Technology
e-Newsletter
Intelligence Unit Special Reports Special Events Subscribe Sponsored Departments Follow Us

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn RSS

MU Compliance Announcement Sparks Concern, Confusion

Scott Mace, for HealthLeaders Media, December 9, 2013

"If we mess up Meaningful Use as an organization, just pick any organization out there, that hurts," Branzell says. "You [don't] get your reimbursement from the government. You mess up ICD-10, you don't get paid. If you don't get paid for a few months, with today's cash flows in a lot of these smaller organizations, [your] viability's at risk."

In the wording of its Friday announcement, CMS may have been trying to make it appear that it was trying to satisfy the needs of the provider community without really doing so, says Laura Kreofsky, principal advisor at Impact Advisors, a healthcare IT consulting firm.

Kreofsky referred back to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' December 2011 announcement delaying the start of Stage 2. "It was, in my opinion, a more clearly worded press release," she says.

"Whether it was intentional or not, the initial ripple was very easy to have misconstrued," Kreofsky says. "The message has got to be in the provider community: Nothing's changed around Stage 2, and that everybody needs to stay the course under their Stage 2 or Stage 1 work.

"CMS purported to do this to basically make sure we're all ready for Stage 3. It was more defensive on the part of CMS than responsive to the needs of the provider organizations and vendor community."

Friday's announcement also introduced another potential complication which could make the job of healthcare system CIOs even more complicated, Kreofsky said, referring to CMS's call for frequent updating of criteria under its HIT Certification Program.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Comments are moderated. Please be patient.

1 comments on "MU Compliance Announcement Sparks Concern, Confusion"


Frank Poggio (12/9/2013 at 10:05 AM)
From a vendor perspective 2015 test criteria is a wolf in sheep's clothing. In my experience having worked through many 2014 tests with clients - the criteria under 2014 became considerably more complex and extensive as each month passed, test criteria were revised almost on a monthly basis. For example the test for Safety Enhanced Design (170.114g3) started out requesting a simple description of your design/development process, to now submitting detailed test scenarios per NISTIR 7742 standards. The DVT test now requires WCAG 2.0 evaluations, but did not in the early gong. This growing complexity is one reason why far less vendors have passed 2014 than 2011. From a vendor perspective, the net result is if you wait for the new set of 2015 test criteria those tests will be even more difficult. My advice, don't wait too long. Remember in the healthcare world regulations only grow...never shrink!