PARTICIPANTS:

Bob Swanson (MI), Dan Hopfensperger (WI), Charlotte Sims-Higgins (MO),
Angela Sorrells-Washington (NJ), Kathy Fredrickson (AZ), Amy Metroka
(NYC), Gary Rinaldi (NY), Elaine Lowery (CO), Don Blose (OK), Sherry
Riddick (WA), Jan Hicks-Thomson (WA), Jack Sims and Karen Hess delegates
for Maribeth Bartz (TX), Amanda Timmons (OR), Lisa Moffatt (OR), Claudia
Aguiluz (CA), Maria Volk (CA), Doug Correll (CDC), Janet Kelly (CDC )
Barbara Laymon (CTR), Therese Hoyle (CTR)

Invited: Tonya Martin (CDC), Brad Prescott (CDC), Julie Orta (CDC),
Chris Porch (BAH), Kyle Dickson (BAH), Cherl Long (BAH)

DISCUSSION POINTS:

Discussion - Provider Order Entry Pilot

Brad stated it was not an intentional oversight that the GAC was not at
the table when the pilot (April 2009 provider order entry pilot) idea
came about. This provider order entry pilot was supposed to be a
parallel project not tied to VTrckS or GAC. People at CDC thought it
would be a great way to get feedback from providers. Going forward,
there will be lots of opportunity for GAC to give input.

It was suggested that the April 2009 provider order entry pilot name
gives the wrong impression because it is being called a pilot. Can it be
called something else? Brad said that he understood exactly, but some of
these decisions were made at higher levels and needed consistency of
terms. He would see what he could do.

Dan asked for clarification of April 09 vs. Dec 09 activities. Brad
responded by saying that the April 09 is the provider order entry
activities (pilot). The Dec 09 is the pilot for VTrckS Release 1.

Discussion -- Communication

There is confusion about what duties belong to whom at CDC. Brad gave an
over view of his/Julie's duties as associated with VMBIP and the
Communications team.

Discussion --Authentication

A question was asked about how CDC will authenticate data. CDC is
working on a system to authenticate the data, but SDN is the back up.

Discussion - Contact Center

Julie stated that CDC has heard grantee concern about adequate support
for the help desk. For the front end provider order entry pilot, the
help desk will be available to help providers use the tool. In December
09, the contact center will be prepared to answer more and different
types of questions for Release 1. CDC has begun putting together a list
of questions that may come up. CDC has interviewed other companies
(McKesson and manufacturer companies) to see what types of calls they
get and how they handle. Julie asked that the GAC members begin to think
about what types of questions they believe will be asked.

The call center will not:

-   Give medical advice

-   Place orders on behalf of grantee or provider

-   Take questions about the registry interface

One thought is that once the order is taken and sent to McKesson, the
contact center will be the place for providers to call. Several members
thought this approach might be problematic for providers. Grantees might
want all calls, except for VTrckS technical calls (eg. reset password),
to come to the grantee. Some members thought the contact center will
evolve in its functionality as the project matures. Most people wanted
the call center to handle things like password or how to complete an
order process.

GAC asked if the intent of the end-state contact center is to replace
the VACMAN help desk and the McKesson customer service center. Tonya
said that certainly the contact center will be the replacement for the
VACMAN help desk. The contact center will be the first point of contact.
However, if the grantee wants providers to call the contact center
instead of them, it can be set up that way.

Action Items for GAC

-   What types of questions does the GAC believe will come from grantees
    and providers?

-   What level of engagement does the GAC recommend the contact center
    have in the end state?

-   What is the GAC's recommendation concerning should the contact
    center be allowed to let providers know the status of their order or
    should those questions come to the grantee?

GAC Recommendations

-   Clear definition and expectations from the CDC perspective on how
    the contact center will work and the interaction between the contact
    center and McKesson Customer Service and grantees.

-   Map the content and technology support the contact center is
    expected to provide.

-   Provide information regarding whether or not the contact center will
    be a contracted service or in-house, and if it is known who will
    provide the support?

Discussion - VTrckS New Business Model - Review of Release 1

VTrckS release 1 pilot is slated for Dec 2009 through Feb 2010. It will
last approximately 3 months. GAC recommends not rolling VTrckS out right
after the pilot. Given the shortened ordering time frame for the month
of December, and the nature of this change in doing business, the GAC
felt like a three month period would not provide enough time for full
functionality review and testing of the VTrckS System. The GAC also
recommended a clear pause and review of findings from the pilot to allow
time to incorporate lessons learned before getting other providers to
enroll. CDC will incorporate some of the lessons learned into release 2.

GAC Recommendations

-   Determine if there can be a longer time-frame for pilot (4 full
    months).

-   Have a clear pause after the pilot with documentation of findings
    from the pilot before expanding roll-out beyond the pilots.

-   Clearly defined objectives for the pilot and an evaluation plan
    prior to starting the pilot.

Discussion -- VTrckS New Business Model -- Review of Release 1 and IIS
Systems

With more than 20 grantees currently using a registry or other IIS to
process provider orders, it would be a disruption of business if
grantees using IIS have to wait until release 2 to exchange data in some
way with VTrckS. In order to not disrupt the business flow, CDC would,
at a minimum, need to continue to maintain VACMAN until a release of
VTrckS that supports data exchange is available. The GAC request further
information regarding the possibility of testing VTrckS with a grantee
that is using an IIS.

Tonya said that CDC's method is to do the first thing first -- which is
release 1. Tonya said that CDC will take lessons learned and the bugs
that need to be fixed into consideration and fix before the next
release. The question was asked if we can use a grantee with an IIS in
release 1 and use a flat file to upload to VTrckS to test in release 1.
What type of import/export files can SAP accommodate?

GAC Recommendations

-   Find out what type of import/export files can SAP and VTrckS will
    accommodate

-   Provide basic information about existing compatibility between SAP
    and other platforms (e.g., Oracle etc.)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Inclusion of at least one grantee with an IIS in the release 1
    pilot, using a flat-file data exchange to support import / export
    capability with VTrckS.

-   CDC continued support of VACMAN by IIS users until VTrckS is capable
    of either import / export data exchange or messaging.

Discussion - VTrckS Business Capability Models, to include a crosswalk
with Use Cases, Business Requirements, and VACMAN

Chris Porch led the discussion. We reviewed differences between VACMAN
and VTrckS. VTrckS will do at least everything that VACMAN does.

Chris explained that CDC is using business capability models to develop
a common understanding of the business needs to support NCIRD and the
VFC program. Business capability models are not process maps rather they
are "what" needs to be done, not the "how." Capability models are
hierarchal. Level 0 is the highest high level view of the model.

There are five high level capability models; provider fulfillment,
manage contract balances, grantee monitoring, needs and forecast, and
manage vaccine inventory. Each capability model comprises
sub-capabilities, which are the "activities" that must be performed to
manage a particular function and this additional detail regarding
supporting activities is captured in Level 1 models.

For example, in the provider fulfillment Level 1 model there are three
capabilities; create provider order, manage providers, and vaccine
requests and transactions. Taking it one step further, there is
additional detail and activities under "create provider order," which
include "process provider orders, route orders to suppliers, and
maintain order history."

GAC Recommendations

-   Incorporate the ability to use a replenishment model to facilitate
    provider vaccine ordering and identify in which release it may
    occur.

-   Incorporate provider level receiving capability in VTrckS as an
    option for grantees wishing to use it.

-   Incorporate functionality in VTrckS for managing inventory of
    vaccines that are at the centralized distributor but were not
    purchased using federal contracts -- example: DT or adult
    pneumococcal vaccines.

-   Pre-populate VTrckS with provider account information and order
    history. Assure grantees of the ability to edit.

-   Establish reports in VTrckS that meet all CDC and/or McKesson
    reports related to vaccine management. Examples include (but not
    exhaustive):

    -   Allocation tracking report -- currently generated to monitor
        influenza orders against allocation.

    -   Bulk order replenishment reporting and receiving documentation.

    -   Backorder reports

-   Provide examples of how segment builder in SAP can, or may, be used
    to help grantees monitor and manage the providers' inventory when a
    new vaccine is introduced. Examples include:

    -   The ability to apply a percent of available doses across
        providers (applying on the front end based on the number of
        available doses), or to allow a percent for all provider orders
        (applying on the back-end, after the provider ordered);

    -   The ability to review provider order history by group of
        providers, vaccine etc.

