Comments for Rural Health Voices

Comment on CMS Issues Delay in Physician Supervision Rule by Lisa Schweitzer

Lisa Schweitzer — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:54:45 +0000

What about diagnostic services? I see only a reference to therapeutic services.

Comment on One in Three Small Town Residents Without Health Coverage by 2019 by Middle-class Uninsured: Barely Hanging On

Middle-class Uninsured: Barely Hanging On — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:14:35 +0000

[...] rising at an alarming rate, this report confirms the root cause for this phenomenon. For our rural citizens and providers, these percentages are higher and have a greater relative [...]

Comment on CMS Issues Delay in Physician Supervision Rule by Peter Savoy

Peter Savoy — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:30:58 +0000

Can you be specific in terms of exactly what would be expected of CAH’s under the supervision requirements for therapeutic services provided to outpatients?

Comment on CMS Issues Delay in Physician Supervision Rule by Jeanne Vogel

Jeanne Vogel — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:58:07 +0000

I think this is super but what therapeutic services does it involve? Does it include cardiac, pulmonary, respiratory and infusion? Could you possible e-mail me this information. Thank you, Jeanne

Comment on HIT Policy Committee Recommendation One Small (CPOE) Step From Flexibility by Jeffrey Davis

Jeffrey Davis — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:54:45 +0000

Mr. Wenzlow,
I definitely agree with you that many rural providers will be unable to acheive some of the meaningful use standards in such a short period. I am a student at the Harvard School of Public Health and am actually working on a paper about how rural hospitals are responding to the HITECH ACT and especially to the meaningful use standards. I would love to be able to talk with you more about the NRHA’s position on this issue. Please send me an email if you have time. Thank you!
Jeff

Comment on CMS Proposed Rule Excludes Most Provider-Based Clinics by jim osbourne

jim osbourne — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:01:51 +0000

very interesting summary but still confusing.
we are an independent RHC and bill both UB and CMS1500 (based on service provided).
we use place of treatment “11″ for all UB-billed RHC service,s however,
for non-RHC services (i.e., lab, xray) p.o.s. “72″ is used - by billing directive of the MAC (as opposed to p.o.s. 11) - on the CMS1500.
surely, this would not exclude our RHC from the Medicare incentive ?

Comment on CMS Excludes “Provider-Based” Clinics from All EHR Incentives by Edward Gamache

Edward Gamache — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:47:50 +0000

This is another example that demonstrates that CMS quality initiatives are not about quality, but simply money. Rural Healthcare providers want to participate in quality programs to demonstrate the value they provide. CMS has consistently demonstrated that there just isn’t enough interest in including CAH facilities and other rural providers. If these initiatives were truly about quality and cost effectiveness instead of the latest method to reduce cost, all providers would be accommodated in their plans. In fact, provider based activities are integrated services that need to be evaluated for quality and cost effectiveness.

Comment on CMS Excludes “Provider-Based” Clinics from All EHR Incentives by registered dental assistant

registered dental assistant — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:14:09 +0000

Quite interesting about the CMS Excludes “Provider-Based” Clinics, i don’t know how it deals with peoples.

Comment on Health Reform Coverage vs. Access: Dealing with the Influx of Newly Covered Rural Patients by Wellescent Health

Wellescent Health — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 00:37:03 +0000

As my parents live in a rural setting, I have observed that the problem is a bit of a chicken in egg issue because while there are those rural doctors who are eager to assist in rural areas, there is also a need to get paid for one’s work. At least by enabling more people to have access to health insurance, any doctors that can be convinced to live in these areas will know that they can go and they will get paid. The harder challenge that will exist long after reform is enacted is convincing more doctors to live in rural areas. I have seen this problem existing in Mexico, the US and Canada and all three have very different systems.

Comment on Health Reform Coverage vs. Access: Dealing with the Influx of Newly Covered Rural Patients by Health Reform Coverage vs. Access: Dealing with the Influx of Newly Covered Rural Patients

Sat, 05 Dec 2009 21:57:23 +0000

[...] Rural Health Voices via RuralHealth [...]