Pages

▼

Thursday, October 28, 2010

A schedule for Stage 2 and more on Public Health Surveillance

Rita Altamore dropped these tidbits in my inbox.  I thought I'd share them.

First, the draft timeline for MU Stage 2 is below.
MU Work Plan Timeline
  • Oct 20, 2010: directional guidance from HITPC
  • Dec 13, 2010: present draft MU stages 2/3 criteria
  • Jan, 2011: release draft MU criteria RFC
  • Feb, 2011: analyze RFC submissions and revise MU draft criteria
  • Mar, 2011: present revised draft MU criteria to HITPC
  • 2Q11: CMS report on initial MU submissions
  • 3Q11: Final HITPC recommendations on stage 2 MU
  • ~4Q11: CMS MU NPRM

Opportunity to comment on New Disease Surveillance Standard
Next, and of a bit more immediate importance.  The ISDS Recommendation has been posted on their web site.  You can see the current draft below.  If you'd like to comment on it, they have started a survey for feedback here:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/F9FR2CY

I appreciate that they've provided an opportunity for the public to comment, but the process is still lacking balance as I've mentioned previously.  Balance is the principal the consumers, users and producers of stuff that must meet a standard are represented in a standards making process.  At the moment, public health has undue influence in this process.  But hey, at least we get to provide comments.  Can you guess what my first one will be.
 
Here is the text to comment on.

My feedback will also include some information based on what I found out in this comparison between what they did and what HITSP did.  Analysis of Proposed ISDS Standards for Disease Surveillance

   Keith



 
at

1 comment:

  1. Keith W. BooneNovember 1, 2010 at 1:27 PM

    Bob B writes:

    Thanks Keith, great information. I wasn't even aware of this work! I can't imagine a reason why (other than short term expediency) why implementers are not more engaged. You know the saying "the hurrieder you go, the behinder you get". At first glance, it does seem to be a good start, and a quick turnaround to a hopefully implementable IG, but for Stage 1?! CMS/ONC hasn't even defined a minimum transport for SS messages, which leaves all vendors to support all variations. The definition of "capable of receiving electronic submission of data" is completely ambiguous to what minimum clinical content to support, which leaves vendors to support any and all data that any agency deems itself capable of receiving. There is a lot of work yet to do in the area of SS, that's for sure.

    ReplyDelete