Welcome to EMR and EHR

EMR Stimulus Myth #2: “I have a CCHIT certified EHR so I am good to go for meaningful use”

It is likely that CCHIT will be one of the accredited certification body under the EHR incentive program. HOWEVER, given that there is no formal EHR certification program available from ONC yet, no existing certification, including from CCHIT, means much towards meaningful use.

As I covered in EMR Stimulus Myth #1, even if you implement an ONC certified EHR (when the certification program is finalized), it does not get you to meaningful use. Providers have to meaningfully use the certified EHR and report on defined clinical qualify measures over a set reporting period to meet meaningful use. Given that no EHR today is certified, how should you proceed with EHR purchase decision?

If you are making the decision to buy an EHR now, YOU MUST VETT THE EHR VENDOR prior to purchase so that you minimize the risk of buying the wrong EHR. Vetting should include the assessment of EHR against the current definition of certified EHR from ONC plus the match of EHR to the makeup of your organization. Of course, any promises of future from the vendor should be baked into the contract you are executing with them. EHR needs of a solo or a small practice group is much different than a larger group/clinic/hospital.

People often find real value in getting the assistance of a meaningful use expert for this assessment. The pitfalls avoided make it worth the investment. You don’t want to purchase and implement an EHR and then find out your EHR won’t meet the meaningful use requirements. That would be a depressing realization.

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.

CCHIT has published their comments made on the Interim Final Rule (45 CFR Part 170, RIN 0991-AB58), published in the Federal Register of Jan 13, 2010, “Health Information Technology: Initial Set of Standards, Implementation Specifications, and Certification Criteria for Electronic Health Record Technology.” Or as I like to call it, the EHR Certification criteria.

Here’s 3 paragraphs that kind of describe CCHIT’s broad feedback on the EHR Certification criteria:

Before offering detailed suggestions, the Commission wishes to highlight three overarching concerns with the IFR as written:

• Scope. While “Complete EHR”sounds like a desirable certification, the package of requirements in the IFR may not match the needs and expectations of doctors and hospitals, nor the realities of the marketplace, for EHRs. By including two functions of an administrative/billing system in the scope of EHR certification, ONC may exclude one third or more of the offerings in the current EHR marketplace, while suddenly forcing hundreds of billing products to undergo unnecessary certifications. In other areas, the scope falls short of being complete: for example, an EHR that does not offer competent electronic management of progress notes would be unusable and medico-legally unsound, and an EHR that fails to prominently display patient advance directives in an emergency could compromise patients’ rights at their time of greatest vulnerability.
• Interoperability. The Commission and its expert volunteer panels believe that certain criteria and standards in the IFR represent a step backwards in progress toward EHR interoperability. For example, well-defined standards for receiving electronic laboratory results in the doctor’s office and for exchanging clinical summaries had already been recognized by the Federal government and widely supported by industry – as evidenced by the certification of over 80 EHR products to those standards in 2008. Yet under the IFR, that standard for receiving laboratory results, and the specific implementation guidance for exchanging clinical data, have been dropped. Where one standard was previously recognized for clinical data exchange, the IFR offers two different, incompatible standards. Conversely, other interoperability criteria in the IFR, such as the requirement that EHRs be capable of transmitting biosurveillance data to public health authorities, could immediately increase EHR cost and complexity while benefits remain years away because public health authorities lack standards-compliant infrastructure and systems for receiving that data.
• Functionality. Some of the IFR criteria define required functionalities of an EHR too microscopically, adding unnecessary complexity and creating barriers to innovation. Other criteria are too vague to be reliably verified in a testing process, creating a risk that the expectations of providers, payers, and the public regarding the performance, safety, and benefits of Certified EHRs will not be met. A particular concern surrounds the reporting of quality measures, with the IFR calling for standards and measures that are yet to be defined or that require significant revision to make them computable from EHR-based data.

I’ll be interested to hear people’s comments about CCHIT’s feedback on the HHS EHR Certification Criteria.

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?