Archive for the ‘Healthcare IT’ Category

RIS PACS RFP Evaluation Criteria

Saturday, December 18th, 2010

RIS PACS

RIS/PACS Requirements Set – We now have a robust RIS/PACS requirements set loaded within VendorSelect, the firm’s proprietary eRFx Tool. You can learn more about VendorSelect here.

Don’t Start From Scratch – Building a requirements set and evaluation criteria for any information technology project can be a daunting task, and RIS/PACS projects are no exception. You can jump-start your RIS/PACS project by starting with our field-tested requirements set. You also have the flexibility to add new requirements and drop others.

RIS/PACS Vendors – VendorSelect is already wired to the leading RIS/PACS vendors and services providers, so your sourcing stage is simplified. Issue your RFI and RFP with a few clicks of your mouse.

RIS/PACS Project Support – As always, we’re here to support your use of VendorSelect and the vendor negotiations and contracting phases of your RIS/PACS project. Feel free to contact us for more information about using VendorSelect for your RIS/PACS project.

HIT and EHR Workflows – Comments Requested

Tuesday, June 30th, 2009

Workflow.AHRQ Seeking Comments – The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is seeking information from small- and medium-sized healthcare practices on tools for analyzing and redesigning workflows before or after an HIT implementation.

AHRQ is assessing existing research and evidence in the area of the impacts of health IT on workflow, its linkage to clinician adoption, and its links to the safety, quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of care delivery.”

Comments and Deadline – Comments should be submitted on or before August 24. Electronic responses should be addressed to WorkflowRFI@ahrq.hhs.gov.

To read the full notice published in the Federal Register and visit the project’s website, go to AHRQ’s National Resource Center for Health Information Technology.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Loans for EHR Systems

Monday, June 29th, 2009

LoansU.S. Representative Kathy Dahlkemper (D-Pa.) has introduced a bill that would create the “Small Business Health Information Technology Financing Act,” designed to provide financing to solo doc’s and small physician practice groups for their acquisition of an EHR system. The text of the current draft of the bill appears below.

In addition to the reimbursements already available under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) to physicians and hospitals, if this bill becomes law, physicians and small practice groups will have an attractive means of funding their ERH system investment on the front end. “Buy now and get reimbursed later” might not work for many smaller healthcare providers who lack the cash for their initial investement, and so this financing option could produce greater EHR adoption rates among smaller healthcare shops.

A BILL
To amend the Small Business Act to provide loan guarantees for the acquisition of health information technology by eligible professionals in solo and small group practices, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ` Small Business Health Information Technology Financing Act’.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF SMALL BUSINESS ACT.

The Small Business Act is amended by redesignating section 44 as section 45 and by inserting the following new section after section 43:

`SEC. 44. LOAN GUARANTEES FOR HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.

`(a) Definitions- As used in this section:

`(1) The term `health information technology’ means computer hardware, software, and related technology that supports the meaningful EHR use requirements set forth in section 1848(o)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(o)(2)(A)) and is purchased by an eligible professional to aid in the provision of health care in a health care setting, including, but not limited to, electronic medical records, and that provides for–

`(A) enhancement of continuity of care for patients through electronic storage, transmission, and exchange of relevant personal health data and information, such that this information is accessible at the times and places where clinical decisions will be or are likely to be made;

`(B) enhancement of communication between patients and health care providers;

`(C) improvement of quality measurement by eligible professionals enabling them to collect, store, measure, and report on the processes and outcomes of individual and population performance and quality of care;

`(D) improvement of evidence-based decision support; or

`(E) enhancement of consumer and patient empowerment.

Such term shall not include information technology whose sole use is financial management, maintenance of inventory of basic supplies, or appointment scheduling.

`(2) The term `eligible professional’ means any of the following:

`(A) A physician (as defined in section 1861(r) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(r))

`(B) A practitioner described in section 1842(b)(18)(C) of that Act.

`(C) A physical or occupational therapist or a qualified speech-language pathologist.

`(D) A qualified audiologist (as defined in section 1861(ll)(3)(B)) of that Act.

`(3) The term `qualified eligible professional’ means an eligible professional whose office can be classified as a small business concern by the Administrator Small Business Administration for purposes of this Act under size standards established under section 3 of this Act.

`(b) Loan Guarantees for Qualified Eligible Professionals-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Subject to paragraph (2), the Administrator may guarantee up to 90 percent of the amount of a loan made to a qualified eligible professional to be used for the acquisition of health information technology for use in such eligible professional’s medical practice and for the costs associated with the installation of such technology. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the terms and conditions that apply to loans made under section 7(a) of the Small Business Act shall apply to loan guarantees made under this section.

`(2) LIMITATIONS ON GUARANTEE AMOUNTS- The maximum amount of loan principal guaranteed under this subsection may not exceed–

`(A) $350,000 with respect to any single qualified eligible professional, and

`(B) $2,000,000 with respect to a singled group of affiliated qualified eligible professionals.

`(c) Fees- (1) The Administrator may impose a guarantee fee on the borrower for the purpose of reducing the cost (as defined in section 502(5) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990) of the guarantee to zero in an amount not to exceed 2 percent of the total guaranteed portion of any loan guaranteed under this section. The Administrator may also impose annual servicing fees on lenders not to exceed 0.5 percent of the outstanding balance of the guarantees on lenders’ books.

`(2) No service fees, processing fees, origination fees, application fees, points, brokerage fees, bonus points, or other fees may be charged to a loan applicant or recipient by a lender in the case of a loan guaranteed under this section.

`(d) Deferral Period- Loans guaranteed under this section shall carry a deferral period of not less than 1 year and not more than 3 years. The Administrator shall have the authority to subsidize interest during the deferral period.

`(e) Effective Date- No loan may be guaranteed under this section until the meaningful EHR use requirements have been determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

`(f) Sunset- No loan may be guaranteed under this section after 5 years after meaningful EHR use requirements have been determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

`(g) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated for the cost (as defined in section 502(5) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990) of guaranteeing $10,000,000,000 in loans under this section. The Administrator shall determine such program cost separately and distinctly from other programs operated by the Administrator.’.

Maryland Passes EHR Adoption Incentive Law

Thursday, May 28th, 2009

Ocean City, Maryland
Image via Wikipedia
The first state to do so, Maryland has passed a law requiring health insurers to to provide incentives to healthcare providers for their adoption of EHR systems.

As yet undecided, the incentives may take the form of increased reimbursements, lump-sum payments, in-kind services, or some combination of these.

You can view the entire text of Maryland’s HB 706 here.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

ONCHIT Releases Operating Plan for ARRA EHR Incentives

Tuesday, May 26th, 2009

Saving For a Rainy DayThe Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONCHIT) has released its operating plan for implementing the health IT provisions included in the federal stimulus package. But don’t get your hopes up. The plan is disappointingly brief and lacking in detail . . . more along the lines of “here’s what we’re going to do once we get started.” C’mon people! The clock is ticking!! Get with it.

Sadly, it’s looking more and more like the HIT provisions of ARRA will not have their intended effect: stimulating the economy. By the time ONCHIT releases its rules and guidelines, the absence of which has frozen EHR implementations, the U.S. economy will be well on its way to recovery. Sadder still, legislation that was designed to create spending has actually slowed spending.

Once again, the best laid plans of governement have gotten sidetracked in bureaucracy. Maybe we should save these EHR incentive dollars until a more considered plan can be developed.

You can view ONCHIT’s Operating Plan here.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Federal EHR Incentives – Carrot or Brick Wall?

Wednesday, May 6th, 2009

carrotBusiness is slow for EMR/EHR software providers at a time when business should be booming. With over $20 billion of funding available in the form of reimbursements, we would expect healthcare providers to be waiting in line for their EMR/EHR implementations. Ironically, the very legislation that created this generous funding also included provisions that have given doc’s and hospitals pause. Actually, it’s more than just pause. It’s outright paralysis.

