1 / 13

Approaches to Implementation Session 2

Approaches to Implementation Session 2. April 12, 2011. Agenda. What is the emerging ecosystem of Direct players? What approaches can States take to enable Direct in their communities? In what situation is each approach appropriate? When is an approach sufficient to meet HIE needs?

marvin-richardson
Download Presentation

Approaches to Implementation Session 2

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. Approaches to ImplementationSession 2 April 12, 2011

  2. Agenda • What is the emerging ecosystem of Direct players? • What approaches can States take to enable Direct in their communities? • In what situation is each approach appropriate? • When is an approach sufficient to meet HIE needs? • How does the approach fit into the State’s HIE strategy? • What are examples of pilots and States who have adopted a similar approach? • Panelist Presentations • Gary Christensen, CIO/COO, Rhode Island Quality Institute • Christopher M. Henkenius, Program Director, NeHII, Inc. • Carol Robinson, Oregon State Coordinator for HIT, Oregon Health Authority • Q&A • Poll

  3. What is the emerging ecosystem of Direct players? • 50+ vendors have committed to roll-out Direct-enabled functionality, and ~20 states include Direct in their approved State HIE plans* EHRs HIEs & HIOs States • 4Medica • Aprima • Allscripts • Care360 • Cerner • eClinicalWorks • e-MDs • Epic • GE Healthcare • Greenway • Med3000 • MEDgle • NextGen • OpenEMR • Polaris • RelayHealth • Sage Healthcare • Siemens • Sunquest • WorldVistA • AAFP • Ability • Akira Technologies • ApeniMed • Atlas Development • Axolotl • CareEvolution • Covisint • Garden State Health Systems Inc. • GSI Health • Harris • HINSTx • HIO Shared Services/NeHII • Ingenix • Inpriva • IVANS • Kryptiq Corporation • Lifepoint Informatics • max.md • MedAllies • MedCommons • MEDfx • Medicity • MedPlus • Mirth • MobileMD • National Health Svcs • NetDirector • Orion Health • ProviderDirect • RedwoodMedNet • Secure Exchange Solutions • Surescripts • TechsantTechnologies • Thomson Reuters • Verizon • Wellogic • Alabama • California • Florida • Illinois • Iowa • Kentucky • Minnesota • Missouri • Montana • New Hampshire • New Jersey • North Carolina • Ohio • Oregon • Rhode Island • South Carolina • Texas • Vermont • West Virginia • Wisconsin PHRs Dossia Microsoft HealthVault NoMoreClipboard.com RelayHealth * Source: http://directproject.org/content.php?key=getstarted&sub=vendorsupport (as of April 2, 2011)

  4. What approaches can States take to enable Direct in their communities? • Encourage market-based solutionsby establishing parameters for trust • Create a conducive environment for market-driven solutions through enabling policies, certification criteria, etc. • Leverage other State HIE services, e.g., directories • Offer complete set of services to all community members • Can buy, build or contract HISP services to vendors to set up HISPs and CAs • Need to think through how market-driven solutions can participate, e.g., • Establish HISP functionality at State level, or do match-making with nationwide providers? • Provider value proposition and benefits to State HIE from setting up a HISP in light of national services? • Fill in the gaps by providing services to under-served participants, e.g., rural and remote providers and labs • Identify target participants • Work through similar set of considerations as in Options 1 & 2 above

  5. HIE strategy should drive the approach to implementing Direct Elevator Capacity-Builder Orchestrator Public Utility $ $ Rapid facilitation of directed exchange capabilities to support Stage 1 MU Develops and bolsters local exchange capabilities Connects local exchange activities with thin layer of statewide infrastructure Directly connects providers into centralized HIE solution Direct Approach #1: Market-based solns Direct Approach #3: Fill in the gaps Direct Approach #3: Fill in the gaps Direct Approach #2: Offer complete svcs Direct Approach #2: Offer complete svcs Individual States may adopt multiple strategies

  6. Panelists and the approaches they adopted • Panelist 1: Rhode Island – RIQI • Employed Approach #1: Encouraged market-based solutions, to establish HISPs • Also employed other approaches to solve different HIE problems • Panelist 2: Nebraska – NeHII • Employed Approach #2: Offer complete set of services to entire community • Took this a step further to enable HISP services to other States and communities • Panelist 3: Oregon – OHA • Employed Approach #3: Fill in the gaps • Leveraged existing regional HIT investments and initiatives

  7. Panelist #1: Rhode Island – RIQI KEY TENET IMPLICATION APPROACH RIQI shouldn’t be a HISP Be HISP-agnostic Be value-add (or not) Educate, facilitate, enable, but don’t “do” Make “certificates” invisible Enable “trust” RIQI should facilitate introduction of “good” HISPs to providers HISPs can differentiate themselves via price, service, or value-added services (over and above vanilla) Business relationships are between providers and HISPs RIQI should develop a REC service to help providers adopt RIQI should offer a certificate “product” (optional) As a trusted 3rd party, RIQI will create and manage a “trust community” Market-based Solution Market-based Solution Market-based Solution Fill in the gaps Offer service Offer service

  8. Panelist #2: Nebraska – NeHII • Current HIE Environment • Mature HIE in NeHII Offering Complete HIE Functionality • VA, Medicaid, and External Demand • National Focus Through HIO Shared Services • Objectives • Provide Value to Patients • Provide Value to Participants

  9. Panelist #2: Nebraska – NeHII • Alternatives • Buy • Build • Direction • Enable HISP and Associated Services for: • NeHII Participants • Non-NeHII Participants • Other States and Communities

  10. Panelist #3: Oregon – Oregon Health Authority • Current HIE Environment • Numerous regional-based Health Information Organizations (HIOs) at varying levels of maturity • HIOs clustered around large population centers and patterns of referral • Geographically, most of state unserved by HIOs • Heterogeneous technology adoption

  11. Panelist #3: Oregon – Oregon Health Authority • Objective: Leverage existing investments in HIT and HIE to reach as many providers and participants as possible and provide enough services to allow all qualifying providers and hospitals to meet Meaningful Use • Approach: Provide flexible and common shared services, policies, and processes that are necessary for statewide HIE to occur while fostering growth in the market • Support markets (i.e., HIOs and local/regional HIE) to reach as many providers as possible • Knit markets into a statewide fabric of HIE by facilitating communication between them • Common policy and qualification framework • Common shared services – Trust, Provider Directories, Messaging (HISP) • Fill the gaps – offer services to providers not served by HIOs • Key Take-Aways: • All providers will have an option to participate in HIE regardless of HIO coverage • Reliance on HIOs means “monitor and adapt” will be key to Oregon’s success

  12. Q&A

  13. Poll

More Related