And the EHR winners are . . . payers and patients, but not providers

A recent study on the value of computerized order-entry systems for clinical use found that most of the return on investment benefits the payer, while only 11% benefits the provider, Computerworld reported July 14.

 

John Halamka, CIO at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, concurs that EHR systems benefit payers more than providers. “The provider bears the cost, but most of the benefits accrue to other parties,” said Halamka, a Computerworld columnist. Those other parties are mainly payers, such as insurance companies, and patient who reap the benefits of higher-quality care.

 

The transition from paper to electronic records reduces the risk of adverse reactions to drugs, but providers aren’t rewarded for improved patient care and safety, John Quinn, chief technology officer at Health Level 7, Inc., a health data standards development organization in Ann Arbor, MI, better known as HL7, told Computerworld.

 

“We're not reimbursed for using better systems to take better care of patients, Mark Leavitt, chairman of the Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology, told Computerworld. Leavitt called financial systems a different matter. “Everyone makes darn sure those work, because if you don't send [insurance reimbursement information] in the right format, you don't get paid,” he said.

 

The lack of consistent standards and abundant proprietary vendor offerings contribute to the problem, according to the article. Improved interoperability will facilitate development of an EMR infrastructure, but it won't solve the incentive problem. Upfront costs can range from $15,000 to $50,000 per physician, Leavitt told Computerworld.

 

Physicians won’t do this alone, said Halamka. “Hospitals have to pay for them to acquire it, and payers have to provide incentives for them to use it,” he said.

 

Click here to read the Computerworld article.