Comments on: EHR Incentive Payment Dates

By: tworzenie stron www

tworzenie stron www — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 13:21:25 +0000

Jay, this is government accounting at work.

That implies that the legislation did not envision everyone getting stimulus funding. I wonder if that also implies deadlines will not slip so much …push back.

I personally believe that the LIMFACs presented, both inside and outside the organization, will be too much to overcome by the deadline. Policy makers must realize that implementing an EMR is CULTURE change much more than TECHNOLOGICAL change, but that is a whole other can of worms…

By: Jay Fisher

Jay Fisher — Sat, 16 May 2009 00:02:24 +0000

Yes, I’ve seen the $29b number as well … but even under that scenario, there is not enough to go around … if you figure $3m per hospital (a low average, I think), then the $29b covers about 60% of the hospitals and MD’s. Under the $17b scenario the numbers are well under half. Play with the numbers … I can post or send an interesting spreadsheet.

What matters is … in this easter egg hunt, not all the kids come home with eggs. The CFO’s are all counting on the money. Who is in the crosshairs, if it does not come?

By: hospitalcio

hospitalcio — Sun, 03 May 2009 18:17:54 +0000

Jay, this is government accounting at work. The $17B is the budget impact. It not only include the incentives to be paid, but also offsetting Medicare and Medicaid savings from these EHR investments. I have read that the government actually believes that their will be $29B in EHR incentive payments.

By: Delays in EHR Stimulus Time Frame | EMR (EHR) and HIPAA

Delays in EHR Stimulus Time Frame | EMR (EHR) and HIPAA — Sun, 03 May 2009 15:12:31 +0000

[...] a month ago I read an interesting post by Will Weider, CIO of Ministry Health Care and Affinity Health System, where Will is the first to [...]

By: Jay Fisher

Jay Fisher — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 04:31:15 +0000

I recently did a little math. If 30% of MD’s get stimulus finds (at $44k), and 50% of hospitals (average $2.5 million), that will exhaust the $17 billion available.

That implies that the legislation did not envision everyone getting stimulus funding. I wonder if that also implies deadlines will not slip so much …

This seems to be swimming against the current of opinion here … but I think data supports the point.

By: James Gilchrist (Twitter= james_gilchrist)

James Gilchrist (Twitter= james_gilchrist) — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:32:45 +0000

Let me provide some direct perspective as we are given deadlines many times in the DoD Healthcare industry that we MUST meet.

Inevitably one of three things (out of our control) will happen to cause the “deadline” to either be pushed back or not met.

1) There is a lack of clear guidance on implementation standards or metrics which they will be measuring against.

2) Those standards/metrics are not provided within a time frame that allows organizations to plan and meet the deadlines.

3) The funding to meet those standards is not provided early enough to plan, purchase, train, and implement to meet those deadlines.

In the military our EMR was delayed… not days or months, but years before finally being implemented. AHLTA (the DoD’s EMR) was implemented fully in 2004 and each time there is an version change there is also an assigned estimated completion date and roll out plan to all of the medical treatment facilities. These updates are always delayed (current version > 1 year) due to one of the above 3 reasons, but additionally can also be delayed even further due to local issues or things that we can control, such as; unforeseen technical issues, lack of training for the version update, or everyone’s favorite… provider push back.

By: Jay Fisher

Jay Fisher — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:26:03 +0000

Hmmm … disagreeing with Will is a good way to go broke.

Having said that … will Congress tolerate a delay of distributing “stimulus funds”? The political need to get this money out, even to hospitals will drive Congress to force DHHS to comply with the law. The Secretary has the abillity to accept standards defined by the ONCHIT predecessor organization if new ones are not forthcoming. Further, the Secretary has the charter to continually raise the bar over the course of the next few years.

Rather than delay funding as a consequence of delayed standards, I believe it to be more likely that a year 1 set of simple criteria will be established, and tightened up over the next couple years. Sound reasonable?

Our strategies are the same, regardless of which approach. Will is spot on with that. We must run as fast as we can to what we believe to be reasonable standards, keeping a constant eye on government pronouncements and our internal initiatives, adjusting as soon as we know something new.

By: Jan Skinner

Jan Skinner — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:44:51 +0000

I agree with your assessment. Having read the “deadline” has been moved up to 2010, ooops, that is it sorta is moved up depending on the now new “meetings to discuss”. We’ve all been here over and over again with the government deadlines then inevitable delays. I too have been waiting to hear how “meaningful use” is defined. I too agree that waiting would not be prudent. I also agree this is a distraction. My advise: Focus on your practice’s PM/EMR package but keep checking your back.

As a side thought: Hmmmm….how is it that our President has yet to utter the words “Insurance Industry” when talking about re-vamping America?

By: Anthony Guerra

Anthony Guerra — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:12:47 +0000

I totally agree, Will. I put my thoughts together here: http://tinyurl.com/cp2fxo