1 / 33

State Systems Interoperability and Integration Project (SSIIP)

State Systems Interoperability and Integration Project (SSIIP) . Information Technology Committee Last updated 2013-08-23. Outline. Objectives Members Process Outcomes Recommendations Next steps. Objectives.

lewis
Download Presentation

State Systems Interoperability and Integration Project (SSIIP)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. State Systems Interoperability and Integration Project (SSIIP) Information Technology Committee Last updated 2013-08-23

  2. Outline • Objectives • Members • Process • Outcomes • Recommendations • Next steps

  3. Objectives The Information Technology (IT) committee was tasked to develop technology-related recommendations for the State plan focused on: • Enterprise architecture; • IT initiatives to be leveraged for interoperability; and • Identifying top priorities for data-sharing within programs under California Health and Human Services (CHHS). • State and county partners help to deploy those programs and need access to information. • Need to exchange information with those outside health and human services.

  4. Members • SSIIP Staff Support: Valerie Barnes (subject matter expert), Linda Hockman, Glenn Freitas • Other SSIIP Staff Participants: Laura Beeman, John DeVere, Richard Gold, Michael Kerr, Bill Parcell, Rick Schleusener, Daniel Stein State Systems Interoperability and Integration Project (SSIIP)

  5. Process State Systems Interoperability and Integration Project (SSIIP)

  6. Activities Before the May Symposium • Educated committee members on national architecture frameworks • Provided information to guide the development of the Proof of Concept (POC) Request for Demonstration • Assembled and evaluated information related to the As-Is technology landscape within CHHS Agency • Drafted a To-Be vision of interoperability that supports the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) grant goals

  7. Activities After the May Symposium • Developed IT-related recommendations for the SSIIP’s plan, building on the draft To-Be vision and the roadmap exercise from the May Symposium. • Convened four times. Discussions focused on: • Key architectural elements and fundamental ideas/concepts • High-priority processes and capabilities • Identifying data needs to be shared • Recommendations and potential barriers • Leveraging ongoing/upcoming projects • Areas where support is needed from other committees

  8. Connections • Governance • Use of architecture • Adopting standards • Adopting concepts • Project reviews • Organizational • Change • Management • Legal • Rules for sharing information • Sharing agreements • Who, when, how to change • Risk mitigation • Information Technology

  9. Outcomes State Systems Interoperability and Integration Project (SSIIP)

  10. Vision The committee recommends adoption of this vision for the To-Be CHHS Architecture: “Our To-Be architecture will improve the delivery and outcome of health and human services in California. It will be consistent with MITA (Medicaid Information Technology Architecture), NHSIA (National Human Services Interoperability Architecture), and related information sharing standards.”

  11. Framework Interoperability Goals To-Be As-Is MITA and NHSIA Provide a Framework and Roadmap To Achieve Common Goals • Improved processes • Accessible information • Improved efficiency and effectiveness • Improved decisions • Better outcomes • Fraud detection and prevention • Common business processes • Standard informationexchanges (HITECH EHR, NIEM) • Shared IT services & infrastructure • Comprehensive performance management • Unique business processes • Fragmented information; limited information sharing • Duplicate systems, infrastructure • Limited performance information NHSIA and MITA Results Improved Health and Human Services Delivery

  12. Major To-Be Architecture Elements • Business • Information • Technology • Governance • Options for connections to support County-State health information exchange and other exchanges

  13. Reminder: Roadmap of activities: From the May 2013 Symposium

  14. Outcomes: Updated Roadmap Updated through committee discussions and development of recommendations

  15. Recommendations State Systems Interoperability and Integration Project (SSIIP)

  16. Recommendation 1 Adopt national standards MITA TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS NHSIA Capability Viewpoint Business Viewpoint Overview Viewpoint Information Viewpoint VISION Project Viewpoint Systems Viewpoint Infrastructure Viewpoint State Systems Interoperability and Integration Project (SSIIP)

  17. Recommendation 2 Leaders support and promote key concepts from NHSIA and MITA • Common processes • Shared information • Core capabilities • Service-oriented architecture • Identity management and access control • Shared IT services • Hubs • Shared infrastructure • Performance metrics and analytics State Systems Interoperability and Integration Project (SSIIP)

  18. California Child Welfare Council Statement on Information Sharing and Data Standardization “The Council recommends and urges all information technology efforts involved in the exchange of information regarding children and families served by the child welfare system to: • Establish a common data element vocabulary; • Promote the development, sharing, use, and reuse of information technology processes, applications, data structures, and infrastructures required to enable data exchanges; • Use common frameworks and models, such as the Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) model, to encourage flexible applications; • Use interoperable standards developed and maintained by Federal entities and intergovernmental partnerships, such as the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM) standard, as the basis for information exchanges; and • Use common or uniform confidentiality/privacy agreements consistent with Federal and State laws.” http://www.chhs.ca.gov/initiatives/Olmstead/Documents/CaliforniaChildWelfareCouncil_2012DataStatement.pdf

