HITSP recommended in July 2009 that HHS EHR certification should focus on meeting the requirements of Meaningful Use as opposed to the exhaustive CCHIT requirements. HITSP submitted their recommended Meaningful Use definition ([) to HHS in August 2009. Has anyone done a map and gap between HITSP’s definition and existing OpenEMR functionality?
One comment; read the CMS definition of “Meaningful Use” and note that it requires use of a certified EHR system, which makes anything other than a CCHIT qualified a wishful think only. Catch-22. And forget about any except stationary EHR systems. So “meaningful” means only 90 % at best. And until more than the under 20% of individual providers (many NOT MDs, but not eligible for any incentives to participate) actually connect in some fashion, the EHR databases are at best a subset of the real health records for any of the patients.
A horse designed by a committee with an agenda which was most certainly not INCLUSION.
I guess I don’t understand this issue very well. I understand that ARRA is meant for CMS to control their unruly physicians but why do you think that your network has to be 100% connected? By its very nature all http protocols function in a unreliable disconnected environment. So CMS can’t tell whether you are connected 100% or 90% or even 30% of the time.
In terms of the ACls, I agree with Lynn, I prefer the term practitioner to “physician”. (but I didn’t create them)
The “Meaningful Use” promulgation specifically requires “Certified”, which is only currently CCHIT, and they require real-time interconnectivity for certification. And the non-hospital CMS incentives are ONLY available to “Physicians” and Chiropractors. As I said about the camel…