Dataset Information

The Medicare Electronic Health Record Incentive Program: provider performance on core and menu measures.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To measure performance by eligible health care providers on CMS's meaningful use measures.

Data source

Medicare Electronic Health Record Incentive Program Eligible Professionals Public Use File (PUF), which contains data on meaningful use attestations by 237,267 eligible providers through May 31, 2013.

Study design

Cross-sectional analysis of the 15 core and 10 menu measures pertaining to use of EHR functions reported in the PUF.

Principal findings

Providers in the dataset performed strongly on all core measures, with the most frequent response for each of the 15 measures being 90-100 percent compliance, even when the threshold for a particular measure was lower (e.g., 30 percent). PCPs had higher scores than specialists for computerized order entry, maintaining an active medication list, and documenting vital signs, while specialists had higher scores for maintaining a problem list, recording patient demographics and smoking status, and for providing patients with an after-visit summary. In fact, 90.2 percent of eligible providers claimed at least one exclusion, and half claimed two or more.

Conclusions

Providers are successfully attesting to CMS's requirements, and often exceeding the thresholds required by CMS; however, some troubling patterns in exclusions are present. CMS should raise program requirements in future years.

SUBMITTER: Wright A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3925405 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Medicare Electronic Health Record Incentive Program: provider performance on core and menu measures.

Wright Adam A Feblowitz Joshua J Samal Lipika L McCoy Allison B AB Sittig Dean F DF

Health services research 20131221 1 Pt 2

<h4>Objective</h4>To measure performance by eligible health care providers on CMS's meaningful use measures.<h4>Data source</h4>Medicare Electronic Health Record Incentive Program Eligible Professionals Public Use File (PUF), which contains data on meaningful use attestations by 237,267 eligible providers through May 31, 2013.<h4>Study design</h4>Cross-sectional analysis of the 15 core and 10 menu measures pertaining to use of EHR functions reported in the PUF.<h4>Principal findings</h4>Provider ...[more]

PMID: 24359554

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Although the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act has accelerated electronic health record (EHR) adoption since its passage, clinician satisfaction with EHRs remains low, and the association of HITECH with health care information technology (IT) entrepreneurship has remained largely unstudied. Objective:To determine whether the passage of the HITECH Act was associated with an increase in key measures of health care IT entrepreneurship. Design, Setting, and Participants:This economic evaluation of venture capital (VC) activity in the US from 2000 to 2019 examined funding trends in health care IT, EHR-related companies, and all VC investments before and after the passage of HITECH. A difference-in-differences analysis compared investments in health care IT companies with those of companies in 3 categories: general health care (non-IT), IT (non-health care), and all US VC transactions. Data were analyzed from September 2018 to August 2019. Exposures:Venture capital funding received by US companies before and after the HITECH Act. Main Outcomes and Measures:Venture capital investment in health care IT companies and the proportion of those investments going to seed-stage companies, a proxy for very early-stage entrepreneurship and innovation. Results:The data included 70?982 investments, of which 9425 (13.3%) were seed stage, 10?706 (15.1%) were early stage, and 50?851 (71.6%) were growth stage. After passage of the HITECH Act, investment in both health care IT companies and EHR-related companies increased at a rate much faster (13.0% and 11.4%, respectively) than VC as a whole (6.9%). In addition, the proportion of investments going to seed-stage health care IT companies increased compared with both overall VC investments and non-IT health care investments. Health care IT companies saw increased probabilities of transactions being seed-stage of 5.1% (SE, 2.2%; 95% CI, 0.8% to 9.3%; P?=?.02) compared with the entire sample of VC transactions and 13.6% (SE, 1.9%; 95% CI, 9.9% to 17.2%; P?<?.001) compared with non-IT health care VC transactions. Health care IT had essentially 0 increased probability of a transaction being seed stage compared with IT companies outside health care (-0.8% probability; SE, 2.4%; 95% CI, -5.4% to 3.9%; P?=?.75). Conclusions and Relevance:Although widespread clinician dissatisfaction with EHR systems remains a challenge, the HITECH Act's incentive program may have catalyzed early-stage entrepreneurship in health care IT, suggesting an important role for incentives in promoting innovation.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of the size of financial bonuses on quality of care and the number of plan offerings in the Medicare Advantage Quality Bonus Payment Demonstration.Data sourcesPublicly available data from CMS from 2009 to 2014 on Medicare Advantage plan quality ratings, the counties in the service area of each plan, and the benchmarks used to construct plan payments.Study designThe Medicare Advantage Quality Bonus Payment Demonstration began in 2012. Under the Demonstration, all Medicare Advantage plans were eligible to receive bonus payments based on plan-level quality scores (star ratings). In some counties, plans were eligible to receive bonus payments that were twice as large as in other counties. We used this variation in incentives to evaluate the effects of bonus size on star ratings and the number of plan offerings in the Demonstration using a differences-in-differences identification strategy. We used matching to create a comparison group of counties that did not receive double bonuses but had similar levels of the preintervention outcomes.Principal findingsResults from the difference-in-differences analysis suggest that the receipt of double bonuses was not associated with an increase in star ratings. In the matched sample, the receipt of double bonuses was associated with a statistically insignificant increase of +0.034 (approximately 1 percent) in the average star rating (p > .10, 95 percent CI: -0.015, 0.083). In contrast, the receipt of double bonuses was associated with an increase in the number of plans offered. In the matched sample, the receipt of double bonuses was associated with an overall increase of +0.814 plans (approximately 5.8 percent) (p < .05, 95 percent CI: 0.078, 1.549). We estimate that the double bonuses increased payments by $3.43 billion over the first 3 years of the Demonstration.ConclusionsAt great expense to Medicare, double bonuses in the Medicare Advantage Quality Bonus Payment Demonstration were not associated with improved quality but were associated with more plan offerings.

