Free EMR Newsletter Want to receive the latest news on EMR, Meaningful Use, ARRA and Healthcare IT sent straight to your email? Join thousands of healthcare pros who subscribe to EMR and HIPAA for FREE!!

2 Major Problems with MACRA

Posted on May 4, 2016 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

Everyone’s started to dive into the 10 million page MACRA (that might be an exaggeration, but it feels about that long) and over the next months we’ll be sure to talk about the details a lot more. However, I know that many healthcare organizations are tired of going through incredibly lengthy regulations before they’re final. Makes sense that people don’t want to go through all the details just for them to change.

As I look at MACRA from a very high level, I see at least two major problems with how MACRA will impact healthcare.

Loss of EHR Innovation
First, much like meaningful use and EHR certification, MACRA is going to suck the life out of EHR development teams. For 2-3 years, EHR roadmaps have been nothing but basically conforming to meaningful use and EHR certification. Throw in ICD-10 development for good measure and EHR development teams have basically had to be coding their application to a government standard instead of customer requests and unique innovations.

Just today I heard the Founder of SOAPware, Randall Oates, MD, say “I’m grieving MACRA to a great degree.” He’s grieving because he knows that for many months his company won’t be able to focus on innovation, but will instead focus on meeting government requirements. In fact, he said as much when he said, “We don’t have the liberty to be innovative and creative.” And no, meeting government regulations in an innovative way doesn’t meet that desire.

I remember going to lunch with a very small EHR vendor a year or so ago. I first met him pre-meaningful use and he loved being able to develop a unique EHR platform that made a doctor more efficient. He kept his customer base small so that he could focus on the needs of a small group of doctors. Fast forward to our lunch a year or so ago. He’d chosen to become a certified EHR and make it so his customers could attest to meaningful use. Meaningful use made it so he hated his EHR development process and he had lost all the fire he’d had to really create something beautiful for doctors.

The MACRA requirements will continue to suck the innovation out of EHR vendors.

New Layers of Work With No Relief
When you look at MACRA, we have all of these new regulations and requirements, but don’t see any real relief from the old models. It’s great to speak hypothetically about the move to value based reimbursement, but we’re only dipping our toe in those waters and so we can’t replace all of the old reimbursement requirements. In some ways it makes sense why CMS would take a cautious approach to entering the value based world. However, MACRA does very little to reduce the burden on the backs of physicians and healthcare organizations. In fact, in many ways it adds to their reporting burden.

Yes, there was some relief offered when it comes to meaningful use moving from the all or nothing approach and a small reduction in the number of measures. However, when it comes to value based reimbursement, MACRA seems to just be adding more reporting burdens on doctors without removing any of the old fashioned fee for service requirements.

MACRA is not like ICD-10. Once ICD-10 was implemented you could see how ICD-9 and the skills required for that coding set will eventually be fully replaced and you won’t need that skill or capability anymore. The same doesn’t seem to be true with value based care. There’s no sign that value based care will be a full replacement of anything. Instead, it just adds another layer of complexity, regulation, and reporting to an already highly regulated healthcare economic system.

This is why it’s no surprise that many are saying that MACRA will be the end of small practices. At scale, they’re onerous. Without scale, these regulations can be the death of a practice. It’s not like you can stop doing something else and learn the new MACRA regulations. No, MACRA is mostly additive without removing a healthcare organization’s previous burdens. Watch for more practices to leave Medicare. Although, even that may not be a long term solution since most commercial payers seem to follow Medicare’s lead.

While I think that CMS and the people that work there have their hearts in the right place, these two problems have me really afraid for what’s to come in health IT. EHR vendors the past few months were finally feeling some freedom to listen to their customers and develop something new and unique. I was excited to see how EHR vendors would make their software more efficient and provide better care. MACRA will likely hijack those efforts.

On the other side of the fence, doctors are getting more and more burnt out. These new MACRA regulations just add one more burden to their backs without removing any of the ones that bothered them before. Both of these problems don’t paint a pretty picture for the future of healthcare.

