Skip to main content
Subscribe
  • Sign Up Free
  • Login
  • Subscribe
  • News
    • Current News
    • Providers
    • Insurance
    • Government
    • Finance
    • Technology
    • Safety & Quality
    • Digital Health
    • Transformation
    • ESG
    • People
    • Regional News
    • Digital Edition (Web Version)
    • Patients
    • Operations
    • Care Delivery
    • Payment
    • Midwest
    • Northeast
    • South
    • West
  • Blogs
    • AI
    • Deals
    • Layoff Tracker
    • HIMSS 2023
  • Opinion
    • Breaking Bias
    • Commentaries
    • Letters
    • From the Editor
  • Events & Awards
    • Awards
    • Conferences
    • Galas
    • Virtual Briefings
    • Webinars
    • Nominate/Eligibility
    • 100 Most Influential People
    • 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives
    • Best Places to Work in Healthcare
    • Excellence in Governance
    • Health Care Hall of Fame
    • Healthcare Marketing Impact Awards
    • Top 25 Emerging Leaders
    • Top Innovators
    • Diversity in Healthcare
      • - Luminaries
      • - Top 25 Diversity Leaders
      • - Leaders to Watch
    • Women in Healthcare
      • - Luminaries
      • - Top 25 Women Leaders
      • - Women to Watch
    • Digital Health Transformation Summit
    • ESG: The Implementation Imperative Summit
    • Leadership Symposium
    • Social Determinants of Health Symposium
    • Women Leaders in Healthcare Conference
    • Best Places to Work Awards Gala
    • Health Care Hall of Fame Gala
    • Top 25 Diversity Leaders Gala
    • Top 25 Women Leaders Gala
    • - Hospital of the Future
    • - Value Based Care
    • - Hospital at Home
    • - Workplace of the Future
    • - AI and Digital Health
    • - Future of Staffing
    • - Hospital of the Future (Fall)
  • Multimedia
    • Podcast - Beyond the Byline
    • Sponsored Podcast - Healthcare Insider
    • Sponsored Video Series - One on One
    • Sponsored Video Series - Checking In with Dan Peres
  • Data & Insights
    • Data & Insights Home
    • Hospital Financials
    • Staffing & Compensation
    • Quality & Safety
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Data Archive
    • Resource Guide: By the Numbers
    • Surveys
    • Data Points
  • Newsletters
  • MORE+
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Media Kit
    • Jobs
    • People on the Move
    • Reprints & Licensing
MENU
Breadcrumb
  1. Home
  2. Information Technology
May 23, 2014 12:00 AM

Signs of feds' EHR Stage 2 delay seen in early 2013

Joseph Conn
  • Tweet
  • Share
  • Share
  • Email
  • More
    Reprints Print

    The CMS and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology surprised no one—given warning signs dating back more than a year—when they announced this week a proposed rule giving hospitals, physicians and other eligible professionals a way to retreat with dignity, full payment and without penalty from their Stage 2 electronic health record meaningful-use obligations.

    This latest delay marks the second time this year that the ponderous U.S. healthcare and health information technology industries showed they were unable to meet federal goals in a timely manner and that the feds were unable to move the industry in a time frame it had once deemed adequate. In March, Congress intervened to force the CMS to push back by a year its Oct. 1, 2014 ICD-10 compliance date, the third deadline collapse for that effort. The prior two ICD-10 delays were on the CMS's own initiative.

    With the new Stage 2 proposal, providers can continue using 2011 edition software and stay at Stage 1 for another year if they are willing and able to attest that they couldn't make the step up to Stage 2 because they were “unable to fully implement 2014 Edition” software due to “availability delays.” It was the second time the feds pushed back the Stage 2 compliance date.

    The reason that this week's announcement was no surprise is that the first warning bells that healthcare's big ship was nearing shoal waters on Stage 2 came as early as January 2013.

    It wasn't until then that the first of the independent organizations involved were deemed by the ONC to be worthy of certifying the test results of software developers' EHR products to 2014 Edition criteria for use by providers in Stage 2. That late date meant that hundreds of EHR vendors had less than 9 months to have their systems tested and certified for use in the program.

    It also meant that providers would have far less time than 9 months to get those systems—once they'd been tested and certified—purchased, installed and in efficient use in their organizations before the Stage 2 meaningful-use program started—on Oct. 1, 2013, for hospitals and Jan. 1, 2014, for physicians and other “EPs.”

    By September 2013, the software testing and certification portion of the program was in deep trouble and multiple vendors were already in panic mode. A Modern Healthcare review of the official Certified Health IT Product List showed that just 79 companies, providers and other organizations that had developed 2014 Edition software had it tested and certified. That compared with nearly 1,000 developers with software tested and certified for 2011 Edition standards and useful in the first three years of the program.

    This was not just a problem for Stage 2 aspirants—those who had attested and received payments for Stage 1 in 2011 and 2012 were obliged to move up a stage in the 2014 payment year. Because the CMS had made changes to the Stage 1 requirements, the feds also required that all EHR incentive-payment program aspirants – even those still seeking to meet Stage 1 meaningful use -- had to upgrade and use 2014 Edition software as well. That meant that more than 300,000 providers would need to upgrade to 2014 Edition software within the narrowing 2014 payment year window.

    The CMS also didn't help itself with another program change, requiring Stage 2 aspirants to start their clocks to meet 90 consecutive days at Stage 2 only on the first day of the quarter instead of when they were ready – say, mid-month -- robbing providers of precious flexibility and giving them only four possible starting days – Oct. 1, 2013, Jan. 1, 2014, April 1, 2014, and July 1, 2014, for hospitals, and the first of January, April, July and October for physicians and other EPs.

    Earlier this month, the Stage 2 ship finally hit the rocks.

    A CMS official reported to the Health IT Policy Committee that, so far, just four hospitals and only 50 or so physicians and other EPs had achieved Stage 2 meaningful use.

    An ONC report also delivered at that committee meeting, based on provider responses to survey questions, indicated that most hospitals, many physicians and other EPs were “likely” to be able to upgrade to 2014 Edition technology. The report said that only relatively small percentages of both hospitals (5%) and physicians/other EPs (17%) were using software from a developer that did not yet have a 2014 Edition product.

    But 17% of 300,000 meant that perhaps 51,000 physicians and other EPs were left in the lurch by vendors who had not yet upgraded their products to 2014 Edition standards.

    In their proposed rule, the CMS and ONC said the reason for stretching out Stage 1 and giving providers an out on meeting Stage 2 was the trouble providers were having in obtaining and installing 2014 edition software.

    “Through letters to CMS, public forums, listening sessions and public comment at CMS meetings, many provider associations have expressed concern that, although 2014 Edition (technology) may be available for adoption, there is a backlog of many months for the updated version to be installed and implemented so that providers can successfully attest for 2014,” the rule writers said.

    The feds were careful, however, not to affix blame for the software backlog on developers or providers.

    The Electronic Health Record Association, a developers' trade group affiliated with the Chicago-based Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society, was equally careful not to point fingers at the feds over its timing of 2014 Edition technical requirements and testing and certification procedures.

    “We appreciate that CMS and ONC have acknowledged the very tight timing available for vendors and providers with the move to 2014 certified EHR technology and Stage 2,” an EHRA statement said.

    As are many providers, EHRA members are still evaluating the complex proposed rule, which has timing issues of its own. And they're careful not to burn bridges with the feds they'll have to cross in the future as Stage 3 criteria – now scheduled for use in 2017 – are still being developed.

    “Recognizing that the last 2014 reporting periods for EHs (eligible hospitals) and EPs 2014 are fast approaching and that the final rule is likely to come near the end of these reporting periods, this proposed rule, issued mid-way through 2014, has many complex implications for our members and their customers,” the EHRA said. “We are still, therefore, evaluating the provisions and scenarios in order to assist our members and customers, and to develop our detailed response to the NPRM.

    “While making a mid-course correction, as this new NPRM represents, will be complex and may be confusing, we do appreciate that CMS and ONC appear to have listened to us and other stakeholders on the timing challenges associated with new certified EHR editions and Meaningful Use stages, and hope that these learnings are reflected upfront in policy decisions on the scope and timing of Stage 3.”

