[CQM-1065] CMS 52 numerator 1 criteria Created: 03/11/14 Updated: 05/23/16 Resolved: 10/20/14 |
|
Status: | Closed |
Project: | eCQM Issue Tracker |
Component/s: | Measure |
Type: | EC eCQMs - Eligible Clinicians | Priority: | Minor |
Reporter: | Elissa Chandler (Inactive) | Assignee: | Ramya Tallapragada (Inactive) |
Resolution: | Answered | Votes: | 0 |
Labels: | None |
Attachments: |
![]() |
||||
Issue Links: |
|
||||
Contact Name: | Elissa Chandler | ||||
Contact Email: | echandler@nextgen.com | ||||
Contact Phone: | 2677255354 | ||||
Institution/Name: | NextGen Healthcare Information Systems | ||||
Guidance required: | numerator 1 criteria | ||||
Solution: | The RxNorm value sets for the 2014 measure republication were updated for the EP measures on May 30, 2014 and will reflect the current RxNorm code system version as of January 2014. In general, CMS and ONC accept remapping of clinically similar or identical codes to the codes present in the Meaningful Use EHR Incentive Program eCQMs. If an audit were performed, system or EHR data should demonstrate that codes remapped to published value set content are clinically appropriate. It is acceptable to use terminology services or clinical expertise to provide that mapping provided it would be considered clinically appropriate. Over time, CMS and ONC, in concert with NLM, hope to provide more frequently updated content and additional guidance in remapping value sets, but for Stage 2 of the Meaningful Use program, the statute allows value set updates no more frequently than on an annual basis. The only change to value sets for this measure since the June 2013 update was the removal of one code from the "Face-to-Face Interaction" value set which applies to several measures. We did not remove the "Dapsone and pyrithimine" value set from the list as the code is still active within RxNorm and in alignment with the latest guidance, even if not prescribed. When the issue first arose, we agreed to investigate so we could update as appropriate in the June 2014 update. However, our assessment is as described above, ie, this value set is still included. |
||||
2015 Performance Period EP eCQMs : |
CMS52v3/NQF0405
|
||||
Impact: | critical as impacts certification |
Description |
QUESTION: CMS 52: SEE ATTACHMENT W SCREEN SHOT AS WELL Numerator 1: The only rxnorm provided for ‘Dapsone and pyrimethamine’ for this measure is ‘105337’. However, with the medication updates we recently received it looks like this drug has been retired. Thus, this will result in difficulty for providers to meet the NUM 1 for this measure as this drug is required. Are there any other drugs we can add to this list in replacement of this medication? If so what are the valid rxnorm for those medication? |
Comments |
Comment by Jeff McCartney (Inactive) [ 08/18/14 ] |
The only change to value sets for this measure since the June 2013 update was the removal of one code from the "Face-to-Face Interaction" value set which applies to several measures. We did not remove the "Dapsone and pyrithimine" value set from the list as the code is still active within RxNorm and in alignment with the latest guidance, even if not prescribed. When the issue first arose, we agreed to investigate so we could update as appropriate in the June 2014 update. However, our assessment is as described above, ie, this value set is still included. |
Comment by Elissa Chandler (Inactive) [ 03/13/14 ] |
ok to close per measures team. |
Comment by Jeff McCartney (Inactive) [ 03/12/14 ] |
Note that this issue is identical to The drug Dapsone 100 MG / Pyrimethamine 12.5 MG Oral Tablet (105337) is listed as precribable in RxNORM but further investigation does call into question if this drug combination is available in the US. The use of this drug combination in the test patients should be reviewed At this time we are only able to update value sets annually. CMS/ONC/NLM are looking into the impact of more frequent updates to value sets but do not anticipate review of this code until the next annual update. Gina: I'm not certain of the JIRA process, ie, should we "link" this to The response proposed below for |