Do we have a problem with CCHIT 2.0?

[fred trotter]

I have not heard much about CCHIT since the townhall. I was very
pleased, they addressed all of the issues I was concerned with.

Everyone I have spoken with seems satisfied. I am inclined to embrace
the new verification models whole hog.

Can anyone think of a reason not to? Any lingering or new concerns? It
seems like a complete ( and mutual) victory but I just want to be sure
that we are not missing something.

-ft

--
Fred Trotter
http://www.fredtrotter.com

[Jeffrey Soble]

I think the devil is in the details on the modular certification process.

-Jeff Soble

[KeithS]

Fred,

what is the new cost of CCHIT certification? Is there a URL where
that might be stated? The previous $30K looked like a huge barrier
for FOSS s/w projects.

thanks.

-keith

[fred trotter]

It appears that we have nothing but either positive comments or questions about what happened.

Rather than try and accurately summarize, I would prefer to link in the pdf that CCHIT created to cover the new certification model.

http://tinyurl.com/kteyoq

My inaccurate summary:

They will no longer require updated certification based on version changes.
They will allow for site level certification. (which is open source friendly)
They will allow for modular certification (different products doing different parts)

-FT

[Edmund Billings]

The devil will be in the details.  But, they appear to have istened and have openned new avenues that may let the market decide while letting the industry innovate and evolve.

Bottomline is the EHR- S, site certification of meaningful use.  If the government is going to make incentive payments for meaningful use, they are going to have to get proof; reports or audits on the actual extent of use,  e.g. % of physicians doing CPOE.  Having the comprehensive product or modular certification may protect the buyer, but it does not certify use.  The Leapfrog Group’s survey data showed that the product did not correlate with use or quality results.  Only the specific implementation did.  The same product in two different settings could radically different results.  They recommended the implementations themselves be certified.  As Matt King said, “the same tool can be used to build a church or a brothel”.

While this path to certification was positioned for sites that had homegrown systems, what does that mean and how will it be defined?  In the software as a service and open source worlds today, where do you draw that line?  This one of those develish details to keep an eye on.

Edmund

---

From: fred trotter <fred.t...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <hard...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:10:18 -0700
To: <openh...@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <open-ehealth-...@googlegroups.com>, <hard...@googlegroups.com>
Conversation: [Hardhats] Re: [openhealth] Do we have a problem with CCHIT 2.0?
Subject: [Hardhats] Re: [openhealth] Do we have a problem with CCHIT 2.0?