📢 Topics for next call: 10/22, 3-4 ET

Hi Shaily, 
When is the next CDC "listening" call planned? I saw Michele Hoover at the Conduent Maven User Group meeting last week, and we discussed several issues that would be relevant to such a call.
 
I'm particularly concerned when we start to work in a cohort and then that process is stopped because of resourcing and/or recognition at the CDC that the process is more involved than realized. We recently had the FDD cohort stopped, and essentially we were put on hold. This has happened recently with the MBT cohort as well. So our staff time and resources that we dedicated to onboarding these MMGs against CDC and our own deadlines (our key staff person due out on maternity leave shortly) were not exactly wasted, but it puts us in a giant bind. So instead of achieving onboarding before that break, we are now on hold. AND as an EIP state, we get pushed hard to work on these MMGs and actually dinged on grants when we don't achieve them.

My second concern, that I shared with Michele, is that CDC databases are just not ready. It seems like each program is updating their databases in silos - again! - instead of a coordinated effort. The immediate impact is the lack of harmonization across programs and the use of 'made-up' codes in the PHINVADs tables. The larger impact is that the CDC program is not ready to receive data in the updated format or accept data that we should be able to send, e.g., actual lab results instead of 'epi-lab' interpretations. My suggestion is that maybe CDC should get a contractor and dedicate the 2-3 years to updating, modernizing, and consolidating their data systems so when we send data, it can be consumed and used in a more consistent and standard manner. 

And just one more thing -- CDC needs to stop data mining and have a reason and purpose for the data is wants states to send. We need to remember that public health is a local concern and responsibility, not just a method to feed the federal data machine. I'm oversimplifying, but you get my meaning. We are seeing a not insignificant amount of data 'scope creep'. 

Just my $0.19, I'll step off of my soap box now :-)

Good Morning,  I have to strongly agree with Nancy's comments.  Idaho has recently participated in both the MBT and Lyme/TBRD UAT projects.  Once UAT was complete we were approached to see if we could onboard in early October.  After making substantial efforts to be ready for that timeline we finally received an email from CDC acknowledging that we are in the onboarding queue and will be contacted some time in the future.  

At the NMI eShare call yesterday, they mentioned a classification of data elements as "Level 1", "Level 2" and noted that jurisdictions that can't send level 1 and 2 elements would not be allowed to onboard the Lyme/Tick MMG. This made me think of another state's experience with the STD MMG; they were not allowed to onboard, or discouraged from doing so, until they included certain elements of the guide, or provided a signed statement attesting to the reason they had not included them.
Given, they said the Level 1s and 2s are elements of Lyme/Tick needed to use the case criteria, and if so, then it 's probably fine; but I haven't seen the MMG yet.
It made me think that this could become a slippery slope. I think the CDC should be working with jurisdictions to onboard MMGs, and encouraging, not forcing, jurisdictions to send most, if not all, of the elements in the MMG. It also demonstrates a conversation during the Sunday I/S workshop around us spending so much time picking over the data, that we're LATE in getting it to the people who need it. Here's the example of a jurisdiction who wants to send a message, but is held up because they don't have ALL the elements.

Thanks for the comments, everyone- I am trying to see if we can schedule the next CDC listening session, and in the meantime, if CDC colleagues (Michele/ Sara) can join the WG call next week.

Agreed Misty. We actually asked to have CDC put the priority classifications into the MMGs, like Arboviral and VPD guides have, after our experience with STD. We focus on priority 1 data elements first. As you know, I mentioned on the eShare call that CDC programs need to meet with state programs for a data discussion and agreement on data variables and data quality before the MMG process starts, so we aren't held up for onboarding due to incomplete or missing data. It feels like being held hostage for the data, when the goal is to share useful/needed data for public health purposes.