On January 29, 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Chief Medical Officer, Patrick Conway, announced that CMS plans to propose new rules this spring to update the Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Programs. (A copy of the full announcement, posted to the CMS blog, can be found here.) CMS intends for the modified Meaningful Use requirements to alleviate the reporting burden on providers and respond specifically to concerns related to information exchange readiness and software implementation.Since the inception of the EHR Incentive Programs in 2011, many healthcare providers in the United States have adopted EHRs. However, implementation has not been without challenges. CMS’s planned rules respond to providers’ concerns that the current reporting requirements are too burdensome. CMS is considering proposals that would:
- Shorten the EHR reporting period to ninety-days, rather than one year;
- Align required reporting measures for physicians who bill Medicare; and
- Modify hospital EHR reporting periods to follow the calendar year rather than the fiscal year, with the goal of allowing eligible hospitals more time to incorporate new software into their workflows.
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.