The great part is that MACRA is currently just a proposed rule. CMS has the opportunity to fix these problems. However, it will require them to take a big picture look at the regulation as opposed to just looking at the impact of an individual piece. If they’re willing to focus MACRA on the big wins and cut out the parts with questionable or limited benefits, then we could get somewhere. I’m just not sure if Andy Slavitt and company are ready to say “Scalpel!” and start cutting.

Meaningful Use Is Going to Be Replaced – #JPM16

Posted on January 12, 2016 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

Big news came out today during the JP Morgan annual healthcare conference in San Francisco. Andy Slavitt, acting administrator of CMS, live tweeted his own talk at the event including this bombshell:


Technically meaningful use is not quite over, but it’s heading that way. We always read about lame duck head coaches in sports. I guess this is the version of a lame duck government program? Of course, this is just coming from the acting administrator of CMS. It’s not yet law. So, all those working on meaningful use reports, keep working.

The end of meaningful use as we know it will be generally welcome news to most in healthcare. Although, I’m sure that most will also take it with a grain of salt. Many in healthcare likely worry that the “something better” that replaces meaningful use and MACRA will actually be something worse. The cynics might argue that nothing could be worse, but I’ve never seen the government back down from that challenge.

What interests me is what levers they have available to them to be able to make changes. Can they do it without congressional action? Are doctors angry enough that congress will take action? What will happen to the remaining $10-20 billion allocated to meaningful use? What will hospitals and doctors that were counting on the meaningful use money do? Will they not get it anymore or will it be available in a new program? Obviously, there are more questions than answers at this point.

All in all, I’m glad to hear that Andy Slavitt is open to change. I suggested they blow up meaningful use a couple years ago.

Andy also did a tweetstorm to outline the 4 themes for reforming the MACRA and post-MU tech program:

These all seem surprisingly reasonable and mirror many of the comments I hear from doctors. However, the challenge is always in the implementation of these ideas. Some of them are very hard to track and reward. I can’t argue with the principles though. They highlight some of the major challenges associated with healthcare tech. It’s going to take some time to infuse entrepreneurship instead of regulation back into the EHR world, but these guidelines are a good step towards that effort.

UPDATE: Here’s the full text of Andy Slavitt’s talk at the JP Morgan Healthcare Conference.

How Will the Coming Election Year Impact Healthcare IT?

Posted on November 10, 2015 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

It seems like the Presidential election should be closer since we’ve been hearing about possible Presidential candidates for the past year. However, we still have a whole year before the next Presidential election. Does anyone else think we’re going to be tired of this process a year from now? (But I digress)

In past years, there was certainly a lot to talk about when it comes to the impact a new president would have on healthcare IT. However, I don’t think that this presidential election will be the same. I think that’s true for healthcare in general as well.

On the healthcare IT side, meaningful use has basically run its course. Sure, Jeb Bush has asked to eliminate meaningful use and government mandates and penalties for EHR use. Although, John Halamka and Marc Probst have both recently asked for the same. We’ve written previously about how getting rid of meaningful use wouldn’t do much of anything to alter the current course of EHR and healthcare IT. It just wouldn’t change much of anything.

What could a presidential candidate do to impact healthcare IT? I really don’t see them having an interest in doing much of anything to impact the current course of healthcare IT. If you think otherwise, I’d love to hear why.

On the healthcare side of things we might see more changes. Certainly the topic of healthcare costing the US too much money is a very big an important topic for the president. However, I think Obamacare and those healthcare reform efforts are too far gone to be able to really go back and change them now. Sure, we could see some changes here and there, but I think it’s too late for a new President to really drastically change what’s already been done.

Related to this is the move away from fee for service to a value based reimbursement environment. Would any President condone this direction? Would any President advocate for a return to the old fee for service environment? I don’t see it happening. As many people have told me, the shift to value based care has left the building. There’s no coming back. Could they modify the approach and some of the details. Certainly! However, they’re not likely going to change the trajectory.

Long story short, I’m not sure any Presidential candidate will do anything that will drastically impact healthcare IT and healthcare as we know it. Sure there will be some tweaks that will have some impact, but nothing major like Obamacare or the HITECH Act.

Do you agree or disagree? I always love to hear other perspectives.

$15+ Billion of Ongoing Meaningful Use Spending Will Change Nothing

Posted on October 16, 2015 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

In case you missed it, Jeb Bush put out his healthcare plan and called for termination of the meaningful use program. Here’s that section of his plan:

Promote private sector leadership of health information technology adoption: Lead private sector collaboration, rather than government mandates, to establish national standards for electronic health record features and data interoperability; eliminate government mandates and penalties for health care providers who do not use government-approved electronic health records; protect health information from hackers and cyber attacks; and enable patient ownership of their medical history and records. Individuals should have access to their longitudinal medical records, which will help providers offer more personalized and timely treatments for individuals.

This sounds a lot like my plan to blow up meaningful use and focus on interoperability. I think it’s the right strategy and the more I think about the future of meaningful use, the more I’ve realized that it needs to end (at least in its current form).

I’ve been talking with a lot of people lately and I’ve been asking them this fundamental question: If the government chose not to spend the ~$15 billion of meaningful use money that remains would it change the trajectory of EHR adoption and EHR use at all?

There are a number of ways to look at the answer to this question. First, all of the remaining meaningful use money has basically been spoken for. I can’t think of anything anyone can do to change which companies are going to get the EHR incentive money. Everyone that’s going to get future EHR incentive money has already purchased their EHR and that $15 billion is already more or less committed to the various EHR vendors. Meaningful use has essentially locked practices into their current EHR and that’s not going to change (give or take a few hundred million).

Second, what major benefits will continued participation in meaningful use bring healthcare? This is an important question. If the government’s going to continue spending $15 billion on this program, don’t you think we should be able to trace that spending to specific benefits we’re going to receive? One way to look at this is to consider the benefits we’ve received from the first ~$20 billion (Medicare) (and another $10 billion for Medicaid) spent on meaningful use. We’ve seen adoption of EHRs. That I can’t argue. However, it’s hard for me to argue much benefit beyond it. Looking at the future meaningful use stages, I’m not optimistic of the benefits future meaningful use compliance will bring either. I’d love to hear if you have a different perspective.

I do know hundreds (probably thousands) of doctors who would argue that continuing the meaningful use program will not only not provide us any benefits, but will actually cause harm to health care. They would argue that meaningful use is a tax on their time and it provides no actual value to them or their patients. This is evident when you consider the number of doctors who have chosen not to participate in meaningful use even though they know doing so is going to cause them to incur penalties. Think about that. Many doctors think the cost to participate in meaningful use is more expensive than the guaranteed penalties for non-participation.

Returning back to the government perspective, is it wise for the government to spend another $15 billion on a meaningful use program which will actually do more harm than good?

The one challenge with the idea of discontinuing meaningful use is that it will make some organizations that were planning on the money angry. I get it. If you’re a hospital that just spent a few hundred million dollars on an EHR with the expectation that you’d be getting paid the meaningful use money, meaningful use being terminated would be quite a blow. Same goes for small practices that have invested in an EHR with the hope of EHR incentive money. I’m sympathetic to this challenge.

The solution is simple though. You find another more meaningful (pun intended) way to spend the $15 billion so these organizations can still recoup some of the investment they made in their EHR software. The meaningful way to do this is to pay them for being interoperable. Disregard all the other prescriptive elements of meaningful use and create a much simpler program that’s focused around healthcare organizations sharing data. Incentivize healthcare organizations to do something we all know is the right thing to do but which has no natural incentive. Focus the incentive on the outcome.

