April 5, 2011
James R. Thompson Center, 100 W. Randolph, OHIT Conference Room 2-201, Chicago
Attendees (phone and in-person):
- Mary Driscoll, Department of Public Health (DPH)
- Margaret Gadon, IMFC - IL
- Paige Pfenninger, Alexian Brothers
- Trish Anen, Metropolitan Chicago Healthcare Council (MCHC)
- Wesley Valdes, Office of Health Information Technology/ University of Illinois at Chicago
- Saroni Lasker, Office of Health Information Technology (OHIT)
- Gwen Smith, CHIPRA Project, Healthcare and Family Services (HFS)
- Barbara Fisher, (DPH)
- Pat Merryweather, Illinois Hospital Association
Introductions and roll call were made. Wes reminded the group that all meetings are being recorded. Minutes from the last meeting were approved.
Wes provided an update about the HFS Medicaid Work Group meetings. HFS and the members of the Medicaid Work Group are focused on submitting the EHR Medicaid Incentive plan to federal CMS for review and approval. Wes indicated that there is some discussion about asking the CQI WG to assist with the clinical quality portion of Meaningful Use (MU) for eligible practitioners and eligible hospitals. Wes indicated that the MU rules for Year 1 are published in the Federal Register. Wes noted that the proposed requirements for each subsequent year are increasingly more difficult due the degree and volume of data that is required to be collected. In addition, it was suggested that the CQI Work Group can be reference for the Public Health Work Group and the other Work Groups that have questions about the collection of clinical quality data.
Ivan Handler is the newly appointed Chief Technology Officer of OHIT and will be joining in the discussions. Ivan assumed this role on April 1, 2011, and is anxious to participate in this Work Group.
Wes initiated a discussion about the MU rules and wanted to focus the discussion on the proposed and required Quality Measures. Wes asked to Mary Driscoll if the DPH has suggestions for additional reporting requirements for the public health component of the State's MU reporting. Mary indicated that DPH has not discussed this and that she would like to speak to representatives from HFS to collaborate on this issue. Mary listed various clinical data DPH already collects and would like to discuss options with HFS. It was agreed that there will be a separate meeting between the two departments before the next CQI meeting. The discussion will outline the decisions that need to be made and be presented at the next meeting.
Pat Merryweather inquired if Mary had considered any of the Care Coordination Measurements that came out with the ACO Proposal. Mary indicated that this is certainly an area of interest.
Margaret asked for a comment on the traditional role of Public Health on adverse drug events measures and how that fits into Public Health. Mary responded that the role of Public Health is to ensure the safety and health of the population. The hospital population is considered to be part of the overall population, which is why this component is included in the DPH rubric. Pat asked if DPH considers Care Transitions as a Public Health matter. Mary replied that it is Public Health's role to ensure that the care transitions are happening appropriately. Mary cautioned that the role of Public Health and the individual healthcare organizations should not be intertwined. The individual healthcare organization is where the change is going to be initiated and the Public Health's role is to help make the change process easier.
Wes reminded the group that CQI started as a very broad topic, but now should be focused on Meaningful Use criteria with specific emphasis on clinical data collection. Ivan should be able to assist with the technical component of Meaningful Use for collecting data. Wes discussed the Federal Register, page 44435:
"A State must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the State is conducting adequate oversight including the routine trafficking of Meaningful Use, attestations, and reporting mechanisms."
Mary said that Public Health Work Group is also discussing these requirements. For Stage 1MU, providers only have to attest that they attempted to send the required data to DPH for the Public Health indicator they have chosen. Providers do not have to be successful in sending the data; they just need to attempt to do so. The Public Health reporting effort will require a great deal of planning, upgrading and testing of IT systems before all of the reporting requirements are captured electronically.
Wes agrees, but is concerned that we cannot audit all the attestations because Stage 1, may go very quickly. The actual reporting may be easier to audit because you have an event that either happened or didn't, but auditing someone's attempt to send data may be difficult to audit.
Mary says it may be simple because in order to try to send data, they do need to contact DPH so they can set up the testing environment for the providers. DPH does keep a record of all providers who try to attempt to send data. Pat agrees and suggests that we let the hospitals know they need to keep documentation on all their attempts. Pat is also concerned with the hospitals that make it through Stage 1, but are not able to reach the next level.
Wes indicated that on update regarding the Illinois HIE Authority Board that can be found on the Illinois HIE Web site. Their Authority's inaugural meeting is April 27, 2011.
Wes suggested that work group members identify their top 5 data elements that can be tracked and measured through the data collection process. Members were asked to e-mail these data elements to Wes and Mary McGinnis. A suggested area of focus is the Eligible Provider's data elements or the hospital's 15 quality measures.
No public comments.