Welcome to EMR and EHR

In addition to what I wrote about in my previous post, Marc Holland also does a pretty detailed analysis of the resources that RECs will have available to help resolve these physician concerns. He estimates in New York (where there are 2 RECs), they will have $4850 per physician available. The Ohio REC has $4750 per physician and the Michigan REC has $3300 per physician.

Of course, this per physician rate is a little misleading since these RECs won’t get their entire grant if they don’t perform. So, depending on how they do, it could be even less.

He also estimated based on the above numbers and the average cost for an EMR consultant that the RECs to break even would be able to provide “roughly two person-weeks in total – for contracting, for site planning, for training, for installation and first line post-implementation support.” Then, he suggested that wasn’t likely enough.

I generally agree that 2 weeks is not enough. However, it depends on the EMR consultants and more importantly, how creative the RECs become in using their EMR consultants and other resources. I’ve implemented in a clinic in two person weeks total spread out over a bit of time. So, it’s definitely possible. However, is that the best use of the resources the RECs have been given?

I personally don’t see the RECs providing this type of “free EMR consulting” services. I think the RECs are going to focus on more broad based strategies. The problem is that if you’re too broad based, then you aren’t that helpful. However, if you’re too focused then you can’t help enough people. Walking this line is going to be an interesting challenge.

Marc Holland, also suggests from the above numbers that the New York RECs alone will have to ramp up staffing to at least 100-120 analysts in the next 60-90 days. For me, that’s just funny to even think about. How many qualified EMR analysts (consultants if you will) are there in the US? And how many of those that are really qualified will want to go and work for a REC?

This is going to be really interesting to watch.

Today I got an email from HIMSS stating that they’ve launched a “complimentary afilliate membership program for RECs.” Looks like HIMSS wants to be able to influence help these RECs with their resources and perspectives. So far they’ve only signed up 10 regional extension centers to the program. Here’s the list that signed up so you can know if you’re REC has joined up with HIMSS:

• HITArkansas
• Colorado Regional Extension Center
• Illinois Health Information Tech Regional Extension Center
• CHITREC
• HealthBridge
• Massachusetts eHealth Institute
• Wide River Technology Extension Center
• Monroe County Medical Society
• North Texas Regional Extension Center
• Michigan Center for Effective IT Adoption

The good news is that this is only 10 of the 60 or so RECs out there. I can’t blame them. HIMSS conference attendance is expensive and free is much better.

I guess I just have a real mixed feeling about HIMSS. As a self proclaimed physican advocate myself, I think that HIMSS has too much EMR vendor influence to be a true physician advocate. I think that being physician advocates is key to successful EMR adoption and will be essential to any REC’s success.

A really interesting comment about the REC EHR selection process was made over on EMR and HIPAA:

It is beyond me how any REC could have already selected EHR vendors since no EHRs have yet gone through the HHS certification process. CCHIT certification in prior years simply isn’t relevant now. I bet ONC would be horrified to hear what people in this comment string are saying…or at least, I hope they would be horrified!

What ONC needs to do is establish a standardized and TRANSPARENT process by which the RECs select vendors. The RECs are supported by taxpayer dollars, so we all have a right to know how this vendor selection is going down.

I really love the idea of ONC requiring an open and transparent EHR selection process by the RECs that are getting millions of dollars from them. Remember, each of these RECs are non profit organizations that are suppose to be helping doctors show meaningful use of an EHR. Why wouldn’t they want to have a transparent EHR selection process? What are they trying to hide?

My fear is that many of the RECs are so worried about the short timelines they’ve been given that they’re just throwing darts at the wall instead of really involving people in the process. I’m a HUGE proponent of what’s been called crowd sourcing. It’s really amazing the type of information you can get to make a better decision when you involve a large group of people in the process. I hope the RECs will do just that and be transparent in their EHR selection process.

Side Note: We’re getting a lot of the RECs and their websites listed on this list of EHR Regional Extension Centers wiki page. Please add any others that you might know about.

I’ve been really interested in the Regional Extension Centers (RECs) and been interested to find out how they’re going to work. So, I’ve started a resource on the EMR and EHR wiki to list the various RECs and over time to populate the list with links to the REC websites. Since it’s a wiki please feel free to login and add whatever information you know or leave a comment with the information.

I also found these links to information about the RECs in Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana and Oklahoma and New Jersey.

Please let us all know any other information you have or find about RECs and their help in EMR implementation.