Buy A New Technology or Further Develop Legacy Systems

Lately, technology security has taken center stage as health organizations face increased challenges of maintaining the security of patient health information (PHI).  While securing data is of concern, determining the most applicable and cost-efficient technology is the most important priority.

Accelerating digital transformation and leveraging emerging technologies have become a fundamental imperative for hospitals, health systems and physician groups.  Technology executives seek to leverage today’s disruptive technology applications to improve the performance of legacy systems or purchase enhancing technologies to reduce cost or improve operational performance.

Provider organizations are pursuing strategies for reimagining their core systems that involve modernizing and revitalizing, while also being on the lookout for less expensive and more efficient new technologies.   The overarching objective of any Information Technology (IT) initiative is to transform the foundation of technology to be more agile, intuitive and responsive to meet today’s clinical and financial needs while laying the foundation for tomorrow.

With the rapid advancement of supportive technologies such as web and cloud computing gaining increased visibility as an  enterprise initiative, there lies a question for healthcare leaders: should providers develop new technology capabilities as an internal project, or should they be sourced from a specialized external vendor—or both?

The classic method for evaluating the pros and cons of a technology “buy-versus-build decision” are outlined below by Michael Dunne, Senior Vice President of Creative Executions.1

The Pros and Cons of Internal Development 

Pros: The advantages of building:

Satisfy unique needs—The main benefit of building a custom solution is that you are free to build whatever you want and can accommodate very specific requirements of stakeholders.  You are not dependent on a vendor’s choices and direction in product development.

Employ insider insight—A homegrown solution also makes it easy to capitalize on your IT department’s familiarity with the principal lines of businesses, stakeholders and processes to expedite delivery of a solution that meets expectations.

Utilize familiar tools—When building an internal technology, there may be opportunities to leverage technologies already in place.  This can lower costs and time-to-deployment for IT, and help end users get accustomed to systems (by resembling standard tools).

Maintain control and accountability—When the system breaks down, you know how to fix it.

Cons: The issues with building:

Resource constraints—Without expertise, many mistakes can be made throughout the development process, monopolizing resources and causing headaches. Building robust rules and constraint engines can be very demanding for non-experts. Many well-intentioned teams that utilize the homegrown route end up with no system at all.

Trailing innovation—Insufficient time and focus make it nearly impossible to build a solution that incorporates all the latest technological advances, so you may end up missing out on must-haves and latest developments in mobility, analytics, knowledge management or rich visualization.

Limited tactical solutions—Many solutions built by internal teams are designed to address specific and current realities.  These solutions can be difficult to grow and evolve when new requirements arise down the road from existing or different sets of stakeholders.

Maintenance costs—with all the time and effort required to maintain a solution internally, it can be challenging—if not impossible—to upgrade features adequately in a way that satisfies changing business needs in a timely fashion.

The Pros and Cons of Working With a Technology Solution Vendor 

Pros: The advantages of buying:

Access critical technologies—Technology vendors live and breathe their specialty, so they are better equipped to deliver a system that promotes scalable growth by leveraging expertise in their particularl fields (e.g., constraint engines, rules engines, knowledge and content management and pricing execution).

Enjoy the latest innovations—Taking advantage of the latest technology developments is a no-brainer, especially if they’ve been tested by large, demanding enterprise organizations.

Expand functional breadth—Working with a technology vendor means you profit from the ability to bundle key, complementary features with your configuration solution, like connectivity with other systems.

Improve system growth potential—A well-built, prepackaged solution that comfortably covers existing business practices is also likely to be flexible and receiving enhancements to keep abreast of the most recent trends.  Hence, you can do more than solve just a set of current problems and be better prepared for future contingencies.

Offload maintenance burden—Let your software vendors and contractors take care of upgrades and maintenance so that you can focus on your core business issues.

Utilize expert resources—Independent technology and integration vendors possess a wealth of institutional knowledge and skills, both technical and business best practices that make it much simpler to expand and modernize your solution over time.

Cons: Issues with buying:

Loss of control—When you work with a vendor, the vendor manages the process for making changes or updates to the system.  Also, a vendor may assume a significant proportion of responsibility for the initial implementation.  Be sure to get a clear understanding of the solution roadmap and enhancement schedule before committing to a vendor.

End-user acceptance—As with any new solution, it is important to get buy-in from all affected stakeholders before you implement, otherwise getting adoption can be a challenge.  Look and feel, system usability and intuitiveness of features to end users are all important issues to explore.

Vendor lock-in—Changing vendors after deployment is not an easy task, so it is important to weigh your options carefully and make the right choice upfront.

Vendor instability—A vendor’s viability should be determined before a commitment is made.  Ideally, you want someone who can demonstrate longevity, a good track record and can provide references.

The most important measure in a buy-versus-build decision is the degree of customization required.  Each organization needs to decide their unique tipping-point where the customization of a pre-built technology will take more time or be more expensive than internal or contracted development.

When a technology application must meet unique needs, like those that exist in a healthcare provider’s organization, a purchased solution typically is the preferred approach.  However, even with a purchased solution, the degree of customization required to make it usable ultimately creates a custom application.  This emerging design has evolved into a buy-plus-build scenario.

Over the last 15 years, healthcare computing technology has suitably changed to address most of the traditional reasons for not building internally.  Therefore, the purchased technology methods have transformed into a buy plus build process.   In their article in Healthcare Informatics titled Is it really “Buy vs. Build”?  Jason Kreuter Ph.D., Allison Stover, and Peter Basch M.D. outline five reasons why to buy plus build has become so prevalent.2

  1. Integration — New technologies have eased the formerly complicated integration among different healthcare applications. For example, web services and XML (the basis for HL7 version 3) provide a mechanism for developers to design applications that can independently utilize, and be used by, other applications now or in the future.  Inter-application integration is easier with custom-developed systems, whereas integrating packaged systems can be difficult because of their proprietary design.  Also, custom applications can evolve as clinical practice changes or as the hospital adds new systems.
  2. Knowledge transfer — In modern standards-compliant development, knowledge transfer is not as labor intensive as in the past. Keeping track of changes in a custom application is facilitated with code tracking tools such as Visual Source Safe or the open-source Concurrent Versions System.  If open-source applications are capable of combining the efforts of thousands of independent developers into one coherent product, it is clearly possible to successfully transfer application knowledge in a funded organization.  Knowledge transfer can be eased by defining a development mindset that employs detailed documentation and re-usable code, and discourages programmers from “falling in love” with their own
  3. Core competency — The concern that application development is not currently a hospital’s core competency is correct. However, the field of medical informatics was created by, and in, the hospital.  Over time, the field transitioned out of the hospital and to the vendor.  Why shouldn’t healthcare systems leverage their vast clinical and organizational knowledge base to make some clinical application development a core competency?  In fact, vendors have purchased hospital-developed software in the past. McKesson Horizon Expert Orders, for example, was developed by Vanderbilt University Hospital and Microsoft’s recent purchase of Azyxxi from MedStar Health proves that a hospital system can develop a quality product (build plus build).
  4. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) — Mark Twain popularized Benjamin Disraeli’s statement, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.” TCO studies are no exception.  It is well known that the time period dramatically affects the cost analysis.  What will be the savings in 10 to 15 years—a scale easily obtainable given the lifespan of healthcare IT systems?  What is the cost when the organization wants to change clinical practice workflow that necessitates vendor customization to the system?  What happens to a system that is no longer actively maintained if the vendor goes out of business?
  5. Application Maintenance — Diverse healthcare organizations need to constantly innovate and adapt to stay ahead in their marketplace. It stands to reason that an application will need to be updated to reflect the practice and practice workflow changes.  A custom application is capable of changing in-step with the hospital’s changes—an evolutionary process rather than an abrupt process, which can be a dramatic and disruptive shock to a hospital.  A packaged product seldom makes timely and dramatic shifts in the application because they cannot; the product is used by other hospitals who may not want to change their practice workflows.

The buy versus build methodology has morphed into more of a buy-plus-build process. This is due to the scope and complexity of launching purchased software that must meet the requirements for rapidly changing rules and regulations, driving patient satisfaction and improving bottom line financial performance.

The long-term impact on a provider’s organization warrants careful consideration so that technology decisions are made with the strategy that ultimately will have the most positive effect on the entire enterprise.  While it takes substantial time and effort from technology leaders and stakeholders to make the most appropriate decision buy, build or both, the costs of making a poor decision can be catastrophic.  On the other hand, the benefits of making the right decision can positively affect a hospital’s bottom line for decades to come.


Phil C. Solomon is the publisher of Revenue Cycle News, a healthcare business information blog and serves as the Vice President of Global Services for MiraMed, a healthcare revenue cycle outsourcing company.  As an executive leader, he is responsible for creating and executing sales and marketing strategies which drive new business development and client engagement. Phil has over 25 years’ experience consulting on a broad range of healthcare initiatives for clinical and revenue cycle performance improvement.  He has worked with industry’s largest health systems developing executable strategies for revenue enhancement, expense reduction, and clinical transformation. He can be reached at



  1. Adopting CPQ? Does it make more sense to build or buy? Michael Dunne, Senior Vice President of Creative Executions
  2. Healthcare Informatics, Is it really “Buy vs. Build”? Jason Kreuter Ph.D., Allison Stover, and Peter Basch M.D.



The Distinction Between Telemedicine and Telehealth

telemedicineThe American Telemedicine Association (ATA) defines telemedicine as the remote delivery of healthcare services and clinical information using telecommunications technology. Today, as telemedicine crosses the chasm of innovation, it leverages a wide array of clinical services using internet, wireless, satellite and telephone media to deliver clinical care.

What is the distinction between telemedicine and telehealth? Some industry pundits use the terms “telemedicine” and “telehealth” interchangeably. The more popular definition is that telehealth is explicitly defined in law and/or policy and regulations. In some cases, “telehealth” is used to reflect a broader definition, while “telemedicine” is used mainly to define the delivery of clinical services. Both have one thing in common. They are setting a new “gold standard” in the delivery of healthcare services. For the purpose of simplicity, the term telehealth will be used to describe both terms.

