Displaying 141-154 of 154 results for

Improving a State’s Process for Disclosing Data for Public Health Purposes to Tribal Public Health Organizations

Sustaining DMI: Medicaid Advanced Planning Document Process How state Medicaid agencies can request enhanced federal funding for Medicaid Enterprise Systems and related activities. Why is the Advanced Planning Document process important? Based on information from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Federal Register, the Advanced Planning Document (APD) process is a procedure through which states develop a plan of action for their Medicaid information technology (Medicaid IT) projects. These plans are for designing, implementing, or operating Medicaid Enterprise Systems (MES) projects. State Medicaid agencies (SMAs) submit completed APDs to CMS—specifically a designated state officer in the Center for Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Services (CMCS) Data and Systems Group (DSG)—to request federal financial participation for their activities. The state officer reviews APDs to assess whether states’ requests for federal financial participation for designing, developing, implementing, or maintaining MES activities contribute to the economic and efficient operation of Medicaid and meet specific technical and operational criteria defined in statute, regulation, or sub-regulatory guidance. A state that receives federal financial participation can see increased access to stable federal funding to support MES activities. In addition, APDs are used to monitor a state’s project performance and outcomes. What are the three types of APDs? There are three types of APDs: Planning, Implementation, and Operational (Table 1). Table - Resource - Sustaining DMI: Medicaid Advanced Planning Document Process What are the major steps for states in the APD process? To request enhanced federal funding for MES, SMAs must complete the APD template that aligns with where they are in the development of their project (for example, design or maintenance) and submit it to the designated CMCS DSG state officer. The APD process contains five major steps and can take many months to complete: Meet with key state contacts and decision-makers. Based on information from the Public Health Informatics Institute’s information and tip sheets, before developing the APD, the SMA should identify and engage key state contacts and decision makers to solicit their input about the proposed project and secure their and their staff’s collaboration to complete and submit the APD to the CMCS DSG state officer. The state health agency (SHA) should work closely with the SMA during this process to ensure that they provide needed support to the SMA. For example, the SHA may gather information for the SMA to include in the APD or advise on how to complete particular sections of the APD. During this process, the SMA and SHA should consult with their respective agency leadership to discuss the type of technological solutions Public Health maintains, Public Health’s relationship with the state Medicaid program, and the opportunity to align systems to reduce overall state costs and improve state efficiency through the APD process. The SMA and SHA should also engage the MES lead, who can offer critical information about current MES components and component certification needed to complete the APD. In addition, GAO recommends states involve their chief information official in overseeing Medicaid IT projects because they can play a critical role in decision making related to IT budgets, management, and oversight. Next, the SMA and SHA should engage the CMCS DSG state officer to develop a strong understanding of how the APD can support the Medicaid program and serve a public health interest. Coordinating with the state project management office can help integrate the diverse parties and processes needed to develop and submit the APD for approval. It can also help ensure that states develop a comprehensive and flexible timeline for the APD process, stay aware of approaching deadlines, and meet ad hoc requirements. Develop the appropriate APD. Next, based on 45 C.F.R. § 95.610(c), the SMA and SHA should identify which of the three types of APDs to submit to the CMCS DSG state officer. Planning APDs are recommended for large and complex projects, such as statewide projects. However, if a state can identify a clear and easy pathway to integrate a public health information technology system with a current MES procurement or development phase, it can forgo developing a Planning APD and directly develop or update an existing Implementation APD. For example, if a state is looking to integrate its counties’ public health data into its MES at once, it should develop a Planning APD as the project is large and affects all counties in the state. However, if a state already has most of its counties’ public health data in its MES but is looking to add a single county’s data to its MES using the same process it previously and successfully used to add the other counties’ data, it may not need to submit a Planning APD. If a state has already successfully integrated its counties’ public health data into its MES and is looking to make major technology upgrades and improvements, it should submit an Operational APD. Regardless of the type of APD the state submits, the SMA and SHA should work together to ensure the request meets the Conditions for Enhanced Funding (see separate document Conditions for Enhanced Funding: The Basics). Submit the APD for approval and be available for revisions. Based on information from CMS, GAO, and the Office of Child Support and Enforcement, the state should then submit the APD to the designated CMCS DSG state officer. The SMA and SHA should plan to receive questions and revision requests from the CMCS DSG state officer and ensure that the state has staff capacity to answer questions and revise and resubmit. Approval conditions can be found at 45 C.F.R. § 307.15, but approval criteria might vary by Medicaid IT project and other factors. If approved, implement the plan. Next, the state can carry out the plan described in its Planning and Implementation APDs. After the Medicaid IT project has been operating for at least six months, states can request system certification from CMS. According to CMS, certification is required to receive the enhanced 75 percent federal financial participation for operations. The certification process includes states submitting to CMS an intake form, a certification request letter, and supplemental materials with information on its system. CMS may then start its review to assess whether the state’s system meets certification requirements. If approved, monitor and report progress and submit other APDs as needed. Based on 45 C.F.R. § 95.610(c) and 45 C.F.R. § Part 95 Subpart F and information from CMS, CMCS, Office of Child Support and Enforcement, as the state continues with its Medicaid IT project, it should adhere to monitoring and reporting requirements for enhanced federal funding. It also should submit annual APDs as required. If the state wants to make any major changes to the Medicaid IT project in concept, scope, cost allocation approach, timeline, and other key areas, it must develop and submit an as-needed APD. An as-needed APD is due no later than 60 days after the occurrence of the change. State examples: Medicaid Enterprise System projects Based on information from Alvarez & Marsel, state MES projects will vary based on factors such as the maturity of a state’s technology infrastructure, its specific data needs, and its available resources. As such, projects to design, implement, or operate MES can range in size, complexity, and timeline. For example, the Alabama MES Modernization Program, the Wyoming Integrated Next Generation System Project, and the Florida Health Care Connections project all seek to transform their singular Medicaid Management Information Systems (MMIS) into modular, multi-vendor MES, but differ in approach. In addition, Arizonia and Hawaii are collaborating to modernize their shared MES. For more information on state MES projects, see the Medicaid Enterprise System Solution/Module Contract Status Report. This webpage lists states’ MMIS and Eligibility and Enrollment contract information for their MES projects. It also lists contact information for state officers to reach out to learn more about states’ MES projects. website yes

