subscription, so only the abstracts may be available. And ONC has posted a disclaimer about posted stories on the page.

    Share. Inspire. Learn.
    “Have you, your practice, or your organization been through a health IT implementation? We’d like you to share your story with us. After internal review, your story may be published to inspire other providers and organizations to become meaningful users of Electronic Health Records (EHRs). Let’s learn together.Email us your story at onc.request@hhs.gov. If the story has been published, be sure to include the name of the publication, the date of publication and a link to the article. Read our disclaimer (below).”

    Thanks for sharing your story!

    Journey Stories
    What’s Keeping Us So Busy in Primary Care?  A Snapshot from One Practice
    A small practice uses health IT to streamline delivery of care.
    Richard J. Baron, M.D., F.A.C.P.
    New England Journal of Medicine, 362: 1632-1636
    April 29, 2010

    Lessons Premier Hospitals Learned About Implementing Electronic Health Records  [Paid subscription required]
    Hospitals implement health IT and develop an electronic health-record best-practices library to support “meaningingful use.”
    Susan D. DeVore and Keith Figlioli
    Health Affairs, 29: 664-667
    April 2010

    Health IT and Solo Practice: A Love-Hate Relationship  [Paid subscription required]
    A solo practitioner finds efficiencies and challenges in adoption of health IT.
    Joseph Heyman
    Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 38: 14-16
    March 2010

    Disclaimer
    Posting of the articles on (ONC) Web site does not necessarily constitute HHS or ONC endorsement of the procedures followed; vendors, products and services named; or overall performance of the facility’s delivery of care. We do hope you find these narratives insightful and useful in your efforts to adopt health information technology and improve patient care.

    ONC Posts Farzad Mostashari Role as Deputy Nat’l Coordinator for Programs and Policy

    Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT
    Farzad Mostashari, MD, ScM
    Deputy National Coordinator for Programs and Policy


    Note: see update–Mostashari named National Coordinator on April 8, 2011.

    Farzad Mostashari, MD, ScM

    Farzad Mostashari, MD, ScM

    “Farzad Mostashari, MD, ScM serves as Deputy National Coordinator for Programs and Policy within the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

    “Previously, he served at the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene as Assistant Commissioner for the Primary Care Information Project, where he facilitated the adoption of prevention-oriented health information technology by over 1,500 providers in underserved communities. Dr. Mostashari also led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded NYC Center of Excellence in Public Health Informatics and an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded project focused on quality measurement at the point of care. Prior to this he established the Bureau of Epidemiology Services at the NYC Department of Health, charged with providing epidemiologic and statistical expertise and data for decision making to the health department.

    “He did his graduate training at the Harvard School of Public Health and Yale Medical School, internal medicine residency at Massachusetts General Hospital, and completed the CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service. He was one of the lead investigators in the outbreaks of West Nile Virus and anthrax in New York City, and among the first developers of real-time electronic disease surveillance systems nationwide.”

    ONC posted above bio on May 11, 2010.

    Related NY Times article, Feb 28, 2009: “How to Make Electronic Medical Records a Reality”
    Two articles co-authored by Mostashari in Health Affairs March/April 2009 edition on Electronic Health Records and HITECH:
    “A Tale Of Two Large Community Electronic Health Record Extension Projects”
    “Collecting And Sharing Data For Population Health: A New Paradigm”
    Only abstracts may be available from Health Affairs without registration and payment.

    CMS Awards Add’l $9.1 Mil for Medicaid Health IT to New Jersey, Louisiana, Maryland, and Minnesota

    Four New CMS Awards for Health IT Programs for Medicaid
    Ups  Total to $67.6 Mil for 41 State/Territory Medicaid Agencies
    Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) announced its four latest federal matching fund awards on May 11, 2010 as part of the CMS Electronic Health Records Incentive Program with $9.2 million in this round divided between the Medicaid agencies for New Jersey with $4.93 million, Louisiana with $1.85 million, Maryland with $1.37 million, and Minnesota with $1.04 million.

    Among the 41 State/Territory Medicaid agencies, New Jersey captured the second largest award, with New York maintaining its top spot at $5.91 million. The midpoint for award amounts remains about $1.4 million per agency. See complete chart below with states, amounts, and dates announced.

