1 October 19, 2012 Marilyn Tavenner Acting Administrator Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services Attention: CMS 0044 P P.O. Box 8013 Baltimore, MD Re: Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Electronic Health Record Incentive Program Stage 2 Dear Ms. Tavenner: On behalf of the American Academy of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS), I am pleased to submit the following comments on the final rule Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Electronic Health Record Incentive Program Stage 2. Our comments focus on the Core and Menu Measures and Objectives and the proposed options for reporting Clinical Quality Measures (CQMs). The AAO-HNS represents over 12,000 physicians in the United States who diagnose and treat disorders of the ears, nose, throat, and related structures of the head and neck. The medical ailments treated by this specialty are the most common that afflict all Americans, old and young, including hearing loss, balance disorders, chronic ear infection, rhinological disorders, snoring and sleep disorders, swallowing disorders, facial and cranial nerve disorders, and head and neck cancer. The Academy and its members are highly supportive of adopting robust and applicable electronic health records (EHRs) into their practice to improve quality of care and enhance patient safety. We are also appreciative of CMS attempt to more closely align the EHR Incentive Program with other quality initiatives such as the E- Prescribing (erx) Incentive Program, Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), and Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). We also applaud the new elements such as the batch file process for groups reporting as individuals, all of which are designed to help reduce the burden placed on physicians and their staff when switching to an office based EHR system. Despite these improvements, the Academy feels the stringent program requirements with high satisfaction thresholds will continue to hinder health information technology (HIT) adoption. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), within Otolaryngology, only 14.1 percent of all eligible physicians were awarded EHR Incentive payments in We feel allowing for greater flexibility to meet meaningful use requirements will spur the adoption of HIT and move the country closer to the desired outcome for the Medicare/Medicaid EHR incentives.
2 While the Academy supports a staged approach to the EHR meaningful use incentive program, we believe that this approach must take into account the current technological realities and the additional financial and administrative costs that will be incurred by physicians to meet all of the program requirements. Further, we believe that a system should be developed where CQMs are designed, easily translated into EHRs, and the calculations of the measures and reporting of the measures is automatic. Stage 2 Core Objectives: CPOE Requirement: In the proposed rule, CMS included a measure for Computerized Physician Order Entry (CPOE) for more than 60 percent of medication, laboratory, and radiology orders created by a licensed professional. The Academy commented that this was too steep an increase from the Stage 1 requirement of 30 percent to the Stage 2 requirement of 60 percent. The Academy recommended that CMS remove the laboratory and radiology requirements during the EHR reporting period and decrease the proposed threshold for medication orders to only require one laboratory and one radiology order are entered electronically. In the final rule, CMS reduced the number of lab and radiology orders to 30 percent created by the Eligible Provider (EP) during the reporting period. We appreciate CMS recognition of the steep increase between Stage 1 and Stage 2 and the subsequent reduction in the requirement s measurement. However, we believe it is not reasonable for clinicians to have to collect all this information at the point of care, and recommend that CMS remove the laboratory and radiology requirements during the EHR reporting period. We also urge CMS to decrease the proposed threshold for medication orders to only require one laboratory and one radiology order are entered electronically. Because physicians are very involved in seeing patients and performing surgery, they often do not have time to fill out forms for radiology and labs, and instead, rely on assistants to fill them out. It will be important in the future for lab and radiology orders to be received by CPOE, but this is not attainable currently. As such, we believe the status of no orders should be allowed as a positive value in the numerator. The decision not to order tests is still an order decision. If physicians are given credit for not ordering tests, then it will not only reduce the number of unnecessary tests, but there will also be an incentive for physicians not to order tests, in general. Electronic Prescribing (E-prescribing): In the proposed rule, CMS proposed to increase the requirement to include more than 65 percent of orders transmitted as e-prescribing. The Academy expressed concern that many specialty physicians will not be able to meet this level of e-prescribing, and instead, suggested CMS reduce the threshold for EPs to generate and transmit permissible prescriptions electronically to 50 percent. We applaud CMS decision to reduce the e-prescribing threshold to 50% in the final rule. We believe this is a more attainable level of e- prescribing for specialty physicians such as Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgeons.
3 Record Demographics: CMS finalized the requirement to include listing the patient s preferred language in the demographics, which we feel is potentially problematic, especially for small offices which make up a majority of the Otolaryngology-Head and Necks practices. We support the inclusion of recording some information to capture for quality of care purposes, such as gender identity, disability status, and preferred language, but this should be optional for physicians to record given that some small practices will not have the capability to provide interpreter services. Our understanding is that providing interpreter services is not required for Medicare Part B services. We request CMS provide clarification on this matter. We also recommend that EPs only be required to meet a 60 percent threshold, rather than the 80 percent indicated by CMS. Record Smoking Status for Patients: The Academy appreciates CMS s inclusion of the recording of smoking status for patients 13 years or older. We believe this is an important issue because tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in this country, responsible for more than 400,000 deaths each year. However, as noted in our comments on the proposed rule, the Academy again recommends moving this requirement from the core set, and instead, including it in the clinical quality measures (CQMs). Implement Clinical Decision Support: CMS finalized the requirement for EPs to implement five clinical decision support interventions related to four clinical quality measures (CQMs), as well as enable and implement the functionality for drug-drug and drug-allergy interaction checks. The Academy thanks CMS for decreasing the number of CQMs in the threshold, but believes that the requirement to implement five clinical decision support interventions related to four CQMs would still be very challenging for specialists, including otolaryngologists, who may not need to implement so many clinical decision support interventions for their particular patient populations given the type of care they provide. CMS notes that if none of the CQMs are applicable to a EPs scope of practice, the EP should implement a clinical decision support intervention that he or she believes will be effective in improving the quality, safety, or efficacy of patient care. The Academy is involved in developing measures, based on our clinical practice guidelines approved by the society, and moving them through the National Quality Forum (NQF) approval process, but this takes an extensive amount of time. The measures will then need to be incorporated into the EHR system which leads to an additional expense for Otolaryngologists. Therefore, the Academy continues to emphasize that the clinical decision support requirement is not an appropriate core criteria for specialists. Further, the Academy maintains our position that the number of CQMs required should be two. Since CMS has moved forward with the requirement for four CQMs, the Academy recommends where no CQM is applicable, that CMS allows the EP to implement a CQM that has been approved by a specialty society and is under review for endorsement by the NQF. For
4 example, the Academy strongly urges CMS to include a set of quality measures focusing on adult sinusitis for use by otolaryngologists. These measures (listed below), were developed by the AMA-Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement (PCPI) with the support of the AAO-HNS Foundation (AAO-HNSF) and we believe should be included as measures that would meet the CQM threshold criteria. Incorporate Clinical Lab-Test Results into EHR as Structured Data: We agree with CMS that lab tests results should be incorporated into EHR as structured data but that should not be required until EMRs have evolved to the point where this is happening automatically. As we stated in our comments on the proposed rule, the idea to ask clinicians to manually enter non-structured data into a structured format is extremely inefficient. Manually entering non-structured data into a structured format is fraught with many dangers, most notably, the errors that will be made in entering the data. If it cannot be incorporated as structured data, then it should be left as unstructured data and an exclusion given. Because there is no requirement for labs to electronically interface with all types of EHRs, there is no incentive to invest in the infrastructure or to make labs compatible with EHR for a low volume user. The Academy has also found that otolaryngology practices that have adopted EHRs, or who are preparing to purchase an EHR, in many cases do not buy the lab interface because it is cost prohibitive for the small amount of labs the practice orders. It is our understanding that if you are an organization that is a high volume user of labs, the labs themselves will often subsidize the cost of the interfaces, but in most cases this does not apply to the otolaryngology community. We are additionally concerned our members will not be able to get their EHR certified because of the requirement of a lab interface. It is essential that a functional Nationwide Health Information Network (NwHIN) is created before this measurement is required. This way, a physician has to interface with the NwHIN, and the labs and hospitals are required to do the same, at which point everything will be compatible. Until then, it is prohibitive and counterproductive to implement this requirement. Therefore, the Academy believes that otolaryngologists should not be prevented from meeting meaningful use criteria by their failure to purchase a costly laboratory interface or module until such time as costs to do so become more manageable for small practices. The Academy recommends that CMS re examine the measure and criteria and remove it from the health IT functionality measures. Send Reminders to Patients: CMS finalized the requirement for an EP to send a reminder to more than 10 percent of all unique patients, who prefer to receive a reminder, who have had an office visit with the EP within the 24 months before the beginning of the EHR reporting period. While we appreciate and are supportive of CMS goal of increased patient engagement in Stage 2, we are concerned that this measure will be difficult for specialists to meet. For example, it would not make sense for an Otolaryngologist to send reminders to patients with a more acute,
5 time-limited condition, such as acute otitis or patients undergoing surgery. Therefore, as stated in our comments on the proposed rule, the Academy urges CMS not to include sending patient reminders as a requirement. Provide Patients with Electronic Access to their Health Information Allowing Patients to View, Download, or Transmit their Health Information: The Academy supports CMS s proposed objectives to provide patients with an electronic copy of their health information and also believe patient engagement is essential to quality healthcare; however, we continue to oppose CMS s measure that requires physicians to provide patients the ability to view their health information within 4 days of the information being available to the practice, and requiring 5 percent of all unique patients seen by the EP during the EHR reporting period (or their authorized representatives) to view, download or transmit to a third party their health information. The 4 business day time limit is arbitrary, fails to recognize that physician practices are not typically open 24 hour a day, and fails to appreciate that some information should only be provided to patients during a face to face encounter. Four business days is significantly under the 30 days allowed under HIPAA for providing an electronic copy of health information, and would be an inordinately short period of time to provide new test results and information that have not already been discussed with the patient. It is important that our members have more time to discuss certain results, especially if the results involve bad news or complex treatment options, in person or over the phone to allow for necessary discussion and questions. We also feel this truncated time frame could raise serious liability concerns for physicians. At the very least, since CMS has decided to finalize the criteria under this measurement, physicians should have the option of disclosing only appropriate information. Physicians and patients are in the best position to determine what records are needed and when they are needed. Also, it is unclear whether circumstances that allow providers to refuse to provide copies under HIPAA have been recognized in the rule. We also object to the requirement that five percent of all unique patients view, download, or transmit their health information. It is unfair to penalize physicians for actions outside of their control, such as patient behavior. The Academy recommends CMS should remove this provision from the requirement. Clinical Summary Provided to Patients: We are also apprehensive about the requirement for physicians to automatically provide clinical summaries for more than 50 percent of office visits within one business day. This appears to be an overly burdensome requirement. In addition, we are concerned about potential liability where these clinical summaries are provided automatically (that is, without obtaining the patient s authorization) and contain sensitive information. The Academy recommends that physicians should only be required to provide patients with an electronic or printed copy of their health information (including diagnostic test results, problem list, medication lists, and allergies) upon request. All patients
6 who request a copy of their health information should be provided either an electronic or printed copy, within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with federal and/or state law. In previous comments, the Academy expressed concern that a note which is unsigned or unreviewed by a physician may be viewed by a patient. We request that CMS clarify that the note should be reviewed and signed by the physician prior to providing the information to the patient and that the rule provide an adequate amount of time for the physician to do so. EP Performs Medication Reconciliation when Receiving a Patient: CMS originally proposed to include the requirement that the EP perform medication reconciliation for more than 65 percent of all transitions of care where the patient is transitioned into the care of the EP. In our comments, the Academy noted that the threshold for this requirement was too high to be universally and routinely applied to specialists. The Academy recommended CMS change the requirement from 65 percent to 50 percent, maintaining the Stage 1 requirement in Stage 2, which CMS took into account and finalized. The Academy applauds CMS efforts to accept the Academy s comments regarding the prohibitive nature of the 65 percent threshold into consideration and maintain the Stage 1 requirements. Provide Summary Care Record for Each Transition of Care and Referral: In the final rule, CMS states that (A) the EP who transitions or refers their patient to another setting of care, or provider of care, provides a summary of care record for more than 50 percent of transitions of care and referrals; and (B) the EP that transitions or refers their patient to another setting of care, or provider of care, electronically transmits using CEHRT to a recipient or where the recipient receives the summary of care record via exchange facilitated by an organization that is a Nationwide Health Information Network (NwHIN) Exchange participant, or in a manner that is consistent with the governance mechanism the Office of the National Coordinator (ONC) establishes for the NwHIN sender of a summary of care record for more than 10 percent of transitions of care and referrals. In the final rule, CMS adds the requirement that (C) the EP must satisfy one of the following: Conducts one or more successful electronic exchanges of a summary of care record with a recipient using technology to receive the summary of care record that was designed by a different EHR developer than the sender s CEHRT; or conducts one or more successful tests with the CMS designated test EHR during the EHR reporting period. CMS removed the proposal to limit the numerator for measure (B) to only count electronic transmissions which conform to the transport standards proposed for adoption by ONC, and instead provides for exchanges with in the NwHIN. We agree with the concerns CMS stated in the final rule regarding the limitations of this measurement and applaud CMS for reducing the threshold and addressing concerns regarding the organizational and vendor limitations. However, many of our concerns still exist, and we believe this measure should not be implemented until there is a common system in place. Not all certified systems are compatible for sharing data, making it difficult to meet (A) and (C). Therefore, it will force independent providers
