I was really intrigued by this post on the First Databank blog titled “Making the Most of the Meaningful Use Extension.” Here’s an excerpt of the post that really struck me.
We are looking at an industry undergoing a change in the reimbursement model, from fee for service to a risk-based model. Therefore, our systems must support quality measure reporting, tracking of specific treatment responsibilities for improving outcomes, and they must provide health information to the patient that allows them to be an active participant in their care.
We have to incorporate access to the care guidelines and research that has been proven to provide the best outcomes. There are a number of areas where there is overwhelming evidence as to what is the best course of care for the patient. For reasons that sometimes escape me, providers often do not follow these best practices.
We’re absolutely going through a shifting reimbursement model. In this post, Tom Bizzaro outlines what he thinks is needed to be able to handle this changing reimbursement model. Do you agree with Tom’s ideas? Is there anything he missed?
The last part of the above quote really hit me since I’ve seen the same thing. I don’t think we’re going to do much to change people who choose to go against evidence based medicine. However, I do think there’s a great opportunity for technology to more quickly diffuse the evidence based practices throughout the medical profession. While some people ignore best practices, I think the bigger problem is that there is just so much information out there that it’s hard for healthcare professionals to keep up to date.
This is just one example of how technology is going to improve patient care. Plus, I believe access to the best information at the point of care is going to be an essential part of the changing reimbursement model. This is just one reason why I don’t think you’ll be able to practice medicine without technology in the future.
…and then, there are those of us who have been doing this for a long time, feeling like the voice crying in the wilderness, and highly critisized by administrators and procedural doctors alike for “not generating RVUs.”
All I can say is, it’s about time.
The problem is, MU is a government program, and like all such programs, tries to have one size fit all rather than asking for innovation and looking for results.