Category Archives: Centers for Disease Control

Social Media and Environmental Health: Call for Ideas

Posted on by

How do changes in the environment affect human behavior and human health?   Even events as traumatic as the 2010 Deep Horizon oil rig disaster left few fingerprints of mental or behavioral effects using traditional public health survey technology.  Are there few effects, or do traditional methods fail to discern them?  The inability of hypothesis-driven surveys to yield medical diagnoses doesn’t mean that families’ health behaviors, social or economic well-being and connection to the gulf haven’t changed in meaningful ways.

Sudden changes to local waters can create big effects.  The 1993 Milwaukee cryptosporidium outbreak (from Lake Michigan drinking water) killed nearly 100 people and left an entire city on edge for years every time it rained heavily.   2014’s sudden, if temporary, loss of municipal drinking water in Toledo, OH (due to harmful algal blooms) and Charleston, WV (due to a chemical spill) indicate how fragile human health and community well-being are in the face of sudden environmental changes (which will increase with anthropomorphic climate change).   Gradual changes in environmental quality, such as mercury and PCB contamination of fish and rising beach closings from sewage pollution affect large populations and major economic activities, but their effects are harder to assess.

Does environmental degradation spur diarrhea or depression, anxiety or apathy, fishing or flight?  What is the time course and effect size of different types of events on both human health and human attitudes?   Historians and archeologists try to answer such questions using old letters, diaries and physical evidence.   Today massive new caches of information have become far more immediately available as each of us leaves a near-real time internet trail of observations (posts, photos), emotions (“likes”, emoticons and “flameouts”), actions (consuming, advocating), location changes (visiting, avoidance, in- or out-migration) and physiologic measurements (from our FitBits and Apple watches).  These data are now time-stamped, geo-positioned, #hashtagged and otherwise encrusted with useful metadata.  Methods to create, mine and understand such massive, untidy data are evolving as rapidly in civil society/non-profit organizations, marketing firms, and technology start-ups as in academia or government.

I was recently honored to be named US co-chair of the Health Professional Advisory Board (HPAB) of the International Joint Commission (IJC), a treaty-based organization that has been preventing and resolving US-Canada conflict over our thousands of miles of shared shorelines and waters since 1907.   IJC has issued a Request for Information (due July 24, 2015) asking businesses, civil society organizations, academics, government agencies and individuals to describe or propose how to use social networking and similar internet information to study changes in human health and behavior contemporaneous with environmental change in our boundary waters.   Please forward this Request for Information to anyone who might be able to contribute.

A High Altitude View of US Public Health Systems

Posted on by

The long-awaited second edition of Springer-Verlag’s Public Health Informatics and Information Systems was released this winter under the able editorship of JA Magnuson and Paul Fu.  I was privileged to write a chapter on US public health information systems, and took the perspective of a newcomer asking: “How did US systems come to be this way?”

That states perform surveillance, vital registration and other functions in divergent ways using non-interoperable systems is an artifact of an decentralized eighteenth-century constitution that delegated public health authority to state, not national government.   Today this lack of standardization is a source of aggravation in the face of increasing HIT interoperability driven by Meaningful Use and EHR certification.   The federal government has levers to increase standardization in public health just as it does in health care, including facilitating inter-state consensus, adopting industry standards, and making their use a condition of funding.  Inconsistency of priority, direction and funding over the past two decades has failed to deliver standardization now when it is most urgent.

Despite this, I was able to direct emerging informaticians to the products of several recent attempts to standardize public health business processes, vocabularies, and data formats across system domains as varied as chronic disease surveillance, immunization management, newborn screening, vital statistics and communicable disease surveillance.  I like to think there will be less “wheel re-invention” as a consequence.

On the other hand I was disappointed to see how few of these are reflected in the current CDC Public Health Information Network website.  PHIN ideally would provide “one source of truth” regarding standardized information exchange for health departments. If the website is any indication the plan to resuscitate national efforts for public health interoperability has stalled once more.   It would be wonderful if the textbook’s 3rd Edition could direct learners with confidence to a federal source for public health information exchange and interoperability specifications and profiles.

I’m delighted to see that my chapter is among those most often accessed online.  Nevertheless, I cannot help but hope that rapid progress in US public health information systems will push it quickly out of date!

