Page 1 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

December 13, 2012

Congressional Committees

Subject: Electronic Health Records: Number and Characteristics of Providers 

Awarded Medicaid Incentive Payments for 2011

Widespread use of health information technology, such as electronic health records 

(EHR), has the potential to improve the quality of care patients receive and reduce 

health care costs. However, studies have estimated that as of 2009, 78 percent of 

office-based physicians and 91 percent of hospitals had not adopted EHRs.1 Among 

other things, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health 

(HITECH) Act, enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009,2 provided funding for various activities intended to promote the adoption and 

meaningful use of certified EHR technology.3 The largest of these activities, in terms 

of potential federal expenditures, are the Medicare and Medicaid EHR programs.4

 

1

See C. J. Hsiao, E. Hing, T. C. Socey, and B. Cai, “Electronic Medical Record/Electronic Health 

Record Systems of Office-Based Physicians: United States, 2009 and Preliminary 2010 State 

Estimates,” National Center for Health Statistics Health E-stat (2010); and A. K. Jha, C. M. 

DesRoches, P. D. Kralovec, and M. S. Joshi, “A Progress Report on Electronic Health Records In 

U.S. Hospitals,” Health Affairs, no.10 (2010):1951-1957.

Starting in 2011, these programs have provided incentive payments for certain 

providers, including both hospitals and health care professionals such as physicians 

and dentists that demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology and meet 

other program requirements established by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services (CMS). The Congressional Budget Office estimates that from 2011 through 

2019, spending for the Medicare and Medicaid EHR programs will total $30 billion, 

2

The HITECH Act was enacted as title XIII of division A and title IV of division B of the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Pub. L. No. 111-5, div. A, tit. XIII, 123 Stat. 115, 226-279 

and div. B, tit. IV, 123 Stat. 115, 467-496 (2009).

3

Congress defined “meaningful use” in this context to reflect that the user of health information 

technology demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

that the technology is certified and being used in a meaningful manner, that the technology is 

connected in a manner that provides for the electronic exchange of health information to improve the 

quality of health care, and that such information is submitted in a form and manner specified by the 

Secretary. See Pub. L. No. 111-5, § 4101(a), 123 Stat. 467-472. To be certified, EHR technology 

must meet certain criteria established by HHS’s Office of the National Coordinator for Health 

Information Technology that describe minimum related performance standards and implementation 

specifications.

4

See Pub. L. No. 111-5, §§ 4101-4201, 123 Stat. 467-494. Medicare is a federal program financing 

health care for individuals aged 65 and older, certain disabled individuals, and individuals with endstage renal disease. In 2010, Medicare covered 47 million beneficiaries. Medicaid is a federal-state 

program financing health care for certain low-income individuals. In fiscal year 2009, Medicaid 

covered over 65 million beneficiaries.
Page 2 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

with spending for the Medicaid EHR program accounting for more than a third—

$12.4 billion. This report focuses on the Medicaid EHR program.

Provisions in the HITECH Act define the types of hospitals and professionals that 

may be eligible to receive Medicaid EHR incentive payments. Eligible hospitals 

include acute care hospitals, critical access hospitals, children’s hospitals, and 

cancer hospitals.5 Eligible professionals include doctors of medicine, dental medicine 

or surgery, and osteopathy; nurse practitioners; certified nurse midwives; and 

physician assistants who work for a federally qualified health center or rural health 

clinic that is led by a physician assistant.6 To participate in the Medicaid EHR 

program, providers must generally meet a patient volume requirement. This 

requirement was established to ensure that providers that receive incentive 

payments from the Medicaid EHR program serve a minimum volume of Medicaid 

patients, or, for certain professionals, a minimum volume of needy patients.7

Hospitals generally must have a Medicaid patient volume of at least 10 percent.8

Professionals must have a Medicaid patient volume of at least 30 percent unless 

they are pediatricians or practice predominantly in a federally qualified health center 

or rural health clinic; pediatricians must have a Medicaid patient volume of at least 

20 percent.9

To qualify for incentive payments in 2011 or during the first year they participate in 

the Medicaid EHR program, providers only need to adopt, implement, or upgrade to 

a certified EHR system, and they do not have to demonstrate meaningful use. In 

subsequent years, however, providers must demonstrate meaningful use of the EHR 

systems in order to qualify for the program’s incentive payments. To demonstrate 

meaningful use, providers must collect and report information on various measures 

established by CMS.

 

5

In this report, for the purpose of analyzing participation in the Medicaid EHR program, we use the 

term acute care hospital to describe short-term hospitals that are not critical access or cancer 

hospitals. However, in the Medicaid EHR program, the term acute care hospital refers to short-term 

hospitals generally, which includes critical access hospitals, and cancer hospitals. The hospitals 

classified as critical access hospitals typically are very small (25 inpatient beds or fewer) and operate 

in rural areas.

6

Federally qualified health centers are urban or rural centers that provide comprehensive communitybased primary care services to individuals regardless of their ability to pay. Rural health clinics 

provide similar primary care services in underserved rural areas, but unlike federally qualified health 

centers, rural health clinics are not required to provide services to all individuals, such as those who 

are uninsured.

7

Needy patients are defined by CMS as patients who are enrolled in Medicaid or the State Children’s 

Health Insurance Program, receive uncompensated care, or receive care at no cost or on a sliding 

scale determined by ability to pay.

8

Children’s hospitals are the only hospitals that do not have to meet the 10 percent Medicaid patient 

volume requirement.

9

Professionals who practice predominantly in a federally qualified health center or rural health clinic 

must have a needy patient volume of at least 30 percent. To be considered as practicing 

predominantly in a federally qualified health center or rural health clinic, a professional must treat over 

50 percent of his or her total patient volume over a period of 6 months in a federally qualified health

center or rural health clinic.
Page 3 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. insular areas administer and oversee 

the Medicaid EHR program, with CMS providing additional oversight and funding. 

Although states are not required to offer the Medicaid EHR program, 42 states 

launched a Medicaid EHR program and disbursed incentive payments for 2011.10

During 2011, the first year of the program, 2,700 hospitals and 66,663 professionals 

registered for the Medicaid EHR program, which is a necessary first step to 

participate in the program.

11 Under the Medicaid EHR program, incentive payment 

amounts to hospitals and professionals are determined as follows.12 Payments are 

determined and awarded on a fiscal year basis for hospitals and on a calendar year 

basis for professionals.13

• For hospitals, the amount of incentive payment in any given year is generally 

based on the hospital’s annual discharges and Medicaid share, which is the 

percentage of the hospital’s inpatient bed days that were attributable to Medicaid 

patients. The number of years over which incentive payments are awarded (from 

3 to 6 years) is at the discretion of the state. As a result, the payment amount 

awarded to hospitals for a certain level of discharges and Medicaid share in any 

given year, including 2011, can vary across states. Theoretically, the maximum 

possible amount a hospital could receive in total Medicaid EHR incentive 

payments is $15,926,000.14

For most professionals, the amount of incentive payment that a professional 

receives in any given year is, in general, a fixed amount, $21,250 in the first year 

and $8,500 each year for up to 5 subsequent years. The total amount over a 

6-year period cannot exceed $63,750.15

 

10In addition to the U.S. insular areas and the District of Columbia, the following states did not offer 

the Medicaid EHR program in 2011: Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, 

Nevada, and Virginia.

11For hospitals, see CMS, “Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Program Payment and Registration 

Report, November 2011.” For professionals, see CMS, “Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive 

Program Payment and Registration Report, February 2012.” 

12The last year for which providers may begin receiving payments is 2016 and the last year for which 

providers may be awarded Medicaid EHR incentive payments is 2021. Providers can maximize their

total payments by first participating in the Medicaid EHR program no later than 2016.

13As a result, year 2011 refers to the fiscal year—October 1, 2010, through September 30, 2011—for 

hospitals and the calendar year for professionals.

14This amount assumes that all patients the hospital served were Medicaid patients and that the 

hospital had at least 23,000 discharges each year, which is the highest number of discharges used in 

the calculation of Medicaid EHR incentive payments. For more information see CMS, “Medicaid 

Hospital Incentive Payment Calculations” accessed December 3, 2012, 

http://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-NetworkMLN/MLNProducts/downloads/MEDICAID_HOSP_INCENTIVE_PAYMENTS_TIP_SHEETS.PDF.

15Pediatricians who qualify with less than 30 percent Medicaid patient volume (but have at least 

20 percent) may receive $14,167 in the first year and $5,667 in subsequent years, up to a total 

amount of $42,500 over a 6-year period.
Page 4 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

The HITECH Act requires us to report on, among other things, the impact of its 

provisions on adoption of EHRs by providers.16 In response to this requirement, in 

April 2012 we reported on CMS’s efforts to oversee the first year of the Medicare 

and Medicaid EHR programs as well as challenges encountered by providers and 

strategies they used to participate in these programs.17 We recommended, among 

other things, that CMS take steps to enhance its processes used to verify that 

providers receiving incentive payments have met program requirements. On behalf 

of CMS, the Department of Health and Human Services agreed with most of our 

recommendations. In July 2012, we reported information on providers that were 

awarded Medicare EHR incentive payments for 2011, including the number of award 

recipients and their characteristics.18

Concerns have been raised that various factors, such as location in urban or rural 

areas or the size of hospitals and professional practices, may affect the extent to 

which different providers will respond to the incentives provided by the HITECH Act. 

