Comment Period Now Open: Help Set the Stage for Meaningful Use Stage 3

See revised section below on how to submit comments.

Speak up now and help ONC’s Health Information Technology Policy Committee (HITPC) as they begin to develop meaningful use stage 3 recommendations that target a collaborative model of care with shared responsibility and accountability, and build upon previous meaningful use objectives.

The HITPC has held a series of public hearings and listening sessions to hear testimony from a wide-range of stakeholders about their current experience with meaningful use and lessons learned. Health IT thought-leaders also discussed how meaningful use can continue to improve the health care system, including how meaningful use should support emerging models of care.

Similar input helped to inform many hours of public deliberations about the future of meaningful use before Stage 2 was published in August. While the committee appreciates and recognizes the challenges involved in setting up data exchanges, it has recommended that meaningful use stage 3 be the time to begin to transition from a setting-specific focus to a collaborative, patient and family centric approach.

The Request for Comment (RFC) [ PDF- 313KB ] for meaningful use stage 3 is broken into the following sections:

  • Meaningful Use Objectives and Measures
  • Quality Measures
  • Privacy and Security

We want to acknowledge and thank the following workgroups for the tireless hours they have put into collecting these recommendations for comment: Meaningful Use, Information Exchange, Quality Measures, and the Privacy and Security Tiger Team.

All commenters are encouraged to provide opinions regarding feasibility, and more importantly, experiences with how something has been done in order to promote advancement, while also ensuring it is achievable.

How to Submit Comments

The comment period is now open. Each item that the HITPC is requesting comment on has been given an identification (ID) number in order to streamline the accumulation of comments. Please use this ID number when submitting comments. Because of staff and resource limitations, we are only accepting comments electronically at  Click on the “Comment Now!” button and follow the “Submit a Comment” instructions.

Attachments should be in Microsoft Word or Excel, Word Perfect, or Adobe PDF. Please do not submit duplicative comments. The deadline for comments is 11:59 p.m. ET on January 14, 2013.

Analysis of Comments

Following the analysis of the comments received throughout the comment period, the HITPC intends to revisit these recommendations in its public meetings in the first quarter of 2013. It is important to note that the RFC represents the preliminary thinking of the HITPC and not necessarily HHS or its various agencies.


  1. Greg Low, RPh, PhD says:

    Regarding SGRP #103, there is mention of reviewing orders against a formulary for the purpose of “generic substitution”. I’d encourage consideration of the difference between generic and therapeutic substitutions.

    In nearly every state, pharmacists and pharmacies can substitute rated bioequivalent generics for prescriptions ordered under a corresponding trade name. There is little additional value from the EHR in this area, and it would be a shame to impact workflows where there is little opportunity. The greater value is in assisting prescribers in identifying therapeutic substitutions, where the prescriber might deem that another drug in the class will achieve the same clinical effect, but at a lower cost to the patient. This is an area where EHRs have shown greater promise.

    My institution has worked in this area previously and would be glad to share examples if this isn’t clearly explained.

    Thank you,

  2. Patrick Duffy says:

    As MU becomes more demanding the requirement for more processes and procedures grows. This is developing into a “silo” process system.

    Perhaps following the lead of many other countries priority should be given and maybe incentives for a business wide QMS. This would make the management and therefore cost of processes easier and cheaper. Put quality at the heart of the business and the product quality will follow.

    “Don’t build your house without a firm foundation”

  3. Andrew says:

    Can you post the Docket ID so we can find it on the website?

  4. Richard Purcell says:

    We have a mobile web solution for patient/caregiver/provider connection that allows for HIPAA compliant information exchange and health care collaboration. The problem within the current framework for EMR certification by ONC is the requirement to be a full EMR. Organizations with full EMRs cannot readily add on modules without building custom APIs involving the IT Teams of the hospital/organization, the EMR vendor, and the modular software developer. The HL7 standards provide a general framework for connection, but implementation of an open-source API for connecting a collaboration tool to the EMR system would greatly facilitate MU Stage 3 adoption.

  5. P. Chubbuck says:

    Please give clear data to explain exactly what a certified EHR product should meet. To meet Stage I MU with a certified EHR the vendors are charging thousands in addition to the cost of the certified product and when questioned they state that the product is certified for Stage I MU but the provider is still required to purchase additional capabilities if they want to apply for Stage I MU. What will they be charging for a provider to meet the next stages and how are certified EHRs able to pass when they can’t even meet Stage I?

  6. Judy Carney says:

    I find that placing humans into data driven information does not always provide a clear indication of the whole of a person’s living situation. I have a rehab company that works in skilled nursing and home health. In fact, very seldom is it possible to provide the care and the time to a patient and their family. It is usually care or time to complete data input which is not reliable. I would like to be able to indicate that there are “other” factors that influence decision making. I think this can cut down on re-entries to hospitalizations. I think that therapists are really on the ground floor of the foundation of this system.

  7. Kristian Morenz says:

    I prefer to work with the local Regional Extension Center.

  8. Charles L. says:

    We this helps to improve healthcare am for it 100% but I am concern about who will have access to my personal information.

  9. Suresh says:

    i opt to work with lrec thank you once again…

  10. ami says:

    I’ve missed the submission, is there any way to get a chance in future?
    Please make me aware in future.
    Thank you.

  11. ARYAN says:

    We want to acknowledge and thank the following workgroups for the tireless hours they have put into collecting these recommendations

  12. Bhumi Faldu says:

    i opt to work with lrec thank you once again…

  13. Jassy says:

    Thanks to ONGC blog team . You should acknowledge and thank these workgroups for your tireless hours they’ve got put into obtaining these recommendations.

  14. Sucha says:

    It was fun to Work with the LREC. thanks a lot !

  15. bhushan says:

    LREC is awesome.. really i mean it

  16. Sweety says:

    Yo, Thanks to ONGC blog team . You should acknowledge and thank these workgroups for your tireless hours they’ve got put into obtaining these recommendations.

  17. Adaywa says:

    Irec rocks! thanks ONC team.

  18. Vishnu says:

    Thank you ONC !

    Really nice that you published the DOCKET ID.Will be updated !

  19. Katherine says:

    Thanks to the work groups

Leave a ReplyComment Policy