Tuesday, May 31, 2016

National Coordinator for Health IT Speaks at #ONC2016

Remarks below are (loosely) transcribed from remarks at the 2016 ONC Annual Meeting by Dr. Karen DeSalvo, Acting Assistant Secretary for Health, HHS; National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, ONC:

How is everybody doing? A little louder! I'm going to have to rally up the crowd for the last visitor, former Secretary Sebelius. It is wonderful to be here today with all of you and so many of the team, a special welcome for those watching via web cast, we have 750 people who are watching online. Can you believe that?

Nice to see a lot of familiar faces and new faces, thank you for being a part of this not only work today, but part of our journey in health IT. I want to take a minute to acknowledge the ONC grantees in the audience today, this is where I do the part where you get to stand up. Can I have the former REC grantee stand up because of the work you have done to move so rapidly toward adoption. Thank you.

And Beacon Grantees.

HIEs?

So we have old and new, we have those that work in part of the workforce development, they are in the process of bringing those folks into health IT, so if you are in the room, please stand and be recognized.

And then we had a grant announced last year to bring in new sources of data and providers, whether they were from EMS, social services, or behavioral health and those grantees went through a competitive process too. If you could please stand and be recognized.

And finally, the folks from the Hill, some are here, and you have seen the videos. These folks on The Hill have been terrific partners at helping us think about how we build on the foundation of health IT to a brighter future to everyone.

This is a meeting I look forward to because it is a chance to see so many old friends. I used to be a grantee of ONC, so I got to stand up and I want to recognize what the work is like in the field, it is tough and we are changing technology and culture and this is a chance to bring you into one place so you can learn from each other and those that we are here to serve, the consumers on the third day of the event. We have been doing a tremendous amount of work in a short period of time in a dizzying pace and we can see that not only can we digitize the care and health experience of every American, but we are reaching a place where that data is going to be available when and where it matters most.

We have seen progress in the data with EHR adoption and it is worth taking a moment to look at this from the brief we put out today, from the American hospital association, they are great partners in helping us keep track of the progress we are making. When ONC was started by President Bush, the charge was to see that every American would have access to their electronic health information and this has been carried forward by President Obama and with the passage of the high-tech act in 2009 and we have been working, all of us, all of you out there watching, on seeing that we can have a digital record of the care experience that people in this country, and I think it is so important for us to take a moment to recognize that we have made significant advancements in the goal I rode out.

And I will go way back before 2008 and tell you that, when I was training at Charity Hospital as a medical student in the early 90s, one of my jobs was to go to the lab floor where there were wooden boxes and pull out the labs for the patients today, they were written on carbon copies, this is the potassium, and then we would prescribe it to the patient and move it down the line, and that process happened during my career, and you think about where we are today, that some of you all might be checking your patient's labs on your smart phone to see the results, that is a great opportunity clinically for those of us practicing and there's a lot of unexpected challenges and opportunities that you have heard about.

This EHR adoption rate, it is 9 times the rate that we were at in 2008, is the beginning of the journey that we are taking. As a doctor, as a daughter, and a policy maker, I know that we need to see that actionable, usable, electronic health information is available when and where it matters to consumers and all of us who are users of that data and it is coming from so many sources today, even compared to where it was in 2008 when we started measuring. It is all sorts of information and our chapter ahead is to bring it all together to make it usable and actionable for everybody that wants it.

This is what I hear loudly and clearly: Everywhere I go, in every community where I have a listening session or visit a clinic or health center or hospital or scientific environment or public health agency or any place we go, what the people of the country they are ready for is the electronic health information to be available when and where it matters to them. They are impatient with the progress and they want the data to be free, thank you John White.

It is also something we are hearing increasingly from scientists, you are hearing about the use for precision management and moon shot, and we are hearing it from the President and the Vice President, that the time is now to build on the success of adoption that we have already seen.

The office of national coordinator believes that this is a process moving forward that will require the partnership with the private sector and all of our federal partners. We have taken an approach that is about public/private partnership, a shared vision and strategy ahead, we laid out around interoperability and we said what we wid do by when and when the private sector and states ask weigh in. And I want to thank everyone, including the federal partners, states, private sector and individuals that have stepped forward to meet those expectations, whether working on patient identification, or creating apps or maturing fire, it is all of us working together to get to the kind of health system we are all dreaming of.

