Welcome to EMR and EHR

I always love when people are interested in doing guest posts on this site. This is going to be the first in a series of blog posts about some of the misinformation that’s out there about the EMR stimulus, certified EHR, and meaningful use. I hope you enjoy!

My name is David Lee and I am a principal of a healthcare technology consulting firm called eRECORDS, Inc. Day in and day out, I talk to independent physicians, practice group owner and community clinics about HITECH Act and “meaningful use”.  My company takes pride in providing accurate and up to date information to the physicians and clinics so that they can make intelligent decisions about meaningful use.

I am continually amazed at the misinformation surrounding meaningful use and the one that scares me more than anything else is ”My EHR vendor told me that if I implement their certified EHR, I will meet the meaningful use requirements and collect EHR incentive payments.”

It is true that a “certified EHR”  is a key component to meeting the requirements of “meaningful use”.  However, a “certified EHR” is not the silver bullet to meaningful use.  Let me share some important facts:

• Fact: Although the definition and requirement of a certified EHR has been released by the ONC, there is no organization recognized or approved by the CMS to certify EHR to meet the requirements of the meaningful use criteria.
• Fact: Even if your organization implements a certified EHR (when certification bodies are appointed and your EHR vendor passes the certification), this does not get you to meaningful use..
• Fact: Meeting meaningful use requirements involve qualified providers meaningfully using a certified EHR and reporting clinical quality measurements.  The key words are “meaningfully using” and “reporting” not simply having a certified EHR.

Don’t be fooled by any vendor claiming that they are certified or promising they will be certified.  Although some EHR vendors are better prepared to meet the certification when available, not a single vendor today is certified for the EHR incentive payment program.  More importantly, you cannot meet the requirements of “meaningful use” by simply implementing a certified EHR. It is vital that you find experts who can provide accurate assessment and plan for “meaningful use”.

This is a continuing series where David will share and hope to clear the myths about HITECH Act and “meaningful use”.

About David:
David Lee is the Principal at eRECORDS, Inc.  David has provided successful healthcare technology, CRM and financial product consultancy for the past two decades and most recently, guiding healthcare organizations to “meaningful use”.   You can reach David at david.lee@eRecords.com or visit www.eRecords.com.

Today, I attended a forum at HIMSS 10 where I heard a representative from a small state talk about their plans for an HIE. They’ve already introduced some legislation that will allow people in their state to opt out of having their information stored in an HIE. She referred to it as a framework for HIE. Unfortunately, a framework doesn’t deal with issues like how you’d actually allow people to opt out of an HIE. Would you just discard the person’s data that’s sent from their doctor’s EMR? Not to mention, would the patient have the option to opt out at the doctors office or would they have to know they need to go to the government page to opt out?

These items aside, I was even more interested in trying to dive into the funding for an HIE in that state. I asked the representative whether the state would be able to fund a state HIE or if they would need federal money or some sort of private partnership.

Her answer was simple. Basically, her state (which might be different in other states) didn’t have the money to be able to fund an HIE. She thought that the most likely option would be some sort of private partnership which would make an HIE in her state a reality.

The HIMSS representative then talked about how the HITECH act has provided what amounts to seed money for states to be able to establish HIE. Unfortunately, this is just seed money and not a sustainable way to run an HIE. It’s like they’re just throwing some seed money out there and hoping that someone will figure out some creative way to have a sustainable revenue model for an HIE. Without this type of sustainable revenue model, then the HIE will start to disappear the way RHIO have basically disappeared.

Someone emailed me that this was the growing sentiment among doctors, “Why spend 80 to get 40?”

Then, someone else commented, “Remember … 100% of ’stimulus dollars’ will have made it to the vendor before the providers ever get CMS approval of meaningful use.”

