Active Forum Topics | Getting Started | Interviews | EMR Forum | Medical | Billings | Press & News | Voice Recognition | The Water Cooler
CCHIT is a vendor-driven Advertising Scheme .
The goal is to sell more EMRs for their members, not to help anyone else.
This organization is against doctors and for vendors.
It is not complicated.
Dr.Notes and AcerMed scams are just the beginning.
email:
So here is something I don't quite understand.
If CCHIT is so detrimental to doctors, why is it that many physician organizations, like AAFP, AAP, AMA, etc., are endorsing CCHIT (at least according to the CCHIT web site)?
I do understand the vendors that complain about CCHIT, and I am not a fan either, but go through certification anyway. Vendors need to sell software and if the customers, through their various organizations, indicate that certification is an advantage in the market, then vendors will grind their teeth, shell out the money (if they have it) and certify.
So maybe doctors need to direct their efforts to their various representatives in those physician organizations and make them understand the shortcomings of this CCHIT adventure. I don't believe vendors, particularly the smaller or lesser known ones, can change the current situation. It's up to the consumer to drive the market.
Margalit Gur-Arie
Purkinje
www.purkinje.com
DrMurdoch: CCHIT is a vendor-driven Advertising Scheme . The goal is to sell more EMRs for their members, not to help anyone else. This organization is against doctors and for vendors. It is not complicated. Dr.Notes and AcerMed scams are just the beginning.
Do you have any evidence or does posting things in big red letters turn opinion into fact?
BTW Dr. Notes was out of business some time before C-CHIT and Acermed went out of business primarily because of the costs associated with the Medinformatix lawsuit. Neither of those things had the first thing to do with C-CHIT.
You are going to need better examples to support your premise.
You are right Jason, it is not complicated...
BTW is C-CHIT a big thing in Canada?
opus313: You are going to need better examples to support your premise.
Follow the Money. He who supplies the funding for CCHIT is the one who will benefit. Doctors aren't funding CCHIT, vendors are.
100% irrelevant. CCHIT only applies to the forsaken EMR market in the US. I have been helping the Government here set EMR standards. It was an odd process, but the results are certainly more reasonable than anything CCHIT has produced. I met a few people experienced with NextGen on a few committees. Let's just say I'll do you a favour and not repeat the scoop.
Neat discussion... a couple of points/data:
>>> If CCHIT is so detrimental to doctors, why is it that many physician organizations, like AAFP, AAP, AMA, etc., are endorsing CCHIT (at least according to the CCHIT web site)?
The problem is that a lot of those in power in those organizations do not know or understand the complexities of HIT. They believe the unfounded lies put out by CCHIT, especially about possible cost containment.
These organizations have also made numerous mistakes over the years, rendering them to represent only a small portion of the physician population. In the case of the AMA:
(URL: http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/AMA/tb/6006)
>>> So maybe doctors need to direct their efforts to their various representatives in those physician organizations and make them understand the shortcomings of this CCHIT adventure. I don't believe vendors, particularly the smaller or lesser known ones, can change the current situation. It's up to the consumer to drive the market.
I agree- I personally cut out membership in the AMA, ACP, VA Medical Society, and the Fairfax County Medical Society back in 2004. My pay was being cut annually, my malpractice insurance premiums in Virginia were increasing, and now all this crap with the medical societies being on the wrong side of the fence.
If you notice in my Sermo discussion postings, as well as discussions in the Amazing Charts threads and in discussions here, physicians are almost unanymous in calling for the end of CCHIT, P4P, and for calling for lower cost EMRs. Those that have gone against this current are quickly changing their viewpoints (just ask Lowell).
>>> Acermed went out of business primarily because of the costs associated with the Medinformatix lawsuit. Neither of those things had the first thing to do with C-CHIT.
Bob- the thing is, CCHIT advertises "assurance" and that their certified EHRs are a better buy than non-certified systems. My list of financially troubled EHRs continues to grow, with AcerMed of course being one that went bankrupt to 2 that I recently posted with sharply declining stock prices, with one article stating that they are suffering a "20%" decline in purchases during 2007, this going along with stagnant EHR growth published by the CDC report published just 2 weeks ago.