Am I optimistic this will happen? No. Unfortunately, I think it would take some legislative action for CMS and ONC to be able to do this. They can’t just do it on their own (I believe). Given the state of affairs in Washington, I can’t imagine congress caring enough about $15 billion here or there. It’s sad to say, because so much more could be done to improve healthcare as we know it if that $15 billion were part of the right incentive program. As it is, if the meaningful use program were cut today or the money is spent, I don’t see either action changing the trajectory of EHR and healthcare IT in a significant way.

Are We Chasing the Carrot or Afraid of the Stick?

Posted on May 29, 2015 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

The other day SGC asked in my hospital EHR adoption chart post: “If there were no penalties for non-EHR adoption, what would that chart look like?”

For those that are too lazy to click over to that post to see the chart, it basically shows hospital EHR adoption being massively accelerated thanks to the government EHR incentive program. In fact, we’re approaching full adoption of EHR in the hospital space (worth noting is that the ambulatory provider space is lagging far behind that adoption). SGC asks the question about whether that adoption would have occurred without the penalties.

My personal experience is that most organizations appreciate the EHR incentive money and plan that in as part of their budgeting for an EHR, but that they were really much more motivated by the EHR penalties that would accrue if they didn’t adopt an EHR. So, I’d say that people are more afraid of the stick than they are motivated by the carrot.

This is probably more so the case because the penalties are going to exist in perpetuity. I think most hospital organizations believe (and I think rightly so) that the EHR penalties for not using an EHR are not going to stop. In fact, they could get much worse. Not to mention, other payers might start implementing similar penalties for non-EHR use as well.

What’s been your experience? Are the carrot or the stick more motivating to healthcare organizations?

Another related question would be, “If there had been no EHR incentive or penalties, what would the EHR adoption chart look like today?” That’s a topic for another blog post.

Great Meaningful Use and Eligible Providers Chat

Posted on April 29, 2015 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

I recently received an email from a regular reader, Dr. Mike, who owns a single specialty ortho group. In the email Dr. Mike talks about the challenges that Eligible Providers (EPs) are facing with meaningful use stage 2. He describes the story as falling on “deaf ears” at CMS and ONC. He also offered these stats on meaningful use to illustrate his case that meaningful use is a failure:

Only 38,472 have attested to Stage 2, My guess is that only about half actually did Stage 2 as there was the Stage 1 reprieve. Even so, that is only 18% of EPs have successfully attested which is an complete failure of MU.

Then, he asked me an important question:

Someone ask CMS and ONC the tough questions please…Now what are they going to do?

In response to him, I told him that I’d been talking about the challenge that meaningful use is for doctors for quite a while. However, I also told him that most hospitals are participating in meaningful use, so “we’ll see how that plays out.” What I meant is that in the meaningful use program we now have one group (EPs) that are not doing so well with meaningful use and their hospital counterparts that are relying on the millions in EHR incentive money (not to mention avoiding the penalties).

Then I answered his important question, “I can tell you what ONC and CMS are going to do. Spin It!”

Of course, Dr. Mike is great at engaging in conversation so he offered this reply:

1. Elizabeth Myers and the rest of CMS and ONC really did try to spin every bad number and “we cannot assess the numbers yet” was a constant theme.
2. I totally agree they will continue to try to spin the numbers or ignore them as long as possible. I’m not sure why they cannot face the truth about MU.
3. The 36K that did MU 2 are the cream of the crop. I would even argue that the other 82% are the cream also as they were the early adopters and gung ho about MU. The fact that 82% of the over achieving EPs have skipped out on MU 2 is a travesty. There is NO chance ONC and CMS is going to pull in the lagging EPs.
4. If you don’t know already, I own a single specialty Ortho group and we skipped MU completely after we saw the MU 2 rules. Proposed MU 3 just help us box it up and bury it.

I have no idea why ONC and CMS cannot let go of the program, let EHR vendors actually work with EPs for all the thing we are missing from our IT (usability, safety, security, efficiency). Right now we cannot do anything to customize our workflow or improve our experience as it will potentially decertify the EHR for MU. MU sucks all the air out of the room. EHRs right now are a billing and click box for MU system with a marginal clinical system slapped on…

Its about time ONC lets the market do its thing, instead of this constant objective, measures, menu, core, numerators, denominators, attesting, auditing disaster they created.

