An answer to this was the use of electronic patient charting which over the time has evolved into the computerization of all or most patient related activities, ranging from prescription charting to settling of medical bills. Unfortunately this trend did not influence a majority of the medical fraternity, on account of high startup costs, inability of the technology providers to suit the needs of specific practice specialties and a laid back federal mindset in creating a favorable environment, through appropriate policy framework.  It is a shift in federal mindset which was the need of the time and so it came. Today the various federal initiatives like the CCHIT certification, PQRI and ARRA incentives and the recent extension to it through the introduction of the HITECT act has fostered market demand, which obviously has attracted hundreds of new Healthcare IT providers.

Medical practitioners are looking to avail of this federal incentive by trying to comply with the definition of meaningful use but at the same time Electronic Health record or practice management solution providers are looking at their own set of profits.

This misunderstanding is mostly I believe as a result of wrong interpretation of the federal guidelines. The EHR providers need to look at these guidelines from the prospective of the practitioners who deal with different specialties. Each specialty EHR has its own set of challenges or requirements which I believe is overlooked by most EHR vendors in a effort to merely follow federal guidelines. This is resulting in low usability to the practitioners, thus less ROI, finally redundancy of the EHR solution in place.

I think ROI is very important factor that should be duly considered when look achieve a ‘meaning use’ out of a EHR solution. Though one may get vendors providing ‘meaning use’ at a lower cost, their ROI / savings through the use of their EHR might be pretty low when compared to costlier initial investment. Found a pretty useful ROI tool that is pretty customizable and easy to use, accounts for the different specialty EHR’s too.

A few critics of the healthcare reform say that true practices do look for financial aspect of their business but I doubt it is only that, I think the patient care is primary to a practioner’s work which cannot be denied.
This is where I feel technology can play a role. The recent trend of using EHR’s by clinics is a great win-win situation not only to EHR vendors but also to a much greater extent to the physicians and the patients.
By systematically implementing an EHR solution through a CCHIT certified vendor by following the appropriate guidelines and putting the EHR to ‘meaningful use’ will result in taking advantage of the federal incentives. Proper implementation is a key component in putting EHR’s to meaningful use and I think it is well summarized in one of the law firm’s blog.

Surely implementation is the key but it’s of no use without being complemented by a proper selection of EHR software both in terms of the functionality and the vendor knowledge.

On the point of vendor selection there are many HER providers available in the market but the credibility, usability and the effectiveness of their products in surely in question by many.  I feel that this EHR jungle without quality products is going to make the life of practices very difficult. Though you provide them with many comparisons grids, in most cases they may end up with an EHR which does not support the needs of its specialty. I believe an speciality based EHR combined with appropriate certifications is the way ahead.

I think the federal efforts of providing the right incentives to practices who implement certified EHR’s   following the appropriate federal guidelines is a great initiative. Also the introduction of REC’s through the HITECH act. is a great way to avail of quality EHR solutions at competitive prices. The stiff competition among not only these REC’s but also among EHR vendors (to become a preferred vendor of a given REC) will result in lot of positives to medical practioners.

On the issue of REC’s competing against each other, I feel this will result in a healthy competition, if they don’t get biased for a particular EHR vendor. I believe these REC’s should set their own unique business model, as discussed above within the guidelines set-forth in the HITECH act. This would result in each REC having a set of vendors with similar offering , yet maintaining their own unique selling point. Each EHR vendor should have their own interpretation of HITECH act, using which the REC’s can quote or compete for the jobs.

Regarding the grants given, I believe  the staggered form of funding does solve most of the confusion.

So what do you all think?  Do you really feel these federal initiatives are going to be of any use to foster the widespread of EHR systems in US healthcare industry?

Look forward to read your thoughts on this.