Home Forums Discussions Meaningful Use Attestation for 2012 MU

Just finished attesting for MU for 2012. Took about an hour and went smoothly.
Thanks AC!

That is fantastic news, John.

Here's a question for anyone who might know the answer: I was instructed to go to this site to to retrieve our EHR Certification #: http://oncchpl.force.com/ehrcert.
When I go to that site, the first step is to click a button corresponding to the edition of the ONC HIT EHR certification to which I am attesting. I can choose between 2011 edition, a combination of 2011 and 2014, or the 2014 edition (though AC doesn't even show up in that last edition). Does anyone know if this makes a difference? Has the certification number even changed from last year's number, which was 30000004JOMVEAS?

What are the rules for electronic prescribing and meaningful use.

After working with AC for 7 months of beta testing v7.0, we were told we were ready to go. We went to submit today and were rejected as we did not have enough e-prescribing. The we were told that the patient's had no choice and that they had to accept e-prescribing for all non controlled RX.

I find this hard to believe.

Any thoughts??

Dear "bill fox":

The EHR Certification Number for AC: 30000001SWY5EAK.

Dear Frank:

MU requires >40% eRx. For details on all the requirements you can pull up the Meaningful Use Wizard in AC.

John

I am about to attest for 2012 - when searching for V6' certification #, I found the following text on AC web site ...

"Amazing Charts, Version 6?s certification number is CC-1112-855220-1. ONC-ATCB 2011/2012 certification conferred by CCHIT ..."

Are we talking re the same thing here ???

Gino

Hi Gino.

That number is the CCHIT number. You would need the CMS Certification number. This number is different by what version you are using. Here is a list of the current released versions and their certification numbers.

6 30000001SWY5EAK
6.0.9 30000005HGCDEAG
6.0.10 30000005HBIDEAW
6.1.1 30000005HGYZEAO
6.1.2 30000005HGBAEAW
6.2.1 30000005B79TEAA
6.2.2 30000005PV1DEAA
6.3.1 30000011C4GJEAI
6.3.2 30000014CEC7EAA
6.3.3 300000184JEMEA2

If you have any questions, please let me know.

I attested over the weekend . I did not realize that the CCHIT numbers had changed and used the Version 6.0 number that was on the attestation site. It still took it . I hope I don't get in trouble with the MU police

I did the same thing and it took...thats OK we are all going to Leavenworth anyway....

We attested last week.

A little rough, but we got through it.


Any idea on how long till we see the funds?? (2-3 months???)

Mine took just over a month from attestation to electronic deposit.

John was that last year and phase 1?

This time we are in phase 2?

I'd love to see it in one month, but I'd also love to play center field for the NY Yankees.

We attested last week and also got a check "locked up" message back(Whatever that means).

BTW, Frank and John, I am going to the Fort Lauderdale amazing charts meeting combined with the primed conference.
Are you or anybody else coming for this conference??

I am speaking of attesting for "Stage 1" for the initial 3 month "reporting period". I attested in late June 2012 and was paid in late July.

We are now attesting in 2013, still using "Stage 1" criteria, but instead of 3 months, you have to meet all criteria for an entire year "reporting period"!

"Stage 2" criteria haven't been full laid out yet (AFAIK). But when "Stage 2" is ready in 2014, we are back to attesting for 3 months only.

It's confusing. Last year was Year 1, Stage 1 criteria for MU. This year is Year 2, still Stage 1 criteria. 2014 is Year 3, Stage 2 criteria. This summary might help.

John,

We completed the year of data and have submitted for MU.

We received our monies for our initial 3 months in the Winter of 2011.

Frank,

It looks like you can take 2013 off from MU. Stage 2 isn't ready until 2014, according to CMS's graph on that page I linked.

As John said, "it's confusing". This is the way I understand the system. I certainly may be wrong. The rules have changed over time and may very well change again.

I think a lot of issues stem from confusion between the terms "years" and "stages" of Meaningful Use. (I don't believe CMS uses the term "phases").

The first year you participate (collect data and meet the criteria) is your year 1. That might be 2011 or 2012, if you are want to get the full incentive. (If you wait until 2013 to participate, you cannot get the full amount).
In any case, your year 1 only requires three months of data collection.
In any case, your year 1 is Stage 1 of Meaningful Use.

Your year 2 is your next year of participation.
In all cases, year 2 requires a full 12 months of data collection.
In all cases, your year 2 is Stage 1 of Meaningful Use.

Your year 3 is your third year of participation.
In all cases, this requires a full 12 months of data collection.
If you started in 2011 or 2012, you must begin to meet Stage 2 requirements in 2014, so stage 2 may begin in your 3rd or 4th year.

In 2013, we will all be using the Stage 1 rules. What you use in 2014 will be determined by when you first participated in the program. I don't think anyone gets "a year off"...unless you want to lose incentives and perhaps incur a penalty.

John, has CMS clearly stated that you will only need 3 months of attestation for Stage 2?

Jon,

I think you are correct, you have to keep participating in Stage 1 in 2013, if this table (from CMS) is correct:



Sorry, Frank, no time off...

The requirement to report only 3 months for the first year of Stage 2 in 2014 is on page 2 of the Stage 2 Overview Tipsheet (under the paragraph "For 2014 Only").

OK, I am still in stage 1 until 2014. (full year of reporting for 2 years 2012, 2013)

Then we begin stage 2 with 3 months of reporting starting 2014.

Is that correct?

I had heard from a friend that somewhere in the fine print it says that by accepting the MU $ you are locked into participation with the process "forever", and should we fail in meeting the requirements, they can ask for/take their money back.
I haven't found such a statement. I know that instead of incentive payments, there will be penalties, but to actually take the incentive money back? Anyone else hear of this?

Frank, my understanding is that is correct.

Chris,
Every once in a while someone comes up with that rumor. It is usually "I heard it from a friend", or once "I heard a consultant". No one seems to be able to point to anything in writing indicating that your money can be taken back. We may not like a lot of what CMS says or does, but their documentation is pretty complete and explicit. If this regulation is true, it will be written in their documentation. Personally, until I see this in writing from a CMS source, I won't believe it. Just my opinion.