Standards Panel Backs Quality Measures for ‘Meaningful Use’

On Tuesday, the Health IT Standards Committee approved quality measures and standards for how health care providers can demonstrate “meaningful use” of electronic health records by 2011, Government Health IT reports.

Under the federal economic stimulus package, hospitals and physicians who demonstrate meaningful use of EHRs will qualify for Medicaid and Medicare incentive payments.

The standards panel endorsed a matrix of 27 quality measures and 12 standards that build on each other to improve patient outcomes. The standards call for health care providers to use health IT tools for transmitting:

• Continuity of care documents;
• Discharge summaries;
• Inpatient and outpatient prescriptions;
• Laboratory test results; and
• Other structured health data.

The committee said health providers who have not yet adopted EHR technology could use certain unstructured data for 2011, provided that they work to eventually meet structured data standards.

John Halamka, co-chair of the Standards Committee, said the panel attempted to provide “comfort levels” to encourage physician compliance with the standards and quality measures. He said future criteria will require health care providers to meet stricter standards.

EHR adopters could face series of tighter standards

A work group of that committee delivered its first draft of recommended definitions of “meaningful use” of EHRs, a standard that providers must meet to qualify for subsidy payments estimated at $34 billion to be handed out by Medicare and Medicaid. The work group recommended instituting a series of increasingly complex meaningful-use requirements between 2011, the first “payment year” of the subsidy program, and 2015, the final year payments will be made before financial penalties for not adopting begin.

During those discussions, Anthony Trenkle, director of the CMS’ office of e-Health Standards and Services, said the requirements will not be “tiered” based on when the provider adopts an EHR after 2011. Instead, whatever meaningful use standards are applicable for the year the provider applies for an EHR subsidy are the standards that provider must meet, regardless of whether it is the provider’s first year of EHR implementation.

A 10-day public comment period opens today on the work group’s initial recommendations. Trenkle said the CMS hopes to have a final definition of “meaningful use” to put out for a 60-day comment period later this year, with final rulemaking not expected until early next year.

Electronic Records: EMR vs. EHR

Health IT industry news followers have probably noticed industry confusion and inconsistencies regarding terminology about what to call patient information that is collected and shared electronically.

In fact, analysts, vendors, journalists and practitioners all are guilty of using the terms electronic medical record (EMR) and electronic health record (EHR) interchangeably as if they are one and the same. In fact, these are two different terms that address two different sets of business needs with different — although overlapping — sets of features and capabilities. The distinction is more than minor semantics, and it’s crucial for health IT decision-makers to understand the difference.

Electronic record

To many, an electronic record is considered to be any clinical record that isn’t paper-based or hanging on a clipboard. The problem is, this doesn’t describe how the data will be used, gathered or shared. Will the electronic record be used only within the confines of a single office or practitioner, or within a single regional health system? Alternatively, will the data be shared across a wide range of different providers, such as specialists’ offices, labs, insurance providers and government agencies? For the sake of clarity and accurate understanding, it is important to distinguish between electronic records that can be shared widely and those that are designed to reside within a single organization.

When discussing digitized medical records, depending on the software vendor, geographic region, country or even the personal preferences of the presenter, the two terms — EMR and EHR — are being used interchangeably. Unfortunately, that distinction has been lost in the flood of material appearing in the literature.

According to the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS), an EMR is a component of an electronic health record that is owned by the health care provider. The EMR is a set of applications and workflow tools that digitizes the creation, collection, storage and management of patient information within the confines of a single organization. An EMR system may touch clinical data repositories, lab applications and patient information management systems, among others — but all within the reach of a single organization.

EHRs, on the other hand, comprise as far as is possible, a complete and unified view of all the patient’s clinical assessments and care records drawn from across a wide region corresponding to all the providers who are seeing the patient — the totality of his/her personal data, state of health and delivered care. HIMSS defines EHR as a longitudinal electronic record of patient health information produced by encounters in one or more care settings.

An EHR consists of data provided from organizations throughout the service delivery chain — laboratories, providers, pharmacists, insurance payment records — as well as all of the patient’s personal data such as date of birth, address, weight, provider visits, and so on. These records can be shared easily across separate health care providers, labs, government agencies and insurance companies, made available whenever and wherever the patient is seen

Improved workflow

While both EMRs and EHRs provide some similar benefits — cost savings through improved workflow and paper reduction, improved delivery of care accuracy — EMRs provide those benefits only within a single organization. EHRs, because they are shared across the irrelevant geographic or otherwise defined region, increase the efficiency of patient care and improve patient outcomes, disseminate information rapidly between care providers, help with research efforts, and cut costs throughout the entire system more promptly and reliably.

The industry may be confused about what exactly is the difference between an EMR and an EHR, but there should be no confusion about the type of solution an organization needs. The benefits associated with sharing patient information with partners, suppliers and insurance companies can only be achieved through an EHR. In the years ahead, solutions that survive this rapidly changing market must be capable of sharing electronic patient information effectively both within an organization, between facilities and across regions. Health care organizations need to ensure that they are laying the groundwork today to make that future collaboration possible.

E-Health Records Planned Despite Stimulus Uncertainty

More than 50% of healthcare providers surveyed by IVANS do not believe the federal stimulus package will successfully encourage health IT adoption.

By Marianne Kolbasuk McGee InformationWeek

Although a majority of healthcare providers remain skeptical about how they’ll benefit by the federal government’s $20 billion stimulus program, many plan to forge ahead anyway, according to a report released this week.

About seven in 10 healthcare providers believe electronic medical records will have a positive impact on their businesses and patient care, but 80% say the lack of money is their biggest obstacle to deploying health IT systems, said the new report by IVANS, a supplier of EDI and network services to the insurance industry.

The nationwide, e-mailed survey of 508 healthcare providers — including hospitals, clinics, private medical practices, nursing homes, home healthcare organizations and medical billing companies — found that while nearly 40% plan to forge ahead with e-medical record deployments within the next 12 months, more than 50% of healthcare providers do not believe the federal stimulus package will successfully encourage health IT adoption.

Healthcare providers’ doubt appears to be rooted to several factor, most notably uncertainty about the specifics of the government’s eligibility requirements for receiving HIT-related rewards. Starting in 2011, the federal government is expected to begin awarding approximately $20 billion over the next five years, rewarding higher Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to doctors and hospitals that demonstrate “meaningful use” of health IT.

However, the details of what will constitute “meaningful use” haven’t been worked out yet. The federal government is in the process of investigating and defining the scope of what “meaningful use” of health IT will qualify for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009′s HITECH (Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health) stimulus funding incentives. Just this week, a federal advisory panel — the HIT Policy Committee — unveiled some of its recommendations for the “meaningful use” definition.

“They’re on the right track,” said Clare DeNicola, IVANS CEO, of the HIT Policy Committee’s recommendation so far to the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services about the “meaningful use” definition. “It’s not about technology, it’s about the care — we can’t lose sight of that,” she said about the committee’s suggestions for how IT can be used for improving quality of patient care and public health.

Also fueling uncertainty among healthcare providers participating in the survey was this: Home healthcare providers and nursing homes were among the 508, healthcare providers polled. However, so far the HITECH federal stimulus legislations is vague on how those healthcare providers will participate in the new programs, despite the growing population of aging baby boomers who’ll likely increasingly require their services in coming years.

In fact, despite their skepticism and uncertainly about the government incentive programs, about four in 10 healthcare providers are planning to implement e-medical record systems over the next 12 months.

Many are already making investments in IT, including those that can help support e-medical record deployments, including wireless networks, business continuity technologies and connectivity to remote locations.

“Healthcare providers are wary but they are moving forward with technology innovations,” said DeNicola. “They’re not driven so much by the stimulus funds as they are in their belief that these technologies can help improve their businesses and patient care,” she said.

AMA approves policies on security breaches, EHRs

Policies on security breaches, open source code, and government subsidies of electronic health-record systems have been adopted by the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates.

The policies concern physicians’ responsibilities in case of computer security breaches and support of electronic health-record systems based on open-source code. Another policy calls for the removal of penalties that are scheduled to affect physicians who are not using electronic prescribing by 2015, and another says that the AMA wants government subsidies for the implementation and maintenance of EHR systems to be adjusted for inflation.

AMA policy now dictates that, in response to a security breach, physicians are to place the interest of patients above those of themselves, their practice or institution. On open-source, delegates approved a resolution calling for the AMA to support law and public policy that makes open source EHR systems that meet certification and “meaningful use” requirements available to physicians at nominal cost.

The Florida delegation had introduced a resolution that would declare federal EHR incentive programs to be “noncompliant with AMA principles” and essentially a pay-for-performance program. After hearing testimony on June 14, a committee drafted a substitute resolution that stated federal programs should be made compliant with AMA principles by removing penalties for nonadoption.

“Resolved, that our AMA support the concept of electronic prescribing, as well as the offering of financial and other incentives for its adoption,” read the new resolution that was approved by delegates, “but strongly discourage a funding structure that financially penalizes physicians that have not adopted such technology.”

Patients cheer on EHR technology, not afraid of privacy risks

Show me the technology! That is the conclusion of a study from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) to be released in the Journal of General Internal Medicine (JGIM) in June. The study reveals that consumers who are defined as “internet-savvy” are ready to take a chance on electronic health records (EHR) despite warnings of potential privacy risks.

The study, supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), investigated whether or not patients were comfortable making the leap with their health care providers to the digital age through the adoption of EHRs. In the tech-savvy cities where they held focus groups, the answer was a resounding ‘yes.’ Not a terrible surprise given that they investigated consumers in Boston, Portland, Tampa and Denver—some of the more tech-educated spots in the country. However, investigators did attempt to include a diverse group of people, drawn from both urban and rural areas. Additionally, they included health professionals in their study to compare their perspectives about health technology relative to consumers.

The findings should not come as a major surprise since an estimated 60 percent of households across all states have a home internet connection. Citizens are increasingly interested in managing their lives via computer—EHRs seems a natural progression in this evolution.

Yet, the study findings echo a sense of surprise at the willingness of consumers to give up some of their privacy in order to obtain greater transparency with respect to their health information. In actuality, it may be more of a reflection of the distrust and frustration with the current patient-physician/health care provider relationship where one may deem transparency of much greater importance than whether or not someone uncovers that they have kidney stones…

States take bigger role in promoting EHR adoption

Maryland further strengthened the goals of the stimulus package or the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) this past week by passing legislation that required insurers to provide “monetary” incentives for physicians to adopt electronic health records (EHR).

The bill, signed by Governor Martin O’Malley, is one of the first of its kind to give sharper teeth to the EHR movement. Insurers may choose from a variety of fiscal incentives including increased reimbursement and lump-sum payments, according to Health IT News. The effort is viewed as a double incentive to providers to join the digital transition that promises to increase health care system efficiency while reducing medical errors for patients. Maryland is not alone in its effort to promote the change from paper to portal; other states are reviewing similar measures that would jumpstart implementation.

Included in the Maryland bill is a requirement for the state to bring a piloted health information exchange (HIE) live by October 1. The goal of the HIE, often comprised of business and community representatives, is to provide support to health care system stakeholders with the goal of increasing efficiency and quality.

Wait, have we heard of an HIE before? Yes. For clarification purposes, regional health information organizations (RHIO) and HIEs are terms used interchangeably; the HIE is simply a new name for a RHIO—it has yet to be determined if it is also a newer and better RHIO. Lingo aside, HIE investment is up.

Other states are looking to HIEs/RHIOs to play a prominent role in EHR adoption. New York, Texas, and Florida are all investing in these information exchanges.

In New York, the Western New York Clinical Information Exchange, known as HealthElink, signed on 6 EHR software vendors to provide community pricing to its clients.

In Texas, the legislature passed two pilot health information exchange programs that promote data transfer between local agencies.

Florida, having received a $9+ million grant from the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), is exploring how to expand broadband access across nine rural hospitals to increase the speed and efficiency of health data transfer.

Other states are vying to develop strategies for technology adoption that support EHR implementation as stimulus dollars dangle overhead. Now that EHRs are heavily banked by both federal and state government, HIEs and RHIOs may take a greater role in aiding communities in EHR adoption. These exchanges hope to serve as important providers of data warehousing as well as offering leadership for the development of criteria for data sharing and data quality. States view HIEs/RHIOs as vehicles for transporting dollars toward the development of technology infrastructure and they are moving as quickly as possible to get their take.

FISMA—a roadblock for EHRs?

The Federal Information and Security Management Act (FISMA), passed by Congress in 2002 to better protect the federal government against cyber attacks, mandates information security standards for all federal agencies. This includes the flow of data between the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) and their contractors—over 200 hundred of them, processing billions of Medicare claims. The new worry from CMS, according to Government Health IT, is that healthcare providers sharing EHR files will be required to meet FISMA standards, which include an annual security test and FISMA certification.

A CMS spokesperson is quoted as saying that this would be more than “burdensome” for both CMS and health care providers and organizations.

The conundrum is that information will be moving between the HIPPA world (the private sector) and the FISMA world (the government)—that latter of which is much more secure, from a protocol/standards perspective. Federal agencies are held to a higher standard than the private sector with respect to information security.

For a long time, consumer groups have argued that HIPPA is a weak standard for patient information security. Yet, many worry that if FISMA is applied to the private sector, there will be a compliance crisis that will be costly to remedy. But why shouldn’t the transfer of health information be held to the highest security standards? Advocates of a middle ground argue “yes,” but not quite as stringent as FISMA. They standards should be more of a more of a “HIPPA-plus” or “FISMA-lite,” in the words of Vish Sankaran, a program director for the Federal Health Architecture project to connect health information entities.

In other words, get health care providers better engaged in securing healthcare information but do not stunt the growth of the EHR movement by placing the bar too high.

In the end, the Office of Management and Budget will dictate the debate through their determination of what falls under the FISMA umbrella. In August of 2008, OMB issued some guidance, stating that FISMA applies to groups that “possess or use Federal information—or which operate, use or have access to Federal information systems (whether automated or manual)—on behalf of a Federal agency.” OK, that could include a ton of organizations.