7 to adopt whatever software the local hospital system is using. Thus, the computer software could and would be used to force independent providers to align with a hospital system, driving them out of private practice. Likewise, networks could exclude providers who are affiliated with another network. This measure is a laudable long-term goal, but until a common data transfer is available, it should not be implemented. The Academy recommends that measure (B) should not be adopted or implemented until a National Health Information Network is functional, or until a common data transfer protocol such as Continuity of Care Record (CCR) or Continuity of Care Document (CCD) is adopted. The CCR and CCD are standards and are included in the vendor certification criteria. However, they provide minimal data. A more robust standard for data sharing needs to exist. Therefore, the Academy believes the state of electronic health records is not yet prepared to meet this requirement. Submit Electronic Data to Immunization Records: This requirement by CMS includes the successful ongoing submission of electronic data to immunization registries or immunization information systems except where prohibited, and in accordance with applicable law and practice. The Academy is concerned that in the rule, CMS places the onus on providers to determine whether or not a relevant Public Health Authority (PHA) has the capability to accept electronic data. This greatly increases the burden placed upon providers and their staff. CMS also indicates that any EP is excluded from meeting the requirement if the EP does not administer any of the immunizations to any of the populations for which data is collected by the jurisdiction s immunization registry or immunization information system during the EHR reporting period, etc. The Academy believes that otolaryngology-head and neck surgeons meet this exclusion, and therefore, this requirement does not apply to our specialty. In our comments submitted in the proposed rule for this exclusion, we asked for clarification on the specialists CMS intends to include in the exclusion to the requirement. Once again, we seek clarification from CMS regarding the specialists CMS will exclude from this requirement. Use Secure Electronic Messaging to Communicate with Patients on Relevant Health information: In the final rule, CMS finalizes a new measure to include a secure message sent using the electronic messaging function of EHR by more than 5 percent of unique patients seen by the EP during the EHR reporting period. CMS reduced this measure from 10 percent in the proposed rule to 5 percent in the final rule and the Academy appreciates CMS recognition of our concerns regarding this objective. However, the Academy believes this should read "secure message was available to be sent" and not "sent". The measure should be that the functionality is enabled, and there should be no threshold for the number of messages sent. This measure, as written, assigns responsibility to the physician for actions beyond his control, i.e. patient participation. Although the intended goal of increased patient participation is admirable, we believe it is unfair to penalize physicians for actions outside of their control, such as patient behavior.
8 Stage 2 Menu Objectives: Make Imaging Results Available through EHR: CMS reduced the threshold of this measure from 40 percent to 10 percent in the final rule. The Academy appreciates CMS response to the concerns of physicians such as Otolaryngologist-Head and Neck Surgeons and subsequent reduction of the threshold. The Academy also appreciates CMS removing scan from the measure and allowing physicians to use the capabilities and standards of CEHRT. The Academy believes it is important to have the images incorporated into the electronic medical record and agrees with CMS that the sharing of images should be removed as a requirement for this measure until there is a functional national network that allows the capability. Provide Electronic Syndromic Surveillance Data to Public Health Agencies: CMS sets the measurement for this objective as successful ongoing submission of electronic syndromic surveillance data from EHR to a public health agency for the entire EHR reporting period. We understand that one of the exclusions applies where the EP is not in a category of providers that collect ambulatory syndromic surveillance information on their patients during the EHR reporting period. As CMS states in the final rule, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) will not be issuing the guide until spring of 2013 which determine which categories of EPs would not collect such information. Therefore, we recommend that CMS delay this requirement until after the CDC publishes the guide so that physicians will know which categories are included in the guide. Cancer Registry Reporting: CMS finalizes a new measure to include the successful ongoing submission of cancer case information from EHR to a cancer registry for the entire EHR reporting period. This would include Classification of Malignant Tumors (TNM) and Staging information. This is beneficial for those Otolaryngologists who are Head and Neck specialists and treat cancer patients. However, if Otolaryngologists do not treat cancer patients, and cannot participate in the Cancer Registry reporting, they should be excluded from this measure. Therefore, the Academy supports this new measure with the understanding that those physicians who are able to participate may use this measure, but those physicians for whom the measure is not applicable are exempt from the requirement. Non-Cancer Registry Reporting: This measure includes the EPs capability to identify, and report, specific cases to a specialized registry (other than a cancer registry), except where prohibited, and in accordance with applicable law and practice. This would include a temporal bone registry. This is beneficial for those Otolaryngologists who treat patients who have temporal bone diseases. However, if Otolaryngologists do not treat cancer patients and they cannot participate in the Non-Cancer Registry reporting, they should be excluded from these measures, as is suggested above regarding with the Cancer registry reporting. Thus, the Academy
