Bookmark and Share PrintE-mail
  The Health Record Review
by Patty Enrado


CCHIT’s preliminary and comprehensive certification programs: Which one will you choose?

Posted on Wed, Sep 09, 2009 - 12:27 am

The Certification Commission for Health Information Technology (CCHIT) announced earlier today that it would launch two certification programs on Oct. 7. Providers need to understand not only the difference between the two programs but the consequences of choosing an electronic health record (EHR) product certified in one program over the other.

CCHIT Certified 2011 is an updated version of its comprehensive EHR certification program. Preliminary ARRA 2011, however, is a modular certification program. It focuses on the standards for qualifying systems under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which are based on current recommendations from healthcare advisory workgroups and committees reporting to the Office of the National Coordinator.

CCHIT has made provisions in the event that the final rulemaking, expected in the spring of 2010, adds new requirements. For vendors with preliminary certification, CCHIT would offer a free incremental inspection to allow vendors' products to meet the new specifications.

 

Some industry leaders believe that providers should buy a product certified through a comprehensive program. These proponents of EHR systems believe IT helps create better patient outcomes, which is why there is such a push for adoption. Physicians need a robust system that will enable them to deliver quality care to their patients, above and beyond the requirements to qualify for federal stimulus funding. Providers should be able to leverage health IT investments for future purposes in part to justify the high price tag and often painful implementation and office reengineering process.

 

Some would argue, however, that providers may not need all the bells and whistles of a product certified through a comprehensive program. Their needs may be met by basic systems. Last year, I had interviewed a physician in a New Jersey solo practice who had implemented a very basic system. He loved it. Not only did it help him create better outcomes for his patients, who were mostly Medicaid beneficiaries, he cut down on his administrative work and improved his quality of life in and outside of his office (he had more time to see more patients during the week and did not have to go into work on the weekends to do the onerous paperwork associated with the Medicaid program). I'll bet dollars to doughnuts the EHR was not certified. Would his system meet the requirements to qualify for federal stimulus funds? I'm not sure, but his practice is more efficient and his patients are receiving higher quality of care than before the implementation.

 

At any rate, it behooves providers to be well educated (either by themselves or through a third party) about the details of each certification program and do their due diligence with vendors and their products. Upfront financial limits, vision and office needs are just a few of the issues providers will need to take into account when it's time to jump into the EHR market. Jump wisely.


Comments

Posted by sherry william on Tue, Apr 27, 2010 - 02:10 am.

The Certification Commission for Health Information Technology is a private not-for-profit organization that serves as a recognized US certification authority for electronic health records and their networks.
CCHIT was founded in 2004 with support from three leading industry associations in healthcare information management and technology, the American Health Information Management Association, the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society and the National Alliance for Health Information Technology. In September 2005, CCHIT was awarded a 3-year contract by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to develop and evaluate the certification criteria and inspection process for EHRs and the networks through which they interoperate. In October 2006, HHS officially designated CCHIT as a Recognized Certification Body.
I am a student of microsoft certification and i am so much specialties in the network solution's.

Posted by mstriker1 on Mon, Apr 26, 2010 - 03:39 am.

With the recent announcement of Salesforce.com's multi-million dollar investment in Practice Fusion, which offers a free, ad-supported physician EHR usmle test, "cloud computing" has again taken center stage. More and more health care providers are choosing cloud-based EHR models, opting to let hardware installation, data storage, and application hosting be someone else's headache.

The term "cloud computing" describes the practice of storing all data, software, and hardware off-site, with the system accessible to hospitals and providers via a web browser-based login. No need to install expensive infrastructure, and secure data storage is part of the package wonderlic test. The EHR system is immediately available to any Internet-connected computer in the world. With cloud computing, everything you do is now web-based instead of desktop-based.

Posted by Pioneer70 on Thu, Sep 10, 2009 - 10:25 am.

The New CCHIT Certification: Choice...or Risk?

Ms Enrado's informative article suggests that the new CCHIT certification credentials for EMR's will offer providers a choice in certified EMR products. She implies that VENDOR's can select one of two certifications paths for their products. Based on how vendors respond and which path they take, providers will then have the ability to CHOOSE between a comprehensive product, including the "recommendations" made to ONC under ARRA, or a set of products/ modules that will certify, in aggregate, just the 28 pieces that make up the PRELIMINARY ARRA recommendations, as CCHIT sees them.

What might be a more accurate description, is the way CCHIT postured the options themselves on the September 3 webcast: Mr. Leavitt's characterization was that Vendors can choose which RISK they feel more comfortable taking. By pursuing the comprehensive certification path ("CCHIT 2011"), vendors can begin applying for certification testing this month, and, when ready, the testing process should be completed in 90 days or so for each vendor, they say. Then, they can begin selling the "certified product" to clients. The risk with this approach is that if the final ONC standards are DIFFERENT than the recommendations as they stand now, there will be further testing and perhaps coding changes required later before vendors can get certification, and providers can apply for stimulus funds. That is Risk One.

The alternative would be to wait until the final ONC certification standards are announced---perhaps by years end---and vendors can then pursue the less arduous "ARRA" standards for certification. This perhaps will be far less cumbersome to complete for vendors...but the risk, says CCHIT, is that by waiting, vendors may not be able to respond in time to complete certification testing for their providers to purchase, implement and qualify for full funds outlined under ARRA stimulus legislation. That is Risk Two.

This results in a conundrum for providers considering purchasing one of these systems. How do they decide which risk to take? Who will advise them, other than the vendors themselves?

Quite frankly, I think the REAL risk is far greater than either of these two. I think the real question providers are asking themselves is, "Will either of these classes of certified products help my practice, cut my costs and improve my productivity in providing better healthcare?"

With the up-front cost of EMR and implementation, the five-year conditional (and partial) reimbursement via ARRA and the failure rate most traditional EMR products (including CCHIT-certified ones), the elephant in the room is still the very-real risk that these products will just plain not be workable for most providers...and all the effort and resources will be wasted. This is especially the case for high-performance providers and most specialists who are not on hospital staff.

Many of these providers have known for several years now what CCHIT has yet to realize: implementing point/click-heavy EMR systems, itself, is the risky move. The real choice for providers should not be "pick your risk"---just because now you can be conditionally reimbursed to do so. What kind of value proposition is that for physicians?

Why choose either "risk"? As Ms.Enrado points out, if there are productivity-enhancing, basic products, as she references, and other high-success solutions like Hybrid EMR, why be forced into a risky choice at all?