Another person added, “Caveat Emptor”

One of my readers sent me an interesting comment about Physician interest in the EMR stimulus:

Personally, I was under the impression that most physicians really didn’t take the time to read such things [like this post about harmful consequences of the Government's EHR stimulus]…that they’d rather be thumbing through Golfer’s Digest or Conde Nast’s Traveler. It’s become quite clear that, when something comes along such as a government program like this that can affect their bottom-line, ears perk up and attention is paid. Now, if only more would speak up and voice their opinions to HHS…

I’ve started to see a bit of a turn myself on this site and EMR and HIPAA by physicians who aren’t too happy with the EMR stimulus. They’re starting to voice their concerns more and more. Some of them are a bit uninformed. For example, they want a “cost effective product that works” and then they ask why the VA system can’t be expanded for civilian use. I’ve talked a lot before about why the VA system has challenges, especially in ambulatory EMR. However, by starting the conversation about EMR, they’ll learn things like this.

I have a feeling that the lasting legacy of the EMR stimulus will be the increased awareness and interest in EMR. Maybe the government should never spend the $18 billion of EMR stimulus money since they’ve already gotten the desired effect of increasing interest in EMR. If after this much increased interest doctors still don’t want to implement an EMR, then maybe we shouldn’t pay them [force them] to do it.

I was reading an online forum today and was blown away by something someone said about meaningful use:

The “Meaningful Use” stages can only be met if the systems are easy to use and the data is accessible in a timely matter. This will mean that EHR/EMR systems will need in-depth analytical capabilities or the information accessible by Business Intelligence systems that understand healthcare.

Healthcare organizations that understand this will be able to tap into the upwards of millions of dollars set aside by the government in the stimulus package.

Ok, I can’t really knock the fact that EMR software needs to be easy to use. I think they probably meant to say that the EMR vendor needs to make it easy to enter the data required to show “meaningful use.” This seems like a given that every EMR vendor that wants their users to get EMR stimulus money should consider. Sadly, I think they’re likely to find this a VERY difficult task.

Although, what bothers me about this quote is the idea that you need some sort of in-depth analytical capabilities or some sort of BI (Business Intelligence) system to show meaningful use. Take a quick look at this simple meaningful use matrix or the list of 25 meaningful use objectives. Which of the criteria requires this in depth analysis and BI? None of them. At most they’re a pretty simple report.

Now I’m not saying that meeting the requirements of meaningful use is easy. However, the work around meaningful use is around the entry of the data and ensuring that you’re entering the data for all 25 meaningful use objectives. The hard part isn’t accessing the data once it’s in the EMR.

I just found this really nice interview by InformationWeek with David Blumenthal, Health IT Czar. Here are a few snippets of what David Blumenthal said with my own commentary in italics.

Congress set very ambitious goals for the HITECH legislation. The concept of meaningful use is novel, and a very powerful and important concept. The process of defining meaningful use has gone through many months, through many public hearings.

I think David Blumenthal realizes that meaningful use is going to be a major problem for many doctors offices. I think we’re going to hear him blaming Congress for the “ambitious” HITECH legislation which has his hands tied. It probably does, but it’s too bad he can’t just say it that way if it is the case.

The Office of National Coordinator is still committed to developing the Nationwide Health Information Network. Many of our federal colleagues and quite a number of larger healthcare organizations are on the verge of using NHIN as it was originally conceived and configured for their own purposes, and we’re continuing to invest in it.

At its last meeting the HIT Policy Committee adopted recommendations that they have not yet formally transmitted to me to encourage the development of a more flexible, adaptable, less complicated method of health information exchange than the Nationwide Health Information Network. And that’s something that we’ll be studying.

I think this is a good move. This national network in its current state just doesn’t seem like it’s going to have much affect on small doctors offices, which last I checked make up a large part of our healthcare system. I think in politics they call this move taking it to the people.

InformationWeek: Once you get clinicians using e-medical records, who pays to maintain the exchange infrastructure?

Blumenthal: It’s a short-term issue. Long term it’s going to become an expectation on the part of the clinician and patient that information is going to be exchanged. And I think it will become a cost of doing business in the healthcare sector just as physicians and nurses consider it a cost of doing business to buy stethoscopes and run an office.