    The press release for each state award continues to say “The Recovery Act provides a 90 percent federal match for state planning activities to administer the incentive payments to Medicaid providers, to ensure their proper payments through audits and to participate in statewide efforts to promote interoperability and meaningful use of EHR technology statewide and, eventually, across the nation.”

    All award announcements  (May 11, 2010 and prior) can be viewed via a search of CMS press releases that this link launches. 

    CMS Matching Funds for EHRs  

    State Amount Date
    Alabama $269,000 2/26/2010
    Alaska $900,000 1/21/2010
    Arizona $2,890,000 2/26/2010
    Arkansas $815,000 2/26/2010
    California $2,480,000 12/9/2009
    Colorado $798,000 3/24/2010
    Florida $1,690,000 2/26/2010
    Georgia $3,170,000 12/9/2009
    Idaho $142,000 12/9/2009
    Illinois $2,180,000 2/26/2010
    Iowa $1,160,000 11/23/2009
    Kansas $1,700,000 2/26/2010
    Kentucky $2,600,000 1/21/2010
    Louisiana $1,850,000 5/11/2010
    Maine $1,400,000 2/26/2010
    Maryland $1,370,000 5/11/2010
    Michigan $1,520,000 2/26/2010
    Minnesota $1,040,000 5/11/2010
    Mississippi $1,470,000 3/24/2010
    Missouri $1,530,000 4/26/2010
    Montana $239,000 12/9/2009
    Nebraska $894,000 2/26/2010
    Nevada $1,050,000 3/24/2010
    New Jersey $4,930,000 5/11/2010
    New Mexico $405,000 4/26/2010
    New York $5,910,000 12/9/2009
    North Carolina $2,290,000 3/24/2010
    Oklahoma $587,000 2/26/2010
    Oregon $3,530,000 4/26/2010
    Pennsylvania $1,420,000 1/4/2010
    Puerto Rico $1,800,000 4/26/2010
    South Carolina $1,480,000 1/21/2010
    Tennessee $2,700,000 1/4/2010
    Texas $3,860,000 12/9/2009
    US Virgin Islands $232,000 12/9/2009
    Utah $396,000 3/24/2010
    Vermont $294,000 2/26/2010
    Virginia $1,660,000 2/26/2010
    Washington $967,000 4/26/2010
    Wisconsin $1,370,000 1/21/2010
    Wyoming $596,000 3/24/2010
    TOTAL $67,584,000  

    For additional background information on CMS Awards, see these previous posts on e-Healthcare Marketing.
    March 29, 2010: “CMS Awards Total of $50 Million to 32 State Medicaid EHR Programs”
    April 26, 2010: “CMS Awards Add’l $8.2 mil for Medicaid Health IT to Oregon, Puerto Rico, New Mexico, Washington, and Missouri”

    Revised Health IT Strategic Framework Presentation: May 11 Meeting

    Revised Health IT Strategic Framework Presentation:
    HIT Policy Committee Strategic Plan Workgroup

    Meeting May 11, 2010, ”the purpose of today’s session (of the HIT Policy Committee Strategic Plan Workgroup)  is to:
    • Review specific changes made to the Strategic Framework
         –Public listening session input
         –Mapping of objectives and strategies
    • Review and finalize the revised Health IT Strategic Framework for recommendation to HITPC on May 21, (2010).

    Meeting Materials
    Meeting
    Audio

    Excerpts from the “Health IT Strategic Framework: Strategic Goals, Prinicples, Objectives, and Strategies,” Office of National Coordinator for Health IT, May 10, 2010, Version 41. PDF Version

    The Health IT Strategic Framework (the Framework) has four goals, which relate to the following areas:

     Learning Health System

    Strategic Plan Framework Themes

    Strategic Plan Framework Themes

     Meaningful Use of Health Information Technology

     Privacy and Security

     Policy and Technical Infrastructure

    STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK SCOPE and APPROACH
    The HIT Policy Committee Strategic Plan Workgroup was chartered to provide recommendations to the full committee on the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan development and provide the vehicle through which private and public input and coordination was achieved.

    A. Health IT Strategic Framework Scope

     The Health IT Strategic Framework encompasses three levels:

    o 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;

    o The broad array of Federal HIT policies, regulations, systems, and activities; and

    o The specific mandate, authorities, and role of the ONC.

     The Framework emphasizes the implementation of legislative imperatives to achieve widespread adoption and meaningful use of HIT.