Identifying the number and characteristics of providers that participated during the 

first year of the Medicaid EHR program can provide important information on 

whether certain types of providers were more likely than others to participate. As 

discussed with the committees of jurisdiction, in this report we provide information on 

providers that were awarded Medicaid EHR program incentive payments for 2011, 

the first year of the program.

To provide information on providers—that is, hospitals and professionals—awarded 

Medicaid EHR incentive payments for 2011, we analyzed data related to the 2011 

program year that CMS collected from participating states as well as data from CMS 

and other government and private sources on provider characteristics.19

• determine the number of providers that were awarded a Medicaid EHR incentive 

payment,

We used 

these data to

• estimate the percentage of eligible providers that were awarded a Medicaid EHR 

incentive payment,

• determine the amount of Medicaid EHR incentive payments awarded to 

providers, and

 

16Pub. L. No. 111-5, § 13424(e), 123 Stat. 278-279.

17See GAO, Electronic Health Records: First Year of CMS’s Incentive Programs Shows Opportunities 

to Improve Processes to Verify Providers Met Requirements, GAO-12-481 (Washington, D.C.: 

Apr. 30, 2012). In our April 2012 report, we analyzed partial-year data that Medicare providers 

reported to CMS to demonstrate that they meaningfully used their certified EHR technology.

18See GAO, Electronic Health Records: Number and Characteristics of Providers Awarded Medicare 

Incentive Payments for 2011, GAO-12-778R (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2012).

19In the Medicaid EHR program, states have the flexibility to establish the deadline by which providers 

must submit the information needed to determine incentive payment eligibility. States also have the 

flexibility to establish the deadline for completing the incentive payment awards. As a result, at the 

time of our analysis, not all states had determined which hospitals and professionals would receive 

incentive payments for 2011. We analyzed data related to the 2011 program year that CMS collected 

from the states from January 3, 2011, through October 1, 2012.
Page 5 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

• examine the characteristics of providers that were awarded Medicaid EHR 

incentive payments.

Specifically, to determine the number of providers that were awarded a Medicaid 

EHR incentive payment for 2011, we analyzed CMS data on providers that had an 

incentive payment disbursed to them. We also used these data to estimate the 

percentage of eligible providers awarded a Medicaid EHR incentive payment for 

2011. To do this, we divided the number of providers awarded an incentive payment 

by the estimated total number of eligible providers, that is, providers that were 

eligible for the Medicaid EHR program, regardless of whether they were awarded an 

incentive payment. To determine the total amount of Medicaid EHR incentive 

payments awarded to providers, we summed the Medicaid EHR incentive payments 

awarded to providers. To provide context, we compared these numbers to 

participation levels and total award amounts made under the Medicare EHR 

program for 2011.20

To examine the characteristics of providers awarded Medicaid EHR incentive 

payments for 2011, we analyzed data from CMS, the Health Resources and 

Services Administration, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information

Technology (ONC), and Surescripts.

We also examined the distribution of the Medicaid incentive 

payments across providers. Specifically, for hospitals, we determined the minimum, 

25th percentile, median, 75th percentile, and maximum Medicaid EHR incentive 

payment amount. For professionals, we determined the percentage of professionals 

who were awarded an incentive payment of various amounts.

21 Examples of professional characteristics 

included whether the professional had previously participated in CMS’s Electronic 

Prescribing program or signed an agreement to receive technical assistance from a 

Regional Extension Center.22 As part of our analysis, we also compared the 

characteristics of hospitals that were awarded Medicaid EHR incentive payments for 

2011 to those of other hospitals that were eligible for the Medicaid EHR program but 

 

20Information on participation in the Medicare EHR program in 2011 was obtained from 

GAO-12-778R. 

21Surescripts operates the nation’s largest electronic prescription network and collects data on, 

among other things, the number of electronic prescriptions sent to pharmacies in its network.

22The Electronic Prescribing program, which was established by the Medicare Improvements for 

Patients and Providers Act of 2008, provides incentive payments from 2009 through 2013 to 

physicians and certain other Medicare professionals, such as physician assistants and nurse 

practitioners, who have prescribing authority and who adopt and use systems that meet CMS’s 

definition of a qualified electronic prescribing system. From 2012 through 2014, the program may 

apply a payment adjustment, or penalty, on the program’s eligible providers that do not adopt and use 

such systems. See GAO, Electronic Prescribing: CMS Should Address Inconsistencies in Its Two 

Incentive Programs That Encourage the Use of Health Information Technology, GAO-11-159

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 17, 2011).

The Regional Extension Center program was established by the HITECH Act and is administered by 

ONC to help some types of providers, such as those located in rural areas, participate in CMS’s EHR 

programs.
Page 6 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

were not awarded a payment for that year.23

To ensure the reliability of the various data we analyzed, we interviewed officials 

from CMS, ONC, and Surescripts; reviewed relevant documentation; and conducted 

electronic testing to identify missing data and obvious errors. As part of our efforts to 

ensure the reliability of CMS data on providers that received a Medicaid EHR 

program incentive payment for 2011, we reviewed information from states, which 

submit the data to CMS, to assess the completeness of the CMS data. In general, 

we found that total participation and amounts awarded for 2011 will likely increase 

because some states had not completed their determinations of which hospitals and 

professionals had met all the requirements to receive incentive payments for 2011. 

We estimate that up to 4 percent more hospitals and up to 9 percent more 

professionals may obtain 2011 incentive payments.

Our comparisons included eligible 

hospitals from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. insular areas.

24 On the basis of these activities, 

we determined that the data we analyzed were sufficiently reliable for our analysis.25

We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 to December 2012 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 

standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 

our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Enclosure I provides additional information on our scope and methodology.

In summary, 1,964 hospitals and 45,962 professionals were awarded a total of 

approximately $2.7 billion in Medicaid EHR incentive payments for 2011. These 

1,964 hospitals, which represented 39 percent of the 5,013 eligible hospitals, were 

awarded a total of $1.7 billion in Medicaid EHR incentive payments for 2011.26

 

23It was not feasible to conduct a similar analysis of professionals that examined characteristics of 

eligible professionals who received Medicaid EHR incentive payments compared to those who did 

not. We lacked the data to be able to identify professionals who met the minimum Medicaid or needy 

patient volume threshold—a key eligibility requirement in the Medicaid EHR program—but did not 

receive a Medicaid EHR incentive payment.

While 

the amount of Medicaid EHR incentive payments awarded to each hospital ranged 

from $7,528 to $7.2 million, the median payment amount was $613,512. 

Participation rates, as well as total payments, were higher for hospitals in the 

Medicaid EHR program when compared to the Medicare EHR program, though the 

median payment amount in the Medicaid EHR program was less than half as large.

(See table 1.)

24Most of the hospitals that had not yet been paid at the time of our analysis were concentrated in 

Illinois, and most of the professionals that had not yet been paid at the time of our analysis were 

concentrated in California, Illinois, and New York.

25The amount of missing data on provider characteristics was generally low; however, in instances in 

which data were missing for 6 percent or more of providers, we noted this explicitly in tables 

presented in encs. II and III, as appropriate. See enc. I for specific information on the extent of 

missing data for the various provider characteristics we examined.

26In contrast to professionals, certain hospitals may receive an incentive payment from both the 

Medicare and Medicaid EHR programs in the same year. Through October 1, 2012, 529 hospitals 

were awarded an incentive payment from both programs for 2011.
Page 7 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

Table 1: Participation in the Medicaid and Medicare EHR Programs by Hospitals, 2011

Medicaid Medicare

Number (percentage of eligible) 1,964 (39) 761 (16)

Median payment $613,512 $1.7 million

Total payments $1.7 billion $1.3 billion

Source: GAO analysis of CMS data.

Notes: Medicaid figures are based on data CMS collected through October 1, 2012, for the 2011 program year. Medicare 

figures were reported in GAO, Electronic Health Records: Number and Characteristics of Providers Awarded Medicare 

Incentive Payments for 2011, GAO-12-778R (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2012). The total number of hospitals that receive 

incentive payment awards from the Medicaid or Medicare EHR programs may increase.

About 50 percent of hospitals accounted for about 80 percent of the total amount of 

Medicaid incentive payments awarded to hospitals. Among hospitals awarded a 

Medicaid EHR incentive payment for 2011, we found that

• the largest proportion (46 percent) were located in the South and the smallest 

proportion (15 percent) were located in the Northeast,

• three-fifths (62 percent) were located in urban areas,

• four-fifths (80 percent) were acute care hospitals,

• more than half (57 percent) were nonprofit hospitals, and

• more than half (57 percent) were not members of a chain.

