visolveemr wrote on Wednesday, May 13, 2015:
tmccormi wrote on Thursday, May 14, 2015:
Posted for Dr Brody …
I am in favor of Rod’s proposal.
As has been threshed out here:
Users who have been attesting to Meaningful Use can either submit electronically if their CEHRT (OpenEMR) has been certified for electronic submission. Otherwise they must manually submit their CQM Data.
The manual process up until now has ONLY supported the Core and Alternate Core CQM Measures, so the ability to ‘select’ other measures has not been available to providers who wish to attest to Meaningful Use.
There is no penalty to users who submit the core and alternate core measures manually even if they submit numerators of zero.
I would recommend that Rod focus on the core and alternate core measures for the CQM’s.
IMHO :The project should be staged as follows:
Step 1 Identify the CQM measures
Step 2 Calculate the CQM measures
Step 3 Identify the PQRS measures
Step 4 Calculate the PQRS measures
Step 5 Develop e reporting for the measures.
As I have already stated I have a system that can take the calculations generated by any EHR system for any and all measures and generate the e-Reporting files. When it is time to get to that stage I will have much more to say. I would also like to be involved in selection of the PQRS measures since I have a great deal of experience with PQRS measures.
When it comes to PQRS all OpenEMR users can still submit via registry for the full year. That is another complex discussion which I will not go into at this point in time.
I apologize for not posting directly to forum but am out of country and do not have access to my main computers.
tmccormi wrote on Thursday, May 14, 2015:
Rod - in the interest of moving it on … you have OEMR’s approval to proceed.
–Tony
President
sunsetsystems wrote on Thursday, May 14, 2015:
Thanks Tony, Brady, Dr. Brody.
If Ensoftek has code that it thinks will be useful, I’ll be happy to look at it and work it into the effort to the degree that seems to makes sense.
To be continued…
rnagul wrote on Thursday, May 14, 2015:
Hi all,
Been busy with the certification process. It is intense and slow.
My discussion with Tony was very clear. Once we satisfy the criteria, we
will contribute the code as a starting point.
It will need merging effort back into the OEMR codebase, since we are
little ways out of sync from 4.1.
I believe it saves the community a lot of effort/hours as a starting point,
instead of re-writing all of it.
Except for the eRx based criteria, I think the other code items should be
mergable.
Rod, we have contributed other code before as well to the community.
Ramesh
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Rod Roark sunsetsystems@users.sf.net
wrote:
Thanks Tony, Brady, Dr. Brody.
If Ensoftek has code that it thinks will be useful, I’ll be happy to look
at it and work it into the effort to the degree that seems to makes sense.To be continued…
Rod
http://www.sunsetsystems.com/CQM for MU2 - Discussion
https://sourceforge.net/p/openemr/discussion/oemr_501c3/thread/2595d717/?limit=25&page=2#01a6Sent from sourceforge.net because you indicated interest in
OpenEMR / Discussion / OEMR Non Profit OrganizationTo unsubscribe from further messages, please visit
SourceForge.net: Log In to SourceForge.net
–
[image: >] http://www.audioname.com/rameshnagulRamesh Nagul
Hear my name http://www.audioname.com/rameshnagul
rnagul wrote on Thursday, May 14, 2015:
On another note, we would love to get paid [?], if there is funds for the
code we contribute and it make sense. We can also help with the merging of
the code back into the main tree.
Finally, as you all may know already, EnSoftek has been providing MU2
testing and management support resources/services to the community at no
cost to the community. I am sure we are all doing our bit, but just wanted
to put it out there.
We believe in OpenEMR and what the community stands for so want to do our
bit to help in all ways we can. Thanks!
Ramesh
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Ramesh Nagul rnagul@users.sf.net wrote:
Hi all,
Been busy with the certification process. It is intense and slow.
My discussion with Tony was very clear. Once we satisfy the criteria, we
will contribute the code as a starting point.It will need merging effort back into the OEMR codebase, since we are
little ways out of sync from 4.1.I believe it saves the community a lot of effort/hours as a starting point,
instead of re-writing all of it.Except for the eRx based criteria, I think the other code items should be
mergable.Rod, we have contributed other code before as well to the community.
