MU Educational Session at RSNA 2015

In this month’s post, we take a look at an upcoming educational session at RSNA 2015.

In less than 2 weeks, nearly 60,000 radiology professionals from around the world will converge on Chicago to witness the latest discoveries, techniques and innovations for diagnostic imaging.

If you’re heading to the windy city later this month, don’t miss this educational session dedicated to meaningful use in radiology.

Meaningful Use for Radiology: Pros and Cons
Tuesday 8:30-10:00 AM | RC354 | S404CD

AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™: 1.50 | ARRT Category A+ Credits: 1.50

Presenters:

  • Ramin Khorasani, MD (Moderator/Presenter)
  • Alberto F. Goldszal, PhD, MBA (Presenter)
  • Keith D. Hentel, MD, MS (Presenter)
  • James Whitfill, MD (Presenter)

Learning Objectives:

  • Understand how a radiology practice that was a later adopter of meeting meaningful use criteria has achieved successful results for two years running.
  • Learn about CMS MU audits and the audit process.
  • Learn about challenges for meaningful use stage 2 and radiology.

Find more educational sessions on RSNA.org »

Ready to learn more, buy a book today! 

Go to http://www.theMUguide.com to learn more. Buy a book from the official e-store (http://buy.theMUguide.com) or Amazon.com (http://amazon.theMUguide.com).

Advertisements

CMS Staff Clarify Scope of the Meaningful Use ‘Medications Reconciliation’ Denominator

In this months post, we take a look at a recent article posted on Radiology and HIT Blog discusses recent clarification .

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) staff informed the American College of Radiology (ACR) that the denominator for the current “medications reconciliation” Stage 1 and Stage 2 Meaningful Use measure can be limited to the subset of patients that comprise the physician’s “seen” definition.

In the explanatory preamble of CMS’ September 2012 Stage 2 MU rule, the agency clarified: “for an EP who is on the receiving end of a transition of care or referral, (currently used for the medication reconciliation objective and measure), the denominator includes first encounters with a new patient and encounters with existing patients where a summary of care record (of any type) is provided to the receiving provider.” This was a major change from the 2010 Stage 1 MU rule which clearly distinguished the term “transitions of care” from “referrals” in which the referring provider maintained management of the patient. Ultimately, the 2012 clarification meant that referral-based care was to be included in the “medications reconciliation” objective/measure moving forward.

Many MU participating radiologists have used the “seen patients” flexibility to appropriately reduce their denominators for applicable objectives to more manageable numbers. Previously, “medications reconciliation” was not thought of as being an applicable objective because the denominator of “received transitions of care” does not refer to “patients seen by the EP.” So, whereas a radiologist could have been meeting other percentage-based MU measures on a smaller subset of their overall patient volume, they would have needed to use their full patient volume for the “medications reconciliation” measure under the 2012 clarification.

Read more on the Radiology and HIT Blog.

Ready to learn more, buy a book today! 

Go to http://www.theMUguide.com to learn more. Buy a book from the official e-store (http://buy.theMUguide.com) or Amazon.com (http://amazon.theMUguide.com).

Office of the Inspector General MU Report

In this month’s post, we take a look at the HHS Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) early (November 2012) assessment of the CMS oversight of the Medicare EHR Incentive Program. The following is an excerpt from the executive summary of the report, Early Assessment Find That CMS Faces Obstacles In Overseeing The Medicare EHR Incentive Program (OEI-05-11-00250).

Why did the OIG do this study?

This study is an early assessment of CMS’s oversight of the Medicare electronic health record (EHR) incentive program, for which CMS estimates it will pay $6.6 billion in incentive payments between 2011 and 2016. Because professionals and hospitals self- report data to demonstrate that they meet program requirements, CMS’s efforts to verify these data will help ensure the integrity of Medicare EHR incentive payments.

How did the OIG do this study?

This study reviewed CMS’s oversight of professionals’ and hospitals’ self-reported meaningful use of certified EHR technology in 2011, the first year of the program. To address our objective, OIG analyzed self-reported information to ensure it met program requirements. OIG also reviewed CMS’s audit planning documents, regulations, and guidance for the program, and conducted structured interviews with CMS staff regarding CMS’s oversight.

What did the OIG find?

CMS faces obstacles to overseeing the Medicare EHR incentive program that leave the program vulnerable to paying incentives to professionals and hospitals that do not fully meet the meaningful use requirements. Currently, CMS has not implemented strong prepayment safeguards, and its ability to safeguard incentive payments postpayment is also limited. The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) requirements for EHR reports may contribute to CMS’s oversight obstacles.

To read the entire report, and learn about the OIG’s recommendation, go to https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-05-11-00250.asp

Ready to learn more, buy a book today!

Go to http://www.theMUguide.com to learn more. Buy a book from the official e-store (http://buy.theMUguide.com) or Amazon.com (http://amazon.theMUguide.com).