
July 15, 2010
HEALTH INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY:
A NEW COMMITMENT TO MEANINGFUL USE
On Tuesday July 13, 2010 the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Office of the National Coordinator for Information Technology (ONC) released the final rules on "Meaningful Use and Standards and Certification for the Electronic Health Records Incentive Program"[1] as well as "Standards and Certification for the Electronic Health Records" under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) as included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). As we have written previously, the effects of properly implemented health information technology (HIT) on the Nation's health care system could be tremendous.[2] Increased care coordination, a reduction in medical errors, and elimination of waste are all potential benefits of HIT.
In conjunction with the Meaningful Use rule, on June 24, 2010 ONC published a final rule to establish a temporary certification program to test and certify complete electronic health records (EHRs) and EHR modules.[3] ONC still plans to publish a final certification rule to replace the temporary certification program and ensure that the definition of meaningful use does not require providers to perform functions for which standards have not been established.[4] As of now, there are no certified EHRs in the country, but CMS estimates that there should be fully certified EHRs by the fall of this year.[5]
Background on HIT Incentive Payments
It has been widely acknowledged that health information technology could greatly reduce unnecessary health care spending and increase quality of care available to patients. However, adoption of the technology has been slow, in large part due to high start-up costs. In order to encourage the adoption of HIT, HITECH established a voluntary program for eligible providers to adopt health information technology, and use it in a meaningful manner, beginning in January 2011. A Medicare provider who is able to demonstrate such meaningful use of HIT may be eligible to receive up to $44,000 over the course of the program, while a Medicaid provider may be eligible to receive up to $63,750.
While the program is voluntary, an eligible provider who is unable to demonstrate meaningful use of HIT by January 2015 will receive a negative adjustment to the applicable Medicare fee schedule. An eligible provider under the Medicare program is defined as a non-hospital based physician or hospital that receives reimbursement under the Medicare Fee-For-Service program or that has a contractual relationship with a qualifying Medicare Advantage Organization.
Changes from the Proposed Rule to the Final Rule
Overall, the strength and integrity of the meaningful use criteria were maintained, but CMS and ONC made some notable changes in the final rule:
Division of Objectives
Eligible Providers Must Meet. CMS originally proposed that an eligible
provider be required to meet each of 25 proposed objectives, and associated
measures, in order to qualify for the incentive payments. Under the
proposed rule, a provider missing even one of the meaningful use objectives
could not qualify for any incentive payment. The final rule divides the
meaningful use objectives into two categories: the "core set" and the "menu
set."[6]
To be considered a meaningful user of HIT, an eligible provider is required
to accomplish all of the "core set" of objectives and a portion of the "menu
set" of objectives and their associated measures. An eligible provider may
choose five "menu set" criteria to defer and still be considered a
meaningful user of HIT.[7]
Eligible providers are free to determine which of the "menu set" criteria
they will satisfy, although they must meet at least one of the population
and public health measures.[8]
Patient Population Percentage
Requirements. Percentages of patient population required to meet a
meaningful use objective in order for a provider to be deemed as having met
that goal were reduced. To meet the measures that are solely reliant on a
provider's own certified EHR, such as updated problem lists, the compliance
threshold is 80% for nearly all of the objectives. Where all of the
elements to meet the requirements do not rest solely in the provider's
control, this threshold is lowered to 50% or less in some cases.[9]
Descriptions of Eligible
Providers and Incentive Payments under Medicare and Medicaid. Eligible
providers may receive incentive payments under the auspices of either
Medicare or Medicaid, but may only switch programs one time after choosing
which program they wish to participate in. The proposed rule included
different descriptions of eligible providers and incentive payments for the
Medicare and Medicaid programs. In the final rule, the definitions for the
two programs were aligned so that providers would be better able to
understand the incentives under both programs and could compare them easily
to make informed decisions.[10]
Note: While CMS has tried to align the incentive programs under
Medicare and Medicaid, States may add additional requirements in order to
demonstrate meaningful use under the Medicaid incentive program. For Stage
1, CMS will only entertain states' requests to add additional requirements
to meaningful use if the requirements are specifically intended to meet
public health objectives and data registries. Some such public health
objectives specifically mentioned in the rule are: generating lists of
patients by specific conditions for use in reducing disparities, submitting
immunization data electronically to immunization registries, or submitting
data on reportable lab results electronically. At this time, CMS has
received no state HIT plans requesting additional measures under the
Medicaid incentive program.