Sustaining DMI: A State Health Official’s Guide to Enhanced Funding Sustainable financing strategies for state health officials to support data modernization and Medicaid. What is the relationship between a state’s Medicaid program and its public health data system? Although state implementation of the Medicaid program (Title XIX of the Social Security Act) varies, each state’s program has enrollment and claims data on Medicaid participants, including demographic data on race and ethnicity, age, and service utilization, such as vaccines received. At the same time, a state’s public health system needs to collect, analyze, and report diverse data from public health initiatives and related programs to support its goals to protect and improve the health of individuals and communities by promoting healthy lifestyles, researching and encouraging disease and injury prevention, and detecting, preventing, and responding to infectious diseases. A state’s Medicaid program and public health agency can collaborate to implement a sustained data modernization initiative (DMI) that combines Medicaid and public health data and integrates these data into the state’s health-related data ecosystem. A sustained DMI can yield various improvements to a state’s health-related data ecosystem, such as improved data quality, public health reporting, data storage and resiliency, and analytics to respond to pandemics. It can also set the stage for data sharing with additional data system partners, which can further improve the state’s health-related data ecosystem. Why is sustainable funding necessary to continue DMIs? Sustainable funding to support personnel, processes, and technology is imperative to the continued success of a DMI. Stable funding can increase state Medicaid and public health agencies’ likelihood of recruiting and retaining personnel with advanced degrees, such as biostatisticians and epidemiologists, by enabling the agencies to offer compensation packages that are competitive with job market rates. Stable funding also enables the agencies to maintain and refine new and existing data-sharing processes, and it ensures that technology is maintained and upgraded appropriately to meet evolving needs. Medicaid funding is a potentially large and stable funding stream that can support the personnel, processes, and technology in a DMI that focuses on integrating Medicaid and public health. However, public health funding has historically been an unstable patchwork of federal, state, local, and private funding streams and mechanisms, largely because of changing economic and political priorities and the perceived risk level and severity of major public health threats. What sustainable financing strategies can support the personnel, processes, and technology needed to continue DMIs? State health officials can use the following three strategies when pursuing Medicaid funding to sustain a DMI: Blend and braid funding sources. Optimize existing and potential funding streams by blending or braiding administrative approaches to grow and maintain programs. To blend funding sources, program officials combine funding into a single stream, which results in a loss of award-specific requirements and thus requires statutory authority. In contrast, braiding funds allows program officers to direct funds toward a single strategy or initiative while preserving funding requirements (Box 1). Callout 1 - Resource - Sustaining DMI: A S/THOs Guide to Enhanced Funding Support personnel by using cost allocation through the Advance Planning Document (APD) process or the Administrative Cost Allocation Plan. A DMI team often has people with specialized skills, such as clinical and technical experts, compliance or legal officers, and financial experts. The salary for these people may be cost-allocated via the APD process or the Administrative Cost Allocation Plan described in Social Security Act Section 1903(a)(7) (Box 2). To illustrate, the Administrative Cost Allocation Plan provides 50 percent match for costs that meet a series of requirements to cover personnel costs. In addition to this strategy, state health officials can cover salary costs through blending and braiding approaches. Callout 2 - Resource - Sustaining DMI: A S/THOs Guide to Enhanced Funding Align public health functions with Medicaid business and technical functions. To explore whether a state Medicaid agency could access enhanced federal funding to support public health, a state public health agency must approach the state’s Medicaid program collaboratively and design and implement a DMI that does the following: Meets the Conditions for Enhanced Funding and couples any technical system improvements with measurable outcomes that improve public health and the Medicaid program. Investigates the extent to which the public health technical functions (for example, health care provider enrollment) align with similar Medicaid business functions. Confirms the extent to which the public health functions and Medicaid Enterprise Systems share or could share (that is, reuse) core technical components to support common business functions. Callout 3 - Resource - Sustaining DMI: A S/THOs Guide to Enhanced Funding After this investigation is complete, the state Medicaid agency should explore cost allocation models that apportion costs with the benefits received (Box 3). Box 4 provides examples of public health use cases that successfully acquired enhanced Medicaid funding. Callout 4 - Resource - Sustaining DMI: A S/THOs Guide to Enhanced Funding website yes