9 supports this new measure with the understanding that those physicians who can participate should be required use this measure, but those physicians for whom the measure is not applicable are exempt from the requirement. Clinical Quality Measures (CQMs) for EPs in CY 2014: In the proposed rule, CMS included two reporting options for consideration for CY 2014, Option 1 and Option 2. Option 1 includes two alternatives: 1a and 1b. Option 2 included Medicare EPs who submit and satisfactorily report PQRS measures under the PQRS EHR reporting option using certified EHR technology would satisfy their CQM reporting requirement under the Medicare EHR incentive program. The Academy appreciates CMS providing numerous options for comment. In comments on the proposed rule, the Academy requested the availability of both options 1 and 2 to allow Otolaryngologists the opportunity to participate in the program, while we continue to develop specific clinical quality measures. We continue to believe having the two options available allows flexibility. In the final rule, CMS finalized two reporting options. Under the first, EPs will report 9 CQMs covering at least 3 domains. Under the second, EPs will submit and satisfactorily report CQMs under the PQRS EHR reporting option using CEHRT. We appreciate CMS providing flexibility to specialists in reporting CQMs via two different options. By providing two options, CMS will to increase the probability that Otolaryngologist- Head and Neck Surgeons will be able meet the CQM criteria. However, many of these measures are heavily weighted toward primary care and preventive medicine, which make it difficult for specialties such as otolaryngology, to report CQMs. Further, the reporting requirements suggest that an EP can report CQM with zero denominators. Many Otolaryngologists-Head and Neck Surgeons will be forced to report zero values for several of the measures, which significantly undermine the utility of the process. We believe reporting the Clinical Quality Measures is important, but for specialists, is very difficult. The Academy recommends where no CQM is applicable, that CMS allows the EP to implement a CQM that has been approved by a specialty society and is under review for endorsement by the NQF, such as the sinusitis measures set mentioned previously. The Academy is involved in developing measures approved by the society and receiving approval from the NQF, but this is a very time-consuming process. The addition of CQMs approved by specialty societies and under review by the NQF would allow otolaryngologists- head and neck surgeon, such as a set of quality measures focusing on adult sinusitis for use by otolaryngologists, would help otolaryngologists- head and neck surgeons report the measures. Conclusion: The American Academy of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments and recommendations on behalf of our members. We feel Electronic Health Records are an important part of our common
10 goal to increase the quality of care and safety of our patients, and by working with organizations such as the Academy, we can help to ensure the success of the Meaningful Use program. If you require further information, please contact Jenna Kappel, MPH, MA, Director of Health Policy at or Thank you. Sincerely, David R. Nielsen, MD Executive Vice President and CEO
May 7, 2012 Marilyn Tavenner Acting Administrator Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services Attention: CMS 0044 P P.O. Box 8013, Baltimore, MD 21244 8013 Re: Medicare
Stage 1 vs. Comparison for Eligible Professionals CORE OBJECTIVES (17 Total) Stage 1 Objective Stage 1 Measure Objective Measure Use CPOE for Medication orders directly entered by any licensed healthcare
MEANINGFUL USE STAGE 2 2015 FOR ELIGIBLE PROVIDERS USING CERTIFIED EMR TECHNOLOGY STAGE 2 REQUIREMENTS EPs must meet or qualify for an exclusion to 17 core objectives EPs must meet 3 of the 6 menu measures.
MEANINGFUL USE STAGE 2 REQUIREMENTS FOR ELIGIBLE PROVIDERS USING CERTIFIED EMR TECHNOLOGY On August 24, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) posted the much anticipated final rule for Stage
EHR Incentive Programs A program administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Eligible Professional s Guide to STAGE 2 of the EHR Incentive Programs September 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS...
STAGE 2 MEANINGFUL USE CORE AND MENU MEASURES FOR ELIGIBLE PROFESSIONALS CORE MEASURES must meet all CPOE for Medication, Laboratory and Radiology Orders Objective: Use computerized provider order entry
Meaningful Use Objectives The purpose of the electronic health records (EHR) incentive program is not so much the adoption of health information technology (HIT), but rather how HIT can further the goals
Meaningful Use Updates Stage 2 and 3 Julia Moore, Business Analyst SMC Partners, LLC July 8, 2015 Stage 2 Requirements 2015 EPs beyond 1st year of MU must report on a full year of data EPs in 1 st year
CORE OBJECTIVES (16 total) Stage 1 vs. Stage 2 Comparison Table for Eligible Hospitals and CAHs Last Updated: August, 2012 Stage 1 Objective Use CPOE for medication orders directly entered by any licensed
Meaningful Use Stage 2: Summary of Proposed Rule for Eligible Professionals (EPs) Wyatt Packer HIT Regional Extension Center (REC) HealthInsight Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) Stage 2 proposed rule
Meaningful Use 2015 and beyond Presented by: Anna Mrvelj EMR Training Specialist 1 Agenda A look at the CMS Website Finding your EMR version Certification Number Proposed Rule by the Centers for Medicare
Overview of MU Stage 2 Joel White, Health IT Now 1 Agenda 1. Introduction 2. Context 3. Adoption Rates of HIT 4. Overview of Stage 2 Rules 5. Overview of Issues 6. Trend in Standards: Recommendations v.
