I feel it is unfortunate that the system cannot accommodate for different types of programs and small doctor offices.
The government should require CCHIT certification if it could offer it for free or low cost, sort of like your auto inspection. Especially for those providers who may be handy and want to manage their own software. Really, some of us wanna do it ourselves to save some money but then need to get certified?
Well, what if we (I'd like to help too) met the requirements, and just called ourselves "CCHIT certification elligible"?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I believe that CCHIT is only one of the pathways to federal certification. I don't yet know what the other methods will be, but HHS is clearly going to allow open source and self-developed systems to become certified based on "meaningful use" as opposed to the 400+ criteria of CCHIT. This was made apparent in the summer meeting of the HIT advisory committee on standards.
Some of the comments made at the meeting include:
Non-vendor systems (Self-developed and Open Source)
Organizations with self-developed systems, view certification as an aid to purchasers. Since they already have an operational system that is not intended for use outside of their organization(s), they don't understand why they need to go through the expense of detailed certification processes and potentially developing unneeded functionality for the sole purpose of meeting certification criteria.
Some vendors and customers of vendors believe in an egalitarian approach in which everybody is treated the same way.
The Open Source community is similarly impacted.
Significant concern around curtailing research and development associated with open source and self developed applications if resources must be diverted for certification processes.
Timeframe and costs for certification and re-certification are a concern.
I don't know what alternative method has been established for federal certification but it the advisory committee recommended that HHS set up its own criteria and delegate certification to several agencies, of which CCHIT is only one. It will not be necessary to be CCHIT certified in order to become eligible for federal certification.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
This is where the specific implementation decisions and progress are starting to get posted. Various discussions on the topic are scattered about the forum, mostly with CCHIT - in the subject.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
In addition to Rod Roark, Brady Miller and Justin Doiel there are currently there are 7 professional development companies that are working full time on certification. This include:
Medical Information Integrated: Tony McCormick with 4 additional developers<br>
ViSolve: Sena Palanasami with 8<br>
Garden State Health Systems: John Williams with 2, and 1 QA professional<br>
Misys Open Source Solutions: Tim Elwell is coming on board with additional developers<br>
Intesync: Thomas Wong with 3<br>
OpenEMR Support: 2 developers and 6 additional outsourced developers
This diverse development group is being coordinated by Tony McCormick. Rod and Brady will be doing their best to get code incorporated into the SourceForge/openemr repository. We are attempting to get Meaningful Use completed by the end of February. Application to CCHIT will take about 3 months. We hope to be finshed and cerified by the end of June, 2010.
I very much appreciate the effort of these professional teams of developers on our behalf. Is does take money to support this effort and the non-profit Open Source Medical Software could use donations to support the effort. If you believe in this effort please donate.
Sam Bowen, MD
President
Open Source Medical Software
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
We are moving very nicely towards certification and I think it is time for some serious discussion regarding how that will be 'managed' once accomplished.
It is anticipated that developers of 'certified' software will need to inform the federal government who is a user of the certified software. That means we will need to track all users of the 'Certified' version of OpenEMR and we will be responsible for verifying to the Federal Govt that those people are eligible for the incentive payment.
This is no small responsibility.
It is complicated by the nature of 'OpenSource Software'.
I propose the following: In order to be registered as a user of the Certified Version of OpenEMR, a user will be required to purchase an installation CD from the Open Source Foundation for a fee of $1000.00. This will have NO impact on the ability of anybody to download the software, but we will only be able to certify that people who purchased the CD actually have the certified version. That money could then be used for future development costs, future re-certification costs etc.
Basically they are purchasing registration, and we are giving the CD away to insure that they have a certified copy of the software.
Remember managing and reporting who has the certified software will cost us in terms of time and $.
Michael
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Michael, please explain in more detail what "developers of 'certified' software will need to inform the federal government who is a user of the certified software" means.
