Shhhhh! 10 Secrets the EHR Companies Don't Want You
to Know
The following essay entitled “10 Secrets the EHR
Companies Don't Want You to Know” was written by Jonathan Bertman, MD, FAAFP. While Dr. Bartman
is president of AmazingCharts.com, a
developer of Electronic Health Record (EHR) software, and thus has a motivation
to criticize other clinical IT vendors, the issues he brings up resonate with
me and my experiences.
His words should at the very least be used as a
template for some very pointed questioning of an EHR vendor under consideration. Dr. Bertman is also
physician Editor-in-Chief of MDNG: Primary Care/Cardiology Edition and is
a Clinical Assistant Professor of Family Medicine at
Secret
#1: (EHR awards have been bought!)
What first provoked me to explore the dirty secrets of the industry was
discovering that most of the coveted awards prominently displayed by EHR
companies are judged by people who are getting paid by them. Although this may
be reasonable under some circumstances (eg, the
expert judge is also providing legitimate consulting services to the EHR
company), it is completely unethical if it isn't openly disclosed—and in the
case of EHR awards, the judges' monetary relationships are not disclosed.
If one can't trust an EHR award, perhaps it is safe to get advice from an
expert lecturing at a conference or a consultant you pay to evaluate your
practice and make recommendations?
Secret #2:
(That "non-biased" expert recommending an EHR to you may have been
paid off too!)
A significant number of the leading "experts" and practice
consultants also earn money from the same vendors they recommend. Again, this
situation is not necessarily a bad thing, unless a prospective buyer isn't
clearly informed of the relationship. Whereas the FDA oversees drug
company-sponsored meals and requires full disclosure of speakers' affiliations
and relationships, there is no similar protection from the unscrupulous EHR
expert/consultant. I've attended many lectures by consultants who had been paid
by one or more EHR companies without any sort of disclosure before, during, or
after the lecture. Similarly, many consultants, in addition to charging you for
their "objective" advice, also quietly collect money directly from
some EHR vendors for their referrals.
So, perhaps it is safe to get advice from another physician who uses one of the
EHRs you're considering?
Secret #3:
(Even that EHR-using physician you've been referred to may have been paid off!)
Clearly—and reasonably—an EHR company would try to avoid giving you the contact
information of an unhappy client. But might the doctor to whom you are referred
be getting compensated? Surprisingly, a number of EHR companies actually pay
referring physicians to "compensate them for their time" in speaking
with you. This can take the form of a direct cash payment or free/discounted
software and services. Again, this is not necessarily unreasonable so long as
the relationship is disclosed.
Secret #4:
(The respected physician leader of your local society may also be receiving
compensation!)
Remarkably, I've even learned of physicians in leadership positions (such as
your local medical society, IPA, etc) entering into financial relationships
with EHR companies and not clearly informing the membership about the
connection. Without clear disclosure, any of these examples at best is
unethical, and at worst, is fraud. In the end, it is the EHR buyer who foots
the bill for this insidious marketing. Determining the true cost of this
deception is difficult. In fact, simply figuring out the real cost of an EHR
can be surprisingly hard, since most vendors won't provide this information.
Secret #5:
(Determining how much a specific EHR costs is going to be difficult, and you
are going to be nickel-and-dimed every step of the way!)
Most EHR companies continue to avoid transparent pricing and will not openly
provide an actual cost for their software and
required services. Like a car salesman, even when asked, the majority of EHR
vendors won't give you a straight answer on price. Instead, they will try to
obscure the issue with questions about how your office is set up, what
interfaces are required, and the training needed to use their software.
Also, hidden charges are the norm in the EHR industry. Features you would
reasonably expect to be covered by the base price often are not. For example,
most vendors charge extra for "optional" modules we all use every
day, such as ICD, CPT, and medication databases; spell-checking; document
management capability; and scheduling. These add-on modules will dramatically
increase the EHR's price, which may not become clear
until after you have started using the product in your practice.
Charging for "training" to teach you how to document a note is simply ridiculous. You've already paid a lot of money to
your medical school and residency for this training, and you learned quite well
how to document an encounter. If you must be taught how to use software that
isn't intuitively designed to fl ow like your own
office, surely the price of that training should be included.
Secret #6:
(Your patient data will be a bargaining chip to prevent you from leaving an EHR
company!)
Perhaps the most egregious hidden cost (often apparent only well after you've
signed a contract) is the fee charged by some EHR companies to practices when
they try to get their data back from the company. It is the rare EHR vendor
that actually provides a mechanism within its software to export your patient
demographics and notes en masse without having to contact the vendor. Although
many salespeople tell you the data is yours, when you actually ask for the
data, you'll be charged thousands in an attempt to hold your data hostage and
discourage you from switching to another EHR system. Without that data, you
would have to reconstitute your electronic notes.
In justifying hundreds or even thousands of dollars a month just to use their
software, many companies will rely on theoretical calculations that prove you
can make money by spending money.
Secret #7:
(The return on investment (ROI) argument is another way of saying "this
solution is overpriced!")
If a company has to bombard you with white papers and intricate examples of how
its EHR system will save you money by eliminating the need for your secretary
to pull a paper chart 30 times a day, then they are looking for every
theoretical penny of savings in an attempt to justify a price that is obviously
too high. Companies that resort to the ROI argument as a way of convincing a
practice to pay thousands of dollars up-front in order to save theoretical
money are selling only theoretical savings. If you can't immediately appreciate
the potential benefits of purchasing an EHR system, the software isn't designed
well enough, the price point is too high, or both.
