Category Archives: Digital Physicians

ONC Fact Sheet: State Health Information Exchange Program

Posted on by
Reply

ONC Fact Sheet: Get the Facts on State Health Information Exchange Program
Published on ONC site on 12/3/2010

Improving the nation’s health care through health information technology (health IT) is a major initiative for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), and other HHS agencies are working together to assist health care providers with the adoption and meaningful use of electronic health records.

The ONC-funded State Health Information Exchange (HIE) Cooperative Agreement Program promotes innovative approaches to the secure exchange of health information within and across states and ensures that health care providers and hospitals meet national standards and meaningful use requirements. Demonstrating the secure sharing of information among providers is an essential part of using electronic health records in a meaningful way to qualify for the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs.

About the State HIE Cooperative Agreement Program
In March 2010, ONC granted 56 awards totaling $548 million to help states (including territories) develop and advance resources to facilitate the exchange of health information among health care providers and hospitals within their jurisdictions to ultimately encourage and support information exchange across states. The awards were made to states or organizations designated by states to participate in the program.  

The program aims to ensure that every eligible health care provider has at least one option for health information exchange that meets the requirements of the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs, defined by CMS in a final rule released on July 13, 2010. To this end, awardees will use their funding to:

  • Create and implement up-to-date privacy and security requirements for HIE
  • Coordinate with Medicaid and state public health programs to establish an integrated approach
  • Monitor and track meaningful use HIE capabilities in their state
  • Set strategy to meet gaps in HIE capabilities
  • Ensure consistency with national standards
HIE is fundamental to realizing the full potential of meaningful use of electronic health records and health information technology that can lead to improved coordination, quality, and efficiency of health care.

For More Information About:

Download Get the facts about the State Health Information Exchange Program [PDF - 490 KB]

ONC Fact Sheet: Strategic Health IT Advanced Research Projects (SHARP) Program

Posted on by
Reply

ONC Fact Sheet: Strategic Health IT Advanced Research Projects (SHARP) Program
Published on ONC site 12/3/2010.

The nation has made great strides towards a technologically advanced health care system that offers improved quality, safety, and efficiency. However, there remain challenges and barriers to the adoption of electronic health records and other forms of health information technology (health IT).

The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology has funded the Strategic Health IT Advanced Research Projects (SHARP) program to directly confront these challenges.

The SHARP program supports the discovery of “breakthrough” research findings that will accelerate the nationwide use of health IT and will support dramatic improvements in health care.

About the SHARP Program
SHARP program grants have been awarded to four universities and health care organizations that are leading the way in health IT research and innovation. Each awardee has received $15 million to lead a large collaborative of diverse health care stakeholders, conducting research in one of the following areas:

  • Security and Health Information Technology 

Goals:Develop technologies and policies to increase security safeguards and reduce risk; develop technologies to build and protect public trust

  • Patient-Centered Decision-Making Support

Goals:Use the power of health IT to integrate and support doctors’ reasoning and decision-making as they care for patients

  • Health Care Application and Network Design

Goals:Create new and improved system designs to achieve information exchange and ensure privacy and security of electronic health information

  • Secondary Use of EHR Information

Goals:Develop strategies for using information stored in electronic health records for improving the overall quality of health care while maintaining the privacy and security of protected health information

To accelerate health IT adoption, the universities and health care organizations will also work with technology developers, vendors, and health care providers to apply their findings to the practice of medicine.

For More Information About:

Download Get the facts about SHARP Program [PDF - 276 KB]

ONC Fact Sheet: Health IT Workforce Development Program

Posted on by
Reply

ONC Fact Sheet: Health IT Workforce Development Program
Published on ONC site 12/3/2010.

Health information technology professionals are in demand.

As the nation moves toward a more technologically advanced health care system, providers are going to need highly skilled health IT experts to support them in the adoption and meaningful use of electronic health records.

To help address this growing demand, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) has funded the Health IT Workforce Development Program. The goal is to train a new workforce of health IT professionals who will be ready to help providers implement electronic health records to improve health care quality, safety, and cost-effectiveness.

