The Commission for Healthcare Information Technology (CCHIT) has come a long way since its inception in 2004. It is evident by the Obama Administration and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that $20 billion will be invested towards electronic health records, specifically ones that are ‘certified.’ When one hears of a ‘certified EHR,’ one assumes that it means a CCHIT Certified® EHR System. Is this a fair assumption? Why should physicians only benefit if the purchased EHR is CCHIT Certified® ? I believe that there are several ambiguities within the Act that need clarification before physicians misconstrue statements within the Act.
To begin with, CCHIT is a private, non-profit organization whose mission is to ‘accelerate the adoption of robust, interoperable health information technology by creating a credible efficient certification process.’ Although it is a non-profit organization, there’s a hefty price tag for EHR Companies to become certified. Several of the smaller companies do not have the capital investment to even apply for the certification. This will result in several smaller companies losing their status and more frequently declaring bankruptcy.
In addition, several companies will not be able to become certified because they may not meet all of the 250 criteria. So what about Mental and Behavioral Health Electronic Medical Records? There are specialty specific EHR Companies that have a solid reputation, however, may soon be frowned upon because of the lack of the CCHIT certification. So, how does this work then?
Specialty specific physicians will want to purchase a system that focuses primarily on their specialty, with all of the features that they may need. Does this mean that these physicians who decide to not purchase a ‘certified EHR’ will not be reimbursed?
Why should people within the medical community suffer financially because they want to implement the most appropriate EHR for them? I believe that this will be a growing concern within the healthcare industry that needs to be addressed immediately.
Thoughts anyone?
Tags: american recovery and reinvestment act, cchit, ehr, healthcare industry
4 Comments
consultahop - Feb 25, 2009
Very interesting topic, and worthy points. I would have to strongly agree that inorder to receive government assistance to purchase an EMR it should be certified that it meets basic minimum requirements of security, reliability, and interopporability. Which is what CCHIT is.
Risky selection of not certified products in not something that only affects small practices, but entire states. Check out how California spent $8.3 MILLION on an UNCERTIFIED EMR with a “smaller” software company and now have nothing to show for it.
http://www.sacbee.com/626/story/1636263.html
The Public Eye: County pays $8.3 million for database that never was
ShareThisPublished: Thursday, Feb. 19, 2009 – 12:00 am | Page 1B
Last Modified: Thursday, Feb. 19, 2009 – 12:25 am
I understand that a small, upstart EMR company may be able to more specifically meet a small, specialized practice’s needs, however, as you mention, there can be a good deal of risk in this. Even though the product may initially be cheaper, who is to say in today’s market that the EMR company will be around for the next few years to even support the product. Not to mention risks associated with the security of PHI. Software companies have know about the CCHIT certification for a number of years, and if they have not taken the time to invest in a minimum standard certification by now I would have to question that company’s stability in the marketplace and true desire to serve and protect the populations they serve–that being all of us.
As a hardworker tax payer in this time of governent wastefullness, I don’t think I can stand to see more risky investments made with the dollars I send to my beloved country. If practices/organizations choose to take the risk of going with an uncertified software, then they should have to bear the full responsibility cost.
EHR 3.0 - Mar 1, 2009
CCHIT does charge far too much for certification, but the certification process serves a useful purpose.
The logical impulse is to call for CCHIT to be replaced by a more nimble certification body, but political reality dictates that there are far better odds in calling for the HHS Office of the National Coordinator (ONC) to force CCHIT to reform its process to lower cost barriers while preserving the protections and value of the certification process.
This can be done, but it will not happen unless CCHIT constituents (including providers, who indirectly bear the costs of current certification costs) demand change.
Neerja Bylsma - Mar 26, 2009
I am IT professional that works part for a small Healthcare practice. CCHIT as the rest of the medical industry pays little to no attention to mental healthcare. So this is an area missing from the CCHIT testing that I believe needs to be addressed.
Secondly, yes large companies have the money to pay for the CCHIT testing, however those costs are passed on to the consumers of the service which are hospitals and small practices. Small practices cannot afford these systems. They are too expensive. 70% of the healthcare in the US is provided by small practices.
Amazing charts at $995 initially and $500 annually is much more reasonable from a price point perspective. Cerner offers services for $1000-1500/month that is very expensive. Allscripts, Epic , etc are all too expensive at least from a mental healthcare perspective.
Small practices will be forced to rely on “almost” free solutions that will be offered by Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc… unless the cost of these services comes down considerably.
Moses - Sep 8, 2009
It is true that that the criteria is not yet very clear and confusing to the whole of physician community.
The fact is that there are so many very good EMR software which are not yet certified by CCHIT.
A clear guidelines need to be published by HHS to avoid all this confusion.