[{"innerBlocks":[],"name":"core\/freeform","postId":1886,"blockType":{"name":"core\/freeform","keywords":[],"attributes":{"content":{"type":"string","source":"raw"},"lock":{"type":"object"}},"providesContext":[],"usesContext":[],"selectors":[],"supports":{"className":false,"customClassName":false,"reusable":false},"styles":[],"variations":[],"apiVersion":3,"title":"Classic","description":"Use the classic WordPress editor.","category":"text"},"originalContent":"Providers are facing a variety of administrative burdens from federal regulations that are increasing healthcare costs and negatively impacting the value of health information technology.

That\u2019s the consensus of industry experts who testified on Tuesday before a Senate health committee hearing on how to reduce administrative spending\u2014expenses that are not directly associated with providing medical goods and services to patients.

\u201cIn the U.S., one of the most substantial administrative costs at all levels of healthcare is regulatory compliance,\u201d Robert Book, a health economist and advisor to the American Action Forum think tank, told lawmakers.

Widespread adoption of electronic health records was supposed to reduce the duplication of tests and diagnostic procedures, Book contends. However, in his testimony, he said the administrative cost of adopting these systems has been incurred by providers yet there is no evidence of any savings.

\u201cIn particular, hospitals continue to repeat tests previously done by other providers, perhaps to validate the results, or perhaps because they get paid for doing the tests again\u2014or perhaps both,\u201d testified Book. \u201cIn this case, a known administrative cost was supposed to reduce actual healthcare costs, but it failed to do so.\u201d

Also See<\/b>: EHRs fall short in reducing administrative costs<\/a>

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate health committee, noted in the hearing that administrative costs account for 8 percent of the nation\u2019s healthcare spending vs. only 1 percent to 3 percent in other countries.

\u201cWhile many administrative tasks in the healthcare system come from outside the federal government\u2014such as insurance company or state requirements\u2014the federal government is clearly at fault for some of this burden,\u201d said Alexander, who pointed to the Meaningful Use program as an example of burdensome rules involving EHR systems.

According to Alexander, the federal government has paid $38 billion in incentives to providers to get them to implement EHRs under Meaningful Use, while instituting \u201cspecific requirements for how doctors must use the systems\u201d and penalizing them when they do not comply with the requirements. EHR systems \u201chave ended up being something physicians too often dread, rather than a tool that\u2019s useful,\u201d he added.

Becky Hultberg, president and CEO of the Alaska State Hospital and Nursing Home Association, told the Senate health committee that hospitals oppose the use of Stage 3 Meaningful Use requirements in Fiscal Year 2019.

\u201cThe level of difficulty associated with meeting all of the Stage 3 current measures is overly burdensome,\u201d said Hultberg in her testimony. \u201cSome of the measure thresholds require the use of certified EHRs in a manner that is not supported by mature standards, technology functionality or an available infrastructure. The costs associated are significant for hospitals and health systems without demonstrable benefit, especially for smaller facilities with negative margins. Small hospitals are often forced to buy expensive upgrades totaling tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, with reporting functionality they don\u2019t need. For a hospital barely staying afloat, that is a significant expenditure.\u201d

\u201cTechnology can be a help but right now it is sometimes a hindrance,\u201d added Hultberg.

Matt Eyles, president and CEO of America\u2019s Health Insurance Plans, testified that a lack of interoperability is a significant challenge to improving the quality of care and lowering costs.

\u201cPhysician reporting on quality measures is impeded by the lack of interoperability across electronic health records and the inability of some EHRs to support the retrieval of quality measurement data,\u201d said Eyles. \u201cTo ensure that consumers have meaningful information on quality, it is important to improve the functionality of EHRs to allow quality data to be extracted and reported on a widespread basis. These efforts should be combined with steps to standardize the use of quality measures across public and private payers, and to streamline and reduce the overall number of quality measures.\u201d

David Cutler, an economics professor at Harvard University, told lawmakers that providers spend a lot of time, effort and money pulling information from EHR systems and putting them in a format that is suitable for pay-for-performance calculations. However, he said that technologically there is no reason why EHRs cannot interface with billing systems or automatically submit information for quality assessment.

\u201cYou have an electronic medical record system and a billing system that keep separate information and the two don\u2019t talk to each other,\u201d Cutler pointed out. \u201cSo, as a result, you have people involved and it\u2019s extremely costly to do that.\u201d

Part of the problem, according to Cutler, is that providers do not want to give health insurers access to EHR systems because they are considered proprietary. He recommends that the Department of Health and Human Services\u2014working with provider organizations\u2014develop and implement a plan to reduce administrative costs in healthcare by 50 percent within five years through payment simplification, standardized pre-authorization policies, as well as integrating EHR and billing systems.

\u201cThe reality of the situation is this\u2014unless the federal government leads the way, the United States will continue wasting hundreds of billions of dollars annually on unnecessary administrative expenses,\u201d Cutler warned.","saveContent":"Providers are facing a variety of administrative burdens from federal regulations that are increasing healthcare costs and negatively impacting the value of health information technology.

That\u2019s the consensus of industry experts who testified on Tuesday before a Senate health committee hearing on how to reduce administrative spending\u2014expenses that are not directly associated with providing medical goods and services to patients.

\u201cIn the U.S., one of the most substantial administrative costs at all levels of healthcare is regulatory compliance,\u201d Robert Book, a health economist and advisor to the American Action Forum think tank, told lawmakers.

Widespread adoption of electronic health records was supposed to reduce the duplication of tests and diagnostic procedures, Book contends. However, in his testimony, he said the administrative cost of adopting these systems has been incurred by providers yet there is no evidence of any savings.

\u201cIn particular, hospitals continue to repeat tests previously done by other providers, perhaps to validate the results, or perhaps because they get paid for doing the tests again\u2014or perhaps both,\u201d testified Book. \u201cIn this case, a known administrative cost was supposed to reduce actual healthcare costs, but it failed to do so.\u201d

Also See<\/b>: EHRs fall short in reducing administrative costs<\/a>

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate health committee, noted in the hearing that administrative costs account for 8 percent of the nation\u2019s healthcare spending vs. only 1 percent to 3 percent in other countries.

\u201cWhile many administrative tasks in the healthcare system come from outside the federal government\u2014such as insurance company or state requirements\u2014the federal government is clearly at fault for some of this burden,\u201d said Alexander, who pointed to the Meaningful Use program as an example of burdensome rules involving EHR systems.

According to Alexander, the federal government has paid $38 billion in incentives to providers to get them to implement EHRs under Meaningful Use, while instituting \u201cspecific requirements for how doctors must use the systems\u201d and penalizing them when they do not comply with the requirements. EHR systems \u201chave ended up being something physicians too often dread, rather than a tool that\u2019s useful,\u201d he added.

Becky Hultberg, president and CEO of the Alaska State Hospital and Nursing Home Association, told the Senate health committee that hospitals oppose the use of Stage 3 Meaningful Use requirements in Fiscal Year 2019.

\u201cThe level of difficulty associated with meeting all of the Stage 3 current measures is overly burdensome,\u201d said Hultberg in her testimony. \u201cSome of the measure thresholds require the use of certified EHRs in a manner that is not supported by mature standards, technology functionality or an available infrastructure. The costs associated are significant for hospitals and health systems without demonstrable benefit, especially for smaller facilities with negative margins. Small hospitals are often forced to buy expensive upgrades totaling tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, with reporting functionality they don\u2019t need. For a hospital barely staying afloat, that is a significant expenditure.\u201d

\u201cTechnology can be a help but right now it is sometimes a hindrance,\u201d added Hultberg.

Matt Eyles, president and CEO of America\u2019s Health Insurance Plans, testified that a lack of interoperability is a significant challenge to improving the quality of care and lowering costs.

\u201cPhysician reporting on quality measures is impeded by the lack of interoperability across electronic health records and the inability of some EHRs to support the retrieval of quality measurement data,\u201d said Eyles. \u201cTo ensure that consumers have meaningful information on quality, it is important to improve the functionality of EHRs to allow quality data to be extracted and reported on a widespread basis. These efforts should be combined with steps to standardize the use of quality measures across public and private payers, and to streamline and reduce the overall number of quality measures.\u201d

David Cutler, an economics professor at Harvard University, told lawmakers that providers spend a lot of time, effort and money pulling information from EHR systems and putting them in a format that is suitable for pay-for-performance calculations. However, he said that technologically there is no reason why EHRs cannot interface with billing systems or automatically submit information for quality assessment.

\u201cYou have an electronic medical record system and a billing system that keep separate information and the two don\u2019t talk to each other,\u201d Cutler pointed out. \u201cSo, as a result, you have people involved and it\u2019s extremely costly to do that.\u201d

Part of the problem, according to Cutler, is that providers do not want to give health insurers access to EHR systems because they are considered proprietary. He recommends that the Department of Health and Human Services\u2014working with provider organizations\u2014develop and implement a plan to reduce administrative costs in healthcare by 50 percent within five years through payment simplification, standardized pre-authorization policies, as well as integrating EHR and billing systems.

\u201cThe reality of the situation is this\u2014unless the federal government leads the way, the United States will continue wasting hundreds of billions of dollars annually on unnecessary administrative expenses,\u201d Cutler warned.","order":0,"get_parent":{},"attributes":[],"attributesType":{"content":{"type":"string","source":"raw"},"lock":{"type":"object"}},"dynamicContent":""}]

EHRs seen as challenge in reducing healthcare administrative costs

More for you