About the Workforce Development Program
ONC has awarded $84 million in funding for the following Health IT Workforce Development Program activities:

  • Community College Consortia to Educate Health Information Technology Professionals:Five regional groups of more than 70 community colleges in all 50 states have $36 million in grants to develop or improve non-degree health IT training programs that can be completed in six months or less. Programs established through this grant will help train more than 10,500 new health IT professionals annually by 2012.
  • Program of Assistance for University-Based Training:Nine grants totaling $32 million have been awarded to colleges and universities to quickly establish or expand health IT training programs for health IT professional roles requiring training at the university level.  Over the course of the grant, these programs will help more than 1,500 people receive certificates of advanced study or master’s degrees in health IT. All of the certificate programs can be completed in one year or less, and all of the master’s degree programs can be completed in two years or less.
  • Curriculum Development Centers:  $10 million has been awarded to five universities for the development of educational materials for the Community College Consortia program. The materials will also be made available to other schools across the country.
  • Competency Examination Program:A two-year, $6 million grant has been awarded to fund the development of competency exams for health IT professionals.

For More Information About:

Download Get the facts about Health IT Workforce Development Program [PDF - 267 KB]

HHS Fact Sheet 2007: Medicare Physician Performance Measures

Posted on by
Reply

HHS Fact Sheet: Medicare Physician Performance Measures: 2007
HHS Press Release from September 28, 2007
HHS Secretary Leavitt Announces Plan To Share Medicare Physician Performance Measures Through Local Value Exchanges

Today, HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt announced a plan to make Medicare performance measurement information available at the community level.

Release of Physician Performance Information Supports Value-Driven Health Care Initiative

  • The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will use Medicare data to generate physician quality performance measurement results.  These will be consensus-based quality measures adopted by the Ambulatory Care Quality Alliance (AQA) and endorsed by the National Quality Forum (NQF).
  • This ensures that this information is available on a local level, signifying the continued importance of collaboration and helping pave the way toward creating a comprehensive, unified, and effective approach to physician quality measurement.
  • The release of this quality measurement information also supports the efforts of the Value-Driven Health Care (VHC) initiative that aims to create a system of better care at lower costs.  VHC is based on Four Cornerstones: standardized, interoperable electronic health records; ways to measure and compare quality; ways to measure and compare cost; and incentives to improve quality and lower cost.

Local Value Exchanges Will Disseminate Results in Communities

  • The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is developing a process to recognize organizations that support the vision of fostering health care reform at the local level by engaging providers, consumers and other key stakeholders.  These organizations will be called Value Exchanges.
  • This fall, AHRQ will begin accepting applications for Chartered Value Exchanges (CVEs) from existing organizations that have been recognized as Community Leaders for Value-Driven Health Care.
  • CMS will provide the results information to CVEs, which can make information available on a local or regional level.
  • It is anticipated that CMS will begin providing the Medicare results by the summer of 2008. 

Combining Public and Private Data to Provide a Comprehensive Picture of Physician Quality

  • CVEs will act as catalysts to bring together public- and private-sector physician measurement results to stimulate quality improvement and consumer choice in their communities.
  • These organizations will be able to combine the Medicare results they receive with private-sector information generated using the same methodology, producing all-payer physician performance measurement results. 
  • Ultimately, this will provide a more comprehensive picture of physician quality for use by consumers, providers, and other stakeholders.

Learn more about Value-Drive Health Care online at http://www.hhs.gov/valuedriven/.

ONC’s Bean Blogs: Certified EHR Technology Now Available: The Road to Meaningful Use Just Got Easier

Posted on by
Reply

Certified EHR Technology Now Available: The Road to Meaningful Use Just Got Easier
Tuesday, November 30th, 2010 | Posted by: Carol Bean on ONC’s Health IT Buzz Blog and reposted here by e-Healthcare Marketing.

Health care providers who are eligible to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Programs now have a new tool to help them on their road to meaningful use. As of November, ONC’s official Certified Health IT Product List (CHPL) identifies EHR technologies that have been tested and certified as being technically capable of supporting those providers’ achievement of meaningful use based on Stage 1 criteria outlined in HHS rules published on July 28 of this year.

The CHPL now includes more than 90 certified EHR technologies, and the list continues to grow.

A couple of important points about the CHPL:

  1. ONC maintains the CHPL, which is the authoritative, comprehensive, aggregate list of all the EHR technologies certified by an ONC-Authorized Testing and Certification Body (ONC-ATCB). EHR technologies that have been certified by ONC-ATCBs and appear on CHPL are eligible to be used for the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs, and will be given a reporting number for that purpose. At the time of registration or attestation with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), eligible providers can use those reporting numbers as part of qualifying for EHR incentive payments. (This part of the process is shown on the CMS timeline for the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs milestones.)
  2. The Certified Health IT Product List is a snapshot of currently certified EHR technologies. Each Complete EHR and EHR Module on the CHPL has been certified by an ONC-ATCB and reported to ONC. This list is regularly updated as newly certified EHR technologies are reported to ONC.

HHS Resources for Successful Adoption of Certified EHR Technology

With certified EHR technologies now available, eligible health care providers can tap into the other resources HHS has developed to help them adopt and meaningfully use certified EHR technology.

Those resources include:

  1. Regional Extension Centers to provide on-the-ground technical assistance across the country
  2. The Health IT Workforce Development Program to prepare skilled workers for new jobs in health IT
  3. The Beacon Communities Program to highlight best practices
  4. The Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs website. This CMS website contains educational resources and fact sheets with complete program information to help eligible providers adopt and demonstrate meaningful use and receive incentive payments.

These programs support certification policies and processes, all with the ultimate goal of improving the nation’s health through the use of EHR technology and other health information technology.

Re-Cap of ONC EHR Certification Policies and Programs

June to August

ONC established the Temporary Certification Program to authorize organizations to test and certify EHR technology and to establish the processes used for that purpose.

ONC published the Standards and Certification Criteria Final Rule. This rule outlined the capabilities EHR technologies must include to support achievement of meaningful use Stage 1 under the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs.

September

The first ONC Authorized Testing and Certification Bodies were named under the Temporary Certification Program and began testing and certifying EHR technologies based on criteria outlined in the Standards and Certification Criteria Final Rule.

October

ONC published the current Version 1.0 of the Certified Health IT Product List, which lists the EHR products that have been tested and certified under the Temporary Certification Program to the certification criteria adopted by the Secretary and that have been reported to and validated by ONC. In some cases EHR products will have been tested and certified to all applicable adopted certification criteria necessary to meet the definition of certified EHR technology (i.e., those designated Complete EHRs); in other cases they will have been tested and certified to a subset of all of the applicable adopted certification criteria (i.e., those designated EHR Modules), which do not on their own meet the regulatory definition of certified EHR technology.

Version 2.0 of the Certified Health IT Product List is under development and will be available in early 2011. It will provide both additional information, such as a list of the Clinical Quality Measures to which a given product was tested; as well as additional functionality, such as different ways to query and sort the data for viewing. It is also Version 2.0 of the CHPL that will be able to provide the number for reporting to CMS as described above.

As we move forward, we welcome your comments about our efforts and your experiences with implementing health IT.
###

To comment directly on this ONC Health IT Buzz Blog post, click here.

Informatics Experts Call for New Practices by Health IT Vendors to Protect Patient Safety

Posted on by
Reply

Fortify HIT Contracts With Education and Ethics to Protect Patient Safety,
Say Informatics Experts
AMIA takes position on HIT vendor contracts
For full Position Paper see home page of JAMIA http://jamia.bmj.com and look for Position Paper heading, which is in section below “Read JAMIA for free” ed block. Links to position paper and related references are provided there.

Released by AMIA on November 11, 2010 in conjunction with Annual Meeting.
Bethesda, MD–An original and progressive report on health information technology (HIT) vendors, their customers and patients, published online today, makes ground-breaking recommendations for new practices that target the reduction or elimination of tensions that currently mar relationships between many HIT vendors and their customers, specifically with regard to indemnity and error management of HIT systems. In light of the Obama Administration’s $19 billion investment in HIT, paid out in ARRA stimulus funds, these recommendations are particularly significant in helping to foster greater use of electronic health records and other tools in the transition from paper records, largely understood to be a hindrance to quality patient care.

