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
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
- Page 1 and 2: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERV
- Page 3 and 4: HHS Department of Health and Human
- Page 5 and 6: 5. Definition of Qualified EHR 6. D
- Page 7 and 8: technology. Section 3004(b)(1) of t
- Page 9 and 10: esolve identified technical challen
- Page 11 and 12: Some commenters appear to have misi
- Page 13 and 14: efficiencies and desired quality im
- Page 15 and 16: codes must be used “inside” an
- Page 17 and 18: not necessarily have applied to our
- Page 19 and 20: 3. Definition of Implementation Spe
- Page 21 and 22: program established by the National
- Page 23 and 24: criteria adopted by the Secretary a
- Page 25 and 26: Comment. In the context of the defi
- Page 27 and 28: y the certification criteria for a
- Page 29 and 30: commenters asked whether we meant t
- Page 31 and 32: adopted by the Secretary. The secon
- Page 33 and 34: Response. We would like to make cle
- Page 35 and 36: Response. In the Interim Final Rule
- Page 37 and 38: could be a health care professional
- Page 39 and 40: standard for certain purposes. In s
- Page 41 and 42: e voluntary and would not be requir
- Page 43 and 44: already existing regulatory require
- Page 45 and 46: setting). We also include, where ap
- Page 47 and 48: clarification on why the number of
- Page 49 and 50: more clearly specify this capabilit
- Page 51: Response. While we do not require t
- Page 55 and 56: Response. The comments are correct
- Page 57 and 58: enable the user to electronically r
- Page 59 and 60: longitudinal care, or whether the E
- Page 61 and 62: EHR and EHR Module developers to pr
- Page 63 and 64: suggestions for different age range
- Page 65 and 66: Record smoking status for patients
- Page 67 and 68: 23) during the EHR reporting period
- Page 69 and 70: laboratory test results are receive
- Page 71 and 72: commenters reasoned that because a
- Page 73 and 74: laboratory test results to be elect
- Page 75 and 76: or outreach Generate patient lists.
- Page 77 and 78: months). We believe that these revi
- Page 79 and 80: that the PQRI 2009 Registry XML spe
- Page 81 and 82: To better align this certification
- Page 83 and 84: the capability specified by the cer
- Page 85 and 86: vendors were unwilling or unable to
- Page 87 and 88: the concerns expressed by some comm
- Page 89 and 90: Page 89 of 228 electronically compa
- Page 91 and 92: (1) The standard (and applicable im
- Page 93 and 94: for the purposes of demonstrating c
- Page 95 and 96: Guide for Immunization Messaging Re
- Page 97 and 98: Response. We clarify for commenters
- Page 99 and 100: serve as a limiting factor, however
- Page 101 and 102: Page 101 of 228 Unchanged Comment.
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