Once EPs leave the program, they are not coming back. So this should be a big deal for ONC and CMS.

I haven’t gone in and fact checked his numbers (I’d love to hear if you have different numbers), but the emotion in his comments is something I’ve heard from many providers. In fact, I’ve heard it from many EHR vendors. They’re tired of coding their EHR software to the test and the government regulations as well. They want to do more innovative things, but the government regulations are stifling their ability to do it. Resources only go so far.

I think we’re in the early days of provider discontent with meaningful use. However, it’s starting to boil. I’ll be interested to see what happens when it boils over. I’m predicting that will happen once many of these doctors start seeing the penalties hit their pocketbooks.

The Healthcare Penalties Are Coming!!

Posted on April 3, 2015 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

We all know about the Meaningful Use penalties. The PQRS penalties. The Value Based Modifier penalties. Individually, they’d all be annoying, but I don’t think most healthcare organizations have understood what these penalties will be in aggregate.

This hit home to me when I was reading a smartly titled post by Jim Tate called “What you don’t do in 2015 will cause 9% CMS penalties in 2017” Here’s how he describes the penalties that are in store for healthcare:

MU: Failing to achieve MU in 2014 will bring a 2% penalty beginning in 2016 with a 1% annual increase up to 5%.

Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS): Non-participation brings a Medicare reimbursement reduction of 2.0% in 2016 based on 2014 data.

Value-Based Modifier(VBM): The VBM, which many providers are not aware of, is linked to PQRS. Beginning in 2016, eligible providers (EPs) in groups with 10 or more EPs will be subject to a penalty based on performance. In 2017, this will include all EPs, not just those in larger groups.

Taken together, this adds up to a 9% penalty in 2017 based on 2015 participation.
To avoid these penalties, immediately assess your current participation in the MU, PQRS, and VBM programs. If you are not on track you must take steps to mitigate your risk as soon as possible.

Risk mitigation is the right way to describe it. As I mentioned in the beginning, I don’t think that many providers are planning ahead to avoid these penalties. I also don’t think they realize the long term consequences of the choices they make today.

Thanks Jim for waking us up to the reality.

Meaningful Use Audit Advice

Posted on January 30, 2015 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

In response to my post on Meaningful Use Audits and the Inconsistent Appeals Process, Todd Searls. Executive Director at Wide River LLC, offered this interesting meaningful use audit advice on LinkedIn:

We’ve assisted numerous clinics and hospitals through their audits, and you’re absolutely correct John. Those clinics that have the people and processes already in place, this ends up (most of the time), being a non -issue, just time consuming. However, we have clients that have undergone significant changes since 2011 and now that they are being audited, the changes are coming back to haunt them since tracking MU documentation through the changes may not have been the highest priority.

Even those clinics that have the right documentation are now finding that they shouldn’t just mail the documents in bulk to the auditors unless they’ve spent time creating a good summary document which clearly defines each and every appendix document being sent. Case in point, we had one clinic call us to help them with their appeal for a failed audit. When we engaged we spent a few hours trying to determine why they failed the audit since the documents they had on file to support their attestation were excellent. Then we reviewed how they sent them in (in just one mass mailing with no cover letter or explanation beyond a title for each document (ie, In Reference to Measure 2)).

Once we created a clear cover letter and resubmitted, they were notified very quickly that their appeal was successful. The clinic had mixed feelings – great that they passed, but unhappy about having to ‘mind-read’ the preferred format that the auditor was looking for. Right or wrong, many clinics are in the same place – frustrated with the process.

I don’t know anyone who enjoys an audit. However, an audit can at least be bearable if it’s clear what’s expected in the audit. I think we’re going to have a lot more stories about meaningful use audits coming down the pipe. Hopefully Todd’s advice helps some who run into a meaningful use audit.

CMS Listens to Those Calling for a 90 Day Meaningful Use Reporting Period

Posted on January 29, 2015 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

I think that most of us in the industry figured this was just a matter of time, but it’s nice that we were right and CMS is working to modify the requirements and reporting periods for meaningful use. I imagine they heard all the many voices that were calling for a change to meaningful use stage 2 and it’s just taken them this long to work through the government process to make it a reality.

Before I act like this change is already in place, CMS was very specific in the wording of their announcement about their “intent to modify requirements for meaningful use” and their “intent to engage in rulemaking” in order to make these “intended” changes. Basically they’re saying that they can just change the rules. They have to go through the rule making process for these changes to go into effect. That said, I don’t think anyone doubts that this will make it through the rule making process.

Here’s the modifications that they’re proposing:

  1. Shortening the 2015 reporting period to 90 days to address provider concerns about their ability to fully deploy 2014 Edition software
  2. Realigning hospital reporting periods to the calendar year to allow eligible hospitals more time to incorporate 2014 Edition software into their workflows and to better align with other quality programs
  3. Modifying other aspects of the programs to match long-term goals, reduce complexity, and lessen providers’ reporting burden

They also added this interesting clarification and information about the meaningful use stage 3 proposed rule:

To clarify, we are working on multiple tracks right now to realign the program to reflect the progress toward program goals and be responsive to stakeholder input. Today’s announcement that we intend to pursue the changes to meaningful use beginning in 2015 through rulemaking, is separate from the forthcoming Stage 3 proposed rule that is expected to be released by early March. CMS intends to limit the scope of the Stage 3 proposed rule to the requirements and criteria for meaningful use in 2017 and subsequent years.

I think everyone will welcome a dramatic simplification of the meaningful use program. The above 3 changes will be welcome by everyone I know.

In the email announcement for this, they provided an explanation for why they’re doing these changes:

These proposed changes reflect the Department of Health and Human Services’ commitment to creating a health information technology infrastructure that:

  • Elevates patient-centered care
  • Improves health outcomes
  • Supports the providers who care for patients

Personally, I think they saw the writing on the wall and it wasn’t pretty. Many organizations were going to opt out of meaningful use stage 2. These changes were needed and necessary for many organizations to continue participating in meaningful use. They believe meaningful use will elevate patient-centered care, improve health outcomes, and support the providers who care for patients. I’m glad they finally chose to start the rulemaking process to make the changes. I think many that started meaningful use can still benefit from the rest of the incentive money and will be even happier to avoid the penalties.

Meaningful Use Created A Big Need for Certified MAs

Posted on December 26, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

One of the changes that as best I can tell has come from meaningful use (if there are other forces at play, I’d love to hear them) is the push to use certified MAs. A whole cottage industry has sprung up around certifying MAs. In fact, I even know some EHR vendors who are certifying MAs because it’s such an important need.

Now when I say need, I use that word lightly. It’s a need because meaningful use requires that many of the MAs be certified in order for that MA to participate in many aspects of the meaningful use program. The EHR vendors that are doing it likely don’t want to be in this business at all. However, for their customers to be successful with meaningful use, they need their MAs to be certified.

Certainly there are ways for a doctor to attest to meaningful use without using certified MAs. For example, if you use RNs, then their RN certification is sufficient to meet the needs of meaningful use. Plus, you can have MAs do some tasks in the office that aren’t impacted by meaningful use. However, if you’re using an MA in your office and want to attest to meaningful use, you probably need to have that MA certified.

I’ll admit that I’m not an expert on the MA certification, but I can’t imagine that this new MA certification improves the quality of care that a patient receives in the office. I’d love to be proven wrong on this. Does your office provide better patient care because you know have a group of certified MAs as opposed to non-certified MAs? I just don’t see a short certification like the one that’s required making a huge difference.

Chalk this up to one more layer of bureaucracy and hoop jumping that’s required for a clinic. When will we start really focusing on the value of something? Is there a value to these certified MAs that I’m missing? If so, I’d love to hear about it.