Home Forums Discussions Meaningful Use Meaningful Use in 2012

My group successfully attested for the first 90 day period in 2011. Are we supposed to continue the Stage I requirements for a full year in 2012? I may have misunderstood the announcement by CMS concerning a delay until 2013. I thought this meant that the full year period after the intial 90 day period could be delayed until 2013. Can someone clarify this for me?

definitely do not delay....unless you are planning on not participating in MU.
You must report on the full calendar year for all subsequent years of participation in the MU Incentive program.

what you read has to do with implementation of the different stages of the MU program. Stage 1 was easy. Stage 2 a little more challenging and requires more reporting features from the EHR. Stage 3 is yet again probably more challenging and probably demands more reporting and better scores and more features of the EMR.

CMS is not yet ready to progress to stage 2, so we are still reporting in the stage 1 of the incentive program. But the bottom line is if you want to get paid, you must continue collecting the MU data and plan to attest at the end of CY 2012.

Thank-you for your reply. My partners will be delighted to learn that we have to do the Meaningless Use again.

haha, that comment seems to be dripping with sarcasm

One thing to consider, MU Incentive program is voluntary currently and is not slated to induce penalty for non-participation until 2015. ***Disclaimer about the next comment (I don't know if this is factual)*** but you could conceivably take the 1st payment and run, don't report numbers for the remainder of the program or simply report attestation data that fails to meet the measures. I don't believe there is any penalty (such as giving back all the money) if you fail in subsequent years. You might want to verify this scenario with CMS however.

That is my plan, Adam. If by 2015 I am bought and sold like a MU slave I plan to take the money I have already gotten and jump ship.

We have two parallel threads running, with identical titles and similar information, so to avoid duplication, I will make the suggestion that the current thread continue here.