Entries by admin

Modern Healthcare — Report Finds Public Health Data Exchange Lags

A recently published report by the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation finds what public health has to contend with everyday — limited budgets and resources has slowed the adoption of public health data exchange.  — kjh

Report finds health data exchange lags

by Paul Barr

The electronic exchange of health information is targeted as needing improvement in a new public health preparedness report from Trust for America’s Health and funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

In a state-by-state analysis looking at 10 indicators of emergency preparedness, seven states’ health departments were identified as not being able to send and receive health information electronically to providers and community health centers. The 52-page report, “Ready or Not? Protecting the Public’s Health from Diseases, Disasters and Bioterrorism,” notes that as seen during the H1N1 influenza outbreak, “this type of communication is crucial to ensure public health departments have an accurate picture of the on-ground events and that healthcare practitioners are given the most up-to-date, accurate information.” 

In addition, 10 states do not have a health department that has an electronic syndromic surveillance system—which uses data that precede diagnosis—that can report and exchange information. Better public health data collection and management also was the subject of a recent report from the Institute of Medicine.

The report notes that budget cuts at federal, state and local levels are threatening the country’s ability to respond to public health emergencies.

Read original here…

Impact of Meaningful Use on EpiCenter

“What impact will meaningful use have on the EpiCenter application?  Has there been exploration to determine if the system will meet the criteria for meaningful use?”

— Julie, Kane County Illinois

EpiCenter is a syndromic surveillance system used by state and local public health departments.  The optional meaningful use criteria leaves it to public health to determine if and how syndromic surveillance is conducted in their region.

Certification applies to electronic health records (EHR).  There is a lot of discussion about this topic, as well as the process and meaning of certification.  There are multiple stages of certification that apply to EHRs and those stages align with the implementation of Meaningful Use criteria.

Since EpiCenter is not an EHR, the Certification Commission for Health Information Technology (CCHIT) certification process does not apply to it.

Hospitals Need to Understand Syndromic Surveillance

Hospitals are looking at the Meaningful Use criteria and wonder “What is really going on with this syndromic surveillance thing.”  For those of use who are engaged in the field, “biosurveillance” and “syndromic surveillance” are common terms.  For a lot of people in healthcare, however, these terms are very unfamiliar.  So, hospitals have some solid, basic questions about meeting the syndromic surveillance optional criteria.  Here is one example:

I am currently completing a Meaningful Use document and one of the Public Reporting options is the ability to send syndromic surveillance data to public health agencies.  I was wondering if you have any white paper on who sees the data and how the data we provide in this interface is utilized.  I appreciate your help.

Regards,

Bebet

Herminio S. Navia Jr. (Bebet)

Thanks to Bebet for the question and letting me post it here.  To answer your question, I’ll provide a general overview of syndromic surveillance, discuss our system specifically, and provide links to resources that would be useful for you.  Hopefully this can benefit any hospitals attempting to answer similar questions.

 

OVERVIEW

Syndromic surveillance is a type of disease surveillance that typically uses pre-diagnostic data to understand health trends in a region.  A primary goal of syndromic surveillance systems is to provide early event detection.

A typical syndromic surveillance system collects chief complaints or diagnoses from hospital emergency departments.  These data are then classified into syndrome categories and timeseries analysis performed on those categories in an effort to characterize health conditions.

Most surveillance systems will operate on limited data sets that contain only de-identified information.  Since the purpose of these systems is to understand regional trends and not specific cases, individual information is not needed.  Public health departments are very sensitive to maintaining patient privacy and prefer not to collect identifiable information unnecessarily.

EPICENTER SERVICE

Health Monitoring Systems provides the EpiCenter service to public health departments.  The EpiCenter service is operated on a Software-as-a-Service basis.  No software is installed at either the hospital or the health department. While EpiCenter is capable of receiving data via most any standard format, we typically receive registration data via a HL7 data feed.

Regardless of the method chosen, we require that data be transmitted securely to the EpiCenter system.  Once transmitted, the data is stored in our database cluster, classified into ‘syndromic’ categories, spatially tagged, and analyzed hourly to provide regional health trends.

Two types of users can access the data in the EpiCenter system.  Public health officials with authority over the region can see the data, as well as users from the facility providing the data.  (Facility users are restricted to see only data from their own facility.)

What do public health users do with the data and analysis from EpiCenter?  Lots of things:  disease outbreak detection, long-term studies of health trends, monitoring heat-related illness, identification of emergency department usage patterns, supporting efforts to identify tainted drugs, flu tracking & reporting — the list goes on.

Most system users will look at the data for their region daily, attempting to spot events of interest.  When something statistically interesting happens, EpiCenter will send a notification to public health of the event so they may follow-up on it specifically.

RESOURCES

As for white papers discussing syndromic surveillance systems, the International Society for Disease Surveillance maintains a resources page.  This contains links to a wealth of information.

Other frequently referenced papers on the topic include this paper which is an early overview of implementing syndromic systems.   This paper also provides an overview of how various syndromic surveillance systems operate.

Final Rule

The Website HIPAA Survival Guide (aka HITECH Survival Guide) has resources for HIPAA compliance.  One nice posting includes a readable version of the final rule.  Digging through the Federal Register for the language is challenging.  This page presents the information in a nicely outline manner.  — kjh

§495.6 Meaningful use objectives and measures for EPs, eligible hospitals, and CAHs.

