This week is National Health IT Week (#NHITWeek), but I think it might be better to call it National Health IT Infographic week. I’m not complaining. I love a good infographic. For example, I posted the Rise of the Digital Patient Infographic and the Healthcare IT Leadership Infographic – A 25 Year History already this week. I figured I might as well round out the week and post an infographic on EMR and HIPAA as well. Coalfire sent me the following infographic looking at HIPAA audits. I don’t think most people realize the HIPAA audits that are coming. HIPAA audits have had a slow start, but I think the momentum is growing. If you’re an organization that ever touches healthcare data, you better be ready. Enjoy the HIPAA audit infographic below.
It’s safe to say that meaningful use is growing through its challenges right now. My post yesterday about killing meaningful use and the new Flex-IT Act should be illustration enough. While it’s easy to play Monday Morning Quarterback on meaningful use, I think it’s also valuable to consider what meaningful use could have been and then use that to consider how we can still get there from where we are today.
Many of you might have read my post on The Purpose of the EHR Incentive Program Accordign to CMS. CMS clearly stats that the purpose of the EHR incentive money and meaningful use is to move providers towards advanced use of health IT to:
This has very clearly been CMS’ goal and it’s reflected in what we now know today as meaningful use. Let’s think about those from a physician perspective.
Support Reductions in Cost – So, you’re going to pay me less for doing the same work?
Increase Access – So, you’re going to send me patients who can’t pay their bill? Or does this mean I have to do more work making my records accessible?
Improve Outcomes for Patients – Every doctor can support this. However, many are skeptical (with good reason) that the various elements of meaningful use really do improve outcomes for patients.
If I were to step back and think what a doctor might consider meaningful use of an EHR system, this might be what they’d list (in no particular order):
More Efficient – Will the technology help me see patients more efficiently? Will it allow me to spend more time with the patient?
Improved Care – Will the technology help me be a better doctor? Will the technology help me make better use of my time with the patient?
Increased Revenue – Will the technology help me get paid more? Will the technology lower the cost of my malpractice insurance and reduce that risk? Will the technology create new revenue streams beyond just churning patient visits?
I’m sure there are other things that could be listed as well, but I think the list is directionally accurate. When you look at these two lists, there’s very clearly a major disconnect between what end users want and what meaningful use requires. With a lot of the EHR incentive money already paid out, this divide has become a major issue.
— Don Fluckinger (@DonFluckinger) September 16, 2014
Isn’t it nice that National Health IT Week brings people together to complain about meaningful use? Ok, that’s only partially in jest. Marc Probst, CIO of Intermountain and a member of the original meaningful use/EHR Certification committee (I lost track of the formal name), is making a strong statement as quoted by Don Fluckinger above.
Marc Probst is right that the majority of healthcare would be really happy to put a knife in meaningful use and move on from it. That’s kind of what I proposed when I suggested blowing up meaningful use. Not to mention my comments that meaningful use is on shaky ground. Comments from people like Marc Probst are proof of this fact.
In a related move, CHIME, AMDIS and 15 other healthcare organizations sent a letter to the HHS Secretary calling for immediate action to amend the 2015 meaningful use reporting period. These organizations believed that the final rule on meaningful use flexibility would change the reporting period, but it did not. It seems like they’re coming out guns blazing.
In even bigger news (albeit probably related), Congresswoman Renee Ellmers (R-NC) and Congressman Jim Matheson (D-UT) just introduced the Flexibility in Health IT Reporting (Flex-IT) act. This act would “allow providers to report their Health IT upgrades in 2015 through a 90-day reporting period as opposed to a full year.” I have yet to see any prediction on whether this act has enough support in Congress to get passed, but we could once again see congress act when CMS chose a different course of action like they did with ICD-10.
This story is definitely evolving and the pressure to change the reporting period to 90 days is on. My own personal prediction is that CMS will have to make the change. I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Happy National Health IT Week!
The following is a guest blog post by Dawn Crump, VP of Audit Management Solutions at HealthPort.
The RACs are back and they’re offering acute care and critical access hospitals a sweet deal—at least for now.
The Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) program had been on hold due to the reassigning and re-contracting of regions. In addition, there was a lawsuit pending between Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and CGI over RAC reimbursement rates, models and approaches. The lawsuit was resolved in August. But CGI quickly appealed causing further delay in full resumption of the RAC program.
So while everyone awaits another court decision and green light from CMS, two important RAC announcements were made by CMS.
Limited Restart Underway
Until the RAC program is 100 percent back in session, some reviews will be conducted. These will be mostly automated reviews, but there will be some records requests and a limited number of complex reviews in certain select areas. During the restart, RACs will not review claims to determine whether the care was delivered in the appropriate setting. CMS said it hopes that the new RAC contracts will be awarded later this year.
From the Aug. 5 edition of the American Hospital Association’s News Now: “CMS will allow current RACs to restart a limited number of claim reviews beginning this month. The agency said most reviews will be done on an automated basis. However, a limited number will be complex reviews on certain claims, including spinal fusions, outpatient therapy services, durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics and supplies, and Medicare-approved cosmetic procedures.
One example of the latter is blepharoplasty, also known as an eyelid lift. The number of claims for this procedure has tripled in recent years, so I expect the RACs will make this procedure a hot target. To be covered under Medicare, vision must be impaired. What’s needed? Physician documentation of the reasons for surgery (e.g., eyelid droop interfering with vision).
Here are three specific steps to take with regard to the limited RAC restart:
But the limited restart wasn’t the only important news.
Partial Repayment Deal Announced
In their September 9th, 2014 inpatient hospital reviews announcement, CMS announced an administrative agreement for acute care and critical access hospitals. To reduce the backlog of cases in appeal status and overall administrative costs, these hospitals now have the option to withdraw their pending appeals in “exchange for timely partial payment (68% of the allowable amount)”, according to the CMS administrative agreement.
Of course there are parameters to understand and details to sort out regarding the settlement opportunity. Here is what we know so far:
Many more details are available on the CMS.gov website.
Eligible hospitals must determine if requesting a settlement offer makes sense for cases in appeal that meet the specified parameters. For some cases, it will make sense to take the 68 percent settlement and cut your losses. For other denials, waiting out the appeal process may be a better choice.
Each denial will be different and each case unique. Time, money and resources must be balanced against the potential revenue retained or returned potential. Audit management directors, in conjunction with their revenue cycle and finance teams, must analyze RAC data for each eligible case. It’s a complicated equation. And with a deadline of October 31, 2014, there is no time to lose.
About Dawn Crump
Dawn Crump, MA, SSBB, CHC, has been in the healthcare compliance industry for more than 18 years and joined HealthPort in 2013 as Vice President of Audit Management Solutions. Prior to joining HealthPort, Ms. Crump was the Network Director of Compliance for SSM. She is a former board director of the Greater St. Louis Healthcare Finance Management Association chapter and currently serves as the networking chair.
#HITsm T2: Geography should follow architecture behind DNS (how we organize the Internet). We pick a "home base" & the world finds us.
— Jared Alfson (@jalfson) September 5, 2014
I was absolutely intrigued by the idea of structuring the healthcare data architecture after DNS. As a techguy, I’m quite familiar with the structure of DNS and it has a lot of advantages (Check out the Wikipedia for DNS if you’re not familiar with it).
There are a lot of really great advantages to a system like DNS. How beautiful would it be for your data to be sent to your home base versus our current system which requires the patient to go out and try and collect the data from all of their health care providers. Plus, the data they get from each provider is never in the same format (unless you consider paper a format).
One challenge with the idea of structuring the healthcare data architecture like DNS is getting everyone a DNS entry. How do you handle the use case where a patient doesn’t have a “home” on the internet for their healthcare data? Will the first provider that you see, sign you up for a home on the internet? What if you forget your previous healthcare data home and the next provider provides you a new home. I guess the solution is to have really amazing merging and transfer tools between the various healthcare data homes.
I imagine that some people involved in Direct Project might suggest that a direct address could serve as the “home” for a patient’s health data. While Direct has mostly been focused on doctors sharing patient data with other doctors and healthcare providers, patients can have a direct address as well. Could that direct address by your home on the internet?
This will certainly take some more thought and consideration, but I’m fascinated by the distributed DNS system. I think we healthcare data interoperability can learn something from how DNS works.