CMS MITA Presentation 10/16/2008

Uploaded on

CMS MITA presentation by Rick Friedman at HIMSS

CMS MITA presentation by Rick Friedman at HIMSS

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. HIMSS – National Capitol Area Rosslyn, VA October 16, 2008 Medicaid IT Architecture and Interoperability Rick Friedman, Dir. Division of State Systems CMSO, CMS
  • 2. Medicaid Background Information
  • 3. Growth in Medicaid Beneficiaries Millions of Medicaid Beneficiaries 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 1965 1975 1985 1995 2008
  • 4. Medicaid Summary Percentage of Total 55.2 Million $326.4 Billion IT Spending as a Percent of Total Medicaid Less than 1 Percent – FY 2007 FY 2007 Eligibles and Spending Claims Processing Engine Fraud Detection (SURS) Mgmt + Admin (MARS) 3 rd Party Liability (TPL) Provider Subsystem Reference Subsystem Six Original MMIS Subsystems
    • State Submits Plan/APD, RFP and Contract to CMS for IT Funding
    • CMS Approves Project: …90% FFP for MMIS Development …75% FFP for MMIS Operations …50% FFP for all other IT/Admin
    • CMS Certifies MMIS
  • 5. MEDICAID: People and Money *About 7 million duals have been subtracted from the total to avoid double-counting Source: Kaiser Commission, 2007 $623 billion 90 million* Medicaid and Medicare $ 297 billion 42 million Medicare $326 billion (1 of every 5 health care $s ) 55 million (1 out of every 6 Americans) Medicaid $1.54 trillion 325 million U.S. Totals Money People
  • 6. CMS’ Perspective
    • 1.Medical information follows the consumer; i.e., they are at the center of their care
    • 2. Consumers chose providers based on clinical performance results
    • 3. Clinicians have complete patient history, computerized ordering and electronic reminders
    • 4. Quality initiatives measure performance and drive quality-based competition
    • 5. From transactions to actions-- machines talk to machines; people focus on services; goal is health outcomes improvement
  • 7. CMS Places a High Value On Cross-Agency Data Sharing
    • Medicaid administrators lacked a comprehensive view of their world -- MMIS was not keeping pace with their rapidly changing world
    • CMS decided to re-tool the MMIS into MITA -- the Medicaid IT Architecture
      • Web-based, patient-centric, interoperable system based on industry IT standards
      • Enterprise-oriented, rather than organization
      • Data shared across boundaries
      • Provides basis for HIT/E -- EHR, eRx, PHR
  • 8. Medicaid Information Technology Architecture (MITA)
  • 9. What Is MITA?
    • MITA is a TOOL KIT
    • MITA is a ROAD MAP
    • NOTE: MITA is NOT a one-size-fits-all approach
    • Each State builds its own IT solution based on standards, models and processes contained within the MITA Framework that have been developed with the help of all States and the IT industry
  • 10. Key Principles--MITA
    • Support State-driven program requirements as well as Federal
    • Provide Medicaid managers at all levels with robust data sets that significantly enhance their ability to focus on outcomes
    • Business-driven enterprise architecture
    • Commonalities and differences co-exist peacefully
    • Standards first
    • Built-in Security and Privacy
    • Data consistency across the enterprise
  • 11. MITA’s Goals
    • Provide State Medicaid agencies with a powerful analytical tool
    • Improve health care outcomes
    • Align with Federal Health Architecture
    • Ensure patient-centric views not constrained by organizational barriers
    • Make use of common IT and data standards
  • 12. MITA’s Objectives
    • Foster interoperability between and within State Medicaid organizations
    • Provide web-based access and integration while respecting patient privacy and confidentiality concerns
    • Support software reusability with commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software
    • Integrate seamlessly clinical and public health data
  • 13. MITA’s Orientation
    • Business-driven service oriented architecture solution (focus on supporting biz not tech)
    • Firmly grounded in enterprise architecture principles ( in use by many other industries )
    • Defines a business transformation over a five year and long-term (10 years and greater) timeframe
    • Includes a technical architecture and a transition strategy to enable the business transformation
  • 14. How Would CMS Handle Funding in a Collaborative Environment that Focuses on Interoperability? Three Scenarios and e-Rx Data Flow
  • 15. E-Health (e.g., eRx) Schematic Note: The following discussion is a conceptual analysis of how CMS may be able to support e-Health activities using MMIS funding. While some of this thinking has been approved at various levels, final decisions will depend upon specific conditions yet to be determined DW HW/SW WEB PORTAL
    • Examples
    • eRx
    • EHR/EMR
    • PHR
    • ACTIONS:
    • Medicaid Agency builds a data warehouse (DW) and web portal (WP) as a part of its MMIS.
    • Non-Medicaid agency builds its own DW and WB.
    • Both parties agree to build an electronic bridge linking both DWs and WPs
    • Medicaid Agency receives 90% FFP to build the DW/WP, and 75% FFP to operate them
    • Non-Medicaid Agency uses own funds to build and operate DW/WP
    • Jointly built electronic bridge is paid for by both parties per Federal CAP Principles. Medicaid receives enhanced 90/75 FFP rates for its share of costs.
    MEDICAID AGENCY Scenario 1: Medicaid Agency and Non-Medicaid Agency Both Build Their Own E-Health Hardware/Software Facilitators DW HW/SW Data WEB PORTAL M M I S WEB PORTAL
  • 17. Other State Agency DW HW/SW
    • ACTIONS:
    • Medicaid Agency builds a data warehouse (DW) and web portal (WP) as a part of its MMIS.
    • Non-Medicaid agency/provider buys own equipment to access web as well as trains staff on its use.
    • Medicaid Agency receives 90% FFP to build the DW/WP, and 75% FFP to operate them
    • Non-Medicaid Agency/provider uses their own funds for their access ramps to DW/WP
    MEDICAID AGENCY Scenario 2: Medicaid Agency Builds and Operates E-Health Hardware/Software Facilitators and Permits Access by Others Data M M I S WEB PORTAL Provider
  • 18. Other State Agency DW HW/SW
    • ACTIONS:
    • Medicaid Agency accesses DW/WP through its MMIS
    • Changes/enhancements may be necessary to enhance use of DW/WP within MMIS.
    • Medicaid Agency receives 90% FFP to enhance, 75% FFP to operate its internal requirements with outside DW/WP
    • Changes to the outside DW/WP specific to Medicaid matched at 50% because it’s not part of the MMIS
    • Provider/Other Users costs not matched with MMIS FFP
    MEDICAID AGENCY Scenario 3: Entity Not Under Medicaid Builds and Controls DW/WP MMIS WEB PORTAL Provider Data Data
  • 19. E-Prescribing Data Flows Physician’s Office Electronic Switch Pharmacy State Medicaid Agency MMIS Claims Engine Rx Claims 1. Eligibility Inquiry and Drug History 2. Rx sent to Pharmacy $ $ Office Visit Claim Pharmacy Claim 3. Drug/drug interaction