Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 28, Issue 7, pp 957–964 | Cite as

Variation in Electronic Health Record Adoption and Readiness for Meaningful Use: 2008–2011

  • Vaishali Patel
  • Eric Jamoom
  • Chun-Ju Hsiao
  • Michael F. Furukawa
  • Melinda Buntin
Health Policy

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND

Federal initiatives are underway that provide physicians with financial incentives for meaningful use (MU) of electronic health records (EHRs) and assistance to purchase and implement EHRs.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to examine readiness and interest in MU among primary care physicians and specialists, and identify factors that may affect their readiness to obtain MU incentives.

DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS

We analyzed 4 years of data (2008–2011) from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) Electronic Medical Record (EMR) Supplement, an annual cross-sectional nationally representative survey of non-federally employed office-based physicians.

MAIN MEASURES

Survey-weighted EHR adoption rates, potential to meet selected MU criteria, and self-reported intention to apply for MU incentives. We also examined the association between physician and practice characteristics and readiness for MU.

KEY RESULTS

The overall sample consisted of 10,889 respondents, with weighted response rates of 62 % (2008); 74 % (2009); 66 % (2010); and 61 % (2011). Primary care physicians’ adoption of EHRs with the potential to meet MU nearly doubled from 2009 to 2011 (18 % to 38 %, p < 0.01), and was significantly higher than specialists (19 %) in 2011 (p < 0.01). In 2011, half of physicians (52 %) expressed their intention to apply for MU incentives; this did not vary by specialty. Multivariate analyses report that EHR adoption was significantly higher in both 2010 and 2011 compared to 2009, and primary care physicians and physicians working in larger or multi-specialty practices or for HMOs were more likely to adopt EHRs with the potential to meet MU.

CONCLUSIONS

Physician EHR adoption rates increased in advance of MU incentive payments. Although interest in MU incentives did not vary by specialty, primary care physicians had significantly higher rates of adopting EHRs with the potential to meet MU. Addressing barriers to EHR adoption, which may vary by specialty, will be important to enhancing coordination of care.

KEY WORDS

electronic health records adoption physician primary care meaningful use 

Supplementary material

11606_2012_2324_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (24 kb)
Appendix Table 1MU Criteria to National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey EMR Supplement MU Final Rule (PDF 24 kb)
11606_2012_2324_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (26 kb)
Appendix Table 2Physician Characteristics: Primary Care Specialty Versus Other Specialties, 2008–2011 (PDF 26 kb)
11606_2012_2324_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (31 kb)
Appendix Table 3Multivariate Analyses: Factors Significantly Associated with Physician Adoption of “Any” and “Basic” EHRs (p <  0.05) (PDF 31 kb)

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Buntin MB, Burke MF, Hoaglin MC, Blumenthal D. The benefits of health information technology: a review of the recent literature shows predominantly positive results. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(3):464–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buntin MB, Jain SH, Blumenthal D. Health information technology: laying the infrastructure for national health reform. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(6):1214–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hsiao CJ, Hing E, Socey TC, Cai B. Electronic Health Record Systems and Intent to Apply for Meaningful Use Incentives Among Office-Based Physician Practices: United States, 2001–2011. NCHS Data Brief, No79. Hyattsville: National Center for Health Statistics; 2011.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    DesRoches CM, Campbell EG, Rao SR, et al. Electronic health records in ambulatory care—a national survey of physicians. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(1):50–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Simon SR, Kaushal R, Cleary PD, et al. Physicians and electronic health records: a statewide survey. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(5):507–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bramble JD, Galt KA, Siracuse MV, Abbott AA, Drincic A, Paschal KA, et al. The relationship between physician practice characteristics and physician adoption of electronic health records. Health Care Manag Rev. 2010;35(1):55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rao SR, Desroches CM, Donelan K, Campbell EG, Miralles PD, Jha AK. Electronic health records in small physician practices: availability, use, and perceived benefits. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18(3):271–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Menachemi N, Powers TL, Brooks RG. Physician and practice characteristics associated with longitudinal increases in electronic health records adoption. J Healthc Manag. 2011;56(3):183–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blumenthal D. Launching HITECH. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(5):382–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Blumenthal D, Tavenner M. The “meaningful use” regulation for electronic health records. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(6):501–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maxson E, Jain S, Kendall M, Mostashari F, Blumenthal D. The regional extension center program: helping physicians meaningfully use health information technology. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153(10):666–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hsiao CJ, Beatty PC, Hing E, Woodwell DA, Rechtsteiner EA, Sisk JE. Electronic medical record/electronic health record use by office-based physicians: United States, 2008 and preliminary 2009. National Center for Health Statistics Health E-stat.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hsiao CJ, Burt CW, Rechsteiner E, Hing E, Woodwell DA, Sisk JE. Electronic medical record use by office-based physicians: United States, 2008; 2008. National Center for Health Statistics Health E-stat.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marcotte L, Seidman J, Trudel K, et al. Achieving meaningful use of health information technology: a guide for physicians to the EHR incentive programs. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(9):731–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    National Center for Health Statistics. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey Microdatafile; 2008.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bitton A, Martin C, Landon BE. A nationwide survey of patient centered medical home demonstration projects. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(6):584–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kern LM, Barron Y, Abramson EL, Patel V, Kaushal R. HEAL NY: promoting interoperable health information technology in New York State. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(2):493–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Decker SL, Jamoom EW, Sisk JE. Physicians in nonprimary care and small practices and those age 55 and older lag in adopting electronic health record systems. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31(5):1108–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Corey C Grossman JM. Clinical Information Technology Adoption Varies Across Physician Specialties. Center for Health System Change; 2007; 34.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rittenhouse DR, Shortell SM. The patient-centered medical home: will it stand the test of health reform? JAMA. 2009;301(19):2038–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bruen BK, Ku L, Burke MF, Buntin MB. More than four in five office-based physicians could qualify for federal electronic health record incentives. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(3):472–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    US. Department of Health and Human Services. Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Regional Extension Centers. ONC’s Regional Extension Centers Sign Up 100,000 Primary Care Providers. Available at:.(http://www.healthit.gov/buzz-blog/regional-extension-centers/rec-primary-care-providers/). Accessed November 15, 2012.
  23. 23.
    Abramson EL, Kaushal R. Computerized provider order entry and patient safety. Pediatr Clin N Am. 2012;59(6):1247–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wolfstadt JI, Gurwitz JH, Field TS, Lee M, Kalkar S, Wu W, Rochon PA. The effect of computerized physician order entry with clinical decision support on the rates of adverse drug events: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(4):451–8. Review.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kaushal R, Shojania KG, Bates DW. Effects of computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support systems on medication safety: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(12):1409–16. Review.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kern LM, Barrón Y, Dhopeshwarkar RV, Edwards A, Kaushal R; with the HITEC Investigators. Electronic health records and ambulatory quality of care. J Gen Intern Med. 2012; doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2237-8.
  27. 27.
    Cebul RD, Love TE, Jain AK, Hebert CJ. Electronic health records and quality of diabetes care. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(9):825–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Abramson EL, Barron Y, Quaresimo J, Kaushal R. Electronic prescribing within an electronic health record reduces ambulatory prescribing errors. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2011;37(10):470–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jain A, McCarthy K, Xu M, Stoller JK. Impact of a clinical decision support system in an electronic health record to enhance detection of alpha-antitrypsin deficiency. Chest. 2011;140(1):198–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bell LM, Grundmeier R, Localio R, et al. Electronic health record-based decision support to improve asthma care: a cluster-randomized trial. Pediatrics. 2010;125(4):e770–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chen C, Garrido T, Chock D, Okawa G, Liang L. The Kaiser Permanente Electronic Health Record: transforming and streamlining modalities of care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(2):323–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cai B, Shimizu I. Electronic Medical Record Systems Nonresponse Bias Analysis for 2011 NAMCS Mail Survey. Joint Statistical Meeting; 2012.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jamoom E, Beatty P, Bercovitz A, Woodwell D, Palso K, Rechtsteiner E. Physician Adoption of Electronic Health Record Systems: United States, 2011. NCHS Data Brief, No 98. Hyattsville: National Center for Health Statistics; 2012.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ventres WB, Frankel RM. Patient-centered care and electronic health records: it’s still about the relationship. Fam Med. 2010;42(5):364–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vaishali Patel
    • 1
  • Eric Jamoom
    • 2
  • Chun-Ju Hsiao
    • 2
  • Michael F. Furukawa
    • 1
  • Melinda Buntin
    • 3
  1. 1.Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), U.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), U.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Congressional Budget OfficeWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations