Free Hospital EMR and EHR Newsletter Want to receive the latest news on EMR, Meaningful Use, ARRA and Healthcare IT sent straight to your email? Join thousands of healthcare pros who subscribe to Hospital EMR and EHR for FREE!

Hospital Execs Underestimate QPP Impact

Posted on July 7, 2017 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

A new survey by Nuance Communications suggests that hospital finance leaders aren’t prepared to meet the demands of MACRA’s Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), and may not understand the extent to which MIPS could impact their bottom line. Worse, survey results suggest that many of those who were convinced they knew what was involved in meeting program demands were dead wrong.

The survey found that many hospital finance leaders weren’t aware that if they don’t participate in the MIPS Quality Payment Program (QPP), they could see a 4% reduction in Medicare reimbursements by 2019.

Not only that, those who were aware of the program didn’t have a great grasp of the details. More than 75% respondents that claimed to be somewhat or very confident about their understanding of QPP got the 4% at-risk number wrong. Meanwhile, 60% of respondents either underestimated the percent of revenue at risk or simply did not know what the number was.

In addition, a significant number of respondents weren’t aware of key QPP reporting requirements. For example, just 35% of finance respondents that felt confident they understood QPP requirements actually knew that they had to submit 90 day of quality data to participate. Meanwhile, 50% either underestimated or did not know how many days of data they needed to provide.

On a broader level, as Nuance noted, the issue is that hospitals aren’t ready to meet QPP demands even if they do know what’s at stake. Too many aren’t prepared to capture complete clinical documentation, develop business processes to support this data capture and raise provider awareness of these issues. In other words, not only are finance leaders unaware of some key QPP requirements, they may not have the infrastructure to meet them.

This is a big deal. Not only will their organizations lose money if they don’t meet QPP requirements, but they’ll miss out on a 5% positive Medicare payment adjustment if they play by the rules.

Lest the respondents sound careless, let’s do a reality check here. Without a doubt, the transition into the world of MIPS isn’t a simple one. Hospitals and medical practices will have to meet deadlines and present quality data in new ways. That would be a hassle in any event, but it’s particularly difficult given how many other quality data reporting requirements they must meet.

That being said, I’d argue that even if they’ve gotten a slow start, hospitals have enough time to meet the basic requirements of QPP compliance. For example, turning over 90 days of quality data by March of next year shouldn’t be a gigantic stretch in contrast to, say, submitting a year’s worth of data under advanced Meaningful Use models. Not to mention the Pick Your Pace option of only 1 measure which avoids all penalties.

Clearly, having the right health IT tools will be important to this process. (Not surprisingly, Nuance is picking its own reporting tools as part of the mix.) But I’m struck by the notion that organizations can’t live on technology alone in this case. As with many problems in healthcare, tech solutions aren’t worth much if the business doesn’t have the right processes in place. Let’s see if finance executives know at least that much.

EMR Add-Ons On The Way

Posted on March 3, 2017 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

A new study backed by speech recognition software vendor Nuance Communications has concluded that many healthcare leaders are planning to add new technologies to supplement their EMRs, Popular add-ons cited by the study include (naturally) speech recognition, mobility options and computer-assisted physician documentation tools. While the results are partially a pitch for Nuance, of course, they also highlight the tension between spending on clinical improvement and satisfaction and boosting the bottom line with better documentation tech.

The study, which was conducted by HIMSS Analytics, was designed to look at ways to optimize EMRs and opportunities to improve care at hospitals and health systems. Conducted between August 17 and September 6 of last year, it draws on 167 respondents from 142 different healthcare organizations. Forty percent of respondents hold C-suite titles, and an additional 40% were in IT leadership. (It would be interesting to see how the two groups’ perceptions vary, but the study summary doesn’t provide that information.)

According to HIMSS, 83% of respondents reported having confidence that their organization would eventually realize their full potential, particularly improving care coordination and outcomes.

To this end, 75% of respondents said they’d boosted their EMR efforts with training and support resources, while two-thirds have increased staff in at least one IT area since implementing their system. Respondents apparently didn’t say how much they’d increased their budget, if at all, to meet these needs – and you have to wonder how these organizations are paying for these efforts, and how much. But the report didn’t provide such information.

To increase clinician satisfaction with EMR use, 82% of respondents said providing clinician training and education, 75% are enhancing existing technology and tools and 68% adopting new technology and tools. To read between the lines once again, it’s worth noting that hospitals and health systems seem to be putting a stronger emphasis on training than new tech, which somewhat contradicts the study’s conclusions. Still, EMR add-ons clearly matter.

Meanwhile, about one-quarter of survey respondents said that they planned to introduce EMR-enhancing tools at the point of care, primarily to improve documentation and boost physician satisfaction. Those included mobility tools (44%), computer-assisted physician documentation (38%) and speech recognition (25%). These numbers seem a bit lower than I would have expected, particularly the mobile stat. I’m betting that establishing mobile security is still a tough nut to crack for most.

While increasing clinician satisfaction and improving care outcomes is important, boosting financial performance clearly matters too, and respondents said that improving documentation was central to doing so. Fifty-four percent said that better documentation would reduce the number of denied claims they face, 52% expect to improve performance under bundled payments, 38% predicted reduced readmissions and 38% thought documentation improvements would better physician time management and improve patient flow.

Again, I doubt that C-suite execs and IT leaders will pay equal attention to tools which improve their finances and those which meet “softer” goals – and financial goals have to take priority. But these stats do suggest that hospitals and health systems are giving EMR add-ons some attention. It will be interesting to see if they’re willing to invest in EMR enhancements — rather than burrowing deeper into their existing EMR tech — over the next year or two.