BAT Committee Update

Business Case AssessmentDIRECT

March 28, 2012

Activity to-date• Established working group (November/December 2011)

– Charles Anderson, Computer Aid, Inc– Sam Milligan, LANTek– Sanjay Mittal, eHealth Objects– Michael Nelson, Health Market Science– Sean O’Rourke, Consilient Solutions

• Review of background materials and development of Business Assessment Template (1/12)– DIRECT Primer– BAT Committee presentation on DIRECT (from 8/11)– PAeHI project vetting form

• Initial team meeting with the volunteers to discuss the scope and approach for the project (2/7/12)

• Draft ‘mission statement’ for BAT DIRECT Project (2/12)• Follow up team meeting 3/13/12

Background

• Activity to-date (see previous)• Combination of top down assessment of HIE overall and

bottom up DIRECT/related services assessment:– Makes the most sense– Affords the best opportunity to add value

• Rationale:– Focus exclusively on DIRECT and it is not found to be an

attractive opportunity, we are ‘back to square one’– Including the top down perspective will make the DIRECT

business assessment better by considering the broader context in which it would be implemented

Two Pronged ApproachTop down• Start with the PA eHealth

Collaborative Strategic Plan• Assess the components of the

proposal and the PA HIE in terms of:– Broader market input (e.g., what

other HIE’s found to be of value (e.g., Indiana); PAeHI’s sustainability white paper, etc)

– High level evaluation criteria for each component in terms of business opportunity (e.g., fit with/value to PAeHI constituent’s needs, complexity of business/business model (ability to offer as a service))

Bottom up• Focus on specifics of DIRECT project and

supporting services (e.g., Provider directory, HISP services)– Competing activities and fees currently

being experienced by the provider– The fact that PA’s HIE, as a recipient of

federal funding, is required to offer DIRECT services and is choosing to allow for multiple, certified entrants is a positive consideration

• Additional considerations include:– Support for DIRECT from PA HIE (e.g., $2mm

in incentives being identified by PA for Providers who utilize DIRECT)

– Ability of DIRECT to satisfy connectivity requirements for MU Stage 2

– Existing service offerings and price points for DIRECT solutions

Issues and Next Steps• Issue(s):

– Top down approach seems to be very similar to or at least a part of activity that would be more broadly addressed as the PAeHI Board decides whether to continue to assess and possibly compete for a longer term governance role for PA HIE

– Bottom up approach would seem to really fall more appropriately within the context of HIE committee (or at a minimum have significant active participation from HIE committee)

• Next Steps:– Discussion with PAeHI leadership 3/26/12– Presentation at 3/28/12 PAeHI breakout session (today)– Request for additional participation

• Provider representation• Other interested parties

Contact: Sean O’Rourke orourkesa@gmail.com