The eligibility for federal dollars is tied to “meaningful use” of “qualified” EHR sytems, which sounds simple enough. But now–nearly four months after passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)–no one knows what meaningful use is, and no one knows what a qualified EHR system is. We have some clues, but we have no official declaration.

brick-wallIf the Obabma adminstration is serious about HIT and EHRs, and it wants to see the economy benefit from this category of HIT spending (a secondary, but nonetheless important, objective of the funding), then the federal government needs to act quickly and decisively to define the eligibility criteria. If this cannot be accomplished quickly, then we’ll lose the economic stimulus feature of the plan–the economy is already starting to improve because of other measures taken and not taken. And if we miss the economic stimulus train, we might as well wait until a more considered approach can be taken with respect to HIT, including EHRs, in the broader scheme of healthcare reform.

What do you think? Is the lack of certainty with respect to EHR system eligibility criteria the main reason the rate of EHR adoption has not increased after passage of ARRA? What can the feds do to expedite development and promulgation of the eligibility criteria?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Mayo Clinic to Offer Free Personal Health Record Option – With a Twist

Tuesday, April 21st, 2009

PNG version of this image
Image via Wikipedia
Today the Mayo Clinic launched a no-cost web site that will allow users to create personal health records (PHRs) using Microsoft’s HealthVault system to store PHR information for anyone who wishes to use it.

Unlike other PHR offerings out there right now (e.g., Google Health and Revolution Health), the “Mayo Clinic Health Manager”, as it is called, will offer customizable information for users. Instead of serving merely as a repository for your personal health information, Health Manager can be configured to offer checkup reminders, suggest individual-specific health screenings, and more.

You can visit the Mayo Clinic Health Manager web site href="https://healthmanager.mayoclinic.com/">here.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Personal Health Records – Watch the Errors

Wednesday, April 15th, 2009

Image representing Google Health as depicted i...
Image via CrunchBase
Great article that appeared in the Boston Globe regarding errors within Personal Health Records generated by Google Health: “Electronic Health Records Raise Doubt

Variations in how physicians describe diagnoses and order laboratory tests, as well as imprecisions in the coding used for payer billing, make it difficult for an automated systems such as Google Health to create an accurate health record from an individual’s existing health records.

A Personal Health Record should in general facilitate increased safety and the quality of care you receive across multiple providers, and especially in an emergent care setting in which the attending physician may know next to nothing about your medical history. But as the article points out, a Personal Health Record that is full of errors may hurt you more than it helps you.

My personal view is that PHRs are definitely a step in the right direction, and over time they will probably become a mainstay in a new era of efficient and quality healtcare delivery. But early adopters of Personal Health Records–whether created through Google Health or another service–should proceed with caution.

  Subscribe in a reader

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Getting the Federal EHR Incentive Dollars – What You Can Do Now

Monday, April 13th, 2009

flag-dollarUnder the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA), healthcare providers will receive an estimated $30 Billion worth of incentives and reimbursements tied to their adoption and use of Electronic Health Records (EHRs). By anyone’s standards, this is not a small chunk of change. At the small end of the scale, individual physicians could receive as much as $60,000 over time, and larger hospitals sevaral million dollars over time.

Except for the largest hospitals and clinic groups, healthcare providers have been reluctant to move substantially toward a paperless environment for many reasons, chief among them, prohibitive cost (initial cost, cost over time, and a questionable return on investment). With broader policy objectives in mind, Congress sought to address the cost side of the equation through the EHR incentives contained in ARRA. With all of this money available, we would expect to see healthcare providers beating down the doors of EHR providers. But they aren’t–at least not yet. Here’s why.

