Comments on: Should CCHIT Influence Your EHR Selection?

By: Gramj

Gramj — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:44:27 +0000

The article is fantastic, thanks for the information! It seems much better to have an open EMR system when it has to follow certain safety protocols and certification processes in order to better protect client information.

By: KL

KL — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 02:09:25 +0000

I am new to this whole Health Information field, actually reading this because of an assignment. I have experience on the payor’s end dealing with program integrity issue. I understand that we want all the practices to get on the boat with EHR, but the ultimate goal for the interoperability of information and to be able to use the information more than just keeping records at a solo location is very important. I can see that the cost to get accredited for a small company that tries to provide a low-cost product may seem costly. However, in order to achieve the goal of EHR and really to improve the overall quality of care for patients, I can see the value of what CCHIT requires.

For provider who complains about the incentive payments will mean nothing if the products are so costly, I guess they can consider the incentive payments as the government paying them to implement EHR vs. they pay their own system out-of-pocket — unless they do not want to be a Medicare provider after 2014, or they would have been retired by then.

By: Vishal

Vishal — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 02:30:37 +0000

This is very interesting. I also think that true practices do look for financial aspect of their business but I doubt it is only that, I think the patient care is primary to a practioner’s work which cannot be denied. This is where I feel technology can play a role. The recent trend of using EHR’s by clinics is a great win-win situation not only to EHR vendors but also to a much greater extent to the physicians and the patients. By systematically implementing an EHR solution through a CCHIT certified vendor by following the appropriate guidelines and putting the EHR to ‘meaningful use’ will result in taking advantage of the federal incentives. Regarding the topic of ROI, I found a great ROI tool which is really customizable to judge the approximate price of implementing the solution. Also the introduction of REC’s through the HITECH act. is a great way to avail of quality EHR solutions at competitive prices. The stiff competition among not only these REC’s but also among EHR vendors ( to become a preferred vendor of a given REC) will result in lot of positives to medical practioners. Looking the funding provided to the REC’s, the staggered grant allocation system also promises to be an unbiased way of allocating funds. It will also help in the concept of REC’s helping out each with their own unique business models.

By: Janet Vohariwatt

Janet Vohariwatt — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:11:42 +0000

Don,

Thank you for an amazingly clear and balanced information about CCHIT. I have read many articles and watch the CCHIT development. Not one of them provide us this great, functional, and very relevant information.

Most of Healthcare Providers are small and medium size business. Health provisioning is effective when it is integrated, collaborated from the multi-disciplined providers and processors. Without address ease-of-use and flexibly-focus features, and affordability (in setting up, maintaining, and adapting-to-use and future- use) CCHIT is not part of the solution, but indeed become part of the problem. Indeed, someone once said, extreme solution could lead to another more extreme problem.

I do hope we have someone like you help providing the advice and feedback to HHS and bring some practical and balanced regulation to healthcare.

Thank you so much for your information.
JV

PS. It is not often that I write the comment on Internet. I am still ‘ancient’ in that way.
But your great work here has driven me. I want to let you know I really appreciate your article!

By: Kris Mandyam

Kris Mandyam — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 03:44:30 +0000

We are a small software vendor in the Chicago area with about a 100+ clients. Our philosophy from the beginning has been to provide our clientele easy-to-use, affordable, reliable software and to provide them with exceptional service. Our practice management software has been in use by Physicians for over 25 years.
Naturally, for a small company like us, keeping costs down is paramount. We deliberately avoid collaborating with other companies (clearinghouses, distributors etc.) that require a substantial up front fee plus on-going charges and quotas to meet, in order to do business with them. CCHIT may have noble intentions (although I have to question the fact that they have received donations/ contributions from big software vendors such as GE, McKesson etc. Their stringent requirements for certification will make it difficult if not impossible for smaller companies that have good, reliable products to compete. Plus, as you’ve mentioned, many small physician offices do not need a lot of the features that are required by CCHIT to function effectively. Is CCHIT interested in making it easier for healthcare providers to adopt EMR systems or does it value it’s big software vendor client’s bottom line more? Just curious!

By: Soraya Hareez

Soraya Hareez — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:50:45 +0000

Don,

Thank you for such a thorough, informative article. Being an EMR vendor, we at Valant Medical Solutions are often asked whether we plan to gain CCHIT certification in light of the upcoming Stimulus Bill certification requirements.

I think an important point for health care providers to understand that while CCHIT has been the main certifying body thus far, there is no guarantee that it will be among the certifying organizations selected by the government later this year. Therefore, it is possible that a previously CCHIT-certified EMR/EHR may not meet all Stimulus Bill criteria and will require additional certification. Many EMR/EHR vendors are awaiting the release of government standards before jumping on the certification boat for this reason.

By: HD

HD — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:58:09 +0000

EMR should be paid for by Medicare/Providers. They are the only users of this information. Doctors don’t need it to care for patients.

‘Pay for Performance” incentives are straight out of old-school circus training: an animal that is starving can be coaxed into jumping through more, and higher hoops for smaller rewards…

By: Jose enrique enciso duran

Jose enrique enciso duran — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:03:57 +0000

we are taking the option 100% opensource over vmware platform.I decide work with openemr from sourgeforce and he say have a great advance in cchit certification but you point the problem clear.This option dont can pay high fees for to be free.Can you say me if they dont can pay to you for tobe here?And to be a good solution anyway for a lot of doctors.Can you answer me?

By: Brian Van Zandt

Brian Van Zandt — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:38:20 +0000

Great Article Don! Lots of good information. I just wanted to point out something that has changed since the article was written. CCHIT has unveiled three certification approaches to replace the current single one.
- EHR-C, or EHR Comprehensive:

- EHR-M, or EHR Module:

- EHR-S, or EHR Site:

see full article on the CCHIT website – CCHIT makes EHR more accessible: http://www.cchit.org/media/news/2009/06/certification-commission-makes-ehr-certification-more-accessible

By: Dr. Brian

Dr. Brian — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:50:03 +0000

One of the big draws doctors is the $40,000+ stimulus money they will get when they buy these systems. What most docs do not realize is the money only comes to you in the form of higher medicare reimbursement if you can prove “meaningful use” of a CCHIT system. The definition of “meaningful use” is not defined yet. For some doctors like chiropractors, it might be imposable to ever reach the “meaningful use” threshold. For example one of the required features of a CCHIT system is that it must support e prescriptions. Chiropractors do not prescribe drugs and therefore might never use a system “meaningfully”, and in turn not qualify for stimulus money. There are many other features that are like this.
In addition, there are no members of the review board that are chiropractors and so it is unlikely they will ever consider the unique requirements that a chiropractic practice may or may not need.