Serious time and effort is being devoted to the development of the clinical quality measure (CQM) reporting requirement for Stage 2 of meaningful use, with the intention of accelerating progress toward the program’s end goals. Sadly, however, the old joke keeps coming to mind about an airplane pilot who announces to his passengers that he has good news and bad news. The bad news is that he has no idea where they are, but the good news is that they are making great time!
Moving forward in Stage 2 without first addressing the fundamental flaws and omissions that plague Stage 1 is not the right approach. CMS has acknowledged that the CQM reporting requirement in Stage 1 is no more than that—a reporting requirement meant to get physicians comfortable with the process of reporting. CMS is under no illusions that the data collected will be meaningful as a measure of the level or quality of care being provided. Many physicians will be reporting on problems for which they are not treating the patients, which means that measure numerators will be zero (or very low) and that duplicate data will be submitted by different physicians for the same patients for the same conditions, which will result in an underestimation of the true care being delivered.
The Stage 2 recommendations for CQM reporting that the HIT Policy Committee has forwarded to CMS significantly expand on the Stage 1 measures in an attempt to address a broader set of factors that affect quality, as well as to be relevant to a wider set of physicians, including specialists. These are important goals, but premature. The model that was created—shown in this graphic—requires the addition of an extensive “library” of measures for each of the 6 menu “domains”.
Adding a large number of measures will be challenging on a practical front—it will involve development and testing by specialty societies and NQF, implementation by EHR vendors, training for providers, etc.—but more importantly, it does not address the basic issues related to the value of the data submitted. The problems identified above remain, no target thresholds exist, and no meaningful baseline data will be established to monitor progress over time. This is clearly a case where more is not better.