Network with ATL Colleagues: INTERFACE Weds. APRIL 2, 2014

Image

NTERFACE:ATL networking event WEDNESDAY, April 2nd from 6:30-8:00 pm at Marriott Courtyard lobby bar

Please join my INTERFACE:ATL networking event THIS WEDNESDAY, April 2nd from 6:30-8:00 pm at the Marriott Courtyard lobby bar, 130 Clairemont Ave. in Decatur.
Meet health informatics peers to learn who’s doing what. Several state epidemiologists will likely be on hand. Free to attend, pay own food and drink. See you Wednesday!

Stage 2 MU Guidance for Health Departments Published, Funding Lags

Posted on by

The first year of Stage 2 Meaningful Use requirements is coming up fast (October, 2013).  Meaningful use participants will need to achieve ongoing submission of public health reports to health departments.  A multi-organizational taskforce has issued guidance materials for local and state health departments to help them 1) declare their readiness to receive data from eligible professionals (EPs) and hospitals (EHs); 2) establish systems whereby EPs and EHs register their intent to submit data; 3) on-board data submitters; and 4) provide necessary acknowledgement of on-going data submission.  That’s a lot to get ready for!  (Some health departments are also acquiring electronic health record (EHR) systems and will themselves need to demonstrate that they are meeting other Meaningful Use objectives as well.)

Unfortunately, as in earlier years, the President’s FY 2014 proposed budget fails to include dedicated funding to help health departments exchange information with EHR systems (with the notable exception of the National Healthcare Safety Network, which is not part of Stage 2 Meaningful Use regulations).  State health departments are heavily dependent (45%) on federal funding, especially from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  While several CDC funding programs encourage recipients to use funds for achieving connectivity for Meaningful Use Population and Public Health objectives, CDC’s proposed budgets for programs that would support meaningful use objectives (like immunization and emergency preparedness) would shrink in 2014.  Health departments may indirectly benefit from increased funding for ONC if it facilitates health information exchange, and in a few states partial funding for public health information exchange is addressed in state Medicaid plans.  Most affected health departments will need to make do with existing or shrinking resources as Stage 2 ratchets up expectations.

The ONC’s budget proposal (page 33) seems to suggest that ONC is establishing a dashboard of public health participation in meaningful use information exchange.  This would be an important indicator for policy-makers and public health advocates to watch.

Who will you meet? Food, drink, informatics networking in DC near TEDMED April 18

Posted on by

Join our first Washington DC area INTERFACE networking salon for those interested in improving public health through informatics.   After work, just blocks from TEDMED 2013 –there’s no telling who you’ll meet!  Join us Thursday, April 18 from 5:30-7:00 pm at the Notti Bianche bar inside GW University Inn, 824 New Hampshire Blvd NW.   Just steps from the Foggy Bottom Metro.  No charge; excellent food and drink available for purchase.   RSVP at sfoldy@sbcglobal.net.  Pass it on!

Meaningful Use and the Learning Health System-HIMSS

Posted on by

At the 2013 Health Information Management Systems Society (HIMSS) meeting in New Orleans on March 3 I’ll provide guidance to the Physician IT Seminar on how to convert Meaningful Use advances in electronic health records and health information exchange into real learning opportunities to improve care and health.  The Institute of Medicine’s vision for a Learning Health System is “by 2020, 90% of clinical decisions will be supported by accurate, timely, and up-to-date clinical information and will reflect the best available evidence.”  How do the Meaningful Use rules carry us closer to this goal?

I’ve diagrammed critical elements for a learning health system, below.  At its base, and most critically, the electronic health record (EHR) captures information.  This may be entered by clinicians, or received from either patients or other health care providers.  This use of the EHR to “learn about the patient” is fundamental to all other improvements in care.

Various objectives in Stage 1 and 2 Meaningful Use require data capture.  They also require that EHRs be able to exchange information with other clinicians and to some extent with patients.  Meaningful Use objectives also require public health reporting, quality reporting, and decision support, each setting the stage for still more sophisticated learning.

Today, naturally, many providers are obsessed with the implementation of the Meaningful Use objectives and the receipt of incentive payments.  But it is never too soon to consider how these EHR objectives can be pressed into the service of “accurate, timely, and up-to-date clinical information and… the best available evidence.” It is already happening.   For example, in late 2012 a mysterious surge in fungal meningitis cases was detected in Tennessee, and was rapidly traced to certain lots of injection steroids produced by the New England Compounding Center.  Little was known about how to treat the predominant fungus,  Exserohilum rostratum.  Investigators used electronic health record reviews to rapidly identify exposed patients, and to track the success of treatment.   A rapid decline in case mortality among infected persons resulted within just two weeks.  That is truly a learning health system in action.*

Information alone does not bring about learning.  Learning requires a “central nervous system” to process incoming information in light of other knowledge.   Public health agencies, like local and state health departments, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are examples of such “central nervous systems.”  But a good brain is useless without being attached to sensory and motor organs.   The Exserohilum rostratum outbreak helps show the Meaningful-Use-certified EHR is beginning to serve a valuable sensory function.   Equipped with decision support tools, it is destined to be a powerful motor organ as well.

 

*Thanks to the American Medical Informatics Association Public Health Informatics Workgroup for a great webcast on informatics use and needs associated with this outbreak.

Stage 2 Meaningful Use begins this year. Is public health ready?

Posted on by

Thousands of eligible professionals and hospitals will have to meet Stage 2 requirements for the Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program (“Meaningful Use”) in the coming year.  Some hospitals may seek to attest to Stage 2 objectives as soon as 12 months from now.  For healthcare providers, failure to achieve objectives can put thousands or millions of dollars of incentive payments at risk.  Will health departments be ready to meet them half way in information exchange?  The answer depends on whether they are preparing now.  Absent a strong project plan in the next few months, the answer may be “no”.

Here is a checklist for health departments to consider:

1. Are you prepared for MORE DATA?  The standard for Stage 2 rises to on-going data submission, rather than just sending a test message.   Are you ready to receive, parse and use steady streams of data from many healthcare providers?  Health departments can still manage the pace of on-boarding new providers, but must do so in a way that does not put providers at risk (see points 6 and 7).

2. Are you ready to accept MORE TYPES of reporting from each provider?  In Stage 1 providers could select only one of several “menu” public health objectives.  Some menu options in Stage 1 are now required (“core”) in Stage 2.  For example, hospitals must submit ALL OF immunization data,  electronic laboratory reporting and syndromic surveillance reports to health departments ready to accept them.   Eligible professionals must submit immunization data AND  select from other menu objectives (including several public health options) to obtain their incentive.

3. Are you prepared to use HL7v2.5.1 messages for immunizations and syndromic surveillance?  Two standards to choose from in Stage 1 created confusion and frustration, so there is only one standard for each Stage 2 objective.   However…

4. Are you willing to GRANDFATHER providers that have achieved on-going submission of HL7v2.3.1 messages in Stage 1?  This option is up to the health department, and can help you avoid having to re-on-board those providers already successfully submitting data using HL7v2.3.1.  Any new data providers must use v2.5.1 however.

5. Will you accept CANCER REGISTRY data documents using the Clinical Document Architecture standard specified in Stage 2? Do you intend to sponsor any other SPECIALIZED REGISTRIES in 2014?   These are new “menu” options for Eligible Professionals.

6. Do you have a plan to publicly DECLARE READINESS of what public health reporting objectives you will offer for Eligible Professionals and Eligible Hospitals during each reporting period?  Because providers need timely and definitive information, Stage 2 rules now allow providers to claim EXEMPTION from public health meaningful use objectives if such a declaration is not publicly available for their jurisdiction.  (Public health departments need not receive data for any or all objectives, but if they wish providers to be motivated by Meaningful Use incentives to submit data, they must publicly state in advance of each reporting period which objectives will be accepted.)  A closely related issue: if more than one jurisdiction in a state receives Meaningful Use data submission (for example, if there are both local and state level syndromic surveillance or immunization information systems) are state and local departments planning to COMMUNICATE CLEARLY  which exchange opportunities and requirements apply to which jurisdictions?

