Meaningful use: a national framework for integrated telemedicine.

INTRODUCTION: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has incentivized electronic health records (EHRs) implementation through meaningful use (MU) to improve healthcare quality and efficacy. Telemedicine is a key tool that has shown its ability to facilitate MU through technological innovation with cost savings and has shown promise in the area of integrated behavioral healthcare. The purpose of this article is to propose a model of MU to frame the incentivized implementation of an integrated telemedicine (ITM)-specific model to effect system-level change. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the background, principles, and a justification for the ITM Model including cost issues, the development and structure of MU in the context of EHRs, the benefits of integrated behavioral healthcare and telemedicine, and the case for their combined implementation in the form of ITM. RESULTS: The model proposed, the ITM Incentive Program, parallels the current MU program and is composed of three stages. Stage 1 focuses on incentivizing current and new Medicaid providers to adapt, implement, and upgrade technology needed to conduct virtual meetings with patients and other healthcare professionals. Stage 2 is a tiered incentive system with process-focused and track metrics related to increasing the number of consultations with patients. In Stage 3, providers are encouraged to continue use of ITM by meeting thresholds for several objectives focused on clinical outcomes. Recommendations for implementing this model within a payment waiver system are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: The ITM Model offers a needed union of integrated care and telemedicine through the combination of technology, business, and clinical processes. The success of MU as a tiered incentive program for EHRs, as well as the precedent of using waiver opportunities for incentive funding repayments, sets forth a strategic framework to successful implementation of ITM to address cost issues and improve quality and access to care in the healthcare system.

Stage 1 of the meaningful use incentive program for electronic health records: a study of readiness for change in ambulatory practice settings in one integrated delivery system.

BACKGROUND: Meaningful Use (MU) provides financial incentives for electronic health record (EHR) implementation. EHR implementation holds promise for improving healthcare delivery, but also requires substantial changes for providers and staff. Establishing readiness for these changes may be important for realizing potential EHR benefits. Our study assesses whether provider/staff perceptions about the appropriateness of MU and their departments' ability to support MU-related changes are associated with their reported readiness for MU-related changes. METHODS: We surveyed providers and staff representing 47 ambulatory practices within an integrated delivery system. We assessed whether respondent's role and practice-setting type (primary versus specialty care) were associated with reported readiness for MU (i.e., willingness to change practice behavior and ability to document actions for MU) and hypothesized predictors of readiness (i.e., perceived appropriateness of MU and department support for MU). We then assessed associations between reported readiness and the hypothesized predictors of readiness. RESULTS: In total, 400 providers/staff responded (response rate approximately 25%). Individuals working in specialty settings were more likely to report that MU will divert attention from other patient-care priorities (12.6% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.019), as compared to those in primary-care settings. As compared to advanced-practice providers and nursing staff, physicians were less likely to have strong confidence in their department's ability to solve MU implementation problems (28.4% vs. 47.1% vs. 42.6%, p = 0.023) and to report strong willingness to change their work practices for MU (57.9% vs. 83.3% vs. 82.0%, p < 0.001). Finally, provider/staff perceptions about whether MU aligns with departmental goals (OR = 3.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.13 to 7.48); MU will divert attention from other patient-care priorities (OR = 2.26, 95% CI = 1.26 to 4.06); their department will support MU-related change efforts (OR = 3.99, 95% CI = 2.13 to 7.48); and their department will be able to solve MU implementation problems (OR = 2.26, 95% CI = 1.26 to 4.06) were associated with their willingness to change practice behavior for MU. CONCLUSIONS: Organizational leaders should gauge provider/staff perceptions about appropriateness and management support of MU-related change, as these perceptions might be related to subsequent implementation.