Comparing the hospitals that received incentive awards to the eligible hospitals that 

did not, we found that hospitals with certain characteristics were more likely to have 

been awarded Medicaid EHR incentive payments for 2011. For example, acute care 

hospitals were 1.7 times more likely and children’s hospitals were 1.6 times more 

likely to have been awarded a Medicaid EHR incentive payment for 2011, when 

compared to critical access hospitals. In addition, hospitals with the highest number 

of total beds were 2 times more likely to have been awarded an incentive payment 

than hospitals with the lowest number of total beds.

The 45,962 professionals awarded a Medicaid EHR incentive payment for 2011 

represented 33 percent of the estimated 139,600 professionals eligible for the 

program and were awarded a total of $967 million in incentive payments. Almost all 

professionals (97 percent) were awarded the maximum incentive payment amount 

generally available to professionals in 2011 ($21,250). Proportionally more than 

three times as many eligible professionals participated in the Medicaid EHR program 

in 2011 than in the Medicare EHR program, though the total payment amounts in the 

two programs were nearly equivalent.27 (See table 2.)

 

27Although the Medicare and Medicaid EHR programs both distributed a total of $967 million to 

professionals for 2011 as of the dates we obtained the data from CMS, the aggregate amount 

distributed is determined independently for the two programs.
Page 8 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

Table 2: Participation in the Medicaid and Medicare EHR Programs by Professionals, 2011

Medicaid Medicare

Number (percentage of eligible) 45,962 (33) 56,585 (9)

Median payment $21,250 $18,000

Total payments $967.1 million $967.4 million

Source: GAO analysis of CMS data.

Notes: Medicaid figures are based on data CMS collected through October 1, 2012, for the 2011 program year. Medicare 

figures were reported in GAO, Electronic Health Records: Number and Characteristics of Providers Awarded Medicare 

Incentive Payments for 2011, GAO-12-778R (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2012). The total number of professionals who receive 

incentive payment awards from the Medicaid or Medicare EHR programs may increase.

Among the professionals who received a Medicaid EHR incentive payment for 2011, 

we found that

• the largest proportion (37 percent) were located in the South and the smallest 

proportion (20 percent) were located in the Midwest;

• four-fifths (83 percent) were located in urban areas;

• nearly three-quarters were physicians—either general practice physicians 

(23 percent) or specialty practice physicians (51 percent)—and the lowest 

proportion (1 percent) were physician assistants; and

• almost half (47 percent) had signed agreements to receive technical assistance 

from a Regional Extension Center.

See enclosure II for more information on the characteristics of hospitals that were 

awarded a Medicaid EHR incentive payment for 2011. See enclosure III for more 

information on the characteristics of professionals who were awarded a Medicaid 

EHR incentive payment for 2011.

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Health and Human Services 

for comment. The department provided technical comments, which we have 

addressed as appropriate.

– – – – – 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 

the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the National 

Coordinator for Health Information Technology, and other interested parties. In 

addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 
Page 9 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact me at 

(202) 512-7114 or at kohnl@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this 

report. Major contributors to this report were Kristi Peterson, Assistant Director; 

Julianne Flowers; Krister Friday; Melanie Krause; E. Anne Laffoon; Shannon Legeer; 

Monica Perez-Nelson; and Eric Peterson.

Linda T. Kohn

Director, Health Care

Enclosures – 3 
Page 10 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

List of Committees

The Honorable Max Baucus

Chairman

The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch

Ranking Member

Committee on Finance

United States Senate

The Honorable Tom Harkin

Chairman

The Honorable Michael B. Enzi

Ranking Member

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

United States Senate

The Honorable Fred Upton

Chairman

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman

Ranking Member

Committee on Energy and Commerce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Dave Camp

Chairman

The Honorable Sander M. Levin

Ranking Member

Committee on Ways and Means

House of Representatives
Enclosure I

Page 11 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

Scope and Methodology

This enclosure provides additional details regarding our analysis of data from the 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and other government and private 

sources to (1) determine the number of providers that were awarded a Medicaid 

electronic health record (EHR) incentive payment, (2) estimate the percentage of 

eligible providers that were awarded a Medicaid EHR incentive payment,1

Number of providers that were awarded a Medicaid EHR incentive payment. To 

determine the number of providers that were awarded an incentive payment, we 

analyzed data on providers that were awarded Medicaid EHR incentive payments for 

2011 from CMS’s National Level Repository.

 

(3) determine the amount of Medicaid EHR incentive payments awarded to 

providers, and (4) examine the characteristics of providers that were awarded 

Medicaid EHR incentive payments.

2 We analyzed data related to the 2011 

program year that CMS collected from January 3, 2011, through October 1, 2012.3

Estimate of the percentage of eligible providers that were awarded a Medicaid 

EHR incentive payment. To estimate the nationwide percentage of hospitals that 

were awarded an incentive payment, we divided the number of hospitals that were 

awarded an incentive payment by the total number of eligible hospitals, that is, 

hospitals that were eligible for the Medicaid EHR program, regardless of whether 

they were awarded an incentive payment. We identified eligible hospitals as those 

that met the following three criteria:

Specifically, we counted the number of providers that had an incentive payment 

disbursed to them.

 

1

We use the term eligible providers to refer to hospitals and professionals who were generally eligible 

for the Medicaid EHR program, regardless of whether they were awarded a Medicaid EHR incentive 

payment for 2011, as described in greater detail later in this enclosure.

2

The National Level Repository is a database that contains information on providers pertaining to the 

Medicaid EHR program, including information on providers that are registered for the incentive 

program and the amount of incentive payments, if applicable. The National Level Repository also 

contains information on providers pertaining to the Medicare EHR program, which we generally did 

not include in our analysis.

3

As part of our efforts to ensure the reliability of CMS data containing information on providers that 

received a Medicaid EHR program incentive payment for 2011, we reviewed information from states, 

which submit the data to CMS, to assess the completeness of the CMS data. In general, we found 

that total participation and amounts awarded for 2011 will likely increase because some states had 

not completed their determinations of which hospitals and professionals had met all the requirements 

to receive incentive payments for 2011. We estimate that up to 4 percent more hospitals and up to 

9 percent more professionals may obtain 2011 incentive payments. (Most of the hospitals that had 

not yet been paid at the time of our analysis were concentrated in Illinois, and most of the 

professionals that had not yet been paid at the time of our analysis were concentrated in California, 

Illinois, and New York.) However, we also found that the data we obtained from CMS for 2011 may 

have included some providers that were awarded payments for 2012 rather than 2011, and this would 

reduce the extent to which our results underestimate the total number of providers that obtained 

incentive payments for 2011. Specifically, we compared CMS and state records in the six states that 

paid the largest proportion of total hospitals or total professionals and found no discrepancies 

between CMS and state hospital data in four of the states. But in two of the states, CMS data listed 

more hospitals awarded a payment for 2011 than the states reported having paid for 2011—6 percent 

more hospitals in one state and 11 percent more in the other. Discrepancies between the NLR and 

state data were much smaller for professionals, less than one percent in all 6 states.
Enclosure I

Page 12 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

• were acute care, critical access, cancer, or children’s hospitals;

• were located in one of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, or a U.S. insular 

area; and

• were not terminated from participating in the Medicaid program on or before 

January 2, 2011.4

We used a similar approach to estimate the percentage of hospitals that were 

awarded an incentive payment in each state. To estimate the nationwide percentage 

of professionals who were awarded an incentive payment, we divided the number of 

professionals who were awarded an incentive payment by the national estimate of 

the number of eligible professionals—139,600—that CMS developed in consultation 

with the Congressional Budget Office.5

Amount of Medicaid EHR incentive payments awarded to providers. We 

determined the total amount of the incentive payments that were awarded to 

providers by summing the Medicaid EHR incentive payments that had been 

disbursed to providers. To provide context, we compared these numbers to 

participation levels and total award amounts made under the Medicare EHR 

program for 2011.

We used CMS’s national estimate of eligible 

professionals because we lacked the data to be able to identify professionals who 

met the minimum Medicaid or needy patient volume threshold—a key eligibility 

requirement in the Medicaid EHR program—but did not receive a Medicaid EHR 

incentive payment. Because CMS’s estimate of the number of eligible professionals 

was not available at the state level, instead of estimating the percentage of 

professionals awarded an incentive payment in each state, we estimated the number 

of eligible professionals awarded an incentive payment per 10,000 Medicaid 

enrollees for each state (based on a CMS count of enrollment for each state as of 

December 31, 2010).

6

 

4

In this report, for the purpose of analyzing participation in the Medicaid EHR program, we use the 

term acute care hospital to describe short-term hospitals that are not critical access or cancer 

hospitals. However, in the Medicaid EHR program, the term acute care hospital refers to short-term 

hospitals generally, which includes critical access hospitals, and cancer hospitals. The hospitals 

classified as critical access hospitals typically are very small (25 inpatient beds or fewer) and operate 

in rural areas.

We also examined the distribution of the Medicaid incentive 

payments for hospitals and professionals. Specifically, for hospitals, we determined 

5

CMS determined its estimate of the professionals eligible for the Medicaid EHR program as follows. 

