August 5, 2010

Are you a “Meaningful User”?

Do you currently use an electronic health record (EHR) or are you in the process of implementing a new EHR?  If the answer is yes, are you expecting your government incentive payment?  If the answer is yes, you need to first stop and evaluate if you are a “Meaningful User”.  It is not as simple as install the EHR and the incentive payments will come.  In order to be eligible for the Medicare or Medicaid incentive payments that were designated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), you must first prove that you are using the EHR in a meaningful way.

In December of 2009, The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released the Interim Final Rule on Meaningful Use.  During the time between December 2009 and July 2010, CMS accepted public comment and feedback on the proposed rule.  On July 13, 2010 the Final Rule was released with some significant changes.  The committees took the comments seriously and adjusted many of the requirements to allow for easier early adoption.  However, there still exists some significant effort to be sure you will be considered a meaningful user.

  healthcare graphic

The first step in this process remains unchanged:  to have a “Certified EHR” in place.  Not any EHR, but a certified EHR.  This is very important for those who have had an EHR in place for the past few years.  Has your vendor achieved the certified status?  If so, have you upgraded to the version that is certified?  If your EHR vendor has not committed to get their solution certified by 2011, it may be time to consider a different solution. 

Once you have a certified EHR, you must tackle the hard part of this process.  As things stand, there are 25 criteria for Eligible Professionals (EP).  Originally, all 25 criteria were to be met in full.  However, the Final Rule relaxed that requirement and broke the 25 into two separate groups, Core Criteria Set and Menu Criteria Set.  Currently, there are 15 Core criteria which must be met.  In addition, there are 10 Menu criteria and the EP must choose 5 of the 10 to meet.  That makes a total of 20 criteria that providers need to meet in order to be considered a Meaningful User.

Meaningful Use will be rolled out in three separate stages.  Stages 2 and 3 are expected to get stricter.  The proposed Stage 2 criteria is expected to be released in late 2011 and will not go into effect until 2013.  The timeline for Stage 3 is not yet determined.  The proposed rule had a timeline for Stage 3 but the final rule repealed any timing definition.     

What else changed between the proposed rule and final rule?  Most of the criteria measures were relaxed in the final rule.  In addition, two criteria were removed and two new criteria were added.

One important fact is the incentives and compliance with Meaningful Use is provider specific.  A multiple provider practice can have providers who are not Meaningful Users or who choose not to be Meaningful Users.  It is very important for each provider to understand the criteria and to do a self assessment.

Until recently, there was a great deal of hesitation to engage in any serious thought about Meaningful Use because it was not final and there were so many potential changes.  Now that the rules on Meaningful Use and the ruling on EHR certification criteria are final, it is time to start taking a serious look at your current EHR situation and how you use it.  It is likely that your practice will require some significant process changes to accommodate the new criteria defined in Meaningful Use.

If you would like more information on the Meaningful Use criteria or to get a copy of the Dean Dorton Ford Stage 1 – Meaningful Use Assessment for Eligible Professionals, please contact Jason Miller at jmiller@ddftech.com or (859) 425-7626

 

Jason D. Miller
Director, Technology Consulting

 Miller Jason

May 24, 2010

Subcontract Clauses

Contractors have been using many different ways to shift risk in contracts with owners for as long as the industry has existed.  Contractors have also shifted risk when it comes to subcontractors.  One of the ways to shift risk is the use of “paid-when-paid” and “paid-if-paid” clauses in contracts.  Often these terms are used interchangeably, but in actuality, the two terms are slightly different.  Pay-if-paid clauses state that the party responsible for making the payment will not make the payment unless and until they are paid for the work.  Pay-when-paid clauses usually state that the party responsible for making the payment must pay within a set amount of days from which they receive their payment for the work.  Pay-when-paid usually does not excuse responsibility of the payment, but establishes a reasonable time to make payment.

Courts have been looking at pay-if-paid clauses for some time now to analyze their values, legality, and fairness.  The issue is whether it is fair to shift the risk of nonpayment to the subcontractor that does not have control over the insolvency of the owner.  The issue is being addressed at the state level in three different ways.  The first approach simply states that the clause is illegal and therefore unenforceable.  In this case the courts interpret the payment obligation to mean payment is required within a reasonable time from the completion of the work invoiced.  The second approach states that the provision violates public policy.  The reasoning of the clause violating public policy is that it eliminates the subcontractor’s lien right.  A mechanics’ lien is a statutory right to preserve the contractor’s security for payment of sums due.  This approach is then interpreted the same as the first in that the payment obligation is required to be made within a reasonable time rather than a condition to be paid.  The third approach is that some states will enforce the clause as it is written.  This approach usually requires precise language that clearly indicates the parties intend for the subcontractor to assume the risk.  If the court decides the language states a pay-when-paid rather than pay-if-paid, the clause is deemed to establish a reasonable time for payment.

State courts are also taking positions on the responsibility of the surety.  Some states are of the position that is the pay-if-paid clause is enforceable as to the claim of the subcontractor against the general contractor, then the surety is not responsible to pay the subcontractor.  Other states view the payment bond as the insurance for when the owner or general contractor does not make payment and allows the subcontractor to make claims against the surety.

It is important to remember when preparing subcontractor agreements to use language that clearly states that the risk of insolvency of the owner passes to the subcontractor.  Also, it is important to know which state will have jurisdiction over the contract and consult your attorney as to that state’s position on enforcing pay-if paid clauses.

If you would like more information please contact Hunter Stout at hstout@ddfky.com

Stout Hunter

April 13, 2010

RAC BLACKOUT DELAYED – RAC WILL MOVE AHEAD WITH COMPLEX REVIEWS

The anticipated blackout period for the Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) for Kentucky has been delayed.  Highmark Medicare Services, Inc. (HMS) was awarded the Medicare Administrative Contract (MAC) for combined Part A/Part B Medicare services in Jurisdiction 15 which is comprised of Kentucky and Ohio.  However, two protests were filed which have delayed the transition from the current fiscal intermediaries to Highmark.  Providers will eventually receive notification of the timeline for the transition once it has been determined.  The ninety day blackout period for the RAC will be defined once the transition timeline is set.  For now, all providers should anticipate the RACs are conducting business as usual and proceeding with their audit agenda.

CGI Federal recently posted new approved issues on their RAC website.  The announcement is further indication that 2010 will be a busy year for providers; particularly for complex reviews involving MS-DRG coding and DRG validation. There are over thirty-eight issues that deal specifically with MS-DRG and DRG validation.   Medical necessity reviews are specifically excluded from review at this time.  With auditors beginning the process of conducting more advanced audits, it is anticipated that RACs will attempt to find evidence of “upcoding”.  It is very resource-intensive to respond to complex reviews. Providers have only forty-five days to respond to the RAC notification.  In some instances, the information they are requesting may go back to October 1, 2007 so the medical records may be in storage, some may be on paper, and some may be electronic.   The complex review will require many more man-hours from providers than an automated review. 

Dean Dorton Ford recommends that providers visit the CGI website frequently and prepare for the complex reviews that are anticipated for 2010.  Here are a few simple measures to help you prepare and reduce your risk in 2010:

  • Review all approved issues for your region
  • Conduct internal audits for coding and DRG validation on the approved issues list
  • Physicians documentation remains key to successful for appeals – conduct documentation audits and education as necessary based on internal review and audit findings

In addition, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report in February of 2010 on the outcomes of the Recovery Audit Contractors’ Fraud Referrals.  It simply stated that during the Demonstration project, RACs identified over $1 billion in improper payments, yet only referred two cases of fraud to the OIG.  RACs do not receive any contingency fees for the cases they refer so there may be some disincentive for RACs to refer cases of potential fraud to the OIG.   RACs are required to report any cases of potential fraud that they identify; however, they must be able to identify fraud to refer it.  CMS is going to provide mandatory training on the identification and referral of fraud.  Also, the OIG recommends they implement a database system to track fraud referrals that arise from the fraud referrals from the RACs.

For more information please contact:
Pam Hicks
phicks@ddfky.com
859.425.7636

Hicks Pam 2

April 7, 2010

A RELIABLE SPAM E-MAIL SOLUTION

Are you tired of sifting through several spam e-mail messages just to find the one legitimate e-mail that was sent to you?  Has the shear volume of spam made your inbox unbearable?  According to Spam Filter Review (www.spam-filter-review.com), approximately 31 billion e-mail messages are sent per day.  Of those 31 billion, 12.4 billion messages are considered “spam” e-mail.  This means 40% of all messages are spam.  Other tracking methods indicate as much as 80% of all e-mail is spam or virus related.  This high volume of spam along with the added threats of e-mail based viruses, can be extremely expensive, time consuming, and annoying for today’s businesses. 

To solve the spam problem, the technology group at Dean Dorton Ford is pleased to announce its spam and virus filter screening service.  This technology is extremely effective against stopping spam before it ever makes it to a user’s inbox and is very affordable.  Long term statistics of the service have shown a 97% reduction in spam e-mail and is an effective tool for e-mail virus scanning.  We are so confident in the service that we will offer a free 30 day trial with no obligation or purchase. 