There is NO ASSURANCE that these CCHIT certified EHRs are more stable than non-CCHIT certified EMRs, and since they cost more, there is more money at risk. It's riskier overall then to purchase CCHIT certified EHRs. In a recent thread we discussed how physicians are now deinstalling their bloated, difficult to use, slow-on-workflow EHRs for more nimble, cheaper EMRs.
Notice that I didn't put any in big red letters, but it's the same message...
>>> BTW is C-CHIT a big thing in Canada?
CCHIT is like a plague that is trying to invade the world! (I couldn't help myself... )Leavitt has been spotted in Belgium, it's been discussed in SE Asia, and of course in Canada. Check out http://blog.canadianemr.ca/canadianemr/2007/11/emr-adoption---.html for the stuff of CCHIT certification in Canada.
Al Borges, M.D.
>>> Good answer, but again the argument is against high price. As I presented there are solutions in the 10k range.
From: http://www.acponline.org/college/pressroom/ehr_project.htm, the reality...
"According to "The Value of Electronic Health Records in Solo or Small Group Practices," an article in the Sept./Oct. 2005 issue of Health Affairs magazine, the acquisition cost for an EHR system averages $44,000 per physician. The initial cost, combined with the ongoing average annual cost of $8,500 per physician to maintain the system, often puts these systems out of the reach of small physician practices."
(this article discusses 2005 dollars)
Al,
You are quoting a high cost high end of the scale solutions. I don't see this, our software and eMds as well as eClinicalworks is 15-20% of $7500 - 10K per physician depending on number of licenses. Your argument falls short and more importantly look at the date.
Recent surveys of eMds and eClinicalworks as well as our software would yeild annual maintenance of around 1500 to 2000 dollars. I doubt you can use cost alone in your argument.
As to the CCHIT guarantee of Viability, yes this was indeed a selling point they pushed and I do agree that this is not anymore guaranteed then from privately held small EMR companies. In the end it comes down to committment and wherewithal. I doubt Matt at Medtuity is going anywhere, nor Naveen at Sanvas Technologies Doctors Partners. So I think CCHIT was wrong as well as the AAFP when they stood up at TEPR and many other town meetings saying paying 28K a month and staying certified should assure that the vendor is in it for the long haul.
As a consumer I don't see where any of this would benefit you physicians, as the products feature functions and the companies long term viability would be a factor in your decision regardless of CCHIT.
I realize that there is no way I can get you off of your soapbox about price, but really Al get a quote from eClinicalworks for installation, optional training, and annual support and get back to me with real annual costs, not convienent ones from out dated sources.
I will break it down with my non-cchit software that I priced in comparison to eClinicalworks from there website, thanks Girish.
I know he will read this and if anything as a software pirate of the seas appreciate it as much as I do.
eMedRec first doc $7,500 additional $5,000
Nuance OEM Dragon VR and FDB NDDF Licenses for both $1,800
Server and Hardware $12,500 being a bit high here for solo doc.
Back Scanning of 75 boxes of charts $6,000
Implementation and training remote $0
If on-site for a week $2,500
Total price for two docs just starting out including back scanning all active charts for pracitce 10 years or older. $34,800 or roughly $17,500 per physician. At the end of one year maintenance of around $ 2,200 per year for two physicians.
I just don't get where you extrapolate $1,100 year on going and $17,500 per physician at the on-set with back scanning to the figures from 2005. I am sure eClinicalworks and Girish would come in at a similar number. eClinicalworks and in all fairness David with eMds have priced there current offerings to try and close as many deals as possible. They are going for volume.
Regards,Brendon
DrMurdoch: Follow the Money. He who supplies the funding for CCHIT is the one who will benefit.
Follow the Money. He who supplies the funding for CCHIT is the one who will benefit.
Again, you have absolutely no evidence of that.
It is not my lot in life to defend C-CHIT - in fact it is irrelevent to do so. We don't develop software to meet C-CHIT standards. We develop based on our perception of the needs of the market, which come directly from our customer base and from our interaction with prospects - both wins and loses. Any other philosophy will ultimately result in us not being successful in the long and sometimes short term. I believe that is true for every legitimate vendor in the market and the vast majority of the vendors are legit.
If C-CHIT did not exist, there would be some other set of "standards". If you want to follow the money, you need to look at the fact that close 20% of GNP is spent on healthcare in this country and with the population aging, this will only increase. Healthcare IT is seen as magic bullet by people on both sides of the poitical spectrum and for my money (literally as well as figuratively) I would prefer that an industry group propose standards rather than government. Since you work in a country where the government controls healthcare, you might have a different opinion.
As I have noted before, there are north of 300 companies that claim that they sell something that could be called an EMR. Any piece of software configured for presentation and with the demo done by a good demo person can look like it is a good solution. Physicians are under tremendous pressure from all sides to make the jump into the digital age. It is inevitable that there was going to be some sort of certification process to try and give people the tools to adequately evaluate what people are seeing. Is C-CHIT that tool? Heck I don't know and neither does anyone else. But I can tell you that in my opionion, if it is not C-CHIT, it will be something else and under the "be careful what you wish for" it could be even more restrictive. I don't mean this as a threat, just what I believe would happen based on history. Nature - and busines - abhors a vacuum. Rail all you want against C-CHIT, have fun, post all the "fat chick" pictures you can find - knock yourself out. But I think that this board wastes way to much time talking about this. There are so many other real and relevant things we could be discussing that would provide real value to people who read this board.
Finally - on this subject at least (I hope) - I believe that C-CHIT really provides no particular benefit to us. We were selling lots of software before C-CHIT and we are continuing to do so now. The people that we compete with on a regular basis are exactly the same people we saw pre-C-CHIT. If there is another company that is going to rise up and become a force in the marketplace ala eCW, they will do that by providing the market something it wants in a way that is not being done now. If they are true innovators, C-CHIT, nor anything else will stop that. Business history is filled with examples where a small unknown has completely turned a particular market upside down and in all likelyhood, it will happen here as well.
We certify because it is required to do so to qualify for much of the available business. But the people who we regularly compete with will almost certainly certify as well. We don't need C-CHIT to win business. We will win it or lose it based on what the marketplace's perception of our ability to meet the needs of the purchasing entity, not based on a list of features.
DrMurdoch: I met a few people experienced with NextGen on a few committees. Let's just say I'll do you a favour and not repeat the scoop.
I met a few people experienced with NextGen on a few committees. Let's just say I'll do you a favour and not repeat the scoop.
Jason, I really don't see the point of the threat. Are you not capable of having a reasonable discussion without it?
Nick Harrington: I'm actually not inviting a CCHIT response.
I'm actually not inviting a CCHIT response.
You guys crack me up. OK, ok, it's my fault. I included that crucial acronym CCHIT in the titleONLY to request that some THREAD ETIQUETTE beobserved and that it not dominate every single thread.What happens?¿Que pasa?Alor ?Huh?
You all completely ignore my request -- AND START A CCHIT DISCUSSION
You know Guys, other posters are almost safer posting EMR discussions in the Friday Funnies section* because they're less likely to be stamped with CCHIT.
(* only Robert, Joseph, Barbara and I are regular visitors --- but we have a cool time)
I am now going to(a) Lock this thread,(b) unsticky and(c) find a warm, quiet, dark room and play some whale music.Gentlemen, thank-you for making me chuckle even if you didn't intend so doing.
Nick Harrington email me or Skype: nickharrington emrupdate.comIf I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants" Sir Isaac Newton 1676
Nick,
I haven't completely lost my sense of irony in that I was one of the people who have most consistently "suggested" that we should move on to other subjects. Consider me properly chastened.
Agreed,
I guess Al can bring out the best in us. The title surely does take on a life of its own.
Hey, in my last message I didn't mention CCHIT!
In the spirit of Thanksgiving, we can all give thanks to God that CCHIT (the biggest turkey of them all) is beginning to wither on the vine, that the EHR market has dropped 20% for 2007, and that the non-CCHIT EMR market continues to grow.
Bush making Leavitt the Secretary of the HHS.