yehster wrote on Tuesday, September 23, 2014:
Biggest Gap for certification seems to be this issue.
bradymiller wrote on Wednesday, September 24, 2014:
Hi,
Agreed. In addition also need AMC stuff. I’m working on the “joiner” elements to allow new amc and cqm rules in either combined or separate 2011 or 2014 MU reports:
Still need to integrate it into the the reports at interface/reports/cqm.php . This will allow adding the rules and having the reporting work.
The actual rules themselves and the mechanism to “capture and export” and “import and calculate” still need to be built, though (ie. a very large amount of work). Any volunteers 
-brady
OpenEMR
yehster wrote on Wednesday, September 24, 2014:
The QRDA import/export is another HL7 format, and yes that looks like a very large amount of work.
http://www.hl7.org/implement/standards/product_brief.cfm?product_id=35
mdsupport wrote on Wednesday, September 24, 2014:
The MU reporting probably needs a separate database or at least tables which get populated when the initial reporting timeframe is selected. That will allow a snapshot for later calculations, reporting and possible audit by CMS.
The HL7 is major issue since current approach of building code in PHP is not extensible - and probably impossible with HL7v3. Mirth or some such ETL tool that maintains all HL7 templates needs to be incorporated.
If MU and HL7 are taken out of core package, it may make the package lean for international users as well.
bradymiller wrote on Friday, September 26, 2014:
Hi,
Here’s most updated work on ability to view separate MU1 and MU2 AMC/CQM reports:
Plan to fix a bug, add the amc rules to 2014 report that are same in 2011(very easy), and then do serious amount of testing.
Then the real work begins… Not sure how much money it will take, but getting seasoned professional OpenEMR developers sooner, rather than later, makes a lot of sense.
-brady
OpenEMR
jmay48 wrote on Friday, September 26, 2014:
CMS has contracted with Mitre Corp to develop popHealth, a fully open source solution for receiving and processing CCR records, calculating MU and PQRS measures, and producing QRDAs. Many commercial EMR vendors have integrated their code to meet this requirement. This could be a good pace to start.
tmccormi wrote on Saturday, September 27, 2014:
The OEMR was one of the organizations considered to be the governance body
for the pophealth project. I recommend looking at this closely.
–
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.
mdsupport wrote on Saturday, September 27, 2014:
09/25/2014 - popHealth Freeze Message
ONC has officially ended its role as the primary developer, manager, and sole governance entity for the open source tool called popHealth. Since 2013, it has worked to prepare for transitioning the development, management and governance to the open source community.
At this point, ONC is freezing code associated with the popHealth github branch and it is freezing the content of the website. This github repository will remain available in the near term for anyone in the community to use as a resource. This includes forking the code into a new independent project. ONC plans to maintain the popHealth listservs.
Several highly active members of the community have decided to work with the Open Source Electronic Health Record Alliance (OSEHRA) as the open source management-support entity for popHealth going forward. A repository of their version of the code can be found here: OSEHRA · GitHub
ONC will still have a limited ongoing role in popHealth as outlined previously. We are very excited about the future of popHealth. If you have questions, please contact onc.request@hhs.gov.
bradymiller wrote on Monday, October 06, 2014:
Hi,
Just committed to codebase the mechanism to produce separate amc/cqm 2011/2014 reports:
I added following amc 2014 rules, which already existed and were same as 2011:
170.314(g)(1)/(2)–4
170.314(g)(1)/(2)–5
170.314(g)(1)/(2)–6
170.314(g)(1)/(2)–9
170.314(g)(1)/(2)–11
170.314(g)(1)/(2)–12
170.314(g)(1)/(2)–17
On quick analysis, here is listing of amc rules that still need to be completed:
CHANGED RULES:
170.314(g)(1)/(2)–7
170.314(g)(1)/(2)–8
170.314(g)(1)/(2)–10
170.314(g)(1)/(2)–13
170.314(g)(1)/(2)–15
170.314(g)(1)/(2)–16
170.314(g)(1)/(2)–18
NEW RULES:
170.314(g)(1)/(2)–19
170.314(g)(1)/(2)–20
170.314(g)(1)/(2)–21
170.314(g)(1)/(2)–22
UNCLEAR IF CHANGED OR NEW RULES(definitely not the same, though):
170.314(g)(1)/(2)–14
Also, on discussion with ensoftek, appears need to have a mechanism to report the patients that do not pass the rules along with reason why not pass.
For CQM, also now have framework to support separate 2011/2014 rules (I didn’t have time to see which rules are unchanged, so for now the 2014 report is empty).
-brady
OpenEMR