     The Framework also focuses on features that would be essential to continue the adoption and value of HIT beyond ARRA funding.

     The Framework focuses on 2011 through 2015 time period and on laying the ground work for the period beyond 2015 to create a learning health system through the effective use of HIT.

    B. Health IT Strategic Framework Approach

     The process to develop the Framework was participatory with broad involvement across the health care sector with opportunities for public input and discussion.

     The Framework was developed by the Workgroup, with input from other stakeholders, and includes recommendations regarding goals, principles, objectives, and strategies.

     The Framework includes priorities and initiatives that are achievable.

     This Framework provides guidance to ONC in the creation of the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan Update.

    Vision
    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. (Charter of the Institute of Medicine Roundtable on Value & Science-Driven Health Care).

    A learning health system focuses on the needs of individuals and population health and aims to be patient-centered, safe, timely, effective, efficient, and equitable while protecting privacy and confidentiality of health information. In a learning health system, individuals can make informed decisions about their health and health care; patients can exercise informed choices about sharing 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 all participants in the system contribute to improving population health.

    There are a number of activities that go on into this learning health system. Consumers are engaged, and processes are continuously improved and new innovations continue to improve the health status of the population. Education and research improves the knowledge base upon which services are delivered. The beneficiaries are numerous. If everything is working correctly, this information about the experience of care is manifested as data to produce the results. Therefore, patients are more informed and the quality of care is improved. This means improved outcomes for individuals, as well as the population. The value of the healthy system is enhanced, and new, shared knowledge is created.

    Health information technology (HIT) provides a critical infrastructure for a learning health system and provides a platform for health reform goals related to quality improvement and payment reform. HIT offers tools (i.e., electronic health records, personal health records, mobile health and consumer e-health applications) 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. Transformation of our health care system will take three components working together – people, process and technology.

    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 implementing the HITECH Act and addressing these 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 infrastructure that serves “public goods” including 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.

    Background
    In the development of the Strategic Framework, the Strategic Plan Workgroup deliberated on many key issues and challenges. The deliberations involved juggling many conflicting ideas such as the importance of addressing short-term needs in the face of longer-term uncertainties; finding the right balance between technology innovations, regulatory approaches, and other constraints and risks associated with use of information technology; and others.

    As such, the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan should be a living document that adjusts to the changing health environment. Among the topics discussed during the development of this Framework were the following:

     Transparency and Access – ensuring that patients have access to information and knowledge to make informed decisions about their care;

     Personal Choice – finding the right balance between patient privacy and patient choice (i.e., some patients do not want their data shared whereas some patients do not mind sharing or want to share their information for research, improved care, and/or for the betterment of society);

     Public Engagement – allowing for continued public discussion and debate on current and emerging health care issues that cannot be resolved easily or through easy technology solutions;

     Technology Innovation – learning from the impact that the internet and social networking has had on our daily lives, and leaving flexibility for how technical innovations may change the delivery of health care; capitalizing on the promise of emerging new technologies while preserving the rights of individuals;

     Support for Research – putting in place appropriate policies and technical infrastructure to allow researchers to access a spectrum of data to support new discoveries and treatments while protecting individual privacy; and

     Unintended Consequences – allowing for processes to capture and learn from unanticipated adverse consequences of HIT use, and developing actions to mitigate and prevent untoward effects.

    This Framework is intended to set an approach and priorities for moving forward, rather than identifying a complete set of actions that would facilitate widespread adoption and use of HIT. This Framework describes strategies and HIT infrastructure that can serve as a foundation for developing programs that enhance the quality of health care, population health, privacy and security protections, and other values inherent in the vision.

    Excerpts from slide presentation for May 11, 2010 meeting of Health IT Policy Committee Strategic Plan Workgroup.
    PPT version.

    Policy and Technical Infrastrucure
    What Do We Aim to Accomplish with Appropriate Policy and Technical Infrastructure?
         –Establish policies, standards, and cetification criteria to incrementally enhance the interoperability of HIT.
         –Facilitate the development of market-susatainable mechanisms to ensure reliable, secure exchange of health information.

    How Do We Plan to Accomplish It?
         –Identify and prioritize types of data for transmission that facilitate improvement in national health priorities
         –Adopt standards, specifications and certification criteria that enhance interoperability, functionality, utility and security of HIT
         –Enable secure exchange of health information over the Internet to support clinical care and population health
         –Encourage development of innovative technology
         –Engage public and private sector to explore mechanisms to increase business demand and public support for information exchange
        –Expand broadband access to support health and health care –Establish certification and testing program of EHR technology
         –Assess and address patient safety issues that may arise from HIT

    Privacy and Security
    What Do We Aim to Accomplish with Appropriate Privacy and Security Protections?
         -Develop and enforce privacy protections for all aspects of information management
         -Increase understanding, implementation of laws and policies that protect privacy of health information
         -Improve accuracy of electronic health information through widespread consumer access

    Meaningful Use of Health IT
    What Do We Aim to Accomplish using HIT?
         -Improve health and health care through meaningful use of HIT
         -Leverage public- and private-sector resources and policies to accelerate adoption of HIT
         -Engage patients and caregivers in shared healthcare decision making
         -Improve efficiency and reduce administrative burden on providers and patients through HIT

    How Do We Plan to Accomplish It?
         –Develop meaningful use roadmap
         –Train and support a knowledgeable HIT workforce
         –Target HIT investments to address national high priority health issues
         –Use national health priorities for which effective use of HIT has demonstrated impact to guide selection of future criteria for assessing the meaningful Use of HIT
         –Actively support primary care and other small providers to achieve meaningful use of certified EHR technology
         –Promote participation of all members of the health team
         –Provide resources to facilitate achieving meaningful use for eligible providers and eligible hospitals
         –Encourage health care professionals not eligible for meaningful use incentives to achieve meaningful use and improve health outcomes
         –Facilitate development of HIT to support care communication and coordination among consumers and their health care professionals
         –Provide the tools and assistance to providers and consumers that can address the key workflow and behavioral changes necessary for meaningful HIT use
         –Develop a comprehensive communication strategy to engage consumers
         –Promote increased usability through consumer-centered design in certified EHR technology and other HIT products
         –Coordinate and leverage programs to advance the meaningful use of HIT with the administrative simplification requirements of Health Reform and the requirements for HIPAA transaction upgrades and the implementation and use of ICD-10

    Learning Health System
    What Do We AIm to Accomplish by Supporting a Learning Health System?
         -Leverage networked HIT to facilitate creation of knowledge through consistent policies, standards, and methods
         -Execute comprehensive education campiagn to promote shared vision of a learning health system enabled by HIT
         -Leverage data from populations ot advance the understanding of health, disease, and treatments

    How Do We Plan to Accomplish It?
         –Engage public- and private-sector stakeholders to effectively leverage data and human resources
         –Incorporate global health into the interoperability requirements
         –Harmonize meaningful-use requirements with the needs of population health and a learning system
         –Continuously evaluate successes and lessons learned from HIT adoption and incorporate best practices into HIT programs
         –Support individuals’ informed decisions to allow use of their data for societal benefit 
         -Develop and implement tools to improve consumers’ health and HIT literacy to facilitate shared decision-making and promote self   management and self efficacy
         –Communicate with professional societies and boards to identify opportunities for meaningful use activities to contribute to professional education programs
         –Reward and leverage industry best practices and uses of HIT to create a learning system that supports advances in health promotion and disease treatment, while making knowledge and technology more accessible.
         –Stimulate and support innovations in care delivery, performance measurements, genomics, and comparative effectiveness through HIT
         –Support research and development activities to overcome obstacles that impede creation of learning systems

    Privacy & Security Workgroup Reviews Trust Framework, Role of Individual Consent for HIE Recommendations

    Trust Framework, Role of Individual Consent for HIEs
    Recommendations Review by Privacy & Security Workgroup
    of Health IT Policy Committee

    Agenda and Draft Recommendations excerpted from ONC site on May 7, 2010.
    To participate, see ONC Meetings Page.
    Audio Access during meeting:
    US toll free:   1-877-705-2976

    Agenda [PDF - 302 KB]
    2:00 p.m. Call to Order – Sarah Wattenberg, ONC
    2:05 p.m. Introductions & Overview of Agenda
               Deven McGraw, Chair
               Rachel Block, Co-Chair
    2:15 p.m. Discussion on Recommendations on the Trust Framework & Role of Individual Consent for HIE
    3:45 p.m. Public Comment
    4:00 p.m. Adjourn

    Next HIT Policy Meeting: May 19, 2010

    Recommendations [PDF - 257 KB]
    DRAFT: 5/6/2010 

    Framing

     The Policy Committee has endorsed a set of meaningful use criteria that require the exchange of data with other providers, with patients, to public health agencies, and, to a limited extent, with payers (for insurance eligibility checks). The expectation is that subsequent stages of meaningful use will likely require greater health information exchange.