The DDF technology group also provides end to end IT network and desktop management, software accounting services, and technology project based support.  If you would like to learn more about the any of our services, or sign up for a free spam killing trial, please contact Chris Jones at 859-425-7685 or info@ddftech.com.  We look forward to solving your business’s technology problems.


Jones Chris

March 1, 2010

It Pays to Build Green

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (HR-1424), signed on October 3, 2008, extended the benefits of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 through December 31, 2013.  This Act creates multiple incentives for construction projects to include environmentally friendly components.  What does that mean to you as a contractor?  It means there may be financial benefits for using environmentally friendly components in construction design plans and perhaps more importantly, you may actually have time to market these concepts to potential clients.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created a tax deduction of up to $1.80 per square foot (of entire building) available to owners or tenants of new or existing commercial buildings that are constructed or modified to save at least 50% of the heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and interior lighting energy cost of a building that meets ASHRAE Standard 09.1-2001.  In the case of government owned buildings, designers are also eligible for this deduction.   

A partial deduction of $.60 per square foot is available if improvements are made to any one of three building systems that reduce total heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating and interior lighting energy by a specified percent – the building envelope (10%), lighting (20%), or heating and cooling system (20%).

The tax deductions discussed above are for the benefit of the party paying for the construction.  The deduction can be taken in the year the property is placed in service.  To qualify for the deduction the building or system must be tested and inspected to confirm compliance with the energy cost savings goal according to guidance issued by the IRS in consultation with the Department of Energy.

Construction contractors should take the time to familiarize themselves with the commercial building tax deductions discussed above.  Dean Dorton Ford, PSC has thirty years experience helping clients understand the various tax laws impacting their industry.  Our construction team devotes significant time to researching and applying the tax laws for contractors and related services.  We would be happy to assess the benefits that this deduction may provide you and your customers. 

For more information please contact,
Justin Hubbard
jhubbard@ddfky.com
859.425.7604

Hubbard Justin

February 15, 2010

Energy Efficient Tax Incentives

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 is starting to draw more attention due to the extension of certain tax incentives through the year 2013.  For commercial buildings, The Energy Policy Act of 2005 allows for an immediate tax deduction of up to $1.80 per square foot for energy-efficient features of the building’s construction or retrofit under IRC §179D.  Commercial buildings also include multi-family residential buildings with more than three stories. For instances where a non-taxpaying entity, such as the government or a municipality owns the building, The Energy Policy Act of 2005 allows for the primary designer, typically the architects and engineers, to claim the deductions.  If the market downturn is a factor in current year profitability, this may still be beneficial due to the ability for certain small businesses to carry back net operating losses up to five years, thus, creating immediate cash benefits.

To claim a tax deduction under The Energy Policy Act of 2005, there are three different areas that qualify for a tax deduction of up to $.60 per square foot for each area.  These areas include interior lighting systems, HVAC, and the building envelope.  The building envelope is defined as the perimeter of the building including the roof, walls, windows, doors and floor/foundation.  The deductions apply to buildings or systems placed in service or remodeled during calendar years 2006-2013.  To qualify for those deductions, a project – whether an entire building or one of the three subsystems – must cut energy use compared to the limits specified in ASHRAE 90.1-2001.
Of the three areas available for these tax incentives, the one that is drawing the most attention is interior lighting systems.  With substantial improvements in recent lighting product efficiency, most products currently available meet the requirements of The Energy Policy Act of 2005.  The incentive for lighting systems can also be taken advantage of without energy modeling, which is required by the two other areas.  Owners of commercial buildings have the opportunity to take advantage of the combination of savings from the energy efficient lighting and the savings from the tax incentives available.   To demonstrate the economic benefit of a commercial building that qualifies for the maximum deduction for lighting systems, a 100,000 square foot building will generate an immediate federal tax deduction of $60,000 and in most states an additional $60,000 state deduction. 

In order to qualify for these deductions for commercial buildings a certification must be obtained by an engineer or contractor that is properly licensed as a professional engineer or contractor in the jurisdiction in which the building is located.  Dean Dorton Ford has the resources available to provide you with this certification and walk you through the cost/benefit analysis of taking advantage of these tax incentives.
Along with these incentives, an additional tax incentive that is set to expire at the end of the year allows for eligible contractors that construct new energy-efficient homes to claim a $2,000 tax credit for each home that they sell.  In order to qualify for the $2,000 tax credit for newly constructed energy-efficient homes, contractors must meet certain requirements that will classify these homes as energy-efficient.  The homes must be constructed to consume 50% less energy for heating and cooling than that of a comparable home.  In addition the building envelope must be constructed to consume 10% less energy for heating and cooling than a comparable home.  There is also a reduced credit of $1,000 available for homes that meet certain lower requirements.  These credits are calculated per qualifying home, which can add up to a large tax benefit for a contractor that builds multiple energy-efficient homes.

