Keith W. Boone is a Standards Geek for GE Healthcare. He is a member of the HL7 Board, and co-chairs the Patient Care Coordination Planning Committee for Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise. Keith writes regularly on his blog Healthcare Standards, where this post originally appeared.
You’ve all probably heard by now that there’s going to be a change to the Meaningful Use Stage 3 roll-out. This new strategy allows ONC to advance on Stage 3 in a step-wise fashion, without the all-or-nothing commitment to new standards present in prior years. So, what is in store? I don’t have any real inside track knowledge, just the same awareness that everyone else could have if they participate in standards development activities. These are my guesses.
- Blue Button Plus: Let’s face it, with all the discussion going on around patient access, and the really close proximity of V/D/T to Blue Button Plus already, this one is just a no-brainer. I’d be surprised if it wasn’t included.
- Laboratory Orders: The S&I Framework Laboratory Orders initiative has resulted in the HL7 Publication of a new implementation guide on Laboratory Orders. It’s a good bet they’ll want to try this out before making it a requirement of stage 3. I’d say this is a pretty solid bet.
- HeD and VMR for Clinical Decision Support: Why kill yourself trying to get something done quickly if not to use it? Thus I predict that HeD and VMR will be included in the 2015 criteria. I’m fairly certain these two will make an appearance.
- HQMF Release 2 for Quality Measures: Quality Measures released by CMS have been structured using HQMF Release 1 since the start of the Meaningful Use program. Release 2.0 of that DSTU makes them computable from within the EHR. Another pretty solid bet, but tempered by the fact that I’ve got a lot personally invested in this project, and may be more hopeful than reality might otherwise suggest.
- What is CCDA Release 2.0 for $357, Alex. I’m somewhat dubious here. Yes, I think ONC wants it, but I’d be very challenged to understand how it works alongside the currently selected work, especially as an optional certification. You’d have to support the 1.1 version as well, because some systems will only work with that. Yes, the structure is mainly the same, but the way that it is identified that makes it challenging. I’m hoping ONC treads carefully here, but I’d give this one even odds of being in the proposed rule, and some small chance it could drop out in the final rule.
My bets are placed. How about yours? Source
