Screwed Up Meaningful Use (at least for specialists)

Posted on January 24, 2011 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the 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 and 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 regularly get passionate emails from readers of EMR and EHR (and of course my other site EMR and HIPAA. I don’t always agree with the emails, but I almost always find them interesting. The following is one such email. It wasn’t intended to be published, so excuse the format. However, I find much of the comments about ONC’s approach to specialists spot on. The hard part is that I think ONC realizes this as well. The question is whether ONC in meaningful use stage 2 is going to do anything to address the specialist problem. I think this is a topic we need to voice to ONC.

The EMR’s basically started with certification requirements from CCHIT…ONC took that starting point…and moved to MU from it…without regard to specialty. Properly done, they should have started with MU by specialty…then figured out what the product certification requirements should be from there—for that specialty: Orthopedic guys see lots of patients (50-70 per day, and lose two days/week to surgery), mostly NEW patients with specific problems (broken bones or joint replacements)…no big longitudinal charts…and need to dictate complex notes; Dermatologists have lots of lab/biopsy tests, need to draw pictures and annotate them, not dictate; Pediatricians need growth charts and long medical histories and trends; Oncologists need detailed treatment histories, dosages, outcomes; Ophthalmologists need lots of technical data, measurements and interfaces to optic devices. Yet ONC made a set of rules that really only apply to Primary Care…which is where much of the CHRONIC conditions (and a large portion of the medical cost issues) are quarterbacked…and have the best chance of prevention.

Besides…all the data from specialists should flow back to the PriCare docs anyway…why try to keep it coordinated in both places? I think we have a long way to go to get all healthcare “communitized”…and powers that be need to recognize how different things are for various specialties…and define MU from each specialty’s point of view…and find out that the current certification standards are WAY overkill for most of them…unnecessary complexity and, thereby, cost….to do the irrelevant things to qualify for incentives. After five years, they will stop doing those things anyway, when incentives run out. Having a data pathway between in-patient and out-patient (ambulatory) is a great goal…that should come first..the ability to share data…even if via documents. That could be done today. Trying to devise interoperability standards for 400 EHR’s, a dozen or so major Hospital-based vendors…and registries, labs and other participants….that is a LONG way from being reality

Will be interesting to see how the “success stories” pan out this year starting in May for EP’s. Thank goodness ONC has made it almost impossibly easy for specialists in Stage I….they can opt out of almost everything required and get incentives the first 2 years($30k)…is that a good use of taxpayer money?