Physicians increasingly expect the ability to access EMRs on their mobile devices. As we relayed in this space in July, a recent survey found that 100 percent of physician practices that are considering switching EMRs view mobile access as a requirement for their next system.

The differences between ICD-9 and ICD-10 stem from the aims of the newer coding standard. Of particular interest to specialty practices, ICD-10 will much more adequately and accurately describe care and will serve much better for reimbursement purposes, for which ICD-9 was never intended. For ICD-10 to deliver these advantages, it must offer a much larger number of codes. ICD-9’s smaller format restricted its code capacity, which had simply hit its limit. That’s why ICD-9 is being retired on October 1, 2015, in the transition to ICD-10, which affects coding for patients covered by any health insurance, not just Medicare or Medicaid. Specialty practices with insurance reimbursements need to focus only on ICD-10-CM, which is for all diagnosis coding, and can ignore hospital inpatient coding’s ICD-10-PCS.

As more and more physicians adopt an electronic health record (EHR) system, it would seem that the government’s plan to incentivize EHR use is paying off. The question, though, is for who? According to a recent survey conducted by Medical Economics, more than two thirds of today’s physician-operated practices have implemented an EHR into their daily routine but many of them aren’t so sure of its payoff. With that being said, as the industry works to find a systematic way of documenting and managing healthcare, providers are now making the move to switch systems to find the perfect fit for their style of practice. Citing pain points such as less-than-desirable functionality and the lack of preparedness for meeting compliance deadlines, the Medical Economics survey says 67 percent of their nearly 1,000 respondents are dissatisfied with their current system, driving their search for a more suitable solution equipped to meet the daily challenges providers face. So, what should physicians look for to make their replacement vendor better than their current? Here are some points to consider before jumping ship:

Meaningful use holds a catch for specialists; some requirements are inapplicable to certain specialties, yet there are no “blanket” exclusions for which any affected practices can qualify. CMS publishes a specialist tipsheet that helps in identifying which exclusions may apply, but specialist practices are completely responsible for evaluating “whether they meet the exclusion criteria for each applicable objective.” As specialists who participated in meaningful use Stage 1 prepare to advance to Stage 2, there are two important factors to consider regarding the choice of an electronic medical record (EMR) technology partner: The EMR must be ONC-ACB certified for meaningful use Stage 2. The EMR should also ideally be designed specifically to support the practice’s specialty.

Most specialty providers have a general sense of the distance between where they stand today with ICD-10, and where they need to be when the ICD-10 transition officially occurs on October 1, 2015. The actual size of that gulf is largely a matter of the electronic medical record (EMR) in use. If the EMR will do all that it can (and should) to automate the transition, the ride to ICD-10 should be pleasantly smooth.

Earlier this year, research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showed that more than 78 percent of office-based physicians were using an electronic medical record. As physicians become increasingly familiar with EMRs, they are demanding more from their solutions to help them boost productivity. More often than not, they are looking for one main thing: mobility. According to research released by Black Book Rankings in May 2013, of the one-in-five physician practices surveyed that were considering switching their EMR vendor, 100 percent expected any new EMR to allow doctors to access patient data no matter where the care was being delivered.

Among all the focus on developing new technologies to aid healthcare providers, most clinicians will tell you the same thing: Healthcare still comes down to patient care and the patient experience. And the folks at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) believe that too, as evidenced by a significant update in the Meaningful Use Stage 1 requirements for 2014, which now include a core objective “to provide patients with ability to view online, download, and transmit health information for all providers.” That’s another way of saying providers now need to provide a patient portal in order to meet Stage 1. Instead of seeing this as yet another burdensome requirement that needs to be met, healthcare organizations should consider it an opportunity to improve communication with their patients. Further, Meaningful Use Stage 2 already has a significant patient engagement element requiring that providers show at least 5 percent of patients are using patient portals to view, download and transmit their health information as well as send secure electronic messages to their provider. While 5 percent may not seem like a lot, those providers who are now pursuing Stage 2 are significantly concerned about reaching those levels of engagement, so having a functional portal required earlier should make it easier to hit the minimum participation rate down the road.

With healthcare’s shift towards value-based reimbursement models and an emphasis on quality of outcomes over quantity of services performed, there is also a push for physicians to dig deeper into their reporting. In order to encourage improved quality measures reporting, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) created the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS). The program, created in 2007, has both non-reporting payment penalties and reporting payment incentives for physicians who treat patients covered by Medicare Part B. Those who don’t participate in 2014 face a 2.0 percent payment penalty for Part B claims which will be assessed in 2016. Likewise, those who do report quality measures via PQRS are eligible to receive a 0.5 percent payment bonus on all claims in 2014. At first glance, the list of quality measures that can be submitted to PQRS is daunting, and many do not apply to specialty practices. Luckily for most specialty practices, the respective trade associations have done the legwork and have pulled out the applicable measures that can be used for submission. As such, specialty practices should check their association’s website for guidance in navigating the submission process.