Association of the Meaningful Use Electronic Health Record Incentive Program With Health Information Technology Venture Capital Funding.

Importance: Although the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act has accelerated electronic health record (EHR) adoption since its passage, clinician satisfaction with EHRs remains low, and the association of HITECH with health care information technology (IT) entrepreneurship has remained largely unstudied. Objective: To determine whether the passage of the HITECH Act was associated with an increase in key measures of health care IT entrepreneurship. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation of venture capital (VC) activity in the US from 2000 to 2019 examined funding trends in health care IT, EHR-related companies, and all VC investments before and after the passage of HITECH. A difference-in-differences analysis compared investments in health care IT companies with those of companies in 3 categories: general health care (non-IT), IT (non-health care), and all US VC transactions. Data were analyzed from September 2018 to August 2019. Exposures: Venture capital funding received by US companies before and after the HITECH Act. Main Outcomes and Measures: Venture capital investment in health care IT companies and the proportion of those investments going to seed-stage companies, a proxy for very early-stage entrepreneurship and innovation. Results: The data included 70 982 investments, of which 9425 (13.3%) were seed stage, 10 706 (15.1%) were early stage, and 50 851 (71.6%) were growth stage. After passage of the HITECH Act, investment in both health care IT companies and EHR-related companies increased at a rate much faster (13.0% and 11.4%, respectively) than VC as a whole (6.9%). In addition, the proportion of investments going to seed-stage health care IT companies increased compared with both overall VC investments and non-IT health care investments. Health care IT companies saw increased probabilities of transactions being seed-stage of 5.1% (SE, 2.2%; 95% CI, 0.8% to 9.3%; P = .02) compared with the entire sample of VC transactions and 13.6% (SE, 1.9%; 95% CI, 9.9% to 17.2%; P < .001) compared with non-IT health care VC transactions. Health care IT had essentially 0 increased probability of a transaction being seed stage compared with IT companies outside health care (-0.8% probability; SE, 2.4%; 95% CI, -5.4% to 3.9%; P = .75). Conclusions and Relevance: Although widespread clinician dissatisfaction with EHR systems remains a challenge, the HITECH Act's incentive program may have catalyzed early-stage entrepreneurship in health care IT, suggesting an important role for incentives in promoting innovation.

Clinical decision support: practical implementation at two pediatric hospitals.

Clinical decision support has been identified by the United States government as a method to decrease inappropriate imaging exams and promote judicious use of imaging resources. The adoption of this method will be incentivized by requiring appropriate use criteria to qualify for Medicare reimbursement starting in January 2020. While Medicare reimbursement is unlikely to directly impact pediatric imaging because of largely disparate patient populations, insurance providers typically use Medicare to benchmark their reimbursement guidelines. Therefore soon after their adoption these guidelines could become relevant to pediatric imaging. In this article we discuss how pediatric imaging was initially underrepresented in the clinical decision support realm, and how this was addressed by a subcommittee involving both American College of Radiology and Society for Pediatric Radiology members. We also present the experience of implementing clinical decision support software at two standalone pediatric hospitals and summarize the lessons learned from these deployments.

Sensitivity of Claims-Based Algorithms to Ascertain Smoking Status More Than Doubled with Meaningful Use.

BACKGROUND: The "meaningful use of certified electronic health record" policy requires eligible professionals to record smoking status for more than 50% of all individuals aged 13 years or older in 2011 to 2012. OBJECTIVES: To explore whether the coding to document smoking behavior has increased over time and to assess the accuracy of smoking-related diagnosis and procedure codes in identifying previous and current smokers. METHODS: We conducted an observational study with 5,423,880 enrollees from the year 2009 to 2014 in the Truven Health Analytics database. Temporal trends of smoking coding, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were measured. RESULTS: The rate of coding of smoking behavior improved significantly by the end of the study period. The proportion of patients in the claims data recorded as current smokers increased 2.3-fold and the proportion of patients recorded as previous smokers increased 4-fold during the 6-year period. The sensitivity of each International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code was generally less than 10%. The diagnosis code of tobacco use disorder (305.1X) was the most sensitive code (9.3%) for identifying smokers. The specificities of these codes and the Current Procedural Terminology codes were all more than 98%. CONCLUSIONS: A large improvement in the coding of current and previous smoking behavior has occurred since the inception of the meaningful use policy. Nevertheless, the use of diagnosis and procedure codes to identify smoking behavior in administrative data is still unreliable. This suggests that quality improvements toward medical coding on smoking behavior are needed to enhance the capability of claims data for smoking-related outcomes research.

The Relationship Between Magnet Designation, Electronic Health Record Adoption, and Medicare Meaningful Use Payments.

The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between nursing excellence and electronic health record adoption. Of 6582 US hospitals, 4939 were eligible for the Medicare Electronic Health Record Incentive Program, and 6419 were eligible for evaluation on the HIMSS Analytics Electronic Medical Record Adoption Model. Of 399 Magnet hospitals, 330 were eligible for the Medicare Electronic Health Record Incentive Program, and 393 were eligible for evaluation in the HIMSS Analytics Electronic Medical Record Adoption Model. Meaningful use attestation was defined as receipt of a Medicare Electronic Health Record Incentive Program payment. The adoption electronic health record was defined as Level 6 and/or 7 on the HIMSS Analytics Electronic Medical Record Adoption Model. Logistic regression showed that Magnet-designated hospitals were more likely attest to Meaningful Use than non-Magnet hospitals (odds ratio = 3.58, P < .001) and were more likely to adopt electronic health records than non-Magnet hospitals (Level 6 only: odds ratio = 3.68, P < .001; Level 6 or 7: odds ratio = 4.02, P < .001). This study suggested a positive relationship between Magnet status and electronic health record use, which involves earning financial incentives for successful adoption. Continued investigation is needed to examine the relationships between the quality of nursing care, electronic health record usage, financial implications, and patient outcomes.

Understanding Value-based Reimbursement Models and Trends in Orthopaedic Health Policy: An Introduction to the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015.

In 2015, the US Congress passed legislation entitled the Medicare Access and CHIP [Children's Health Insurance Program] Reauthorization Act (MACRA), which led to the formation of two reimbursement paradigms: the merit-based incentive payment system (MIPS) and alternative payment models (APMs). The MACRA effectively repealed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula while combining several CMS quality-reporting programs. As such, MACRA represents an unparalleled acceleration toward reimbursement models that recognize value rather than volume. The first pathway, MIPS, consolidates several Medicare quality-reporting programs into one composite score that will be derived by four performance categories, including quality (30%), resource utilization (30%), meaningful use (25%), and clinical practice improvement activities (15%). The APM pathway includes the following programs: Medicare accountable care organizations as part of the Medicare Shared Savings Program, Bundled Payments for Care Improvement, and Comprehensive Primary Care initiative. Existing APMs have yet to be determined as eligible. We provide a contextual framework of the healthcare legislation that has led to the formation of current health policy and offer recommendations regarding SGR how orthopaedic surgeons may best steer through such reimbursement models.

Modified Stage 2 and Stage 3 Meaningful Use for Eligible Providers: Performance Metrics, Reporting Period Lengths, and Hardship Exemptions.

In October 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services released its final rule on the new guidelines for alterations to the long-standing EHR Incentive Program. These Modified Stage 2 and upcoming Stage 3 Meaningful Use Rules were developed in response to provider and organizational feedback during the last few years. This article provides a comprehensive overview for the new rules as they relate to Medicare and Medicaid Eligible Providers. Reporting deadlines for previous calendar year compliance and the basic criteria for automatic provider hardship exemptions to avoid reimbursement penalties also are discussed.

Meaningful Use Of EHRs Among Hospitals Ineligible For Incentives Lags Behind That Of Other Hospitals, 2009-13.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' meaningful-use incentive program aims to promote the adoption and use of electronic health records (EHRs) throughout health care settings in the United States. However, psychiatric, long-term care, and rehabilitation hospitals are ineligible for these incentive payments. Using national data from the period 2009-13, we compared eligible and ineligible hospitals' rates of EHR adoption. All three types of ineligible hospitals had significantly lower rates of adoption than eligible hospitals did, yet both groups experienced similar growth rates. This growth has widened the gap in adoption of health information technology between eligible and ineligible hospitals, which could stymie efforts to lower costs and improve quality across the health care continuum. Future policies might target ineligible hospitals specifically, as the lag in EHR adoption among this group of providers might undermine the achievement of more coordinated and collaborative health care.

Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Electronic Health Record Incentive Program--Stage 3 and Modifications to Meaningful Use in 2015 Through 2017. Final rules with comment period.

This final rule with comment period specifies the requirements that eligible professionals (EPs), eligible hospitals, and critical access hospitals (CAHs) must meet in order to qualify for Medicare and Medicaid electronic health record (EHR) incentive payments and avoid downward payment adjustments under the Medicare EHR Incentive Program. In addition, it changes the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs reporting period in 2015 to a 90-day period aligned with the calendar year. This final rule with comment period also removes reporting requirements on measures that have become redundant, duplicative, or topped out from the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs. In addition, this final rule with comment period establishes the requirements for Stage 3 of the program as optional in 2017 and required for all participants beginning in 2018. The final rule with comment period continues to encourage the electronic submission of clinical quality measure (CQM) data, establishes requirements to transition the program to a single stage, and aligns reporting for providers in the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs.

Reducing duplicate testing: a comparison of two clinical decision support tools.

OBJECTIVES: Unnecessary duplicate laboratory testing is common and costly. Systems-based means to avert unnecessary testing should be investigated and employed. METHODS: We compared the effectiveness and cost savings associated with two clinical decision support tools to stop duplicate testing. The Hard Stop required telephone contact with the laboratory and justification to have the duplicate test performed, whereas the Smart Alert allowed the provider to bypass the alert at the point of order entry without justification. RESULTS: The Hard Stop alert was significantly more effective than the Smart Alert (92.3% vs 42.6%, respectively; P < .0001). The cost savings realized per alert activation was $16.08/alert for the Hard Stop alert vs $3.52/alert for the Smart Alert. CONCLUSIONS: Structural and process changes that require laboratory contact and justification for duplicate testing are more effective than interventions that allow providers to bypass alerts without justification at point of computerized physician order entry.

Impact of a prospective review program for reference laboratory testing requests.

OBJECTIVES: To control the cost of reference laboratory testing, to ensure that its usage is medically appropriate, and to review the contribution of reference testing to patient care at our institution. METHODS: A multidisciplinary institutional committee was convened to manage the utilization of reference testing. A subset of tests was designated to be reviewed in real time by a team of clinical pathologists in consultation with clinical subject matter experts. RESULTS: Twelve percent of testing requests, accounting for approximately 18% of send-out costs, were determined to be clinically unnecessary or would not produce actionable results at that point during that patient's care and were therefore not performed. This intervention, combined with insourcing of frequently requested tests, resulted in a reduction in the costs of reference testing to less than half of that predicted by the rate of growth from 2005 to 2009. Molecular diagnostic tests displayed a higher cost per test than other forms of testing but had a similar degree of clinical impact. CONCLUSIONS: Formal prospective review of reference laboratory testing requests resulted in substantial cost containment and improved the efficiency of patient care.

Meaningful use: a national framework for integrated telemedicine.

INTRODUCTION: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has incentivized electronic health records (EHRs) implementation through meaningful use (MU) to improve healthcare quality and efficacy. Telemedicine is a key tool that has shown its ability to facilitate MU through technological innovation with cost savings and has shown promise in the area of integrated behavioral healthcare. The purpose of this article is to propose a model of MU to frame the incentivized implementation of an integrated telemedicine (ITM)-specific model to effect system-level change. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the background, principles, and a justification for the ITM Model including cost issues, the development and structure of MU in the context of EHRs, the benefits of integrated behavioral healthcare and telemedicine, and the case for their combined implementation in the form of ITM. RESULTS: The model proposed, the ITM Incentive Program, parallels the current MU program and is composed of three stages. Stage 1 focuses on incentivizing current and new Medicaid providers to adapt, implement, and upgrade technology needed to conduct virtual meetings with patients and other healthcare professionals. Stage 2 is a tiered incentive system with process-focused and track metrics related to increasing the number of consultations with patients. In Stage 3, providers are encouraged to continue use of ITM by meeting thresholds for several objectives focused on clinical outcomes. Recommendations for implementing this model within a payment waiver system are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: The ITM Model offers a needed union of integrated care and telemedicine through the combination of technology, business, and clinical processes. The success of MU as a tiered incentive program for EHRs, as well as the precedent of using waiver opportunities for incentive funding repayments, sets forth a strategic framework to successful implementation of ITM to address cost issues and improve quality and access to care in the healthcare system.

Provider perceptions of the electronic health record incentive programs: a survey of eligible professionals who have and have not attested to meaningful use.

BACKGROUND: The HITECH Act of 2009 enabled the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to provide financial incentives to health care providers who demonstrate "meaningful use" (MU) of their electronic health records (EHRs). Despite stakeholder involvement in the rule-making phase, formal input about the MU program from a cross section of providers has not been reported since incentive payments began. OBJECTIVE: To examine the perspectives and experiences of a random sample of health care professionals eligible for financial incentives (eligible professionals or EPs) for demonstrating meaningful use of their EHRs. It was hypothesized that EPs actively participating in the MU program would generally view the purported benefits of MU more positively than EPs not yet participating in the incentive program. DESIGN: Survey data were collected by mail from a random sample of EPs in Washington State and Idaho. Two follow-up mailings were made to non-respondents. PARTICIPANTS: The sample included EPs who had registered for incentive payments or attested to MU (MU-Active) and EPs not yet participating in the incentive program (MU-Inactive). MAIN MEASURES: The survey assessed perceptions of general realities and influences of MU on health care; views on the influence of MU on clinics; and personal views about MU. EP opinions were assessed with close- and open-ended items. KEY RESULTS: Close-ended responses indicated that MU-Active providers were generally more positive about the program than MU-Inactive providers. However, the majority of respondents in both groups felt that MU would not reduce care disparities or improve the accuracy of patient information. The additional workload on EPs and their staff was viewed as too great a burden on productivity relative to the level of reimbursement for achieving MU goals. The majority of open-ended responses in each group reinforced the general perception that the MU program diverted attention from treating patients by imposing greater reporting requirements. CONCLUSIONS: Survey results indicate the need by CMS to step up engagement with EPs in future planning for the MU program, while also providing support for achieving MU standards.