Comments on: Electronic Medical Records: Salvation or Sinkhole?

By: cecil grass

cecil grass — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 17:20:37 +0000

I am very glad that emr systems are gaining popularity. I’m using the emr system at http://www.drfirst.com and I can say that they are an invaluable asset in today’s health care system. The free demo offered will convince doubters of the value of the system.

By: psychiatry emr

psychiatry emr — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 06:37:18 +0000

Electronic medical records system has the potential to eliminate life threatening record keeping errors, but there are also potential dangers associated with this system. However, there are advantages of electronic medical records include the ability to catch medication errors, check for adverse drug interactions, track test results and improve the quality and accuracy of medical-record documentation.

By: EMR implementation

EMR implementation — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:14:17 +0000

Thanks for Great information.Yes i agree the disconnect between costs and benefits.
If anyone interested for choosing best EMR Training Software and to improve Patient’s care, this is a great Resource.

By: Practice Management Software

Practice Management Software — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:06:55 +0000

If anyone is interested in help on choosing the best practice management software, this free white paper on managing a smoother vendor integration is a great resource. The article is provided by Nuesoft Technologies, a medical billing software and medical practice management software company.

By: Electronic Medical Records

Electronic Medical Records — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 09:50:57 +0000

yes I agree but you can get great information on many things on electronic medical records though it has disconnect between costs and benefits

By: BJ MD

BJ MD — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:39:24 +0000

>Why hasn’t anyone asked patients how much they would really pay extra for an electronic medical record? Aren’t they really the beneficiaries?

This, in fact, is the key question.

Let us suppose that I make and sell cars, and that the technology exists to equip the car with, say, a navigation system. I would be happy to make and sell cars if the amount extra customers are willing to pay for the navigation system is greater than the additional cost of including a navigation system. If customers are willing to pay $0, I will make 0 cars with navigation systems.

So we need to put the consumer in the game and find out what an EMR is worth to the customer. Pay $X to go to Doc Smith, who doesn’t use an EMR or pay $1.25(X) to see Doc Jones, who does use an EMR.

I strongly suspect that when push comes to shove patients aren’t really willing to pay much for an EMR. This is like if consumers were willing to pay $5 for a navigation system, there would be very few car makers foolish enough to include them.

And I see little reason for docs to use capital to purchase equipment like an EMR that does not add to revenue when the same capital could be used to add diagnostic equipment that will add to revenue.

Further, I see little reason for docs to agree to spend uncompensated resources to enter data into some database. Where is the ROI?

Just about anything is available for a price. The problem with healthcare IT is that lots of people want docs to do a bunch of extra stuff, but nobody wants to pay them to do it. That flies in the face of economic reality and is thus a fool’s errand.

By: electronic medical records

electronic medical records — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:09:23 +0000

Thanks for the great stuff.Yes, i agree with that there is some disconnect between costs and benefits.The answer is that there is a disconnect between those who have to pay for Electronic Medical Records and those who benefit from them.

By: Michael D. Miller MD

Michael D. Miller MD — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:48:39 +0000

Alan & Ben – Thanks for the great real-world comments. I talked with an old friend recently whose mid-sized group practice is part of a demonstration project for implementing EMRs. He noted that while they got the hardware and software for free (state grant), their cost has been huge in terms of time and lost productivity – and they haven’t seen gains in quality or better billing revenue. He also told me that the local efforts to link medical records into a information database/warehouse type of operation was off to a very poor start – it turns out that the warehoused data is all being captured from billing information from the EMR, rather than actual clinical data – so if anyone looks at it for real clinical purposes they likely will get a skewed understanding a the patients actual medical problems, etc.

While everyone agrees that EMRs (and other HIT applications) have great potential – but they still have very, very large barriers in the form of financial investment and implementation/training time. I think the hope is that as the technology improves, the costs and ease of use will make it more attractive, and that the ability to use the systems for wider clinical care and quality improvement will also improve. Only time will tell.

By: Ben Coopersmith

Ben Coopersmith — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:25:27 +0000

As a medical administrator for a small practice, I find the challenges of an EMR daunting. From a cost perspective, they make little sense for single site facilities with fewer 1-3 doctors. Why would we spend $10-20,000 for licensing with recurring fees of $2000-5000 per year (plus thousands in conversion fees) when we can make capital investments in equipment which will reap definitive financial rewards and will also increase pt. quality? Capital infusion is scarce and most of the proponents of EMR systems do not realize how much capital this uses up without demonstrating real returns. When a doctor offers new services or enhances existing services with newer and better equipment, doesn’t this too add to pt. quality? The biggest hurdle for these systems is that they are simply too expensive for small practices to bear and the benefits are still too small. Until the cost is picked up by the true beneficiaries (large insurers, Medicare, patients?), the technology is made simpler and is truly standardized, and the benefits are demonstrated convincingly (or the practice is at a competitive disadvantage), there will be little penetration in smaller practices.
Why hasn’t anyone asked patients how much they would really pay extra for an electronic medical record? Aren’t they really the beneficiaries? Why isn’t there a surcharge on insurance premiums to fund these “necessary” services? In theory, we all support this initiative because it makes sense from a macro-economic perspective; however, on a micro-economic level it often fails miserably. If someone can bridge the gap, I am all ears!

By: Alan Curtis

Alan Curtis — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:10:47 +0000

I have been in the records management business for 25 years and have participated in automating records systems for every major industry. In the financial field records systems are ubiquitous. In manufacturing they are necessary for competitive advantage. It is amazing to me that the US medical profession is so far behind. The President’s advisory board and the medical associations are trying to make this a very complicated and expensive proposition. Even a small practice can justify the expense of an EMR system. The argument that different EMR’s can’t share information is antiquated. In other industries we integrate these types of systems all the time. If the federal government would define what constitutes the information to be collected in an EMR, then sharing that information would become a simple matter. A standard EMR would allow technology companies to package software and hardware which would be affordable and convenient to install and use. The biggest cost will be the conversion of old paper files to electronic. The easiest and least expensive approach is a “day forward” EMR system for new patients establishing a practice of scanning old files each time they are removed and used. In this way the practitioner will have a complete system in a short period of time. The software and hardware can be provided on a lease to purchase basis for 3 -5 years. Just the elimination of paper file space and coping costs will pay for the system many time over.