So now we have everyone in an uproar over what CMS is going to choose as its definition of "meaningful use" of an EMR. I don't know about you, but the whole thing strikes me as rather silly.

As things stand, most estimates suggest that the CMS incentive payments awarded to facilities with EMRs won't cover the cost of their investment--so buying an EMR  just to get the big paycheck from Medicare doesn't make any sense at all. Besides, even with the incentives in place, wouldn't it cost most providers a lot more in operational expenses to put an EMR in place and attempt to use it--to any degree--than they're likely to get in payments?

What would be far more useful would be some definitions as to what providers should attempt to accomplish with their EMR. After all, we're already getting a pretty good idea of some nice quality improvement projects that you can take on more or less as soon as your EMR is humming.

I guess this is another way of saying that expanded pay-for-performance requirements, rather than incentives for simply using a technology, makes a whole lot more sense. After all, if the government is going to pay for something, it might be nice if officials know what they're paying for--and make sure that they get it. - Anne