SustiNet Health Partnership Health Information Technology Co-Chairs Phone: 866.466.4446 Facsimile Board of Directors Liaison 860.297.3992 E-Mail Post Office Box 1543 Health Information Technology Committee Regular Meeting March 19, 2010 Meeting Minutes Teleconference Participants: Mark Boxer, Co-chair; Jeffrey Asher; Alex Hutchinson; Enrique Juncadella; Ken Lalime; Ryan O’Connell Office of the Healthcare Advocate: Absent: Marie Smith, Co-chair; John Brady; Angelo Carraba; Pam Cucinelli; Meg Hooper; Jeffrey Kramer; Jamie Mooney; Steve O’Neill; Victor Villagra; Jody Bishop-Pullan; Steve Ruth; Alexis Fedorjaczenko Mark Boxer opened the teleconference by welcoming all Committee members. The minutes from the February 19, 2010 meeting were approved by all. Mark said that he recently attended a White House discussion on the market for HIT adoption and selection. Representatives from various associations, states, and vendors participated in this brainstorming session. There was a discussion of HIT objectives and how frameworks operate. EMR’s reside within provider systems, EHR’s cut across provider systems and aggregate together, and HIE is the infrastructure highway on which the tools and applications can transport. Some key points that arose from the dialog were: 1. People are optimistic that the stimulus package and incentives are driving the right behaviors; 2. There is general agreement that the carrot and stick approach will drive the right direction; 3. The confusion around meaningful use is beginning to pass, and states and provider systems are more willing to move forward with implementation; 4. The processes for states to become engaged are becoming clearer. There are many models being used, but there isn’t any particular one that stands out. There was agreement that web-enabled office visits could provide a solution for rural health access problems. Mark said that these sessions will be ongoing, and in future sessions he hopes to share CT’s progress as it evolves. Ken Lalime gave a presentation on HIT strategy and selection and lessons learned. To view Ken’s presentation, click here . Mark asked Ken whether propagation of an EMR light as part of an HIE is an option to drive adoption and mitigation of some of the issues discussed in his presentation, such as cost and meaningful use. Ken said that EMR light is becoming more robust due to the evolution of technologies. Some of the disease registries being used can satisfy the clinical need to provide better care for complicated patients, so EMR light is tremendous on a quality basis which hopefully will lead to cost savings. For smaller practices, the combination of e-prescribing, good disease registry programs and HIE platforms where information is readily obtainable have proven to help a practice get about 70% of the way there, which is very beneficial. Jeff Asher said that Ken’s presentation showed that 10% of physician groups have practice management systems and about 21% have EMR systems, and asked if this data was current. Ken replied that these figures indicate what practices said they would be adopting within two years. There was a recent study done by Qualidigm with current data that will be published shortly. Ken said that he feels that the 10% figure has been achieved but not the 21%. True use of EHRs is probably in the single numbers. Jeff also said that eHealth CT was unsuccessful in obtaining a stimulus grant for providing tech assistance, and asked who else could do this. Ken said that he didn’t know the answer to this. He said that even without federal funding, CMS IPA is a proponent of using technology. Practices that have adopted this technology feel that it’s been beneficial and has proven to save time for physicians in completing charts more quickly. Ryan O’Connell commended Ken for his efforts, and asked if CMS IPA was planning to be a clearinghouse for information and cost negotiating. Ken said that regarding cost negotiation, it has been considered, but most companies want big numbers, and provider participation is voluntary, which limits negotiation of costs. CMS IPA is already acting as a clearinghouse, with their website providing a list of options. Ryan commented that even with a clearinghouse, the local critical mass is very important. Alex Hutchinson said the objectives of SustiNet fit well with the direction and strategies that CMS IPA is promoting and asked where SustiNet and this Committee should be focusing in terms of promoting technology to practices. Ken said that the key is to get practices to begin using any of the electronic methods, because once that happens practices often move up the line. It is important that the SustiNet plan be easily understood. He also said that if there is an effort done statewide that physicians can adopt fairly easily, more of them will join. Enrique gave an overview of the activities of the Market Research, Outreach and Enrollment subgroup. To view his overview, click below. Jeff asked how this Committee’s work meshes with the DPH group that’s working on the HIT exchange project. Alex asked Jeff about his comments that eHealth CT offered to dissolve its governance structure and asked him to elaborate. Jeff said that DPH will be creating a public utility to be the gatekeeper on the HIE. During the Legislative hearing process, eHealth CT offered to give DPH its 501C3 entity to use if it would help DPH’s process. eHealth CT didn’t say it was dissolving but it was implied. Meeting was adjourned. Next meeting will be 4/16/10 at noon. |