This blog post discusses mitigating risks of AI use in government agencies, emphasizing privacy, transparency, and ethical concerns.

This ASTHO blog discusses the benefits and risks of AI in healthcare and federal legislation, including privacy, bias, and safety concerns.

Public Health’s Silent Defender: Cybersecurity ASTHO, Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, Public health, health sector coordinating council, strategic preparedness, preparedness and response, ASPR, HHS, cybersecurity, cyber attack, health data, public health data, hack, cyber threat, patient care, healthcare system, hospital data, disabled systems, information technology, department of health and human services, patient data, medical devices, public health trends, health information, patient safety, ransomware attack, federal government, sector risk management, critical infrastructure, medtech pharma, infrastructure security, mandatory reporting, mitigating attacks, cybersecurity video, cybersecurity resource, HICP, health industry cybersecurity practices Jennifer Jean-Pierre ASTHO | Learn the importance of cybersecurity to public health and hear strategies for public-private cyber partnerships. In August of 2022, a cyberattack took the Fremont County Department of Health offline for 30 days—and health systems continue to be a top target of similar attacks. In this conversation, Brian Mazanec and Greg Garcia share how health systems can prepare for and prevent cyber attacks. Hear strategies for public-private cyber partnerships, easy wins every health agency can take, and how cyber attacks have evolved—and dramatically increased—in recent years. Show Notes Interviewer Jennifer Jean-Pierre, Director, Content Development and Communications, ASTHO Guests Greg Garcia, Executive Director, Healthcare Sector Coordinating Council Brian Mazanec, PhD, Deputy Assistant Secretary and Director, Office of Security, Intelligence, and Information Management, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Interview Transcript-Blog - Public Health’s Silent Defender: Cybersecurity website yes

Upgrading how public health and healthcare systems share data.

What We Learned at the Public Health TechXpo and Futures Forum ASTHO | Our staff's top takeaways from the TechXpo. astho, association of state and territorial health officials, public health techxpo and futures forum, public health leaders, u.s. public health system, public health policy, data sharing and modernization, population health, governmental health agencies, public health infastructure, workforce resilience, public health workforce, techxpo and futures forum, public health infrastructure, build workforce resilience, future of public health, health techxpo and futures, health leaders and experts, experts across the technology, health workforce, health outcomes, futures forum, health leaders, health departments, public health professionals, today and the future, public health services, public health techxpo Dylan Reynolds Marcus Plescia and Garfield Clunie present "The Future of Measuring Health Equity - A World of Evolving Data." Last month, ASTHO kicked off the Public Health TechXpo and Futures Forum in Chicago, an opportunity for some of the world’s top leaders in technology and to engage public health leaders on challenges and solutions for successfully modernizing the U.S. public health system. Over 600 participants were in attendance, with 200 more attending virtually from around the world. It was a packed three days. Our speakers demystified the world of public health policy, opened doors to new funding streams, and gave us a glimpse into the glittering future of data sharing and modernization. Heavy hitters from Amazon and Google weighed in as well, showing us how they’re working hand-in-hand with health agencies to change the way they approach population health and well-being. So as we look back on a busy week—and look ahead to our virtual follow-up event on June 15—here are some of the messages that stuck with us the most: "Standards are like toothbrushes. Everyone has one, and no one wants to use some else’s." The line from Gabriel Seidman, director of policy at the Ellison Institute for Transformative Medicine, was met with a belly laugh from a crowded room during one of the week’s most well-attended sessions, a panel conversation on the future of measuring health equity. However, Seidman’s comparison was an apt one. There is certainly much to be said for a public health data system that is engineered to meet the specific needs of its target community. However, for public health experts to do their best work, they must be able to speak a common language—at a local, state, territorial, and national level. When each level of public health is operating with different standards in place and with a different definition of success, data gets lost and people get left behind. One of the loudest calls to action from the week was for governmental health agencies to break down these data siloes and establish common standards between agencies. The "Next Pandemic" is a Priority—But It's Not the Only One There is—understandably—mounting national attention on preparing for what many public health experts believe will be the inevitable "next pandemic." The COVID-19 pandemic showed us what a lack of preparedness could mean for population health, and there is so much unknown about what the future of pandemics has in store. However, experts at the TechXpo reminded us that public health is about more than responding to a singular crisis. "I think many of the conversations we're having are so focused on COVID-like pandemics," said John Auerbach (alumni-MA) "But if we look at the things that are still killing people, for the most part it's not infectious disease." Instead, Auerbach cited challenges that have long been a part of the public health story, such as diabetes, the fentanyl overdose crisis, and climate change. Before COVID-19 entered the national spotlight, public health’s day-to-day work was largely centered on chronic disease and behavioral health. Auerbach reminded us that amid all of the unknowns of our future, there is plenty we do know—and plenty we can be doing to address it. "Modernizing data systems is more than buying a big computer." While there were many versions of this message over the course of the forum, Auerbach perhaps said it most concisely of all. In other words, it doesn’t matter if a public health agency has a chrome-plated exterior and a cloud-based data system, so long as the underlying infrastructure isn’t sustainably and thoughtfully built. Whether it’s a matter of restricted funding, antiquated processes, or siloed thinking, health agencies and their leaders must have a plan to address these challenges before assuming that “buying a big computer” will catch their data dashboards up to speed. This was one of the ironies of this future-forward event: Amid so many exciting innovations and inventions, many of the challenges boiled down to basic, equity-centered questions about the best way to get this new technology in the right people’s hands. If public health is going to take a technological leap at a national level, then it must also be able to make a leap at a community level—in communities of color, in territorial health agencies, and in our policies. Jumping lightyears ahead doesn’t count if entire populations are still being left lightyears behind. Workforce Resilience Cannot Be Taken for Granted We cannot separate the future of public health from the future of its workforce. The COVID-19 emergency response has left many public health workers feeling burned out and harboring traumatic levels of toxic stress, pushing many of them to seek out jobs outside the field. In fact, according to a recent analysis of data from the Public Health Workforce Interests and Needs Survey, 46% of state and local public health employees left their jobs between 2017 and 2021. For public health to reach its full potential in the future, we must begin investing in that workforce today. Over the course of the week, we heard often from mental health experts and senior health officials to learn about their priorities, challenges, and paths to improve workforce well-being in their health agencies. This included the unveiling of the PH-HERO Workforce Resource Center, which arms health agencies with the resources and knowledge they need to support their workforce. Whatever the future of public health holds, it begins with a workforce who is motivated to make that future a reality. More than anything, the TechXpo was a reminder that public health’s future is as multiple as it is uncertain. We are working toward a future that is more adaptable than ever before—with thought innovators and health experts who are constantly reflecting, pivoting, and adjusting to the moment. There are so many conversations yet to be had. For those who have not done so already, we invite you to register for our fully virtual TechXpo follow-up forum on June 15, and add your voice to the growing chorus. website yes

ASTHO’s 2023 Public Health TechXpo and Futures Forum is a platform to tackle the toughest public health challenges facing the nation, both today and in the future.

Surveillance data allow public health practitioners and researchers to track changes in the burden of ACEs by collecting data on previous exposure, health conditions that may impact or be impacted by exposure, and other related topics.

To learn more about Iowa’s recent efforts to fight against HIV, ASTHO spoke with Sarah Reisetter, chief of compliance and a deputy director at Iowa HHS, and Randy Mayer, chief of the Iowa HHS Bureau of HIV, STI, and Hepatitis.

State issued documents, such as birth certificates, are often required to navigate daily life. Vital records policy is a complex and evolving issue with many of the processes and procedures left to jurisdictional policy-makers.

A quick rundown of sessions and speakers at the 2022 ASTHO Public Health TechXpo.

ASTHO has identified health equity and rural health as issues that policymakers across the country will consider in 2022.