First, CMS estimated that 14 percent of the 553,200 professionals participating in fee-for-service 

Medicare in 2011 were ineligible for an EHR payment for 2011 because they were hospital based. Of 

the 477,500 remaining professionals, it estimated that 20 percent, or 95,500, would meet the 

Medicaid patient volume requirements and choose to participate in the Medicaid EHR program 

instead of the Medicare EHR program because the incentive payment in the Medicaid EHR program 

is higher than that in the Medicare EHR program. Next, CMS estimated that there were about 44,

100 professionals who were not eligible for the Medicare EHR payment but were eligible under the 

Medicaid program. These included pediatricians and eligible nonphysicians such as nurse 

practitioners and certified nurse midwives. Together, these two groups totaled 139,600. See 75 Fed. 

Reg. 44314, 44548 (July 28, 2010).

6

See GAO-12-778R for information on participation in the Medicare EHR program in 2011.
Enclosure I

Page 13 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

the minimum, 25th percentile, median, 75th percentile, and maximum Medicaid EHR 

incentive payment amount. For professionals, we determined the percentages who 

were awarded an incentive payment amount of (1) $21,250, which was the 

maximum Medicaid EHR incentive payment amount for most professionals, and 

(2) $14,167, which is the maximum Medicaid EHR incentive payment amount for 

pediatricians who qualify with a Medicaid patient volume of less than 30 percent but 

at least 20 percent.7

Characteristics of providers that were awarded Medicaid EHR incentive 

payments. To examine the characteristics of providers that were awarded Medicaid 

EHR incentive payments for 2011, we analyzed data on provider characteristics from 

CMS, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Office of the National 

Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), and Surescripts.8 (See 

table 3.) Each characteristic is divided into two or more categories. For example, the 

characteristic “location” is divided into two categories—rural and urban. As part of 

this analysis for hospitals, we also compared the characteristics of hospitals that 

were awarded a Medicaid EHR incentive payment to those of eligible hospitals that 

were not awarded such payments.9 To do so, we calculated relative risk ratios that 

indicate how much more likely a hospital in each category was to have been 

awarded an EHR incentive payment than a hospital in the category that was least 

likely to have been awarded a payment.

 

7

Pediatricians with a 30 percent Medicaid patient volume or greater were awarded an incentive 

payment of $21,250 for 2011. 

8

Surescripts operates the nation’s largest electronic prescription network and collects data on, among 

other things, the number of electronic prescriptions sent to pharmacies in its network. 

9

It was not feasible to conduct a similar analysis of professionals that examined characteristics of 

eligible professionals who received a Medicaid EHR incentive payment compared to those who did 

not. We lacked the data to be able to identify professionals who met the minimum Medicaid or needy 

patient volume threshold—a key eligibility requirement in the Medicaid EHR program—but did not 

receive a Medicaid EHR incentive payment. 
Enclosure I

Page 14 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

Table 3: Data Sources Analyzed to Examine Characteristics of Eligible Providers

Agency or entity Data source

Date of extract, 

download, or release

Centers for Medicare 

& Medicaid Services 

(CMS) 

National Level Repository October 2012

National Plan and Provider Enumeration System Data 

Dissemination Filea May 2012

Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership Systema August 2012

Provider of Services File June 2012

Online Survey, Certification, and Reporting System May 2011

Fiscal Intermediary Standard System August 2012b

2011 primary care health professional shortage areas November 2010

2010 recipients of incentive payments from CMS’s 

Electronic Prescribing program

July 2011

Health Resources and 

Services 

Administration

Area Resource File March 2012

Office of the National 

Coordinator for Health 

Information 

Technology (ONC)

Regional Extension Center Customer Relationship 

Management System extract filec July 2012

List of zip codes serviced by a Beacon Communityd June 2012

Surescripts Extract file containing county-level information on 

electronic prescription transactions and prescribers

January – December 2011

Source: GAO.

a

Data contained in this data source are generally self-reported by providers to CMS.

b

We used data that we obtained from CMS in December 2011 for 110 hospitals for which we did not have August 2012 data.

c

The Regional Extension Center program was established by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical 

Health Act and is administered by ONC to help some types of providers, such as those located in rural areas, participate in 

CMS’s EHR programs.

d

ONC provided funding to support 17 Beacon Communities to build and strengthen their health information technology 

infrastructure and exchange capabilities. These communities were selected for various reasons, including the progress they 

had already made in adopting EHRs. The 17 Beacon Communities focus on specific and measurable improvement goals in 

three areas for health systems improvement—quality, cost efficiency, and population health—to demonstrate the ability of 

health information technology to affect local health care systems.

Using the data obtained from the sources listed in table 3, we examined the 

following provider characteristics: 

• Regional characteristics. We analyzed data on the following regional 

characteristics:10

 

10In most cases, in order to link the information from these files to individual providers, we obtained 

zip codes for hospital locations from CMS’s Provider of Services file and zip codes for professional 

practice locations from CMS’s National Plan and Provider Enumeration System and CMS’s Provider 

Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System. We were missing zip code data for no hospitals and 

17 professionals. Then, with the assistance of a zip code to Federal Information Processing Standard 

code crosswalk file we obtained from CMS, we were able to determine the counties in which hospitals 

were located and professionals practiced. When there was a discrepancy in practice state between 

those previously mentioned data sources and the state from which the provider received an incentive 

payment, as reflected in the National Level Repository—which occurred for 3 hospitals and for 

702 professionals—we used the payment state and generally excluded those providers from our 

analysis of regional characteristics. However, for geographic region we were able to use state 

information rather than zip code information.
Enclosure I

Page 15 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

• Geographic region. We used the Health Resources and Services 

Administration’s Area Resource File to identify the U.S. census region—

Northeast, Midwest, South, or West—where providers were located or 

practiced.11

• Location. We used the Health Resources and Services Administration’s Area 

Resource File to determine whether providers were located in a metropolitan 

area—an area that has at least one urbanized area of 50,000 people.12 We 

then categorized providers located in metropolitan areas as being located in 

urban areas and providers that were not as being located in rural areas.

• Average county volume of electronic prescribing based on transactions per 

professional who submits electronic prescriptions. We used data from 

Surescripts to calculate, for each county during 2011, the average number of 

electronic prescriptions submitted per month from an ambulatory care setting 

by each professional who submitted electronic prescriptions.13 Using these 

aggregated data, we created three categories for hospitals: (1) low—less than 

or equal to the 33.3rd percentile, (2) middle—greater than the 33.3rd 

percentile but less than or equal to the 66.7th percentile, and (3) high—

greater than the 66.7th percentile.

• Whether a provider is located in a county with a Beacon Community. We 

used data from ONC to categorize providers as either being located in a 

Beacon Community or not.14

• Whether a professional practices in a health professional shortage area. We 

used the list from CMS that identifies the zip codes that were designated as 

primary care health professional shortage areas for bonus payments in 2011 

to categorize providers as either being located in a health professional 

shortage area or not.15

 

11Information on U.S. census region was available for all providers.

12Information on whether providers were located in urban or rural areas was missing for 5 eligible 

hospitals (less than 0.1 percent) and 732 professionals (1.6 percent).

13Information on county volume of electronic prescribing transactions was missing for 35 eligible 

hospitals (less than 1 percent).

14ONC provided funding to support 17 Beacon Communities to build and strengthen their health 

information technology infrastructure and exchange capabilities. These communities were selected 

for various reasons, including the progress they had already made in adopting EHRs. The 17 Beacon 

Communities focus on specific and measurable improvement goals in three areas for health systems 

improvement—quality, cost efficiency, and population health—to demonstrate the ability of health 

information technology to affect local health care systems. Information on whether a provider is 

located in a county with a Beacon Community was missing for 3 eligible hospitals (less than 

1 percent) and 732 professionals (1.6 percent).

15CMS’s list of zip codes for health professional shortage areas does not contain zip codes that were 

only partially in a shortage area. Information on whether a professional practices in a health 

professional shortage area was missing for 732 professionals (1.6 percent).
Enclosure I

Page 16 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

• Hospital type. We analyzed data on the following categorizations of hospital type:

• Hospital classification. We determined whether hospitals were classified as 

acute care, critical access, cancer, or children’s hospitals by using data from 

CMS’s Provider of Services file and a list provided by CMS.16

• Major teaching hospital. We determined whether hospitals were listed as 

having a major affiliation with a medical school in CMS’s Provider of Services 

file.17

• Ownership type. We primarily used data on ownership type from CMS’s 

Provider of Services file to create three categories of ownership: (1) for-profit 

by combining private for-profit and physician ownership, (2) nonprofit by 

combining church and private not-for-profit, and (3) government-owned by 

combining four government designations (federal, state, local, and hospital 

district or authority) and tribal. In instances in which ownership type was listed 

as “other” in the Provider of Services file, we obtained information needed to

classify hospitals as for-profit, nonprofit, or government-owned from another 

CMS data source—the Online Survey, Certification, and Reporting System.18

• Chain membership. We categorized hospitals as being a member of a chain if 

the hospital has a chain home office listed in CMS’s Provider Enrollment, 

Chain, and Ownership System. All other hospitals with a record in CMS’s 

Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System were designated as not 

being a member of a chain.19

• Hospital size. We analyzed data on the following measures of hospital size from 

CMS’s Provider of Services file and Fiscal Intermediary Standard System:20

 

16CMS provided a list of hospitals that were eligible for the Medicaid EHR incentive program, but not 

the Medicare EHR incentive program, including children’s and cancer hospitals and hospitals located 

in the U.S. insular areas. Information on hospital classification was available for all eligible hospitals. 