The way that we have been boiling down the way we are thinking of moving forward, Dr. Washington shared this morning, this is the 3 Cs, common standards, culture change, and a business case for data to move. As we think about the work we have laid out, whether it is high-level like the federal health IT strategic plan or in the road map and understanding how we need to move forward on key critical path issues and taking what we have learned in the field, these areas capture the most important and impactful work that we need to be doing every day at ONC. And just as we are celebrating the success of adoption, we are still seeing challenges in the integration of data, and we have so much work in an ecosystem that itself is interoperable. We want to work to where we have on the same language, so there is no frustration and expense of not having national standards, and creating opportunities to advance new kinds of standards that can advance the field.

The first area includes, most importantly for us, the notions of privacy and cybersecurity of data and we want to make sure that the kinds of standards that we lay out, as the federal part of this, resonate with you all and are reaching every corner of this country so people are understanding expectations around privacy and security.

And that blends into changing the culture of data sharing in this country, for too long and even today, we think about data as something that we have to hold tightly on to, it is built into our DNA of medicine that we want to hold data and we're worried about exposing it because we don't want to violate HIPPA. Consumers are expecting that we share their data and HIPPA allows it, which is way why have the office of civil rights to understand what it is and it is not, not just for the providers, but the folks in compliance and for consumers, and the work that we're going to keep doing is making is sure that we are lifting up that message so we can get people to understand that data should by default be held securely and privately, but it needs to be so on behalf of the consumers.

And finally, we have been hearing very clearly that there needs to be a better case for sharing data. We spent very much of this effort on creating a payment case in the health care environment, and what you heard earlier today about researchers who are creating an additional business case for data sharing where we can see the acceleration of science and the revolution on the forefront and that's an addition where we can help data to get pushed and also pulled.

We asked for many in the field to work with us in addressing these drivers of success to do it in a way that it wouldn't just be the federal partners, but a public/private partnership and we asked for people to take a pledge publicly about three commitments. Consumers should have access to their electronic health care information where and when it matters to them, we should not engage in health information blocking that is unreasonable, and we would agree to move to federally recognized national standards, including those around privacy and security, and you have heard a lot about that today in how it is being brought to life and it is flowing appropriately and we are moving to a set of standards that move us to a seamless flow of data and community of health.

We are working to do our part on that end and we believe that one of the ways that we can continue to advance on those commitments is to push for market transparency, and one of the things that we want to make sure you are aware of, tomorrow, we are going to be posting on the website healthIT.gov/transparency a detailed listing of easy to understand information about certified health IT. It will be, on this website, what we have available now and we will update, this is to put plain language out there for providers wanting to purchase health IT. I had to do this several times looking to purchase, it but it can be confusing.

We want you to see this is a way to let folks know what they are purchasing and allow for a more transparent marketplace.

And we asked vendors to say what actions they are going to take to support more transparency and many are moving to be more transparent on the website. So I encourage you to take a look and give feedback on ways to improve it.

All of these efforts, whether creating road maps with you or setting guide posts through the rule making process, working with partners to create a business case for advancing interoperability and improving health IT, or putting a challenge grant so health records are a tap away, or to collaborate with you, we know that we cannot do this alone. It requires strong partnership from those already invested, and we need to make a tent big enough for consumers, investigators, and researchers that want to begin this journey and entrepreneurs that will show us ways to improve the health of this country that we have not been able to imagine.

So thank you for getting us successfully to this place and for helping us see where we are in data exchange, interoperability, and for the many purposes you are using it today and thank you for being with us this week as we roll up our sleeves and think about the how, not just the what, and close it off with the who, the consumer, because that's who we are here to serve.

Saturday, May 21, 2016

Military Health System EHR is Christened GENESIS

The new system to transform military health records has an official name. Military Health System (MHS) officials say the new electronic health record (EHR) will be called MHS GENESIS and will launch at the end of calendar year 2016. To keep pace with medical advances and innovations in technology, the DOD has purchased a new state of the art EHR that will support us in our mission to continue to provide high quality healthcare to our beneficiaries, as well as an agile, responsive system for our healthcare professionals.

The configuration and deployment of MHS GENESIS constitute a multi-year effort to provide a state-of-the-market system of sharing health records electronically and documenting the continuum of care. The new EHR will begin implementation in the Pacific Northwest at the end of this year, followed by a pre-planned, programmed installation expected to be completed over a several-year period. Whether on a ship at sea, at a local clinic, or in a major hospital, MHS GENESIS will be available throughout all Department of Defense facilities, and accessible to all members of the DoD's healthcare team.


While on the surface it appears just a system for health records, Dr. William M. Roberts, a retired Navy rear admiral who serves as the MHS functional champion, said it really reflects a whole new way of doing business for the MHS.

"We've looked at this process as finding what is best for the MHS as a whole, not just in individual areas," said Roberts. "We see this as the latest step in making sure patients are able to be fully engaged in their own health."

"We want people to know MHS GENESIS is a safe, secure accessible record for patients and health care professionals that is easily transferred to external providers, including major medical systems and Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals and clinics," emphasized Roberts. "When our beneficiaries see this logo or hear the name, they'll know their records will be seamlessly and efficiently shared with their chosen care provider."

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

MACRA Rules on MIPS APM

The much anticipated proposed regulations on the implementation of MACRA relating to the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and Alternative Payment Models (APMs) in Medicare Fee-for-Service have finally been released. MACRA consolidates the current programs of the Physician Quality Reporting System, the Value-Based Modifier, and the Electronic Health Records Incentive Program into one program, MIPS, that streamlines and improves on the three distinct incentive programs. Additionally, MACRA authorizes incentive payments for providers who participate in eligible APMs.

Under MACRA, payment adjustments to eligible professional (EP) payments through MIPS and incentive payments for qualifying APM participants will be applied beginning January 1, 2019. EPs under MIPS will be assessed a payment adjustment using four performance categories: quality, resource use, clinical practice improvement activities, and meaningful use of certified electronic health record (EHR) technology. Qualifying APM participants must have a specified amount of their Medicare expenditures or patients through an eligible APM that meets legislative criteria that include quality measures comparable to those in MIPS, required use of certified EHR technology, and either more than nominal financial risk or a structure as a medical home model. Additionally, specific to physician-focused APMs, the legislation creates a Technical Advisory Committee whose role is to receive and evaluate proposed APMs from the public and requires that the Secretary establish criteria for physician-focused payment models, including models for specialist physicians, by November 1, 2016.

I have followed the progress of the legislation to repeal the SGR and saw back in February 2014 that the Medicare Provider Payment Modernization Act precursor to MACRA was likely to eventually wind its way through Congress to ultimately be signed by the President. It took Republicans taking control of the Senate to finally see the legislation pass and be signed into law by President Obama on April 16, 2015.

And now we have the first set of proposed rules to wade through with a public comment period open until June 27, 2016. The we shall see the final rules published in the Federal Register around the August time frame this summer. The proposed rules are 962 pages long and below is an executive summary and below that is the document:

1. Purpose

The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) (Pub. L. 114-10, enacted April 16, 2015), amended title XVIII of the Social Security Act (the Act) to repeal the Medicare sustainable growth rate and strengthen Medicare access by improving physician payments and making other improvements, to reauthorize the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and for other purposes. This rule is needed to propose policies to improve physician payments by changing the way Medicare incorporates quality measurement into payments and by developing new policies to address and incentivize participation in alternative payment models.

This proposed rule would establish the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), a new program for certain Medicare-participating practitioners. MIPS would consolidate components of three existing programs, the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), the
Physician Value-based Payment Modifier (VM), and the Medicare Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program for eligible professionals (EPs), and would continue the focus on quality, resource use, and use of certified EHR technology in a cohesive program that avoids redundancies. This proposed rule also would establish incentives for participation in certain alternative payment models (APMs), supporting the Administration’s goals of moving more fee-for-service payments into APMs that focus on better care, smarter spending, and healthier people. This proposed rule also includes proposed criteria for use by the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC) in making comments and recommendations to the Secretary on physician-focused payment models (PFPMs).

In this proposed rule we have rebranded key terminology based on feedback from stakeholders, with the goal of selecting terms that would be more easily identified and understood by our stakeholders. We discuss these terminology changes in greater detail in the following sections of this proposed rule.

2. Summary of the Major Provisions

This proposed rule would sunset payment adjustments under the current PQRS, VM, and the Medicare EHR Incentive Program for EPs. Components of these three programs would be carried forward into the new MIPS program.

This proposed rule would establish a new subpart O of our regulations at 42 CFR 414.1300 to implement the new MIPS program as required by the MACRA.

(a) MIPS

In establishing MIPS, this rule would define MIPS program participants as “MIPS
eligible clinicians” rather than “MIPS EPs” as that term is defined at section 1848(q)(1)(C) and used throughout section 1848(q) of the Act. MIPS eligible clinicians will include physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and groups that include such clinicians. The rule proposes definitions and requirements for groups. In addition to proposing definitions for MIPS eligible clinicians, the rule also proposes rules for the specific Medicare-enrolled practitioners that would be excluded from MIPS, including newly Medicare-enrolled eligible clinicians, Qualifying APM Participants (QPs), certain Partial Qualifying APM Participants (Partial QPs), and clinicians that fall under the proposed low-volume threshold.

This rule proposes MIPS performance standards and a MIPS performance period of 1 calendar year (January 1 through December 31) for all measures and activities applicable to the four performance categories. Further, we propose to use 2017 as the performance period for the 2019 payment adjustment. Therefore, the first performance period would start in 2017 for payments adjusted in 2019. This time frame is needed to allow data and claims to be submitted and data analysis to occur. In addition, it would allow for a full year of measurement and sufficient time to base adjustments on complete and accurate information.

As directed by the MACRA, this rule proposes measures, activities, reporting, and data submission standards across four performance categories: quality, resource use, clinical practice improvement activities (CPIAs), and meaningful use of certified EHR technology (referred to in this proposed rule as “advancing care information”). Measures and activities would vary by category and include outcome measures, performance measures, and global and population based measures. Consideration would be given to the application of measures to non-patient facing MIPS eligible clinicians.

Quality measures would be selected annually through a call for quality measures process. Selection of these measures is proposed to be based on certain criteria that align with CMS priorities, and a final list of quality measures will be published in the Federal Register by November 1 of each year. Under the standards proposed in this rule, there would be options for reporting as an individual MIPS eligible clinician or as part of a group. Some data could be submitted via relevant third party data submission entities, such as qualified clinical data registries (QCDRs), health IT vendors1, qualified registries, and CMS-approved survey vendors.

Within each performance category, we propose some specific standards, including:

● Quality: For most MIPS eligible clinicians, we propose to include a minimum of six measures with at least one cross-cutting measure (for patient-facing MIPS eligible clinicians) and an outcome measure if available; if an outcome measure is not available, then the eligible clinician would report one other high priority measure (appropriate use, patient safety, efficiency, patient experience, and care coordination measures) in lieu of an outcome measure. MIPS eligible clinicians can meet this criterion by selecting measures either individually or from a specialty-specific measure set.

● Resource Use: Continuation of two measures from the VM: total per costs capita for all attributed beneficiaries and Medicare Spending per Beneficiaries (MSPB) with minor technical adjustments. In addition, episode-based measures, as applicable to the MIPS eligible clinician.

● CPIA: We generally encourage but are not requiring a minimum number of CPIAs.

● Advancing Care Information: Assessment based on advancing care information measures and objectives.

We propose standards for measures, scoring, and reporting for MIPS eligible clinicians across all four performance categories outlined in this section. We propose that MIPS eligible clinicians who participate in certain types of APMs will be scored using an APM scoring standard instead of the generally applicable MIPS scoring standard.

The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ (HHS) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) is conducting studies and making recommendations on the issue of risk adjustment for socioeconomic status on quality measures and resource use as required by section 2(d) of the Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation Act of 2014 (the IMPACT Act) and expects to issue a report to Congress by October 2016. We will closely examine the recommendations issued by ASPE and incorporate them, as feasible and appropriate, in future rulemaking.

We are proposing MIPS eligible clinicians have the flexibility to submit information individually or via a group or an APM Entity group; however, the MIPS eligible clinician would use the same identifier for all performance categories. The proposed scoring methodology has a unified approach across all performance categories, would allow MIPS eligible clinicians to know in advance what they need to do to perform well in MIPS, and eliminates the need for an “all or nothing” scoring as has been the case under some other CMS programs. The four performance category scores (quality, resource use, CPIA, and advancing care information) would be aggregated into a MIPS composite performance score (CPS). The MIPS CPS would be compared against a MIPS performance threshold. The CPS would be used to determine whether a MIPS eligible clinician receives an upward payment adjustment, no payment adjustment, or a downward payment adjustment as appropriate. Payment adjustments would be scaled for budget neutrality, as required by statute. The CPS would also be used to determine whether a MIPS eligible clinician qualifies for an additional positive adjustment factor for exceptional performance.

To ensure that MIPS results are useful and accurate, we propose a process for providing performance feedback to MIPS eligible clinicians. Beginning July 1, 2017, we propose to include information on the quality and resource use performance categories in the performance feedback. Initially, we propose to provide performance feedback on an annual basis. In future years, we may consider providing performance feedback on a more frequent basis as well as adding feedback on the performance categories of CPIA and advancing care information. We propose to make performance feedback available using a CMS designated system. Further, we propose to leverage additional mechanisms such as health IT vendors, registries, and QCDRs to help disseminate data/information contained in the performance feedback to eligible clinicians where applicable.

We propose to adopt a targeted review process under MIPS wherein a MIPS eligible clinician may request that we review the calculation of the MIPS adjustment factor and, as applicable, the calculation of the additional MIPS adjustment factor applicable to such MIPS eligible clinician for a year. We further propose a general process by which a MIPS eligible clinician could request targeted review.

We propose requirements for third-party data submission to MIPS. Specifically, qualified registries, QCDRs, health IT vendors, and CMS-approved survey vendors would have the ability to act as intermediaries on behalf of MIPS eligible clinicians and groups for submission of data to us across the quality, CPIA, and advancing care information performance categories.

We also propose a process for public reporting of MIPS information through the Physician Compare Web site. We propose public reporting of a MIPS eligible clinician's data; in that for each program year, we will post on a public Web site (for example, Physician Compare), in an easily understandable format, information regarding the performance of MIPS eligible clinicians or groups under the MIPS.

(b) APMs

In this rule, we propose standards we would use for the purposes of the Alternative Payment Model (APM) incentive. The MACRA defines APM for the purposes of the incentive as a model under section 1115A of the Social Security Act (the Act) (excluding a health care innovation award), the Shared Savings Program under section 1899 of the Act, a demonstration under section 1866C of the Act, or a demonstration required by federal law. We propose to define the term “Other Payer APMs” to refer to arrangements in which eligible clinicians may participate through other payers. We also propose to define the term APM Entity as an entity that participates in an APM through a contract with a payer.

APMs that meet the criteria to be Advanced APMs provide the pathway through which eligible clinicians can become QPs and earn incentive payments for participation in APMs as specified under the MACRA. This rule proposes two types of Advanced APMs: Advanced APMs and Other Payer Advanced APMs. To be an Advanced APM, an APM must meet three requirements: (1) require participants to use certified EHR technology; (2) provide payment for covered professional services based on quality measures comparable to those used in the quality performance category of MIPS; and (3) be either a Medical Home Model expanded under section 1115A of the Act or bear more than a nominal amount of risk for monetary loses. In this rule, we propose criteria for each of the requirements to be an Advanced APM.

To be an Other Payer Advanced APM, a commercial or Medicaid APM must meet three requirements similar to the CMS Advanced APM requirements: (1) require participants to use certified EHR technology; (2) provide payment based on quality measures comparable to those used in the quality performance category of MIPS; and (3) be either a Medicaid Medical Home Model that is comparable to Medical Home Models expanded under section 1115A of the Act or bear more than a nominal amount of risk for monetary losses.

We propose that we would notify the public of which APMs will be Advanced APMs prior to each QP Performance Period, starting no later than January 1, 2017. This information will be posted on our Web site. We propose that professional services furnished at Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs), Rural Health Clinics (RHCs) and Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) that meet certain criteria be counted towards the QP determination.

The MACRA sets a Medicare threshold for the level of participation in Advanced APMs required for an eligible clinician to become a QP for a year. The Medicare Option, based on Part B payments for covered professional services or counts of patients furnished covered professional services under Part B, is applicable beginning with CY 2019. The All-Payer Combination Option, based on the Medicare Option, as well as an eligible clinician’s participation in Other Payer Advanced APMs, is applicable beginning with CY 2021. For eligible clinicians to become QPs through the All-Payer Combination Option, an Advanced APM Entity or eligible clinician must submit information to us so that we can determine whether an Other Payer APM is an Other Payer Advanced APM and whether an eligible clinician meets the requisite QP threshold of participation. We propose a methodology and criteria to evaluate eligible clinicians using the All-Payer Combination Option. For purposes of evaluating Other Payer APMs, we also propose criteria for the definition of Medicaid Medical Homes and Medical Home Model.

We propose to identify individual eligible clinicians by a unique APM participant identifier using the individuals’ TIN/NPI combinations, and to assess as an APM Entity group all individual eligible clinicians listed as participating in an Advanced APM Entity to determine QP status for a year. We also propose that if an individual eligible clinician who participates in multiple Advanced APM Entities does not achieve QP status through participation in any single APM Entity, we would assess the eligible clinician individually to determine QP status based on combined participation in Advanced APMs.

We propose the method that CMS would use to calculate and disburse the APM Incentive Payments to QPs. We propose specific rules for calculating the APM Incentive Payment when a QP also receives non-fee-for-service payments or payment adjustments through the Medicare EHR Incentive Program, PQRS, VM, MIPS, or other payment adjustment programs.

We propose a process for eligible clinicians to choose whether or not to be subject to the
MIPS payment adjustment in the event that they are determined to be Partial QPs

We propose that we would perform monitoring and compliance around APM Incentive Payments.

We propose a definition for Physician-Focused Payment Models (PFPMs), criteria that would be used by the PFPM Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC), the Secretary, and CMS to evaluate proposals for PFPMs, and the process by which PFPMs would be considered for testing and implementation by CMS after review by the PTAC.

We propose to require MIPS eligible clinicians, as well as EPs, eligible hospitals, and Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs) under the existing EHR Incentive Programs to make a demonstration related to the provisions concerning blocking the sharing of information under section 106(b)(2) of the MACRA and, separately, to demonstrate cooperation with authorized ONC surveillance of certified EHR technology.

3. Summary of Costs & Benefits

Under the MACRA’s requirements, MIPS would distribute payment adjustments to between approximately 687,000 and 746,000 eligible clinicians in 2019. Payment adjustments would be based on MIPS eligible clinicians’ performance on specified measures and activities within the four performance categories. We estimate that MIPS payment adjustments would be approximately equally distributed between negative adjustments ($833 million) and positive adjustments ($833 million) to MIPS eligible clinicians, to ensure budget neutrality. Additionally, MIPS would distribute approximately $500 million in exceptional performance payments to MIPS eligible clinicians whose performance exceeds a specified threshold. These payment adjustments are expected to drive quality improvement in the provision of MIPS eligible clinicians’ care to Medicare beneficiaries and to all patients in the health care system. However, the distribution could change based on the final population of MIPS eligible clinicians for CY 2019 and the distribution of scores under the program.

We estimate that between approximately 30,658 and 90,000 eligible clinicians would become QPs through participation in Advanced APMs, and are estimated to receive between $146 million and $429 million in APM Incentive Payments for CY 2019. As with MIPS, we expect that APM participation would drive quality improvement for clinical care provided to Medicare beneficiaries and to all patients in the health care system.

1 We note that, for this proposed rule, a health IT vendor that serves as a third party intermediary to collect or submit data on behalf MIPS eligible clinicians may or may not also be a “health IT developer.” Under the ONC Health IT Certification Program (Program), a health IT developer constitutes a vendor, self-developer, or other entity that presents health IT for certification or has health IT certified under the Program. The use of “health IT developer” is consistent with the use of the term “health IT” in place of “EHR” or “EHR technology” under the Program (see 80 FR 62604; and the advancing care information performance category in this rule). Throughout this proposed rule, we use the term “health IT vendor” to refer to entities that support the health IT requirements of a clinician participating in the proposed Quality Payment Program.

Here is the document:

Thursday, March 17, 2016

Key themes and take-aways from #HIMSS16

The annual HIMSS conference in Las Vegas was once again packed with news, keynotes and educational sessions bringing us all up to speed on important advances in health care. The major themes for HIMSS16 included interoperability and data exchange, population health, mobile health (mHealth) including telemedicine and the ever-shifting world of regulatory changes.



After the Pre-Conference Symposia and the CHIME CIO Forum (where Healthagen president Gary Loveman was a keynote speaker), HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell kicked off HIMSS16 with her keynote address to a packed room. Secretary Burwell announced an industry-wide pledge to improve interoperability across all EHRs and health care systems. The commitment has three parts: improving consumer access to health data, eliminating intentional data blocking and implementing federal standards for health data interoperability. The majority of EHR vendors, including Epic Systems, Cerner Corporation and McKesson, have signed the Interoperability Pledge, as have five of the nation’s largest health systems and numerous professional organizations.

Among the many ONC and CMS contributions, there were highly informative sessions on MACRA, MIPS, meaningful use and health IT certification. A proposed rule released just before the conference, the “ONC Health IT Certification Program: Enhanced Oversight and Accountability” rule, proposes giving HHS and ONC powers to certify health IT technologies in three key areas:

  • Direct review: Empowering ONC to review certified health IT products and EHR systems to assess risks to public health and safety, conducting the review through its authorized certification bodies
  • Enhanced oversight: Giving ONC greater purview over health IT testing bodies to address issues that arise during testing
  • Greater transparency and accountability: Making certified health IT performance and compliance information available to the public

The ONC also announced a three-part strategy to spur the development of market-ready, user-friendly software apps for consumers and providers. The strategy seeks to leverage the emerging FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources) standard in two app challenges and a competitive funding opportunity, with awards totaling $625,000.

A particularly fascinating session entitled “Radically Reforming ER ‘Super Utilizers’ with HIE” was presented by Doug Dietzman, the executive director of Great Lakes Health Connect (GLHC), a self-sustaining health information exchange in Grand Rapids, Mich. and R. Corey Waller MD, MS, an addiction, pain, and emergency medicine specialist in Grand Rapids, working within the Spectrum Health system. Five years ago, the Center for Integrative Medicine began a program focused on “Super Utilizers,” patients who seek treatment in local emergency rooms more than 10 times annually. GLHC prioritizes care coordination, and the speakers shared lessons learned in facilitating an enhanced patient experience, better outcomes and reduced healthcare costs. "FHIR is a better-designed Lego," said Dietzman during the session. "I'm looking forward to having it in my toolbox."

This year’s conference continued an emphasis on population health, with a focus on succeeding in alternative payment models. As CMS shifts its incentive programs towards encouraging the adoption of health IT that supports value-based payments, population health management tools become a key enabler for improved financial performance. Seamless data exchange and analytics capabilities that include both claims data and real-time clinical information were heavily emphasized. Medicity solutions – including Medicity® Explore TM SmartNetworks, which debuted at HIMSS16 – provide health systems with many of these capabilities.

Telehealth and mHealth came into sharp focus this year, with health systems talking about what they are actually doing, rather than simply planning. One of the more interesting vendor announcements came from Philips, which has achieved FDA 510(k) compliance for Care Orchestrator – a cloud-based clinical management application that connects sleep and respiratory care devices. Telehealth provider Teladoc announced that it started 2016 with more than 14 million members, including 40 Fortune 500 companies that became clients in January. A session on the newly released HIMSS Analytics Telemedicine Study covered adoption trends, deployment methods and top technologies in use, with 70 percent of study participants reporting the use of two-way video/webcam solutions – making it today’s leading approach to telemedicine.

So that’s my take on HIMSS16: Serious progress being made in interoperability, regulatory impact, population health and alternative payment models, and telehealth and mHealth. Taking it all in was challenging, and as everyone who attended can attest, HIMSS can be exhausting. And now the work accelerates – be sure to follow me on Twitter (@ahier) for regular updates on all things health IT!

This post originally appeared on the Medicity blog