Health IT and Electronic Health Activate your FREE membership today |  Log-in
5 pts.
 MU a barrier to adoption in smaller practices?
Are the meaningful use criteria a barrier to adoption for most small practices? If so, why, and what can be done to help overcome?

Software/Hardware used:
EHR
ASKED: August 26, 2010  7:36 PM
UPDATED: September 26, 2011  6:36 pm

Answer Wiki:
Meaningful use is a barrier. The criteria are meaningful only to scorekeepers and administrators – in other words, bureaucrats. However well-meaning the crafters of the MU criteria were, at the end of the day they defined EHR to be a tool of little use to small practices. The role of the practice is to collect the data and pass it on to the bureaucrats. In a message posted on docEHRtalk.org <a href="http://www.docehrtalk.org/messageboard/2010/08/20/many-older-physicians-may-just-say-no-emr">Dr. John Concannon </a>expresses well the push-back I've heard from nearly all of the docs I've talked to over the past several months, ranging from solo practices to individual members of large practices and hospitals. In the message he notes that physicians will readily adopt new technology when it helps them fulfill their mission, and he uses the gamma knife as an example. The reason that a physician will readily adopt a gamma knife but not an EMR is simple. The former successfully addresses <ul> a job the physician needs to get done </ul> (i.e., safely remove a cancerous tumor) faster, more conveniently and more affordably than the other available alternatives. The latter does not. Therefore, the physician gladly takes up the gamma knife and resists the EMR. To get to wide adoption of EMR, there apparently needs to be a much deeper understanding of the jobs that the physician and his/her practice need to get done. Based on the testimony of the intended users, EMRs in their present incarnation fail to satisfy. Most physicians view EMRs as tools to collect data to feed bureaucrats – work that distracts from the physicians’ mission to deliver health care. For EMRs to be widely adopted, I think EMRs must get much more directly involved in the actual delivery of care – at least if we expect physicians to be end-users of EMRs. This reminds me of a situation I encountered a number of years ago in the field of public safety. The Providence police – the guys out in the patrol cars – were very antagonistic towards the mobile data terminals installed in their cars. Why? Because the terminals were only used to collect data, and entering the data created no benefit for the cop who had to do the job. The data was only used to compile reports to the bureaucracy (i.e., the Brass, the State Police, the FBI, the Justice Department, …). The system gave the individual cop nothing of value in return. A few years later the situation had changed dramatically. The system still required cops to collect data, but it also provided useful information to the cop such as flash reports of stolen cars and missing persons, video feeds of areas under surveillance, and mug shots of suspects. The system had become something the cops said they couldn’t do without. As long as “meaningful use” is defined as collecting data for bureaucrats to consume, adoption of EMR is going to go very slowly. Although the MU criteria are meaningful to the scorekeepers and administrators, it looks to me that none of the criteria is especially meaningful to the practices that are expected to provide the data.
Last Wiki Answer Submitted:  August 26, 2010  10:05 pm  by  Cio67   385 pts.
All Answer Wiki Contributors:  Cio67   385 pts.
To see all answers submitted to the Answer Wiki: View Answer History.


Discuss This Question:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


 

I do have to admit that I have encountered similar feed back from physicians when it comes to the Meaningful Use. By creating more work for care providers, not only it is affecting their business but also creating additional requirements that they must stay on top off. Of course, we can look at some of the positives as there are few important points that I would like to discuss here. For any physician having all the right information available is very useful (there may be a LOT of information to go through), and this is going to be one of the requirements from MU. The sharing of the health information not only from specialists but also having the data available to the patients. Of course, if you ask me, i think a lot of the MU requirements wont get complicated until the other stages begin, but keep in mind just like the story above on the police department, having access to data that is collected from different sources will become valuable. Between eRX and coordination of care, ensuring data protection and using proactive reminders to follow up with patients may prove to be the positive that we can look forward to.

 1,785 pts.

 

The meaningful use rules/criteria may discourage some practices, but the overwhelming majority will eventually see that they need to adopt EHRs (as long as they’re accepting Medicare or Medicaid patients). Those practices that have dropped Medicare and Medicaid won’t have motivation.

Another barrier that isn’t being discussed is this: physicians have lost confidence that they will even see the incentive $ from the government. Many who tried to go after the e-prescribing incentives from Medicare never got anything. These types of stories don’t encourage or motivate physicians to go after incentive $ from the government.

 810 pts.

 

I can understand the controversy and frustration of MU various rules and regulations. But, I do think that some software solutions have been designed with these in mind and have come up with features to make gathering the data less obtrusive.

 20 pts.

Forgot Password

No problem! Submit your e-mail address below. We'll send you an e-mail containing your password.

Your password has been sent to: