SCPA Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 My FP employer would like to attest for ''meaningful use'' on my behalf. Is there anything I should know about this or is this pretty standard? They also stated they need to make me the Clinical Director in order to do so, which seems odd to me. I'm awaiting clarification on that.. Thanks. SCPA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealityCheck Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Hmmmm, not sure I get this approach. We had an IT trained MA who specialized in all things Meaningless Use and she would send us our certificate once we passed the standard percentiles in chart searches. PAs are NOT reimbursed from the Feds for MU but NPs are is what I was told. Also some issues about how many providers in what setting, etc. We were rural health in a Fed Qualified clinic so we got some special treatment as well. I would do a ton of google research on MU and make sure your name is not being taken in vain to questionably get $$$. Always protect your integrity. There has to be a 1-800 number somewhere that will give you some answers. Interested in hearing what you find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted August 5, 2015 Moderator Share Posted August 5, 2015 PAs in rural settings ONLY can be paid for MU. my share at my per diem rural er job was 15 dollars! the full time folks got something like 200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LKPAC Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 PAs are NOT reimbursed from the Feds for MU but NPs are is what I was told. If this is true, why? I wish we PAs had some kind of national organization that could help us out with these things! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted August 5, 2015 Moderator Share Posted August 5, 2015 If this is true, why? I wish we PAs had some kind of national organization that could help us out with these things! because(and this is true) the folks who wrote the law thought PAs help doctors and were not clinicians in their own right....after all, "assistants", right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LKPAC Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 Is AAPA working to correct this? Yet another example of how we can be perceived as less-valuable than an NP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCPA Posted August 6, 2015 Author Share Posted August 6, 2015 The rural clinic I work for said they get something like 21,000 for attesting me? Of course I get nothing out of it. Do I need to be worried about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paula Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 In a rural clinic PAs can be eligible professionals for MU if they are the leading the clinic, thus the reason they want to make you clinic director. If you work with a physician who is on site, you do not qualify because the physician in considered the clinic or medical director. Just make sure what they are doing is legal and if you get a new "title" you also need a new raise. After all, you might need to prove you are the real clinic director. Some states will allow the PA to be the clinic director. The MU disaster for PAs started in 2011 and AAPA tried to correct it and still didn't go far enough for PAs who work in the rural clinics. They did however pat themselves on the back for their job"well done" for the correction, altho it still didn't qualify me for MU. A fail all around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCPA Posted August 7, 2015 Author Share Posted August 7, 2015 In a rural clinic PAs can be eligible professionals for MU if they are the leading the clinic, thus the reason they want to make you clinic director. If you work with a physician who is on site, you do not qualify because the physician in considered the clinic or medical director. Just make sure what they are doing is legal and if you get a new "title" you also need a new raise. My SP is onsite a few days of the week as well as another physician every day -- If Paula's info is accurate that means I shouldn't even qualify for clinical director. I sincerely hope my clinic isn't using my name in a fraudulent manner to get $$$. Unfortunately, my clinic director asked for my NPI login information and basically said "i'll take it from here" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbrothers98 Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 My FP employer would like to attest for ''meaningful use'' on my behalf. Is there anything I should know about this or is this pretty standard? They also stated they need to make me the Clinical Director in order to do so, which seems odd to me. I'm awaiting clarification on that.. Thanks. SCPA So your employer is trying to get meaningful use incentive monies for your clinic EHR/EMR by declaring you the clinic leader. You must work at a RHC or FQHC. The physicians will get those monies anyways since there is no qualifier for these incentives other than being a physician. Or the physicians you work with may have been declared eligible for the Medicare program and you will be declared eligible for the Medicaid program. They are just trying to maximize the incentive and this is all kosher. In fact, since you are going to have to meet meaningful use criteria anyways, you or your clinic should get paid. Likely you wont see a dime personally but your clinic will. That will keep it's doors open, keep you paid and employed. PAs and meaningful use have been discussed to death on this forum. When this legislation was put in place as a carrot for EMR adoption, there was only so much money available. There are over 800k physicians in the US, about 100k PAs and 100k+ NPs. Guess whose lobby was able to direct the majority of funds their way? But what this really comes down to was how much money could CMS actually deploy as incentive across the country? Since the max incentive for the Medicare program was 44k paid over 5 years, if every US physician took advantage, the potential payout is over 35 billion taxpayer dollars. Add in PAs and NPs and there is another potential 10 billion. So it also was dependent upon what legislators and the number crunchers that aided in crafting this act felt was a fiscally tolerable amount. But the endpoint is that the incentive boat has sailed. There is no back adjusting this legislation to improve PA eligibility. In fact, any PA that works in a hospital including ED is not eligible for the incentive payments to eligible professionals anyhow, only those working in outpatient medicine. Go to: https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/eligibility.html for the explanations. Blaming the AAPA is like trying to blame the unmaintained levees outside of New Orleans for hurricane flooding. The AAPA PAC has about a couple hundred thousand available for lobbying while the AMA and the ANA have millions. You get what you pay for. G Brothers PA-C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.