Meaningful Use Updates

As part of our thought leadership efforts, this blog provides insight into the requirements that hospitals and eligible providers must meet to achieve Meaningful Use.  Authored by our in house subject matter experts, Meaningful Use News and Updates serves as an educational forum for discussions on the intricacies and steps involved in the Meaningful Use process.

Sign up to receive new blog posts immediately to your email box by submitting your email address in the form to the right.


Go Back

Meaningful Use Stage 2 Would Replace ROI Requirements With Online Access

On February 23rd, CMS released the Meaningful Use Stage 2 Notice of Proposed Rule Making which will make sweeping changes to the release of information (ROI) requirements after January 1, 2014 for ALL Eligible Professionals, and after October 1, 2013 for ALL Hospitals. In addition, the changes will apply for facilities still at Stage 1 for 2014.

What is CMS Proposing?

Drop the requirements in the 2014 reporting period for:
1.       Patient electronic copies of medical records within three business days
2.       Electronic copies of discharge instructions at time of discharge
3.       The “menu” requirement for “Timely Access” on the Eligible Provider list

And replace all three of these with a core requirement of patient online access.

Eligible Professional (EP) Objective: Provide patients the ability to view online, download and transmit their health information within 4 business days of the information being available to the EP.

EP Measures: (Note: You must pass TWO measures for this objective)
1.       More than 50 percent of all unique patients seen by the EP during the EHR reporting period are provided timely (within 4 business days after the information is available to the EP) online access to their health information subject to the EP's discretion to withhold certain information.
AND
2.       More than 10 percent of all unique patients seen by the EP during the EHR reporting period (or their authorized representatives) view, download or transmit to a third party their health information.

Hospital Objective: Provide patients the ability to view online, download and transmit information about a hospital admission.

Hospital Measure: (Note: You must pass TWO measures for this objective):
1.       More than 50 percent of all patients who are discharged from the inpatient or emergency department (POS 21 or 23) of an eligible hospital or CAH have their information available online within 36 hours of discharge.
AND
2.       More than 10 percent of all patients who are discharged from the inpatient or emergency department (POS 21 or 23) of an eligible hospital or CAH view, download or transmit to a third party their information during the EHR reporting period.

The following will probably receive comment: The “unique patient” item in the EP Measure. For example, if a patient sees the provider three times in the reporting period, and in two of the instances the data is available within 4 business days, but in the third instance the data wasn’t available for the patient until six business days had elapsed, do you count the patient or not? The “within 36 hours of discharge” item in the hospital measure.

BOTTOM LINE - These changes will drive every facility to own or outsource a patient portal or PHR and to connect their EHR system to the portal so records are automatically available. Will this reduce patient HIM department requests for medical records?  Depends on two things:
1.       How well the facility advertises the portal, and gets patients to use it (instead of requesting copies of records in the traditional ways).  The requirement that 10 percent of patients actually access their records means that providers must actively persuade patients to go to the portal.
2.       How much information is actually available on the portal, and in what  format.  CMS did specify a minimum set of data that must be available – and it’s not the entire record (watch for a later blog post on this).  So patients will likely still request their records in traditional ways, depending on the patient’s reason for the request, and the health information they need.

Read the rule for yourself and utilize the tips below to speed you on your way:
1.       The pdf version of the rule (pre Federal Register) can be found by clicking here.
2.       The new proposed objective for “Access” starts on page 91 for EPs or page 144 for hospitals.
3.       The list of required record data for online access (if you want to get ahead of our next blog post) starts on page 97 for EPs or page 145 for hospitals.
4.       If you prefer the table form for reviewing the requirements, that starts on page 156.
5.       And the actual rule verbiage (not the comments and table mentioned above) is on page 406 for EPs or page 414 for hospitals.

Facebook Twitter DZone It! Digg It! StumbleUpon Technorati Del.icio.us NewsVine Reddit Blinklist Add diigo bookmark

Comments  3

  • David Maurice, LCSWR 27 Feb

    I support the direction your report is taking.  Electronic records, previous hospitalizations, medication regimen, need to know individual and family history, this and much other information breaks down walls of ownership of data.  SSN is universal as well as variations for those unwilling to share SSN.  The process of expedited interventions, fewer ER and Doctor, Treatment Provider reduncy. 

    Certainly, each entity needs to remain accountable and identify  need to know of other entity's data.
    Respectfully,
    David

    I was hopefull in a Hospital and series of connected providers used a Nashville IT system then "politics and turkish taffy pulling" no disrespect to the respectable individuals that exhausted numerous hours, days, etc. 
    Somehow the human element that conflicts with the service has to be addressed. 
  • Doddy 06 Mar

    Change is hard, no question but I think it is easy to cilampon over the little things and miss the big picture. Dr. Tashjian is starting froma different place than I am. First of all, he embraced the technology only a year or so ago. Second, he is comparing what he has now with paper, and I am comparing what I have now with the same technology I have used and embraced for over a decade. I was an early adopter, so I certainly am not cilamponing about change. I am not sure even Dr. Tashjian would embrace a requirement that he include clinical trial screening and matching as part of his routine care in a rural practice. He needs to be able to find the nformation needed, but he doesn't need to have it embedded in his EMR. I think I have made cogent explanations why I think some of these requirements do not improve care. His patients would be better off with a copy of the actual visit note as opposed to the summary. I don't want to go through all the requirements since I apporve in general of the program, and the concept of meaningful use. I ask only that when we impose change (a good thing), we consider the unintended consequences before we actually put some things into place that aren't so good. We have another oppotunity to do the right thing with Stage 2, so let's be sure we don't make things worse!
  • Lea 04 Jun

    Yep, that one's a real jaw-dropper.These studies are cimnog out of a med school, and these people have MD degrees.I don't expect my doctors to be ace statisticians, but there's not much point in spending $150,000 and a decade or so training physicians if they can't even judge the severity of their patients' illnesses until after they're all dead.
Post a comment!
  1. Formatting options
       
     
     
     
     
       

Industry Topics

Submit your email address below to subscribe to our blogs.