     ONC is seeding a number of health information exchange activities, including NHIN Direct, direct funding states to create health information exchange infrastructure, and regional initiatives, in order to support current and future meaningful use requirements. All of these initiatives must have at an early stage a stable privacy framework that can set expectations early and support the evolution to a broader range of services involving potentially greater sharing and distributed use of health information.

     The work to establish standards for exchange – particularly for NHIN Direct – is proceeding rapidly, but to date this work has been uninformed by a clear set of policy expectations and requirements. There is urgent work to be done on technical elements of NHIN Direct, including the specification of standards for the kinds of health information sharing that would support meaningful use.

     But technical standards and technology approaches for information sharing always are based on established or assumed use cases and policy addressing what information is shared, how it is accessed and where it is stored. Thus, in the absence of specific policy the selection of standards and technical approaches inevitably create policy de facto -but without a full discussion of those embedded policy assumptions. Privacy and security policies should be established before, or at least be established in tandem with, technical standards. If the policy requirements are not clearly set at the start of these activities, it will be difficult to impossible to retrofit technology later – in terms of both impact to lives and financial costs. 

     Standards (for security or for health information generally) are not a substitute for clear policies that are essential to reassure healthcare professionals and consumers that information exchange can improve health outcomes without expressly or implicitly opening the door to inappropriate disclosures or uses of information. Appropriate information flows are essential to improving both individual and population health – but clear, unambiguous policies, and supporting technology, are needed to enable these information flows without (intentionally or unintentionally) exposing that information to unnecessary risk. 

     Current law provides a baseline set of requirements– but doesn’t provide adequate guidance or answer the important questions posed by the new exchange environment we are trying to create. If we fail to act, the weaknesses in current law will only be exploited by the greater data sharing contemplated by meaningful use.

     ONC issued a Nationwide Privacy and Security Framework in December 2008 that established a set of principles to govern health information exchange. These principles are guideposts – but principles alone are not a policy framework because they do not define the more specific policies and practices needed to implement them. Principles are meant to set high level aspirations – but they are only useful if translated into policies, practices, and technology solutions that specifically implement them in a comprehensive manner.

     The time has come to set forth more specific policies to govern health information exchange – early in the evolution of NHIN Direct and exchange through a local, state, regional or national HIE. The Workgroup began this discussion a couple of months ago looking specifically at the issue of the role of consent in health information exchange. But information policies are never effectively created in isolation. Rather, they must be created within a framework of complementary protections, both policy and technical, that work together to protect personal information.

    Recommendations

     We need a complete policy and technology framework that implements the principles in the Nationwide Privacy and Security Framework, that includes the specific policies and practices to govern digital health information exchange, and that sets expectations for what the technology must achieve. Such a framework should assume existing law and fill gaps, clarify the policies that technology and operational practices must enforce, be applicable to all entities that are exposed to health information, and be established through a combination of policy requirements, policy-specific technical requirements, and industry best practices.

     We must begin this work immediately, and it should proceed joined at the hip with the work currently being done to establish standards for NHIN Direct and requirements for state HIE and extension center grants. FACA bodies have an important role to play in establishing this framework, but we will need more support in order to make more specific recommendations and meet strict timelines. 

     Much of the focus of privacy conversations (both nationally and at the state level) is on the role of consumer consent, and consumer choice or consent plays an important role in a comprehensive policy and technology framework. But consent should not be the driver in setting privacy policy, because it essentially shifts the burden of protecting privacy to the individual who is left to choose whether data use and exchange within a particular model is trustworthy (a model the individual is not likely to understand). To truly build trust in health information exchange, we must do the hard work of setting terms and conditions of usage and exchange (both in terms of policy and technology). The role that effective, well informed consent can play should be considered within that context. 

