January 29, 2010

Recovery Through Buying American

Filed under: Uncategorized — ddf @ 12:17 pm

On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act) into law.  This act provided for a $787 billion economic stimulus package, of which, $135 billion is designated for construction, repair and maintenance of federal buildings, public transportation infrastructure and other public works.  Section 1605 of the Recovery Act, titled “Use of American Iron, Steel, and Manufactured Goods” contains requirements that any project receiving stimulus funds for “the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of public buildings or public works” utilize “iron, steel, and manufactured goods…. produced in the United States.”  This “Buy American” requirement has become a focal point within the construction industry, as contractors seek to maximize opportunities provided by the Recovery Act.

The Recovery Act does contain some exceptions to the requirements of section 1605.  The “Buy American” requirements may be waived if it can be determined that buying American materials “would be inconsistent with the public interest.”  An exception would also be granted if the availability of materials produced in the United States were insufficient.  A third exception is if the use of American made components would increase the costs of the overall project by more than 25%.

The implementation of Section 1605 of the Recovery Act has generated some controversy within the construction industry as experts try to dissect various terms within the Act’ wording.  The Recovery Act does not provide clear guidance for what constitutes a “maintenance” project.  Previous public building projects have focused on terms such as “construction” and “repair”, but not “maintenance”.  Industry experts have also speculated about the absence of a clear definition for the terms “public building” and “public works.”   The phrase “produced in the United States” is also open to debate as the Recovery Act has not adopted definitions as historically presented within subpart 25.2 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, which has governed previous public construction projects.

The provisions of Section 1605 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 are facts of life now.  These provisions will impact every step of the construction process.  The controversy and uncertainty surrounding the implementation of the requirements within Section 1605 will continue to be a focus of attention until further clarification is provided.

Many businesses working on construction projects receiving stimulus funding will fall under the “Buy American” requirements of Section 1605.  Dean Dorton Ford, PSC has over thirty years of experience in helping clients navigate through new legislation impacting their businesses.  Our construction team devotes significant time to researching changes within the construction industry and seeking new opportunities to better serve our clients.  We would be happy to offer your business our expertise.

If you have any questions please contact Justin Hubbard at jhubbard@ddfky.com

Hubbard Justin

January 6, 2010

Meaningful Use Defined

As promised, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) delivered their proposed rule defining meaningful use of certified electronic health record (EHR) technology.  As provisioned in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) incentive payments will be available to eligible professionals (EPs), eligible hospitals, and critical access hospitals (CAHs) who can demonstrate meaningful use of EHR technology.

 On December 30, 2009, CMS released their 556 page proposed rule on the requirements for the EHR incentive program (RIN 0938-AP78 and CMS-0033-P).  The major component of this rule is the definition of meaningful use.  CMS is proposing a multiple stage rollout for meaningful use.  Stage 1 is the focus of the current proposed rule.  Stage 1 criteria will be in effect for reporting year 2011.  CMS anticipates that Stage 2 will be implemented for reporting year 2013, and Stage 3 will be implemented for reporting year 2015.

 The proposed Stage 1 criteria for meaningful use focus on electronically capturing health information in a coded format, using that information to track key clinical conditions, communicating that information for care coordination purposes, and initiating the reporting of clinical quality measures and public health information.  The proposed criteria for meaningful use are based on a series of specific objectives, each of which is tied to a proposed measure that all EPs and hospitals must meet in order to demonstrate that they are meaningful users of certified EHR technology.

 For Stage 1, CMS proposes 25 objectives for EPs and 23 objectives for eligible hospitals that must be met to be deemed a meaningful EHR user.  For a detailed listing of the EPs and hospital criteria, please visit our website: www.ddfky.com/HITECH-Act.html.

 In a separate but related proposed rule, the Office of the National Coordinator for Healthcare Information Technology (ONC) released the proposed set of standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria for EHRs.  Preliminary review of this proposed rule indicates that the standards are primarily based on existing standards and technology.  The intent is to make the goals more achievable in the desired timeframe.  Subsequent rules are expected to follow, with greater detail and steps toward better interoperability.

 Both of these proposed rules will have a 60-day comment period.  The respective agencies will review all comments and make final changes as quickly as possible.  I encourage all interested parties to review the rules and share your comments and concerns with the respective government agency.

 Jason D. Miller

Director of  Technology Consulting

jmiller@ddfky.com

Miller Jason