EHR Incentive Program Stage 2 Objectives Summary CORE OBJECTIVES (You must meet all objectives unless exclusion applies.) TARGETING CANCER CARE Objective Objective Description Measure/Attestation Requirement
Meaningful Use in 2015 and Beyond Changes for Stage 2 Jennifer Boaz Transformation Support Specialist Proprietary 1 Definitions AIU = Adopt, Implement or Upgrade EP = Eligible Professional API = Application
MEDICAL ASSISTANCE STAGE 2 SUMMARY OVERVIEW On September 4, 2012, CMS published a final rule that specifies the Stage 2 Meaningful Use criteria that eligible professionals (EPs), eligible hospitals (EHs)
Medicaid EHR Incentive Program Focus on Stage 2 Kim Davis-Allen, Outreach Coordinator Kim.firstname.lastname@example.org Understanding Participation Program Year Program Year January 1 st - December 31st. Year
Stage 2 Final Rule Overview: Updates to Stage 1 and New Stage 2 Requirements The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued the Stage 2 Final Rule on September 4, 2012. The Stage 2 Final Rule
Stage 2 Overview Tipsheet Last Updated: August, 2012 Overview CMS recently published a final rule that specifies the Stage 2 criteria that eligible professionals (EPs), eligible hospitals, and critical
CMS EHR Incentive Programs: An Overview Meaningful Use Stages Vidya Sellappan Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Office of E-Health Standards and Services HIT Initiatives Group August 13, 2014 Table
May 7, 2012 Ms. Marilyn Tavenner Acting Administrator Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services Attention: CMS-0044-P Mail Stop C4-26-05 7500 Security Boulevard
Meaningful Use Stage 2: What s Next? Stage 2 Proposed Rule Lisa Hays, Program Manager Sue Shumate, Implementation Specialist MO-12-02-REC April 2012 Slides adapted from Robert Anthony, CMS Steve Posnack
Meaningful Use Stage 2 Presented by: Sarah Leake, HTS Consultant HTS, a division of Mountain Pacific Quality Health Foundation 1 HTS Who We Are Stage 2 MU Overview Learning Objectives 2014 CEHRT Certification
EHR Incentive Programs for Eligible Professionals: What You Need to Know for 2015 Tipsheet CMS recently published a final rule that specifies criteria that eligible professionals (EPs), eligible hospitals,
Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs Stage 2 NPRM Overview Robert Anthony Office of E-Health Standards and Services Marsha Smith Office of Clinical Standards and Quality March 21, 2012 Proposed Rule
MEANINGFUL USE STAGE 2 Summary of Proposed Rule (EP) The Meaningful Use Stage 2 Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) has been released and entered a 60-day comment period (March 7-May 6, 2012). HealthInsight
AQAF Health Information Technology Forum Meaningful Use Stage 2 Clinical Considerations Marla Clinkscales & Mike Bice Alabama Regional Extension Center (ALREC) August 13, 2013 0 Agenda What is Meaningful
EHR Incentive Programs: 2015 through 2017 (Modified Stage 2) Overview CMS recently released a final rule that specifies criteria that eligible professionals (EPs), eligible hospitals, and critical access
Meaningful Use: Stage 1 and 2 Hospitals (EH) and Providers (EP) Lindsey Mongold, MHA HIT Practice Advisor Oklahoma Foundation for Medical Quality Meaningful Use Stage 1 Focuses on Functional & Interoperability
DEMONSTRATING MEANINGFUL USE STAGE 1 REQUIREMENTS FOR ELIGIBLE PROVIDERS USING CERTIFIED EHR TECHNOLOGY IN 2015 The chart below lists the measures (and specialty exclusions) that eligible providers must
E Z BIS ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS CERTIFICATION AND THE HITECH INCENTIVE PROGRAM The Incentives On July 13, 2010, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services finalized the Electronic Health Record
DEMONSTRATING MEANINGFUL USE STAGE 1 REQUIREMENTS FOR ELIGIBLE PROVIDERS USING CERTIFIED EHR TECHNOLOGY IN 2014 The chart below lists the measures (and specialty exclusions) that eligible providers must
Image Research, LLC Christopher B. Sullivan, Ph.D. 2901 Quail Rise Court, Tallahassee, FL 32309 Summary of the Final Rule for Meaningful Use for 2015 and 2016 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers
Ms. Marilyn B. Tavenner Acting Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services Attention: CMS-0044-P Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building 200 Independence
Modified Stage 2 Final Rule 2015-2017 Illinois Health Information Technology Regional Extension Center (ILHITREC) SUPPORT PROVIDED BY ILHITREC: The Illinois Health Information Technology Regional Extension
ROPES & GRAY ALERT Health Care February 28, 2012 CMS Issues Proposed Rule on Stage 2 Meaningful Use, ONC Issues Companion Proposed Rule on 2014 EHR Certification Criteria On February 23, 2012, the Centers
Stage 2 of Meaningful Use Summary of Proposed Rule Background In order to receive incentives for the adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) under either the Medicare or Medicaid (Medi-Cal) incentive
