Going to a user conference, attendees can predict that they will hear from a multitude of company appointed speakers as well as industry thought leaders. The knowledge gained is valuable and expected for someone looking to get a better understanding of the product they are using. Although this aspect of attending a software user conference is of paramount importance, another component not to be minimalized is the opportunity to get insights from fellow EMR and practice management users to help improve your own usability.

While most discussion of the October 1, 2015, transition to ICD-10 focuses on the billing function, ICD-10’s impact will extend significantly to the clinical side of practices as well. Documentation captured in electronic medical records (EMRs) must give coders information that supports the new coding standard if claims are to be accurate and complete. Fortunately, providers have less learning ahead than coders do. And unlike coders, they don’t have to wait until the transition date to begin actually performing in ICD-10 terms. They can, and should, start soon. Clinicians who are not yet familiar with the impact of ICD-10 on their function can read a two-page summary titled “Effects on Clinical Documentation” in the CMS ICD-10 Implementation Guide for Small and Medium Practices. In addition, each practice will want to form a game plan for readying clinicians for the effect the transition will have on its particular specialty.

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.