Secret #8: (EHRs don't improve quality of care and often make you less
efficient. And since you won't figure this out until you are actually using the
product, EHR vendors won't let you try-before-you-buy, and there is no return
policy!)
Th is is the biggest secret
of the EHR industry. Th e products' abilities to
produce accurate, improved, and rapid documentation—what should be the most
important features of any EHR—are often woefully inadequate. Navigating through
window after window, clicking multiple checkboxes, and inaccurate documenting
by exception are all-too-common features of the overpriced EHR. To make matters
worse, all this window-hopping and clicking may well distract you from
providing high-quality care.
In fact, two recent studies have shown that using an EHR might actually hamper
your ability to meet quality guidelines! Publishing their results in the July 9
issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, the authors of a Harvard/Stanford EHR
study reported that "EHRs were not associated
with better quality ambulatory care." For example, their results indicated that, for one of the quality
indicators studied (statin prescribing to patients
with hypercholesterolemia), "visits to practices
using EHRs had significantly worse quality." A
study of the relationship between EMR usage and diabetes care quality published
in the May/June 2007 issue of Annals of
Family Medicine found that practices not using an EHR were more
likely to meet guidelines than those using an EHR.
So, if EHR software doesn't really work well, why is it that so many of us are
buying it? The answer is simply that EHR companies are good at selling, and
that—combined with the misplaced market hype that EHRs
are the solution to our healthcare crisis—has been enough to cajole many
physicians to quickly adopt a solution that isn't affordable, usable, or
proven.
Many vendors tout CCHIT (Certification Commission for Healthcare Information
Technology) certification as the answer to these issues. Ironically, it may be
CCHIT that is causing much of the problems.
Secret #9: (A
CCHIT-certified product, by definition, is often more expensive and less usable
than non-certified products.)
The theory of a standard certification process makes a lot of sense. CCHIT
certification had the potential to markedly improve the industry and speed EHR
adoption by requiring interoperability and reasonable functionality. Instead,
CCHIT has allowed overpriced vendors to hide their poor usability behind the
guise of being a certified solution." Alas, when one examines the
certification requirements, it is evident that the very nature of this
certification actually increases product cost, discourages EHR technology
advancement, and—most concerning—worsens usability.
CCHIT certification is unjustifiably expensive ($28,000 to apply, then $4,800
annually), and this expense is most certainly passed on to the users. Whereas
overpriced EHR companies can absorb this cost easily, requiring such a large
application fee makes it difficult for reasonably priced vendors to compete and
may prevent a small start-up company, which might have the ultimate solution
that does actually improve care and efficiency, from ever entering the fray.
Because CCHIT certification has hundreds and hundreds of specific
criteria defining how an EHR must work, and since every one of these criteria
is required for certification, a CCHIT-certified EHR ends up being bogged down
by all the required features. Simply put, the bells and whistles mandated by
CCHIT certification result in programs so complex with menus, buttons, and
options, they make Microsoft Word look simple.
Some examples of their onerous requirements include criteria #71a, which
mandates the EHR be capable of recording comments by the patient or patient's
representative regarding the veracity of information in the patient record.
Sure, it may be good to have this ability, but should it be required?
Similarly, criteria #238 requires an EHR to be able to display medical
eligibility obtained from a patient's insurance carrier. Again, potentially a
nice feature for some users, but must every EHR have this, along with the
associated complexity, cost, and loss of valuable window real estate? Multiply
this requirement a few hundred times, and you have an unusable and expensive
product. (Okay, since this secret might land me in hot water, I should disclose
that my EHR isn't CCHIT-certified, and while I may be forced to become
certified to continue to compete with other EHRs, I
have avoided it thus far for the reasons noted above.)
With the myriad of EHR companies hawking their wares, how can you get through
the background noise of paid-off experts, certification nonsense, and glossy
marketing campaigns?
Secret #10:
(There are alternate ways to determine if an EHR, and the company selling you
the product, will work for you.)
Thankfully, there are a number of less-biased forums where compensated and
non-compensated users can freely voice their opinions on the software they've
purchased, as well as the company selling it. The AAFP's
(
Another place to find uncensored information is the online board
, where users, vendors, and experts voice their frank opinions on
the industry and all it encompasses. A relatively new and refreshing concept
called the Ideal Micropractice also provides a forum
that promotes open and uncensored discussion on running an affordable,
high-quality medical practice. Among other things, actual EHR usability and pricing is
frequently addressed.
Finally, a number of more progressive venues are beginning to arrange
"document challenges" where various EHRs
can run through a standardized patient, thus demonstrating how each deals with
the same patient data. The Medical Records Institute is one such group pushing this competition.
Although this is a promising development because it allows a more objective
comparison of EHR software, it still is not optimal, since a significant
payment from EHR vendors is required to participate.
Today's EHR industry remains a sea of unrealized dreams. Although it seems
obvious that adopting technology in your practice should improve efficiency and
decrease costs, unscrupulous marketing campaigns, unabashed corporate greed,
and pseudo-public certification have all played a role in obscuring our ability
to separate the wheat from the chaff . Until we cease
to accept the party line and choose EHR technology in the same way we pick
other technology—on usability and price—many of us will end up paying money we
can't afford for products that actually impair our practice. The solution, as
it is in most industries, is understanding the
deceptive marketing techniques, demanding transparent pricing, and encouraging
head-to-head EHR competition. The results are predictable: decreasing EHR
prices and an overhaul of overly complicated EHR designs, the secrets that
haunt today's EHR companies the most.