17Information on hospital affiliation with a medical school was available for all hospitals. 

18Information on hospital ownership type was missing for two eligible hospitals (less than 

0.1 percent). 

19Information on chain membership was missing for 212 hospitals (about 4 percent). 

20Data from CMS’s Fiscal Intermediary Standard System were missing for 168 acute care hospitals 

(about 5 percent of eligible acute care hospitals) because, at the time of our data extract, CMS had 

not populated the system with information on those hospitals. These data were also missing for 

837 critical access hospitals (about 63 percent of eligible critical access hospitals) because, in 

general, CMS only populates the system with information for those hospitals after the hospital has 

applied for an incentive payment from the Medicare EHR program and submitted documentation of 

the reasonable costs associated with the acquisition of the EHR system. In addition, these data were 

missing for most cancer hospitals, children’s hospitals, and hospitals in the U.S. insular areas 

because CMS does not populate the system with information for those hospitals. Consequently, data 

from CMS’s Fiscal Intermediary Standard System were missing for a total of 1,108 hospitals.
Enclosure I

Page 17 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

• Total beds. Using data from CMS’s Provider of Services file on the total 

number of hospital beds, we created three categories: (1) low—less than or 

equal to the 33.3rd percentile, (2) middle—greater than the 33.3rd percentile 

but less than or equal to the 66.7th percentile, and (3) high—greater than the 

66.7th percentile.21

• Total discharges. Using data from CMS’s Fiscal Intermediary Standard 

System on the total number of discharges for each hospital, we created three 

categories: (1) low—less than or equal to the 33.3rd percentile, (2) middle—

greater than the 33.3rd percentile but less than or equal to the 66.7th 

percentile, and (3) high—greater than the 66.7th percentile.

• Hospital charges. We analyzed data on the following measures of hospital 

charges from CMS’s Fiscal Intermediary Standard System:

• Total charges. Using data on the total amount of charges, we created three 

categories: (1) low—less than or equal to the 33.3rd percentile, (2) middle—

greater than the 33.3rd percentile but less than or equal to the 66.7th 

percentile, and (3) high—greater than the 66.7th percentile.22

• Charity charges. Using data on charity charges, we created three categories: 

(1) low—less than or equal to the 33.3rd percentile, (2) middle—greater than 

the 33.3rd percentile, but less than or equal to the 66.7th percentile, and 

(3) high—greater than the 66.7th percentile.23

• Professional characteristics. We included in our analysis the following five types 

of professional characteristics:

• Professional specialty. We chiefly obtained data on professionals’ primary 

specialty from CMS’s National Plan and Provider Enumeration System 

Downloadable File. Then, with the assistance of a crosswalk we obtained 

from CMS that aggregates specialty taxonomy codes into a smaller number of 

specialties, we created the following six categories: (1) general practice 

physician, (2) specialty practice physician, (3) certified nurse midwife or nurse 

 

21Information on total beds was available for all eligible hospitals. 

22In addition to the 1,108 hospitals for which we were missing data on total charges and charity 

charges, we excluded an additional 7 hospitals from our analyses of total charges and of charity 

charges after determining that the hospitals’ data were unreliable because the amount of charity 

charges exceeded the total amount of charges. 

23Charity charges reflect the cost for providing inpatient and outpatient hospital services for which the 

hospital is not compensated. 
Enclosure I

Page 18 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

practitioner, (4) physician assistant, (5) dentist, and (6) other professional.24 In 

instances in which the professional specialty information was missing from 

the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System, we obtained information 

on professionals’ specialty from another CMS data source—the Provider 

Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System.25 To examine variation among 

different types of specialty practice physicians, we used information from the 

CMS crosswalk to assign specialty practice physicians to 1 of 28 specialty 

categories, such as such as cardiology, surgery, and psychiatry.

• Number of professionals in the practice. We estimated the number of 

professionals in each practice by counting the number of professionals who 

were listed as members of each professional practice in CMS’s Provider 

Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System.26 We subsequently created four 

practice size categories: (1) solo practice, (2) practice of 2 to 10 

professionals, (3) practice of 11 to 50 professionals, and (4) practice of 51 or 

more professionals. We also created a fifth category for professionals who 

were associated with more than one group practice of different sizes.

• Whether the professional had signed an agreement to receive technical 

assistance from a Regional Extension Center. We obtained data on whether 

professionals (identified by National Provider Identifier) had signed an 

agreement to receive technical assistance from a Regional Extension Center 

from ONC’s Regional Extension Center Customer Relationship Management 

System.27 We then categorized professionals as either having signed an 

agreement to receive technical assistance or not.

 

24We classified doctors of medicine and osteopathic medicine that specialize in family practice, 

general practice, or internal medicine as general practice physicians; all other doctors of medicine

and osteopathic medicine were classified as specialty practice physicians. “Specialty practice 

physician” also includes optometrists because the Medicaid statute permits states to consider, under 

the provisions of their state Medicaid plans, optometrist services as physician services; thus, 

optometrist services may qualify for the Medicaid EHR program. “Certified nurse midwife or nurse 

practitioner” also includes other registered nurses because CMS regulations permit states, in 

accordance with the scope of practice defined under state law, to allow other types of registered 

nurses who meet the regulations’ training and experience to qualify for the Medicaid EHR program as 

nurse midwives or nurse practitioners. “Other professional”—531 professionals (1.2 percent)—

comprises 426 professionals for whom information on professional specialty was missing and 

105 professionals who we could not confirm had specialty types that were eligible to receive incentive 

payments. However, CMS officials told us that these 531 professionals had permissible professional 

specialties.

25Professionals were not required to enroll in the Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System 

in order to receive incentive payments from the Medicaid EHR program.

26Information on the number of professionals in the practice was missing for 14,747 professionals 

(32 percent).

27The Regional Extension Center program was established by the Health Information Technology for 

Economic and Clinical Health Act and is administered by ONC to help some types of providers, such 

as those located in rural areas, participate in CMS’s EHR programs. 
Enclosure I

Page 19 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

• Whether the professional had received an incentive payment from CMS’s 

electronic prescribing incentive program in 2010. We obtained data from CMS 

on whether professionals received an incentive payment from CMS’s 

Electronic Prescribing program in 2010.28 We then categorized professionals 

as either having received such an incentive payment or not.

• Years since the professional’s degree was awarded. Using data on when 

professionals had received their degree from CMS’s Provider Enrollment, 

Chain, and Ownership System, we determined the number of years since 

each professional’s degree was awarded.29

To ensure the reliability of the various data we analyzed, we interviewed officials 

from CMS, ONC, and Surescripts; reviewed relevant documentation; and conducted 

electronic testing to identify missing data and obvious errors. On the basis of these 

activities, we determined that the data we analyzed were sufficiently reliable for our 

analysis. Although the amount of missing data was generally low, in instances in 

which data were missing for 6 percent of providers or more, we noted this explicitly.

We dropped data on years since

the professional’s degree was awarded if the data were potentially 

unreliable—that is, if the number of years exceeded 75. We subsequently 

created three categories: (1) low—15 years or fewer, (2) middle—16 to 

29 years, and (3) high—30 years or more.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 to December 2012 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 

standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 

our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 

28The Electronic Prescribing program, which was established by the Medicare Improvements for 

Patients and Providers Act of 2008, provides incentive payments from 2009 through 2013 to 

physicians and certain other Medicare professionals, such as physician assistants and nurse 

practitioners, who have prescribing authority and who adopt and use systems that meet CMS’s 

definition of a qualified electronic prescribing system. Pub. L. No. 110-275, § 132(a), 122 Stat. 2494, 

2527. From 2012 through 2014, the program may apply a payment adjustment, or penalty, on the 

program’s eligible providers that do not adopt and use such systems. See GAO, Electronic 

Prescribing: CMS Should Address Inconsistencies in Its Two Incentive Programs That Encourage the 

Use of Health Information Technology, GAO-11-159 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 17, 2011). 

29Information on the number of years since the professional’s degree was awarded was missing for 

12,848 professionals (about 28 percent).
Enclosure II 

Page 20 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

Information on Hospitals Awarded Medicaid EHR 

Incentive Payments for 2011

This enclosure provides information on the number and percentage of hospitals that 

were awarded Medicaid EHR incentive payments for 2011, the amount of incentive 

payments awarded to hospitals, and the characteristics of hospitals that were 

awarded incentive payments. This enclosure also compares different categories of 

eligible hospitals to determine which were more likely and which were less likely to 

have been awarded an incentive payment.

Of the estimated 5,013 eligible hospitals, 39 percent, or 1,964 hospitals, were 

awarded a Medicaid EHR incentive payment for 2011. In contrast to professionals, 

certain hospitals may receive an incentive payment from both the Medicare and 

Medicaid EHR programs in the same year. As of October 1, 2012, 529 hospitals 

were awarded an incentive payment from both programs for 2011. The percentage 

of eligible hospitals that were awarded a Medicaid EHR incentive payment varied 

across states. For example, more than 60 percent of eligible hospitals in Alabama 

were awarded a Medicaid EHR incentive payment for 2011, whereas less than 

20 percent of eligible hospitals in Montana were awarded an incentive payment.