Lawmakers, Providers and Consumers Strike Telehealth Gold

Telehealth is booming! The growth of this medical sector is happening so rapidly that it can be compared to the astonishing progression of the California Gold Rush in 1848. The gold seekers of yesteryear can be compared with today’s providers and medical technologists. Due to telehealth, the delivery of care is advancing swiftly in the U.S. In comparison, gold miners progressed from using simple techniques to “pan” for gold to adopting sophisticated methods to uncover millions of dollars of gold. The “gold” healthcare providers will receive in the telehealth rush will be the opportunity to develop a healthier and better-served patient.

Unlike the gold rush that was over almost as soon as it started (1848–1855), telehealth’s growth seems to have no end in sight. That said, the technological delivery of clinical care is not without its challenges. There is ongoing legal wrangling and discussions between attorneys, legislators, lobbyists and industry groups about how each state will handle telehealth’s evolution and reimbursement.

The “tug of war” about how to implement telehealth began over 40 years ago with hospitals attempting to extend care to patients in remote areas. According to the ATA, the use of telehealth has spread rapidly and now is used in some form by over 50 percent of American hospitals. It has been so successful at improving a patient’s clinical health status that the technologies are advancing to include a growing variety of applications and services using two-way video, email, smart phones, wireless tools and other forms of telecommunications technology.

Policymakers Grapple with State Telehealth Laws

In March 2016, the Center for Connected Health Policy (CCHP), a program of the Public Health Institute, released the fourth annual edition of the State Telehealth Laws and Medicaid Program Policies report.1 This guide provides policymakers, health advocates and other professionals the most current information on telehealth-related policies, laws and regulations for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The key findings of the report determined that no two states are alike in how telehealth is defined and regulated. While there are some similarities in language, perhaps indicating states may have utilized existing verbiage from other states, noticeable differences still exist. These differences create a confusing environment for telehealth participants to navigate, particularly when a health system provides healthcare services in multiple states.

The report focused on ten specific telehealth-related policy areas:

  1. Medicaid reimbursement– Forty-nine states have some form of reimbursement for telehealth in their public program.
  2. Reimbursement for live video– The most predominantly reimbursed form of telehealth modality is live video, with every state coverage law offering some type of live video reimbursement.
  3. Reimbursement for remote patient monitoring (RPM)– Only 16 states have some form of reimbursement for RPM in their Medicaid programs RPM.
  4. Reimbursement for email/ phone/fax– Email, telephone and fax are rarely acceptable forms of delivery unless they are in conjunction with some other type of system.
  5. Reimbursement for transmission/facility fee– Thirty states will reimburse either a transmission, facility fee or both.
  6. Location of service provided– Although the practice of restricting reimbursable telehealth services to rural or underserved areas, as is done in the Medicare program, is decreasing, some states continue to maintain this policy.
  7. Consent issues– Twenty-nine states include some sort of informed consent requirement in their statutes, administrative code and/or Medicaid policies.
  8. Licensure– Nine state medical boards issue special licenses or certificates related to telehealth.
  9. Online prescribing– There are a number of nuances and differences across the states. However, most states consider using only an internet/online questionnaire to establish a patient-provider relationship (needed to write a prescription in most states) as inadequate.
  10. Private payer laws– Currently, 31 states and the District of Columbia have laws that govern private payer reimbursement policies.

It is not a shock to discover wide differences of opinion between state legislators and policymakers regarding the future of telehealth. Some states are expanding telehealth reimbursement, while others continue to restrict and place limitations on delivered services. The differing implementation of telehealth is no surprise. Coming to a universal agreement about any healthcare legislation is about as easy as finding a gold nugget at an abandoned gold mine.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) report, in 2015 there were 200 telehealth bills introduced in all but eight states, and in the current legislation session in the 2016 legislative session over 150 bills have landed on state lawmakers’ desks. Because of this, there are no shortages of legal questions and issues healthcare providers, hospitals and other enterprises need to be aware of regarding telehealth services.

A Legal Expert Weighs In on Telehealth’s Future

Nathaniel Lacktman, head of the law firm Foley & Lardner’s telemedicine and virtual care practice and a leading authority on the latest legal and policy issues surrounding the telehealth market, provides answers to seven key questions about the emergence of telehealth and how it is affecting lawmakers, providers and consumers.2

  1. Question:What are your thoughts regarding telemedicine policy?

Nathaniel Lacktman: Some of the most interesting policy activity concerns payment for telemedicine-based services and socalled telehealth coverage statutes. These laws require a health insurance plan to cover a service delivered via telehealth if that service would be covered if delivered in person. In this way, telehealth coverage statutes are like consumer rights laws. An individual has no choice as to what insurance company his or her employer selects to administer his or her benefits, no choice as to what specific health plan is offered under that benefit plan and no choice as to which providers are contracted in that plan’s network. So, even insured patients feel a sense of disenfranchisement in the health insurance industry. And health coverage is arguably the most important insurance coverage a person might carry. Consumers have far more ability to flex their spending power when buying life insurance, disability insurance or car insurance. Yet, health insurance is a very different process, and the individual consumer really cannot speak with his or her dollars.

Telemedicine is well established and utilized by patients and doctors in all 50 states. But, by and large, unless a state passes a telehealth coverage law requiring health plans to cover these services, they do not cover it. An insurance company might have operations across the country, with a variety of different health plans underneath it. The insurer will cover telehealth services when it has a health plan in a state with a telehealth coverage law, but in states without these laws, the insurer will not offer telehealth as a covered benefit. I find this disappointing and frustrating, as do many healthcare providers and patients. We see a much more robust and meaningful utilization and enjoyment of telehealth services in those states that have passed telehealth insurance coverage laws.

  1. Question:How much are differences in state laws and insurance barriers affecting the telehealth industry?

NL: Variances across states in multi-state arrangements are definitely a barrier. Much of the traditional healthcare delivery system relies on Medicare payments, and a large amount of our overall health costs are paid by that program. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) sometimes is unfairly criticized because people “demand” CMS change the Medicare telehealth coverage rules and allow reimbursement for patients in urban areas as well as rural. But these restrictions were imposed by Congress and contained in the Social Security Act. CMS cannot override these federal statutes. However, CMS has made many outreach efforts to eliminate restrictions and promote the meaningful use of telemedicine in healthcare delivery, and it should be recognized for those efforts. A number of bipartisan bills have been proposed over the years, but they will need federal action. By April 2017, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) will issue two reports on telehealth studies and the Medicare program to see if eliminating the restrictions would represent a big financial burden or not. Those reports were required to be created as part of the “doc fix” bill in April 2015 and could be a catalyst for legislative movement by Congress.

  1. Question:How are state variances affecting the telemedicine market?

NL: I do believe we will eventually reach a point where health plans are meaningfully covering telehealth services, whether it is through legislative efforts or sheer enrollee demand. Until then, we need these coverage statutes because so many providers participate in managed care programs. Changing that environment will catalyze utilization, adoption and people’s enjoyment of these services.

  1. Question:How are the variances in state telemedicine laws creating issues when it comes to interstate medical licensing?

NL: Primarily, it is an administrative paperwork burden, but nothing insurmountable. Here’s an easy scenario: the doctor is located in New York, the patient is in Miami, and the patient receives a consult, diagnosis and prescription from that doctor via telemedicine. The default rule is that the New York doctor must have a license to practice medicine in Florida because the doctor is delivering care into the state of Florida. There are exceptions to this rule. Licensing is not a show-stopper; it’s more of an operational or administrative burden. But there are a multitude of solutions and ways to approach licensing and scale up to have regional and national coverage of a telehealth-based medical group.

  1. Question:What other challenges do you see in the industry that might be preventing telemedicine from taking that next “leap?”NL:Like anything new, it takes time for buzz to build and for people to become comfortable. Historically, telemedicine has been focused in the academic medical center and university environment, if only because that’s traditionally the domain of pilot programs and research studies to prove clinical efficacy. But the clinical efficacy and safety have been established. Now, we have been seeing studies trying to prove telemedicine’s ROI. People are looking to scalability and sustainability: how to structure service offerings with operational homogeneity so there aren’t variances on a state-by-state basis. I think there’s a better understanding of why providers are using telemedicine, how they plan to use it and a desire to build a model that does not rely solely on cost savings or shoestring grant-funded budgets. Rather, the service itself should generate revenue and improve quality. That’s the next level of sophistication in telehealth business arrangements. In our practice, we aren’t just papering the legal documents, but we frequently advise clients on the business models and structures that will offer these benefits. Some people love the flashy and exciting technology but have no idea about how to turn it into a viable business or service line.
  2. Question:Are doctors more comfortable with providing these services compared to years past?

NL: Yes, they are more on board and it continues to grow. The American Medical Association approved new ethical guidelines on telemedicine use after three years of back-and-forth. At this point, it is pretty irrefutable. People are doing amazing things with telehealth and doing it with confidence. As with anything, you need education and exposure before doing it with comfort.

  1. Question:What will it take for telemedicine programs to integrate themselves more fully into health systems?

NL: The biggest driver that will fuel overall growth is the move toward population health. That’s a concept a lot of hospitals are driving for as providers will be paid more on a risk-based system with quality of care implications and penalties or risk if the cost of care gets out of control. Already, the smart health systems are looking for ways to reach out to patients to make care more accessible and convenient. The second part is the increasing amount of information available to the doctors by using tools such as remote patient monitoring and patient-centered apps where the goal is to get more information coming from the patient to the doctor. That’s the idea: make care more accessible to the patient and get more (and better) information to the caregivers. If that is achieved, providers will be in a much better position to be successful under these risk-based models, which is the future of healthcare.

Telehealth — Gold Will Be the Consumer’s Reward

Telehealth has become the healthcare delivery model of the 21st Century and a powerful application to help achieve better healthcare, enhanced health outcomes and reduced healthcare costs. By developing efficiencies and spreading the reach of existing care providers, telehealth has the capability to improve healthcare workforce issues and overcome access obstacles, thus decreasing costs and burdens for patients.

