|
It’s hard to think of
any major portion of President
Obama’s health policy that
hasn’t engendered intense
argument. But one at least comes
close: the provision of the 2009
federal stimulus law that pushes
medical practices to update
their record-keeping for the
21st century. The aim is to
ensure that all of the nation’s
medical records are computerized
by 2014. There seems to be a
broad consensus that increased
use of electronic data will
improve the quality of health
care in the country and
ultimately lower costs.
And here’s why. In
roughly three out of four
doctors’ offices in the country,
patient charts are still updated
by hand and stored in vast,
color-coded filing cabinets. If
a patient changes doctors, the
file has to be mailed or faxed
and the new doctor often has
trouble reading the previous
doctor’s hen scratching.
Patients walk out of a medical
office with one or more tiny
pieces of paper to get
prescription drugs filled. When
they come back for a follow-up,
they have to bring a bag full of
drugs so the doctor will know
what the patient is taking.
Given such cumbersome
procedures, few would argue that
computerization isn’t needed.
But the federal program did lead
to complaints in the beginning.
Critics warned that doctors who
serve mostly low-income patients
would lack the time or
inclination to make the
painstaking switch to electronic
records. They worried that the
nationwide push would widen the
so-called “digital divide” that
already exists between doctors
in affluent parts of the country
and those in underserved urban
and rural areas.
So far, that hasn’t
happened.
The $19 billion
medical records law — which pays
doctors to switch to an
electronic system or upgrade one
they’re already using — is
having an impact on the entire
health care industry. And small
primary care practices that
treat Medicaid patients are no
exception.
As of last week, the
U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services reported, more
than 100,000 primary care
doctors across the country had
taken advantage of federal
incentives to adopt a certified
electronic medical record
system. Half of the doctors were
members of small practices that
serve Medicaid and Medicare
patients, and the rest worked in
community health centers, public
hospitals, rural health clinics
and other public settings.
A national campaig
In addition to cash
for doctors — $65,000 for every
Medicaid physician and $44,000
for Medicare practitioners —
states have been given millions
of dollars to set up education
programs aimed at helping the
medical profession qualify.
These advisory groups, called
regional extension centers, have
the job of translating some 700
pages of complex federal rules
on so-called “meaningful use” of
electronic health records. Some
22 states have set up regional
centers, and several states have
exceeded federally set goals for
the number of doctors they
enroll. Alabama is one of them.
When it opened its
doors in April of 2010, the
Alabama Regional Extension
Center began calling, emailing
and visiting 1,300 primary care
doctors in the state in an
effort to enroll them in the
meaningful use program. A small
staff of clinically trained
experts offered free assistance
in choosing a technology vendor
and creating a plan for
converting paper records into
electronic format. They helped
doctors and their staffs develop
daily routines that included
data entry and retrieval, as
well as exchange of electronic
information with pharmacies,
hospitals and other doctors.
“It is not simple,”
says Mike Bice, one of Alabama’s
regional supervisors. “But it’s
a much better way to care for
patients and a much better way
to do business…The biggest thing
we do is help them avoid
strategic errors. There are so
many ways to make mistakes.”
As of last month,
1,100 Alabama doctors had
registered for the program and
of those, 640 were already using
federally certified health
records systems. In total,
Alabama doctors have received
$44 million in federal payments.
That compares to $33 million in
Georgia, which has more than
twice the population. Other
relatively poor southern states
are raking in even larger
incentive payments. Louisiana
has helped doctors qualify for
$84 million; Kentucky doctors
have qualified for $65 million.
For Medicaid doctors —
those with 30 percent or more of
their patients covered by the
federal-state program —
qualifying for the first $21,000
federal installment is
relatively easy. They simply
have to adopt or upgrade a
certified electronic records
system.
Meaningful Use
For Medicare doctors,
who are paid higher rates, the
first step is steeper. They must
qualify under the meaningful use
rules immediately. For example,
physicians’ practices must
maintain an up-to-date
computerized list of medications
and allergies for each patient,
provide patients with summaries
of every office visit, and
transmit prescriptions
electronically.
Ultimately, Medicaid
doctors will have to adhere to
the same set of rules in order
to get subsequent installments
of their $66,000 total incentive
payment. But they have quite a
while to do that. Medicare
doctors must be certified by
2012 in order to receive their
full incentive. After that, they
have until 2014 to qualify for a
smaller incentive of $24,000.
Medicaid doctors have until 2021
to fully qualify.
In the meantime,
states are developing what is
known as a health information
exchange that will allow doctors
who convert to electronic
systems to access patient
records within the state through
secure portals, and ultimately
transfer records across the
country.
In general, states are
setting their own schedules for
developing in-state networks and
going national. South Carolina,
for example, is already
connecting doctors to a national
health exchange, though its
statewide network is not fully
implemented.
In addition to primary
care doctors, Alabama’s regional
extension team is helping
independent pharmacies, small
laboratories, and public clinics
and hospitals get electronic
health systems up and running.
“Rural providers may not be
ahead of the curve,” says Dr.
Daniel Roach III, Alabama’s
state health information
coordinator. “But they won't be
left behind.”
|
State-by-state breakdown
of basic electronic
record keeping |
|
Lower than U.S. average:
|
state |
% w/basic system |
|
Maryland |
13% |
|
Connecticut |
15% |
|
Kentucky |
16% |
|
New Jersey |
16% |
|
New York |
17% |
Near the U.S. average:
|
state |
% w/basic system |
|
District of
Columbia |
18% |
|
Illinois |
18% |
|
Missouri |
19% |
|
Texas |
21% |
|
West Virginia |
21% |
|
Rhode Island |
21% |
|
Louisiana |
21% |
|
Delaware |
21% |
|
Florida |
22% |
|
Georgia |
22% |
|
California |
22% |
|
South Carolina |
22% |
|
Tennessee |
22% |
|
Alabama |
22% |
|
Oklahoma |
22% |
|
Wyoming |
23% |
|
North Carolina |
23% |
|
Indiana |
24% |
|
Michigan |
25% |
|
USA average |
25% |
|
Arizona |
25% |
|
Idaho |
25% |
|
Arkansas |
25% |
|
New Mexico |
26% |
|
Pennsylvania |
26% |
|
South Dakota |
27% |
|
Colorado |
27% |
|
Kansas |
27% |
|
Ohio |
27% |
|
Nebraska |
28% |
|
Alaska |
29% |
|
Maine |
29% |
|
Montana |
30% |
|
Vermont |
31% |
|
Mississippi |
33% |
|
Virginia |
33% |
Higher than U.S.
Average:
|
state |
% w/basic system |
|
Hawaii |
35% |
|
Iowa |
38% |
|
New Hampshire |
42% |
|
Massachusetts |
42% |
|
Washington |
44% |
|
North Dakota |
48% |
|
Wisconsin |
49% |
|
Oregon |
49% |
|
Minnesota |
49% |
|
Utah |
52% |
|
|
Source: Centers for
Disease Control/NCHS,
National Ambulatory Care
Survey |
|