(See fig. 1.)
Enclosure II

Page 21 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

Figure 1: Percentage of Eligible Hospitals Awarded a Medicaid EHR Incentive Payment for 2011, by State

Notes: We analyzed data CMS collects pertaining to the Medicaid EHR program through October 1, 2012, for the 2011 

program year. Colorado, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Virginia, and 

the U.S. insular areas did not participate in the Medicaid EHR program in 2011.

Of the approximately $2.7 billion in Medicaid EHR incentive payments that was 

awarded to providers for 2011, a total of $1.7 billion was awarded to hospitals. The 

amount of Medicaid EHR incentive payments awarded to hospitals ranged from 

$7,528 to $7.2 million, with the median amount being $613,512. About 50 percent of 

hospitals that were awarded an incentive payment accounted for about 80 percent of 

the total amount of incentive payments awarded to hospitals. Acute care hospitals 

tended to receive larger incentive payments than critical access hospitals but smaller 

incentive payments than children’s hospitals. (See fig. 2.)
Enclosure II

Page 22 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

Figure 2: Distribution of Medicaid EHR Incentive Payment Amounts Awarded to Hospitals for 2011, by 

Selected Hospital Characteristics

Notes: We analyzed data CMS collects pertaining to the Medicaid EHR program through October 1, 2012, for the 2011 

program year. We excluded the 11 cancer hospitals from this analysis.

a

For the purpose of analyzing participation in the Medicaid EHR program, the term acute care hospital refers to short-term 

hospitals that are not critical access or cancer hospitals.

b

Critical access hospitals typically are very small (25 inpatient beds or fewer) and operate in rural areas.

As illustrated in table 4, among hospitals that were awarded a Medicaid EHR 

incentive payment for 2011,

• the largest proportion (46 percent) were located in the South and the smallest 

proportion (15 percent) were located in the Northeast,

• three-fifths (62 percent) were located in urban areas,

• four-fifths (80 percent) were acute care hospitals,

• more than half (57 percent) were nonprofit hospitals,

• more than half (57 percent) were not members of a chain, and

• more than two-fifths (43 percent) were relatively large in terms of number of 

beds.
Enclosure II

Page 23 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

Table 4: Selected Characteristics of Hospitals Awarded a Medicaid EHR Incentive Payment for 2011

Characteristics Categories Number (percentage) 

Geographic region Midwest 437 (22.3)

Northeast 295 (15.0)

South 897 (45.7)

West 335 (17.1)

Location Rural 744 (37.9)

Urban 1,217 (62.0)

Hospital classification Acute care hospitala 1,570 (79.9)

Critical access hospitalb 354 (18.0)

Children’s hospital 39 (2.0)

Cancer hospital 1 (0.1)

Ownership type For-profit 413 (21.0)

Government-owned 434 (22.1)

Nonprofit 1,117 (56.9)

Chain membership Chain 827 (42.6)

Nonchain 1,114 (57.4)

Total beds Low (40 beds or fewer) 416 (21.2)

Middle (41-175 beds) 713 (36.3)

High (176 or more beds) 835 (42.5)

Total 1,964 (100)

Source: GAO analysis of CMS and Health Resources and Services Administration data.

Notes: We analyzed data CMS collects pertaining to the Medicaid EHR program through October 1, 2012, for the 2011 

program year. The sum of the number of hospitals listed by category may not equal the overall number of hospitals because of 

missing data. The sum of the percentage of hospitals listed by category may not equal 100 percent because of rounding.

a

For the purpose of analyzing participation in the Medicaid EHR program, the term acute care hospital refers to short-term 

hospitals that are not critical access or cancer hospitals.

b

Critical access hospitals typically are very small (25 inpatient beds or fewer) and operate in rural areas.

Among eligible hospitals, the percentage of hospitals that were awarded a Medicaid 

EHR incentive payment for 2011 varied by certain characteristics, such as bed size 

and location in an urban or rural setting. (See fig. 3.) 
Enclosure II

Page 24 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

Figure 3: Percentage of Eligible Hospitals Awarded a Medicaid EHR Incentive Payment for 2011, by 

Selected Hospital Characteristics

Notes: We analyzed data CMS collects pertaining to the Medicaid EHR program through October 1, 2012, for the 2011 

program year. Hospitals located in the states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. insular areas that did not offer the 

Medicaid EHR program in 2011 are included in the category of eligible hospitals that were not awarded an incentive payment. 

Hospital classification excludes the 11 cancer hospitals because so few hospitals belong to that category.

a

For the purpose of analyzing participation in the Medicaid EHR program, the term acute care hospital refers to short-term 

hospitals that are not critical access or cancer hospitals.

b

Critical access hospitals typically are very small (25 inpatient beds or fewer) and operate in rural areas.

Tables 5 through 8 explore the relationship of various factors to the likelihood of 

hospitals receiving Medicaid EHR incentive payments for 2011 by comparing the 

characteristics of hospitals that were awarded Medicaid EHR incentive payments for 

2011 to those of other eligible Medicaid hospitals that did not receive a payment for 

that year. Each characteristic is divided into two or more categories. For example, 

the characteristic “geographic region” is divided into four categories—Northeast, 

Midwest, South, and West regions. As part of this analysis, we calculated relative 

risk ratios that indicate how much more likely a hospital in each category was to 

have been awarded an EHR incentive payment than a hospital in the category that 

was least likely to have been awarded a payment. Hospitals least likely to receive an 

incentive payment are labeled “ – “. For example, as table 5 shows, under the 

characteristic “location,” the relative risk ratio of 1.2 for the category “urban” 

indicates that hospitals in urban areas were 1.2 times more likely to have been 

awarded an incentive payment for 2011 than hospitals in rural areas. A relative risk 

ratio of 1.0 indicates no difference in the likelihood of having been awarded an 

incentive payment between the two categories, and as relative risk ratios approach 

1.0, there is less and less difference in the likelihood of having been awarded an 

incentive payment between the two categories.
Enclosure II

Page 25 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

Table 5 examines the relationship between hospitals receiving Medicaid EHR 

incentive payments for 2011 and characteristics of the regions in which the hospitals 

are located. We found the following:

• Geographic location had a modest effect on the likelihood that hospitals were 

awarded an EHR incentive payment for 2011. For instance, hospitals in the 

Northeast and South—the regions of the country with the highest level of 

program participation—were 1.6 times more likely to have been awarded a 

payment than hospitals in the Midwest—the region of the country with the lowest 

level of program participation.

• There was little association between the likelihood of having been awarded an 

EHR incentive payment for 2011 and whether the hospital was located in a 

Beacon Community.
Enclosure II

Page 26 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

Table 5: Number and Percentage of Hospitals Awarded Medicaid EHR Incentive Payments for 2011, by 

Regional Characteristics

Number (percentage)

Characteristics Categories

Number of 

eligible 

hospitalsa

Awarded a 

Medicaid EHR 

incentive 

payment 

Not awarded a 

Medicaid EHR 

incentive 

payment 

Relative risk 

ratiob

Overall 5,013 1,964 (39.2) 3,049 (60.8)

Geographic location

Geographic region Midwest 1,461 437 (29.9) 1,024 (70.1) — 

Northeast 625 295 (47.2) 330 (52.8) 1.6

South 1,904 897 (47.1) 1,007 (52.9) 1.6

West 965 335 (34.7) 630 (65.3) 1.2

Location Rural 2,076 744 (35.8) 1,332 (64.2) —

Urban 2,932 1,217 (41.5) 1,715 (58.5) 1.2

County level of participation 

in selected health 

information technology 

initiativesc — 

Average county volume 

of electronic prescribing 

based on transactions per 

professional who submits 

electronic prescriptions

Low (126.2 or fewer 

transactions) 1,731 556 (32.7) 1,165 (67.3) — 

Middle (126.3-176.9 

transactions) 1,568 663 (42.3) 905 (57.7) 1.3

High (177 or more 

transactions) 1,679 723 (43.1) 956 (56.9) 1.3

Located in a county with 

a Beacon Community

Yes 305 136 (44.6) 169 (55.4) 1.1

No 4,705 1,825 (38.8) 2,880 (61.2) — 

Source: GAO analysis of CMS, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Health Resources and Services Administration, and Surescripts 

data.