The future of telehealth now relies on lawmakers and policy influencers to continue to push the telemedicine narrative by eliminating regulatory barriers to telehealth delivery models, including policies around reimbursement, licensure and credentialing. History reveals that sometimes progress and success can be as fleeting as it was during the gold boom of the 1800s. As long as state and federal regulations keep pace with the technological advances in the practice of clinical care and telehealth, then gold will be the consumer’s reward.


Phil C. Solomon is the publisher of Revenue Cycle News, a healthcare business information blog and serves as the Vice President of Global Services for MiraMed, a healthcare revenue cycle outsourcing company.  As an executive leader, he is responsible for creating and executing sales and marketing strategies which drive new business development and client engagement. Phil has over 25 years’ experience consulting on a broad range of healthcare initiatives for clinical and revenue cycle performance improvement.  He has worked with industry’s largest health systems developing executable strategies for revenue enhancement, expense reduction, and clinical transformation. He can be reached at


1Healthcare Informatics, For Telemedicine Providers, the Policy Landscape Continues to Have Both Gains and Losses, Report,
2 Healthcare Informatics Managing Editor Rajiv Leventhal – Q&A discussing the challenges and opportunities facing the telehealth market,



KEEP IT OR DITCH IT – That is the question – You be the judge

Side-by-Side Comparison of the Candidates’ Health Care Positions provided by Kaiser Family Foundation –

Hillary Clinton Donald Trump
Position on the ACA
  • Maintain and build upon the ACA.
  • Repeal the ACA in its entirety. Repealing the law would rollback many changes to private health insurance, coverage through Medicaid and the marketplaces, preventive and women’s health services, and Medicare coverage and savings provisions.
Health Insurance Coverage and Costs
Insurance Premiums
  • Increase premium tax credits available through the Marketplaces so that individuals and families pay no more than 8.5% of their income on health insurance premiums.
  • Work with interested governors to establish a public option plan in their states using current flexibility under the ACA.
  • Create a fallback process that gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to modify or block unreasonable health insurance rate increases in states that do not have such authority.
  • Fix the “family glitch”.
  • Repeal the Cadillac tax.
  • Allow people to buy health insurance across state lines.
  • Allow payments individuals make toward health care premiums to be tax deductible.
Out-of-Pocket Costs
  • Require plans to provide three sick visits per year that do not count towards deductibles.
  • Provide a new progressive refundable tax credit of up to $2,500 for an individual, $5,000 per family, for out-of-pocket costs (including marketplace premiums) in excess of 5% of income for insured individuals who are not eligible for Medicare or claiming existing deductions for medical costs.
  • Ensure consumers are required to pay no more than in-network cost-sharing for care received in a hospital in their plan’s network.
  • Enforce ACA transparency requirements; and require employers, providers, and insurers to provide more information about out-of-pocket costs, doctor networks, prescription drug costs, and other elements of health insurance so that consumers can make informed choices.
  • Allow people to enroll in tax-free Health Savings Accounts to pay for out-of-pocket costs, usable by all family members and inheritable without tax penalty.
  • Require price transparency from all health care providers to enable individuals to shop for the best prices on medical procedures.
Coverage for Immigrants
  • Allow families—regardless of immigration status—to buy insurance through the Health Insurance Marketplaces.
Outreach and Enrollment
  • Invest $500 million per year in a campaign to facilitate enrollment of eligible individuals into Marketplace coverage and Medicaid.
Medicaid Expansion
  • Encourage states to adopt the Medicaid expansion by allowing any state that expands Medicaid to receive a 100% federal match for the adult expansion population during the first three years, regardless of when the state chooses to expand.
Medicaid Financing
  • Maintain current Medicaid financing structure.
  • Transform Medicaid into a block-grant to states.
Medicare Buy-in
  • Allow people age 55-64 to buy-in to Medicare.
Medicare Drug Prices
  • Allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, especially for high-cost drugs with limited competition.
  • Require drug manufacturers to provide rebates in the Medicare low-income subsidy program that are equivalent to rebates in the Medicaid program.
Payment System Reform
  • Expand value-based delivery system reform in Medicare and Medicaid, and propose public-private efforts that incentivize employers and insurers to expand these payment models.
  • Focus on prevention by helping school districts implement age-specific drug abuse education programs and help communities develop peer and mentorship programs.
  • Increase funding for the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant by 15% to expand access to inpatient and outpatient treatment.
  • Create a state fund to help police, fire departments, and EMTs purchase naloxone, and ensure all first responders have access to it
  • Require licensed prescribers to meet training requirements and consult a prescription drug monitoring program before writing a prescription for controlled medications.
  • Direct the Department of Veterans Affairs and CMS to disseminate guidelines that identify treatments for pain management other than opioids.
Insurance Coverage
  • Ensure enforcement of insurance parity laws between physical and behavioral health.
  • Reevaluate Medicare and Medicaid payment practices to remove obstacles to reimbursement and help integrate care for addiction into standard practice.
Criminal Justice
  • Direct the Attorney General to issue guidance on prioritizing treatment over incarceration for nonviolent and low-level federal drug offenders.
Prescription Drugs
  • Allow Americans to import drugs for personal use from foreign nations whose safety standards are as strong as those in the US.
  • Allow consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas.
Out-of-Pocket Drug Costs
  • Require health insurance plans to place a monthly limit of $250 on covered out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for individuals.
Generic Drugs and Biologics
  • Increase the availability of generic drugs by prohibiting “pay-for-delay” deals and by fully funding the FDA’s Office of Generic Drugs to clear out their generic drug approval backlog.
  • Lower the biologic exclusivity period from 12 to 7 years and direct FDA to give prioritized, expedited review to biosimilar applications with only one or two competitors in the marketplace.
Drug Prices
  • Eliminate corporate tax deductions for direct-to-consumer advertising; and require FDA approval of these advertisements.
  • Require pharmaceutical companies that benefit from federal support to invest a “sufficient amount” of revenue in research and development or pay rebates to support basic research.
  • Build on ACA provisions that use the results of private-sector analyses to hold drug companies accountable for justifying costs.
Women’s Reproductive Health
Reproductive Health
  • Protect a woman’s right to make personal health decisions and preserve access to affordable contraception, preventive care, and safe, legal abortions.
  • Oppose efforts to defund Planned Parenthood.
  • Repeal the Hyde Amendment.
  • Opposes abortion except to save the life of the woman or in the cases of rape or incest.
  • Supports laws that would limit access to later term abortions.
  • Defund Planned Parenthood.
  • Make Hyde Amendment permanent law.
  • Provide emergency funding for Zika.
  • Create a Public Health Rapid Response Fund to invest in public health preparedness and address emerging disease threats like Zika.


 _______________Phil C. Solomon is the publisher of Revenue Cycle News, a healthcare business information blog and serves as the Vice President of Global Services for MiraMed, a healthcare revenue cycle outsourcing company.  As an executive leader, he is responsible for creating and executing sales and marketing strategies which drive new business development and client engagement. Phil has over 25 years’ experience consulting on a broad range of healthcare initiatives for clinical and revenue cycle performance improvement.  He has worked with industry’s largest health systems developing executable strategies for revenue enhancement, expense reduction, and clinical transformation. He can be reached at


Article is a 4-minute read

screen-business-cell-textingWe all know we shouldn’t text and drive, don’t we? That said, now let’s explore how texting has evolved in healthcare.

The Rise of Text Messaging in America

On June 19, 1934, United States (U.S.) President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, signed the Communications Act of 1934 into law.1  This act established the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) agency that regulates all interstate and foreign communication by wire and radio, telegraphy, telephone and broadcasts such as Short Message Service (SMS) texting.

During the past decade, all forms of electronic communication have flourished, and SMS texting has been a key driver of that growth.  There are over 378 million wireless subscribers in the U.S., and smartphone users are sending and receiving over 1.9 trillion text message annually.2  According to the International Smartphone Mobility Report by mobile data tracking firm Infomate, Americans allocate over 30 minutes a day for their texting activities.  Now that’s a lot of texting!

The FCC Protects Consumer Privacy with TCPA Legislation

Under the direction of the FCC, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) became law.3  The statute was created to protect consumers from unsolicited telemarketing calls, faxes and text messages.

On February 15, 2012, the FCC revised its TCPA guidelines, further restricting telemarketing calls.4   The TCPA requires the prior written consent for most automated telemarketing communications, particularly those made to wireless phones.  However, healthcare communication has its own set of rules.

Healthcare Exemptions to the TCPA

The American Association of Healthcare Administrative Management (AAHAM) lobbied for an exemption from the TCPA’s prior express consent rule for “healthcare-related messages” that is subject to the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).  The FCC issued a Declaratory Ruling and Order5 on July 10, 2015, addressing several provisions of the TCPA.

The HIPAA exemption in the TCPA rule clarifies the requirements for calls and texts to wireless devices as well as calls to residential landline phone numbers.  Under the exemption, communications that deliver a healthcare message made by or on behalf of a “covered entity” or its “business associate,” as defined in HIPAA6, do not require the prior written consent of the party called.

The FCC further clarified that when an individual provided his or her wireless phone number to a healthcare provider, it constitutes permission to contact that number as long as the calls or texts are limited in scope to the purpose of the number provided.7   Healthcare providers can rely on this provision as constituting prior expressed consent under the TCPA.

Legislative changes to the TCPA have opened the door for healthcare providers to adopt texting as an uncomplicated and reliable way to communicate with their patients.  Texting now affords healthcare providers a cost-efficient avenue to communicate internally between staff members and externally between other physicians, hospitals and patients.  This emerging business strategy offers providers new ways to improve patient relations and reduce operating expenses.

TCPA Requirements for Healthcare Text Messaging 

Healthcare providers who deliver exempt “healthcare messages” must meet stringent requirements to remain in compliance with the TCPA.  The following are seven key actions that require adherence:

  1. Text messages must be sent to the wireless telephone number provided by the patient.
  2. Text messages must state the name and contact information of the healthcare provider.
  3. Text messages are strictly limited to the purposes permitted and must not include any advertising or promotional information; may not include accounting, billing, debt collection or other financial content; and must comply with HIPAA privacy rules.
  4. Text messages are limited to 160 characters or less in length.
  5. A healthcare provider may initiate only one text message per day, up to a maximum of three messages per week.
  6. A healthcare provider must offer recipients easy means to opt-out of future messages.
  7. A healthcare provider must honor the opt-out requests immediately.

