Sponsored Links
Over the past few years medicine has witnessed Healthcare IT companies re-name their Electronic Medical Records (EMR) as Electronic Health Records (EHR), and then market them to physicians as new and improved. Countless EMR companies have followed suit, and now just about every vendor is calling their EMR product an EHR, as if the "H" implies something better than the “M” in Electronic Medical Records.
At first glance the letter change made sense. The argument followed that "Electronic Health Record" is more inclusive than "Electronic Medical Record", benefiting not only doctors, but patients, insurance companies, and not to mention the government. The word "medical", implies a tool designed only for doctors, nurses, and clinical staff. Proponents of EHR argue that the tool should not just benefit doctors, but should address varied healthcare stakeholders: patients, insurance companies, government, pharmacies, and other interested parties.
From the vendors perspective, the physician is only one player in the healthcare "ecosystem", and the EHR is a neutral communication tool. In addition, vendors of EHR believe that if they make software beneficial to third-party payers, then these outside interests will select and pay for the software and then push it on "resistant" physicians. Indeed, this is happening today at your Hospital and IPA.
But what about physicians?
0 comments:
Post a Comment