Notes: We analyzed data CMS collects pertaining to the Medicaid EHR program through October 1, 2012, for the 2011 

program year. In general, hospitals located in the states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. insular areas that did not offer 

the Medicaid EHR program in 2011 are included in the category of hospitals not awarded an incentive payment. However, 

geographic region does not include the 58 hospitals located in the U.S. insular areas because none of those areas participated 

in the Medicaid EHR program for 2011. The sum of the number of hospitals listed by category may not equal the overall 

number of hospitals because of missing data.

a

We use the term eligible hospitals to refer to those hospitals that were eligible for the Medicaid EHR program, regardless of

whether they were awarded a Medicaid EHR incentive payment for 2011. Specifically, eligible hospitals are those that were 

(1) acute care, critical access, cancer, or children’s hospitals; (2) located in one of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, or a 

U.S. insular area; and (3) not terminated on or before January 2, 2011.

b

The relative risk ratios indicate how much more likely a hospital in each category was to have been awarded an EHR incentive 

payment than a hospital in the category that was least likely to have been awarded a payment, which is labeled “ – “. A relative 

risk ratio of 1.0 indicates no difference in the likelihood of having been awarded an incentive payment between the two 

categories, and as relative risk ratios approach 1.0, there is less and less difference in the likelihood of having been awarded 

an incentive payment between the two categories.

c

These characteristics describe the level of participation in selected health information technology initiatives across all the 

hospitals in a given county, rather than the level of participation associated with any particular hospital.

Table 6 examines the relationship between receiving a Medicaid EHR incentive 

payment for 2011 and hospital type. We found that hospital classification had a 

greater impact on the likelihood of receiving a Medicaid EHR incentive payment for 

2011 than being a major teaching hospital, ownership type, or chain membership. In 

particular, we found the following:
Enclosure II

Page 27 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

• Among the three hospital classifications identified below, acute care hospitals 

were 1.7 times more likely and children’s hospitals were 1.6 times more likely to 

have been awarded a Medicaid EHR incentive payment for 2011 than critical 

access hospitals.

• There was a more modest relationship between a hospital’s status as a major 

teaching hospital, ownership type, and chain affiliation with the likelihood of a 

hospital being awarded an EHR incentive payment for 2011; major teaching 

hospitals, for-profit hospitals, and chain hospitals were 1.3 to 1.4 times more 

likely than other hospitals to be awarded payments.

Table 6: Number and Percentage of Hospitals Awarded Medicaid EHR Incentive Payments for 2011, by 

Hospital Type

Number (percentage)

Characteristics Categories

Number of 

eligible 

hospitalsa

Awarded a 

Medicaid EHR 

incentive 

payment 

Not awarded a 

Medicaid EHR 

incentive 

payment 

Relative risk 

ratiob

Overall 5,013 1,964 (39.2) 3,049 (60.8)

Hospital 

classificationc Acute care hospitald 3,576 1,570 (43.9) 2,006 (56.1) 1.7

Critical access hospitale 1,332 354 (26.6) 978 (73.4) — 

Children’s hospital 94 39 (41.5) 55 (58.5) 1.6

Major teaching 

hospital

Yes 493 244 (49.5) 249 (50.5) 1.3

No 4,520 1,720 (38.1) 2,800 (61.9) —

Ownership type For-profit 887 413 (46.6) 474 (53.4) 1.3

Government-owned 1,222 434 (35.5) 788 (64.5) —

Nonprofit 2,902 1,117 (38.5) 1,785 (61.5) 1.1

Chain 

membership

Chain 1,662 827 (49.8) 835 (50.2) 1.4

Nonchain 3,139 1,114 (35.5) 2,025 (64.5) — 

Source: GAO analysis of CMS data.

Notes: We analyzed data CMS collects pertaining to the Medicaid EHR program through October 1, 2012, for the 2011 

program year. Hospitals located in the states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. insular areas that did not offer the 

Medicaid EHR program in 2011 are included in the category of hospitals not awarded an incentive payment. The sum of the 

number of hospitals listed by category may not equal the overall number of hospitals because of missing data.

a

We use the term eligible hospitals to refer to those hospitals that were eligible for the Medicaid EHR program, regardless of

whether they were awarded a Medicaid EHR incentive payment for 2011. Specifically, eligible hospitals are those that were 

(1) acute care, critical access, cancer, or children’s hospitals; (2) located in one of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, or a 

U.S. insular area; and (3) not terminated on or before January 2, 2011.

b

The relative risk ratios indicate how much more likely a hospital in each category was to have been awarded an EHR incentive 

payment than a hospital in the category that was least likely to have been awarded a payment, which is labeled “ – “. A relative 

risk ratio of 1.0 indicates no difference in the likelihood of having been awarded an incentive payment between the two 

categories, and as relative risk ratios approach 1.0, there is less and less difference in the likelihood of having been awarded 

an incentive payment between the two categories.

c

This analysis excludes the 11 cancer hospitals because so few hospitals belong to that category.

d

For the purpose of analyzing participation in the Medicaid EHR program, the term acute care hospital refers to short-term 

hospitals that are not critical access or cancer hospitals.

e

Critical access hospitals typically are very small (25 inpatient beds or fewer) and operate in rural areas.
Enclosure II

Page 28 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

Table 7 examines the extent to which the size of hospitals, measured in various 

ways, is related to whether hospitals were awarded Medicaid EHR incentive 

payments for 2011. We found that large hospitals were more likely to have been 

awarded Medicaid EHR incentive payments for 2011. Specifically, we found the 

following:

• Hospitals with the highest number of total beds were 2 times more likely than 

hospitals with the lowest number of total beds to have been awarded an incentive 

payment.

• Hospitals with the highest number of total discharges were 1.5 times more likely 

to have been awarded an incentive payment than hospitals with the lowest 

number of discharges.

Table 7: Number and Percentage of Hospitals Awarded Medicaid EHR Incentive Payments for 2011, by 

Hospital Size 

Number (percentage)

Characteristics Categories

Number of 

eligible 

hospitalsa

Awarded a 

Medicaid EHR 

incentive 

payment 

Not awarded a 

Medicaid EHR 

incentive 

payment 

Relative risk 

ratiob

Overall 5,013 1,964 (39.2) 3,049 (60.8)

Total beds Low (40 beds or fewer) 1,674 416 (24.9) 1,258 (75.1) — 

Middle (41-175 beds) 1,662 713 (42.9) 949 (57.1) 1.7

High (176 or more beds) 1,677 835 (49.8) 842 (50.2) 2.0

Total discharges Low (2,216 or fewer 

discharges) 1,302 433 (33.3) 869 (66.7) — 

Middle (2,217-8,845 

discharges) 1,302 610 (46.9) 692 (53.1) 1.4

High (8,846 or more 

discharges) 1,301 660 (50.7) 641 (49.3) 1.5

Missingc 1,108 261 (23.6) 847 (76.4) N/A

Source: GAO analysis of CMS data.

Notes: We analyzed data CMS collects pertaining to the Medicaid EHR program through October 1, 2012, for the 2011 

program year. Hospitals located in the states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. insular areas that did not offer the 

Medicaid EHR program in 2011 are included in the category of hospitals not awarded an incentive payment. 

a

We use the term eligible hospitals to refer to those hospitals that were eligible for the Medicaid EHR program, regardless of

whether they were awarded a Medicaid EHR incentive payment for 2011. Specifically, eligible hospitals are those that were 

(1) acute care, critical access, cancer, or children’s hospitals; (2) located in one of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, or a 

U.S. insular area; and (3) not terminated on or before January 2, 2011.

b

The relative risk ratios indicate how much more likely a hospital in each category was to have been awarded an EHR incentive 

payment than a hospital in the category that was least likely to have been awarded a payment, which is labeled “ – “. A relative 

risk ratio of 1.0 indicates no difference in the likelihood of having been awarded an incentive payment between the two 

categories, and as relative risk ratios approach 1.0, there is less and less difference in the likelihood of having been awarded 

an incentive payment between the two categories.

c

Data from CMS’s Fiscal Intermediary Standard System were missing for 168 acute care hospitals (about 5 percent of eligible 

acute care hospitals) and for 837 critical access hospitals (about 63 percent of eligible critical access hospitals) because CMS 

had not populated the system with information on those hospitals at the time of our data extract. In addition, these data were 

missing for most cancer hospitals, children’s hospitals, and hospitals in the U.S. insular areas because CMS does not populate 

the system with information for those hospitals. Consequently, we were missing data for 1,108 hospitals.
Enclosure II

Page 29 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

Table 8 examines the relationship between receiving Medicaid EHR incentive 

payments for 2011 and the type and amount of hospital charges. We found that 

hospitals with the highest charges were more likely to have been awarded a 

Medicaid EHR incentive payment for 2011 compared to hospitals with lower 

charges. Specifically, we found the following:

• Hospitals with high total charges were 1.5 times more likely to have been 

awarded an incentive payment than hospitals with low total charges.

• Hospitals with high charity charges were 1.6 times more likely to have been 

awarded an incentive payment than hospitals with low charity charges.

Table 8: Number and Percentage of Hospitals Awarded Medicaid EHR Incentive Payments for 2011, by 

Hospital Charges

Number (percentage)

Characteristics Categories

Number of 

eligible 

hospitalsa

Awarded a 

Medicaid EHR 

incentive 

payment 

Not awarded a 

Medicaid EHR 

incentive 

payment 

Relative 

risk ratiob

Overall 5,013 1,964 (39.2) 3,049 (60.8)

Total charges Low ($111,593,929 or less) 1,299 448 (34.5) 851 (65.5) —

Middle ($111,593,930-

$478,030,437) 1,300 571 (43.9) 729 (56.1) 1.3

High ($478,030,438 or more) 1,299 683 (52.6) 616 (47.4) 1.5

Missingc 1,115 262 (23.5) 853 (76.5) N/A

Charity chargesd Low ($828,462 or less) 1,299 435 (33.5) 864 (66.5) — 

Middle ($828,463-$10,937,135) 1,300 587 (45.2) 713 (54.8) 1.3

High ($10,937,136 or more) 1,299 680 (52.3) 619 (47.7) 1.6

Missingc 1,115 262 (23.5) 853 (76.5) N/A

Source: GAO analysis of CMS data.