It is also important to note that in situations where a patient is incapacitated and unable to provide a phone number directly to a healthcare provider, a third party HIPAA-covered intermediary may provide a number.  Consent by a third party on behalf of an incapacitated individual will end when the individual is no longer incapacitated, at which time the provider must get prior express consent from the individual being called.

Risks of Text Messaging with PHI

Every form of HIPAA compliant communication encompasses some level of risk.  Communication by text with patients and other clinicians provides a divergent set of risks that, like other communication methods, requires adhering to compliant practices to ensure the privacy and security of protected health information (PHI).

Unlike some electronic communications that do not store interactions between parties, text messages can be stored on wireless devices indefinitely so it poses a risk that unauthorized third parties could access PHI.  Also, even though wireless carriers encrypt text messages, there are substantial security threats where sophisticated computer hackers may intercept and decrypt messages.  Hackers do not discriminate and will focus on any communication weakness or vulnerability they can access.  If healthcare providers do not follow stringent security protocols, texts sent and received from colleagues and consumers become an easy target for cyber criminals.

Providers cannot mitigate risks if they do not identify and carefully document threats to using electronic methods of sending PHI.  Examples of threats include:

  • Theft or loss of the mobile device
  • Improper disposal of the mobile device
  • Interception of transmission of electronic PHI by an unauthorized person
  • Lack of availability of electronic PHI to persons other than the mobile device user

 Security Measures to Protect Text Messages with PHI

If a provider is considering using text messaging as a way to communicate with patients, developing a risk analysis and management strategy to lessen the chance of a breach is of paramount importance.  Based on the outcome of a risk analysis, a provider is better able to implement suitable controls to protect the organization.

Developing a proper risk analysis and strategy requires performing a systemic evaluation across the entire organization.  Regardless of the method that transmits or shares PHI, it is important to identify all potential gaps in security.  This requires the scrutiny of weaknesses that may exist throughout the system.  Threats can come from organizational applications, internal work processes or involve staff, partners or vendors.  In addition, threats can vary depending on the makeup of a provider’s organization.  Vulnerabilities can exist internally, externally, environmentally and physically.  When evaluating the risk of a PHI breach in your organization, consider the overarching areas of exposure, threats and risks:

  • Digital: (e.g., weak passwords);
  • Physical: (e.g., not shredding PHI);
  • Internal: (e.g., employees);
  • External: (e.g., hackers);
  • Environmental: (e.g., fires);
  • Negligent: (e.g., unknowing employee); and
  • Willful: (e.g., disgruntled former employee).

When implementing security protocols specifically for texting, providers should consider adding the following controls to their security plan and policies:

  • Creating a policy prohibiting the texting of PHI or limiting the type of information shared via text message
  • Carrying out workforce training on the approved use of job-related texting
  • Implementing password protection protocols for mobile devices that create, receive or maintain text messages with PHI
  • Keep an inventory of all mobile devices used for texting PHI
  • Properly disposing of mobile devices that have been used for the texting of PHI
  • Ensuring that all texts that include PHI are notated in the medical record

When executing security training, it is important that it should be easy to understand and should support the policies and procedures developed and put in place in response to the risk analysis and risk management strategy.

Finally, every provider organization should train its workforce so they understand their mobile device policies and procedures and how to follow them.


Mobile messaging and texting has become a key industry initiative.  Healthcare stakeholders have embraced mobile communication as evidenced by their participation and volume of text conversations.  With the advent of the Affordable Care Act, the demand for mobile messaging as a patient engagement tool has steadily increased.  It is apparent that mobile messaging, including text, web and chat communication, will ultimately be a mainstream healthcare communication method.

Strong communication is essential for care coordination, and the use of proper communication tools and channels help providers communicate and provide care across the entire wellness continuum.  Texting is only going to evolve, and health organizations must consider the various risks and take the appropriate measures to ensure the safety of PHI.


Phil C. Solomon is the publisher of Revenue Cycle News, a healthcare business information blog and serves as the Vice President of Global Services for MiraMed, a healthcare revenue cycle outsourcing company.  As an executive leader, he is responsible for creating and executing sales and marketing strategies which drive new business development and client engagement. Phil has over 25 years’ experience consulting on a broad range of healthcare initiatives for clinical and revenue cycle performance improvement.  He has worked with industry’s largest health systems developing executable strategies for revenue enhancement, expense reduction, and clinical transformation. He can be reached at


  1. United States Publishing Office, U.S. Code › Title 47 › Chapter 5 › Subchapter I › § 151
  2. Year-End U.S. Figures from CTIA’s Annual Survey Report
  3. Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991,
  4. FCC Adopts Rules to Strengthen Consumer Protections Against Unwanted Telemarketing “Robocalls” to Wireline and Wireless Phones,
  5. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991; American Association of Healthcare Administrative Management, Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling and Exemption; et al,
  6. Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule,
  7. Free-To-End User Financial and Healthcare Alerts: The FCC Applies Common Sense, With Limitations (FCC TCPA Order Report Parts 7 & 8 of 11) By Blaine C. Kimrey, Lisa M. Simonetti & Bryan K. Clark,


Revenue Cycle News Readmissions 2016Reducing Hospital Readmissions in 2016

Once patients are discharged from the hospital, they have no desire to return. Hospitals also would prefer patients not be readmitted due to medical issues associated with their hospital stay.

Patient readmissions are a major problem plaguing the U.S. healthcare system, and policymakers are taking steps to reduce them.  The efforts to reduce re-hospitalizations begin at the hospital and end with the transition of patients to their home and their community.  But while improving a patient’s transition from hospital to home is important, it is just one factor in preventing readmissions.

The typical cause of a readmission is often the swift deterioration in the patient’s condition, related to the patient’s primary diagnosis and/or comorbidities.  Readmissions can also be attributed to the disintegration and fragmentation of our healthcare system that begins when a patient meets their primary care-provider and continues after discharge.  Readmissions may result from inadequate treatment or sub-par care of the primary issue, or may be caused by poor coordination of services at the time of discharge and afterwards.

The hospital can affect treatments provided in-house; however, they have no control over the patient and how diligent they are following their treatment plan post-discharge.

Hospital readmissions have become a watershed issue for health providers because of the increasingly important impact they have on a hospital’s financial position.  Providers must be prepared to make the adjustments required to ascertain the root causes for readmissions and develop plans to reduce them. With a concentrated and proactive effort it is clear that readmissions can be significantly reduced.1

New tools are becoming available to hospitals to manage their readmissions. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has introduced a national database for hospital readmissions which will assist hospitals in measuring and benchmarking their results against similar hospitals or healthcare systems.

Readmission Measurements and Standards

Section 3025 of the Affordable Care Act added section 1886(q) to the Social Security Act2 which established the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program. This requires Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to reduce payments to Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems (IPPS) hospitals with excess readmissions, effective for discharges beginning October 1, 2012.  The regulations that implement this provision are in subpart I of 42 CFR part 412 (§412.150 through §412.154).

CMS recently released the Fiscal Year 2016 (IPPS) for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long Term Care Hospital (LTCH) Prospective Payment System Policy Changes for 2016.  CMS outlined the following policies with regard to the readmission measures under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program:

  • Readmission is defined as an admission to a subsection (d)3 hospital within 30 days of a discharge from the same or another subsection (d) hospital;
  • Adopted readmission measures for the applicable conditions of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and pneumonia (PN).
  • Established a methodology to calculate the excess readmission ratio for each applicable condition, which is used, in part, to calculate the readmission payment adjustment. A hospital’s excess readmission ratio is a measure of a hospital’s readmission performance compared to the national average for the hospital’s set of patients with that applicable condition.
  • Established a policy of using the risk adjustment methodology endorsed by the National Quality Forum (NQF) for the readmissions measures to calculate the excess readmission ratios, which includes adjustment for factors that are clinically relevant including certain patient demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and patient frailty.
  • Established an applicable period of three years of discharge data and the use of a minimum of 25 cases to calculate a hospital’s excess readmission ratio for each applicable condition.

Readmission Trends for 2009-2013

Developing national data benchmarks for hospital readmissions helps to identify those patient segments with comparatively high readmission rates for targeted improvement efforts.  Monitoring variations in these benchmarks over time allows officials to track and report on advancements made toward reducing readmissions.

As of October 1, 2012, and under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, CMS is required to reduce payments to IPPS hospitals with excess readmissions.  Monitoring readmission trending is more important today than ever.  While there are severe financial repercussions for increased readmissions, they are becoming a key factor in assessing the overarching performance of the entire healthcare system.

Hospitals have taken various measures to reduce hospital readmissions. For example, Partnership for Patients, a national initiative sponsored by the Department of Health and Human Services, is tracking changes in all-cause 30-day hospital readmissions.4  Reduction efforts range from re-engineering discharge practices and improving care transition to building community-wide partnerships for addressing health and social service needs.5

The most recently tracked readmission trends include:

  • Readmissions among all patients covered by Medicare declined from 18.1 per 100 admissions in 2011 to 17.3 per 100 in 2013.
  • Readmission rates among patients who were covered by private insurance or Medicaid did not change appreciably from 2011 to 2013.
  • The 30-day all-cause readmission rate was consistently highest among patients covered by Medicare.
  • Among uninsured individuals, both the number and rate of readmissions increased between 2009 and 2013 (10.6 percent increase in readmission count and 8.9 percent increase in readmission rate).
  • The readmission rate among nonmaternal patients aged 1– 20 years increased substantially between 2009 and 2013: 22 percent increase for uninsured patients, 15 percent increase for those with private insurance, and 8 percent increase for Medicaid patients.
  • The overall readmission rate for all expected payers combined did not change appreciably. From 2009 to 2013, the readmission rate for all payers combined stayed at about 14.0 per 100 admissions.
  • The average cost of a readmission was higher than the average cost of an index admission for all types of payers:
    • 5 percent higher for patients covered by Medicare;
    • 11 percent higher for uninsured patients; and
    • 30 percent higher for patients covered by Medicaid or private insurance.

The readmission trends outlined above provide a macro overview of the segments of the population that are affected by readmissions.  However, without actionable data, hospitals cannot improve readmissions if they don’t know the underlying cause of the problem.

Until now, hospitals did not have a database in which to evaluate their readmission statistics against similar hospitals.  In 2016, The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) introduced a national database tracking hospital readmissions. The data is available through 2013 and it comprises information on 97 percent of all U.S. hospital discharges.

The AHRQ National Readmission Database

The AHRQ Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) is the first all-payer database for monitoring hospital readmissions.  Hospital administrators, policymakers and clinicians are able to use the new database in their analyses and decision-making.

The NRD is part of the AHRQ-sponsored Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) and includes various administrative billing data drawn from the HCUP State Inpatient Databases.

The new database will be used to create estimates of national readmission rates for all payers and the uninsured.  The NRD was constructed from 21 states’ data with reliable and verified patient numbers.

The key features of the NRD include:

  • A large sample size, which provides sufficient data for analysis across hospital types and the study of readmissions for relatively uncommon disorders and procedures;
  • Discharge data from 21 geographically dispersed states, accounting for 49.3 percent of the total U.S. resident population and 49.1 percent of all U.S. hospitalizations;
  • Designed to be flexible to various types of analyses of readmissions in the U.S. for all types of payers and the uninsured;
  • Criteria to determine the relationship between multiple hospital admissions for an individual patient in a calendar year is left to the analyst using the NRD;
  • Outcomes of interest include national readmission rates, reasons for returning to the hospital for care, and the hospital costs for discharges with and without readmissions; and
  • The NRD is designed to support national readmission analyses and cannot be used for regional, state, or hospital-specific analyses.

Are Hospitals Prepared to Reduce Readmissions?

Hospitals now have the required data to evaluate readmissions, but are they prepared to act upon it?  According to an anonymous survey of 320 C-suite, senior-level and quality professionals from hospitals conducted by Q-Centrix,6 the percentage of hospitals penalized for readmissions has increased each year since CMS began imposing them, reaching a high of 78 percent in 2015.  The most recent survey results indicate that only 55 percent of those surveyed expected to be penalized in 2016.

Since 2009, great strides have been made to reduce 30-day all-cause hospital readmission rates for heart failure, pneumonia and myocardial infarction.  This year, CMS penalties will extend to acute COPD and elective hip and knee replacements.  Given the historical trend and the three additional diagnoses recently added, the percentage of hospitals penalized will likely be much higher than 55%.

The senior-level executives that responded to the survey indicated that:

  • Nearly three-quarters of hospitals describe themselves as “somewhat” or “extremely” confident in their ability to reduce readmissions;
  • 15% of quality and compliance professionals are extremely confident they will reduce readmissions; and
  • 23% of C-suite executives are extremely confident they will reduce readmissions.

On average, the respondents are employing:

  • 5 different reduction strategies;
  • 92% are initiating a medication reconciliation process;
  • 87% are educating patients and patient caregivers with better pre-discharge instructions; and
  • 84% are conducting phone calls or other communication to patients post-discharge.

Unfortunately, 3% of the survey respondents have no formal strategy at all.

Readmissions Reduction Strategies

Readmissions are typically characterized as planned or unplanned events and related or unrelated to the initial admission within a 30-day period.  In order to assist with readmission reduction efforts, the American Hospital Association (ACA) developed a framework to help policymakers and providers consider the different types of readmissions.7   They are:

  • A planned readmission related to the initial admission;
  • A planned readmission unrelated to the initial admission;
  • An unplanned readmission unrelated to the initial admission; and
  • An unplanned readmission related to the initial admission.

The most viable scenario for reducing readmissions is the unplanned readmission related to the initial admission. That said, the ACA suggests that public policy efforts should be focused on this category of care to reduce readmissions.

Regardless of the care provided, re-hospitalizations for some patients are unavoidable.  Hospitals cannot influence the occurrence of unplanned, unrelated readmissions because they cannot be anticipated or prevented.  However, some readmissions may be prevented through proactive hospital practices, such as:

  • Readmissions clinically related to a prior admission are possibly preventable if one or more actions are taken;
  • Delivery of quality care in the initial hospitalization;
  • Adequate discharge planning;
  • Comprehensive post-discharge follow-up; and
  • Focused coordination from inpatient and outpatient providers.

What Can Patients Do to Avoid Readmissions?

No patient wants to be admitted into a hospital.  And they certainly want to recover from their illness as quickly as possible.  While the bulk of responsibility for care lies with the hospital or provider, patients can positively influence their own recovery and reduce the chances of being readmitted.  In April 2014, a Consumer Reports investigation titled How to Avoid Hospital Re-admissions outlined six steps patients can take to reduce the chance of being readmitted.  They are:

  1. See a discharge planner. The patient and/or their primary care giver should discuss the steps that should be taken when they are released from the hospital.
  2. Determine if you’re really ready to go home. Hospitals and insurance companies have strong financial incentives to discharge patients as soon as possible. A patient should discuss an extension of their stay with their doctor if they don’t feel ready to go home.  If the doctor isn’t able to extend the stay, patients must appeal to the discharge planner or a hospital patient advocate.
  1. Get a discharge summary. The patient should ask for a clear written statement of what they should do when they get home—for example, how to care for surgical wounds or a broken bone covered by a cast, how active they should be, and when they can shower, drive a car, return to work and resume a normal diet.
  2. Get a discharge list of medication. Patients should ask about medications that they should continue after returning home, including their purpose and side effects, and if they should resume or eliminate drugs taken before admission.
  1. Get late test results. Make sure the doctor releases test results to the patient while they are hospitalized, especially those administered 24 hours before leaving the hospital.
  1. Schedule a doctor’s appointment. Patients should proactively seek to make a follow-up appointment with their doctor to review their progress.

There are additional efforts patients can take to improve their chances of a rapid recovery and lessen the possibility of readmission. The most important post-discharge action a patient can take is to insure that they have open, clear and timely communication with their doctor. By doing so, it will greatly reduce the chance of a re-hospitalization or a trip to the emergency room.


Given the increasing governmental and public scrutiny to control healthcare costs, improve the quality of clinical outcomes and receive the largest financial incentives available, hospitals are acutely focused on readmission reduction strategies.  The effectiveness of reducing readmissions will depend on the integrity of the benchmarking data available, the validity of the methods used for analyzing the data and the steps taken by the hospital and the patient to lower readmission incidences.

Developing national benchmarks for hospital readmissions will help identify those patient populations with relatively high readmission rates for targeted improvement efforts.  Tracking the changes from benchmarking data over time will allow stakeholders to make the adjustments needed to reduce readmissions.


  1. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (2007) Report to the Congress: promoting greater efficiency,
  2. Section 3025 of the Affordable Care Act establishes the Readmission Reduction Program and adds paragraph (q) to Section 1886 of the Social Security Act
  3. Hospitals are eligible to participate in the Medicare EHR Incentive Programs: “Subsection (d) hospitals” in the 50 states or DC that are paid under the Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs),
  4. S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Quality Strategy. 2013 Annual Progress Report to Congress: National Strategy for Quality Improvement in Health Care. July 2013, Updated July 2014. Accessed November 13, 2015.
  5. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Hospital Guide to Reducing Medicaid Readmissions. August 2014. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Accessed November 13, 2015.
  6. Higher Stakes, Troubling Trends and New Ways to Take Control – Readmission Reduction,
  7. Examining the Drivers of Readmissions and Reducing Unnecessary Readmissions for Better Patient Care, TrendWatch, September 2011,


Phil C. Solomon is the publisher of Revenue Cycle News, a healthcare business information blog and serves as the Vice President of Global Services for MiraMed, a healthcare revenue cycle outsourcing company.  As an executive leader, he is responsible for creating and executing sales and marketing strategies which drive new business development and client engagement. Phil has over 25 years’ experience consulting on a broad range of healthcare initiatives for clinical and revenue cycle performance improvement.  He has worked with industry’s largest health systems developing executable strategies for revenue enhancement, expense reduction, and clinical transformation. He can be reached at

Photo credit



The Colossal Shift from Fee-For-Service to Value-Based Reimbursement 

EpicAnyone who has followed the healthcare industry over the past few years understands the transition that is underway moving from the traditional fee-for-service (FFS) model of reimbursing providers for delivering care where physicians and organizations are incentivized to do more and provide more services.  Under this economic model, a provider can make more money by ordering more tests, see more patients and perform more procedures.

The behemoth change to value-based reimbursement (VBR) has turned the traditional reimbursement model on its head, creating a new paradigm for the how providers bill for the services they deliver.

Instead of provider compensation being calculated by the number of visits and tests they order (FFS), their revenue is now centered on value-based-care (VBC) and result-based payments.  Frequently, VBC is commonly referred to as “the value equation“: quality over cost over time.  This systemic adjustment has materially altered the relationship between the patient, provider, and the payer.  The health industry is now becoming more like a traditional customer-centric business.  The consumer (patient) and the change to healthcare consumerism is now king.  The voice of the consumer is becoming increasingly more important in the delivery of care.

Unlike at any time in our healthcare system’s history, healthcare providers focus on improving the patient experience (PE) through better care, improved clinical outcomes, open pricing for services, more sensitive patient engagement and overall better patient satisfaction.  For patients, this means safe, appropriate, and effective care with enduring results, at reasonable costs.

This overarching change is now focused on reducing overall healthcare costs, lowering consumers cost for care and improving quality and results.  The structural shift is driving innovation across the entire healthcare continuum.

Under this new system, providers are evaluated by the value and outcomes of care.  This process takes into consideration a wide variety of quality measures.  These new value-based models require that providers to demonstrate they are attaining the appropriate quality thresholds that benefit patients while also cutting the cost of care.  A lot of today’s value-based incentives—and penalties—rely on quality measures.  The transition to this new reimbursement model is easier said than done.  The transition from FFS to VBR is a complicated process and will transpire over many years.  There are no validated estimates of how long this transition will take.

For several years, providers have been required to submit quality measures to The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for programs such as Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR), Hospital Outpatient Quality Reporting (OQR), and Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS).  The measures providers have to comply with tie to penalties and incentives.  This is a new paradigm.  Providers now need robust analytics to quantify the financial and quality performance for each population of patients.  To achieve this, they require measuring performance on an ongoing basis.  If they are not meeting quality standards, they need to be able to quickly identify the cause and make changes to mitigate the issues.  For those providers and health systems that cannot achieve the required scores, the financial penalties and reduced reimbursements will create a significant financial burden.

The Role of the Affordable Care Act and Increased Consumerism

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been the catalyst for the transformation of the healthcare industry.  With the ACAs mandate for improving the quality of care, health organizations are expected to streamline the process of delivering care and improve its results.  Delivering the best service and outcomes and delighting the patient with an exceptional experience matters more now than ever before because there are significant reimbursements at stake.

“It has been almost a decade since the Institute of Medicine (now called the Health and Medicine Division) designated “patient-centeredness” as one of six goals for a 21st century health care system; the ACA has required the use of measures of the quality of care, public reporting, and performance payments that reflect this ambitious aim.”1

A paper from the Urban Institute’s Urban Quick Strike Series, on behalf of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation said “The ACA repeatedly refers to patient-centeredness, patient satisfaction, patient experience of care, patient engagement, and shared decision-making in its provisions.  Even when the law only uses the more general term “quality measures,” patient-centered assessments are being required for specific programs such as with Medicare’s Value-Based Purchasing Program (VBP).”

Apparently, there is growing evidence from providers of benefits from better communication between providers and patients, and involving patients more closely in their care, including greater adherence to medical advice, fewer complaints, and improvement in patient health.  These observations demonstrate how the VBR and VBC programs create value for the patient.

A Good Patient Experience Equals Great Patient Satisfaction

The consumer is speaking, and the patient experience matters.2

The Beryl Institute’s 2015 Benchmarking Study highlights the growing trend committing resources to improving the patient experience as a new foundation for healthcare.  A cross section of over 1,500 individuals from various demographic populations participated in the study.  When asked to what extent is the patient experience important as a consumer of healthcare and how significant are those experiences when making healthcare decisions, the results were overwhelming.  Almost 90 percent responding said the patient experience was extremely important.  These results send a clear message that there is an increasing cognizance of the consumers’ role as an active participant in their care.

The Beryl Institute defines the patient experience as: “the sum of all interactions, shaped by an organizations culture, that influence patient perceptions across the continuum of care- organization’s shaped by an that influence patient across the of care.”  To develop the Institute’s definition of patient experience, they formed a work group of patient experience leaders from various healthcare organizations.  The group shared perspectives, insights, and backgrounds on what patient experience means to them and collaboratively created this definition.

Healthcare organizations are taking steps to improve the patient experience and are applying the methodology and definition of PE outlined by The Beryl Institute.  At Dimensions Healthcare System, Nicole L. Bailey, Director, of Patient & Guest Experience said “Our adoption of the definition has provided significant breakthroughs in all of our patient experience initiatives.  It provides a solid foundation as PE is woven into the fabric of our culture.”

Dimensions Healthcare System is not the only provider pursuing PE.  Paul Clarke, the Patient Experience Manager at NCH Healthcare System was quoted as saying “The definition of PE will allow me as a driver in improving the patient experience at our organization to include those key elements (interactions, current culture, perceptions, across the continuum of care) in our discussions to encourage a more integrated, quality experience that exceeds the expectations of each patient.”

Measuring Quality

Since the inception of VBP, the measurement of effective patient care delivery is critical to the success of health enterprises.  The move from FFS to VBR also means that reimbursements tie to the quality of care.  Hospitals that provide a higher quality of care than their peers will receive reimbursement incentives, and hospitals that provide a lower quality of care will experience severe penalties.  The quality of care measurement breaks down into two measurements: patient outcomes (70 percent) and patient satisfaction (30 percent).3

With patient satisfaction scores now having a critical bearing on reimbursement, managing patient satisfaction across the enterprise is the highest priority at healthcare organizations throughout the nation.  In fact, according to HealthLeaders Media’s 2013 Industry Survey data, 54 percent of healthcare executives say patient experience and satisfaction is a top priority.4

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-148) includes Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey’s as an instrument and data collection methodology for measuring patients’ perceptions of their hospital experience.

CMS publishes participating hospitals’ HCAHPS results on the Hospital Compare website ( four times a year.  Based in part on these scores, hospitals could have lost or gained from up to 1.5 percent of their Medicare payments in fiscal year 2015 and will have two percent of their reimbursement dollars at risk by fiscal year 2017.

Another public quality measurement is The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) program.  It is a multi-year initiative of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to support and promote the assessment of consumers’ experiences with their healthcare.  The goals of the CAHPS program are twofold:

  • Develop standardized patient questionnaires that are used to compare results across sponsors and over time; and
  • Generate tools and resources that sponsors can use to produce understandable and usable comparative information for both consumers and health care providers.

AHRQ first launched the CAHPS program in October 1995 in response to concerns about the lack of good information about the quality of health plans from the enrollees’ perspective.  At that time, numerous public and private organizations collected information on enrollee and patient satisfaction, but the surveys varied from sponsor to sponsor and often changed from year-to-year.

Over time, the program has expanded beyond its original focus on health plans to address a range of health care services and meet the various needs of health care consumers, purchasers, health plans, providers, and policymakers.  The program is currently in its fourth stage, referred to today as CAHPS IV.

The Patient Becomes a Consumer – An Epic Shift

Patient satisfaction is an important gauge for determining the quality in healthcare.  The level of patient satisfaction is a very effective indicator to evaluate the quality of care providers provide their patients.  Previously, the financial model for healthcare transpired between a payer and provider.  That model mirrors a traditional business-to-business (B2B) transaction.  The ACA and the advent of the State Insurance Exchanges have driven the creation of high-deductible health plans which puts more financial onus on consumers to pay for their care.  This is shifting the economic responsibility to the consumer creating more of a business-to-consumer (B2C) model.

The enterprises that understand how patient satisfaction creates value benefits in a number of ways.  They are:

  • Increased customer (patient) loyalty;
  • Improved patient retention;
  • Consistent profitability or financial viability;
  • Increased staff morale with reduced staff turnover; and
  • Increased personal and professional satisfaction for the provider and the patient.

At the most basic level, patients want to be treated professionally with care and understanding.  To drive excelled patient satisfaction, providers need to:

  • Understanding the patient and their needs;
  • Reduce the inconvenience of wait times;
  • Create a personable provider-patient interaction;
  • Provide clear instructions and educate the patient;
  • Demonstrate problem-solving abilities; and
  • Openly encourage and accept feedback.

The contemporary movement towards improving customer care creates a new millennium in healthcare.  Good clinical outcomes are no longer the only measurement of patient satisfaction.  Creating a positive patient experience is gaining momentum, as one of the most important initiatives hospital and health systems are pursuing.


Today’s provider must strive to achieve the highest level of patient satisfaction to remain competitive in the rapidly changing healthcare ecosystem.  Creating a great patient experience is no longer an outlying issue in healthcare.  It is an industry imperative.

Patient satisfaction is only an indirect determinate of the quality of a provider’s interaction or a hospital’s performance.  The delivery of patient-centric care requires more than just providing health services in a particular way.  Satisfactory patient interactions cannot happen now and then or frequently; they must happen with every patient every time.

Every health organization needs to engage their employees to create a greater PE with the goal of delivering the utmost in patient satisfaction.  If healthcare providers attain this important objective, the chances of success improve exponentially.

1 Robert Wood Foundation, Will the Affordable Care Act Move Patient-Centeredness to Center Stage?


3 Frequently Asked Questions  Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program Last Updated March 9, 2012,

4 HealthLeaders Media’s 2013 Industry Survey data

Read this article and more at MiraMed Global Services


Phil C. Solomon is the publisher of Revenue Cycle News, a healthcare business information blog and serves as the Vice President of Global Services for MiraMed, a healthcare revenue cycle outsourcing company.  As an executive leader, he is responsible for creating and executing sales and marketing strategies which drive new business development and client engagement. Phil has over 25 years’ experience consulting on a broad range of healthcare initiatives for clinical and revenue cycle performance improvement.  He has worked with industry’s largest health systems developing executable strategies for revenue enhancement, expense reduction, and clinical transformation. He can be reached at

Photo credit


A clear signal to increased enforcement where covered entities do not honor PHI requests for access as required by HIPAA

Revenue cycle newsThe U.S. Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has been actively releasing new information regarding the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) compliance, including releasing a frequently asked question (FAQ) aimed at clarifying the rules for fees charged to patients in need of access to medical records.

HIPAA requires covered entities to allow patients access to their records. If patients want a copy of their records, covered entities are permitted to charge a reasonable, cost-based fee to cover the cost of labor, supplies and postage. Until recently, there was very little official guidance on what constitutes reasonable. A recent FAQ was released that clarifies this issue.

Fees for Labor
According to the FAQ, the cost of labor should solely be for fees related to copying records. It includes reasonable costs for copying the PHI requested by the individual, in paper or electronic form and the cost to prepare an explanation or summary of the PHI. This is only if the person chooses to receive an explanation or summary in advance and agrees to the fees.

The cost of labor also includes labor for creating and delivering the electronic or paper copy if the form is requested by the individual. It is calculated from the time the PHI is identified, retrieved or collected and compiled or collated to when it is prepared to be copied. Examples include photocopying paper PHI, scanning paper PHI into an electronic format and converting electronic information in one format to the format requested by or agreed to by the individual.

According to the FAQ, there has been confusion about what constitutes a prohibited search and retrieval cost. In the past, charging a patient for labor costs related to search and retrieval was not allowed. However, the clarification ensures the fees charged are solely what the OCR considers “copying” for purposes of applying 45 CFR 164.524(c)(4)(i) while not interfering with a person’s ability to access a copy of their records.

Labor can be charged for the cost of preparing an explanation or summary of the PHI, in advance, if the individual chooses to receive an explanation or summary and agrees to the fee that may be charged. The fee for labor does not include the cost associated with reviewing the request for access or searching/retrieving the PHI. Importantly, the OCR points out that it expects labor costs to disappear or at least diminish in most cases. This is due to new technology and further automation of processes used to convert and transfer files.

Fees for Supplies and Postage
Supplies include the cost of creating the paper copy and providing the record on electronic media. Examples include the cost of paper toner, CD or USB drive, respectively. A covered entity may not require a person to buy portable media. Furthermore, the person has the right to have his/her protected health information emailed or mailed upon request. Care must be taken, in such instances, to ensure compliance with other HIPAA requirements to ensure the privacy and security of the information being sent. Moreover, postage may be charged when the individual requests the copy, or the summary or explanation, be mailed.

Fee Calculation
The OCR clarifies how to calculate a reasonable, cost-based fee. According to the FAQ, a covered entity may calculate the fee by determining the actual cost, average cost or using a flat fee for electronic medical records.
A covered entity may calculate actual labor costs to fulfill the request, as long as the labor included is only for copying (and/or creating a summary or explanation if the individual chooses to receive a summary or explanation) and the labor rates used are reasonable for such activity. These approximate costs must still be approved in advance by the individual.

Average cost is determined by creating a schedule of costs for labor based on the average labor costs to fulfill standard types of access requests as long as the types of labor costs included are the ones the Privacy Rule permits a fee for. The covered entity may add the cost of any applicable supply to that amount.

Finally, a flat fee can be charged for all standard requests for electronic copies of PHI that are maintained electronically. The fee cannot be more than $6.50, which includes the cost of labor, supplies and applicable postage.
Due to the varying costs of fees, a covered entity must inform the individual of the cost while the details are being arranged. This helps preserve the patient’s right to access, which is mandated by the Privacy Rule.

State Fees
The FAQ further explains that labor or other costs not permitted by the Privacy Rule cannot be charged to individuals even if authorized by state law. Plainly stated, “[t]he bottom line is that the costs authorized by the State must be those that are permitted by the HIPAA Privacy Rule and must be reasonable.” If the state permits an amount that exceeds the covered entity’s cost to provide the PHI, charging a patient that amount would be unreasonable and impermissible under the Privacy Rule.

However, the HIPAA requirements do not override state laws that require providers to provide one free copy of a medical record. This includes state laws that prohibit fees to be charged to provide individuals with copies of their PHI or allow only lesser fees than what the Privacy Rule would allow to be charged for copies.

Third-party Access
The OCR also addresses the release of PHI to a designated third party. According to the FAQ, PHI can be released to a third party if requested by an individual. The request must be in writing and signed by the individual or entity designated by that person. It must clearly identify the designated person or entity where to send the PHI. An electronically executed request is acceptable and must include an electronic signature, as well as a faxed or mailed copy of the signed request. The same requirements for providing the PHI to the individual, such as the timeliness requirements, fee limitations, prohibition on imposing unreasonable measures and form and format requirements, apply.

A covered entity may not deny an individual’s access request to send PHI to a third party for other purposes. Disagreement with the individual about the worthiness of the third party as a recipient of PHI, or even concerns about what the third party might do with the PHI (except for the express reasons listed in the Privacy Rule, such as in cases where life or physical safety is threatened), are not acceptable reasons to deny the request.

Denial of Access
A covered entity may deny an individual access to all or a portion of the requested PHI in only very limited circumstances. For example, a covered entity may deny a request if a licensed health care professional determines, in the exercise of professional judgment, that the request is reasonably likely to endanger the life or physical safety of the individual or another person.

Although the Privacy Rule allows for the fees, the OCR encourages covered entities to not charge fees for the records, as patient access to Protected Health Information is a necessary component of delivering and paying for healthcare. The OCR will continue to monitor the fees being charged to individuals and determine whether those costs are creating barriers to the access and will enforcement action where necessary.

To read the full version of the recently released FAQ, click here.

You can also view this post on MiraMed’s blog.


Phil C. Solomon is the publisher of Revenue Cycle News, a healthcare business information blog and serves as the Vice President of Global Services for MiraMed, a healthcare revenue cycle outsourcing company.  As an executive leader, he is responsible for creating and executing sales and marketing strategies which drive new business development and client engagement. Phil has over 25 years’ experience consulting on a broad range of healthcare initiatives for clinical and revenue cycle performance improvement.  He has worked with industry’s largest health systems developing executable strategies for revenue enhancement, expense reduction, and clinical transformation. He can be reached at

Photo credit


Changes Proposed to Medicare Appeals Process

July 13, 2016

Current Process Description – Every year, Medicare Administrative Contractors process an estimated 1.2 billion fee-for-service claims on behalf of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for more than 33.9 million Medicare beneficiaries.  When beneficiaries or providers disagree with a coverage or payment decision made by Medicare, they have the right to appeal and the Social Security Act established five levels to the Medicare appeals process:

  1. Redetermination by a Medicare Administrative Contractor
  • No minimum amount in controversy to appeal
  • 60-day target to complete the process
  1. Reconsideration by a Qualified Independent Contractor (QIC)
  • No minimum amount in controversy to appeal
  • Filing deadline 180 days from issuance of a MAC redetermination
  • 60-day target to complete the process
  1. Hearing Before an Administrative Law Judge at the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA)
  • Minimum amount in controversy required for a hearing is adjusted annually based on a formula prescribed by the statute; currently $150
  • Filing deadline 60 days from date of receipt of QIC determination
  • 90-day target to complete the process
  1. Medicare Appeals Council Review
  • Minimum amount in controversy required for a hearing is adjusted annually based on a formula prescribed by the statute; currently $150
  • Filing deadline 60 days from date of receipt of OMHA determination
  • 90-day target to complete the process
  1. Judicial Review in U.S. District Court
  • Minimum amount in controversy required for a hearing is adjusted annually based on a formula prescribed by the statute; currently $1,500
  • Filing deadline 60 days from date of receipt of Medicare Appeals Council determination; or a party may request judicial review by the federal court is the Council does not render an action within 90 days of when the appeal is filed with them

Of the 1.2 billion claims filed in 2015, 123 million or about 10 percent, were denied, and 3.7 million of those (about three percent of total claims) were appealed.

Current Backlog

At Levels 1 and 2, CMS is currently meeting its statutory timeframes to process appeals and is not experiencing a backlog.

At Level 3, the OMHA is currently receiving more than a year’s worth of appeals every 18 weeks.  At the end of 2015, the pending workload exceeded 880,000 appeals while annual adjudication capacity with current level of resources was approximately 75,000 appeals.

At Level 4, the Council is currently receiving more than a year’s worth of appeals every 11 weeks.  At the end of 2015, the pending workload exceeded 14,000 appeals while annual adjudication capacity with current level of resources was approximately 2,300 appeals.

HHS has identified four primary drivers of the increase in volume:

  1. Increases in the number of beneficiaries;
  2. Updates and changes to Medicare and Medicaid coverage and payment rules;
  3. Growth in appeals from State Medicaid Agencies; and
  4. National implementation of the Medicare Fee-for Service Recovery Audit Program.

Action Taken

In a report issued on June 9, 2016, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) stated that U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) should take more steps to improve its oversight of the Medicare fee-for-service appeals process and to reduce the volume of appeals.

On June 28th, the HHS issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing changes to the Medicare claims appeal process, and has recently released a Primer on the Medicare Appeals Process that describes its three-pronged strategy to improve the Medicare Appeals process:

  1. Invest new resources at all levels of appeal to increase adjudication capacity and implement new strategies to alleviate the current backlog.
  2. Take administrative actions to reduce the number of pending appeals and encourage resolution of cases earlier in the process.
  3. Propose legislative reforms that provide additional funding and new authorities to address the appeals volume.

The proposed regulatory changes that appear in the NPRM are the latest in a series of administrative actions designed to reduce the number of pending appeals and encourage resolution of cases earlier in the Medicare appeals process.  In the NPRM, HHS is proposing additional administrative action to: expand the pool of available OMHA adjudicators; increase decision making consistency among the levels of appeal; and improve efficiency by streamlining the appeals process so less time is spent by adjudicators and parties on repetitive issues and procedural matters.

In addition to these administrative actions, the FY 2017 President’s Budget requests additional funding to bring capacity for processing and resolving appeals in line with current appeal volume.  The budget request also includes a comprehensive legislative package aimed at both helping HHS process a greater number of appeals and encouraging resolution of appeals earlier in the process before they reach the OMHA and the Medicare Appeals Council.

If the administrative authorities set forth in the NPRM are implemented in conjunction with the proposed funding increases and legislative actions outlined in the FY 2017 President’s Budget, HHS estimates that the backlog of appeals could be eliminated by FY 2021.

The proposed changes will be posted on the Federal Register website and open to comments through August 29th.


Article is a 4-minute read

CMS Becomes Arch Nemesis of Hospitals with Plans for Site-neutral Rates in Outpatient Payment Rule

CMS Witch of the WestTo hospitals, the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services (CMS) is acting like the terrible Wicked Witch of the West from the movie the Wizard of Oz because of their proposed plans for site-neutral rate reductions.  The 2017 Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) and Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC) Payment System (CMS-1656-P) proposal changes were submitted on July 6, 2016.  The law provides for payment system policy changes, quality reporting provisions, and reduced pay rates that many hospitals would prefer to douse with water and have them disappear like the Wicked Witch rather than have payments reduced at their off-campus facilities.

CMS is proposing a number of policies they believe will improve the quality of care Medicare patients receive.  A key piece of the 2017 proposed legislation is the implementation of Section 603 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. This law affects how Medicare pays for certain items and services furnished by certain off-campus outpatient departments.  Also, CMS is proposing to remove the pain management dimension of the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey for purposes of the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program (VBP).