Presented by Terri Gonzalez Director of Practice Improvement North Carolina Medical Society Meaningful Use is using certified EHR technology to: Improve quality, safety, efficiency, and reduce errors Engage
Outline 0 What is Meaningful Use and where are we? 0 What is the Physician Quality Reporting System and where stage are we on? 0 How can we leverage the EMR to demonstrate the quality of our care? Meaningful
Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Payment Program Review of Meaningful Use Stage 2 Regulation Changes and Other Impacts to the Medicaid EHR Incentive Program for 2014 that combines the effective
Medicaid EHR Incentive Program Dentists as Eligible Professionals Kim Davis-Allen, Outreach Coordinator Kim.email@example.com Considerations Must begin participation by Program Year 2016 Not required
Page 27 VIII. Dentist Crosswalk Overview The final rule on meaningful use requires that an Eligible Professional (EP) report on both clinical quality measures and functional objectives and measures. While
Meaningful Use Stage 2: Understanding the Requirements and Changes June 26, 2013 12:30 1:30 p.m., EDT Marnivia Spencer, CCME EHR Consultant 2013 The Carolinas Center for Medical Excellence All Rights Reserved
Meaningful Use Criteria for Eligible and Eligible Professionals (EPs) Under the Electronic Health Record (EHR) meaningful use final rules established by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS),
WHITE PAPER Meaningful Use Stage 2 Requirements Primer Shefali Mookencherry, MPH, MSMIS, RHIA Principal Consultant Hayes Management Consulting Hayes WHITE PAPER: Meaningful Use Stage 2 Requirements Source:
Michigan Medicaid EHR Incentive Program Update Jason Werner - MDCH Program Timeline Meaningful Use Timeline Meaningful Use Stages st year 0 0 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 00 0 0 AIU $,50 3 TBD TBD TBD TBD 0 AIU
Medicare & Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs Eligibility 2 Who is Eligible to Participate? Eligibility was defined in statute Hospital-based EPs are NOT eligible for incentives DEFINITION: 90% or more of
Meaningful Use, Penalties and Audits SHERI SMITH, FACMPE STATE VOLUNTEER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY Copyright 2014 State Volunteer Mutual Insurance Company Medicare/Medicaid Incentive Program Medicare/Medicaid
Meaningful Use - The Basics Presented by PaperFree Florida 1 Topics Meaningful Use Stage 1 Meaningful Use Barriers: Observations from the field Help and Questions 2 What is Meaningful Use Meaningful Use
Meaningful Use Updates HIT Summit September 19, 2015 Meaningful Use Updates Nadine Owen, BS,CHTS-IS, CHTS-IM Health IT Analyst Hawaii Health Information Exchange No other relevant financial disclosures.
CMS-0044-P 156 TABLE 4: STAGE 2 MEANINGFUL USE OBJECTIVES AND ASSOCIATED MEASURES SORTED BY CORE AND MENU SET Improving quality, safety, efficiency, and reducing health disparities Use computerized provider
MEETING MEANINGFUL USE IN MICROMD -STAGE TWO- Presented by: Anna Mrvelj EMR Training Specialist 1 Proposed Rule On April 15, 2015 CMS Issued a new proposal rule for the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive
EHR Incentive Program Focus on Stage One Meaningful Use Kim Davis-Allen, Outreach Coordinator Kim.firstname.lastname@example.org October 16, 2014 Checklist Participation Explanation Program Updates Stage One
Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program Stage 2 Final Rule Update September 6, 2012 Medical Assistance HIT Initiative 1 Introduction Timeframes Agenda Medicaid Eligibility Updates Stage 1 MU Optional
Proposed Rule for Meaningful Use Stage 2 The Old The Changes The New Continuing Medical Education Disclaimer hi i if h i i S d Ch i This is to certify that Marnivia Spencer and Chris Hudson have disclosed
Meaningful Use Stage 2 MU Audits Presented by: Deb Anderson, CPHIMS HTS Consultant HTS, a division of Mountain Pacific Quality Health Foundation 1 CEHRT Certified Electronic Health Record Technology (EHR)
Eligible Hospital and Critical Access Hospital (CAH) Attestation Worksheet for Stage 2 of the Medicare Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program The Eligible Hospital and CAH Attestation Worksheet
Stage 2 Meaningful Use What the Future Holds Lindsey Wiley, MHA HIT Manager Oklahoma Foundation for Medical Quality An Important Reminder For audio, you must use your phone: Step 1: Call (866) 906-0123.
Meaningful Use - Stage 2 Regulations Overview Brought to you by Presented by: Travis Broome, MPH, MBA September 18, 2012 Objectives Specific regulatory changes and requirements based on the CMS Stage 2
Stage 2 Meaningful Use - Public Health Michelle Nelson September 7, 2012 Meaningful Use Health Outcomes Policy Priorities Improve quality, safety, efficiency, and reducing health disparities Engage patients
Meaningful Use Modification Rules for 2015-2017 Oct. 26, 2015 Author: Jennifer Swinnich, Associate Director, PAMED Practice Support The following is a summary of the Meaningful Use Modifications for 2015-2017.
