Dataset Information

Medicare Incentive Payments to United States Ophthalmologists for Use of Electronic Health Records: 2011-2016.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:To investigate ophthalmologists' rate of attestation to meaningful use (MU) of their electronic health record (EHR) systems in the Medicare EHR Incentive Program and their continuity and success in receiving payments in comparison with other specialties. DESIGN:Administrative database study. PARTICIPANTS:Eligible professionals participating in the Medicare EHR Incentive Program. METHODS:Based on publicly available data sources, subsets of payment and attestation data were created for ophthalmologists and for other specialties. The number of eligible professionals attesting was determined using the attestation data for each year and stage of the program. The proportion of attestations by EHR vendor was calculated using all attestations for each vendor. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Numbers of ophthalmologists attesting by year and stage of the Medicare EHR Incentive Program, incentive payments, and number of attestations by EHR vendor. RESULTS:In the peak year of participation, 51.6% of ophthalmologists successfully attested to MU, compared with 37.1% of optometrists, 50.2% of dermatologists, 54.5% of otolaryngologists, and 64.4% of urologists. Across the 6 years of the program, ophthalmologists received an average of $17?942 in incentive payments compared with $11?105 for optometrists, $16?617 for dermatologists, $20?203 for otolaryngologists, and $23?821 for urologists. Epic and Nextgen were the most frequently used EHRs for attestation by ophthalmologists. CONCLUSIONS:Ophthalmology as a specialty performed better than optometry and dermatology, but worse than otolaryngology and urology, in terms of the proportion of eligible professionals attesting to MU of EHRs. Ophthalmologists were more likely to remain in the program after their initial year of attestation compared with all eligible providers. The top 4 EHR vendors accounted for 50% of attestations by ophthalmologists.

SUBMITTER: Boland MV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6662572 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Medicare Incentive Payments to United States Ophthalmologists for Use of Electronic Health Records: 2011-2016.

Boland Michael V MV Hwang Thomas S TS Lim Michele C MC Peterson Jessica L JL Lum Flora F Lee Aaron Y AY

Ophthalmology 20190213 7

<h4>Purpose</h4>To investigate ophthalmologists' rate of attestation to meaningful use (MU) of their electronic health record (EHR) systems in the Medicare EHR Incentive Program and their continuity and success in receiving payments in comparison with other specialties.<h4>Design</h4>Administrative database study.<h4>Participants</h4>Eligible professionals participating in the Medicare EHR Incentive Program.<h4>Methods</h4>Based on publicly available data sources, subsets of payment and attestat ...[more]

