Quality Measures Vendor Tiger Team

January 30, 2014

Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology

2

Agenda

• Review and provide feedback on the Quality Measures patient-reported outcomes recommendations made to the HITPC on January 14th

1/30/2014

Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology

3

Patient Reported Outcomes

Patient-Reported Outcomes Recommendations•ONC and CMS should continue to include patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as MU objective measures.

–The QMWG recommends that CMS include collection of any patient reported outcome measure as a meaningful use objective measure. This supports the development of a flexible ability of EHR technology to broadly incorporate patient reported outcomes. It also allows for PROs for many more specialties and conditions than are currently covered.

–Examples include Functional Status Assessments or other questionnaires

–This objective measure could function like the CDS objective from MU2, allowing attestation rather than reporting of the use of PROs.

Discussion Topics– PROMIS Framework– Patient reported outcomes as a MU objective requirement, utilizing PGHD (patient-

generated health data)

1/30/2014

Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology

4

Patient Reported Outcomes

Patient-Reported Outcomes Recommendations•As discussed by other working groups (WGs) and the HITPC, there is a need to develop HIT infrastructure and guidance for supporting PROs and data generated by external providers.

–Examples include Shared Care Plan; Patient Portals; mobile devices; secure email; etc.

•The QM WG supports the recommendations on patient-generated health data (PGHD) from the Consumer Empowerment WG that the HITPC approved on December 4, 2013. The QM WG also supports the ongoing work of the Consumer Technology WG of the HIT Standards Committee on standards for PGHD. The QMWG endorses the extension of standards into additional domains that include the non-traditional determinants of health.

Discussion Topics– PROMIS Framework– Patient reported outcomes as a MU objective requirement

1/30/2014

Engaging patients and families in their care:Patient Generated Health Data

5

Functionality Needed to Achieve Goals

• *New*• Menu: Eligible Professionals and Eligible

Hospitals receive provider-requested, electronically submitted patient-generated health information through either:– structured or semi-structured questionnaires

(e.g., screening questionnaires, medication adherence surveys, intake forms, risk assessment, functional status)

– or secure messaging. • Threshold: Low

Stage 3 Functionality Goals

• Enabling active participation by patients and families to improve health and care

• Provide ability to contribute information in the record, including patient reported outcomes (PRO)

• Patient preferences recorded and used

PGHD RecommendationsConsumer Technology and Clinical Ops WG (I)

• Overarching recommendations– Concern regarding certification only items, as

systems must be engineered to incorporate standards/processes which may not yet be mature

– Standards application should be constrained to where they are needed and useful

6

PGHD RecommendationsConsumer Technology and Clinical Ops WG (II)

• Where there is a need for patient data sharing, the C-CDA is suitable. C-CDA is recommended as a container for certain types of templates that are well understood (e.g. problems, meds, allergies). – C-CDA over existing (Direct, Exchange) and other modes of transport are reasonable

ways to get data in and out of EHRs, PHRs, and patient facing applications – C-CDA should not be required as the architecture that organizations (e.g. ACOs) have

to use. The outcome goal is for the entire care team (patient/families/providers) to be able to contribute to an integrated medical record

– If unable to integrate, systems must have the functionality to receive C-CDA containing specific templates (e.g. to accomplish the same goal of patients participating in problems, med, and allergy reconciliation)

– Need to allow for innovation and flexibility in this space to not unduly constrain options for individuals to connect with their care teams in the ways they prefer in the future. • Suggest using the C-CDA template payloads that are sufficiently mature, but not over-specify

how they are to be moved about

7

PGHD - Devices

• Need to allow for innovation, as the marketplace is still rapidly evolving – Continua standards are directionally appropriate,

but need to align with FDA guidance and other regulatory or sub-regulatory policy without constraining the marketplace

– Due to the immaturity of the market, need to allow for the flexible adoption of device data and other remote data source

8