Project description:ImportanceCardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. To improve cardiovascular outcomes, primary care must have valid methods of assessing performance on cardiovascular clinical quality measures, including aspirin use (aspirin measure), blood pressure control (BP measure), and smoking cessation counseling and intervention (smoking measure).ObjectiveTo compare observed performance scores measured using 2 imperfect reference standard data sources (medical record abstraction [MRA] and electronic health record [EHR]-generated reports) with misclassification-adjusted performance scores obtained using bayesian latent class analysis.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used a subset of the 2016 aspirin, BP, and smoking performance data from the Healthy Hearts for Oklahoma Project. Each clinical quality measure was calculated for a subset of a practice's patient population who can benefit from recommended care (ie, the eligible population). A random sample of 380 eligible patients were included for the aspirin measure; 126, for the BP measure; and 115, for the smoking measure. Data were collected from 21 primary care practices belonging to a single large health care system from January 1 to December 31, 2018, and analyzed from February 21 to April 17, 2019.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes include performance scores for the aspirin, BP, and smoking measures using imperfect MRA and EHRs and estimated through bayesian latent class models.ResultsA total of 621 eligible patients were included in the analysis. Based on MRA and EHR data, observed aspirin performance scores were 76.0% (95% bayesian credible interval [BCI], 71.5%-80.1%) and 74.9% (95% BCI, 70.4%-79.1%), respectively; observed BP performance scores, 80.6% (95% BCI, 73.2%-86.9%) and 75.1% (95% BCI, 67.2%-82.1%), respectively; and observed smoking performance scores, 85.7% (95% BCI, 78.6%-91.2%) and 75.4% (95% BCI, 67.0%-82.6%), respectively. Misclassification-adjusted estimates were 74.9% (95% BCI, 70.5%-79.1%) for the aspirin performance score, 75.0% (95% BCI, 66.6%-82.5%) for the BP performance score, and 83.0% (95% BCI, 74.4%-89.8%) for the smoking performance score.Conclusions and relevanceEnsuring valid performance measurement is critical for value-based payment models and quality improvement activities in primary care. This study found that extracting information for the same individuals using different data sources generated different performance score estimates. Further research is required to identify the sources of these differences.

Dataset Information

The Medicare Electronic Health Record Incentive Program: provider performance on core and menu measures.

Objective

Data source

Study design

Principal findings

Conclusions

Publications

The Medicare Electronic Health Record Incentive Program: provider performance on core and menu measures.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets