MU Work Group Drops Deeming Option Idea

Nov. 21, 2013
Meaningful Use Work Group decided to give up on its efforts to develop recommendations for how electronic clinical quality measure concepts and specific measures could be used in place of meaningful use objective measures to “deem” providers and hospitals as meaningful users through their ability to perform on quality outcomes.

At its Nov. 21 meeting, the Health IT Policy Committee’s Meaningful Use Work Group decided to give up on its efforts to develop recommendations for how electronic clinical quality measure concepts and specific measures could be used in place of meaningful use objective measures to “deem” eligible providers and eligible hospitals as meaningful users through their ability to perform on quality outcomes.

Paul Tang, M.D., the work group chair, opened the discussion of the deeming concept by mentioning several of the roadblocks they have run up against in earlier discussions. First, it requires quality measures focused on health IT-sensitive outcomes rather than processes, and many of those are still being developed. Plus, if CMS is going to reward high performance or improvement on measures, it would require benchmarks or track records.

Tang brought up the possibility of allowing providers to use existing HIT functionality to stratify populations and focus on improving care disparities among specific demographic groups.

But the work group could not reach agreement on how it would measure performance. Neil Calman, M.D., president and CEO of the Institute for Family Health, said the conversation raised the question of whether ONC should be in the job of measuring quality at all. “We are not the quality police,” he said. “We are trying to improve the functionality of systems by driving new requirements and capabilities of systems.” There are many other places and more emerging every day that require providers to achieve quality outcomes, he said. “You can’t even be part of those programs without these EHR systems. I don’t see us as the quality police. I don’t think that is the right objective for us.”

Work group co-chair George Hripsak, M.D., director of Medical Informatics Services at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia, said, “We have given this a couple of shots, but every version we come up with increases the burden and creates another meaningful use program. I recommend we don’t do deeming.” It would make things harder and put more pressure on vendors and providers, he said. David Bates, M.D., senior vice president for quality and safety and chief quality officer for both Brigham and Women’s Hospital, also recommended dropping it now.

In the end, the work group decided to close the door on the deeming concept for Stage 3, although it left the door open to reconsidering the concept in any future stages of meaningful use.

Sponsored Recommendations

A Cyber Shield for Healthcare: Exploring HHS's $1.3 Billion Security Initiative

Unlock the Future of Healthcare Cybersecurity with Erik Decker, Co-Chair of the HHS 405(d) workgroup! Don't miss this opportunity to gain invaluable knowledge from a seasoned ...

Enhancing Remote Radiology: How Zero Trust Access Revolutionizes Healthcare Connectivity

This content details how a cloud-enabled zero trust architecture ensures high performance, compliance, and scalability, overcoming the limitations of traditional VPN solutions...

Spotlight on Artificial Intelligence

Unlock the potential of AI in our latest series. Discover how AI is revolutionizing clinical decision support, improving workflow efficiency, and transforming medical documentation...

Beyond the VPN: Zero Trust Access for a Healthcare Hybrid Work Environment

This whitepaper explores how a cloud-enabled zero trust architecture ensures secure, least privileged access to applications, meeting regulatory requirements and enhancing user...