counter stats
Texas Orthopaedic Association

TOA Patient Reported Outcomes Platform

Patient Reported Outcomes Platform


New Online Patient Reported Outcomes Platform Coming Soon


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.


Click here to learn more about the AO Patient Outcomes Center.


By offering the platform through TOA, TOA members would have the following benefits:

  • A volume discount. Due to the large size of TOA's membership, TOA will be able to access a lower cost for TOA members.

  • Benchmarking 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 conferences.

  • 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."

Click 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


Even though 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 more.

New Page 1


Texas Orthopaedic Foundation

Texas Orthopaedic PAC

Texas Society of Sports Medicine

Pay TOA Dues

Update Your Contact Info!



401 W. 15th Street #820

Austin, Texas 78701

Phone: 512-370-1505

Fax: 512-370-1515

Copyright 2005-2017 Texas Orthopaedic Association, All Rights Reserved.
Email comments to TOA by clicking on the envelope!