Notes: We analyzed data CMS collects pertaining to the Medicaid EHR program through October 1, 2012, for the 2011 

program year. Hospitals located in the states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. insular areas that did not offer the 

Medicaid EHR program in 2011 are included in the category of hospitals not awarded an incentive payment.

a

We use the term eligible hospitals to refer to those hospitals that were eligible for the Medicaid EHR program, regardless of 

whether they were awarded a Medicaid EHR incentive payment for 2011. Specifically, eligible hospitals are those that were

(1) acute care, critical access, cancer, or children’s hospitals; (2) located in one of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, or a 

U.S. insular area; and (3) not terminated on or before January 2, 2011.

b

The relative risk ratios indicate how much more likely a hospital in each category was to have been awarded an EHR incentive 

payment than a hospital in the category that was least likely to have been awarded a payment, which is labeled “ – “. A relative 

risk ratio of 1.0 indicates no difference in the likelihood of having been awarded an incentive payment between the two 

categories, and as relative risk ratios approach 1.0, there is less and less difference in the likelihood of having been awarded 

an incentive payment between the two categories.

c

Data from CMS’s Fiscal Intermediary Standard System were missing for 168 acute care hospitals (about 5 percent of eligible 

acute care hospitals) and for 837 critical access hospitals (about 63 percent of eligible critical access hospitals) because CMS 

had not populated the system with information on those hospitals at the time of our data extract. In addition, these data were 

missing for most cancer hospitals, children’s hospitals, and hospitals in the U.S. insular areas because CMS does not populate 

the system with information for those hospitals. Consequently, we were missing data for 1,108 hospitals. We excluded an 

additional 7 hospitals from our analysis of hospital charges after determining that the hospitals’ data were unreliable because 

the amount of charity charges exceeded the total charges.

d

Charity charges reflect the cost for providing inpatient and outpatient hospital services for which the hospital is not 

compensated.
Enclosure III

Page 30 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

Information on Professionals Awarded Medicaid EHR 

Incentive Payments for 2011

This enclosure provides information on the number and percentage of professionals 

who were awarded Medicaid EHR incentive payments for 2011, the amount of 

incentive payments awarded to professionals, and the characteristics of 

professionals who were awarded incentive payments.

Of the estimated 139,600 eligible professionals, 33 percent, or 45,962 professionals, 

were awarded a Medicaid EHR incentive payment for 2011. The number of eligible 

professionals who were awarded a Medicaid EHR incentive payment varied across 

states. For example, more than 15 eligible professionals per 10,000 Medicaid 

enrollees in Mississippi were awarded a Medicaid EHR incentive payment for 2011 

whereas less than 5 eligible professionals per 10,000 Medicaid enrollees in Utah 

were awarded an incentive payment. (See fig. 4.)
Enclosure III

Page 31 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

Figure 4: Number of Eligible Professionals Awarded a Medicaid EHR Incentive Payment per 10,000 

Medicaid Enrollees for 2011, by State

Notes: We analyzed data CMS collects pertaining to the Medicaid EHR program through October 1, 2012, for the 2011 

program year. Medicaid enrollment data are based on enrollment, by state, as of December 31, 2010. Colorado, the District of 

Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Virginia, and the U.S. insular areas did not 

participate in the Medicaid EHR program in 2011. North Dakota did participate but had not reported to CMS on its payments to 

professionals by the time of our analysis.

Of the approximately $2.7 billion in Medicaid EHR incentive payments that was 

awarded to providers for 2011, $967 million was awarded to professionals. Among 

participating professionals, 97 percent were awarded an incentive payment of 

$21,250, which was the maximum amount for most professionals. The remaining 

3 percent of professionals were awarded an incentive payment of $14,167, which 

was the maximum amount for pediatricians that had a Medicaid patient volume of 

20 percent or more but less than 30 percent.

As illustrated in table 9, among professionals who were awarded a Medicaid EHR 

incentive payment for 2011,
Enclosure III

Page 32 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

• the largest proportion (37 percent) were located in the South and the smallest 

proportion (20 percent) were located in the Midwest, and

• four-fifths (83 percent) were located in urban areas.

Table 9: Regional Characteristics of Professionals Awarded a Medicaid EHR Incentive Payment for 2011

Characteristics Categories Number (percentage) 

Geographic location

Geographic region Midwest 8,946 (19.5)

Northeast 10,079 (21.9)

South 17,008 (37.0)

West 9,929 (21.6)

Location Rural 7,662 (16.9)

Urban 37,568 (83.1)

Located in a health professional shortage area Yes 3,324 (7.3)

No 41,906 (92.7)

County level of participation in selected health 

information technology initiativea

Located in a county with a Beacon Community Yes 3,604 (8.0)

No 41,626 (92.0)

Total 45,962 (100)

Source: GAO analysis of CMS, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, and Health Resources and Services Administration data.

Notes: We analyzed data CMS collects pertaining to the Medicaid EHR program through October 1, 2012, for the 2011 

program year. The sum of the number of professionals listed by category may not equal the overall number of professionals 

because of missing data. The sum of the percentage of professionals listed by category may not equal 100 percent because of 

rounding.

a

This characteristic describes the level of participation in selected health information technology initiatives across all the

professionals in a given county, rather than the level of participation for any particular professional.

As illustrated in table 10, among professionals who were awarded a Medicaid EHR 

incentive payment for 2011,

• nearly three-quarters were physicians—either general practice physicians 

(23 percent) or specialty practice physicians (51 percent)—and the lowest 

proportion (1 percent) were physician assistants, and

• almost half (47 percent) had signed agreements to receive technical assistance 

from a Regional Extension Center.
Enclosure III

Page 33 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

Table 10: Professional Characteristics of Professionals Awarded a Medicaid EHR Incentive Payment for 

2011

Characteristics Categories Number (percentage)

Professional specialty General practice physician 10,458 (22.8)

Specialty practice physiciana 23,490 (51.1)

Certified nurse midwife or nurse practitionerb 8,454 (18.4)

Physician assistant 545 (1.2)

Dentist 2,484 (5.4)

Other professionalc 531 (1.2)

Number of professionals in practiced Solo practice 5,200 (16.7)

2-10 professionals 5,569 (17.8)

11-50 professionals 4,257 (13.6)

51 or more professionals 8,387 (26.9)

More than one group practice of different sizes 7,802 (25.0)

Signed an agreement to receive 

technical assistance from a 

Regional Extension Center

Yes 21,374 (46.5)

No 24,588 (53.5)

Received an incentive payment 

from CMS’s Electronic Prescribing 

Program for 2010

Yes 1,783 (3.9)

No 44,179 (96.1)

Years since degree awardede Low (15 years or fewer) 13,761 (41.6)

Middle (16-29 years) 11,800 (35.6)

High (30 years or more) 7,553 (22.8)

Total 45,962 (100)

Source: GAO analysis of CMS and Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology data.

Notes: We analyzed data CMS collects pertaining to the Medicaid EHR program through October 1, 2012, for the 2011 

program year. The sum of the percentage of professionals listed by category may not equal 100 percent because of rounding.

a

This category also includes optometrists because the Medicaid statute permits states to consider, under the provisions of their 

state Medicaid plan, optometrist services as physician services; thus, optometrist services may qualify for the Medicaid EHR 

program.

b

This category also includes other types of registered nurses because CMS regulations permit states, in accordance with the 

scope of practice defined under state law, to allow other types of registered nurses who meet the regulations’ training and 

experience requirements to qualify for the Medicaid EHR program as nurse midwives or nurse practitioners.

c

This category includes 426 professionals for whom information on professional specialty was missing and 105 professionals 

who we could not confirm had specialty types that were eligible to receive incentive payments. However, CMS officials told us

that these 531 professionals had permissible professional specialties.

d

Information on the number of professionals in the practice was missing for 14,747 professionals (32 percent).

e

Information on the number of years since the professional’s degree was awarded was missing for 12,848 professionals (about 

28 percent).

Of the specialty practice physicians who were awarded a Medicaid EHR incentive 

payment for 2011, over half (52 percent) had a pediatrics specialty. (See fig. 5.)
Enclosure III

Page 34 GAO-13-146R Electronic Health Records

Figure 5: Specialty Practice Physicians Awarded Medicaid EHR Incentives for 2011, by Type of Specialty

Notes: We analyzed data CMS collects pertaining to the Medicaid EHR program through October 1, 2012, for the 2011 

program year. “Other specialties” includes specialty practice physicians belonging to 23 discrete specialties, none of which 

makes up as much as 3 percent of the total.

(291042)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.