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

1
Responding to the Meaningful Use Stage 2 Public
Health Objectives Case Studies from State Public
Health Agencies
Emilie Lamb, MSPH Meaningful Use
Consultant, North Carolina Department of Health
and Human Services

• Bethany Bradshaw, MPH
• Applied Public Health Informatics Fellow,
• Wisconsin Department of Health Services

2
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

3
Task Force Recommendations
New PHA Administrative Tasks
Source Stage 2 Meaningful Use Public Health
Reporting Task Force.
4
Ways to Meet Stage 2 Public Health Objectives
Source Stage 2 Meaningful Use Public Health
Reporting Task Force.
5
Assessing Need

• No requirement for PHAs
• Which public health programs to include?
• State mandates? existing registration systems?
• Use beyond MU?

6
Selecting a Platform

• FUNDING
• Expanding existing systems vs. new development
• Custom vs. out of the box
• Connectivity with other systems
• User authentications and permissions

7
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

8
Structuring Registrations
Wisconsin North Carolina
Bulk 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
9
Acknowledgements

• Defining statuses
• Task Force recommendations
• Delivery mechanism
• Email
• Physical letters (mailed or faxed)
• Posting to a website
• Preparing for audits

10
Registration Experience to Date

• Total number of registrations
• Hospitals
• EPs
• Number of Acknowledgements sent
• Plans for maintenance and upgrades

11
Bethany Bradshaw, MPH Wisconsin Department of
Health Services Bethany.Bradshaw_at_gmail.com
Emilie Lamb, MSPH North Carolina Department of
Health and Human Services Emilie.Lamb_at_dhhs.nc.gov