Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consent And Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel: consent regimes, payer participation and funding models vary across states
Summary
Panelists from Maryland, New York and Massachusetts discussed differences in consent (opt‑out vs opt‑in), payer and public‑health participation, and funding approaches for ENS: Maryland and New York operate consent registries, Massachusetts does not centralize opt‑out in the HIway; payers participate widely and funding mixes differ.
Panelists compared approaches to consent, payer participation and funding during a final Q&A. Craig Bem (CRISP) said Maryland operates an opt‑out approach with low opt‑out rates; David Horrocks said New York runs an opt‑in consent registry but allows basic treating‑provider alerts without additional consent; Angela Miller clarified Mass HIway is not a central repository and that provider organizations control sharing decisions.
On payer and public‑health participation, speakers described strong payer participation in notification subscriptions (especially among ACOs and managed care organizations) and variable but growing use by public‑health agencies. Panelists also reiterated diverse funding approaches: some states rely on participation fees and vendor contributions, others use state appropriations or rate‑setting commission support, and some combine funding streams with Medicaid match. Rym Cothren closed the webinar, saying materials will be posted and convening a stakeholder advisory committee meeting in August to continue the discussion.