The recommendations, adopted by AMIA— the association of informatics professionals and a trusted authority in the HIT community—strive to imbue the HIT vendor-customer relationship with transparency, veracity, and accountability through collaborative education focused on the installation, configuration and use of HIT systems, in combination with enterprise-wide ethics education to support patient safety. The recommendations are the result of deliberations by an AMIA Board-appointed Task Force. The position statement will appear in the January/February 2011 print edition of JAMIA, the scholarly peer-reviewed journal of informatics in health and biomedicine, co-published by AMIA and the BMJ Group.

“There was a need to consider, study and analyze questions of appropriate oversight,” said AMIA Board Chairwoman Nancy M. Lorenzi, PhD, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Health Affairs and Professor of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University. “With as much interest and investment in HIT as there is today, AMIA—an unbiased third party—wanted to take a fresh look at gray areas that currently exist between vendors and their customers to see where new practices could be implemented to better support patient outcomes and protect patients, who these systems ultimately serve. We think these recommendations do an excellent job of addressing fairness and balancing accountability in the HIT marketplace and in the health sector.”

The report, titled “HIT Vendors, their customers and patients: New challenges in ethics, safety, best practices and oversight,” makes specific recommendations on Contract Language, Education and Ethics, Ethical Standards, User Groups, Best Practices, and Marketing. An additional section addresses Regulation and Oversight of the HIT Industry and next steps.

The report’s first author is Kenneth W. Goodman, PhD, FACMI, director of the University of Miami Bioethics Program. Dr. Goodman chaired the Task Force responsible for the report, a group of AMIA members comprising nationwide representatives of academia, industry, and leading healthcare institutions.

“AMIA provided an important forum in which complex and sometimes conflicting positions were candidly discussed, analyzed and balanced,” said Dr. Goodman. “HIT systems are ubiquitous these days and need better oversight. These recommendations demonstrate a high-value commitment to patient safety, quality care, and innovation—healthcare goals sometimes difficult to reconcile. These recommendations,” he added, “can help individual institutions do more to support successful HIT implementation.”

Among the recommendations is contract language specified to protect patient safety and to spell out the shared responsibility that vendors and their customers have for successful implementation. “Hold harmless” clauses in contracts between vendors and purchasers or clinical users, that absolve vendors for errors or defects in their software, are declared unethical by AMIA.

The AMIA position states that “safe and successful HIT systems further require ethics education, which has become a standard part of professional development in the corporate world.” HIT vendors and their clients are urged to adopt enterprise-wide ethics education to parallel what accrediting healthcare organizations require. Standards for corporate conduct and subsequent education about such standards are also recommended. A variety of informational tools, many aimed for post-market use, are cited among best practices to assist institutions and clinical practices in achieving optimal HIT implementation.

AMIA President and CEO Edward H. Shortliffe, MD, PhD, praised the Task Force and its accomplishment. “This group of informatics and industry leaders recognized the need to meld business ethics into successful adoption of HIT. Their recommendations balance the forces that drive the competitive HIT marketplace with the practical needs of clinicians, patients, researchers, public health workers and officials. AMIA stands by their work and hopes these recommendations will be embraced by the HIT community.”

Full text of the AMIA position on HIT vendors, their customers and patients is available online at www.jamia.org as an open-access document. Its co-authors are Eta Berner, EdD, FACMI, professor of health informatics at University of Alabama at Birmingham; Mark A. Dente, MD, GE Healthcare IT; Bonnie Kaplan, PhD, FACMI, lecturer at Yale University School of Medicine, and Bioethics Center Scholar at the Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics at Yale’s Institution for Social and Policy Studies; Ross Koppel, PhD, professor in the Sociology Department and in School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Donald Rucker, MD, vice president and chief medical officer at Siemens Healthcare U.S.A.; Daniel Z. Sands, MD, MPH, FACMI, director of medical informatics at Cisco Internet Business Solutions Group, and clinical assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School; and Peter Winkelstein, MD, MBA, chief of the Division of General Pediatrics at Women & Children’s Hospital of Buffalo, and chief medical informatics officer at UB/MD, the University of Buffalo Physicians Group.

AMIA, the leading professional association for informatics professionals, serves as the voice of the nation’s top biomedical and health informatics professionals and plays an important role in medicine, health care, and science, encouraging the use of data, information and knowledge to improve both human health and delivery of healthcare services.

Real-Time Availability
The AMIA position paper will be the topic of discussion at a late-breaking scientific session to be led by Dr. Goodman and two co-authors at AMIA’s 34th Annual Symposium on Biomedical and Health Informatics, on Wednesday, November 17, 2010, at 10:30 a.m.–12 p.m., at the Washington Hilton, in Washington, D.C.

Certified Health IT Product List: Ambulatory, Inpatient Tables — Alpha by Vendor as of 11/12/2010

Posted on by
1

49 Complete EHRs for Physicians and 10 for Hospitals;
Plus 17 Modular EHRs for Physicians and 14 for Hospitals
Office of National Coordinator for Health IT’s validated list of tested and certified Electronic Health Records (EHR) units (complete and modular) has grown to 90, including 49 complete EHRs for clinician office settings and 10 for inpatient hospital settings. Another 31 EHRs have been categorized as modular EHRs with 17 for clinical office settings and 14 for inpatient hospital settings. The modular EHRs include EHRs that may lack certification in only one or more of the criteria, including security. The ONC table contains a field called “Certification Status,” which links to the approved criteria.

Selected Fields from
ONC’s Certified Health IT Product List as of Nov 12, 2010
Ambulatory and Inpatient Tables, Alpha Ordered by Vendor
ONC has added a field to CHPL list identifying each certified EHR as either ambulatory or inpatient. e-Healthcare Marketing has separated list into two tables, and alpha-ordered each table by vendor.

Excerpted from ONC CHPL List on 11/13/2010
“The Certified HIT Product List (CHPL) provides the authoritative, comprehensive listing of Complete EHRs and EHR Modules that have been tested and certified under the Temporary Certification Program maintained by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC). Each Complete EHR and EHR Module listed below has been certified by an ONC-Authorized Testing and Certification Body (ONC-ATCB) and reported to ONC. Only the product versions that are included on the CHPL are certified under the ONC Temporary Certification Program. Please note that the CHPL is a “snapshot” of the current list of certified products. The CHPL is updated frequently as newly certified products are reported to ONC.”

USING THE CHPL
“Certified products are identified with the name of the certifying ONC-ATCB, the ONC certification number, vendor information, product information, and product version number. The CHPL is currently sorted alphabetically, by Product Name.

“EHR products classified as Complete EHR have been certified to meet all the mandatory certification criteria as identified in the Standards and Certification Criteria Final Rule (45 CFR Part 170 Part III). Complete EHR products listed on the CHPL have been certified to meet all of the General Criteria listed in Section 170.302, plus all of the criteria applicable to a type of practice setting. (In the Final Rule, the certification criterion for Accounting for Disclosures (§ 170.302(w) ) is optional for systems or technologies seeking certification and may not appear.) The products identified as Inpatient EHR products and listed under the Inpatient Practice Setting additionally fulfill the specific criteria defined in 45 CFR Part 170.306. The Certified EHR products identified as Ambulatory EHR products and listed under the Ambulatory Practice Setting additionally fulfill all of the specific criteria defined in 45 CFR Part 170.304.

“EHR Modules are those technologies that are certified to at least one of the certification criteria as defined in the Standards and Certification Criteria Final Rule. Due to the regulatory requirement that EHR Module technologies be certified to the security criteria elaborated in the Final Rule, many EHR Modules will be certified to more than one of the regulatory criteria.

“To determine which criteria a particular product is certified to meet, click on the Certification Status link at the end of the row for that listed product. You will be taken to another table indicating which of the Certification Criteria a particular Complete EHR or EHR Module has been certified to meet.

“Please note: This is Version 1.0 of the Certified Health IT Product List (CHPL). Version 2.0 is under development and is expected to provide additional information, such as a list of the Clinical Quality Measures to which a given product was tested; and additional functionality, such as different ways to query and sort the data for viewing. The later version will also provide the above-mentioned reporting number that will be accepted by CMS for purposes of attestation under the EHR (“meaningful use”) incentives programs. Please send suggestions and comments regarding the Certified Health IT Product List (CHPL) to ONC.certification@hhs.gov, with “CHPL” in the subject line.”

