can't see the link?

Neither can I

download PPT slides here: https://knconsultingnet-my.sharepoint.com/:p:/g/personal/khoa_nguyen_kn-consulting_net/EQA0q77b9SxChzTl6Sf2uMUBGSAfNDp6Z7SiIYrNx0SjdQ?e=75M4lv

Bonnie Briscoe-Colusa County

Cindy Leggett, Ventura County BH

Nicole Salazar, Ventura County

Cecilia Serrano, Alameda County

Chet Spikes, Contra Costa County

Kyle Willman, Butte County

Tracie Lima, Siskiyou County

Yiguo Zhang, Merced County

Karen Vaughn, Amador County

Reuben Gomez, Solano County

Ates Temeltas, Contra Costa County

Cynthia Emerson, San Diego County

Miyoko Johnston, Butte County

Isaura Prado- Merced County

See Her, Merced County

Camille Peterson Alameda County BH

Nathan Hobbs, Sonoma County

Edison Chalabi - San Joaquin County

Elissa Velez, SF County

Danielle Gold, Placer County

Jennifer Martinez, supporting Alameda County

Pam Sidhu, Yolo County

Katie Smith, Marin County

Pete Hernandez, Placer County

Melanie Kuhn, Yolo County

I may have misunderstood that it was just those 4 items that were needed. I think we might be in Somewhat Easy category instead.

Jade Phan, Alameda County

Steve Hahn-Smith, Contra Costa County

Russ Catalan, Humboldt County

Ultimately, this will be easy. That is because we already have access to the data . Further, the publishing of this information will be achieved via a vendor collaboration. Thus, any heavy-lifting will be done by the vendor providing this solution. The only challenge has been gaining a full understanding of the requirement itself. Dave Roman - Ventura County

Wouldn't the 274 requirement meet this need?

The 274 is way overkill, but certainly would work. The vendor would just have to filter out 98% of the 274 data.

agree

In Sonoma - we have had significant staff turnover at all levels, and recruitment is extremely challenging in filling those vacancies. We also have limited IT resources.

Would an 837 file already meet this requirement?

In LA we already have a fairly robust data warehouse, data extraction processes, established data exchange processes, etc.

If what we're really saying is 'Paid' claims... then maybe it's the 835 file we want to look at?

So claims/encounters data would that be only approved claims or any encounter regardless of billable/unbillable status?

This may be less challenging when we move to a new EHR in 2023. In the current EHR it would be difficult.

Question - for the provider list do we have to identify the resources down to the staffing? Such as MH Clinicians?

Trying to understand if we have to keep track of our Contract Providers staff?

Yes as they would be considered part of your provider network. If the staff are part of an agency, it’s the agency that gets listed, not their staff

Can you post the slides in the chat again please?

download PPT slides here: https://knconsultingnet-my.sharepoint.com/:p:/g/personal/khoa_nguyen_kn-consulting_net/EQA0q77b9SxChzTl6Sf2uMUBGSAfNDp6Z7SiIYrNx0SjdQ?e=75M4lv

That's interesting Chris as we have been putting out our provider directory with our contracted provider staff who provide outpatient services. NACT and 274 also requires us to list them.

we also provide services for which their is no payment expected. however if a client were to ask for their clinical history those services would be included

Are those services captured as a code or in any structured way?

I accidentally sent this privately so sending again. Per IN 18-020 Provider Directory requires down to staffing for outpatient services, including if working at a contract agency, yet does not require including unlicensed staff or peer providers.

Good to know and thanks for that clarification re: 18-020

Are these 3rd party apps replacing the client portal? Why do both?

Can be both. The idea is to give consumers the ability to choose their method of accessing their info (app, portal, etc)

However, the requirement is to have the API

do you have a link where we can get all the recordings of session 1,2,and 3?

@Kevin, you can find the recordings here: https://www.calmhsa.org/cms-interoperability-planning/

Would a revocation due to a data breach within a third party app be "exempt" from being considered Data Blocking?

This sounds like a black box. Except there's a lot of confidential information at risk here... That requires a large amount of trust given to any vendor used to provide these solutions.

I agreed with Dave. Easy to say but in reality, data is transferred to many places … very risky ...

What's the liability of managing these apps? How much oversight do we need to have? If they get hacked, or do something sketchy, what do we do? Do we have to review all their ToS before approving them? It feels like our clients could be taken advantage of by sketchy 3rd party apps, since they don't have to sign any BAA. Can you comment?

To clarify, our clients are some of the most vulnerable, since people seen at county mental health have severe mental illness, to the point where basic skills are sometimes lacking (no housing, no budgeting, no money, difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy, etc.). It's hard enough for well-functioning people to read ToS and understand them

"Consent" is like pushing the security responsibility and risk taking to client.

In response to Yuk Kiu Lee: Clients are allowed to give consent but we're required to make sure they're INFORMED about what they're consenting to. This seems to remove that piece.

What is the relationship between approving/rejecting apps and the Information Blocking rules?

One chart that would help would be a step-by-step flow of who does what, and when. Showing from setting up and publishing a site, to client interaction and consent, to random 3rd party apps seeing client data.

Potentially the most important information we need to grasp is the variety of all of the requirements coming at us from these multiple agencies. Then identify the overlaps as well as the unique requirements...