TOA is working with AOPOC Inc. to bring a
low-cost patient reported outcomes platform to TOA members. TOA has
invited AOPOC Inc. to attend TOA's April 7-9, 2016 Annual Conference to
provide product demonstrations.
Recognizing the high cost of existing
patient reported outcomes platforms, AOPOC Inc., which is funded by the
AO Foundation and AO North America created this new software platform as
as low-cost alternative. The software platform is a tool for orthopaedic
surgeons to collect scientifically-validated patient reported outcome
measures. It focuses on PROMIS scores. However, orthopaedic surgeons
have the ability to add additional measures.
to learn more about the AO Patient Outcomes Center.
By offering the platform through TOA, TOA
members would have the following benefits:
discount. Due to the large size of TOA's membership, TOA will be
able to access a lower cost for TOA members.
data. Individual results will belong to individual orthopaedic
surgeons. However, Texas orthopaedic surgeons will be able to
aggregate their data through TOA. This allows individual orthopaedic
surgeons to benchmark the data for benchmarking purposes. TOA plans
to include the data as part of presentations at future annual
Meeting future mandates. Government and
commercial payers are increasingly looking to the collection of
patient reported outcomes as potential requirements in the future.
One health plan requires orthopaedic surgeons to collect patient
outcomes in order to be recognized as a "center of excellence."
here to read a letter from Kyle Dickson, MD - TOA's First
Vice-President - with details regarding the project. We will announce
more details regarding the roll-out and pricing in the near future.
Registry Reporting for
Orthopaedics: Providing Insight on the Path to Meaningful Use
By Jason McCormick
the attestation period for 2015 Meaningful Use reporting will
not be complete for the next several days, many orthopaedic
practices are already looking ahead to determine which program
objectives will be difficult to meet in 2016. It should come as
no surprise that most orthopaedic providers have not been as
accepting of the Meaningful Use program as primary care
providers. Opportunities to meet objective requirements for CPOE
of laboratory orders or medication reconciliation for
transitions of care have not been abundant, but have proven to
be costly and time-consuming for practice staff. But over the
course of the program, no objective or measure has caused more
confusion than the Public Health Reporting measures.
In what only
can be described as the most confusing Meaningful Use
requirement to date, Objective 10 of CMS's Modified Meaningful
Use requires eligible professionals to meet the requirements of,
or the exclusion criteria for, three different measures related
to reporting data to registries. Measure 1 requires eligible
providers to submit immunization data to state-sponsored
registries, Measure 2 requires submission of syndromic
surveillance data to public health agencies, and Measure 3
requires participation in a specialized registry. Much of the
confusion comes from the wording of the measures that states
that eligible providers must be "actively engaged" with a public
health agency, or other specialized registry, to submit
electronic public health data. What the Objective does not state
is how orthopaedic providers and practices are supposed to
comply with this requirement, which is one of many that
reinforces the viewpoint that Meaningful Use is a program that
is geared towards primary care providers, and not specialists.
Exclusion criteria are available for each measure, but the
wording of Measure 3's exclusion criteria leaves you with more
questions than answers. While searching for insight into how to
ensure our providers are in compliance, or at least
demonstrating due diligence to try to comply, many orthopaedic
practice managers are unsure of what course of action should be
taken. They are willing to talk to their EHR vendors, their
practice consultants, even their ListServ colleagues, in order
to find some kind of answer or insight into how to handle the
requirement. It is just at the moment that the practice is about
to sign a contract with an organization that promises they are
the answer that guidance is provided in one of the most
unexpected places - CMS FAQs!
While it may
seem like the appropriate place to find answers, the FAQs have
not historically given practice managers the insight that is
offered by CMS FAQ #13657. Assuming that the practice is already
aware of their responsibility to report immunization or
syndromic surveillance data to a public health agency, FAQ
#13657 addresses the requirements for identifying specialized
registries available to providers, or demonstrating due
diligence, and the criteria for claiming an exclusion for
Measure 3 of the Objective. The task at hand is to not
over-think the language that CMS included in the FAQ. Here's a
simple blue-print for how you can determine if there are any
specialized registries available to you, or if you will be able
to claim an exclusion and defend your determination.
Click here to read