Selected Fields from ONC CHPL Product Certification Overview
Not included in table below are Certifying ATCB, ONC Certification #, and Certification Criteria.
This list has been organized into two tables by e-Healthcare Marketing–Ambulatory and Inpatient.
Please see official CHPL List on ONC site for complete listing.
This list was last modified on November 12, 2010.

Ambulatory

Vendor Product Product Classification Product Ver. #
ABEL Medical Software Inc. ABELMed EHR – EMR / PM Complete EHR 11
Allscripts Allscripts PeakPractice Complete EHR 5.5
Allscripts Allscripts Professional EHR Complete EHR 9.2
Aprima Medical Software, Inc Aprima Complete EHR 2011
athenahealth, Inc athenaClinicals Complete EHR 10.1
BioMedix Vascular Solutions TRAKnet Practice Management Software Complete EHR 2
BizMatics Inc PrognoCIS Modular EHR Version 2.0
Cerner Corporation Millennium Powerchart, Healthe Exchange, IQHealth, Health Sentry, Cerner Health Record and P2 Sentinel Complete EHR 2007.19.12 and P2 Sentinel v4.2.1
Cerner Corporation Millennium Powerchart, Healthe Exchange, IQHealth, Health Sentry, Cerner Health Record and P2 Sentinel Complete EHR 2010.01.07 and P2 Sentinel v4.2.1
Cerner Corporation Millennium Powerchart, Healthe Exchange, IQHealth, Health Sentry, Cerner Health Record and P2 Sentinel Complete EHR 2010.02.01 and P2 Sentinel v4.2.1
Cerner Corporation Millennium PowerWorks, Healthe Exchange, IQHealth, Health Sentry, Cerner Health Record and P2 Sentinel Complete EHR 2007.19.12 and P2 Sentinel v4.2.1
ChartLogic, Inc. ChartLogic EMR Complete EHR 7
Compulink Advantage/EHR Complete EHR 10
CureMD Corporation CureMD EHR Complete EHR Version 10
DocPatientNetwork Doctations Complete EHR 2
DrFirst Rcopia MU Modular EHR 3.x
eClinicalWorks LLC eClinicalWorks Complete EHR 9
eClinicalWorks LLC eClinicalWorks Complete EHR 8.0.48
Emdeon Inc. Emdeon Clinician Complete EHR 7.4
empowersystems empowersystems (ambulatory) Complete EHR 1.1.57
Enable Healthcare Inc., (EHI) Mdnet Modular 3
Epic Systems Corporation EpicCare Ambulatory – Core EMR Complete EHR Summer 2009
Epic Systems Corporation EpicCare Ambulatory – Core EMR Complete EHR Spring 2008
Eyefinity/OfficeMate OfficeMate/ExamWRITER Complete EHR 10
First Insight Corp MaximEyes SQL Electronic Health Records Modular EHR 1.1.0.0
GE Healthcare Centricity Advance Complete EHR 10.1
GE Healthcare Centricity Practice Solution Complete EHR 9.5
GEMMS, Inc. GEMMS ONE Complete EHR 7.5.10
gloStream, Inc. gloEMR Complete EHR 6
Greenway Medical Technologies, Inc. PrimeSuite Complete EHR 2011
HealthFusion MediTouch EHR Complete EHR 3
ifa united i-tech Inc. ifa EMR Modular 6
Ingenix Ingenix CareTracker Modular 7
Intivia, Inc. InSync Complete EHR 5.4
Intuitive Medical Software UroChartEHR Complete EHR 4
IO Practiceware, Inc. IO Practiceware Complete EHR 7
Kabot Systems VistA++ EHR Office Edition Complete EHR 2.0.0.1
MCS – Medical Communication Systems, Inc. iPatientCare Complete EHR 10.8
Medical Informatics Engineering WebChart EHR Complete EHR Version 5.1
MedInformatix, Inc MedInformatix Complete EHR 7.5
Meditab Software, Inc. IMS Complete EHR v. 14.0
Medrium Inc. Complete Practice Management Modular MU Stage 1
Midwest Software, LLC Chiro QuickCharts Modular 2.5
NeoDeck Software NeoMed EHR Complete EHR 3
Netsmart Technologies Avatar Modular 2011
Networking Technology dba RxNT RxNT EHR Modular 7
NexTech Systems Inc. NexTech Practice 2011 Complete EHR 9.7
nextEMR, LLC nextEMR, LLC Complete EHR 1.5
NextGen Healthcare NextGen Ambulatory EHR Complete EHR 5.6 SP1
Nortec Software Inc Nortec EHR Complete EHR 7
Practice Fusion Practice Fusion Modular 2
PriMedx Solutions, LLC PriMedx EHR Complete EHR 10.8
Pulse Systems 2011 Pulse Complete EHR Complete EHR 2011
QRS, Inc. PARADIGM Modular 8.3
RelayHealth, a division of McKesson Corporation RelayClinical Platform Modular 10.2
Sage Sage Intergy Meaningful Use Edition Complete EHR 6.2
Sammy Systems SammyEHR Modular 5.1.1
Secure Infosys LLC MYEMR Complete EHR 2.4
StreamlineMD, LLC StreamlineMD Complete EHR 10.8
SuccessEHS SuccessEHS Complete EHR 6
SuiteMed Intelligent Medical Software (IMS) Complete EHR V14
T-System Technologies, Ltd. T SystemEV Modular 2.7
Universal EMR Solutions Physician’s Solution Complete EHR 5
Vision Infonet Inc., MDCare EMR Modular 4.2
WellCentive WellCentive Patient Registry Modular Version 2.0
Workflow.com, LLC workflowEHR Complete EHR 2.5

 Inpatient

Vendor Product Product Classification Product Version #
Allscripts Allscripts ED Modular 6.3 Service Release 4
Cerner Corporation Cerner Millennium Powerchart, Cerner Millennium FirstNet, Cerner Millennium ProFile, Health Sentry, Healthe Exchange, Cerner Healthe Record, IQHealth and P2 Sentinel (Powered by Sensage) Complete EHR Version 2007.19.12, P2 Sentinel Version 4.2.1
Cerner Corporation Cerner Millennium Powerchart, Cerner Millennium FirstNet, Cerner Millennium ProFile, Health Sentry, Healthe Exchange, Cerner Healthe Record, IQHealth and P2 Sentinel (Powered by Sensage) Complete EHR 2010.02.01 and P2 Sentinel v4.2.1
Cerner Corporation Cerner Millennium Powerchart, Cerner Millennium FirstNet, Cerner Millennium ProFile, Health Sentry, Healthe Exchange, Cerner Healthe Record, IQHealth and P2 Sentinel (Powered by Sensage) Complete EHR 2010.01.07 and P2 Sentinel v4.2.1
EDIMS, LLC EDIMS Modular 2.6
EHR Doctors, Inc. MediBridge for VistA/CPRS Modular 2
empowersystems empowersystems (inpatient) Complete EHR 1.1.57
Epic Systems Corporation EpicCare Inpatient – Core EMR Complete EHR Summer 2009
Epic Systems Corporation EpicCare Inpatient – Core EMR Complete EHR Spring 2008
GE Healthcare IT Centricity Enterprise, including any combination of Enterprise Orders, Gemini Orders, Centricity Enterprise Medication Reconciliation, Centricity Enterprise Discharge Instructions, Menon™ Medication Reconciliation, and Menon™ Discharge Instructions Complete EHR 6.6.3.2
Health Care Systems, Inc. HCS eMR Modular 4
MEDHOST, Inc. EDIS Modular 4.2
Netsmart Technologies Avatar Modular 2011
PeriGen PeriBirth Modular 4.3.51
Prognosis Health Information Systems ChartAccess Complete EHR 4
Siemens Medical Solutions USA Inc INVISION EHR Complete EHR 2010
Siemens Medical Solutions USA Inc INVISION EHR B2 Modular EHR 2010
Siemens Medical Solutions USA Inc INVISION EHR B3 Modular EHR 2010
Siemens Medical Solutions USA Inc INVISION EHR B4 Modular EHR 2010
Siemens Medical Solutions USA Inc Soarian EHR Complete EHR 2010
Siemens Medical Solutions USA Inc Soarian EHR B2 Modular EHR 2010
Siemens Medical Solutions USA Inc Soarian EHR B3 Modular EHR 2010
T-System Technologies, Ltd. T SystemEV Modular 2.7
Wellsoft Corporation Wellsoft EDIS Modular v11

Please see official CHPL List on ONC site for complete listing.

CMS Organizes FAQs on EHR Incentive Payments

Posted on by
Reply

Electronic Health Record Incentive Payment FAQs, all 106 so far, reorganized in eleven categories.
CMS FAQs plus three sets of ONC FAQs related to Certification
Accessed from CMS and ONC sites on 11/10/2010.

ALL Electronic Health Records (EHR) FAQs

FAQS from ONC site related to Certificiation

  • ONC Regulations FAQs Related to Certification
                                  PDF Version of ONC Regulations FAQs
  • Standards and Certification Criteria Final Rule: Frequently Asked Questions
  • Temporary Certification Program: Frequently Asked Questions

    • Accountable Care Organization Workshop: CMS, FTC, and OIG

    Posted on by
    Reply

    Summary, Audio and Transcripts from  Oct 5, 2010 Workshop on ACOs
    FTC, CMS and OIG held a workshop on Accountable Care Organizations on October 5, 2010 to hear from all stakeholders.

    Taft Stettinius & Holllister LLC’s summary report of the meeting on Lexology Oct 13, 2010, said ”based upon the opening comments of Don Berwick, the Administrator of CMS, FTC Chairman Jon Liebowitz, and HHS Inspector General Dan Levinson, it is clear that the agencies believe that ACOs present a significant opportunity to meet what Administrator Berwick described as the ‘triple aim’ of truly integrated health care: better care for individual patients and better health for the general population, at a lower per capita cost of achieving both without diminishing quality.”

    Recordings and Transcripts for the October 5, 2010 Workshop Regarding Accountable Care Organizations, and Implications Regarding Antitrust, Physician Self-Referral, Anti-Kickback, and Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) Laws (Posted 10/19/10) and Accessed 10/25/2010:

    Privacy & Security ‘Tiger Team’ Seeks Comments on Provider-Entity Authentication: Due Oct 29

    Posted on by
    Reply

    Privacy & Security “Tiger Team” Seeks Comments on Provider-Entity Authentication
    Please comment by October 29, 2010
    Tuesday, October 19th, 2010 | Posted by: Deven McGraw and Paul Egerman and reposted here by e-Healthcare Marketing.

    The Privacy & Security Tiger Team is currently considering policy recommendations to ensure that authentication “trust” rules are in place for information exchange between provider-entities (or organizations).  We are currently evaluating these trust rules at the organizational level, and as such, our scope here does not include authentication of individual users of electronic health record (EHR) systems.  For purposes of this discussion, authentication is the verification that a provider entity (such as a hospital or physician practice) seeking access to electronic protected health information is the one claimed, and the level of assurance is the degree of confidence in the results of an authentication attempt. 

    We hope that we can have a robust discussion on this blog that provides valuable input on this topic.  All comments are welcome, but we particularly encourage you to consider the following questions:

    1. What strength of provider-entity authentication (level of assurance) might be recommended to ensure trust in health information exchange (regardless of what technology may be used to meet the strength requirement)?
    2. Which provider-entities can receive digital credentials, and what are the requirements to receive those credentials?
    3. What is the process for issuing digital credentials (e.g., certificates), including evaluating whether initial conditions are met and re-evaluation on a periodic basis?
    4. Who has the authority to issue digital credentials?
    5. Should ONC select an established technology standard for digital credentials and should EHR certification include criteria that tests capabilities to communicate using that standard for entity-level credentials?
    6. What type of transactions must be authenticated, and is it expected that all transactions will have a common level of assurance?

    Please comment by October 29, 2010, and identify which question(s) you are responding to.

    Thank you,
    Deven McGraw and Paul Egerman
    Privacy & Security Tiger Team Co-Chairs

    Please comment directly on ONC Health IT Buzz blog by clicking on this link.