Doctors will hate to hear this quote. Although, they shouldn’t be too upset. In reality, they’ll be passing this cost on to the consumers. Now how we get to the point Blumenthal talks about is beyond me. That’s a huge gap to cross.

InformationWeek: Will the Certification Commission for Heath IT–CCHIT– remain the organization doing these certifications, or will there be others?

Blumenthal: We’ll have to see what the regulation actually is and see where CCHIT fits in. CCHIT is clearly going to have the option to participate in certification going forward, but I can’t tell you what role exactly it will play.

Translation: I don’t care about CCHIT. If they want to participate great, but I’m playing no favorites here.

These webcasts have been popping up all over the place. It’s really quite amazing. You could make it a full time career just attending various webcasts on the EMR stimulus and meaningful use. Well, I’ve seen a ton of them, but this one by Modern Healthcare looked pretty interesting with a variety of people including the Director of CMS Office of E-Health Standards and Services. You can read more about it here and I’ll put some of the details of the meaningful use regulations webcast below:

Wednesday, Jan. 27, 2010
10 a.m. Central Time
FREE REGISTRATION*

About this Webcast

The federal government is offering as much as $34 billion in financial assistance to healthcare providers that buy, implement and use information technology in a manner consistent with the way the government wants it to be used. The government explained what it wants in nearly 700 pages of proposed regulations issued earlier this month.

In this webcast moderated by Modern Healthcare Information Technology Reporter Joseph Conn, four healthcare IT experts will break down those regulations and help attendees:
Identify the key sections of the regulations
Understand the impact of the regulations on hospitals, health systems and physician practices
Teach providers strategies to qualify for federal funding
Featured Speakers

J. Michael Kramer, M.D.
Chief Medical Information Officer
Trinity Health
Novi, Mich.

David Seaman
CEO
Pronger Smith Medical Care
Blue Island, Ill.

Tony Trenkle
Director
CMS Office of E-Health Standards and Services
Washington

Paul Tang, M.D.
Chief Medical Information Officer
Palo Alto Medical Foundation
Palo Alto, CA

P.S. If you’re able to attend this or any other webcast and want to do a guest post on what was said at the webcast, feel free to contact me on the EMR and EHR contact us page.

Lots of people have been putting out lots of simplified versions of Meaningful Use. The latest I found is a “simple” 12 page PDF file that has a matrix of the various stage 1 meaningful use objectives and the criteria for Eligible Professionals and the criteria for Hospitals. I’ll keep searching the net to compile the various resources out there. Then, I’ll decide if it’s worth making my own or if I’ll just continue to compile others and provide commentary on the criteria themselves. What do you think?

Healthcare IT News has an article that did a good job listing the 25 meaningful use objectives in a simple to read format. Much better than the 692 pages of Meaningful Use and Certified EHR information HHS put out. Here’s the 25 Meaningful Use Objectives you’ll need to meet to get the EMR stimulus money:

[1] Objective: Use CPOE
Measure: CPOE is used for at least 80 percent of all orders

[2] Objective: Implement drug-drug, drug-allergy, drug- formulary checks
Measure: The EP has enabled this functionality

[3] Objective: Maintain an up-to-date problem list of current and active diagnoses based on ICD-9-CM or SNOMED CT®
Measure: At least 80 percent of all unique patients seen by the EP have at least one entry or an indication of none recorded as structured data.

[4] Objective: Generate and transmit permissible prescriptions electronically (eRx).
Measure: At least 75 percent of all permissible prescriptions written by the EP are transmitted electronically using certified EHR technology.

[5] Objective: Maintain active medication list.
Measure: At least 80 percent of all unique patients seen by the EP have at least one entry (or an indication of “none” if the patient is not currently prescribed any medication) recorded as structured data.

[6] Objective: Maintain active medication allergy list.
Measure: At least 80 percent of all unique patients seen by the EP have at least one entry (or an indication of “none” if the patient has no medication allergies) recorded as structured data.

[7] Objective: Record demographics.
Measure: At least 80 percent of all unique patients seen by the EP or admitted to the eligible hospital have demographics recorded as structured data

[8] Objective: Record and chart changes in vital signs.
Measure: For at least 80 percent of all unique patients age 2 and over seen by the EP, record blood pressure and BMI; additionally, plot growth chart for children age 2 to 20.

[9] Objective: Record smoking status for patients 13 years old or older
Measure: At least 80 percent of all unique patients 13 years old or older seen by the EP “smoking status” recorded

[10] Objective: Incorporate clinical lab-test results into EHR as structured data.
Measure: At least 50 percent of all clinical lab tests results ordered by the EP or by an authorized provider of the eligible hospital during the EHR reporting period whose results are in either in a positive/negative or numerical format are incorporated in certified EHR technology as structured data.

[11] Objective: Generate lists of patients by specific conditions to use for quality improvement, reduction of disparities, research, and outreach.
Measure: Generate at least one report listing patients of the EP with a specific condition.

[12] Objective: Report ambulatory quality measures to CMS or the States.
Measure: For 2011, an EP would provide the aggregate numerator and denominator through attestation as discussed in section II.A.3 of this proposed rule. For 2012, an EP would electronically submit the measures are discussed in section II.A.3. of this proposed rule.

[13] Objective: Send reminders to patients per patient preference for preventive/ follow-up care
Measure: Reminder sent to at least 50 percent of all unique patients seen by the EP that are 50 and over

[14] Objective: Implement five clinical decision support rules relevant to specialty or high clinical priority, including for diagnostic test ordering, along with the ability to track compliance with those rules
Measure: Implement five clinical decision support rules relevant to the clinical quality metrics the EP is responsible for as described further in section II.A.3.

[15] Objective: Check insurance eligibility electronically from public and private payers
Measure: Insurance eligibility checked electronically for at least 80 percent of all unique patients seen by the EP

[16] Objective: Submit claims electronically to public and private payers.
Measure: At least 80 percent of all claims filed electronically by the EP.

[17] Objective: Provide patients with an electronic copy of their health information (including diagnostic test results, problem list, medication lists, and allergies) upon request
Measure: At least 80 percent of all patients who request an electronic copy of their health information are provided it within 48 hours.

[18] Objective: Provide patients with timely electronic access to their health information (including lab results, problem list, medication lists, allergies)
Measure: At least 10 percent of all unique patients seen by the EP are provided timely electronic access to their health information

[19] Objective: Provide clinical summaries to patients for each office visit.
Measure: Clinical summaries provided to patients for at least 80 percent of all office visits.

[20] Objective: Capability to exchange key clinical information (for example, problem list, medication list, allergies, and diagnostic test results), among providers of care and patient authorized entities electronically.
Measure: Performed at least one test of certified EHR technology’s capacity to electronically exchange key clinical information.

[21] Objective: Perform medication reconciliation at relevant encounters and each transition of care.
Measure: Perform medication reconciliation for at least 80 percent of relevant encounters and transitions of care.

[22] Objective: Provide summary care record for each transition of care and referral.
Measure: Provide summary of care record for at least 80 percent of transitions of care and referrals.

[23] Objective: Capability to submit electronic data to immunization registries and actual submission where required and accepted.
Measure: Performed at least one test of certified EHR technology’s capacity to submit electronic data to immunization registries.

[24] Objective: Capability to provide electronic syndromic surveillance data to public health agencies and actual transmission according to applicable law and practice.
Measure: Performed at least one test of certified EHR technology’s capacity to provide electronic syndromic surveillance data to public health agencies (unless none of the public health agencies to which an EP or eligible hospital submits such information have the capacity to receive the information electronically).

[25] Objective: Protect electronic health information maintained using certified EHR technology through the implementation of appropriate technical capabilities.
Measure: Conduct or review a security risk analysis in accordance with the requirements under 45 CFR 164.308 (a)(1) and implement security updates as necessary.

A number of people are starting to write about the meaningful use criteria. I’ll plan on highlighting a number of the comments happening around the web about meaningful use here on EMR and EHR. The first up is the always interesting HIStalk’s thoughts (see bullet points below) on the recently released meaningful use interim final rule and a link to HISTalk’s excel file listing the provider requirements for meaningful use (a good place to start for doctors).

• I’m trying to figure out who the big winners will be if these criteria are approved. Consultants for sure. Companies like RelayHealth that provide eligibility, claims, and information exchange services. Companies that can perform a security analysis. Vendors that offer a usable medication reconciliation function. Vendors with patient portals. Companies that can help put vital signs information directly into the EMR.
• Losers: EMR vendors already strapped to pay for CCHIT certification who now have to cough up another million or two to meet the additional requirements. That’s another blow to small and innovative vendors who aren’t raking in the cash, meaning the market tilts even more in favor of the older, bigger ones whose sales were so limited that the government decided to intervene in the free market in the first place. Market consolidation is probably good, but I expect the development agenda will now be even more driven by Uncle Sam, not users (especially since the HITECH sales window is small, so even sales-driven innovation may dry up once everybody has chosen their dance partner).
• Lots of folks, me included, expected the criteria to be a slam dunk for moderately tech-savvy hospitals and practices. Not so: considering the small percentages of them using CPOE and e-prescribing, the minority that can provide electronic copies of information to patients, and the small number of practices that can provide patients with fast access their online health information, the these are stretch goals. I bet those requirements will be dialed back in the final version for that reason.
• Good luck with providing the denominator number for the reimbursement measures. You will need to know the total number of prescriptions generated, the number of orders issued, and the number of episodes in which medication reconciliation should have been performed. The document indicates an estimated time to generate the denominator at one hour using the EMR’s capabilities, which is surely a mistake since the EMR doesn’t help you count paper orders.
• The CPOE requirement is generous to hospitals, which have been screwing around since the 1980s trying to get doctors to use CPOE with dismal results. They are required to hit only 10% CPOE usage since “CPOE is traditionally one of the last capabilities implemented at hospitals.” (like, decades after buying it?) Practices, most of them considering their first EMR in a quick ramp-up to earn HITECH money, need 80% usage right out of the gate. I expect changes here, too, with the hospital target raised and the practice one lowered.
• With the minimal CPOE usage required for hospitals, the five required (and undefined) clinical decision support rules won’t have much impact on patient outcomes.
• The report cites a pseudo-fact that, “Some vendors have estimated that EHRs could result in cost savings of between $100 and $200 per patient per year.” Vendors say a lot of things, but I believe only those that are enumerated in a contract, preferably with rewards or penalties to encourage backing up self-serving statements with risk. I’m not sure I would have included that stat.
• The report used the high estimate of EHR cost from a range of $25,000 to $54,000 per provider, stating that “we believe the cost of such technology will be increasing.” Why should software costs increase when user bases are increasing, which should allow vendors to spread their fixed software development costs over more users? The only one factor that would raise the price is the vendor cost of complying with certification requirements (government meddling in free markets never comes free).
• That higher upfront EMR cost makes the elusive $44K jackpot even less enticing. Doctors were already avoiding EMRs because of cost and negative workflow impact. Providers are questioning whether they can qualify for the incentives and whether they trust the government to pay them.
• Conclusion: if you like the idea of having the government use taxpayer money to encourage the use of specific products in the pursuit of lofty and possibly unrelated goals, this at least pushes some theoretical behavior change in the users who choose to participate. If you’re a provider trying to decide whether the government money has too many strings attached, this might convince you that it does. And if you asked me how the odds of high EMR utilization changed with the release of these proposed requirements, I’d say they got worse.