Ramesh
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Rod Roark sunsetsystems@users.sf.net
wrote:Thanks Tony, Brady, Dr. Brody.
If Ensoftek has code that it thinks will be useful, I’ll be happy to look
at it and work it into the effort to the degree that seems to makes sense.To be continued…
Rod
http://www.sunsetsystems.com/CQM for MU2 - Discussion
OpenEMR / Discussion / OEMR Non Profit Organization: CQM for MU2 - Discussion
Sent from sourceforge.net because you indicated interest in
OpenEMR / Discussion / OEMR Non Profit OrganizationTo unsubscribe from further messages, please visit
SourceForge.net: Log In to SourceForge.net–
[image: >] Audioname.com Nagul
Hear my name audioname.comCQM for MU2 - Discussion
http://sourceforge.net/p/openemr/discussion/oemr_501c3/thread/2595d717/?limit=50&page=1#01a6/7b06Sent from sourceforge.net because you indicated interest in
OpenEMR / Discussion / OEMR Non Profit OrganizationTo unsubscribe from further messages, please visit
SourceForge.net: Log In to SourceForge.net
–
[image: >] http://www.audioname.com/rameshnagulRamesh Nagul
Hear my name http://www.audioname.com/rameshnagul
sunsetsystems wrote on Thursday, May 14, 2015:
Thanks Ramesh! I would love to see you compensated for any of your contributions that we end up using. Just let me know when/if you have something I should look at, but don’t send anything that you are not ready to donate as GPL code.
Regardless, I will proceed with analysis.
yvone wrote on Monday, May 18, 2015:
Hi All, Everyone was thinking OpenEMR is an OpenSource community and takes unbiased decisions and provide equal opportunity to all contributors and advocates of OpenEMR.
But for quite some time we are witnessing that it is only couple of people/organizations who decide everything, in fact even dominate and grab every opportunity without being fair to deserving candidates or organizations.
Sometimes in bid/proposals it is advertised just for the sake of it, while it is already decided internally who gets what. It is extremely discouraging to see this happening and can only HOPE everything changes for the good. But this is definitely not a good sign for GROWTH.
sunsetsystems wrote on Monday, May 18, 2015:
Hi Eddy, that’s a good topic but needs to be in its own thread. I suggest you start one. Note that OEMR (which focuses on funding and certification) is not the same thing as the OpenEMR project (which is about the software development).
bradymiller wrote on Wednesday, May 20, 2015:
Hi,
In regards to Eddy’s post above. I think one of the goals of this thread was to try to be as transparent as possible in addition to getting the CQM MU2 item ignited asap (note this item is a huge bottleneck for MU2 and the clock is ticking).
It appears we may not of done very well on the transparency front. My re-read of this thread is that it all seemed ok, however, I am biased since I’m deeply involved in the project. Eddy’s and other’s input about how we could of done this better would be very helpful to make both the OpenEMR project and the OEMR organization better in the future.
thanks,
-brady
OpenEMR
fsgl wrote on Wednesday, May 20, 2015:
Transparency will be enhanced if the community knows who accepted the CQM assignment last year, the cost of Visolve’s proposal, if they would accept payment upon full certification & the details of any other serious, concrete (not vague, pie-in-the-sky) proposals.
tmccormi wrote on Wednesday, May 20, 2015:
I’ll start a thread on community involvement.
Tony McCormick, CTO
Support: 866-735-0897, Direct: 713-574-6709
My Calendar: http://bit.ly/XznvDo
… we have to slow down a bit to be able to speed up a lot… (me)
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 3:33 AM, fsgl fsgl@users.sf.net wrote:
Transparency will be enhanced if the community knows who accepted the CQM
assignment last year, the cost of Visolve’s proposal, if they would accept
payment upon full certification & the details of any other serious,
concrete (not vague, pie-in the-sky) prosposals.CQM for MU2 - Discussion
https://sourceforge.net/p/openemr/discussion/oemr_501c3/thread/2595d717/?limit=25&page=2#82ceSent from sourceforge.net because you indicated interest in
OpenEMR / Discussion / OEMR Non Profit OrganizationTo unsubscribe from further messages, please visit
SourceForge.net: Log In to SourceForge.net
–
Please be aware that e-mail communication can be intercepted in
transmission or misdirected. Please consider communicating any sensitive
information by telephone. The information contained in this message may be
privileged and confidential. If you are NOT the intended recipient, please
notify the sender immediately with a copy to hipaa-security@mrsb-ltd.com and
destroy this message.
fsgl wrote on Friday, May 22, 2015:
Transparency is not possible without adequate disclosure.
bradymiller wrote on Monday, May 25, 2015:
To answer the questions as best as I can.
1.For MU1, Ken at Mi-Squared did CQM framework and the CQM rules (as I recall Mi-Squared did at no cost, ie. contributed).
2.Visolve’s proposal in this thread has been deleted, but I think it was 18K. I think they requested half now and the other half after successful passing of MU2.
My disclosure is a volunteer whom makes no money from OpenEMR. I am personally vested, though, in getting MU2 completed in time, since it’s important for the vitality of the OpenEMR project.
-brady
OpenEMR
fsgl wrote on Monday, May 25, 2015:
The Funding Barometer indicates that $25K had been raised by Jan. 29, 2014. If the PayPal contributions have been averaging $600 per month, had there been any disbursements?
Is it possible for a Board member, such as Sam Bowen, to persuade Visolve to reduce the asking price for all the missing pieces in the Completion Barometer?
We appreciate Rod’s stepping in at the last moment to help, but it is highly unlikely that he alone can achieve full certification for the Project.
The Funding Barometer also stated that the goal of full certification was targeted for June 1, 2014. In 1 week it will be a full year. October 1, 2015 will be here before we know it.
CMS declared emphatically that the Flexibility Rule will not occur again. Users will be facing the penalty, through no fault of their own. Some users responded generously to “A Special Appeal” & have done their part.
In addition to the vitality of the Project, credibility is very much on the line. If we say we will perform a certain task, we must deliver. If we profess to be an open source community, we are held to a higher standard.
sunsetsystems wrote on Wednesday, May 27, 2015:
Just want to report that I’m making some good progress. My goal is to make the calculations as simple, straightforward and efficient as possible. I think it will be important for other developers to be able to understand it in case tweaks are needed for practices with nonstandard ways of storing data (for example with a different kind of Vitals form).
One nice thing is that NIH provides a big table of “value sets” that relates the categories of diagnoses, procedures, etc in the eMeasures to groups of diagnosis and procedure codes in the standard code sets (ICD9, ICD10, CPT4, SNOMED etc.) This table can be loaded into OpenEMR to simplify the logic and build queries while avoiding mistakes inherent in duplicating all that stuff in PHP code.
In the case of CMS165v3 (Controlling High Blood Pressure) I’m finding that I can build a single query to compute the denominator, and another single query to compute the numerator. This should run MUCH faster than current methods.
More to come.
tmccormi wrote on Wednesday, May 27, 2015:
The only disbursements that have been made to date from the MU donated funds have been to InfoGard for the testing fees. $9000 down, + $1100 for the Modular. Still owe them $9000 at completion plus any hours we use above the remaining 8 hrs left in our contract for testing. All other work that has been contracted (MI2, for AMC and Rod for CQM analysis) is waiting completed deliverables.
Testing support was donated by ZH and Ensoftek. (Many, Many hours of labor).
AMC work is mostly being donated by MI2 (about 60% or more), but I couldn’t afford to do it all.
–Tony
fsgl wrote on Thursday, May 28, 2015:
It is unclear from the 2014 Edition Test Method if all these CQM’s are required for certification. Only 9 are needed for attestation.
Given a choice of e-reporting to the PQRS Portal directly or paying $500 per physician in solo practice via MedXpress, some of us would opt for the former.
sunsetsystems wrote on Thursday, May 28, 2015:
Right, we only need 9 and currently have 10 earmarked. See my first 2015-05-08 post in this thread for more about the tentative list.
fsgl wrote on Thursday, May 28, 2015:
Very good not all 64 CQM’s are needed for certification.
We have 5 from MU1 & these 4:
Patient Safety: Fall Risk Screening & Med List,
Care Coordination: Referral Loop,
Patient & Family Engagement: CHF Functional Assessment,
each has only 1 part, which makes calculations easier.