Item 2
Draft Minutes
NCHPEG Board of Directors and 2011 NCHPEG Strategic Planning Meeting
8:00am – 4:00pm, June 27, 2011
Genetic Alliance Offices, 4301 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 404, Washington DC
Board Attending: Dolan, Faucett, Jenkins, LoPresti, Scheuner, Johansen Taber, Prows, Terry, Trepanier,
Trotter, Whittemore
Staff Attending: Edelman, Nissen, Reed, Scott
Welcome, Introductions, Review of Minutes
Andy opened the board meeting with introductions of the board and staff to Cathie Siders, the strategic
planning facilitator.
Leigh noted that on page 1 of the minutes, “…we would have more flexibility and cushion in 2010”
should read 2011. On page 2 “Joan reviewed the draft 2010 budget” should read 2011 budget.
The minutes were approved as corrected.
Financial Report
Joan and Lemmie presented the January – May Statement of Financial Position. We have a large sum in
accounts receivable because we have not been able to invoice OBSSR due to their review. We have a
large sum in deferred revenue because we drew on our ESLI and HRSA accounts when the government
shutdown was a possibility and we might not have access to our account. We have $14,518.92 in
unrestricted net assets from 2010.
Joan and Lemmie presented the January – May Budget vs. Actual. We are on track with our budgets.
Pending any unforeseen expenses, we are essentially breaking even so far in 2011.
Last week we received word from the contract office regarding the OBSSR contract. We have a few more
items to submit to them, which we will try to do in the next several weeks. We have not been able to
invoice them since July of 2010 pending this review.
Based on what we’ve heard from the contract office, our auditor feels comfortable in finalizing the 2010
audit. This will be presented to the executive committee.
Our final indirect cost rate proposal is due the end of June; however, we need the final audit numbers.
Joan has requested an extension. Based on the draft audit, it looks like it will be 25%. Sharon suggested
considering basing the indirect rate on salary only. When the Alliance did that, their indirect is ~ 50%.
Joan considered that, however, NCHPEG has many program costs so it might be worth keeping it based
on the total direct charges. Joan will discuss with the auditor. Andy suggested monitoring the theoretical
indirects we would have received with a salary-only based calculation over the next year.
Sharon cautioned about the lack of government funding and we need to think about how non-profits
can survive.
1
Item 2
Annual Meeting Update
As a result of the low number of abstracts submitted, there will be only one abstract session at the
meeting. The low number of abstracts is worrisome as a predictor of attendance. We know of other
meetings in September that may influence people’s choices about what to attend. Johns Hopkins has a
personalized medicine meeting that overlaps ours, and Cleveland Clinic and SACHDNC have meetings
the week before. Joan asked for suggestions to advertise the meeting. Please send to Joan or the
planning committee
The Board will meet Sunday, September 25, ~ 1 – 7 p.m. We will consider holding a 1-hour meeting after
meeting ends on Tuesday. More details to follow.
2012 Board Meeting
There are potentially four positions to fill. Angie and Siobhan are rolling off but eligible for a second
term. Vicky is rolling off the executive committee and not eligible for another term for one year. Katie is
rolling off, but eligible for an executive committee.
Andy reviewed the details about elections and board composition based on the bylaws. We need a
board member to be on the committee, plus 4 other members. From the bylaws: “The qualifications for
holding the office of board member shall be knowledge about the activities, purposes, and goals of the
corporation, and potential for making a substantial contribution to the corporation.” You do not have to
be a member to be nominated. Federal representatives can be on, but are non-voting.
Andy suggested that we keep this in mind as we go through the day and come back to it after the
strategic planning process.
Strategic Planning
Cathie opened the strategic planning session by laying out the goals for the day.
1. Come to consensus on a vision statement.
2. Determine if the current mission statement is in alignment with the vision.
3. Determine major objectives (or strategic initiatives) for the next three years.
The general agenda for the day was to spend the morning working in two groups on the vision and
objectives, then compare and align them in a large group session. In the afternoon, the group reflected
on the vision and mission; further defined the objectives and next steps which should include how it
changes the work of NCHPEG and what resources are needed.
Vision Statement
The visioning group (Andy, Sharon, Angie, Lemmie, Jean, Vicki, Emily, and Therese) suggested vision
statements embodying the concepts of ‘providers can use genetics to make patients happy and healthy’,
‘patients as goal’, ‘providers are the targets to get to patient health and outcomes’, ‘provider education
2
Item 2
to move genomics into mainstream care’, ‘ensure appropriate trained HCPs to improve health’,
‘empower HP to use genomic resources to improve health’.
The statements ‘empowering healthcare providers to integrate genomics into healthcare practice’ and
‘to promote/enhance/enable/facilitate the integration of genomics into healthcare practice’ were
discussed at length by the group over the day. There was a great deal of discussion about whether the
emphasis should be on the integration of genetics or on improved health. In the end, it was decided to
put the emphasis on improved healthcare. There was also a great deal of discussion about whether the
words healthcare providers or professionals should be included in the mission statement. Arguments in
favor were that the mission statement is so broad, it could fit the mission of a number of genetic-related
organizations, such as ACMG and the Alliance, and that defining our space as the one filled by education
for healthcare providers gives us a specific niche. The argument for keeping the words out is that it does
leave it broad and we demonstrate our niche in the mission statement.
Final vision statement:
Improved health care through informed use of genomic resources
Mission Statement
The group discussed the current mission statement and how it should reflect the new vision and
strategic initiatives.
The new mission statement is to:
Integrate genomics into healthcare practice by:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
promoting health professional education;
partnering with communities;
facilitating collaborations;
anticipating needs; and
building products and tools.
Strategic Initiatives
The group working on the strategic initiatives (Maren, Tracy, Katie, Cindy, Siobhan, Katie, Joan)
identified internal objectives that we want the strategic initiatives to accomplish. We want to:
1. Increase visibility and become the ‘go-to’ group or organization in the realm of genetic/genomic
education. We can do that in part by:
a. Developing products, programs, tools
b. Be a consultant to other organizations to review or vet programs or tools – evidencebased evaluation of educational programs
c. Be a convening group for education in genetics\genomics
2. Increase outreach and partnering (especially to primary care groups). We can do that by:
3
Item 2
a. Developing specific programs or tools tailored to clients’ needs
b. Partnering for funding
c. Reach out to industry, third party payers, healthcare organizations
3. Expand funding opportunities
a. Find discretionary funding for overarching goals
b. Utilize ‘outreach and partnering’
c.
To achieve these internal objectives, the following strategic initiatives were agreed upon by the
group.
To impact provider behavior with respect to integrating appropriate genomic information into
practice through:
1. Identifying three healthcare communities with which we will partner to integrate genomic
resources.
2. Anticipating educational targets that will have a near-term impact on health.
3. Leveraging existing NCHPEG products and tools.
Maren, Sharon, Vicki, Joan, Emily, Cindy, and Jean discussed #1 in more detail and how to identify three
healthcare communities.
1. Consider the characteristics of the partner:
a. Those that recognize they have an identified need, i.e. “readiness”
b. Potential for wide dissemination and impact on:
i. Number of providers
ii. Knowledge and attitudes of providers
iii. Provider behavior (determinants of behavior are the provider characteristics,
the patient-provider encounter, the organization, and external factors)
iv. Patient outcome & systems effects
c. Those who have not been at the table yet.
2. Actively reach out to communities
3. Align targeted content from initiative #2 with targeted communities
4. Align funding opportunities with communities
Potential partners include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Professional societies
Health systems
Payers
Practice models (concierge, minute walk-in clinics)
Pharmacy
Training programs – med/nursing/PA program, residency programs
4
Item 2
7. Testing labs
8. Social & behavioral scientists (and other research partners)
9. Health IT venders
Siobhan, Andy, Leigh, Lemmie, Katie, Angie, Tracy, Kate, and Therese further explored how to
accomplish initiative #2.
1. Partner with professional societies to implement existing guidelines
2. Assess patients’ needs and drive providers that way
3. Conduct horizon scanning
a. Ask third party payers and benefits managers what tests are being ordered, what is
controversial
b. Find out what the tech assessment groups are evaluating
c. Ask labs and industry what tests are being ordered
d. Search for new approved diagnostics, pharmaceuticals
e. Establish a NCHPEG working group or engage membership in horizon scanning or
through regular emails or blogging to see what they are being asked about
f. Find out what EGAPP/GapNet is doing with respect to horizon scanning
Strategic Planning Next Steps
Joan will circulate the vision and mission statements in the next several weeks to the board and staff to
review and comment on via email.
The strategic initiatives need additional work. The workgroups need to consider how the work of
NCHPEG changes as a result of the initiatives, a plan going forward of how to achieve the initiatives, and
what resources would be needed. This will be done by workgroups. Maren, Sharon, Vicki, Joan, Emily,
Cindy, and Jean will continue to work on initiative #1, Siobhan, Andy, Leigh, Lemmie, Katie, Angie, Tracy,
Kate, and Therese on initiative #2, and the staff on initiative #3.
Dolores will send out a doodle request for each group to have a working call. Each group should
establish a leader.
Dolores will also send out a doodle request for a full board call before the September board meeting to
discuss the work of the teams.
As Joan reaches out to groups over the summer, she can try out the new vision and mission statement.
We should aim for a rollout of the vision and mission statement at the September board meeting and
solicit comments. We should also solicit new suggestions for a new name for NCHPEG from members.
Sharon mentioned the name of someone that might be available to provide pro bono work on
rebranding NCHPEG.
5
Item 2
Conclusion of Business Meeting
Andy reminded the board that our bylaws state we need to select a nominating committee consisting of
at least one board member and 4 other members. (Both Leigh and Vicky volunteered.) The timeline is
that nominations are solicited the end of August with the ballots going out in October. The new Board
starts in January. He reminded everyone that we postponed elections last year because of the need to
do strategic planning and determine what kind of board we want.
Several people commented that they did not think we were ready to decide what we wanted the board
to look like so nominations were premature, but we should decide that by the fall board meeting. A
move was made to delay the election process by three months. Ten board members were present for
the vote. Eight approved, one abstained.
Andy closed the meeting at 4:00pm.
6