The OPPS and ASC proposed rule is one of several slated for 2017 that reflect a broader administration-wide strategy to create a healthcare system that results in better care, smarter spending, and healthier people.

The American Hospital Association (AHA), a not-for-profit association that advocates for provider organizations that include nearly 5,000 hospitals, healthcare systems, networks, other providers of care and 43,000 individual members, disagrees with CMS.  Tom Nickels, the Executive Vice President, Government Relations and Public Policy for the AHA issued a statement on July 6, 2016, expressing its disappointment with CMS’ “short-sighted” proposal.

“Hospitals and health systems and more than half of the House and the Senate requested that CMS provide reasonable flexibility when implementing Section 603 of the Balanced Budget Act of 2015 in order to ensure that patients have continued access to hospital care,” Nickels, with the AHA, said.  “Instead, the agency is proposing to provide no funding support for outpatient departments for the services they provide to patients.  This does not reflect the reality of how hospitals strive to serve the needs of their communities.  Also, CMS’ refusal to continue current reimbursement to hospitals that need to relocate or rebuild their outpatient facilities to provide needed updates and ensure patient access is unreasonable and troubling.”

The AHA is not the only industry group that disagrees with CMS.  America’s Essential Hospitals (AEH), a trade group that represents safety-net providers, said that CMS “appeared to ignore Congress’ intent” to use a different payment system for new hospital-owned outpatient facilities.  “Hospital systems that otherwise would seek to enhance access by establishing new clinics in underserved areas will not do so, as this damaging payment policy makes new outpatient centers economically unsustainable,” the organization said in a statement.  Based on comments to date from providers it appears that CMS will have its work cut out for them as they sift through the public’s feedback.  They will accept comments on the proposed rule until September 6, 2016, and will respond to comments in a final rule.  The rule is available in the Federal Register and can be downloaded at

The fundamental changes in the OPPS, and ASC payment system proposed rule include:

  1. Site-neutral payment provisions for emergency departments
    Under the proposed rule, services provided in a dedicated emergency department would continue to be paid under the OPPS and CMS proposed certain restrictions on off-campus provider-based departments that began billing under the OPPS before November 2, 2015.
  2. Payment update
    CMS has proposed updating the OPPS rates by 1.55 percent in 2017.  CMS arrived at its proposed rate increase through the following updates: a positive 2.8 percent market basket update, a negative 0.5 percent update for a productivity adjustment and a negative 0.75 percent update for cuts under the Affordable Care Act.  After considering all other policy changes included in the proposed rule, CMS estimates OPPS payments would increase by 1.6 percent and ASC payments would increase by 1.2 percent in 2017.
  3. Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program
    Beginning with the fiscal 2018 program year, CMS has proposed removing the pain management dimension of the HCAHPS survey of the VBP.  It is their belief that leaving the section in the rule puts pressure on hospital staff to prescribe more opioids and that is ill advised.
  4. Electronic Health Record Incentive Program
    To offer greater flexibility in the meaningful use of the Electronic Health Record Incentive Program (EHR), CMS has proposed a 90-day EHR reporting period in 2016 for all eligible professionals and hospitals.  The reporting period would be any continuous period of 90 days between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016.   Also, CMS noted that it is not feasible for physicians and hospitals that have not demonstrated meaningful use in a prior year to attest to the Stage 3 objectives and measures in 2017.  Under the proposed rule, these new participants would be required to attest to Modified Stage 2 by October 1, 2017.
  5. Hospital Outpatient Quality Reporting Program
    CMS offers hospitals a financial incentive to report the quality of their services.  The hospital reporting program provides CMS with data to help consumers make more informed decisions about their healthcare.  For 2017, CMS has proposed adding seven measures to the Outpatient Hospital Quality Reporting Program for the 2020 payment determination and subsequent years.  Some of the hospital quality of care information gathered through the program is available to consumers on the Hospital Compare website at:

In addition to the changes proposed for site-neutral rates in OPPS and ASC, the 764-page draft rule proposes adjustments to the following:

  • Proposed Comprehensive Ambulatory Payment Classifications (C-APCs) for 2017;
  • Proposed Packaged Services Policy Refinements;
  • Device-Intensive Procedure Policies;
  • Device Pass-Through Applications;
  • Inpatient Only List Paid Under The IPPS;
  • ASC Payment Update;
  • Partial Hospitalization Program (PHP) Rate Setting;
  • Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program;
  • Organ Transplant Enforcement;
  • EHR Incentive Program; and
  • Ambulatory Surgical Center Quality Reporting Program.


CMS is expecting numerous comments on their rule changing proposals.  I’m sure many stakeholders who are vying to change the proposed OPPS and ASC wished they had the all-knowing Wizard of Oz on their side to help them build a compelling case in their favor.

Based on AHA and AEH’s comments, you would think CMS has become an arch-nemesis flying around on a broomstick trying to do harm to their members.  It is the job of the AHA and AEH to protect its members, so it is no surprise they are stepping up to guard their interests.

Does the proposed rule change make sense?  The law seems to discourage organizations from expanding or duplicating services and this may play a part in reducing healthcare costs.  Perhaps encouraging providers to consolidate services into one location would offer some benefits.  Combining specialties into one place would improve parking and access for the sick and elderly population who otherwise have to navigate their way around large campuses.  Consolidation of services impacts workflow, timeliness, and efficiency and would reduce maintenance and other building costs, and eliminate duplicate staffing.

Unfortunately, many facilities have limited land for contiguous expansion.  They will be forced to build upward to avoid the negative financial repercussions the new law will pose.  Since CMS is actively seeking comments on a number of their proposals; there is a good chance that many items inside of the rule will change.  Will CMS’ site-neutral payments rule save Medicare about $500 million in 2017 as they projected?  Only time will tell.


Phil C. Solomon is the publisher of Revenue Cycle News, a healthcare business information blog and serves as the Vice President of Global Services for MiraMed, a revenue cycle outsourcing company.  Phil has over 25 years experience consulting on a broad range of healthcare initiatives for revenue cycle optimization, where he has developed executable strategies for revenue enhancement, expense reduction, and clinical transformation. Previously, he was the CEO of a Fast-Tech 50 healthcare firm, a principal at an INC Magazine’s top 500 Company and he has held various senior leadership positions with national and global business process outsourcing firms. He is an active member of the HFMA Georgia Chapter, has published over 250 articles about revenue cycle optimization and healthcare reform and is a featured speaker at industry educational events. You can reach him at, 404-849-8065 or on Twitter @philcsolomon.

Photo credit:



Free Webinar: Uber-Up Your Patient Payment Liability Strategies

When: July 14, 2016 – 2:00 PM to 3 PM EDT


Sponsored by: The Georgia Chapter of HFMA

Why Use ThGirl Megaphone Orangee Uber Analogy to Reference Patient Payment Liability Strategies?

Uber is an on-demand transportation service which has revolutionized the transportation industry. Uber’s new strategy reimagined the old taxi model into a $50 billion dollar company.

This free webinar will help you “Think Like Uber” by adjusting the way you pursue collecting rising patient liabilities.  

In this webinar, you will learn about the latest trends and techniques to mitigate the risks of the emerging trend of patient payment liability growth and the strategies required to collect more from patients while maintaining patient advocacy and satisfaction. Leaders who deliver high-performing revenue cycle results have one thing in common… they are continually on the lookout for new cutting edge methods to improve their financial position and bottom line.
Discover new strategies that will help you reduce your risk of the industry’s estimated $200 billion in bad debt write-offs in 2016.

Presenter: Phil C. Solomon – Vice President of Global Services at MiraMed

Phil serves as the Vice President of Global Services for MiraMed, a revenue cycle outsourcing company and is the publisher of Revenue Cycle News. He has over 25 years of experience consulting on a broad range of healthcare initiatives for revenue cycle performance improvement by developing executable strategies for revenue enhancement, expense reduction, and clinical transformation.

Learning Objectives:
▪ Current trends in healthcare
▪ Improve scheduling pre-registration/registration processes to collect more cash
▪ Develop POS strategies that include new payment channels and mobile strategies
▪ Understand the scope and trends of patient payment liability
▪ Improve patient collection response rate by leveraging billing statement psychology
▪ Improve collection recovery while maintaining patient satisfaction
▪ Increase bad debt recovery and improve patient advocacy
▪ Learn about the new strategies for debt purchasing

Register today! Uber-Up Your Patient Payment Liability – July 14, 2016 – 2:00 PM to 3 PM EDT 

Register now! Just click this link to sign up!


Phil C. Solomon is the publisher of Revenue Cycle News, a healthcare business information blog and serves as the Vice President of Global Services for MiraMed, a healthcare revenue cycle outsourcing company.  As an executive leader, he is responsible for creating and executing sales and marketing strategies which drive new business opportunities and client engagement. Phil has over 25 years experience consulting on a broad range of healthcare initiatives for revenue cycle optimization, where he has developed executable strategies for revenue enhancement, expense reduction, and clinical transformation.

Previously, he was the CEO of a Fast-Tech 50 healthcare technology firm, a principal executive at an INC Magazine’s top 500 Fastest Growing Private Companies in the U.S. and he has held various senior leadership positions with national and global business process outsourcing firms. He is an active member of the HFMA Georgia Chapter, has published over 250 articles about revenue cycle optimization and healthcare reform and is a featured speaker at industry educational events. You can reach him at, 404-849-8065 or on Twitter @philcsolomon.




Risk Adjustment and HCC Requirements – Another Pandora’s Box?

by Phil C. Solomon July 5, 2016

Risk Adjustment and the Hierarchical Condition Categories Methodology Risk Adjustment (RA) and Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) coding is a payment model mandated by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) and implemented by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The RA program allows CMS to pay plans for the risk of the beneficiaries […]

Read the full article →

Department of Health and Human Services OCR Scrutinizing BAAs

by Phil C. Solomon June 6, 2016

OCR Signals its Concern with Business Associates – BAAs The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has lately been broadcasting its increased attention to, and concern about, HIPAA business associates on a monthly basis. In March, the OCR announced a $1.55 million settlement with North Memorial Health Care of […]

Read the full article →