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!!

Are Changes to Meaningful Use Certification Coming?

Posted on February 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.

I’d been meaning to write about the now infamous letter from the AMA and 20 other associations and organizations to Karen DeSalvo (ONC Chair and Assistant HHS Secretary). I’ve put a list of the organizations and associations that co-signed the letter at the bottom of this post. It’s quite the list.

In the letter they make these recommended changes to the EHR certification program:

1. Decouple EHR certification from the Meaningful Use program;
2. Re-consider alternative software testing methods;
3. Establish greater transparency and uniformity on UCD testing and process results;
4. Incorporate exception handling into EHR certification;
5. Develop C-CDA guidance and tests to support exchange;
6. Seek further stakeholder feedback; and
7. Increase education on EHR implementation.

Unfortunately, I don’t think that many of these suggestions can be done by Karen and ONC. For example, I believe it will take an act of Congress in order to decouple EHR certification from the meaningful use program. I don’t think ONC has the authority to just change that since they’re bound by legislation.

What I do think they could do is dramatically simplify the EHR certification requirements. Some might try to spin it as making the EHR certification irrelevant, but it would actually make the EHR certification more relevant. If it was focused on just a few important things that actually tested the EHR properly for those things, then people would be much more interested in the EHR certification and it’s success. As it is now, most people just see EHR certification as a way to get EHR incentive money.

I’ll be interested to see if we see any changes in EHR certification. Unfortunately, the government rarely does things to decrease regulation. In some ways, if ONC decreases what EHR certification means, then they’re putting their colleagues out of a job. My only glimmer of hope is that meaningful use stage 3 will become much more simpler and because of that, EHR certification that matches MU stage 3 will be simpler as well. Although, I’m not holding my breathe.

What do you think will happen to EHR certification going forward?

Organizations and Associations that Signed the Letter:
American Medical Association
AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine
American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology
American Academy of Dermatology Association
American Academy of Facial Plastic
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Academy of Home Care Medicine
American Academy of Neurology
American Academy of Ophthalmology
American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery
American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists
American Association of Neurological Surgeons
American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons
American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology
American College of Emergency Physicians
American College of Osteopathic Surgeons
American College of Physicians
American College of Surgeons
American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
American Osteopathic Association
American Society for Radiology and Oncology
American Society of Anesthesiologists
American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery and Reconstructive Surgery
American Society of Clinical Oncology
American Society of Nephrology
College of Healthcare Information Management Executives
Congress of Neurological Surgeons
Heart Rhythm Society
Joint Council on Allergy, Asthma and Immunology
Medical Group Management Association
National Association of Spine Specialists
Renal Physicians Association
Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions
Society for Vascular Surgery

Did Meaningful Use Try to Do Too Much?

Posted on February 12, 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.

When I was reading Michael Brozino’s post on EMR and EHR about the Value of Meaningful Use, I was hooked in by his comment that meaningful use standards only went halfway. I’m not sure if this was the intent of his comment, but I couldn’t help but sick back and consider if meaningful use missed the mark because it only went half way.

When I think about all of the various features of meaningful use, it really feels to me like ONC and CMS tried to bite off more than they could chew. They tried to be all things to everyone and they ended up being nothing to no one. Ok, that’s not perfectly correct, but is likely pretty close.

Think about all of the meaningful use measures. Which ones go deep enough to really have a deep and lasting impact on healthcare? By having so many measures, they had to water them all down so it wasn’t too much for an organization to adopt. I’m afraid these watered down measures and standards render meaningful use generally meaningless.

Certainly the EHR incentive money has stimulated EHR adoption. However, could this EHR adoption have had even more impact if it would have just focused on two or three major areas instead of dozens of measures with good intentions but little impact?

In many ways, this is just a variation on my wish that EHR incentive money would have focused on EHR interoeprability. As meaningful use stands today, we’ve made steps towards interoperability, but we’re still not there. Could we have achieved interoperability of health records if it had been our sole focus? Instead, we’re collecting smoking status and vital signs which get stored in an EHR and never used by anyone outside of that EHR (and some would argue rarely inside of the EHR).

The good news is we could remedy this situation. ONC and CMS have something called meaningful use stage 3. How amazing would it be if they essentially through out the previous stages and built MU stage 3 on 2-3 major goals? The foundation is there for MU stage 3 to have an enormous impact for good on healthcare, but I don’t think it will have that impact if we keep down the path we’re currently on.

Yes, I realize that a change like this won’t be easy. Yes, I realize that this means that someone’s pet project (or should I say pet measure) is going to get cut. However, wouldn’t we rather have 2-3 really powerful, healthcare changing things implemented than 24 measures that have no little lasting impact? I know I would.

Side Note: Think how we could simplify EHR Certification if there were only 2-3 measures.

Some of the Thinking Behind Meaningful Use Stage 2 – Meaningful Use Monday

Posted on August 29, 2011 I Written By

Lynn Scheps is Vice President, Government Affairs at EHR vendor SRSsoft. In this role, Lynn has been a Voice of Physicians and SRSsoft users in Washington during the formulation of the meaningful use criteria. Lynn is currently working to assist SRSsoft users interested in showing meaningful use and receiving the EHR incentive money.

Lynn Scheps is Vice President, Government Affairs at EHR vendor SRSsoft. In this role, Lynn has been a Voice of Physicians and SRSsoft users in Washington during the formulation of the meaningful use criteria. Lynn is currently working to assist SRSsoft users interested in showing meaningful use and receiving the EHR incentive money. Check out Lynn’s previous Meaningful Use Monday posts.

A great deal of work, discussion, and debate by the HIT Policy Committee and its Workgroup members went into developing the recommendations for meaningful use Stage 2 (discussed in the last two Meaningful Use Monday posts). Meetings were frequent and lengthy, but I tried to listen in on most of them to gain some insights into the thinking behind the decisions being made and the future direction of meaningful use. 

Committee members struggled with striking the right balance between aggressively pressuring providers so that adoption would be accelerated, on the one hand, and maintaining a realistic and practical view of their capabilities, on the other. Some committee members were adamant about staying on track to reach the Stage 3 end goals within the predetermined 2015 time frame, (i.e. remaining on the escalator, as the progression is often referred to), while others recognized that overburdening providers could lead to program failure, i.e., discouraging adoption by imposing unreasonable expectations that would cause providers to doubt their ability to earn the incentives and abandon the effort altogether. The debate led to an open question: does everything have to be accomplished under the umbrella of meaningful use?

 An issue that I think could have used more discussion is how to make meaningful use relevant for specialists—a subject raised frequently by Committee member Gayle Harrell. There was general agreement about the importance of having all types of physicians participate in the incentive program, and testimony from a variety of specialists was solicited. Other than suggesting a large number of new clinical quality measures, however, the basic recommendations are still predominantly primary-care focused. 

Lastly, there was a prevailing sense of frustration over the fact that the calendar did not allow time for an analysis of the experience of Stage 1 before requiring the definition of Stage 2.