Federal Advisory Committees Seeking Input on Incorporation of Patient-Generated Data for Stage 3 Meaningful Use

Joshua Seidman PhD | June 18, 2012

ONC’s federal advisory committees (FACAs) held a full-day hearing on June 8 (written testimony can be found here) to explore how patient-generated health data (PGHD) might be incorporated into Meaningful Use (MU) of EHRs for Stage 3 of the EHR Incentive Programs. Some examples of PGHD are data from a patient’s personal health record, data from a blood glucose monitor, or information about a patient’s functional status. Three FACA workgroups hosted the hearing: The Health IT Policy Committee’s MU and Quality Measurement Workgroups, and the Health IT Standards Committee’s Consumer Engagement Power Team.

The hearing built off of not only the committee’s previous MU recommendations, but also its 2010 hearing on patient and family engagement. The blog generated several dozen thoughtful comments after the 2010 hearing, and we hope that will be the case with this blog post! ONC and the FACAs look forward to additional input via this blog, which will help inform the workgroups’ and committees’ future deliberations on recommendations for Stage 3. We encourage you to voice your perspectives in the comments section below.

In particular, the hearing and discussion among committee members generated many areas and concepts of great interest upon which we would appreciate comment. We’d greatly appreciate input on the following questions:

  • How can we ensure that patients’ reports of symptoms and their knowledge of their own contraindications make their way into EHRs?
  • Although there clearly is a need to have a structure for PGHD, does all PGHD for care management need to be in a structured form?
  • In order to manage the legal, policy, and operational issues associated with provider collection of PGHD, what should individual providers do to ensure they have a plan for managing that data?
  • Patients – particularly those living with chronic conditions – have an ongoing stream of information, for which clinical encounters with the delivery system are infrequent data points. What is the relationship between that data stream and the EHR?
  • Although PGHD has some specific needs, identification and sourcing of all data sources are important; how can addressing PGHD management issues help clarify how data sources are tagged more generally in the EHR?
  • For which health issues is it clear that patients and families are the authoritative source?
  • How should we balance the need to build in the capability for providers to incorporate structured PGHD into the EHR without being overly prescriptive?
  • Similarly, how should we balance the concern about being overly prescriptive with ensuring a certain degree of interoperability, usability and understandability of PGHD?
  • What important implications does PGHD have for the robustness of clinical decision support, quality measurement, and care coordination?
  • How can collection of PGHD address health disparities and what cautions exist to ensure that disparities are not widened?

We look forward to hearing from you.