Health Infomration Technology Advisory Commission (HITAC)
Cindy Perry moved to have the meeting minutes from April 8th approved with no changes. Terri
Ripley seconded. There was un...
data. New York’s plan has two service categories; core and functional. Core services are
     those mandated by Office of ...
medically underserved areas using clinical use cases. The plan is to start small and build
       incrementally. Not much ...
physicians. This project appears to contradict the need for state HIEs. ONC claims to know how
NHIN Direct and NHIN Connec...
Section 2 – deleted

Section 3 – Core Services - Cindy Perry and Bill Perko

Section 4 – Functional Services – Mark Clemmo...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5



Published on

Published in: Business
  • 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

No notes for slide


  1. 1. DRAFT Minutes Health Infomration Technology Advisory Commission (HITAC) Technical Infrastructure Committee Thursday, April 22, 2010 10:00AM to 12:00PM 200 Ednam Drive, Tack Conference Room, Charlottesville, VA 22903 Attendance: Members Present: Bill Perko Marshall Ruffin Steve Browning Cindy Perry Terri Ripley Paul McGowan Chris Riha Dave Mix Phone : Jerry Kevorkian Mark Clemmons John Quinn Fred Norman – NoVA Consulting (General Public) Justin Samson – Castle Technologies (General Public) Absent : Yevonne Childers John Underhill Others present: Benson Chang, CGI Project Manager Jaime Woltz, CGI Project Support Nadine Hoffman, TIC Staff Support Introduction and Committee Logistics
  2. 2. Cindy Perry moved to have the meeting minutes from April 8th approved with no changes. Terri Ripley seconded. There was unanimous approval of the minutes. Chair’s report Chairman Ruffin reported there was a HITAC Meeting on April 15, 2010. Ms. Ripley represented the Finance Committee and Chairman Ruffin represented Technical Infrastructure Committee HITAC reviewed the decision brief to buy or build and resolved to buy. . The Virginia Department of Health (VDH) received an unsolicited proposal on April 14, 2010 to build the statewide HIE. A recommendation on whether to accept this unsolicited proposal or not will be provided to Secretary Hazel’s office by the Office of Health IT by April 23. 2010. The next part in the process will occur at the HITAC Commission meeting on May 20, 2010 at which the Commission will decide if the Public-Private Education and Infrastructure Act (PPEA) process will be the vehicle for procuring the vendor(s) that will support the Commonwealth’s Health Information Exchange (HIE). At the time of this decision the unsolicited bid will need to be posted for 45 days publically before any movement can be made. It is the hope that all bids whether they are solicited or not will not be evaluated until after strategic and operational plans are complete on or before August 1, 2010 as to not divide the HITAC Commission focus on the planning tasks. The Technical Infrastructure Committee (TIC) should have the draft of Technical Infrastructure sections of the Strategic and Operational Plans available by May 20th HITAC meeting for other committees to comment on. Benson Chang will coordinate gathering feedback. At Chairman Ruffin’s request, Mr. Chang described how the other committees would be asked to evaluate the services matrix created by TIC. 1. Does the matrix identify all the services the Commonwealth HIE intends to provide? 2. Are there any services in the matrix that the Commonwealth does not wish to provide? 3. Is the proposed implementation prioritization of services acceptable? State Summary Reviews TIC members presented their state HIE summaries. 1. New Mexico – Ms. Ripley reported that New Mexico is currently sharing data as part of National Health Information Network (NHIN) in 2007. The state has a federated model with centralized MPI. (Initiate), a physician portal, (MedPlus Centergy), Record Locator service. New Mexico plans to do Social Security Administration (SSA) Disability use cases with NHIN. 2. New York – Paul McGowan reported that New York’s planning phase started in August 2008 and plans to run until August 2010. New York does not have a defined architecture but rather has several tiers from state backbone up to consumers. The state has a consumer centric view of services it plans to provide. New York is not currently moving
  3. 3. data. New York’s plan has two service categories; core and functional. Core services are those mandated by Office of National Coordinator (ONC). 3. Vermont- Bill Perko reported that Vermont’s HIE has been active for several years and an independent organization with its own board runs the program. Currently Vermont is taxing all claims to financially sustain the HIE but this will be phased out in 2015. The state is moving some data and planning to add hospitals to the network one at a time through the creation of point to point interfaces with each hospital. This appears to be something that will only work well in smaller states. Mr. Perko reviewed that there is no operational plan that could be found. The patient must “opt-in” to participate in the HIE and the Continuity of Care Document (CCD) format will be implemented. Vermont is centralizing data as each source sends data into a state repository which stores the data temporarily. John Quinn made a comment that future document types will be able to be added besides CCD. 4. Colorado- Mr. Perko reported that they are less far along. The state went with a Request for Proposal (RFP) that was issued December 2009. Results have not been published and the RFP did not appear to be very impressive. Colorado created a state organization in 2007, CO-RHIO, whose purpose is to be state HIE coordinator. The state has been divided into referral regions. The state is currently not moving data. 5. California- Chairman Ruffin reported there appears to be no architecture and no moving of data. There are 20 existing HIEs that need to be brought together in this state and they are mired in disputes at the moment. 6. West Virginia- Chairman Ruffin reported that in 2006 the state passed a law that health data needs to be moved electronically in 10 years. West Virginia Health Information Network (WVHIN) was formed, but an RFP was just issued several months ago to buy a vendor solution. The technical architecture is vaguely defined in the strategic plan and there is no moving of data. 7. North Carolina- Mark Clemmons reported that the state is 9 to 12 months ahead of Virginia. Most of the group meetings halted in September 2009 and their HIE application was submitted to ONC in October 2009 but there has yet to be an announcement of award. The plan takes note of all the ONC and HL7 and SNOMED standards. North Carolina has set aside money for an NHIN gateway project. As of yet there is no indication of data being moved. The North Carolina Health Information and Communications Alliance (NCHICA) appears to be the responsible entity but Mr. Quinn said will try to find out if there are other organizations involved. Mr. Chang will try to ask for drafts of their plans as August 1 approaches. 8. Tennessee- Jerry Kevorkian reported that it appears Tennessee’s plan is to use their existing eHealth Network and leverage CareSpark as opposed to developing their own HIE. Chairman Ruffin reported that he believes that the Governor of Tennessee is going to create another network that federates SharedHealth, a network in Western Tennessee and CareSpark. The state is not moving data yet but does have several mature HIEs that have been mentioned above. 9. Maryland- David Mix reported that the state is about 1.5 years ahead of Virginia as they finalized their draft plans in 2009 which were then approved by their state in February 2009. The state will be using a hybrid approach with the data at a provider site and a centralized document registry. It has not been confirmed if Maryland is moving data or not. The state does recognize that the physician is the key to success and is looking at
  4. 4. medically underserved areas using clinical use cases. The plan is to start small and build incrementally. Not much is known about the architecture of their plan. There is a plan to connect with Personal Health Records for consumers. 10. Indiana- Chris Riha reported the Indiana Health Information Exchange (IHIE) formed in 2004 and is very mature. This program came from the Regenstrief Institute and the two have been exchanging data for years. All the data is collected there and analyzed. This service for analytics can be purchased by physicians. IHIE has not been able to become self sustaining and still requires funding from Regenstrief. Indiana markets out to urban cities geographically close to the state, specifically Chicago. Mr. Quinn added IHIE also markets to Cincinnati. It has a pay per click model. The architecture appears to be very home grown and is more proprietary as opposed to based on open-source technical solutions. Their infrastructure is based on old versions of HL7. Mr. Quinn noted that IHIE will have technically difficulty in aligning to ONC’s standards. 11. Nebraska- Steve Browning reported that the statewide implementation was announced July 2009 and is fully operational. The state is leveraging an existing network to run its HIE. Nebraska implemented a hybrid model using centralized MPI and record locator service (RLS). The state has proposed phased implementation, network infrastructure and clinical messaging in its plan. Axolotl runs the infrastructure. Mr. Quinn recommends that the committee follow Nebraska in the area of analytics. Ms. Ripley has a contact in Nebraska and will send information to Mr. Chang for sharing. Chairman Ruffin summarized the reports by stating New Mexico, Vermont, and Nebraska should be the states Virginia follows as they are the most advanced - moving data and aligning to ONC standards). It was discussed that the Finance Committee will be most interested in Indiana because of their quality marketing to providers and the variety of their revenue models. The Governance Committee might want to learn more about how Tennessee plans to govern the connections between their existing HIEs. In response to Justin Samson’s question, Chairman Ruffin responded that the data exchange TIC members were referring to during their state summaries was primarily clinical data. Mr. Samson participated in the meeting as a member of the general public. NHIN Update Ms. Perry researched the NHIN architecture standards and incorporated the research into the services matrix. Mr. Mix added MITA requirements to the service matrix. Mr. Quinn referenced the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Enterprise Architecture Strategy presentation which includes a periodic chart of services. Mr. Quinn provided the following update on activities at the federal level. There appears to be a lot of change happening. Around the time of the Healthcare Information Management System Society (HIMSS) conference in February 2010, ONC came out with a number of RFPs. One of these RFP’s is for extending the National Information Exchange Model (NEIM) to include health IT. NIEM is being promoted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Another RFP was issued for defining a NHIN architecture. The Federal Health Architecture (FHA) put together some documentation but no formal NHIN architecture has been defined. The deadline for bids has come and gone and there have not been any announcements. Mr. Quinn reported that there was much confusion at the ONC HIT Advisory Committee meeting last month around the NHIN Direct approach to push clinical information between
  5. 5. physicians. This project appears to contradict the need for state HIEs. ONC claims to know how NHIN Direct and NHIN Connect can coexist. Mr. Quinn and others encourage Dr. Blumenthal and Dr. Frisdma to offer those outside the federal government some explanation. Dr. Blumenthal advised the HIT Advisory Committee that documentation will be updated to reflect ONC’s vision. As of today, no new documentation has been provided. Mr. Quinn believes this will come up at their HIT Advisory Committee meeting next week. Discussion of Service Matrix Ms. Ripley inquired as to the difference between checks and Xs in the “High Priority” column and Nadine Hoffman explained that it was originally intended to show what would be included in the pilot implementation ( included , x not included,) . Mr. Chang suggested that the columns in the operational plan section cover this and the “High Priority” column is redundant and should be removed. It was decided that the column name “Standard Technology” would be changed to “Technology Comments” so vendors will not interpret the comments as standards they must follow. Mr. Mix asked for clarification on the defining of the Connection Services and the answer was that it is a package of service. There was agreement to remove rows 2.1,2.2, and 2.3 and to move 2.1.1, 2.1.2., and 2.1.3 to Integration Services. Chairman Ruffin questioned the group where to declare centralized or federated architecture and it was decided to add a location column to define where each service will be located from a technical architecture perspective. Assignments for May 6 Meeting Mr. Mix will create the first draft of a Topology Diagram and will distribute. Eventually the diagram will need to link up with the Services Matrix. The Services Aware Enterprise Architecture Framework (SAEAF) and how services will operate over NHIN was discussed. Mr. Quinn suggested Virginia include references to SAEAF so that vendors will align their proposal with the framework. It was not resolved whether SAEAF needs to be a column in the Services Matrix. Mr. Quinn offered to come to Richmond on Tuesday, April 27th to work with Mr. Mix and Ms. Perry on the draft plan and services matrix as he will be attending meetings in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday. The services matrix was broken into sections and TIC members were assigned to write up those services from both a strategic and operational perspective. Section 1 – Integration Services – Chris Riha (example out by Friday using the working papers for strategic and operational plans)
  6. 6. Section 2 – deleted Section 3 – Core Services - Cindy Perry and Bill Perko Section 4 – Functional Services – Mark Clemmons and Terri Ripley Section 5 – Reporting Services – Paul McGowan and John Underhill Section 6 – Decision Support Services – Marshall Ruffin and Yevonne Childers Section 7 – Infrastructure/Utility – Jerry Kevorkian and Steve Browning The members will send their respective sections to Mr. Chang by May 4th and will present them at the May 6th TIC meeting. Mr. Chang will email the latest templates out for the working papers for the strategic and operational plans. It was suggested and agreed that the May 6th electronic meeting will be an interactive session (Web-X). Other Business Chairman Ruffin called for other business and there was none. Public Comment Chairman Ruffin called for public comment and there was one question. In response to Justin Samson’s inquiry as to which version of HL7 will be required, Mr. Quinn responded HL7 version 3.0 is current national standard for CCD. Upon further inquiry for laboratory data, Mr. Quinn clarified that HL7 version 2.5.1 was the current standard.. Adjourn Chairman Ruffin s adjourned the meeting at 12:05PM