Meaningful Use Stage 2–Physicians’ Opinions Count Most

The HIT Policy Committee’s Meaningful Use Workgroup met this week to begin discussing the question that I posed at the end of my EMR Straight Talk post last week, i.e., how to reconcile the various stakeholders’ positions regarding Stage 2 meaningful use. Most of the feedback received by the workgroup in response to its request for comments relate to issues surrounding timing, with providers and vendors urging restraint, and consumer groups (representing patients and payers) pushing for more aggressive timelines.

Given the statutory constraints (i.e., changes to the law itself would require Congressional action, a path the workgroup will not pursue), the options are limited—and each carries consequences for the program’s long-term goals. The workgroup acknowledged the concerns of vendors regarding the time needed to adequately and safely develop and deploy any new required functionality. They also appreciated the impact on providers of the implementation and training demands associated with upgrading technology, particularly at a time when providers are facing other IT challenges such as ICD-10 and HIPAA 5010. The workgroup considered the following options:

  • Option 1: Slow down the program’s pace by not adding any new measures and functionalities to Stage 2, but merely increasing the thresholds related to Stage 1 measures.
  • Option 2: Delay the start of Stage 2 by allowing each provider more time at Stage 1 or by basing the initiation of Stage 2 on the overall level of provider compliance/success in Stage 1.
  • Option 3: Shorten the first year’s reporting period to 90 days when providers progress to Stage 2.

The workgroup identified the following as the problems associated with each of the above proposals:

  • Option 1 (no new measures) will not get the program where it needs to be rapidly enough. It does not advance the program past data capture and towards the program’s goals: interoperability; “advancing clinical processes” (the goal of Stage 2); or improving outcomes (the goal of Stage 3).
  • Option 2 (delay Stage 2) raised the concern that extending Stage 2 will set a precedent for delaying Stage 3. The dwindling financial incentives and the lack of positive incentives after 2016 could reduce interest in Stage 2 or make it difficult for the program as a whole to ever progress past Stage 2, given that there are no positive incentives available after 2016.
  • Option 3 (90-day reporting period) does nothing to resolve the vendors’ concerns about the timeline for development.

Another critical issue to be addressed is how to increase the relevance of the EHR program to specialists, which will be the subject of a special hearing on May 13—similar to the hearing that solicited their input for Stage 1. Of all of the stakeholders, physicians are the most critical to the attainment of the EHR program’s goals. Physicians—primary care and specialists alike—are the cornerstone of the program, and their participation beyond Stage 1 will depend on the development of a set of reasonable and achievable requirements.

Government EHR Program: Unintended Consequences (continued)

Last week’s EMR Straight Talk, “Government EHR Program: Potentially Harmful Unintended Consequences,” seems to have struck a nerve with readers—based on the number, source, and intensity of the comments. The elevated level of concern is palpable. What I find rewarding is that blogs like EMR Straight Talk are creating a community of physicians who find support for their concerns—concerns that they might have thought were unique to themselves. Several of last week’s comments came from physicians who are not even on our mailing list, which means that their colleagues are sharing the blog, seeking to build support for their beliefs. Most of the comments were submitted by specialist physicians who are getting our message and beginning to speak up about why they do not consider the government’s EHR program relevant for their practices.

Those commenting identified several additional unintended consequences and voiced other concerns, including:

  • Dissatisfaction with templates and the utility of the notes they generate;
  • Failure of the government program to consider the needs of providers;
  • Effect of traditional EHRs on physician productivity;
  • Failure of physician organizations to speak out on behalf of their constituents; and
  • Difficulty of finding the right EHR for a practice.

An interesting comment came from Paul Roemer, who directed concerned readers to his post on HealthsystemCIO.com, in which he suggests that the “meaningful use” dates will be pushed back. He maintains: “Washington created a $40 billion lottery and they are having trouble finding anyone able to purchase tickets.” His contention is that very few providers will be ready or able to take advantage of the incentives, including those who already have implemented a traditional, point-and-click EHR.

What do you think the government should do with its program that is clearly meeting significant and vocal resistance—particularly among specialists and other high-volume physicians? Submit your comments below, and let’s keep the conversation going.