For further details on the commercial energy tax deductions under The Energy Policy Act of 2005 or the $2,000 tax credit for newly constructed energy-efficient homes, please contact Paula Hanson (phanson@ddfky.com) or Brandi Marcum (bmarcum@ddfky.com) at 859-255-2341.

John Calabrese
jcalabrese@ddfky.com

Calabrese John

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

December 17, 2009

Windows 7

The Microsoft Windows Vista operating system was viewed by many IT decision makers as a training hassle, slow performing, unreliable, and an unneeded cost for businesses and consumers.  Many companies made the business decision not to upgrade PCs from Windows XP to Windows Vista, and large corporations flexed their purchasing power to force major PC manufacturers and Microsoft to continue offering Windows XP for business PCs.   Although this is true, home users were forced to use Windows Vista if they bought a new PC during the last 3 years.   While Microsoft would argue that the Vista operating system was a success, they have put a lot of research and effort into ensuring businesses and consumers alike that it is worth it to upgrade to Windows 7.  Microsoft touts the new operating system as being very stable, fast, user friendly, and generally a must have for all businesses and consumers. 

It has now been a little over a month of sales for the new Microsoft Windows 7 operating system, and the holiday purchasing season is upon us.  Windows 7 commercials are playing quite frequently on primetime (and not-so-primetime) TV, and is no coincidence that Microsoft released Windows 7 near the end of the year.  The company hopes holiday shopping and excess IT department budget spending at the end of the year will deliver strong sales of the new operating system.  Early sales figures suggest this is the case, and most of the technical reviews say it is a much better operating system than Windows Vista.

To better serve our clients, a limited number of employees at DDF volunteered to upgrade their work PCs to Windows 7.  After a month or so of everyday use, we all agree it is much better than Windows Vista and serves as a good replacement for Windows XP.  The PCs seem to boot quicker, the graphics and end user experience are great, and many of the annoying features of Vista are turned off.  That being said, there are a few considerations that must be made prior to moving to Windows 7.

  1. Make sure all your critical business applications run on Windows 7.  Some software companies have not performed full testing of their applications on the new operating system.  Make sure you test your printers as well.  Old printers may not work with the new system. 
  2. Make sure you purchase the correct version of Windows 7.  Businesses should purchase Windows 7 Professional or Ultimate.
  3. Make sure you understand the upgrade process from Windows XP or Vista to Windows 7.  Windows XP users cannot perform an in place upgrade and the included migration tool may not work as well as desired.  Windows Vista users must make sure they purchase the correct Windows 7 upgrade. 
  4. If you are upgrading an existing PC, make sure the hardware is new enough to give you a positive experience.  Older PCs may technically meet the minimum requirements of Windows 7, but the system may run slow.
  5. Make sure you backup all your data before performing an upgrade of your existing PC to Windows 7. 

Dean Dorton Ford’s Technology Consulting Group provides end to end IT services for all sizes of business.  We can help your company with desktop and network support, remote access, strategic IT consulting, software project management, and IT audit services.  If you would like more information about Windows 7 or have any technology questions, please contact Chris Jones at 859-425-7685 or cjones@ddftech.com

Jones Chris

December 9, 2009

The “Meaningful Use Guarantee”

On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act).  A major component of the Recovery Act is its emphasis on improving health information technology (also known as HIT).

To accomplish the improvement in HIT, the Recovery Act includes payment incentives for qualifying professionals.  Physicians and hospitals that are considered early adaptors of electronic health records (EHR) can receive a significant amount of money from Medicare or Medicaid.  However, there are many stipulations and criteria for receiving these incentives.

Being eligible for the incentives is not going to be as easy as just installing an EHR product.  One of the major stipulations in the Recovery Act is the demonstration of “meaningful use” by the EHR product.  The problem facing providers is that “meaningful use” was not defined in the Recovery Act.  CMS does not expect to release the criteria for “meaningful use” until the end of 2009.  There is also expected to be a period of time for discussion and refinement.  I do not anticipate a final definition until sometime late in the first quarter of 2010.