90-day Demonstration Period
under Medicaid. In the first payment year, eligible providers under
Medicare must demonstrate meaningful use for a continuous 90-day period in
order to qualify for incentive payments. Under the Medicaid program,
however, there is a provision that allows eligible providers to receive
their first payment simply for adoption, implementation, or upgrade of their
HIT systems. Therefore CMS removed the 90-day demonstration period for the
Medicaid program as being unnecessary.
Computerized Physician Order
Entry (CPOE). CMS saw CPOE as a particularly essential meaningful use
objective related to reducing medical errors and improving healthcare
quality, and so retained it as a core objective despite intense opposition.
In the final rule, CMS clarified that any licensed healthcare professional
can enter an order using CPOE. While CMS' initial objective was to require
prescription, laboratory, and diagnostic imaging orders to be captured using
CPOE, the final rule adopts an incremental approach by only requiring
medication orders in stage 1.[11]
CPOE use satisfies the e-prescribing objective as well as drug
contraindication and drug allergy checks in CPOE. The patient population
threshold for the CPOE objective was lowered from more than 80% to "more
than 40%."
Advanced Directives. In
the proposed rule, CMS discussed including Advanced Directives in the EHRs
but did not make reporting of Advanced Directives a requirement for
demonstrating meaningful use. There was concern about potential conflicts
with existing state laws, and confusion over what the measures for the
objective should be and which populations this objective would apply to. In
the final rule, CMS required the indication of the existence of an advance
directive in EHRs by eligible hospitals for patients age 65 and older who
have been admitted to the hospital as an inpatient.[12]
According to the final rule, CMS feels that the patients in this age range
will receive the most benefit from eligible hospitals knowing whether or not
an advance directive is in place so that their wishes may be carried out.
Since this measure is not included in the current standards of practice,
this objective was placed in the "menu set" of objectives which may be
deferred and given a lower threshold of 50%.
Electronic Submission of
Claims Data. In an effort to improve EHRs, enhance patient privacy and
security, and increase efficiency, CMS included in the proposed rule a
requirement for meaningful use that claims data be submitted electronically
to public and private payers. This requirement was removed from the final
rule. While CMS still considers administrative simplification to be an
important long-term policy goal, it determined that in some instances,
checking eligibility and submitting claim data for 80% of patients would
simply not be possible. CMS referred to comments that checking eligibility
and submitting claims is not relevant to the Medicare Advantage program
because virtually all patients are members of the same insurance plan.[13]
Patient Reminders. CMS had
proposed a measure to issue reminders to patients ages 50 and over for
preventive and follow-up care. In response to comments, CMS revised the age
limits to patients ages 65 years or older and less than 5 years of age.
Additionally for this goal, CMS lowered the percentage of patient population
needed to demonstrate meaningful use to only 20% of patients. Patients will
have a choice of internet-based or non-internet based delivery of reminders.[14]
Time Limit for Providing
Health Information. In order to meet the patient engagement objective
and to take advantage of the full benefits that EHRs have over paper
records, CMS proposed that at least 80% of all patients requesting their
health information must be provided an electronic copy within 48 hours. The
final rule extends the time period to three business days to reflect
comments that some practices do not operate on a regular schedule. Business
days have been defined as Monday through Friday, excluding federal or state
holidays on which the staff of the provider is unavailable.[15]
Additionally, the threshold was reduced to 50% of patients receiving access
to their medical record within three business days rather than the original
goal of 80% or more.
Access to New Information.
In the proposed rule, access to new information in a patient's medical
record was to be made available to the patient within 96 hours of its
becoming available to the eligible provider. This timeline was extended to
four business days.[16]
Percentage of Patients Receiving Discharge Instructions. In order to provide better care and to better involve patients and their families in the provision of care, CMS proposed that at least 80% of patients receive their discharge instructions from an eligible hospital upon request. This threshold was deemed to be too high and was lowered to 50% of patients.
Concerns
In its comments to CMS on the proposed regulations, the Center for Medicare Advocacy stressed the importance of Advanced Directives being included in the EHR. We are therefore concerned that the final rule only requires the information to be collected when a patient is admitted as an inpatient to an eligible hospital.
Over the last two years, the Center has seen a marked increase in the number of patients in hospitals who are called outpatients (receiving observation services under Medicare Part B), rather than inpatients under Medicare Part A. Some hospitalized patients have been outpatients for as long as 13 days, despite provisions in the Medicare Manuals limiting observation services to, at most, 24-48 hours.[17] CMS recently sent a letter to several hospital associations asking why the use of observation services lasting more than two days doubled between 2006 and 2008.[18] Additionally, with a new provision of the Affordable Care Act which penalizes hospitals that re-admit too many patients[19], there is a new disincentive to admit patients to inpatient status. An unintended consequence of this provision may be even greater use of observation services by hospitals. Advocates should be concerned that their clients may not receive the full benefits of meaningful use of HIT if their clients have been placed in observation.
There is also concern that patients are still responsible for much of their own care coordination. While there has been a focus on patient access to information in the stage 1 meaningful use criteria, there has been virtually no attention on ensuring that all of a patient's healthcare providers have all of the same information and can share it with each other at will. Given that more than 20% of the Medicare population is suffering from five or more chronic conditions, care coordination among all of the healthcare providers is critical and should not be left to the patient to figure out.[20]
Conclusion
In the final rules establishing meaningful use standards, CMS and ONC tried to strike an appropriate balance that will allow for increased adoption of HIT and its meaningful use. Both the functional and quality measures retained in the final rule go a long way to improving patient care and decreasing costs and waste in the system. While there is room for improvement and clarification in Stages 2 and 3, the Stage 1 meaningful use criteria move us one step closer to a fully integrated e-health system.
[1] Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Electronic Health Record Incentive Program, 75 Federal Register (2010). Print.
[2] Hampton, Cicily. "Health Information Technology as a Health Care Reform Tool." Center for Medicare Advocacy. 4 June 2009. Web. 14 July 2010. <http://www.medicareadvocacy.org/InfoByTopic/Reform/Reform_09_06.04.HIT.htm>.
[3] Establishment of the Temporary Certification Program for Health Information Technology; Final Rule, 75 Federal Register (2010). Print.
[4] Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Electronic Health Record Incentive Program, 75 Federal Register (2010). Print.
[5] "Announcment of Final Rules on Meaningful Use and Standards and Certification for Electronic Health Records Incentive Program." Connecting America for Better Health. Health and Human Services, Washington, DC. 12 July 2010. Speech.
[6] Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Electronic Health Record Incentive Program, 75 Federal Register (2010). Print.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, CMS Pub. 100-02, Chapter 6, §20.6; same language in Medicare Claims Processing Manual, CMS Pub. 100-04, Chapter 4, §290.1.
[18] Tavenner, Marilyn. Letter to Richard Umbdenstock. 7 July 2010. MS. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.
[19] Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, § 3025 (2010). Print.
[20] Gottlich, Vicki. "Medicare Coverage of Therapy Services: Are the Interests of Beneficiaries With Chronic Conditions Being Met?" Center for Medicare Advocacy. Nov. 2003. Web. 14 July 2010. <http://www.medicareadvocacy.org/News/Archives/chronic_JHPaperOnTherapySvcs.103103.htm#paper>.
Copyright © 2010 Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc.