OBJECTIVE: To identify area-level correlates of electronic health record (EHR) adoption and meaningful use (MU) among primary care providers (PCPs) enrolled in the Regional Extension Center (REC) Program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: County-level data on 2013 EHR adoption and MU among REC-enrolled PCPs were obtained from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and linked with other county-level data sources including the Area Resource File, American Community Survey, and Federal Communications Commission's broadband availability database. Hierarchical models with random intercepts for RECs were employed to assess associations between a broad set of area-level factors and county-level rates of EHR adoption and MU. RESULTS: Among the 2715 counties examined, the average county-level EHR adoption and MU rates for REC-enrolled PCPs were 87.5% and 54.2%, respectively. Community health center presence and Medicaid enrollment concentration were positively associated with EHR adoption, while metropolitan status and Medicare Advantage enrollment concentration were positively associated with MU. Health professional shortage area status and minority concentration were negatively associated with EHR adoption and MU. DISCUSSION: Increased financial incentives in areas with greater concentrations of Medicaid and Medicare enrollees may be encouraging EHR adoption and MU among REC-enrolled PCPs. Disparities in EHR adoption and MU in some low-resource and underserved areas remain a concern. CONCLUSIONS: Federal efforts to spur EHR adoption and MU have demonstrated some early success; however, some geographic variations in EHR diffusion indicate that greater attention needs to be paid to ensuring equitable uptake and use of EHRs throughout the US. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
OBJECTIVE: To identify area-level correlates of electronic health record (EHR) adoption and meaningful use (MU) among primary care providers (PCPs) enrolled in the Regional Extension Center (REC) Program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: County-level data on 2013 EHR adoption and MU among REC-enrolled PCPs were obtained from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and linked with other county-level data sources including the Area Resource File, American Community Survey, and Federal Communications Commission's broadband availability database. Hierarchical models with random intercepts for RECs were employed to assess associations between a broad set of area-level factors and county-level rates of EHR adoption and MU. RESULTS: Among the 2715 counties examined, the average county-level EHR adoption and MU rates for REC-enrolled PCPs were 87.5% and 54.2%, respectively. Community health center presence and Medicaid enrollment concentration were positively associated with EHR adoption, while metropolitan status and Medicare Advantage enrollment concentration were positively associated with MU. Health professional shortage area status and minority concentration were negatively associated with EHR adoption and MU. DISCUSSION: Increased financial incentives in areas with greater concentrations of Medicaid and Medicare enrollees may be encouraging EHR adoption and MU among REC-enrolled PCPs. Disparities in EHR adoption and MU in some low-resource and underserved areas remain a concern. CONCLUSIONS: Federal efforts to spur EHR adoption and MU have demonstrated some early success; however, some geographic variations in EHR diffusion indicate that greater attention needs to be paid to ensuring equitable uptake and use of EHRs throughout the US. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Keywords:
HITECH act; diffusion of innovations; disparities; electronic health records; geographic variations
Authors: Andrew Georgiou; Johanna Westbrook; Jeffrey Braithwaite; Rick Iedema; Sangeeta Ray; Rowena Forsyth; Anthony Dimos; Tony Germanos Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2006-05-15 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Steven R Simon; Rainu Kaushal; Paul D Cleary; Chelsea A Jenter; Lynn A Volk; Eric G Poon; E John Orav; Helen G Lo; Deborah H Williams; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2006-10-26 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Catherine M DesRoches; Chantal Worzala; Maulik S Joshi; Peter D Kralovec; Ashish K Jha Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2012-04-24 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: William Hollingworth; Emily Beth Devine; Ryan N Hansen; Nathan M Lawless; Bryan A Comstock; Jennifer L Wilson-Norton; Kathleen L Tharp; Sean D Sullivan Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2007-08-21 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Kimberly Lynch; Mat Kendall; Katherine Shanks; Ahmed Haque; Emily Jones; Maggie G Wanis; Michael Furukawa; Farzad Mostashari Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2013-12-21 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Ashish K Jha; Catherine M DesRoches; Alexandra E Shields; Paola D Miralles; Jie Zheng; Sara Rosenbaum; Eric G Campbell Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2009-10-26 Impact factor: 6.301