Does "developers" mean copyright holders of the software? One of them? All of them? Most of them? What is the nature of the obligation? What are the consequences of not doing it? What happens if the informing is done, and then the software is changed? Or if the user purchases certification and then continues to use whatever they were using before, if anything? Are the authors of this requirement aware of and interested in the unique aspects of open source EHRs?
I have not read it as of yet; but a quick search for open source reveals this…
pg 7 Recommendations…. "(4) Expand certification to include a range of software sources, e.g., open source, self-developed, etc."
pg 31 "we believe that approximately 93 commercially-developed and open source Complete EHRs and 50 EHR Modules will be tested and certified under our proposed temporary certification program"
Best regards,
Pete Gordon
www.critsys.net
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Are you still looking for CCHIT certification? I have been involved in CCHIT certification for another product and would like to take this challenge and also can funding for this project. Please do let me know if you are interested.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
sg2010,
Thanks but we are already certified now (modular) and will be Full EHR in the next few weeks. ICSA Labs has been remarkable in this effort.
-Tony
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Would CCHIT certification add any real benefit to OpenEMR and it's users? I doubt than anyone will choose a different system because OpenEMR lacks CCHIT certification. Going through the process might shake out some interesting issue with OpenEMR as it stands today, but I don't think it's a priority for anyone right now.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Has there been any other updates to the CCHIT status?
hey,
Currently there is a large ongoing effort. This wiki page is best place to assess the current status of the CCHIT project:
-brady
: http://www.openmedsoftware.org/wiki/OpenEMR_Certification
I feel it is unfortunate that the system cannot accommodate for different types of programs and small doctor offices.
The government should require CCHIT certification if it could offer it for free or low cost, sort of like your auto inspection. Especially for those providers who may be handy and want to manage their own software. Really, some of us wanna do it ourselves to save some money but then need to get certified?
Well, what if we (I'd like to help too) met the requirements, and just called ourselves "CCHIT certification elligible"?
I believe that CCHIT is only one of the pathways to federal certification. I don't yet know what the other methods will be, but HHS is clearly going to allow open source and self-developed systems to become certified based on "meaningful use" as opposed to the 400+ criteria of CCHIT. This was made apparent in the summer meeting of the HIT advisory committee on standards.
Some of the comments made at the meeting include:
Non-vendor systems (Self-developed and Open Source)
Organizations with self-developed systems, view certification as an aid to purchasers. Since they already have an operational system that is not intended for use outside of their organization(s), they don't understand why they need to go through the expense of detailed certification processes and potentially developing unneeded functionality for the sole purpose of meeting certification criteria.
Some vendors and customers of vendors believe in an egalitarian approach in which everybody is treated the same way.
The Open Source community is similarly impacted.
Significant concern around curtailing research and development associated with open source and self developed applications if resources must be diverted for certification processes.
Timeframe and costs for certification and re-certification are a concern.
I don't know what alternative method has been established for federal certification but it the advisory committee recommended that HHS set up its own criteria and delegate certification to several agencies, of which CCHIT is only one. It will not be necessary to be CCHIT certified in order to become eligible for federal certification.
Just as a a reminder - we are tracking the project and it's process on the wiki page at http://www.openmedsoftware.org/wiki/OpenEMR_Certification
This is where the specific implementation decisions and progress are starting to get posted. Various discussions on the topic are scattered about the forum, mostly with CCHIT - in the subject.
In addition to Rod Roark, Brady Miller and Justin Doiel there are currently there are 7 professional development companies that are working full time on certification. This include:
Medical Information Integrated: Tony McCormick with 4 additional developers<br>
ViSolve: Sena Palanasami with 8<br>
Garden State Health Systems: John Williams with 2, and 1 QA professional<br>
Misys Open Source Solutions: Tim Elwell is coming on board with additional developers<br>
Intesync: Thomas Wong with 3<br>
OpenEMR Support: 2 developers and 6 additional outsourced developers
This diverse development group is being coordinated by Tony McCormick. Rod and Brady will be doing their best to get code incorporated into the SourceForge/openemr repository. We are attempting to get Meaningful Use completed by the end of February. Application to CCHIT will take about 3 months. We hope to be finshed and cerified by the end of June, 2010.
I very much appreciate the effort of these professional teams of developers on our behalf. Is does take money to support this effort and the non-profit Open Source Medical Software could use donations to support the effort. If you believe in this effort please donate.
Sam Bowen, MD
President
Open Source Medical Software
We are moving very nicely towards certification and I think it is time for some serious discussion regarding how that will be 'managed' once accomplished.
It is anticipated that developers of 'certified' software will need to inform the federal government who is a user of the certified software. That means we will need to track all users of the 'Certified' version of OpenEMR and we will be responsible for verifying to the Federal Govt that those people are eligible for the incentive payment.
This is no small responsibility.
It is complicated by the nature of 'OpenSource Software'.
I propose the following: In order to be registered as a user of the Certified Version of OpenEMR, a user will be required to purchase an installation CD from the Open Source Foundation for a fee of $1000.00. This will have NO impact on the ability of anybody to download the software, but we will only be able to certify that people who purchased the CD actually have the certified version. That money could then be used for future development costs, future re-certification costs etc.
Basically they are purchasing registration, and we are giving the CD away to insure that they have a certified copy of the software.
Remember managing and reporting who has the certified software will cost us in terms of time and $.
Michael
Michael, please explain in more detail what "developers of 'certified' software will need to inform the federal government who is a user of the certified software" means.
Does "developers" mean copyright holders of the software? One of them? All of them? Most of them? What is the nature of the obligation? What are the consequences of not doing it? What happens if the informing is done, and then the software is changed? Or if the user purchases certification and then continues to use whatever they were using before, if anything? Are the authors of this requirement aware of and interested in the unique aspects of open source EHRs?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Rod
(http://www.sunsetsystems.com/)
Sam accidentally responded to my question in the (https://sourceforge.net/projects/openemr/forums/forum/202506/topic/3474159) (see #15).
Thanks Sam! That's very good information.
Rod
(http://www.sunsetsystems.com/)
Sam
Currently the total donations for CCHIT certification is $1,850 (According to the wiki page). Is this figure correct?
Nii
Thought this would be a good thread to bring this up.
Are others aware of the multiple certification processes that are being now created, in addition to CCHIT. Such as Drummond… http://www.emrandehr.com/2010/02/15/drummond-group-launches-ehr-certification-blog/
The government has a contract to create standards for multiply certifying bodies. Also, they just released the NPRM on March 10th with the Federal Registry that defines the temporary state of Meaningful Use Certification.
http://healthit.hhs.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&mode=2&objID=1745
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-4991.pdf
I have not read it as of yet; but a quick search for open source reveals this…
pg 7 Recommendations…. "(4) Expand certification to include a range of software sources, e.g., open source, self-developed, etc."
pg 31 "we believe that approximately 93 commercially-developed and open source Complete EHRs and 50 EHR Modules will be tested and certified under our proposed temporary certification program"
Best regards,
Pete Gordon
www.critsys.net
In terms of donations and pledges, the other $600 of pledges never materialized.
Chris Lucena and EHRLive did donate $150 recently.
Sam Bowen, MD
http://oemr.org
Are you still looking for CCHIT certification? I have been involved in CCHIT certification for another product and would like to take this challenge and also can funding for this project. Please do let me know if you are interested.
sg2010,
Thanks but we are already certified now (modular) and will be Full EHR in the next few weeks. ICSA Labs has been remarkable in this effort.
-Tony
This sounds great. What is the estimated completion date for full certification?
Hey Tony,
I think in this thread we are talking about CCHIT certification not ONC-ATCB certification.
Thanks
Sharad
Would CCHIT certification add any real benefit to OpenEMR and it's users? I doubt than anyone will choose a different system because OpenEMR lacks CCHIT certification. Going through the process might shake out some interesting issue with OpenEMR as it stands today, but I don't think it's a priority for anyone right now.