(a) Stage 1 criteria for EPs.

(1) General rule regarding Stage 1 criteria for meaningful use for EPs. Except as specified in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section, EPs must meet all objectives and associated measures of the Stage 1 criteria specified in paragraph (d) of this section and five objectives of the EP‘s choice from paragraph (e) of this section to meet the definition of a meaningful EHR user.

(2) Exclusion for non-applicable objectives.

(i) An EP may exclude a particular objective contained in paragraphs (d) or (e) of this section, if the EP meets all of the following requirements:

(A) Must ensure that the objective in paragraph (d) or (e) of this section includes an option for the EP to attest that the objective is not applicable.

(B) Meets the criteria in the applicable objective that would permit the attestation.

(C) Attests.

(ii) An exclusion will reduce (by the number of exclusions applicable) the number of objectives that would otherwise apply. For example, an EP that has an exclusion from one of the objectives in paragraph (e) of this section must meet four (and not five) objectives of the EP‘s choice from such paragraph to meet the definition of a meaningful EHR user.

(3) Exception for Medicaid EPs who adopt, implement or upgrade in their first payment year. For Medicaid EPs who adopt, implement, or upgrade certified EHR technology in their first payment year, the meaningful use objectives and associated measures of the Stage 1 criteria specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) apply beginning with the second payment year, and do not apply to the first payment year.

(b) Stage 1 criteria for eligible hospitals and CAHs.

Read More Here…

 


Information for States on Meaningful Use

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have posted materials for states giving direction regarding what is necessary for meaningful use.  This information is not specific to public health, but it provides insight into the overall requirements.  Here is an article from their website that gives an introduction. — kjh


States may voluntarily offer the Medicaid EHR Incentive Program to their Medicaid eligible professionals and eligible hospitals. This page provides resources for states to understand the program and learn more about what is required to offer the programs.

Health IT Documents

To qualify to receive 90% federal matching funds for administering the Medicaid EHR Incentive Program, states must develop:

  • Health Information Technology Planning Advance Planning Document (HIT PAPD) – A plan of action that requests federal matching funds and approval to accomplish the planning necessary for a state agency to determine the need for and plan the acquisition of HIT equipment, services, or both.
  • State Medicaid Health Information Technology Plan (SMHP) – A document that describes the state’s current and future Health IT activities, as well as the path between, in support of the Medicaid EHR Incentive Program (see the SMHP template in the “Downloads” section below).
  • Health Information Technology Implementation Advance Planning Document (HIT IAPD) – A plan of action that requests federal matching funds and approval to acquire and implement the proposed SMHP services, equipment, or both.

The HIT PAPD, SMHP, and HIT IAPD lay out the process states will use to implement and oversee the Medicaid EHR Incentive Program. These documents help states construct a Health IT roadmap to develop the systems necessary to support providers in their adoption and meaningful use of certified EHR technology.

  • States are required to submit these documents in order for CMS to approve receipt of the 90% Federal match.
  • Prior approval is required for the HIT PAPD and HIT IAPD. The SMHP is the deliverable resulting from the HIT PAPD. The SMHP will be reviewed and approved before implementation funds are authorized under the IAPD. The APD and SMHP processes allow states to update their Advance Planning Documents and SMHP when they anticipate changes in scope, cost, schedule, etc. This allows states to add additional tasks to the contract which they may have not thought of at the time the HIT PAPD was written, as they worked through the original tasks on the original submission.

As states begin developing their SMHPs, they can also begin receiving the 90% federal matching funds to be used to support their initial Medicaid EHR Incentive Program planning activities, as long as the relevant Advance Planning Documents are approved. For example, initial planning regarding the design and development of the anticipated SMHP may be eligible for the 90% federal matching funds as an expense related to the administration of the Medicaid EHR incentive payments and, more broadly, for promoting health information exchange.  Read more here…

Welcome to the Blog!

In recent weeks, Health Monitoring Systems has been fielding a lot of questions regarding meaningful use from both hospitals and public health departments.  And, we have been doing a lot of digging, too.  While we aren’t the experts, we thought it would be useful to share the information we have and our views.

And so, we created this blog.

The purpose of the blog is to provide both resources and opinion regarding trends in healthcare related to healthcare data exchange (its what we do!).  Meaningful Use affects both of the HMS products MediCenter and EpiCenter.

EpiCenter collects and analyzes healthcare data, providing a view into regional health conditions for public health and healthcare.  MediCenter reverses the flow and provides patient medication history to clinicians at the point of care.  With all of the activity around meaningful use and health information exchange, it is safe to say we are heavily invested in this area.

Please participate by registering on the site and leaving comments.  We turned on registration, not to harvest email addresses but to prevent SPAM comments.

If you have some thoughts on these topics, please drop me a line at editor@hmsinc.com.  We are actively seeking guest bloggers to provide their opinions and insights.

Once again, welcome to the blog.

— kjh

Use of syndromic ILI surveillance as a proxy for influenza sentinel surveillance

Salt Lake Valley Health Department (SLVHD) uses syndromic surveillance to monitor influenza-like illness (ILI) activity as part of a comprehensive influenza surveillance program.  During the 2009 spring and fall waves of novel H1N1 influenza, sentinel surveillance became increasingly burdensome for both community clinics and SLVHD.  Given that syndromic surveillance is more efficient and less error-prone, […]