PMID: 30768941

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe prevalence of diabetes among Hispanic and Asian American subpopulations in the United States is unknown.ObjectiveTo estimate racial/ethnic differences in the prevalence of diabetes among US adults 20 years or older by major race/ethnicity groups and selected Hispanic and non-Hispanic Asian subpopulations.Design, setting, and participantsNational Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 2011-2016, cross-sectional samples representing the noninstitutionalized, civilian, US population. The sample included adults 20 years or older who had self-reported diagnosed diabetes during the interview or measurements of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and 2-hour plasma glucose (2hPG).ExposuresRace/ethnicity groups: non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic and Hispanic subgroups (Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban/Dominican, Central American, and South American), non-Hispanic Asian and non-Hispanic Asian subgroups (East, South, and Southeast Asian), and non-Hispanic other.Main outcomes and measuresDiagnosed diabetes was based on self-reported prior diagnosis. Undiagnosed diabetes was defined as HbA1c 6.5% or greater, FPG 126 mg/dL or greater, or 2hPG 200 mg/dL or greater in participants without diagnosed diabetes. Total diabetes was defined as diagnosed or undiagnosed diabetes.ResultsThe study sample included 7575 US adults (mean age, 47.5 years; 52% women; 2866 [65%] non-Hispanic white, 1636 [11%] non-Hispanic black, 1952 [15%] Hispanic, 909 [6%] non-Hispanic Asian, and 212 [3%] non-Hispanic other). A total of 2266 individuals had diagnosed diabetes; 377 had undiagnosed diabetes. Weighted age- and sex-adjusted prevalence of total diabetes was 12.1% (95% CI, 11.0%-13.4%) for non-Hispanic white, 20.4% (95% CI, 18.8%-22.1%) for non-Hispanic black, 22.1% (95% CI, 19.6%-24.7%) for Hispanic, and 19.1% (95% CI, 16.0%-22.1%) for non-Hispanic Asian adults (overall P < .001). Among Hispanic adults, the prevalence of total diabetes was 24.6% (95% CI, 21.6%-27.6%) for Mexican, 21.7% (95% CI, 14.6%-28.8%) for Puerto Rican, 20.5% (95% CI, 13.7%-27.3%) for Cuban/Dominican, 19.3% (95% CI, 12.4%-26.1%) for Central American, and 12.3% (95% CI, 8.5%-16.2%) for South American subgroups (overall P < .001). Among non-Hispanic Asian adults, the prevalence of total diabetes was 14.0% (95% CI, 9.5%-18.4%) for East Asian, 23.3% (95% CI, 15.6%-30.9%) for South Asian, and 22.4% (95% CI, 15.9%-28.9%) for Southeast Asian subgroups (overall P = .02). The prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes was 3.9% (95% CI, 3.0%-4.8%) for non-Hispanic white, 5.2% (95% CI, 3.9%-6.4%) for non-Hispanic black, 7.5% (95% CI, 5.9%-9.1%) for Hispanic, and 7.5% (95% CI, 4.9%-10.0%) for non-Hispanic Asian adults (overall P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this nationally representative survey of US adults from 2011 to 2016, the prevalence of diabetes and undiagnosed diabetes varied by race/ethnicity and among subgroups identified within the Hispanic and non-Hispanic Asian populations.

Project description:An increased awareness of the interactions between the medical industry and health care professionals may lead to lower health care costs and more effective health care practices. To assess the characteristics of industry payments made to ophthalmologists between 2013 and 2017. This analysis included data reported in the June 29, 2018, update of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database (OPD). The OPD contains public records of industry payments made to physicians and teaching hospitals from August 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017, as reported by the medical industry. All general or research payments distributed to US ophthalmologists and contained in the OPD were included in this study. Data are summarized by practitioner, manufacturer, payment category, and geographic location. Main outcomes were the distribution, quantity, and value of payments made to ophthalmologists practicing in the United States or US territories. The financial characteristics of payment category, manufacturer, product, and location were also assessed. This analysis revealed that the OPD showed industry reporting a total of 20 943 ophthalmologists receiving 736 517 payments worth $543 679 603.53 (1.67% of all industry-reported funds in the OPD). The median payment value was $22.44. Most payments were for food and beverages (581 588 [78.96%]), whereas most funds were allocated toward research ($310 142 151.88 [57.05%]) and consulting fees ($73 565 327.71 [13.51%]). The median payout to each ophthalmologist was $637.75 (interquartile range, $167.33-$2065.54). California was the highest-grossing state, receiving $101 135 980.34 (18.60%) of all payments. Fifteen companies were responsible for 87.68% of all funds distributed ($476 719 470.11) and were mostly involved in the production of pharmaceutical agents (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents, glaucoma eyedrops, and ocular lubricants) and surgical devices (cataract and glaucoma). Although there is no way to know the veracity of these reports, the findings suggest the financial ophthalmologist-industry relationship is substantial. These relationships may be adding to health care costs and affecting the quality of care, although those associations were not evaluated in this study.

Dataset Information

Medicare Incentive Payments to United States Ophthalmologists for Use of Electronic Health Records: 2011-2016.

Publications

Medicare Incentive Payments to United States Ophthalmologists for Use of Electronic Health Records: 2011-2016.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets