While 40 percent of CIOs had planned to report Meaningful Use Stage 1 compliance in FY2011, a recently identified timing glitch — which would have compressed their time to comply with Stage 2 measures — has about half of them now planning to join their colleagues on a FY2012 attestation schedule.
When asked if they considered the glitch a “major mistake,” 45 percent said it was.
Looking towards Stage 2, 48 percent of CIOs feel the draft recommendations released thus far are “way too onerous,” while 52 percent think the proposal is, “about where it should be.” Interestingly, no CIOs felt Stage 2 was shaping up to be “a little light.”
(SnapSurveys are answered by the healthsystemCIO.com CIO Advisory Panel. To see a full-size version of all charts, click here. To go directly to a full-size version of any individual chart, click on that chart)
- FY2011 – 75% chance.
- FY2011 – FY11 for ambulatory, FY12 for inpatient.
- FY2011 – We intend to attest in April, as soon as the CMS portal becomes available.
- FY2012 – We actually plan on reporting in 11 and 12 due to our upgrade schedule for i/p vs. o/p systems.
- FY2011 – As a Medicaid Hospital, I can use AIU in the first year.
- FY2012 – Stage 1 is a very large project for us, and the unknowns surrounding Stage 2 leads us to believe that FY 2012 is a good plan.
- FY2012 – But we intend to register our Medicaid providers this year.
- FY2012 – This is not a change for us. This has always been our timeline.
- FY2011 – I have heard the debate, but I don’t believe the time crunch issue is real. As with much of MU, it’s all in how we interpret the rule. There seem to be many interpretations, but its not always clear which one is the real one.
- FY 2012 – Initially planned to begin in FY11, but decided to delay specifically to allow the Stage Two circus to play out.
- Yes – perhaps.
- Yes – It’s safer, and we get more money by waiting due to eprescribing in the offices. In the hospital, it’s a wash. You then have to do Stage 2 in 2014, after ICD-10.
- Yes – we discussed it, but taking the advice of The Advisory Board must be carefully thought out as there are two downsides to it. 1) the possibility the funds might run out or be pulled in the next couple years & 2)waiting a year compresses the stages in later years.
- No – I was under the impression that for FY2012, you were still reporting on stage 1 but only w/full year of data (vs attestation). We did not intend to do stage 2 until our 3rd year.
- Yes – we considered delaying, but opted to move forward in 2011. We recognize the challenges of meeting Stage 2 requirements, but we’re confident we’ll get there in time to build up to a one-year reporting period for FY 2013. We intend to use MU funds in 2011 to get us ready for future stages.
- Yes – As a Medicaid Hospital, I will probably delay my “year two” until 2013 for exactly the reason Medicare hospitals would delay until 2012 for “year one”
- No – I’m going with the “a bird in the hand philosophy.”
- Yes – We are delaying.
- Yes – We had originally planned to meet by EO FY11 but am now delaying based on The Advisory Board recommendation.
- Yes – I’ve considered it, if we can’t manage to achieve all of the metrics in time. Delaying doesn’t buy time, it just squeezes the work to do preparing for stage 2 into less time.
- No – It’s bad advice.
- No – ONC is listening to the industry and understands that we have an issue with Stage 2 timing. I have complete faith that they will provide a remediation to those who attest in 2011. They are very motivated to see providers attest in 2011.
- Yes – Potentially there might not be funds available for incentives
- Yes – Takes some pressure off as there is significant IT turnover based on recruitment from other organizations. We will lose the cashflow in the current hospital fiscal year, but made the decision on this before current FY began last October.
- Yes – Beginning Stage Two and ICD-10 on the same date will bring some new challenges.
- Yes – Loss of interest on Stage 1 monies.
- No – Not really a mistake, just a lack of understanding of what it really takes.
- No – It’s no worse than the rest of this dance.
- No – the only mistake is that eprescribing actually provides a cash incentive to wait.
- No – I beleve they will fix it.
- Yes – the ONC isn’t being realistic on the timelines that they have been assuming.
- No – Timing not clear. Advisory Board seems to interpret this differently than others.
- No – I think ONC/CMS has been aware of this issue for some time. The open approach to the Stage 2 MU definition should give vendors and providers enough lead time to prepare. We got a break with the relaxation of the requirements for Stage 1. It’s time to put more effort into truly meaningful use of health IT.
- Yes – To be an incentive to EMR deployment and an improved economy, it sure feels like we’ve added a massively bloated piece of bureaucracy that is aimed at making it difficult to do this work (vs making it easy to do the right thing).
- No – But I do hope they will consider pushing out Stage 2 or get the final rules in place for stage 2 earlier.
- No – It all depends on the status of your current EHR and the interoperability.
- Yes – It depends. If it turns out that Stage 2 simply expands Stage 1, there would be no real issue. Any new requirements leave inadequate time for vendors to prepare and distribute software or for providers to implement and use it.
- No – I’m not sure you can classify it as a mistake. When the rules were put together, many eyes reviewed it and some questioned the timing.
- No – I may not understand the nuance of what is being described, but I don’t think this issue is real. I need a better explanation of this delay recommendation before I can seriously consider it.
- Yes – I consider it a major mistake as ONC/CMS have ignored the necesary time for vendors and providers to develop and implement software.
- Way too onerous – Stage 1 will be hard enough, and there needs to be more learnings from the Attestation process for Stage 1 before the Stage 2 timetable is finalized.
- Way too onerous – Maybe not for us, but more so for the rest of the US.
- Way too onerous – Basically, if Stage 1 is onerous, anything in addition to Stage 1 is too onerous. In addition, the reporting period is a year. We hear it may be changed, but the ability to plan is practically non-existent. I truly feel our vendor will not be able to provide the support needed. And, at the end of the day, I’m not sure the quality of the healthcare we are providing is improved as a result.
- About where it should be – It needs some tweaking, but the general direction is appropriate.
- Way too onerous – I still have not read the Stage II proposed regs; I’ve been too busy dealing with Stage I requirements.
- Way too onerous – Most of us are struggling with Stage 1. Stage two is over the top. Too much, too fast.
- Way too onerous – We’d like to see some of the measures altered per the comments submitted by HIMSS, CHIME and AHA. So, really not “way to onerous,” but more like “too difficult for many providers to do in the short time.” We are fortunate to be fully implemented, so our experience is not the same as a hospital starting fresh on an implementation.
- About where it should be – From the perspective of functional requirements. There is not enought time to implement net new.
- Way too onerous – IMHO, it would be nice for us to see where the industry is with Stage 1 before jumping into and doing the Stage 2 dance.
- Way too onerous – The ONC straw model needs to inlcude the menu set concept. It needs to drop the provider responsibility for patient adoption. Other inputs such as PCAST would put stage Two way out of range. We need a consistent, stable set of objectives, with time to assess the impact of the curent stage before moving ahead and realistic timeframes for developing and implementing new technoloiges and workflows.
Share Your Thoughts
You must be logged in to post a comment.