Bill,
Thanks for your reply. Comments below:
--- Bill Walton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>
> The costs for the EMR systems I've looked at
> recently (GE, A4, NextGen, and
> Misys) are in the $30-60K per physician range. It's
> a little dangerous,
> IMO, if you're going to use numbers like this to be
> specific WRT what size
> practice you're talking about. It's important not
> to set yourself up for
> strawman arguments against your case.
Good point. I guess I forgot the difference between
per group and per doctor expense. But actually, the
numbers you give are worse. We have 15 doctors in our
group, so my part of $150k would be less than $30k.
But both are still FAR MORE than I am interested in
paying.
> > But unless my EMR will somehow let me instantly
> > access a lab/study ordered by another physician in
> > another city, I don't see how this could happen.
>
> How often does this happen? And how much money does
> it save each time? 20%
> is a big number if we're talking about reductions in
> the "average." This
> example won't get it anywhere close.
Well, I would say that during 20-30% of admissions to
the hospital, tests are reordered because older
results can not be obtained in a timely manner. In
the office setting, this probably only happens 1-2% of
the time.
> > With HIPPA nervousness abounding, no one
> > will release records without a written signature
> from
> > a patient, and I not heard of any quicker
> electronic
> > solution to this problem.
>
> This is another one of those circumstances where I'd
> recommend you use this
> argument with caution. HIPAA definitely allows the
> circumstance you
> outlined above. ...
Well, in my mind the HIPAA think is entirely out of
hand. I have personally been told at two different
medical institutions that a patient (my father) was
not allowed to view the medical chart because of HIPAA
issues. In far too many minds, HIPAA means a steel
wall around information, and only the privilaged few
can get through.
[snip]
> In my mind, there's only one reason for
> community-based physicians to an EMR
> system: ROI. That could take several forms.
> 1) getting paid faster for services rendered
> 2) getting paid more for services rendered (CMS is
> actually talking about
> this)
> 3) reduced expenses (As discussed above, the typical
> justification along
> this line is bunk WRT community-based physicians.
> BUT... reduced
> malpractice premiums are an obvious possibility.
> Unlikely, but obvious. I
> say unlikely because a) the data I've seen re:
> reduction of errors relates
> to errors in a hospital setting, not a office-based
> setting, and b) the way
> the insurance market works in general)
> 4) business growth (i.e., patients decide which
> physician they use at least
> in part as a function of whether or not the
> physician uses an EMR system)
>
> In my mind, number 4 is the most likely scenario on
> the horizon. And I'm
> working a plan to try to accelerate that scenario.
I agree with you.
Thanks again,
Hope to talk more soon,
Kevin
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal
Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us
Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Hardhats-members mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
