responding to the meaningful use stage 2 public health objectives: case studies from state public...

Responding to the Meaningful Use Stage 2 Public Health Objectives: Case Studies from State Public Health Agencies

Bethany Bradshaw, MPHApplied Public Health Informatics Fellow,Wisconsin Department of Health Services

1

Emilie Lamb, MSPHMeaningful Use Consultant,

North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services

Overview• Stage 2 Meaningful Use (MU) Public Health Reporting Task Force

recommendations for supporting MU

• Five common Stage 2 MU challenges facing public health agencies (PHAs):• Assessing need• Selecting a platform for registering providers• Coordinating across public health programs• Structuring registrations• Acknowledgements

• Registration experience to date

• Questions 2

Task Force Recommendations

3

New PHA Administrative Tasks

Source: Stage 2 Meaningful Use Public Health Reporting Task Force.

Ways to Meet Stage 2 Public Health Objectives

4

Source: Stage 2 Meaningful Use Public Health Reporting Task Force.

Assessing Need• No requirement for PHAs

• Which public health programs to include?

• State mandates existing registration systems?

• Use beyond MU?

5

Selecting a Platform• FUNDING

• Expanding existing systems vs. new development

• Custom vs. out of the box

• Connectivity with other systems

• User authentications and permissions

6

Coordinating across Public Health Programs• System/data ownership and privacy

• Maintaining and enhancing the system

• Public health program autonomy:• Getting “buy-in”• Coordinating with existing registration systems• Defining “On-boarding Process” and “Ongoing Submission”• Acknowledgements

7

Structuring Registrations

8

Wisconsin North CarolinaBulk registrations Single registration to cover an

entire integrated delivery network

Single registration per individual Eligible Professional (EP) and Eligible Hospital or Critical Access Hospital

Eligible Professional Information

Only collect name and NPI for solo EP registrations

Collect name and National Provider Identifier (NPI) for all EPs

Program-specific information collected

Yes Yes

MU participation Minimal: yes/no Minimal: estimated dates

Vendor registration for clients No No

Providers can modify registrations

Yes No

Registration information visibility

Limited to registrant; Administrator can grant access to other users

Summary provided to registrant

Acknowledgements• Defining statuses• Task Force recommendations

• Delivery mechanism:• Email• Physical letters (mailed or faxed)• Posting to a website

• Preparing for audits

9

Registration Experience to Date

• Total number of registrations• Hospitals• EPs

• Number of Acknowledgements sent

• Plans for maintenance and upgrades

10

Bethany Bradshaw, MPHWisconsin Department of Health Services

Bethany.Bradshaw@gmail.com

Emilie Lamb, MSPHNorth Carolina Department of Health and Human Services

Emilie.Lamb@dhhs.nc.gov

11