     We have in place a set of laws that currently provide some context for “point-to-point” exchange of data, particularly for Stage 1 of Meaningful Use, where there is no “intermediary” in the middle with access to the data. [Note: the term "intermediary" refers to entities in the middle that access some data – at any layer of the technology stack that is required to share information securely- in order to perform a function that facilitates exchange or provides a a "value added" service.] This type of point-to-point exchange without an intermediary feels most like the type of exchange that occurs today. Current law was built on the assumptions in this model, and it is largely consistent with patient expectations. Consequently, in this narrow setting, we don’t believe that any additional patient consent requirements are needed beyond what is already set forth in current law. 

     However, even simple exchange is likely to depend on an intermediary providing some type of service that involves access to data, creating additional exposures and vulnerabilities. (For example, the HIPAA Security Rule addresses clearinghouses, which may help covered entities bring their HIPAA transactions into compliance with standards.) There need to be clear enforceable policies and technology requirements for all participants in health information exchange as well as for intermediaries of several types who may have varying levels of access to information. Such policies should include:

              o constraints on collection, access and disclosure of identifiable data;
              o constraints on data retention and re-use; and
              o minimal security requirements.

    We should consider the role of consent in direct exchange using intermediaries – but should do so only as part of a broader discussion about the policy and technology framework.

    Further Discussion:

     Examples of just some of the questions that should be addressed in developing this framework, beginning with direct exchange: 

              o For intermediaries providing basic levels of services like identity management, routing, or provider directory services, what access to data in the message envelope is needed to perform the service(s)? Is there any justification for allowing access to unencrypted data in the payload (message content)?
              o How long should such data collected be retained? What happens to the data after the service has been provided?
              o What, if any, reuses of such data should be permitted?
              o What technological requirements are needed to support policies around data access, use, disclosure, and retention (even on media that are reused)?
             o What other services are intermediaries likely to provide and what specific policies are needed to secure and maintain trust?
            o Who can access patient information directly from intermediaries and for what purposes?
            o What about further use and disclosure of de-identified information?
            o What did we learn from the Health Information Security and Privacy Collaborative (HISPC) work that can be instructive here?

     We also need to contemplate the broad range of exchange architectures that could exist (and whether they should exist), and how should the privacy and security principles be translated into policies and technology requirements needed to build trust in a particular type of exchange. The Workgroup has spent much of its time talking about direct or “vetted” exchange, where information is shared directly between two covered entities. But other models, such as those that involve the creation of large databases of individually identifiable health information that can be mined or queried , while allowable within current law, may raise concerns with respect to patient expectations. What policies and technical requirements are needed to build trust in these models, and what additional role should consumer choice play in building public trust?

     Enforcement of policies and requirements is also critical. These intermediaries are likely to be business associates under HIPAA. But unfortunately the business associate rules as currently interpreted do not provide sufficient specificity to serve as an effective policy framework to govern the activities of intermediaries in exchange. Among the concerns raised by workgroup members are the following:

    -business associate rules are either too lax or have been interpreted to allow chains of business associates to use information to serve their own or others’ business needs (vs. merely serving the needs of the covered entity whose data they possess).

    -an increase in the access to and use of de-identified data in an environment with insufficient protections against (and penalties for) inappropriate re-identification.

    -potential access to intermediary data by entities not currently governed by federal (or sometimes state) health privacy rules.

    -data moving through chains of subcontractors with uncertain accountability.

     Even with more specific rules, it is unclear whether business associate agreements provide an effective enforcement tool.

    -Currently, BA agreements are not required to include specific provisions limiting access to information. They have customarily been largely form documents that require compliance with HIPAA.

    -The balance of power may more likely be tipped toward the HIE/intermediary than the covered entity (for example, to take advantage of using the network to exchange data for MU, the covered entity may be required to agree to less desirable terms with respect to data use and re-use).

    -If it is possible to have more clear rules on business associate agreements, at least for intermediaries (for example, require certain provisions), enforcing these policies through BAAs has the advantage of piggybacking on substantial penalties for failure to comply.

    -However, this is only effective to govern two levels of exchange – from covered entity to one business associate; it does not effectively govern beyond those levels – such as a business associate to its sub-contractor.

     If the business associate rules are not an effective mechanism for setting policy and technology requirements for intermediaries, we may need to enforce through other governance mechanisms.

    -Is governing and overseeing these policies and requirements just a federal responsibility or do states/communities have a role?

