<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Inga Compares the Preliminary Meaningful Use Rule to the Final</title>
	<atom:link href="http://histalk2.com/2010/07/13/inga-compares-the-preliminary-meaningful-use-rule-to-the-final/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://histalk2.com/2010/07/13/inga-compares-the-preliminary-meaningful-use-rule-to-the-final/</link>
	<description>Healthcare IT News and Opinion</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:50:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Colleen Russell RN-BC</title>
		<link>http://histalk2.com/2010/07/13/inga-compares-the-preliminary-meaningful-use-rule-to-the-final/comment-page-1/#comment-9761</link>
		<dc:creator>Colleen Russell RN-BC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:33:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://histalk2.com/?p=6035#comment-9761</guid>
		<description>Any licensed professional is specified as the following: &#039;Use CPOE for medication orders directly entered by any licensed professional who can enter orders into the medical record per state, local &amp; professional.&#039;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Any licensed professional is specified as the following: &#8216;Use CPOE for medication orders directly entered by any licensed professional who can enter orders into the medical record per state, local &amp; professional.&#8217;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jordan</title>
		<link>http://histalk2.com/2010/07/13/inga-compares-the-preliminary-meaningful-use-rule-to-the-final/comment-page-1/#comment-9757</link>
		<dc:creator>Jordan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:17:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://histalk2.com/?p=6035#comment-9757</guid>
		<description>Great Summary thank you.

Two changes - Summary of care record is for both Hospitals and EPs.  Drug/Formulary checking was split to its own menu objective.

Many of the measures now include the Emergency Department.  This was likely done since many organizations were concerned about meeting 10% CPOE without the ED.  The unintended consequence of adding ED to the denominator of the other objectives is the ED systems need to be certified.  Also, these ED systems now need to perform many of the same functions as the core clinical system to meet the measurement across the hospital population. i.e. Drug/Drug and Drug/Allergy Checking, Problem Lists, Vitals, Smoking etc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great Summary thank you.</p>
<p>Two changes &#8211; Summary of care record is for both Hospitals and EPs.  Drug/Formulary checking was split to its own menu objective.</p>
<p>Many of the measures now include the Emergency Department.  This was likely done since many organizations were concerned about meeting 10% CPOE without the ED.  The unintended consequence of adding ED to the denominator of the other objectives is the ED systems need to be certified.  Also, these ED systems now need to perform many of the same functions as the core clinical system to meet the measurement across the hospital population. i.e. Drug/Drug and Drug/Allergy Checking, Problem Lists, Vitals, Smoking etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ferdinand Velasco, MD</title>
		<link>http://histalk2.com/2010/07/13/inga-compares-the-preliminary-meaningful-use-rule-to-the-final/comment-page-1/#comment-9748</link>
		<dc:creator>Ferdinand Velasco, MD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:39:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://histalk2.com/?p=6035#comment-9748</guid>
		<description>RE: Eligibility and Electronic Claims – agree with Dr. HITECH. However...
&quot;However, we do believe that inclusion of a robust system to check insurance eligibility electronically is an important long term policy goal for meaningful use of certified EHR technology and we intend to include this objective as well as electronic claims submission Stage 2.&quot; (p. 155)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>RE: Eligibility and Electronic Claims – agree with Dr. HITECH. However&#8230;<br />
&#8220;However, we do believe that inclusion of a robust system to check insurance eligibility electronically is an important long term policy goal for meaningful use of certified EHR technology and we intend to include this objective as well as electronic claims submission Stage 2.&#8221; (p. 155)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dr. HITECH</title>
		<link>http://histalk2.com/2010/07/13/inga-compares-the-preliminary-meaningful-use-rule-to-the-final/comment-page-1/#comment-9741</link>
		<dc:creator>Dr. HITECH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 03:09:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://histalk2.com/?p=6035#comment-9741</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the summary...

RE: Eligibility and Electronic Claims - The comments in the standards final rule basically said that this is often performed outside of an EHR system (and sometimes by a third party); EHR vendors who might otherwise function as a Complete EHR would fail on this point.  Also, as Pez points out, most already do this, so there was not need to provide incentives.  

Inga, you might want to highlight which objectives are part of the core set of required definitions of MU and which are the optional ones.  I would be interested in seeing a vote of folks on which ones they think their practices or hospitals will likely pursue from the optional list.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the summary&#8230;</p>
<p>RE: Eligibility and Electronic Claims &#8211; The comments in the standards final rule basically said that this is often performed outside of an EHR system (and sometimes by a third party); EHR vendors who might otherwise function as a Complete EHR would fail on this point.  Also, as Pez points out, most already do this, so there was not need to provide incentives.  </p>
<p>Inga, you might want to highlight which objectives are part of the core set of required definitions of MU and which are the optional ones.  I would be interested in seeing a vote of folks on which ones they think their practices or hospitals will likely pursue from the optional list.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PezMan</title>
		<link>http://histalk2.com/2010/07/13/inga-compares-the-preliminary-meaningful-use-rule-to-the-final/comment-page-1/#comment-9739</link>
		<dc:creator>PezMan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 01:55:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://histalk2.com/?p=6035#comment-9739</guid>
		<description>Just saw two glaring changes...Insurance Eligibility &amp; Electronic Claims - why did they remove these from Stage 1 when this is something that most hospitals are doing today?  I am sure many hospitals who were looking to have a check mark on this long list just did a collective roll of their eyes.


What is everyone&#039;s thoughts on the required list and this new optional list?  Some of the items on the optional list I know are not adopted by many states and if I read this 800+ page document correctly, could go against the 5 they get to &quot;omit&quot;.  So instead of just choosing 5 to omit, they have to include the 2 or 3 that are not even required by their state into the 5 they omit instead of just ignoring them as impossible to meet &amp; still getting to choose 5 to not meet at this time (if they so choose...).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just saw two glaring changes&#8230;Insurance Eligibility &amp; Electronic Claims &#8211; why did they remove these from Stage 1 when this is something that most hospitals are doing today?  I am sure many hospitals who were looking to have a check mark on this long list just did a collective roll of their eyes.</p>
<p>What is everyone&#8217;s thoughts on the required list and this new optional list?  Some of the items on the optional list I know are not adopted by many states and if I read this 800+ page document correctly, could go against the 5 they get to &#8220;omit&#8221;.  So instead of just choosing 5 to omit, they have to include the 2 or 3 that are not even required by their state into the 5 they omit instead of just ignoring them as impossible to meet &amp; still getting to choose 5 to not meet at this time (if they so choose&#8230;).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