Whitepaper Meaningful Use Stage 1: EHR Incentive Program Information -------------------------------------------------------------- Daw Systems, Inc. UPDATED: November 2012 This document is designed to
Medicaid EHR Incentive Program Modified Stage 2: through 2017 November 10, Kim Davis-Allen, Outreach Coordinator Kim.email@example.com November 10, 1 Key Concepts for Modified Stage 2 Restructured
Office of Medical Assistance Programs Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program Stage 2 Final Rule Update Part 2 November 7, 2012 Medical Assistance HIT Initiative 1 Office of Medical Assistance
Making Sense of Meaningful Use: Stage 2 1 Who are we? Purdue Healthcare Advisors (PHA)*, a business unit of Purdue University, specializes in affordable assistance to organizations that share our passion
Ophthalmology Meaningful Use Attestation Guide Stage 2 2014 Edition Physicians who first participated in meaningful use in 2011 or 2012 must move on to Stage 2 in 2014. For 2014 only, physicians will attest
Meaningful Use 2014: Stage 2 MU Overview Scott A. Jens, OD, FAAO October 16, 2013 Overview General Overview of Stage 2 MU in 2014 Core Objectives for Stage 2 Menu Objectives for Stage 2 Complete summary
Who are we? Purdue Healthcare Advisors (PHA)*, a business unit of Purdue University, specializes in affordable assistance to organizations that share our passion for healthcare transformation. We bring
Understanding Meaningful Use Stage 2 Miranda Ladue, Manager, Product Management Adam Plotts, Manager, Product Management Copyright 2011 Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. Agenda Review MU Timeline MU
November 12, 2015 Andy Slavitt Acting Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 7500 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21244 Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Electronic Health Record Incentive
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Final Rule - Stage 3 Meaningful Use Criteria Objectives and Measures Summary October 22, 2015 Version 1.2 Provided by www.clinicalarchitecture.com Contents Overview...
The HITECH Act and Meaningful Use Implications for Population and Public Health Bill Brand, MPH Public Health Informatics Institute Meaningful Use for Public Health Professionals: Basic Training May 16,
Meaningful Use Stage 1 Core Objectives Must Meet all 13 Objectives 1. CPOE for Medication Orders 2. Drug Interaction Checks 3. Up-To-Date Problem List 4. E-Prescribing (erx) 5. Active Medication List 6.
Meaningful Use for Dummies: Deciphering Final meaningful use stage 2 criteria indicates stronger focus on patient engagement, HIE. Check out this chart to find out more about the meaningful use program.
Changes with MU Stage 2 Presenter: Jennifer Oelenberger, Director and Acct Management We give back EHR Concepts takes pride in giving our clients resourceful information to prepare you for the next steps
Modified Stage 2 Meaningful Use s 2015-2017 Objective 1: Protect Electronic Health Information NONE Conduct or review a security risk analysis in accordance with the requirements in 45 CFR 164.308(a)(1)
Meaningful Use Stage 2 Administrator Training 1 During the call please mute your line to reduce background noise. 2 Agenda Review of the EHR Incentive Programs for Stage 2 Meaningful Use Measures and Corresponding
MDeverywhere, Inc. Presents 2014 CMS EHR Incentive Program Requirements: What Providers Need To Know Presented by: Kristen Heffernan Director Product Management & Marketing, Henry Schein MicroMD Agenda
Meaningful Use: It s Not Too Late For 2015! Jeffrey D. Lehrman, DPM, FACFAS, FASPS, FAPWH APMA Coding Committee Expert Panelist, Codingline.com Fellow, American Academy of Podiatric Practice Management
May 29, 2015 Mr. Andrew Slavitt Acting Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Room 445 G 200 Independence Avenue,
Are you ready? Meaningful Use Stage 2 HIT Summit July 26, 2014 Meaningful Use Stage 2 Are you Ready? Speakers: Robyn Polinar, BA, MBA, AMB & Community EMR Supervisor Hawai i Pacific Health Nadine Owen,
EHR/Meaningful Use 2015-2017 The requirements for Meaningful Use attestation have changed due to the recently released Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Electronic Health Record Incentive Program Stage 3
Lunch and Learn IFAF 09/24/11 Michael L. Brody, DPM Disclaimers Sammy Sponsor of this presentation PICA Biomedix All Pro Imaging The Brave New World of HIT Today s Topics: PQRS E-Rx EMR Health Information
A Guide to Understanding and Qualifying for Meaningful Use Incentives A White Paper by DrFirst Copyright 2000-2012 DrFirst All Rights Reserved. 1 Table of Contents Understanding and Qualifying for Meaningful
This checklist provides a look into Ohio s Medicaid Provider Incentive Program (MPIP) system for eligible professionals and may be used as a guide to help eligible professionals gather information that