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 EHR for FREE!

MGMA Blames Rise in HIT Costs on Fed’s Regs

Posted on September 15, 2016 I Written By

When Carl Bergman isn't rooting for the Washington Nationals or searching for a Steeler bar, he’s Managing Partner of EHRSelector.com, a free service for matching users and EHRs. For the last dozen years, he’s concentrated on EHR consulting and writing. He spent the 80s and 90s as an itinerant project manger doing his small part for the dot com bubble. Prior to that, Bergman served a ten year stretch in the District of Columbia government as a policy and fiscal analyst.

MGMA’s released a study of 850 member’s practices showing HIT costs up by more than 45 percent in the last six years. MGMA puts much of the blame on federal regulations. It’s concerned that:

Too much of a practice’s IT investment is tied directly to complying with the ever-increasing number of federal requirements, rather than to providing better patient care. Unless we see significant changes in the final MIPS/APM rule, practice IT costs will continue to rise without a corresponding improvement in the care delivery process.

There may be a good case that the HITECH act is responsible for the lion’s share of HIT growth for these and other providers, but MGMA study doesn’t make the case – not by far.

What the study does do is track the rise in HIT costs since 2011 for physician owned, multispecialty practices. For example, MGMA’s press release notes that IT costs have gone up by almost 47 percent since 2009.

In fairness, MGMA also notes that costs may have also gone up do to other costs, such as patient portals, etc. However, the release emphasizes that regulations are at great fault.

Here’s why MGMA’s case falls flat:

  • Seeing Behind the Paywall. If you want to examine the study, it’ll cost you $655 to read it. Many similar studies that charge, provide a good synopsis and spell out their methodology. MGMA doesn’t do either.
  • Identifying the Issue. It’s one thing to complain about regulations. It’s quite another to identify which ones specifically harm productivity without compensating benefit. MGMA cites regulations without so much as an example.
  • Lacking Comparables. MGMA’s press release notes that total HIT costs were $32,000 per practitioner. However, this does not look at non HIT support costs, nor does it address comparable support costs from other professions.
  • Breaking Down Costs. The study offers comparable information to practitioners by specialty types, etc. However, all IT costs are lumped together and called HIT.
  • Ignoring Backgrounds. MGMA notes that HIT costs rose most dramatically between 2010 and 2011, which marked MU1’s advent. It doesn’t address these practices’ IT state in 2009. It would be good to know how many were ready to install an EHR and how many had to make basic IT improvements?
  • Finessing Productivity. Other than mentioning patient portals, MGMA ignores any productivity changes due to HIT. For example, how long did it take and what did it cost to do a refill request before HIT and now? This and similar productivity measures could give a good view of HIT’s impact.

It’s popular to beat up on HITs in general and EHRs in general. Lord knows, EHRs have their problems, but many of the ills laid at their doorstep are just so much piling on. Or, as is this case, are used to make a connection for the sake of political argument.

Studies that want to get at the effect HIE and EHRs have had on the practice of medicine need to be carefully done. They need to look at how things were done, what they could accomplish and what costs were before and after HIT changes. Otherwise, the study’s data are fitted to the conclusions not the other way around.

MGMA’s a major and important player with a record of service to its members. In this case, it’s using its access to important practice information in support of an antiregulatory policy goal rather than to help determine HIT’s real status.

Modifications to the MACRA 2017 Reporting Period #PickYourPace – MACRA Monday

Posted on September 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.

This post is part of the MACRA Monday series of blog posts where we dive into the details of the MACRA Quality Payment Program.

As we mentioned near the start of the MACRA Monday series, many were predicting a delay or at least a modification to the MACRA timeline. While we’re still waiting for the MACRA final rule to come out with the official changes, Andy Slavitt, Acting Administrator of CMS, has announced some of the changes that will be in the MACRA final rule. Here’s the introduction to why they’re making these changes to MACRA (or the Quality Payment Program as they like to call it now):

We heard from physicians and other clinicians on how technology can help with patient care and how excessive reporting can distract from patient care; how new programs like medical homes can be encouraged; and the unique issues facing small and rural non-hospital-based physicians. We will address these areas and the many other comments we received when we release the final rule by November 1, 2016.

