Do family physicians electronic health records support meaningful use?
Introduction
The adoption of electronic health record (EHR) technology by primary care practices has increased in recent years,1, 2 in conjunction with incentives from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for the “meaningful use” of certified health information technology (HIT) products.3, 4 However, success in meeting the policy priorities of “meaningful use” and realization of the projected cost savings from EHR technology have remained elusive.5, 6 The federal meaningful use (MU) program was born of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, with the goal of promoting “the spread of electronic health records to improve health care in the United States”.7 Incentive programs for MU for eligible professionals, and standards and certification criteria for EHR vendors and their products increased adoption of certified EHR technology (CEHRT).
The MU program claims that the benefits will be complete and accurate information, better access to information, and patient empowerment. The implementation plan for MU was conceived as three progressive stages that focus on (1) data capture and sharing, including initial quality reporting and sharing data for care coordination, (2) advanced clinical processes, including comprehensive information exchange across settings, and (3) improved outcomes, including measuring and improving quality for patients and populations and patient access to self-management tools. Though vendors may incorporate specific, required MU functionality in their products, the implementation of the system by a practice or a third-party implementation team can potentially block access to or render unusable these functions during the clinical workflow. Alternately, such additional functions may be packaged as “add-ons” with additional fees to purchase and implement. Thus, it is unclear how many certified EHRs currently in use actually deliver expected MU functions.
From 2005 to 2011 the percentage of U.S. family physicians using an EHR in ambulatory practice nearly doubled from 37% to 68%.1 However, previous national surveys during this time found that only one-third of physicians had an EHR that met MU criteria.8, 9 There is real concern that broad adoption of EHRs by family physicians prior to MU certification may leave practices at risk for having EHRs that are not capable of supporting the advancing functions required in MU Stage 2 and MU Stage 3. As such, these practices may be required to make significant investments in EHR upgrades or even purchase and implement entirely new systems that results in substantial cost, effort, and disruptions to practice and patient care. Currently, it remains unclear if the previously reported trends in the adoption of EHR technology by family physicians have been accompanied by MU functionality. The objective of our study was to characterize family physician access to MU functions when MU Stage 1 criteria were just starting in 2011.
Section snippets
Data and sample
We used data from a two-week survey conducted by the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) in fall 2011. Any physician who accessed their secure online portfolio during this time was redirected to a brief survey before entering their portfolio, yielding a 100% response rate. For this analysis our inclusion criteria included residence in the United States and having practice demographic and characteristics data available. These data were obtained from the ABFM demographic data which are
Results
Of the 5818 physicians who completed the survey, 3855 (66%) had demographic data available and were located within the 50 United States. Compared to other physicians in the ABFM database likely to access their portfolio during the survey period, survey respondents were slightly younger and were more likely to be female (data not shown). The majority of respondents were 40–60 years old (less than 5% were <40 years old), 35.5% were female, and 14.5% were IMGs (Table 2). Nearly half of respondents
Discussion
Family physicians who report having an EHR that supports MU are more likely to report MU capabilities. However, a sizeable minority of these physicians lacked key MU capabilities in 2011, which may limit their ability to meet more stringent MU Stages 2 and 3 standards. These early adopters of EHR technology may need to make a sizeable reinvestment or upgrade of existing software in order to meet more stringent MU standards.
Though there are some demographic differences between our study sample
Conflict of interest
None.
Funding
No external sources of funding.
Acknowledgments
Ms. Nichole Lainhart provided copy editing assistance with the manuscript.
References (14)
- et al.
The rise of electronic health record adoption among family physicians
Ann Fam Med
(2013) - et al.
Variation in electronic health record adoption and readiness for meaningful use: 2008–2011
J Gen Intern Med
(2013) - Analytics H. HIMSS analytics: data show that meaningful use is affecting EHR adoption....
- CMS. Electronic health record incentive program – Stage 2....
- et al.
Some hospitals are falling behind in meeting ‘meaningful use’ criteria and could be vulnerable to penalties in 2015
Health Aff
(2013) - et al.
What it will take to achieve the as-yet-unfulfilled promises of health information technology
Health Aff
(2013) - Meaningful Use. 〈http://www.healthit.gov/policy-researchers-implementers/meaningful-use〉; 2013 Accessed...
Cited by (6)
Clinical quality measure exchange is not easy
2021, Annals of Family MedicineCitation Excerpt :Family physicians provide nearly 20% of all clinical outpatient visits, nearly 200 million visits in the United States annually.1 Frontline clinicians continue to report failures of certified electronic health records (EHRs) to meet federal certification requirements and to meet electronic reporting needs, the latter of which is estimated to cost them $15 billion per year.2–11 Reducing reporting burden and enhancing the portability and utility of clinical data for quality improvement is an American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) goal that is aligned with federal policy.12,13
Meaningful use and medical home functionality in primary care practice
2020, Health AffairsThe American board of family medicine’s data collection method for tracking their specialty
2019, Journal of the American Board of Family MedicineTransforming physician certification to support physician self-motivation and capacity to improve quality and safety
2016, Journal of Enterprise TransformationAssessment of the usability and impact of the Idaho Health Data Exchange (IHDE)
2016, Journal of Medical Systems
- 1
Was at American Academy of Family Physicians, Leawood, KS, USA during the writing of the manuscript.