A "Meaningful" Move
Yesterday, the HIT Policy Committee gathered for a second round of discussion about "meaningful use," a key criterion in determining eligibility for EHR incentives. Last month's meeting yielded a proposed definition, but the Policy Committee sent the workgroup back to the drawing board to work on revisions.
Well, lo and behold, the workgroup got it right this time-at least according to the HIT Policy Committee. Members approved the revised recommendations, clearing the first of what may be a number of hurdles. It's now up to David Blumenthal, MD, MPP, national coordinator for HIT, to give his stamp of approval before the criteria are released for public comment.
Among the biggest changes, EHR objectives and goals will be based on adoption year instead of being tied specifically to 2011, 2013 or 2015. Requirements will still begin in 2011 and escalate over time, but providers who start slow can fulfill the 2011 criteria in 2013, the 2013 criteria in 2015, etc., so they're not chasing a runaway train. They won't earn as much incentive money as a provider who starts on track, but they'll score some funds for the demonstrated-albeit delayed-effort.
The revised draft also clarified requirements for computerized physician order entry, which may prove to be an adoption challenge for many providers. To earn EHR incentives, providers must use CPOE for 10 percent of orders, according to the criteria.
While some revisions lightened the load, the work group didn't go easy on providers. The revised draft has some additional requirements, including electronic submission of insurance claims and use of at least one clinical decision support tool.
Like the first draft, the revised recommendations are laid out in a nice, neat matrix. But this time, it's subdivided among hospitals and eligible providers (much like the Medicare and Medicaid incentives plan, which you can read all about in our online feature, "A HITECH Headache").
Check out healthit.hhs.gov for all the gritty details from the meeting, from an overview of public comments to certification recommendations. Do you think the changes are for the better, and how is your facility preparing?