It’s comforting to many to know that they hear doctors pleas for help with all the reporting. We’ll see if the changes in the MACRA final rule will be enough.

As part of the announcement, Andy Slavitt said that the MACRA and MIPS program will still begin on January 1, 2017 with payment adjustments (ie. incentives or penalties) being paid in 2019 like we’d noted before. However, CMS now plans to provide multiple options to eligible physicians and other clinicians to avoid the negative payment adjustments in 2019.

There will now be 4 options available:

Option 1 – Test the Quality Payment Program.
For this option, you just have to submit “some data” to the Quality Payment Program and you’ll avoid the negative payment adjustment. Basically, CMS just wants to make sure you’re connected and ready to participate in future years. While you won’t get a negative payment adjustment, you always won’t get a positive adjustment either. It will be interesting to see what the final rule defines as “some data.” I expect it will be pretty minimal.

Option 2 – Participate for part of the calendar year.
This option allows you to submit information for a reduced number of days in 2017. In other words, your performance period could start after January 1, 2017 and you could just do MIPS reporting for part of the year. This would qualify you for a small positive payment adjustment. I’ll be interested to see the details in the MACRA final rule which outlines how much smaller the payment adjustment will be and how it will be calculated.

Option 3 – Participate for the full calendar year.
This option is basically what’s in the MACRA proposed rule. You can take part for the full 2017 calendar year and potentially qualify for a modest positive payment adjustment. CMS suggests that many will be ready for this. We’ll see if that’s the case given the compressed timeline from when the final rule is published and the release cycles of EHR software companies.

Option 4 – Participate in an Advanced Alternative Payment Model in 2017.
It seems that participation in an Advanced APM is the same as the proposed rule. Of course, if you’re participating in an Advanced APM, then you avoid the penalties and don’t have to worry about MIPS. Nothing new there.

It’s no surprise that fewer penalties and looser requirements has been applauded by many in the healthcare community. It’s pretty rare that people complain about a loosening of government regulation and wish they would require more. Personally, I think the changes are a good thing. CMS will still be able to get data from organizations that participate for the full year. Hopefully, they’ll use that to guide any modifications for future years. However, they also aren’t penalizing those organizations who won’t be fully ready in 2017 because of the short timelines.

Be sure to check out all of our MACRA Monday blog posts where we dive into the details of the MACRA Quality Payment Program.

MIPS Performance Categories and the MIPS Composite Score – MACRA Monday

Posted on August 29, 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.

This post is part of the MACRA Monday series of blog posts where we dive into the details of MACRA.

As mentioned, next up we’re going to cover the 4 MIPS performance categories. Each of these categories are listed in the graphic below and will contribute to what is called your MIPS Composite Score.
MIPS Performance Categories

At first, these four new category names might be confusing, but here’s the translation you need to know for each category that will illustrate how MIPS really just rolls up three existing programs and adds one new program as follows:

  • Quality Performance Category – PQRS Replacement
  • Resource Use (Cost) Category – Value Based Modifier Replacement
  • Clinical Practice Improvement Activities Category – New
  • Advancing Information Category – Meaningful Use (EHR Incentive Program) Replacement

I’m not sure why the government thought we needed new names for each program, but they decided that was the best route. Maybe they wanted to leave the past behind and move forward without the baggage that exists with the previous names. Regardless, 3 of the 4 MIPS performance categories are programs that most of you probably already know about. There are slight changes with each of the 3 programs (PQRS, Value Based Modifier, and Meaningful Use) under MIPS which we’ll cover in a future part of this series. In most cases, each of those 3 programs was simplified under MIPS.

In order to determine your MIPS Composite Score, each provider will receive a score on a 100 point scale. Each of the 4 performance categories contributes to the 100 point scale and have been weighted as follows:
MIPS Performance Categories Weighting - Year 1

Yes, that means that if you are already doing PQRS (Quality) and Meaningful Use (Advancing Care Information), then you’ll be well positioned for 75% of the points for the MIPS composite score. If you’re only doing PQRS, you’re still in a position to get 50% of the MIPS composite score without too many changes from what you’re doing today. Of course, that assumes you continue those efforts under the modified MIPS requirements in 2017. If you’re not doing PQRS, meaningful use, or value based reimbursement, then you’ll have some serious work to do in order to not be penalized under MIPS.

