ehr onc final certification - Department of Health Care Services

ehr onc final certification - Department of Health Care Services ehr onc final certification - Department of Health Care Services

dhss.alaska.gov
from dhss.alaska.gov More from this publisher
10.08.2013 Views

applicable to both Complete EHRs and EHR Modules designed for ambulatory and inpatient settings. Accordingly, we have removed any reference to a particular standard because an eligible professional or eligible hospital that does not have external access to a drug formulary would be able to satisfy this meaningful use measure by checking an internally managed drug formulary. Although the Formulary and Benefits standard is no longer required as a condition of certification, we note that eligible professionals who seek to comply with the electronic prescribing requirements associated with Medicare Part D eligible individuals will need to use this standard as they do today. Additionally, we do not agree that it is within the scope of this rulemaking to address State Medicaid Agencies’ participation in nationwide e-prescribing networks. Comments. Many commenters noted that the drug-formulary requirement should not apply to Complete EHRs and EHR Modules designed for an inpatient setting because there was no proposed requirement for meaningful use Stage 1 for eligible hospitals to electronically prescribe. Many of the commenters recommended removing this as a requirement for eligible hospitals while retaining it with the criteria for eligible professionals. A few commenters specifically recommended adding it to the criterion for electronic prescribing. Several commenters recommended that if the requirement were kept for hospitals it should be written as a separate criterion to address the query of a hospital’s drug formulary during the order entry process and not the NCPDP Formulary and Benefits standard. A commenter stated that current industry practice among vendors of EHR technology is to provide a “generic” national formulary rather than the formulary for a particular plan. The commenter recommended that the functionality require that a user actually perform an eligibility check before access is provided and, in response to Page 52 of 228

that check, the functionality show the correct formulary and benefits information, rather than just generic data. Response. We believe that our discussion above regarding the removal of the standard associated with this certification criterion addresses many of the concerns raised by commenters. However, we disagree with the suggestion that Complete EHRs and EHR Modules designed for an inpatient setting should not be required to include this capability. This capability is required to be enabled for the purposes of meeting the meaningful use Stage 1 measure. Consistent with the final meaningful use Stage 1 objectives which separated drug-drug and drug-allergy checks from drug-formulary checks, we have separated out these capabilities into two different certification criteria. Comments. A commenter stated a concern that this criterion, combined with future meaningful use requirements, will shift providers’ focus from prescribing the best drug for the patient to prescribing what is covered by the patient’s insurance plan or generic brands. Another commenter stated that adding formulary checks to the workload of physicians will decrease physicians’ efficiency and increase their costs. Response. In this rule, the Secretary is completing the adoption of the initial set of standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria for the certification of Complete EHRs and EHR modules. The certification criteria ensure that Certified EHR Technology includes certain capabilities. The extent to which health care providers must use those capabilities and how they integrate EHR technology into their practice falls outside the scope of this rule. We therefore do not believe that these concerns are within the scope of this rulemaking. Page 53 of 228

applicable to both Complete EHRs and EHR Modules designed for ambulatory and<br />

inpatient settings. Accordingly, we have removed any reference to a particular standard<br />

because an eligible pr<strong>of</strong>essional or eligible hospital that does not have external access to a<br />

drug formulary would be able to satisfy this meaningful use measure by checking an<br />

internally managed drug formulary. Although the Formulary and Benefits standard is no<br />

longer required as a condition <strong>of</strong> <strong>certification</strong>, we note that eligible pr<strong>of</strong>essionals who<br />

seek to comply with the electronic prescribing requirements associated with Medicare<br />

Part D eligible individuals will need to use this standard as they do today. Additionally,<br />

we do not agree that it is within the scope <strong>of</strong> this rulemaking to address State Medicaid<br />

Agencies’ participation in nationwide e-prescribing networks.<br />

Comments. Many commenters noted that the drug-formulary requirement should<br />

not apply to Complete EHRs and EHR Modules designed for an inpatient setting because<br />

there was no proposed requirement for meaningful use Stage 1 for eligible hospitals to<br />

electronically prescribe. Many <strong>of</strong> the commenters recommended removing this as a<br />

requirement for eligible hospitals while retaining it with the criteria for eligible<br />

pr<strong>of</strong>essionals. A few commenters specifically recommended adding it to the criterion for<br />

electronic prescribing. Several commenters recommended that if the requirement were<br />

kept for hospitals it should be written as a separate criterion to address the query <strong>of</strong> a<br />

hospital’s drug formulary during the order entry process and not the NCPDP Formulary<br />

and Benefits standard. A commenter stated that current industry practice among vendors<br />

<strong>of</strong> EHR technology is to provide a “generic” national formulary rather than the formulary<br />

for a particular plan. The commenter recommended that the functionality require that a<br />

user actually perform an eligibility check before access is provided and, in response to<br />

Page 52 <strong>of</strong> 228

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!