DRAFT - May 5 & 6 MMIG Meeting Minutes
Agenda Item: Opening Remarks, Agenda Review, Approval of Minutes
Mr. Wesley opened the MMIG with an introduction of attendees. He briefly discussed that the MMIG meetings are intended to be quarterly to allow for introduction, update and closure of issues. Since February many efforts from the MEPRS Program Office have been addressed;DMHRSi, the POM process,the annual MEPRS Conference, testing completion of the Ambulatory Procedures Visits module enhancements, the annual EASIV Table updates, the preparation of a briefing to the General Accounting Office and Inspector General on the Services’ financial data processing and monthly reconciliation in support of data quality concerns with accrual funding initiatives. He commented that the MMIP is still being executed, and thanked all involved for their efforts.
Mr. Smith provided a review of the meeting agenda and received approval from all Services on the February minutesas written.
Agenda Item: Action Item Update
Ms.Doyle provided a review of Action Items from the Feb 04 MMIG meeting. The following comments regarding completed Action Items include:
#284 – In response to the AF’s previous concern that coordination of the Alpha sites was approved at the CIO level but not the Service level; Mr. Smith has an e-mail that specifically outlines SAIC’s notification process. Mr. Wesley asked that the e-mail be sent to the three Services for a future reference point.
#290 – Clarification was included in the initial Issue Paper for the functional description of the proposed Burn Center and re-forwarded to the Navy for review. Navy concurs and all Services are in agreement. The group agreed the description should be edited to state “to support hospitals in the local area” as opposed to the specificity of the San Antonio area. BBN is the approved FCC and the description will be written into the DoD 6010. Ms. Bacon will re-write the description as discussed to be inclusive of all Services and all locales.
#295 – Mr. Schuler stated that the Action appears to be contradictory in that it states there are no space limitations but also that it depends on MMIG data maintenance requirements. Mr. Smith explained that currently there are no space limitations but EAS PO needs to know the specifics regarding the amount of data to be stored and the requested archival time. The amount of data and length of time stored are therefore not limitations, but do affect the overall requirementson data storage and cost.
Ms. Bacon asked if this AI is related to EASIV 3.0. Mr. Smith confirmed that #295 was EAS 3.0 specific.
#301 – Ms. Lameo stated that there were additional tasks associated with this AI that were not listed. She stated that another issue was that different Services were putting different fixed and variable percentages on the SUEE tables and that the MMIG was looking for consistency. It was explained that there are actually 3 different ways to look at the data in EASIV: 1) a fixed variable put in at the MTF level 2) a fixed variable at the SUEE level that the Services identify and 3) a fixed variable that comes with the SEEC.
The reports that are printed in EASIV are only at the SUEE & SEEC level although each MTF can define their own. Will there be a standard of what is fixed vs. variable? Mr. Wesley stated that he thought this was developed for the EBC and he thought Ms. Heil had stated that the variable table has no effect on processing the data and the Services are not using it. Ms. Lameo asked if site-level data would be visible in EASi. Mr. Baker stated that Ms. Heil confirmed that each site will only be able to see their data. After continuing discussion, it was decided that the issue should be addressed at the MEPRS Conference where the MTFs would be asked whether they are using fixed and variable, how they are using it, and if we can take it out of EASIV.
The following comments regarding Open Action Items include:
#288 – Ms. Brooks will verify that Navy updated the APU/APV definitions.
#289 – Army & AF non-concur with the Family Practice Issue Paper. Mr. Wesley will follow-up with the Navy and brief the RMSC. (See Family Practice Issue Paper.)
#291 – Ms. Brooks will locate the initial external partnership/workload capture Issue Paper referenced by Ms. Cunningham at the Feb. 11-12, 2004 MMIG meeting and forward to TMA/Mr. Wesley.
#294 – Mr. Baker stated that Ms. Kate Burchess (Navy) was to do an analysis to determine if there is a difference between what is reported in STARSFL vs. EAS. Ms. Burchess stated that the analysis was complete and that the expense differences were very minor (app. 1.7%). Action Item will be closed.
#296 – Review implications of EASi not being deployed and provide recommendations for backup regarding archiving the data currently in EAS. Mr. Smith stated that Ms. Heil recommended if a site had major issues, she would have them forward their database to Park City Solutions, Inc. (PCS) for archival.
#297 – Space limitations and data volume performance issues: Mr. Smith stated the Army had turned in their information. MSgt Dorrian stated that the AF is dealing with theirs on a case-by-case basis.
Ms. Lameo stated that she had 2 Action Items which were not listed:
1)Perform an analysis of the Financial Pure files to determine the volume of records with current year expenses that are obligated as much as 5 years ago (FY 00/01).
Ms. Lameo found that AF has prior year obligations dating back to 1999 in their 2004 data which is consistent with Navy. The Army has prior year obligations dating back to 1997 and current year expenses were verified. Mr. Baker stated that DFAS regulations specify that obligations greater than 5 years must be paid with current year dollars. Mr. Wesley stated that the business rule must accommodate the DFAS regulations for managing O&M dollars.
2)Perform an analysis of inactive EORs (that have actually been mapped)and see how many are being used in the data. Ms. Lameo found quite a few but if the five year rule is followed then this Action Item is OBE.
Action Items: #321, #322, #323, #336
Agenda Item: Composite Health Care System (CHCS) Task Order Update
ADM Extract
Mr. Turner informed the MMIG members that the CHCS Change Package 232 (quick fixes for the ADM extract) have been made available to the sites to install since April 15, 2004. He stated that as of this meeting approximately 70% of the sites have downloaded and installed the software.
The Services varied in their decisions to process the new ADM file. The Navy has decided not to process any FY04 data. They will begin processing the ADM file in FY05. The Army will process FY04 data upon receipt of the new file and the Air Force will have their sites reprocess all FY04 data.
Action Item: #327
APV
Mr. Turner gave the MMIG an update regarding the status of the Ambulatory Procedure Module (APV). He stated that the APV module was successfully tested at the selected ALPHA site (Wright-Patterson AFB) in late April 2004. Currently, the APV module is waiting to be tested against CHCS II for convergence issues with CITPO’s Development Testing and Evaluation (DT&E) agent Integic. After successful testing the software will be sent to the Configuration Control Board (CCB) for deployment approval. Once approved by the CCB, the software will be released as a change package on the CITPO website for the military treatment facilities to download.
The Services were informed that EAS PO has completed testing of the EAS IV, WAM, APV utility and was presented the following options.
Option 1: EAS IV sites can continue to process using the current EAS IV business rules even after the CHCS WAM APV change package has been applied. EAS IV will continue to use the raw outpatient bed days (OBDs) to allocate cost pool costs rather than switch to weighted minutes of service (MOS).
Option 2: EAS IV sites can load the CHCS WAM APV utility and switch to using weighted MOS to allocate cost pool costs in EAS mid year. However, there are problems if they attempt to reprocess data processed prior to loading of the utility if they do not generate a new CHCS WAM file with weighted MOS.Specifically, EAS IV will error out since it is looking for weighted MOS that did not exist in the original file. There is a work around but it requires site level personnel to aggregate and manually enter the data.
After the discussion, the Service POCs agreed to implement the new business rules for WAM APV in FY05, rather than risk data quality issues by executing the new functionality mid-year FY04.
Mr. Turner lastly informed the MMIG members of CITPO's plans to freeze the CHCS II environment during OT&E from10 Maythrough18 June. CITPO feels that CHCS and CHCS II are so overburdened with change packages and updates that both must be "nearly frozen" at the same time. Only table updates and mission essential changes are expected to take place in the CHCS environment during this freeze period. Action Item: #326
Agenda Item: EAS IV Update
Ms. Audrey Heil (Principal Consultant, EAS/RITPO) briefed the MMIG on the status of the current and upcoming EAS IV releases for FY04 and FY05. The EAS IV releases discussed were 2.4.2.0 (FY04 Tables/CPT Tables), 2.5.0.0 (ADM/EAS IV Extract), 2.6.0.0 (DMHRSi/LCA), 3.0.0.0 (EAS IV Web Enabled Application), and 3.1.0.0 (EASi/ADM/DMHRSi).
I. EASIV 2.4.2.0 (FY04 Tables/CPT Tables)
Ms. Heil stated that this release includes the last of the FY04 table updates and the CPT Tables. She stated that all of the sites are close to 100% deployment.
II. EASIV 2.5.0.0 (ADM/EASIV Extract)
Ms. Heil stated that she will be releasing EASIV 2.5.0.0 on the week of May 10, 2004. She stated that the release does not require the sites use the ADM interface which gives the MTFs relief from the CHCS freeze beginning May 10, 2004 if they have not installed the CHCS CP 232. She stated that the EAS IV release notes makes reference to the CP 232, and that before the sites can process the ADM file in EAS, they must have CP 232 loaded. She also stated that the EAS IV repository will be updated within a week of the release of EAS IV 2.5 and that the beta sites may need a final script because they may not require a complete software load.
III. EASIV 2.6.0.0 (DMHRSi/LCA)
Ms. Heil stated that this release includes the MMIG approved virtual occupation code fix for DMHRSi and the correction of the file length of the SUEE for the Air Force. The release will also have the fix for the problem discovered by Naval Hospital New England (NHNE) related to the dataset change from a numeric character to an alpha one. The release will additionally contain DMIS ID and CPT Table updates. The System Acceptance Test (SAT) is scheduled May 24-28, 2004. The sites and the participants have been selected. Ms. Heil requested that the Navy, due to the unique setup of their NHNE datasets, select another Beta site to make sure the functionality of the new release is working properly. The DMHRSi/LCA test sites have been selected for the Beta test which will be starting in mid-June 2004 and the anticipated release of EAS 2.6 is slated for the end of July 2004.
IV. EASIV 3.0.0.0 (EASIV Web Enabled Application)
Ms. Heil stated the 3.0 release recently completed the System Integrated Testing (SIT) phase with RITPO DT&E. She stated that there were at least 200 issues discovered during this phase of the testing with 50% tester errors and the remainders were actual issues. All the errors have been reviewed and it was determined that there were no show stoppers. Ms Heil stated that EAS PO will ensure that regardless of the type of error, version 3.0 will replicate exactly what is on the client server today after the DT&E is successfully completed.
Ms. Heil informed the MMIG that EAS PO is in discussion with RITPO management regarding their recommendation to cancel the SAT for version 3.0 due to the software being incomplete and behind schedule. The MMIG agreed with the recommendation.
Action Item: #328
V. EASi Release 3.1.0.0 – EASi/ADM/DMHRSi
Ms. Heil stated the EAS 3.0 will not be deployable after the testing cycle is completed due to schedule impacts and software issues. She stated that there would be another EAS IV release version 3.1, which would include the ADM interface due for release in 2.5 and the DMHRSi changes included in the 2.6 release. It was noted that development of 3.1 would go through a full cycle of testing and is contingent on RITPO release of a follow-on contract. This release will also contain the six SCRs built in the 3.0 release. Ms. Heil also stated that these are the only SCRs that were approved for funding for this release.
FY05 Tables Update
Mr. Turner updated the MMIG on the progress of the FY05 tables meetings. He confirmed the individual Service review dates:
- Navy - TuesdayMay 11, 2004 @ 1:00 pm
- Army – Thursday May 13, 2004 @ 10:00 am
- Air Force – Wednesday May 19, 2004 @ 2:00pm
There will also be a TMA/Service tables meeting Thursday May 20, 2004 @ 1:00 pm.
The group asked Ms Heil (EAS PO) if there would be an SQT for the FY05 Tables. Ms. Heil stated that the MMIG would need to determine what level of testing needed so she could try to accommodate the request or she could set up the informal testing scenario as she did for the FY04 tables for the MMIG to validate. The main concern of the group was that the FY05 Tables were validated and tested in time for DMHRSi coordination.
Agenda Item: DMHRSi Status
Mr. Smith reported that SQT Phase III activities are ongoing at Winn, Malcolm Grow and Jacksonville. The system is closer to full operational use at Jacksonville while the other two sites are in pre-preparation stages.
LCA – at JAX. RITPO and Oracle have been having teleconferences and are trying to process Feb. data as a complete month. One issue has been missing time cards. Processing of the EAS output file in JAX has not occurred but they have set up teleconferences to review the process. Some EAS audit and reconciliation reports did not run. ASMR update reported that 3 of the 4 reports are now working. RITPO is planning the next Web conference for the following week, but wanted to wait until the reports are all working.JAX will process Feb & March data. At Andrews and Winn they will process March & April data. RITPO initially planned on doing 2 months for each Service however given the time crunch, based on getting the time card issue corrected at JAX, they will only do 1 month for each Service. Mr. Schuler stated that JAX is having a lot of HR issues which affect LCA. There are a lot of adjustments being made behind the scenes and off-line which make it difficult to see the whole picture. Mr. Schuler explained the JAX HR problems include having people in the wrong people groups which means if they do have self service, it then goes to the wrong timekeeper. They also had the wrong timekeepers identified within the organization. Branch clinic personnel have not been getting their user names and passwords. AF confirms that they are seeing the same type of problems and would still like to see 2 months of data processed because each Service will have unique data issues. MSgt Dorrian reported that RITPO had abandoned the idea of batching 1 month’s data and starting self-service from that point and are currently at app. 40% and moving forward.
All agreed that it is critical that the HRSC understand that Services must be comfortable with the processes from JAX before moving ahead with only a 1 month data approach. Army addressed concerns regarding an outstanding manpower issue. Milestone C is scheduled June with system acceptance testing/limited deployment planned in July which means a lot of pressure will be exerted for Services to agree to limited deployment. Mr. Wesley stated that he asked in the HRSC when Milestone C approval is requested does that include processing end-to-end with the LCA.
Agenda Item: Issue Papers - Family Practice
Ms. Snoddy provided a brief summary on the consolidation of FCC for Family Practice Inpatient (FP IP). In the previous meeting conducted with the services, Army and Air Force did not concur with the Navy’s issue to consolidate FP IP FCC. Per Ms Bacon, the Army’s FP IP Specialty Advisor, COL Kugler is opposed to consolidation of FP IP FCC codes due to the extensive data/cost analysis performed within the FP IP area. The Air Force stated opposition to the consolidation of the FP IP codes and wants to keep the codes for Family Practice/Obstetrics GYN. MSgt Dorrian stated the Air Force is concerned about not having an adequate amount of OB providers to cover staff shortages in regular OB. Presently there’s no capability to determine who is performing OB workload.