At HIMSS10 in Atlanta this week, you couldn't escape the topic of ctory/meaningful-use" target="_blank" class="directory-item-link">"/directory/meaningful-use" target="_blank" class="directory-item-link">meaningful use and ref="/directory/american-recovery-and-reinvestment-act-arra" target="_blank" class="directory-item-link">ARRA. From keynote addresses and education sessions to exhibit hall and lank" class="directory-item-link">Interoperability Showcase, the "M" word was the buzz word. Not surprisingly, a number of attendees are worried about what these regulations may mean for their healthcare organizations. And there are those attendees who are downright not in favor of the meaningful use requirements.
Everyone is on the same page, however, with the focus being on the patient, improving the quality of care and lowering the cost of healthcare. It's just that not everyone believes meaningful use criteria are the solution. While others felt that record-ehr" target="_blank" class="directory-item-link">EHRs and EMRs shouldn't be the only healthcare IT that is tied to incentive payments.
I attended a roundtable Wednesday morning that comprised seven participants who were clinicians, consultants and/or vendors. There was also overlap with those who are champions of healthcare IT and meaningful use but still concerned and worried, and those who dislike the regulations but believe in healthcare IT.
One vice president of research and technology for a hospital corporation felt the money would be better spent elsewhere. Hospitals have different priorities and needs, he argued. He pointed out that a rural hospital that doesn't have a CT scanner would likely opt to buy that piece of equipment than an EMR and would garner more benefit to the patient than an EMR. I absolutely get where he's coming from. Should the federal government leave it up to individual hospitals to determine how to spend the money? The vision of herding cats comes to mind. On the one hand, it makes sense. On the other hand, the meaningful use criteria provide structure and accountability, which are needed for such an ambitious program.
This vice president of research and technology said he was at HIMSS10 to look for products (not necessarily EMRs/EHRs) that would help him increase the efficiency of his hospital system. In his search, he is also aware of the aging products his hospital system currently has and is looking for interoperability solutions to help him connect the new products with the old.
There were a couple of vendors who felt the emphasis on EMRs and EHRs was unbalanced. In their words - as I'm not familiar with their products - their products help providers increase patient safety and be more efficient, which in turn saves them money. If these products meet the spirit of meaningful use, then shouldn't they have been included as required healthcare IT to be implemented for providers to receive stimulus funding?
They were valid points, but as they say, the train has already left the station. It doesn't discount, however, how healthcare IT regulation will be formulated down the road. Once the meaningful use criteria are finalized and providers begin (or don't begin) implementation or expansion of their healthcare IT systems, the path will be a little clearer to figure out the next steps. And luckily, as we are discussing the three stages of meeting meaningful use, there are evolutions to come.
Patty Enrado blogs daily at EHRWatch.com.