    -Do we have sufficient existing authority to implement these policies in a consistent manner? (critical for interoperability)

    ONC Blog: Beacon Communities Lead Charge to Improve Health Outcomes

    Blumenthal Blogs on Health IT Buzz Blog plus add’l Links
    Beacon Communities Lead the Charge to Improve Health Outcomes
    Wednesday, May 5th, 2010 | Posted orginally by Dr. David Blumenthal on Health IT Buzz Blog.
    Excerpted directly from ONC Health IT Buzz Blog.
    Across the nation, in communities large and small, health information technology (health IT) innovators are boldly leading the way toward the adoption and meaningful use of electronic health records (EHRs). Yesterday, we awarded $220 million in Beacon Community cooperative agreements to 15 trailblazing community consortiums that will demonstrate how the meaningful use of electronic health records can serve as a critical foundation for achieving measurable improvement in the quality and efficiency of health care in the United States.

    Health care providers often suggest that health IT is challenging to implement, and that certain types of communities are better prepared (and funded) to reap its benefits.

    The 15 Beacon Communities named today, however, demonstrate the significant diversity among those who have been successful in implementing and using health IT. The areas of diversity represented in the consortiums receiving grants include:

    • Geographic – Beacon Communities are located from coast to coast and beyond to Hawaii
    • Population Density – Beacon  Communities serve both urban and rural populations
    • Populations – Beacon programs address health disparities among minority populations, including Native American, African American, and Hispanic, among others

    Equally important, these communities are committed to demonstrating tangible outcomes:

    • Individual Health Outcomes – Beacon Communities’ outcomes encompass a variety of disease states and treatment approaches, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, asthma, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
    • Population Health outcomes – Beacon Communities target varying dimensions of population and public health, from improved immunization and cancer screening rates, to innovations for public health surveillance

    Additionally, the Beacon Community Program demonstrates robust collaboration among Federal agencies.   Two of the grantees seek to improve Veterans’ care by leveraging the Department of Defense’s and Department of Veteran Affairs’ Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record (VLER) program for active duty, Guard and Reserve, retired military personnel, and eligible separated Veterans.

    These diverse partners will provide unique insights into best practices that can be applied to similar communities nationwide, as they strive to build a health IT infrastructure as a critical foundation for health system improvement. In doing so, the Beacon Community program will support the nationwide adoption of health IT by 2015.

    I congratulate the Beacon Community awardees and am confident the Beacon Communities will succeed in demonstrating the promise of health IT and facilitating other communities’ adoption and meaningful use of technology.

    –David Blumenthal, M.D., M.P.P. – National Coordinator for Health Information Technology
    For the original post, comments and the complete Health IT Buzz Blog.
                                           #              #               #

    White House Video of VP Biden and Sec’y HHS Sebelius Announcement

    Additional e-Healthcare Marketing posts with info on Beacon Communities
    –Blumenthal Letter #14 on Beacon Communities
    –White House Announcement on $220 Million Awards with Communities Listed
    –ONC Named for Beacon Communities Program
    –ONC Roles and Posts–Includes Overall Director, Ofc of State and Community Programs

    CMS Webinar Series on Health IT Starts May 13, 2010

    CMS Webinar Series on Health IT Starts May 2010
    Follow up to Feb 2010 CMS Conference on Health IT
    Excerpted from CMS Webinar Series site on May 5, 2010. Updated May 22, 2010.

    Webinar Series Starting May 13, 2010
    CMS Webinar Series
    “CMS is pleased to announce that a series of Webinars is being conducted for individuals who were unable to participate in ”CMS Second Annual Multi-State Health IT Collaborative for E-Health Conference” that ran February 2010 in Washington, DC.

    Five sessions will be offered over the next several weeks, with two already scheduled for time and date.

    Session Title and Session Date/Time
    Promoting Electronic Records Adoption/ Communications/ Outreach
    5/13/2010 1:00 pm ET     Register–click here.

    Establishing Health Information Exchange Governance and HIT Exchange Planning
    Week of May 18 specific date/time TBD

    Lessons Learned and Best Practices for Medicaid Health Information Technology Promotion
    5/27/2010 1:00 pm ET    Register, click here.

    Health Information Exchange and Tribal Affairs
    6/2/2010 1:00 pm ET      Register, click here.

    Technical Assistance Resources for State Agencies
    6/9/2010 2:00 pm ET      Register, click here.

    Promoting Electronic Records
    Adoption Communications/Outreach
    TBD

    You may register for as many Webinars as you like, and registration is free; however, you must be registered to attend.

    Please note: A dry run will take place 24 hours prior to each Webinar session to ensure that you are able to participate through the computer system you will be using.

    After you have registered, additional information on how to access both the dry run and the Webinar session will be emailed to you approximately 1 week prior to the session date.

    For Additional Questions or Support, go to the CMS Webinar page for instructions.

    “CMS Second Annual Multi-State Health IT Collaborative for E-Health Conference”
    For e-Healthcare Marketing post about “CMS Second Annual Multi-State Health IT Collaborative for E-Health Conference” that ran in February in Washington, DC.

    For direct link to materials and presentations from “CMS Second Annual Multi-State Health IT Collaborative for E-Health Conference.”

    Blumenthal Letter #14: Beacon Communities Lead the Charge to Improve Health Outcomes

    Establishing Beacons for Nationwide Advances in Health IT
    Emailed May 5, 2010 

    Dr. David Blumenthal

    Dr. David Blumenthal

    A Message from Dr. David Blumenthal,
    National Coordinator for Health IT
     
     

    Healthcare professionals appreciate opportunities to learn from innovative colleagues and communities – to see what really works, to get “boots-on-the-ground” perspectives, to learn best practices, and to use the experience of other leaders to inform how to improve performance more broadly.    

    The Beacon Community Cooperative Agreement Program, by its very design, was intended to shine a spotlight on health information technology (health IT) innovators, so that we all might learn from them. Today, Secretary Sebelius awarded $220 million to establish 15 Beacon Communities throughout America. These community consortia – selected from 130 applicants – have demonstrated leadership in developing advanced health IT solutions to help improve specific health outcomes. They also share a strong conviction in the benefits of health IT as a critical pillar to advance broad and sustainable health system improvement. The average award amount is $15 million over 36 months.    

    The Beacon Community awards recognize collaborative community efforts operating at the cutting edge of health IT and health care delivery system innovation. Beacon Communities will implement a range of care delivery innovations building on existing infrastructure of interoperable health IT and standards-based information exchange, in coordination with the Regional Extension Center Program and State Health Information Exchange Program.  

    In addition, the program will help Beacon Communities plan and develop new initiatives that can ensure the longer-term sustainability of health IT-enabled improvements in health care quality, safety, efficiency, and population health. This includes preparing for future policy changes resulting from enactment of health care reform legislation that will permit providers, states, and regional health care organizations to test new payment methods emphasizing improvements in quality and value.  

    Like so many other providers who effectively implement health IT, Beacon Communities will leverage other existing federal programs and resources to promote health information exchange at the community level. These resources include:  

    • Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record (VLER)  program, which aims to develop a longitudinal electronic health record for all active duty, Guard and Reserve, retired military personnel, and eligible separated Veterans
    • Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) programs at federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and Health Center Controlled Networks (HCCNs) to advance the adoption of certified electronic health records and exchange of health information
    • Department of Agriculture and Department of Commerce efforts to extend broadband infrastructure

    The partnership with applicable VLER, FQHC, and HCCN sites is particularly important to ensure we realize measurable and tangible results in federally funded, military, and private sector health care settings alike.
     
    I am particularly pleased by the diversity among Beacon awardees:  geographically, they span the continental United States and reach as far as Hawaii; both urban and rural communities are well represented; and targeted program outcomes span some of America’s most pressing health concerns, from reducing medication errors and improving the care of individuals with cardiovascular disease to reducing disparities in access and outcomes for patients with diabetes. Additionally, the programs bring health IT innovation to a variety of underserved populations to address health disparities and improve patient care. The Beacon Communities demonstrate that health IT can bring meaningful change to health care for all Americans — not just the healthiest, wealthiest, or best insured.  

    I extend my sincere congratulations to our 15 Beacon Communities. Your work inspires me, and I believe that in the coming months, it will inspire and inform America’s medical and health IT communities.  

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

    “The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) encourages you to share this information as we work together to enhance the quality, safety and value of care and the health of all Americans through the use of electronic health records and health information technology.”
    #          #         #
    See post on e-Healthcare Marketing with full statement from White House listing recipients and the focus of the award for each.