There's a new buzzword in the electronic health record world beginning to gain traction: decertification. So far, only two EHR products, both developed by Santa Fe Springs, California vendor EHRMagic, have had their certification revoked in 2013 for failing to meet the standards of the Meaningful Use program. But now, a number of EHR products may be at risk of decertification, if more momentum builds to decertify those that "proactively" block the sharing of electronic information.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who wants to know what the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' vision of Stage 3 of Meaningful Use looks like.
December appears to be the month of the patient portal study.
The Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT's updated health IT strategic plan, released Dec. 8, is a high-level, ambitious framework for the federal government. It addresses some of the questions the industry has had about the direction of health IT and ONC. It's also an interesting read.
Meaningful Use is supposed be, well, meaningful.
Stakeholders have been all over the board regarding what the Meaningful Use program should evolve into. Some believe the focus should be on interoperability. Others want to make it less punitive and restrictive. The Institute of Medicine has suggested that more social and behavior data, such as stress and household income levels, be collected.
But if the new list of potential measures for the Meaningful Use program published by the National Quality Forum's Measure Application Partnership (MAP) is any indication, for eligible professionals, the program is either getting customized or going haywire.
As the editor of FierceEMR, I spend a lot of time reviewing the Meaningful Use program--and too often find problems with it. It's not that I'm going out of my way to criticize the program or the agencies that operate it, but unfortunately they make it all too easy. Still, there also are several reasons to be thankful for the program.
Meaningful Use is supposed be, well, meaningful. But sometimes what's good in theory doesn't translate very well in practice.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who's distressed to learn that the appeals process for the Meaningful Use program lacks clarity and appears arbitrary. So what's going on here? It's not that easy to find out.