So what is the issue?  Healthcare providers are reluctant to make any major decisions on EHR solutions until “meaningful use” is fully defined.  On the surface, that would seem like a logical process.  However, the incentives become available in 2011 and it is anticipated that you will need some amount of historical information (3 to 6 months at a minimum) in your EHR to be able to demonstrate “meaningful use.”  Again, so what is the issue?  An average EHR solution implementation, for a five physician practice will require a minimum of ninety to one hundred twenty days to be up and running.  That is only considering the EHR functions.  If the practice management (billing, scheduling, etc.) modules are also needed, that will likely double the time required.  Larger practices and hospitals are looking at much longer implementations to account for increased complexities and size.  Another item to consider is the probable increase in demand of EHR products which will only lengthen the implementation time lines.

To help alleviate the concerns of potential customers, the larger EHR solution providers have started offering a “Meaningful Use Guarantee.” The goal is provide potential customers with some comfort that they can go ahead and make decisions even though we do not know what the criteria will be.  The software companies know that we cannot all wait until the first or second quarter of 2010 to make the decision and expect to be ready in time for 2011.  

Providers should be cautious as to how the “Meaningful Use Guarantee” is worded.  I believe it will be very difficult for a software company to guarantee that a healthcare provider will receive the incentives.  There are too many factors within your organization that they cannot control, nor do you want them to.  The kind of guarantee that you should be looking for is one that states that the solution provider will guarantee that their software will be adapted to meet any certification criteria by a set time. I believe that any of the established and large EHR solution providers should be able to react quickly enough to any “meaningful use” criteria.  The ability to accomplish this will primarily be determined by their size and resources.

I believe that there are many safe bets out there that allow you to begin evaluating and working toward selecting an EHR vendor.  Just be sure they are established, motivated, and have the resources to react quickly enough. 

A final thought of caution.  These incentives are there and motivating healthcare professionals to engage in technology improvement.  I do believe this is ultimately a good direction for the profession.  However, please be cautious as you work through determining the right solution for your organization.  Technology itself is NOT the whole answer.  A software solution is only as good as the process and ability of those people using it.  Be sure you do not rush your EHR implementation for the sake of receiving the incentive.  A bad implementation could ultimately cost you and your organization more than these incentives provide.

If you would like assistance on your EHR project, please contact Dean Dorton Ford.  Our team of Technology, Healthcare Compliance, and Performance Improvement consultants are uniquely qualified to help your organization work through the evaluation and transition process. 

For more information, contact Jason Miller.

Jason D. Miller
Director, Technology Consulting
Dean Dorton Ford
(859) 425-7626
jmiller@ddftech.com

Miller Jason

November 12, 2009

Web Filtering Options

Filed under: Technology — Tags: , , , , , , , , — ddf @ 1:26 pm

For most businesses, internet access is critical to the continued success of the company.  It allows remote offices to connect to the main location, employees to research business issues, products to be purchased or sold, bills to be paid online, etc.  At the same time, internet access can be one the biggest risks for a company.  Social media sites like Facebook and MySpace, can lead to lost productivity and management frustration.  Computer viruses and spyware on websites can damage pcs and lead to increased IT expenses and employee downtime.  Also, human resource issues related to employees visiting questionable sites can consume management’s time. 

There are a number of solutions to help a business win back lost productivity and protect their IT environment.  The best solutions provide flexibility to meet a business’s changing needs at a price the business can afford.  Two popular web filtering methods are installing a hardware appliance on location and outsourcing to a 3rd party (aka: Software as a service, Saas, Cloud computing). 

Both web filtering options reduce the risk of spyware and viruses being installed on work pcs.  They also allow management to block categories of websites such as social media (Facebook, MySpace), gambling, and pornography, while allowing web users to view other categories such as news and banking related sites.  Both methods provide reports that can be used to help determine if an employee is abusing his/her internet privileges.  Lastly, both options can be implemented quickly to protect your business.

The onsite appliance generally works better for growing organizations with one office or multiple large remote locations.  The upfront cost is higher than the outsourced option, but the flexibility of the device allows for a more customized web filtering solution.  The outsourced model can be very cost effective for even the smallest of companies.  It is also a better solution if employees need web filtering protection while working away from the office.  Companies with multiple sites and traveling users often benefit from a mixture of the onsite device and the outsourced solution.  Regardless of the business environment, these two options are great tools to help protect your business from spyware, viruses, and to minimize lost productivity.

The DDF Technology group provides end-to-end IT network and desktop management, software consulting services, and technology project management.  If you would like to sign up for a free web filtering trial or learn more about any of our services, please contact Chris Jones at 859-425-7685 or info@ddftech.com.  We look forward to solving your business’s technology problems.

Jones Chris