DRAFT
26 February 2003 MMIG Meeting Minutes
Opening Remarks
The meeting was opened by Mr. Pat Wesley, MMIG Chairman. The minutes from the 5 November 2002 meeting were approved. The MMIG Chairman requested the Service POCs ensure their Resource Management Steering Committee (RMSC) member review/or is briefed on the MMIG minutes in accordance with the MMIG Charter.
Old Business
ADM EAS IV Extract Testing
Mr. Meadows briefed the MMIG on the recent re-testing of the ADM EASIV extract at Great Lakes Naval Hospital (GLNH) 3 – 7 Feb 03 (see atch 1). The briefing covered the Dec 02 testing results, the re-testing in Feb 03, the remaining actions, and recommendations for the MMIG. He praised the support and participation of the GLNH MEPRS staff who were key to the success of the testing effort. During the Dec 02 testing, he briefed that ETU process worked, the file content matched the file layout, and the software load was successful. He also noted that significant software problems were identified that resulted in the extract not bringing over the expected number of records (record type two) and the reporting of inaccurate summary percentages for all three types of extracts (record type 3). He stated that SAIC developed a System Incident Report (SIR) with four addendums to fix the software problems. After the software fixes were programmed and internally tested the Alpha test group went back to GLNH and re-tested the extract. He reported that group accomplished a line-item data element audit of the record type two of 400 records on the first testing event and over 1,200 records on the re-test. During the retest he reported that all extracts passed the internal consistency and external validity tests. The testing will be complete upon importation and validation testing by PCSI. There were zero errors identified during the re-test. The following issues were briefed to and discussed by the MMIG:
a. Did not test electronic transfer utility (ETU) for Orphan sites during either Alpha testing event. This will need to occur during EASIV BETA testing.
b. PCSI will be unable to display running record totals and percentages during importation of the extract into EASIV. Only the original automated, or recovery extract summaries and totals will be displayed at import. Running summaries will be available for view after validation.
c. The ADM Compliance Report is a good tool for assessing the level of coding completion of a facility, but not for reconciliation since it does not identify whether the SADR was transmitted.
d. The SAIC-developed AD Hoc report is too bulky and cumbersome to use for reconciliation.
e. The ADM Interface Transmission Report, if modified, could serve as useful reconciliation report. This will require a System Change Request (SCR) if CITPO does not act on the recommendation made by SAIC.
f. Initially the MMIG did not establish the processing percentage thresholds and requested that the Services establish these. The MMIG agreed to re-address this issue after the Health Affairs coding policy memos and instructions are published.
g The Army was concerned about MEPRS coordinators not being familiar with the ADM process or having the security keys to run ADM reports. This will be addressed during EASIV Beta testing and limited deployment.
h The Army was concerned about the process for notifying the MEPRS coordinators the status of the extracts. Request was made to have an activity log stored in the ETU menu path. This would require an SCR.
i. The MMIG agreed to identify three sites for the EASIV Beta test and a follow-on limited deployment at those three sites for 4th quarter of FY03. Following this the MMIG Chairman will then brief the RMSC for a full deployment decision.
j The EASPO stated the release needs to be at the Beta sites by 1 July 03 to support a limited deployment.
k Final Government Acceptance of the extract will be recommended by the MMIG Chairman after successful Alpha testing of extract by PCSI.
ACTION ITEMS: 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
CHCS Task Order
Mr Smith confirmed approval of the WAM PRDD Documents by TMA and CITPO. He then reviewed the SAIC action items listing, confirming closure on all items except Action Item 3. “Government to verify whether to inactivate all BTST/ATST/BPMT/SSSS MEPRS codes upon installation”. The remaining issue was identification of replacement codes for the locations that have the codes above associated with them. SRA agreed to complete a data pull for the SSSS code to ensure limited usage. The Services agreed to inactivation of the locations and requested no replacement codes be identified. This would ensure anyone using these codes would have to request and appropriate code for future use. The services were informed of TMA and CITPO approval to combine the WAM and Ancillary enhancements for Alpha testing in July and deployment in September for load at the beginning FY04. The services were asked to ensure they had appropriate representation for the upcoming Ancillary/Order Entry enhancements SRR review.
Mr Wesley led the discussion on the status of the Ambulatory Procedure Visit (APV) module. He commented that we are not ready to address requirements for APV. The CHCS study initially stated the APV module required redesign since the system doesn’t accommodate how ancillary workload associated with APV’s is captured. He is starting with the policy and attempting to address this issue with the UBU. Based on his conversations with LTC McGowan (UBU Chairman), the UBU is questioning why the policy guidance is required.
Mr Wesley stated he is requesting SAIC minimize the burn rate on the task order in support of the APV module, until he can get a process and structure to address the policy issues. He will work with Lt Col McGowan, and decide how to proceed, bring back the outcome to the MMIG. There is potential for workgroup outside the MMIG to work the APV policy to support changes in system requirements. He is also, working with CITPO to assess the potential for extending the period of performance, at no cost to government. This will allow for development of the policy prior to identification of the specific requirements to support APV. He is expecting to have this resolved prior to the beginning of the fourth quarter FY03. The Army questioned if CHCS infrastructure allows the services to bill accurately for APV’s. It was stated that the bills for APV’s are the same as other CPT codes.
Mr Wesley requested the POCs take documentation to their respective Service subject matter experts and review again either directly or in conjunction with their Service UBU representatives. The bottom-line is APV enhancements may not be addressed, pending further review and approval of policy issues on which to base requirements.
ACTION ITEM: 231
EASi - EAS IV 3.0 (Web Enabled Application)
Ms. Audrey Heil presented a briefing to the MMIG for the upcoming EASi Web-Enabled application (see atch 2). Included in the brief was the overview of the current EAS IV architecture, the web-enabled EAS IV System, the future architecture of EAS IV 3.0, and a timeline for the project. Ms. Heil stated that this was purely a technical decision by RITPO to enhance the current EAS IV System. According to the briefing, there will be no changes to the current functionality of EAS IV. The schedule provided for this enhancement is employing the existing functionality. Additionally, there will be capacity testing by RITPO. The sites will be able to send their data to the client workstation or directly to DISA. The EAS IV account structure will be the same and the user levels are still to be determined. Based on previous discussions, RITPO will be meeting with the Service’s Central Design Agency (CDA) to give recommendations for deployment.
Park City Solutions – EAS IV Help Desk
Ms. Audrey Heil (EASPO, RITPO) represented Park City Solutions, Inc. (PCSI) and provided the MMIG an overview of the EAS IV Help Desk. She presented an EAS Help Desk Chart, specifically designed by the technical team at RITPO, which outlined the Tier level process and responsible parties. The discussion turned to the question asked by the Army POC of whether to use the MHS Help Desk versus EAS IV Help Desk for Tier I and II and when to call. She stated that in the UCAPERS contract the service level agreement for initial deployment of EAS IV was covered by a previous contractor for Tier II and III. Upon deployment, the contract agreement expired unless it was extended or renegotiated. The Army based on their previous contract, have no record of whether this occurred and asked if there was anything in writing that states that PCSI is contracted for only Tier III. Ms. Heil stated she would research that information and provide feedback. The Air Force and the Navy have no problems with the Tier help desk service. The Army requested training for Tier II functionality and was referred to the E-learning CD which EAS PO will follow-up and provide. After continued discussion of the PCSI help desk procedures, TMA requested to have representation at the monthly help desk trouble ticket meeting which was accepted by EAS PO.
Ms. Heil concluded the discussion by stating that the EAS PO was approached about joining the MHS Help Desk contract for IBM for Tier I and Tier II support. She explained that other than EAS, all other programs use the MHS Help Desk. She also stated that there will be a meeting with DISA and TEMPO to discuss the help desk and the current structure further. TMA requested a copy of the proposal to move EAS under the MHS Help Desk. Ms. Heil will add some of these issues in her curriculum at the upcoming MEPRS Conference in June 2003.
ACTION ITEMS: 232, 233, 234
New Business
T-Nex
LTC Eden (TMA/RM FA&I) gave an informational brief to the MMIG on T-Nex, the new TRICARE Managed Care Support Service Contract (MCSSC) for the MHS (see atch 3). The contracts cover healthcare and administration and will be phased in from April until Nov 04. This will require the MHS to be under both types of contracts until are regions are up. The main changes which impact MEPRS are:
a. Revised Financing dollars for all CONUS MTFs
b. Resource Sharing will change to be directly funded by the MTFs.
c. Claims processing cost will be tracked to the respective MTFs.
d. TRICARE Service Center (TSC) cost will remain centrally funded.
e. Healthcare from an MTF perspective will be paid on a cash basis.
f. There is no resolution as who would pay for the Prime Travel benefit.
g. There will be no more Bid-Price Adjustments.
h. There will be only three TRICARE regions and three contracts.
FY03 Strategic Planning
Mr. Meadows discussed the upcoming MMIG Strategic Planning update session scheduled for 12/13 March 03 at the Soza CPI Facility in Falls Church, VA. He reviewed the draft agenda noting that the guest speaker will be Ms Jean Storck, Director TMA/RM, and the session will be used to update the FY02 MMIP vice a complete re-write of the plan. He referenced two documents which contained the current status of the FY02 MMIP and Financial Sub-Working Group Objectives and tasks, noting that if an item was colored “green” it meant substantially completed, “yellow” a lot of work still needs to be done, and “white” no action has been taken to date on this task. He explained that during the session all objectives and tasks will be reviewed; however, the color coding scheme will allow us to target our efforts during the session. Mr Wesley stated the expected outcome from the session will be a revised list of prioritized objectives and tasks with a Microsoft Project Plan schedule outlining the timeline for accomplishment.
FY03 National MEPRS Conference
Mr. Wesley opened the discussion explaining that the rationale for changing the conference location from Orlando FL to the National Conference Center in Landsdowne, VA was due to funding constraints. He requested the Service POCs highly encourage participation in the conference to meet the numbers they projected for their specific Service. Concerning the curriculum, Mr. Herb Escobar (SRA) provided the MMIG two documents -- a draft MEPRS conference agenda consisting of four tracks and a list of synopses for planned sessions. Discussion ensued regarding the scheduling of Service-specific breakout time for Monday afternoon. The Air Force representative commented that it was best to leave time at the end of the conference for discussion of issues raised during the conference itself. Mr. Escobar said that because the conference facilities were not available beyond Thursday afternoon, moving the Service breakouts to the end of the conference would require eliminating sessions planned for Thursday afternoon.
The decision was made to conduct a follow-up discussion electronically. Mr. Escobar will originate an email discussion the week of 3 March 03 to validate the Service breakout requirements and research the possibility of eliminating planned sessions if required.
Ms. Sherry Stone (Army) questioned her being cited as POC of the Newbie Day curriculum and the planned session entitled “Educating your Stakeholders: Getting your Commanders and Clinicians Involved in MEPRS.” Mr. Escobar said that in prior conference meetings, the Air Force and Army agreed to share the development of the Newbie day curriculum since both had existing “introduction to MEPRS” educational materials currently being used by each Service. Mr. Escobar and Ms. Stone agreed to follow-up off-line regarding the “Educating your Stakeholders” presentation to confirm the intended learning objectives.
ACTION ITEMS: 235, 236
Standard Agenda