  19. Recommendation 3 Consider adopting standards and concepts at every opportunity State Systems Interoperability and Integration Project (SSIIP)

  20. Recommendations 1-3Timeline • Education & outreach • Assess active projects • Influence CA Department of Technology re standards • Review plans in governance process • Plan for full implementation for all projects and systems • Follow mature governance processes Appreciation of standards Standards in place or realistic plans for adoption 0 – 6 Months 6 Months – 2 Years 2 Years + State Systems Interoperability and Integration Project (SSIIP)

  21. Recommendation 4 Build on lessons learned • SSIIP proof of concept demonstrations • Ongoing/upcoming CHHS projects • Federal projects • California counties’ efforts • Other California agencies • Other nationwide or industry organizations State Systems Interoperability and Integration Project (SSIIP)

  22. Recommendation 4Timeline • Identify applicable lessons learned • Document process for capturing lessons • Determine how to apply those lessons • Document a planning process to incorporate • Follow processes Robust process for incorporating lessons learned 0 – 6 Months 6 Months – 2 Years 2 Years + State Systems Interoperability and Integration Project (SSIIP)

  23. Recommendation 5 Integrate health and human services enterprise architectures for interoperability. • Evaluate; look for synergies • Plan approach to integrate • Adjust and integrate • Test through governance • Follow mature governance processes Integrated architecture 0 – 6 Months 6 Months – 2 Years 2 Years +

  24. Recommendation 6 Implement Actions for Specific Initiatives/Systems • Influence • CWS-NS procurement • Give child welfare workers access to eligibility data. Automated referral for Medicaid • Common solution for info security • “Blue button” • Identify data sharing needs • State and county systems integrate with statewide HIE • Integrate consortia systems (SAWS (Statewide Automated Welfare Systems) 0 – 6 Months 6 Months – 2 Years 2 Years + State Systems Interoperability and Integration Project (SSIIP)

  25. Recommendation 7 Focus on high-priority common processes/capabilities 6 months Core/foundational base of capabilities 6 months – 2 years Build on the core. Remember ACA funding timeline. Longer term Build on the core and initial capabilities.

  26. Recommendation 8 Focus on high-priority information exchanges to support the high-priority processes/capabilities • Identify near-term candidates for info sharing • Document the process for adopting & implementing • Build on lessons learned • Identify more data to share • Test the process • Adopt standard dictionary • Follow mature governance processes Standard dictionary 0 – 6 Months 6 Months – 2 Years 2 Years +

  27. Recommendation 9 Continue collaboration among organizations that support health and human services across the state and counties to further interoperability. • Enlist sponsors & support • Identify & establish forum • How to coordinate • Work on recommendations • Build partnerships • Solve problems Forum established 0 – 6 Months 6 Months – 2 Years 2 Years +

  28. Challenges Why haven’t we already done what we recommend? • Culture • Priorities • Funding/Contracting • Privacy and Security • Leadership State Systems Interoperability and Integration Project (SSIIP)

  29. Leverage Ongoing/Upcoming IT Initiatives • Enterprise architecture activities at state, agency, department, and county levels • Health Information Exchange (HIE) (for data exchange) • CalHEERS (for eligibility and enrollment) • LEADER Replacement System (for eligibility and partnerships) • Alameda County dashboard (for data integration and business intelligence metrics) • Orange County GFIPM and JUICE (for identity management, access control, and data exchange)

  30. Leverage Ongoing/Upcoming IT Initiatives (2) • San Diego County Beacon activities (for education and outreach, common processes, data exchange, and partnerships) • San Diego County Knowledge Integration program (for use of national framework to support data exchange within county, master data management) • Los Angeles County master person index and GFIPM (for identity management, access control, master data management, and data exchange) • CWS-NS (for general system modernization, data exchanges, and to link with eligibility and enrollment processes/systems) • MEDS (for general system modernization and data exchanges)

  31. Leverage Ongoing/Upcoming IT Initiatives (3) • CA DMV (for master person index and identity management) • CA IT capital planning process (for governance, leveraging other projects, education and outreach) • California State Innovation Model (for identifying and capitalizing on innovation) • Check for other possibilities • California’s feasibility study reports for other candidates • Unique student identifier • Systems outside DHHS (e.g., educational, judicial) • Federal hub (for shared components, eligibility data verification) • Federal Parent Locator Service (leverage for child welfare and, potentially, other uses)

  32. Next Steps State Systems Interoperability and Integration Project (SSIIP)

  33. Next Steps: Highest-Priority Activities • Education and outreach • Work on foundational capabilities • Identity management and access control • Confidentiality and privacy agreements • Master person index • Continue collaboration • Build on lessons learned • Gain executive buy-in

More Related