Critical Access & Small Hospitals Falling Behind in Meaningful Use

A study from Mathematical Policy Research and the American Hospital Association, published in Health Affairs, finds many critical access hospitals and other smaller hospitals are at risk to fail achieving meaningful use and face Medicare payment penalties in 2015.

While meaningful use has led to increased adoption of EHRs, much work remains to be done, according to the study. “The majority of eligible hospitals did not achieve meaningful use in the first two years of the program. Furthermore, certain types of hospitals--particularly smaller institutions--were less likely than others to have received incentive payments. These findings suggest that at least as of the conclusion of the program’s first two years, the digital divide persists.”

Critical-access and smaller hospitals in particular face three tough challenges, the study notes:

* Low patient volume complicates long-range planning and limits ability to maintain adequate cash flow,

* The hospitals may not be able to offer competitive salaries for skilled information technology professionals, and

* Smaller hospitals may have difficulty finding a suitable I.T. vendor.

To Learn More: http://www.healthdatamanagement.com/news/ehr-electronic-health-records-meaningful-use-hospitals-46461-1.html

Do Critical Access Hospitals need a Trim?

The critical access hospital program was intended to financially stabilize small, rural institutions by providing them with higher Medicare reimbursement rates. The hospitals in the program are supposed to have 25 or fewer beds and be at least 35 miles away from another facility (15 miles across mountainous terrain) in communities that would otherwise have limited access to health care services. The effort was a response to a spate of 360 rural hospital closures in the 1980s and 1990s.

To learn more about the HHS Watchdog Says Rural Hospital Program Needs A Trim click here  http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2013/08/hhs-watchdog-says-rural-hospital-program-needs-a-trim/

Obstetric Services and Quality among Critical Access, Rural, and Urban Hospitals in Nine States

Although approximately 25% of U.S. births occur in rural hospitals, many questions about the types and quality of obstetric care in different types of hospital settings have remained unexamined. This study takes a step toward filling this gap, assessing and comparing obstetric care among rural and urban hospitals in nine states.


Key Findings:

• Women who gave birth in CAHs and other rural hospitals in 2010 were younger on average and had lower rates of clinical complications than those who gave birth in urban hospitals.

• CAHs compared favorably with other rural and urban hospitals on a number of obstetric care quality measures.

• Medicaid covered 49 percent of births in CAHs and 56 percent of births in other rural hospitals, compared to 41 percent of births in urban hospitals.

• The percentage of CAHs, other rural hospitals, and urban hospitals providing obstetric services in 2010 varied significantly across states, with the greatest variation among CAHs.

• Half of the CAHs in this study’s sample provided obstetric services in 2010, likely a higher rate than all CAHs nationwide due to the selection criteria for the sample.

Read More...