Zoom Logo

CMS Interoperability Planning Collaborative Session 3 - Shared screen with speaker view
Cindy Leggett
15:43
can't see the link?
Alys Herring, San Mateo County BHRS
15:58
Neither can I
Khoa Nguyen, CalMHSA and KN Consulting LLC
16:02
download PPT slides here: https://knconsultingnet-my.sharepoint.com/:p:/g/personal/khoa_nguyen_kn-consulting_net/EQA0q77b9SxChzTl6Sf2uMUBGSAfNDp6Z7SiIYrNx0SjdQ?e=75M4lv
Bonnie Briscoe
19:39
Bonnie Briscoe-Colusa County
Cindy Leggett
19:40
Cindy Leggett, Ventura County BH
nicole salazar
19:44
Nicole Salazar, Ventura County
Cecilia Serrano
19:52
Cecilia Serrano, Alameda County
Chet Spikes, Contra Costa County
19:52
Chet Spikes, Contra Costa County
Kyle Willman
19:53
Kyle Willman, Butte County
Tracie Lima, Siskiyou County
19:54
Tracie Lima, Siskiyou County
Yiguo Zhang
19:58
Yiguo Zhang, Merced County
Karen Vaughn
19:58
Karen Vaughn, Amador County
Reuben Gomez
20:01
Reuben Gomez, Solano County
Ates Temeltas
20:07
Ates Temeltas, Contra Costa County
Cynthia Emerson, San Diego County
20:10
Cynthia Emerson, San Diego County
Miyoko Johnston
20:16
Miyoko Johnston, Butte County
Isaura Prado
20:19
Isaura Prado- Merced County
See Her
20:25
See Her, Merced County
Camille Peterson, Alameda County BH
20:42
Camille Peterson Alameda County BH
Nathan Hobbs, Sonoma County
20:46
Nathan Hobbs, Sonoma County
Edison Chalabi - San Joaquin
20:46
Edison Chalabi - San Joaquin County
Elissa Velez
20:55
Elissa Velez, SF County
Danielle Gold
20:58
Danielle Gold, Placer County
Jennifer Martinez, Alameda County
21:01
Jennifer Martinez, supporting Alameda County
Perminder Sidhu
21:27
Pam Sidhu, Yolo County
Katie Smith
21:50
Katie Smith, Marin County
Kevin Griffiths
22:06
Pete Hernandez, Placer County
Melanie Kuhn
22:19
Melanie Kuhn, Yolo County
Jen Terhorst - Nevada County
26:28
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
27:25
Jade Phan, Alameda County
Stephen Hahn-Smith
28:07
Steve Hahn-Smith, Contra Costa County
Russ Catalan
28:35
Russ Catalan, Humboldt County
Dave Roman
29:02
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
Perminder Sidhu
30:53
Wouldn't the 274 requirement meet this need?
Dave Roman
33:26
The 274 is way overkill, but certainly would work. The vendor would just have to filter out 98% of the 274 data.
Khoa Nguyen, CalMHSA and KN Consulting LLC
33:43
agree
Chris Marlow, Sonoma
36:24
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.
Dave Roman
36:56
Would an 837 file already meet this requirement?
Paul Arns (LACDMH)
39:51
In LA we already have a fairly robust data warehouse, data extraction processes, established data exchange processes, etc.
Dave Roman
40:50
If what we're really saying is 'Paid' claims... then maybe it's the 835 file we want to look at?
Perminder Sidhu
40:51
So claims/encounters data would that be only approved claims or any encounter regardless of billable/unbillable status?
Jen Terhorst - Nevada County
41:10
This may be less challenging when we move to a new EHR in 2023. In the current EHR it would be difficult.
Ramona Diaz - El Dorado County
41:28
Question - for the provider list do we have to identify the resources down to the staffing? Such as MH Clinicians?
Ramona Diaz - El Dorado County
47:11
Trying to understand if we have to keep track of our Contract Providers staff?
Chris Esguerra
48:28
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
Ivan Carrasco
52:30
Can you post the slides in the chat again please?
Khoa Nguyen, CalMHSA and KN Consulting LLC
53:09
download PPT slides here: https://knconsultingnet-my.sharepoint.com/:p:/g/personal/khoa_nguyen_kn-consulting_net/EQA0q77b9SxChzTl6Sf2uMUBGSAfNDp6Z7SiIYrNx0SjdQ?e=75M4lv
Andrew Bastaros, Shasta County
54:17
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.
Janet Biblin/Alameda County
57:02
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
Chris Esguerra
57:46
Are those services captured as a code or in any structured way?
Cathy Woodhall, Solano
57:47
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.
Chris Esguerra
58:42
Good to know and thanks for that clarification re: 18-020
Dave Roman
59:29
Are these 3rd party apps replacing the client portal? Why do both?
Chris Esguerra
01:01:18
Can be both. The idea is to give consumers the ability to choose their method of accessing their info (app, portal, etc)
Chris Esguerra
01:03:01
However, the requirement is to have the API
Kevin Griffiths Placer County
01:04:21
do you have a link where we can get all the recordings of session 1,2,and 3?
CalMHSA Interoperability Team
01:04:54
@Kevin, you can find the recordings here: https://www.calmhsa.org/cms-interoperability-planning/
Paul Arns (LACDMH)
01:10:30
Would a revocation due to a data breach within a third party app be "exempt" from being considered Data Blocking?
Dave Roman
01:13:47
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.
Yuk Kiu Lee
01:16:46
I agreed with Dave. Easy to say but in reality, data is transferred to many places … very risky ...
Charla Rowe, Humboldt County, QI Clinician
01:20:19
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?
Charla Rowe, Humboldt County, QI Clinician
01:23:22
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
Yuk Kiu Lee
01:23:24
"Consent" is like pushing the security responsibility and risk taking to client.
Charla Rowe, Humboldt County, QI Clinician
01:26:09
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.
Paul Arns (LACDMH)
01:28:08
What is the relationship between approving/rejecting apps and the Information Blocking rules?
Dave Roman
01:29:02
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.
Dave Roman
01:42:36
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...