Today we got news of the new ONC-ATCB EHR certifying bodies: CCHIT and Drummond Group. However, this is really just the start of the EHR certifying bodies. ONC released that “Applications for additional ONC-ATCBs are also under review.”

One of those possible additional ONC-ATCB EHR certifying bodies is Weno Healthcare. This EMR Daily News guest blog post (Thanks Michelle for pointing it out) asserts that Weno Healthcare has submitted their application to be an ONC-ATCB EHR Certifying body. They also offer this interesting insight:

Until recently, only one body was promoted to do this testing and certification. Because of no competition, their prices were out of the ballpark for smaller technology companies who may have built the better and cheaper mouse trap for doctors and hospitals, but could not afford the fees for certification. The technology companies that certified their products earlier are not considered certified by the new rules today, so all technology vendors must go through an ONC-ATCB in order to be re-tested and certified, if they choose to do so.

If Weno is approved as an ONC-ATCB, more technology vendors can afford the testing and certification fees. Weno savings can be as much as $19,000 for complete EHRs. These savings will certainly provide physicians and hospitals with more cost effective certified technology options to choose from. Again, competition is a good thing because it brings prices down and quality up.

Comparing the Weno Healthcare EHR certification price above with the CCHIT and Drummond Group EHR Certification prices, it’s going to be really interesting. That puts the costs of EHR certification (not counting software development costs) at:
Weno Healthcare: $14,000-18,000
Drummond Group: $19,500
CCHIT: $33,000

Of course, this assumes that Weno Healthcare becomes an ONC-ATCB and that the prices don’t change. I won’t be surprised if they do change. Plus, there could be other EHR certifying bodies.

After noting that CCHIT had gone quiet and posting about Drummond Group’s view of the EHR certification final rule, it seems appropriate that CCHIT has finally come out with their own comments.

The CCHIT blog post was done by Alisa Ray but says it’s a statement from Karen M. Bell, MD, Chair, CCHIT. I think that’s a bad sign for those of us who like executives that blog that Karen Bell sent the blog post through Alisa Ray, but maybe Karen’s still just getting setup on the new job.

There’s nothing really all that shocking or newsworthy in the CCHIT blog post. Here’s the cliff notes version (with some of my own commentary):
-CCHIT will apply to be a “ONC Authorized Testing and Certification Body (ONC-ATCB).” – Not a surprise since EHR Certification is CCHIT’s only business model.
-CCHIT will continue their “independently developed programs.” – They used their favorite word “assurance” in correlation with their programs again. Sadly, they just assure doctors that some programmer knows how to run their test scripts before paying CCHIT $30k+ to get their EHR certification. They don’t assure that an EMR is more usable, or has a higher implementation success rate, or that it saves more lives or increases reimbursement. Nope. Those assurances would run at least $100k to certify;-)

At least in the blogosphere, there’s been a number of healthcare IT bloggers proclaiming the end of CCHIT. Sadly, I’m not one of those. I think they’ll be around for a while and there’s still A LOT more educating that needs to spread about what an EHR certification is and what it is not.

Also, Michelle at Occam PM wrote a blog post that includes some interesting word clouds of the CCHIT and Drummond Group bog posts. An interesting view of what was said.

If anybody was doubting that Drummond Group was ready to be a player in the EHR certification rule, I think this blog post should make them think twice. You can tell from the tone of the post that Drummond Group had been waiting for HHS to issue the final rule so they could get moving.

In the same blog post, Drummond Group provides a short summary of some of the major changes to the rule after the comments:

* Waiving of the 30-day delay in the effective rule. This is by far the most significant “change” in terms of how it impacts vendors, providers and hospitals. Typical procedure for Final Rules is to have 30-day delay after it is on the Federal Register before it becomes “effective”, but this can be waived in certain situations. What this means practically is that once the Final Rule goes into the Federal Register, say around July 1, the Temporary Certification Program will be active and ONC can begin processing applications from organizations like ourselves intending to be ATCBs. ONC does give themselves 30 days to process and approve the application so you still may not see an ATCB officially testing until possibly August.

* Temporary Certification Sunsets No Earlier than 12/31/11. The NPRM had stated that the Temporary Program ends (and the Permanent Program begins) when there is an accredited ONC-ACB. Now, the Temporary Program is given a clear window of operation through the end of 2011, and it may be extended if an ONC-ACB is not found by then. This gives more stability to the Temporary Program.

* All ATCBs Must Support Remote Testing. The NPRM had previously only required support of testing at the local ATCB facility. Now, remote testing is required for all ATCBs. Remote testing can be done either at the development site (vendor) or deployment site (provider or hospital implementation). Based on our DGI surveys, remote testing was by far the preferred method, and ONC also received the same feedback.

Drummond Group also suggests that ONC really did listen to the comments that were given. I don’t doubt this actually. The people I’ve met from ONC really do seem like good people that are trying to do their best within the government limitations. It’s just unfortunate that the government limitations are so onerous.

Now the real fun begins as the various EHR certifying bodies start to appear and EMR vendors get to decide which body they should use.