Uncertainty – ARRA attached eligibility criteria to the EMR incentives and reimbursements, but it did not define all criteria with precision. For example, we know that a healthcare provider must demonstrate “meaningful use” of its “certified” EHR system in order to qualify for funding, and that “meaningful use” includes both EHR system attributes, as well as deployed use by a provider. We’ve been given a vague understanding of the required system attributes (e.g., e-prescribe, order entry, interoperability requirements), but we do not yet have a comprehensive list or definition. The same is true of the certification requirement.

Moving Ahead in the Face of Uncertainty – If you are looking at buying your first EHR system, or expanding your existing EHR system–in either case, with a view to securing federal reimbursement dollars–you have to get over your fear of the uncertain and unknown. Because of the aggressive adoption timeframes established, you do not have the luxury of time to indulge in decision paralysis. You have to start your planning process now.

Strategy – Instead of focusing on what you do NOT know with certainty at the moment, focus on what you DO know with some degree of certainty. Second, transfer as much “uncertainty risk” as possible to others.

For example, we know with certainty now that your qualifying EHR system must include electronic prescribing capability and automated order entry. If you are buying a new EHR system, or you are attempting to qualify your existing EHR system, you will need these functional capabilities. The same is true of the interoperabity feature. We don’t know exactly what sort of interoperability will be required, but we know some form of interoperability will be required.

Risk Transfer – Realize that EHR vendors are experiencing the same pain as you regarding the uncertainty over qualifying criteria for EHR systems. And just like you, they’re not in a postition to sit on their hands until the regulatory dust settles.

Most EMR vendors will be willing to extend broad assurances and warranties regarding their products’ future compliance with EHR qualifying criteria as they are handed down over time. If you ask for these types of assurances and warranties from your candiate EHR vendors, you will probably get them.

Focusing on what you know with certainty at present, and realizing that you can transfer a good deal of uncertainy risk to your EHR vendor, might allow you to begin a meaningful EHR system planning process now.

Stay Informed – Watch for regulatory developments and pronouncements as they are handed down in the coming weeks and months. If you don’t have time to track these on your own, plug into the many free resources out there. Chances are good that many of the professional organizations you already belong to are tracking this information for you. Think about subscribing to their RSS feeds or consolidated weekly updates.

Role of Consultants – If you have a solo practice, or you’re part of a small group practice, you may not have time to investigate your EHR options. If this is your situation, think about hiring a consultant to evaluate your practice vis-a-vis the EHR options available to you. Many good HIT consultants will conduct a “needs analysis” and make recommendations for a smallish fee.

  Subscribe in a reader

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

HIT Policy Committee – Additional Appointments

Monday, April 13th, 2009

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has appointed Paul Egerman, chair and CEO at eScription Inc., Needham, Mass.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) has appointed Gayle Harrell of Stuart, Fla., a former member of the Florida House of Representatives.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has appointed Frank Nemec, M.D., a Las Vegas-based gastroenterologist.

Previously appointed:

Christine Bechtel, vice president, National Partnership for Woman and Families

Arthur Davidson, director, Public Health Informatics, Denver Public Health Department; director, Denver Center for Public Health Preparedness; medical epidemiologist; director, HIV/AIDS Surveillance, City and County of Denver

Adam Clark, research and policy director, Lance Armstrong Foundation

Marc Probst, chief information officer, Intermountain Healthcare

Paul Tang, vice president and chief medical information officer, Palo Alto Medical Foundation

Scott White, assistant director, technology project director, 1199 SEIU Training and Employment Fund

LaTanya Sweeney, director, Data Privacy Lab, Carnegie Mellon University

Neil Calman, president and chief executive officer, Institute for Family Health

Connie Delaney, dean, University of Minnesota School of Nursing

Charles Kennedy, vice president, Health Information Technology, Wellpoint

Judith Faulkner, founder, CEO, president and chairman of board, Epic Systems

David Lansky, president and CEO, Pacific Business Group on Health

David Bates, medical director for clinical and quality analysis, Partners HealthCare/Brigham and Women’s Hospital