{"id":5233,"date":"2013-09-13T15:08:52","date_gmt":"2013-09-13T19:08:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.healthit.gov\/buzz-blog\/?p=5233"},"modified":"2026-01-06T13:15:40","modified_gmt":"2026-01-06T13:15:40","slug":"ehr-certification-numbers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/healthit.gov\/blog\/insights-updates\/ehr-certification-numbers\/","title":{"rendered":"EHR Certification: By the Numbers"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
We\u2019ve been getting a number of questions about EHR vendor readiness and the 2014 Edition EHR certification criteria. Given the increased interest, I thought now would be a good time to answer some of those questions by:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
Reiterating a big policy change that was made in the 2014 Edition final rule; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n
Providing some data and insights into comparisons between 2014 Edition and 2011 Edition certification numbers.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
New Regulatory Flexibility<\/b><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
When ONC published the 2011 Edition final rule it included a definition for \u201cCertified EHR Technology\u201d that required eligible professionals (EPs), eligible hospitals (EHs), and critical access hospitals (CAHs) to have EHR technology certified to all of the certification criteria adopted for an applicable setting (ambulatory or inpatient).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
ONC received a wide range of feedback on this policy, including from those who argued that the policy:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
Was too rigid because it required all providers (regardless of setting or scope of practice) to have EHR technology capabilities that they may not use to demonstrate meaningful use (MU); and<\/li>\n\n\n\n
Gave EHR technology developers greater incentive (beyond a marketing distinction) to seek \u201cComplete EHR\u201d certifications for their products.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
In response to this feedback, we fundamentally changed the “Certified EHR Technology” definition in the 2014 Edition final rule. An EP, EH, or CAH now needs only the EHR technology (certified to the 2014 Edition) to satisfy their stage of MU \u2013 and no more. For example, an EP who needs to achieve MU Stage 1 does not necessarily need EHR technology certified to do secure messaging (an MU Stage 2 objective)).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A “Complete EHR” is no longer needed to meet the Certified EHR Technology definition and demonstrate MU.<\/i> And, based on our policy change, there is no longer a regulatory advantage for EHR vendors to seek Complete EHR certifications. In fact, the policy change strongly encourages the opposite result \u2013 smaller scoped, more specific, certified EHR Modules that can be combined together to more closely align the certified capabilities needed by an EP, EH, or CAH to demonstrate MU.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Going forward, it’s now more important to look at what an EHR technology is certified to do in contrast to whether it’s been issued a “Complete EHR” or “EHR Module” certification.<\/i><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Understanding Certified HIT Products List (CHPL) Data<\/b><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
For clarity purposes, I\u2019ve divided this section into a question and answer format. With questions #1 through #3, I hope to better explain how we look at the CHPL data and focus on a few 2011 Edition points. With question #4, I discuss one of the metrics we\u2019re monitoring to assess EHR vendor progress toward 2014 Edition certification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Question 1: What is the CHPL?<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
The CHPL lists every EHR technology (and subsequent versions of that same product) certified under the Temporary Certification Program by an ONC-Authorized Testing and Certification Body (ONC-ATCB) and under the ONC HIT Certification Program by an ONC-Authorized Certification Body (ONC-ACB). As a result, drawing conclusions from the cumulative raw numbers on the CHPL significantly overestimates the actual number of unique products (and does not account for products used for MU attestation). Before I dive in, I want to note that the data for questions #2 and #3 are based on MU attestation data through July 31, 2013 and CHPL data through August 8, 2013).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Question 2: How many Complete EHR and EHR Module vendors have had at least one EP, EH, or CAH attest to MU using their 2011 Edition EHR product?<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
Ambulatory setting answer = 59%.<\/b> Of the 861 ambulatory EHR vendors with a either a Complete EHR or EHR Module product listed on the CHPL, 507 have had a product used and reported to CMS as part of an MU attestation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
Inpatient setting answer = 51%. <\/b>Of the 277 inpatient EHR vendors with a either a Complete EHR or EHR Module product listed on the CHPL, 140 have had a product used and reported to CMS as part of an MU attestation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
This data conveys two points. First, on a positive note, the ambulatory and inpatient EHR markets have seen an impressive number of different EHR vendor products used to demonstrate MU. Second, the data suggests that it is likely we\u2019ll see a sizable reduction in the number of EHR vendors listed for 2014 Edition certification since close to half of the 2011 Edition EHR vendors (and their products) listed on the CHPL have never been used for a single MU attestation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Question 3: How many \u201c2011 Edition Complete EHRs\u201d are really out there and how many of them are unique and have been used for MU attestation? [Note: all numbers for this question are limited to Complete EHR data only.]<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Recently, a lot of attention has been paid to the number of \u201cComplete EHRs\u201d listed on the CHPL. Due to this interest, I thought it would be helpful to dig a little deeper into numbers to explain a few points. The following images illustrate the relationship between the number of 2011 Edition (ambulatory and inpatient) Complete EHRs listed on the CHPL (red circle) and the number of those Complete EHRs that are \u201cunique\u201d products (green circle). It also shows (purple circle) how many of those unique products have been used for MU attestation. We determine \u201cuniqueness\u201d by the assigned certification number. For example, if \u201cProduct A1\u201d is listed on the CHPL and then \u201cProduct A1.1\u201d lists on the CHPL two months later retaining the same assigned certification number then we view those two EHR technologies as the same (typically updated) product and not a \u201cunique\u201d product entry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
![\"ONC](\"https:\/\/healthit.gov\/\/buzz-blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/09\/ONC-Image-1.jpg\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n