Once CMS calculates your MIPS composite score, they’ll compare that score against the threshold to determine the adjustment received. Speaking hypothetically, let’s say the MIPS threshold was set at 64 and your MIPS Composite Score was 64. Then, you wouldn’t receive an increase or decrease to your reimbursement. Of course, if you scored above a 64, then you’d receive a bonus payment. If you score below a 64, you’d be penalized.

CMS has said they intend to publish the benchmarks and thresholds prior to 2017. Given the short time frame, this is going to be a real challenge and is likely another reason why it’s possible that MACRA could be delayed. However, it’s good to know that they’re planning to publish the MIPS threshold in advance so practices can plan accordingly. The great part of this scoring system is that unlike meaningful use which was all or nothing, this scoring gives providers credit for partial performance.

It’s worth also noting that the MACRA program must be budget neutral. So, if more providers are getting penalized than are getting incentives, the HHS Secretary will use a scaling factor to increase the incentives paid to participating providers that qualify. HHS also has $500 million available separate from the normal incentive payments to reward exceptional performance. I have yet to see details on this, but it will be interesting to watch and see what they use as the criteria for exceptional performance. I wonder how much higher of a composite score you’ll need above the threshold to be considered an exceptional performer.

Next week we’ll start going through each of the performance categories at a high level and discuss the changes made to each program that’s been rolled into MIPS and the new Clinical Practice Improvement Activities category.

Be sure to check out all of our MACRA Monday blog posts where we dive into the details of the MACRA program.

Who’s Eligible for MIPS? – MACRA Monday

Posted on August 22, 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.

This post is part of the MACRA Monday series of blog posts where we dive into the details of MACRA.

In years 1 and 2 of MACRA, those that are eligible to participate are going to be very similar to past programs. However, the secretary does have the option in year 3 to look at expanding the program to include other healthcare providers that don’t meet the initial requirements. You can see this illustrated in the graphic below.
MIPS Eligibility

There are three exceptions to the above graphic. The first exception is if you’re a first year partipant in Medicare Part B. This gives these doctors time to get up to speed before they’re required to participate in MIPS. They will have to participate in year two. There is also a MIPS exception for low volume providers. If you’re a provider that has Medicare billing charges that are less than or equal to $10,000 and providers care to 100 or fewer Medicare patients in a year, then you are not required to participate in MIPS. The third exception is those providers that are already participating as an advanced APM (see what we wrote about Advanced APM eligibility for more details) are not allowed to participate in MIPS. Here’s a summary of these exceptions:
Not Eligible for MIPS

If all of this Advanced APM and MIPS eligibility is confusing to you, here’s a flow chart which will walk you through the process of knowing whether you’re an advanced APM, whether you must participate in MIPS or whether you’re not subject to MIPS:
APM or MIPS - Where Do You Fit Into MACRA

Next up, we dive into the details of MIPS and the 4 MIPS categories.

Be sure to check out all of our MACRA Monday blog posts where we dive into the details of the MACRA program.

Is Interoperability Worth Paying For?

Posted on August 18, 2016 I Written By

When Carl Bergman isn't rooting for the Washington Nationals or searching for a Steeler bar, he’s Managing Partner of EHRSelector.com, a free service for matching users and EHRs. For the last dozen years, he’s concentrated on EHR consulting and writing. He spent the 80s and 90s as an itinerant project manger doing his small part for the dot com bubble. Prior to that, Bergman served a ten year stretch in the District of Columbia government as a policy and fiscal analyst.

A member of our extended family is a nurse practitioner. Recently, we talked about her practice providing care for several homebound, older patients. She tracks their health with her employer’s proprietary EHR, which she quickly compared to a half-dozen others she’s used. If you want a good, quick EHR eval, ask a nurse.

What concerned her most, beyond usability, etc., was piecing together their medical records. She didn’t have an interoperability problem, she had several of them. Most of her patients had moved from their old home to Florida leaving a mixed trail of practioners, hospitals, and clinics, etc. She has to plow through paper and electronic files to put together a working record. She worries about being blindsided by important omissions or doctors who hold onto records for fear of losing patients.

Interop Problems: Not Just Your Doc and Hospital

She is not alone. Our remarkably decentralized healthcare system generates these glitches, omissions, ironies and hang ups with amazing speed. However, when we talk about interoperability, we focus on mainly on hospital to hospital or PCP to PCP relations. Doing so, doesn’t fully cover the subject. For example, others who provide care include:

  • College Health Systems
  • Pharmacy and Lab Systems
  • Public Health Clinics
  • Travel and other Specialty Clinics
  • Urgent Care Clinics
  • Visiting Nurses
  • Walk in Clinics, etc., etc.

They may or may not pass their records back to a main provider, if there is one. When they do it’s usually by FAX making the recipient key in the data. None of this is particularly a new story. Indeed, the AHA did a study of interoperability that nails interoperability’s barriers:

Hospitals have tried to overcome interoperability barriers through the use of interfaces and HIEs but they are, at best, costly workarounds and, at worst, mechanisms that will never get the country to true interoperability. While standards are part of the solution, they are still not specified enough to make them truly work. Clearly, much work remains, including steps by the federal government to support advances in interoperability. Until that happens, patients across the country will be shortchanged from the benefits of truly connected care.

We’ve Tried Standards, We’ve Tried Matching, Now, Let’s Try Money

So, what do we do? Do we hope for some technical panacea that makes these problems seem like dial-up modems? Perhaps. We could also put our hopes in the industry suddenly adopting an interop standard. Again, Perhaps.

I think the answer lies not in technology or standards, but by paying for interop successes. For a long time, I’ve mulled over a conversation I had with Chandresh Shah at John’s first conference. I’d lamented to him that buying a Coke at a Las Vegas CVS, brought up my DC buying record. Why couldn’t we have EHR systems like that? Chandresh instantly answered that CVS had an economic incentive to follow me, but my medical records didn’t. He was right. There’s no money to follow, as it were.

That leads to this question, why not redirect some MU funds and pay for interoperability? Would providers make interop, that is data exchange, CCDs, etc., work if they were paid? For example, what if we paid them $50 for their first 500 transfers and $25 for their first 500 receptions? This, of course, would need rules. I’m well aware of the human ability to game just about anything from soda machines to state lotteries.

If pay incentives were tried, they’d have to start slowly and in several different settings, but start they should. Progress, such as it is, is far too slow and isn’t getting us much of anywhere. My nurse practitioner’s patients can’t wait forever.

MIPS Overview – MACRA Monday

Posted on August 15, 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.

This post is part of the MACRA Monday series of blog posts where we dive into the details of MACRA.

The Merit-based Incentive Payment System or MIPS as we now know it is going to be a big part of most practices future. As we mentioned previously, most practices will be participating in the MIPS program as opposed to the APM program under MACRA. Here’s a quick overview of the MIPS program. Over the next months, we’ll be diving deeper and deeper into the details of MIPS.

MIPS replaces 3 programs that will likely be familiar to most readers: PQRS, the Medicare EHR Incentive Program (Better known as meaningful use), and the Value-Based Payment Modifier (VBM). The last one might not be as familiar to people, but PQRS and Meaningful Use are likely very familiar. In future posts, we’ll dive into the changes to these programs that come as they’re rolled into MIPS.

It’s worth noting that these programs will continue to run in their current from through 2018. Plus, the Medicaid EHR Incentive Program and the Medicare EHR Incentive Program for Hospitals will continue. Along with rolling the 3 current programs into MIPS, MACRA also adds a new program to MIPS called the Clinical Practice Improvement Activities (CPIA).

The first performance period for MIPS is 2017 with MIPS adjustments happening in 2019. At least that’s the way it’s listed in the proposed rule. Many are suggesting that there’s no way that MIPS will be for all of 2017. They argue that it has to be either delayed or moved to a 90 day reporting period (which is basically a 9 month delay). We’ll see what they finally decide when the MACRA final rule finally comes out.

The potential MIPS adjustments to your Medicare Part B payment are 4% in 2019 and grow to 9% in 2022. Remember that these adjustments can be both positive and negative based on how well you participate in the MIPS program. We’ll dive into the MIPS Composite Score that determines your MIPS payment adjustment in a future post. Here’s a charge which illustrates the MIPS timeline and incentives:
MIPS Incentives and Penalties
That’s all for our MIPS overview. Next up we’ll dive into who is eligible for MIPS and who is not eligible for MIPS.

You can see how if you’re already participating in PQRS, Meaningful Use, and the Value-Based Modifier, then you are well positioned to do well in MIPS. This will become even more clear when we discuss the weighted scoring that each of these pieces of MIPS receives. Of course, if you haven’t been participating in these programs, then MIPS will definitely be a pretty big hill to climb.

Be sure to check out all of our MACRA Monday blog posts where we dive into the details of the MACRA program.

A Look At RECs Success or Failure

Posted on July 28, 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.

ONC has recently put out a report evaluating the performance of the REC (Regional Extension Center) program. The report is only 124 pages, so you might want to save the light reading for the weekend. If you want something more consumable, you can read this blog post from Thomas A. Mason, MD which includes this nice summary:

Survey data included in the report released today indicates that 68 percent of the eligible professionals who received incentive payments under Stage 1 of the incentive program were assisted by an REC, compared to just 12 percent of those that did not work with a REC. The survey also found that many providers working with RECs received frequent and tailored help – often face to face, for as long as it was needed. Many RECs also created both structured and informal opportunities for clinicians to learn from one another, creating economies of scale to reach more providers with limited resources and spread providers’ EHR product-specific knowledge.

In the same blog post he also points out ONC’s numbers that “nearly all hospitals and approximately three-quarters of doctors reported using certified EHRs.”

That all sounds like a success to me. All these rosy numbers about people being helped. Lest we think this report doesn’t matter, HHS has already announced another $100 million over 5 years for what I’d call REC like support money for those participating in MACRA. I expect many of the RECs to get this money, but we’ll see.

What’s clear to me is that these REC organizations did indeed help many organizations get access to the meaningful use money. Only in the government could you spend money to get people to have you spend more money, but I digress. Most of the REC organizations that I met with really did a lot to help small practices with the meaningful use program. Some of their EHR selection efforts could be questioned, but not the MU help they provided. I can’t remember how many posts I’ve written about the random methodology that RECs seemed to use in their efforts to help their clients choose an EHR. It was a mess and full of weird influences (Note: There were some exceptions where certain RECs just supported everyone and every EHR or at least did a good job having their clients drive the process of which EHR to support).

When you look at the recent study be Deloitte that many doctors don’t know about MACRA, that could partially be because the RECs did a lot of the meaningful use education for doctors. We don’t have that yet for MACRA.

Personally, I’m torn on how valuable the RECs have been to the progression of health IT. Did they really help practices choose the right EHR and implement it in an effective way? What would have happened if they weren’t there? At the end of the day, the cost of the RECs is small potatoes next to the billions we spent on meaningful use. I’m sure some rural practices would have never considered participating in meaningful use if it weren’t for the RECs. No doubt that’s who the politicians are thinking about when they included the money for RECs and now for MACRA support.

The harder question to answer is if healthcare is better off with all these rural practices being “meaningful users” of EHR.

What’s the Impact of MACRA on Small Practices?

Posted on July 22, 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.

I recently had a chance to sit down and chat with Tom Giannulli, MD, Chief Medical Officer of Kareo and Michael Sherling, MD, MBA, Chief Medical Officer and Co-founder of Modernizing Medicine, to talk about the impact of the MACRA legislation on small practices. Both of these CMOs at EHR vendors rode the meaningful use wave and now they’re preparing to ride the new MACRA wave as well. So, they were the perfect people to talk about the impact of MACRA on small practices and how a small practice should prepare themselves for the new MACRA legislation. If you’re a small practice that’s wondering about MACRA (or doesn’t even know what it is), then take the time to watch the video below to see what it means for small practices.

After our formal interviews, we always like to hold what we call the “after party.” We never know how it’s going to go. Sometimes people join in and offer their insights and ask questions and sometimes they don’t. In this case, we continued our conversation about the MACRA and small practices, but we also talked about the impact that legislation like MACRA has on an EHR vendors development lifecycle. You can learn more about MACRA in the video below:

This post was a great way to wrap up the week and also for us to announce a new blog post series we’re starting on Monday called MACRA Monday. Long time readers may remember the Meaningful Use Monday series of blog posts we did every Monday for a few years. This will be similar as we dive into the MACRA legislation and help small medical practices understand the details of what’s coming in MACRA. Watch for that on Monday!

CMS Opens Door to Possible MACRA Delay

Posted on July 15, 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.

In related news to yesterday’s meaningful use REBOOT relief legislation, Andy Slavitt, Acting Administrator of CMS, testified about MACRA before the Senate Finance committee. In his hearing, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the committee commented “Physicians will only have about two months before the program goes live. This seems to be a legitimate concern. Considering the MACRA law does give CMS flexibility as to the start of the physician reporting period, what options is CMS considering to make sure this program gets started on the right foot?”

In response to this Slavitt responded that CMS was open to options such as postponing implementation and establishing shorter reporting periods (both of which were widely requested during the MACRA comment period).

Both Slavitt and Senator Hatch talked about the importance of the MACRA legislation not killing the small practice physician. A delay and shorter reporting periods would be a great start. However, so many small practices have been burned by meaningful use that it might be too late for MACRA. It seems that MACRA is dead on arrival for many physicians based on historical experience with meaningful use and certified EHR. I’m not sure CMS could do anything with MACRA to really stem the tide.

This is reflected in a survey that Deloitte recently did to assess physician’s awareness of MACRA. The survey found that 21% of self-employed physicians and those in independently owned medical practices report they are somewhat familiar with MACRA versus 9% of employed physicians surveyed. 32% of physicians only recognize the name.

Basically, physicians barely even know about MACRA. Although, I’m quite sure if we asked them if they liked the MACRA government legislation they’d all say an emphatic No! (Kind of reminds me of Jimmy Kimmel’s Life Witness News) It’s too bad, because if doctors have already been participating in PQRS and Meaningful Use, MACRA won’t be that bad. Of course, the same can’t be said for those that haven’t participated in either program.

During the hearing mentioned above, Senator Hatch highlighted Andy Slavitt’s comment that “the focus must be focused on patients and not measurement.” Plus, he suggested that more needed to be done in this regard. Andy Slavitt responded that they need to reduce the documentation requirements so doctors can spend more time with patients.

Take those comments for what their worth. They’re hearing the right messages and I think they’re heading the right direction. Let’s hope we see that in the MACRA final rule.

Meaningful Use Relief from New REBOOT Legislation

Posted on July 14, 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.

John Thune has introduced a new legislation called the Electronic Health Record (EHR) Regulatory Relief Act (S. 3173) to provide some relief to hospitals and eligible providers participating in the Medicare EHR Incentive Program (Better known as Meaningful Use). You can find the legislative text (ie. legalese) and the summary document (ie. readable).

This legislation was written by the “REBOOT members” John Thune (S.D.), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Mike Enzi (Wyo.), Pat Roberts (Kan.), Richard Burr (N.C.) and Bill Cassidy (La.) who previously released a white paper on their Health IT concerns.

Here’s a short summary of what the legislation would do:

  • Codify the 90-day reporting period for meaningful use
  • Remove the All-or-Nothing approach to Meaningful Use and set a 70% threshold
  • Increased flexibility in Hardship Exceptions

If I’m reading the legalese right, it also opens the door for the HHS Secretary to allow a 90 day reporting period for MIPS as well. It’s interesting that it wasn’t highlighted in the summary document.

Regardless, these are all changes that will be welcomed by the healthcare community. What I like most about these proposals is that I don’t think any of them will impact how a hospital or doctor was previously planning to use their EHR. At least it won’t impact care in any sort of adverse way. Doctors will still be using an EHR. However, it will provide some reporting relief and will open the door of meaningful use to organizations that wouldn’t have been able to comply previously. Of course, I’m sure there are a few people out there that will settle for nothing less than a repeal of meaningful use completely. I predict that such a thing will never happen.

What do you think of this proposed legislation? Are they enough? Should they be providing more relief? Will this change your meaningful use plans?