    Follow Joseph Conn on Twitter: @MHJConn

    Letter
    to the
    Editor

    Send us a letter

    Have an opinion about this story? Click here to submit a Letter to the Editor, and we may publish it in print.

    Recommended for You
    Racial disparity hospital
    Providers confront racial bias engrained in EHRs
    Most Popular
    1
    CMS tries luring providers to revamped Medicare ACOs
    2
    Oregon joins other states in setting ratios for nurse staffing
    3
    Blue Shield CA taps Amazon, Mark Cuban, CVS for new PBM model
    4
    A health innovation hub grows in Lake Nona Medical City
    5
    Hospital-at-home providers push for Medicaid coverage
    Sponsored Content
    Digital Health Intelligence Newsletter: Sign up to receive a twice-weekly (T, F) morning newsletter featuring the latest reporting on technologies, trends, players and money fueling the rapid changes in how healthcare is developed, paid for and delivered.
    Get Newsletters

    Sign up for enewsletters and alerts to receive breaking news and in-depth coverage of healthcare events and trends, as they happen, right to your inbox.

    Subscribe Today
    MH Magazine Cover

    MH magazine offers content that sheds light on healthcare leaders’ complex choices and touch points—from strategy, governance, leadership development and finance to operations, clinical care, and marketing.

    Subscribe
    Connect with Us
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • RSS

    Our Mission

    Modern Healthcare empowers industry leaders to succeed by providing unbiased reporting of the news, insights, analysis and data.

    Contact Us

    (877) 812-1581

    Email us

     

    Resources
    • Contact Us
    • Help Center
    • Advertise with Us
    • Ad Choices
    • Sitemap
    Editorial Dept
    • Submission Guidelines
    • Code of Ethics
    • Awards
    • About Us
    Legal
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Privacy Request
    Modern Healthcare
    Copyright © 1996-2023. Crain Communications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    • News
      • Current News
      • Providers
      • Insurance
      • Government
      • Finance
      • Technology
      • Safety & Quality
      • Digital Health
      • Transformation
        • Patients
        • Operations
        • Care Delivery
        • Payment
      • ESG
      • People
      • Regional News
        • Midwest
        • Northeast
        • South
        • West
      • Digital Edition (Web Version)
    • Blogs
      • AI
      • Deals
      • Layoff Tracker
      • HIMSS 2023
    • Opinion
      • Breaking Bias
      • Commentaries
      • Letters
      • From the Editor
    • Events & Awards
      • Awards
        • Nominate/Eligibility
        • 100 Most Influential People
        • 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives
        • Best Places to Work in Healthcare
        • Excellence in Governance
        • Health Care Hall of Fame
        • Healthcare Marketing Impact Awards
        • Top 25 Emerging Leaders
        • Top Innovators
        • Diversity in Healthcare
          • - Luminaries
          • - Top 25 Diversity Leaders
          • - Leaders to Watch
        • Women in Healthcare
          • - Luminaries
          • - Top 25 Women Leaders
          • - Women to Watch
      • Conferences
        • Digital Health Transformation Summit
        • ESG: The Implementation Imperative Summit
        • Leadership Symposium
        • Social Determinants of Health Symposium
        • Women Leaders in Healthcare Conference
      • Galas
        • Best Places to Work Awards Gala
        • Health Care Hall of Fame Gala
        • Top 25 Diversity Leaders Gala
        • Top 25 Women Leaders Gala
      • Virtual Briefings
        • - Hospital of the Future
        • - Value Based Care
        • - Hospital at Home
        • - Workplace of the Future
        • - AI and Digital Health
        • - Future of Staffing
        • - Hospital of the Future (Fall)
      • Webinars
    • Multimedia
      • Podcast - Beyond the Byline
      • Sponsored Podcast - Healthcare Insider
      • Sponsored Video Series - One on One
      • Sponsored Video Series - Checking In with Dan Peres
    • Data & Insights
      • Data & Insights Home
      • Hospital Financials
      • Staffing & Compensation
      • Quality & Safety
      • Mergers & Acquisitions
      • Data Archive
      • Resource Guide: By the Numbers
      • Surveys
      • Data Points
    • Newsletters
    • MORE+
      • Contact Us
      • Advertise
      • Media Kit
      • Jobs
      • People on the Move
      • Reprints & Licensing