These guys really don’t get it, and they need to be called on the carpet, taken to the woodshed, or pick your own favorite cliche.
The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH) sent a letter to Dr. David Blumenthal (National Coordinator for Health IT) arguing that “Meaningful Use” funding should not be tied to achievement of quality measures. The FAH is the trade association for for-profit hospitals; the letter is dated August 26 and a copy is available on the HealthHombre website, with a deserved hat tip.
First, let me concede that they make a reasonable point on p. 3 when they say “Under it’s framework, the Policy Committee has recommended that HHS should adopt a measure for 2013 requiring a 10 percent reduction in preventable admissions from 2012 to qualify as a meaningful EHR user.” This measure deserves discussion.
Here’s the implicit threat of a lawsuit — the nuclear bomb:
It has been suggested that “meaningful use” funding should be tied to provider performance on outcomes-related quality measures. However, our outside legal experts view the ARRA funding as tied only to accelerating the adoption and use of EHRs by providers and clinicians, and not to patient care achievements or outcomes that may be attained while using EHRs….
The FAH is concerned because it appears HHS may share the Policy Committee’s view and may establish “meaningful use” policy that goes beyond its statutory authority or the intent of Congress….Thus our outside legal counsel advises that a meaningful user is a hospital that submits the required information only.
…we believe the Policy Committee’s recommended approach goes beyond the ARRA’s statutory authority.
You would think for-profit hospitals would be EAGER to compete based on objective quality measures, wouldn’t you?
…and you would think a tap on the shoulder would be more appropriate to make their point than the threat of the nuclear bomb.
Christensen’s theories of disruptive innovation point out the great lengths that incumbents will go to protect the status quo. Here’s living proof.
Table of contents for The Dog Manifesto: A Disruptive Innovator's Guide to Health IT
- Will HITECH Lead to Innovation? The Continuing Cat/Dog Dialogue
- Dogged Optimism: Five Innovative Aspects of HITECH
- Feline Foot-Dragging: Three Non-Innovative Aspects of HITECH
- Wait and See: What’s Unclear or To-Be-Determined (TBD) About HITECH.
- Can Cats Think Outside the Box? Here’s a Role Model.
- Stand for Quality Group: “Link HIT Investment to Quality Improvement”
- EHR 2.0: Thinking Outside the Cat Box
- Stunning Announcement: AMA Goes to the Dogs in Deal With Physician Web Portal Company
- Markle v. HIMSS: Differing Views of “Meaningful Use” and “Certification”
- Time for EHRs to Become Plug-and-Play
- Blueprint for Change: From EMR 1.0 to Clinical Groupware (EHR 2.0)
- Joe the Doctor: “…’scuse me, why do I want to bet-my-practice on an EMR?”
- RHIOs Emerging From Coma
- HIT Policy Committee Recommends “Minimum” Certification of EHRs
- PR Blunder of the Year: Federation of American Hospitals Says Meaningful Use Should Not Tie to Quality Improvement
- The Third Rail in HITECH Implementation: “Please Don’t Make Us All Speak Latin”
- Senator Grassley: You’re on Track About EMR Problems, But Here Are Some More Questions to Ask
- John Halamka’s Stunning 180: “Dogs and Cats Should Live in Harmony”
- Feedback Rolls in on Halamka’s New Stance on Standards: Cats Pissed, Dogs Thrilled