RFP for Population Health Management and Analytics
This Request for Proposal (RFP) describes need for Missouri Health Connection (MHC) to procure a solution(s) to support the population health management and business analytics functions that MHC can attribute to organizational and financial growth. MHC seeks to acquire a population health and business analytics tool(s) to enhance its service offerings. Adding a population health tool(s) will allow MHC to provide needed and necessary views into patient health statuses to create an enterprise view of the patients in MHC’s HIE network. MHC needs a business analytics tool(s) to trigger behavior changes that will drive efficiencies and better outcomes in the health care delivery system for MHC’s members (Participants). Parties interested in responding to this RFP should be prepared to address all the requirements in this RFP relative to the direct services provided by such party or vendor (Respondent) and how such services support the goals of this RFP for MHC.
Q) Could you explain and detail what your current MPI solution is and what your current duplication rate is?
A) At MHC, we utilize the InterSystems Healthshare Person Index (HSPI) which is an algorithm based EMPI utilizing a weighted scoring system. HSPI also has a secondary rules engine with customizable business rules available. The overlap for records across all 33 sources is approx. 58%. The duplicate rate within each of the sources can range from 0 - ~15% (Same Source duplicates).
Q) Does MHC plan to stand up its own patient portal?
A) MHC is planning for a patient portal. We do not have a firm date or RFP at the current time. If you would like to propose a patient portal, please include that in your response.
Q) What does MHC plan to do with data captured via remote patient monitoring - Share with patients? Share with, care managers? How do you plan to use this data for analytics?
A) If you are referring to monitoring of remote devices and or wearables we currently do not monitor those items. If we were to be able to capture some of this data, we would want it incorporated into our analytics in order to determine best case for uses.
Q) What is your current workflow for alerts and what is your desired workflow?
A) We currently have encounter based alerts based on a patient encounter at another location within a specified time frame. 30 day readmits are planned to be released soon as well as change in patient statuses for more intelligent alerting for care managers or providers.
Q) Do you send out each individual alert or do you send out aggregated alerts?
A) Individual alerts are sent out once triggered.
Q) Do you plan on providing member engagement directly thru MHC or thru the analytics provider?
A) MHC would want the Pop Health / Analytics vendor to be the main contact and implementation personnel for the solution to providers. MHC would assist as needed. The RFP provides an outline for budgeting purposes for resources and implementation costs.
Q) Do you want your PHM/Analytics vendor to capture information or do you envision the vendor to provide order entry services?
A) Our current HIE stack has access to the data. If your system needs to capture the data within your database to be used for analytics, please include in your response.
Q) Does MHC plan on having the Record of Report or a data entry option or a data repository for all of the places where the patient’s records have been kept?
A) MHC’s current architecture will have a repository available of all available documents at each participating member for specific patients.
Q) What kind of KPIs do you want for your care managers? Productivity? Outcomes?
A) MHC would like productivity and outcomes based KPIs that would assist providers and administration. Please include pre-built and available KPIs within your solution.
Q) Of the quality measures listed in the RFP, which are most important to MHC? Are there any specifically that would be considered a priority?
A) All are of equal priority. Please include any measures that are currently “out of the box” with your solution. Also include the ease of which ad-hoc reports can be created.
Q) Are there any current or future plans to consolidate the number of EMRs MHC uses?
A) Since those EMR’s belong to our participants we don’t have any control over the EMR in use for their facility.
Q) Regarding EMRs, could you please clarify the ‘EMR Health Summary’ on pages 9-10? Is the total number of separate and distinct EMRs 21 (Meditech, NextGen, Cerner, eClinicalWorks, Epic, Allscripts, Athena, plus 14 Others)?
A) If I understand the question correctly. Each EMR represents a facility/participant using that vendors EMR for their business. Example: Meditech 14 represents 14 participants using Meditech as their EMR at their facility.
Q) Can MHC provide an estimate of how many patients are added to the MPI annually?
A) Approximately 4.5 million. This number varies annually based on new participants and additional data sources such as payors.
Q) Can MHC elaborate on what is meant by the following question? Support for "query-through" functionality to upstream or downstream exchange partners?
A) Can your application support a query based exchange in the event a participant is a query only exchange?
Q) Can MHC clarify what it is looking for in this question? Support facilitation of various EHR connections to data through a third party front end or portal?
A) Do you have the ability to present data to EHR’s through a portal (Direct access to portal with SSO or through a login manually)? Or can your solution be integrated seamlessly into an EHR to show metrics or scores?
Q) Can MHC provide examples of what is meant by sub-unit level in the following question? Data can be aggregated and analyzed at the population and sub-unit level?
A) Is there a drill down mechanism to see data at the discrete level for measures?
Q) Can MHC clarify what is meant by “other reporting bodies” in the following question and provide an example? Ad-hoc report writing capabilities; is ability to connect to other reporting bodies configured by administrative end users or vendor?
A) Connections to other sources such as outside financial information in another database. Is that something a user can configure in your product or does the vendor need to be involved to make the connection?
Q) Regarding Table 4.1 on Page 9. Does this mean that these are Medicaid populations only? Or are there other populations covered in these counts? And if so, what are they?
A) Those are all of the patients within the MHC environment (which can include Medicaid).
Q) Also from Table 4.1 on Page 9. Are the 33 data sources only EMRs? Or are there other data sources that make up this count? And if so, what are they?
A) The title is incorrect and should be for the entire population of the MHC participants including Medicaid, Hospitals and other care facilities.
Submit questions below or email info@MissouriHealthConnection.org directly.