-   Incorporation of a pre-booking feature and a suggested order feature
    to help providers order more appropriately according to their usage.
    (This could be useful for influenza vaccine, new vaccines etc.)

-   Look into using Webinar to conduct GAC update sessions

-   Ensure CDC/VFC staff is involved to make sure their needs are met
    with VTrckS.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Determine if provider level receiving capability exists in SAP, and
    if so, identify in which release it may occur.

-   Create a list of what CDC will require, such as inventory, etc.

-   Clarify CDC\'s expectations for how the grantee monitoring component
    will be used.

-   Determine and provide information to the GAC regarding whether
    VTrckS can be used to manage inventory of vaccines that are being
    held at the grantee's own depot -- like IG, or vaccines associated
    with emergency response activities.

-   Write out a few examples of special circumstances (flu is a good
    example) to help other grantees understand.

-   Demonstrate a few special circumstances scenarios that GAC could use
    to help other grantees understand.

Discussion - Preliminary Release Strategy

GAC reviewed proposed functionality in release 1, 2, and 3. Tonya said
that if we need to prolong the transition to VTrckS due to problems,
etc. we will do that. We will not put grantees and providers on VTrckS
too quickly. GAC does not believe that all grantees should be on VTrckS
before release 2 is deployed.

Janet said that the minimum capabilities of VACMAN will be in release 1.
Tonya said that she will go back and see if, at a minimum, Release 1
will have the import and export capabilities using various file types.

GAC Recommendations

-   Post the power-point on the functionality models and the release
    contents to the web-site, notify grantees the information is there.

-   Do not use the word "consider" when talking to grantees about
    incorporating IIS systems.

-   Have VTrckS be able to import and export files from IIS before we
    get to release 1. At a minimum make sure it can do what VACMAN does
    today.

-   Fully define the evaluation plan for VTrckS, not only the pilots,
    but each release. The evaluation should include long term and short
    term measures. Minimum areas for consideration:

    -   Functionality

        -   Does it do what it is supposed to do?

        -   Does it complete the activities necessary to support the
            business of the grantee and providers?

    -   Performance

        -   Does the system function at a speed that is consistent with
            the demands of grantees with large provider bases?

        -   Does the SDN portion of the process function well?

    -   Process

        -   Does the business flow fit with the real world practice of
            vaccine management?

    -   User Ease

        -   Is the system user friendly?

        -   Is it intuitive enough for providers and grantees to ensure
            accurate, timely completion of work

    -   Support and Training

        -   Are the support and training materials sufficient to meet
            grantee and provider needs and do they ensure the system is
            easy to understand and use?

Discussion - ExIS Workgroup Update

Therese reviewed minutes and next steps.

GAC Recommendations (Completed)

-   Develop use cases for influenza vaccine and funds management.

-   Ensure that CDC gives grantees plenty of lead time for updates on
    new vaccines and system changes.

Discussion - Survey Results

Survey results were reported at the Program Manager's Meeting. GAC
believes it is important to estimate how many providers will use VTrckS.

Action Item for CDC - Completed

-   Find out number of provider sites per grantee and cross walk that
    with the GAC inventory survey to estimate the number and percentage
    of providers that will use the VTrckS directly, are expected to
    continue to use IIS, and those that will be used on behalf of
    providers by the grantee.

> Follow-up: Of the 44 grantees who responded, there were approximately
> 5, 285 providers expected to use VTrckS. California's 4,292 providers
> were not included in the survey. California does intend for most of
> their providers to use VTrckS. If we include California, we have
> approximately 9,577 potential provider VTrckS users.

Discussion - Next Steps and Timelines

Janet reviewed the GAC mission and charter. We need to design a strategy
for engaging the GAC as the VTrckS project moves forward. A GAC schedule
will be developed and presented to the Committee in the near future. CDC
will also need to have a mechanism for updating the GAC on Round 2
session activities.

Action Items for CDC

-   Ensure that the GAC's recommend that evaluation be a part of the
    GAC's guiding principals is incorporated

-   Design a system of involving and updating GAC on Round 2 sessions.

-   Next Topics

    -   Set up a call within 2 or 3 weeks, discuss:

        -   Survey results

        -   Ending Inventory Heading categories

        -   Update on recommendations made today

This document can be found on the CDC website at:

<http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vmbip/downloads/vtrcks-min/gac-min-11-20-08-508.doc>