Support our online development, and advance our onground research initiatives in free market economics, as we seek to showcase the brightest Next-Gen minds.
THE ME-P DISCLAIMER: Posts, comments and opinions do not necessarily represent iMBA, Inc., but become our property after submission. Copyright © 2006 to-date. iMBA, Inc allows colleges, universities, medical and financial professionals and related clinics, hospitals and non-profit healthcare organizations to distribute our proprietary essays, photos, videos, audios and other documents; etc. However, please review copyright and usage information for each individual asset before submission to us, and/or placement on your publication or web site. Attestation references, citations and/or back-links are required. All other assets are property of the individual copyright holder.
New CBO Report
Staff Reporters
Official congressional analysts just dealt a blow to the prospects of broad legislation to boost health information technology, by taking a skeptical view of the savings that would likely result.
Yet, iMBA Inc www.MedicalBusinessAdvisors.com – a sponsor of the Executive Post – took the opposite posture this past summer with release of the Dictionary of Health Information Technology and Security.
The Report
In an analysis released this week, the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] discounted earlier projections of large cost savings that might result from the adoption of information technology, such as digital health and patient records, particularly questioning an estimate of $77 billion a year that appeared in a widely cited RAND Corporation analysis.
The CBO has an important voice in such debates because of its role in calculating how much legislation will cost the federal government.
Assessment
Although the CBO found savings potential under certain circumstances – particularly when information technology was combined with broader reforms – it found that the technology itself was unlikely to generate sizable financial benefits; according to the Wall Street Journal.
Conclusion
Is any practicing physician today surprised with this report; why or why not?
Related Information Sources:
Practice Management: http://www.springerpub.com/prod.aspx?prod_id=23759
Physician Financial Planning: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/0763745790
Medical Risk Management: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763733421
Healthcare Organizations: www.HealthcareFinancials.com
Health Administration Terms: www.HealthDictionarySeries.com
Physician Advisors: www.CertifiedMedicalPlanner.com
Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com or Bio: http://www.stpub.com/pubs/authors/MARCINKO.htm
Subscribe Now: Did you like this Executive-Post, or find it helpful, interesting and informative? Want to get the latest E-Ps delivered to your email box each morning? Just subscribe using the link below. You can unsubscribe at any time. Security is assured.
Link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HealthcareFinancialsthePostForcxos
Share this:
Filed under: Funding Basics, Health Law & Policy, Information Technology, Surveys and Voting |
The Leading Business Education Network for Doctors, Financial Advisors and Health Industry Consultants 
Signature Stamps
Did you know that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services [CMS] banned the use of physician signature stamps? Now, handwritten or electronic signatures are required.
Apparently, CMS banned signature stamps according to Medicare Transmittal 248 (Change Request 5971). CMS changed the context of medical reviews, and physicians inside and outside of hospitals may not use signature stamps because there’s no way to predict a Medicare audit or review. Currently, hospitals may face claims denials for services if auditors find any orders (or supporting documentation) with a signature stamp.
Transmittal 248, issued on March 28, modified the Medicare Program Integrity Manual [MPIM], and indicates that “stamp signatures are not acceptable.” And despite the fact that the transmittal seems to apply only to hospital certifications of terminal illnesses, some experts say it’s clear that the ban applies to all documentation subject to prepayment and post-payment medical review.
The transmittal also states that the “method used [to identify the person who provided or ordered services] shall be hand written or an electronic signature”, according to the Report on Patient Compliance.
Is this policy consistent with – or counter to – the above post?
-Staff Reporters
Executive-Post
LikeLike