7. How will you manage Eligible Professionals and Eligible Hospitals that intend to initiate data submission during each reporting period?  Stage 2 rules require providers to REGISTER their intent to submit data with the appropriate health department.   The health department need not then immediately on-board the provider, but has the option to later disqualify a registered provider from receiving incentives if it fails to respond within 30 days to two written requests to take action (i.e., to begin sending test data, or to adjust transmission, structure or vocabulary to the required standards).

8. Do you intend to DESIGNATE a Health Information Exchange to receive some public health data submissions?  To ensure good end-to-end transmission of reports, HIEs cannot claim to substitute for health departments unless they are designated to do so.

9. Is there CLOSE COORDINATION and a RESPONSIBLE OVERALL MANAGER linking planning with each of the affected surveillance programs (and jurisdictions), the state HIT coordinator, Medicaid director and HIT Extension Center?

[And 10. for health departments using EHRs and enrolled in the EHR Incentive Program: Will my EHR migrate to 2014 edition certification standards, and can we meet Stage 2 objectives to earn our incentive?]

Obviously, serious planning is needed.  Some health departments may be asking: is all this worth the effort?  It is critical to remember that:

1. Meaningful use is establishing the de facto standards that will be used for information exchange in the future.  The faster health departments adopt the new national standards and on-board data submitters, the faster they can be automating data management and the detection and management of critical events.   This can serve both effectiveness AND efficiency.  National data and exchange standards will foster the ability of vendors and development of systems to aid health departments with these tasks.

2. Before long, most providers will have electronic health records that are all certified to capture and transmit information in standardized ways.   Onerous reporting processes for providers, and incomplete reporting to health departments, can both be addressed to the benefit of both through automation.  

3. Health departments can decide the pace at which they enroll providers in Meaningful-Use-specified data exchange.  Health department participation is optional, but Meaningful Use incentives (and later, penalties) will induce providers to begin submission whenever the health department is ready.   What the new Stage 2 rules demand in return is that health departments communicate clear plans and requirements to providers.  It is the latter who then face financial loss if objectives aren’t met.

4. The new rules continue to support the idea of “queuing providers” and on-boarding them at the pace the health department can tolerate.  Once providers are registered, they are not at risk of losing their incentive UNLESS they fail to respond timely (30 days) to requests from the health department.  The health department can invite registered providers to initiate data exchange at whatever pace is practical, and neither party “gets hurt.”

5. Stage 3 will likely move beyond surveillance to improving preventive care delivery.  For example, immunization information systems (which by Stage 3 will be bulging with information submitted by hundreds of thousands of healthcare providers) will likely be able to alert professions to immunizations patients lack, using the EHR during the context of care.

It may be a tough slog now, but there’s much to gain at the far end!

Fortunately, a Stage 2 Task Force of affected public health associations has formed under the leadership of the Joint Public Health Informatics Task Force, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC).  It will soon be issuing fact sheets and other tools, which will likely be distributed at the NACCHO ePublic Health Blog among other modalities.

 

 

Dear NPR: There IS a treatment for that diagnosis: electronic health records and immunizations

Posted on by

NPR’s All Things Considered yesterday described “growing pains” in health information technology (HIT) by saying many doctors in Colorado had to enter immunization records twice: first into their Electronic Health Record (EHR) system, and then into the state’s immunization registry.   According to the story, many doctors fail to do both

In fact, immunization registries, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the HHS Office of the National Coordinator for HIT, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have worked together to implement solutions for this problem.*  The federal EHR Incentive Program (better known as “Meaningful Use”) includes an objective for EHR systems to upload shot records into immunization registries, eliminating the “double entry” problem.  The Colorado registry has implemented the necessary standards, and instructions for doing so are published on the same website cited in the NPR story.

This process is still not simple.  But the needed standardization is further improved in Stage 2 of Meaningful Use, scheduled to begin in October 2013.  And in October 2015 federally-certified EHRs could be required to download immunization records and alerts for clinicians about which vaccines a patient lacks.   Such automated data and reminders are needed to accelerate the completeness of childhood immunization which remains subpar.

I appreciate NPR’s attention to this challenging issue.  But while various difficulties affect the transition to electronic health records, NPR inadvertently selected a success story to illustrate the problems.

*Full disclosure: I was among those involved in this collaboration.