Since 2008, President Barack Obama has made it a goal to cut healthcare costs in the U.S. He has offered almost $27 billion in government funds for practitioners to make the switch to electronic medical records.
Conceptually, the pure EHR saves the patient and healthcare provider time and money. Pushing the federal government toward electronic health records reduces medical errors and redundant testing. For emergency room doctors, accessing vital information in a timely manner is not a problem.
Late last year, former national coordinator for health IT David Blumenthal, MD, had his own outlook on the situation. "Money is numbers one through eight," he explained. "Then logistics, technical problems and fear... it's a psychological issue." He went on to explain that those types of anxieties happen when any change is present.
So, with money seeming to be at the heart of the matter of EHR implementation, we asked Healthcare Finance News social media acolytes their opinions.
It could be that it helps modulate administrative costs. "I think it will lower healthcare costs by eliminating a lot of unnecessary paperwork and office clutter," said @Productivio.
@ChaseBirchette agrees. "EHRs will lower healthcare costs by allowing doctors to make better decisions with easily accessible information" he tweeted.
"To get widespread EHR adoption," tweeted @HydeHealthIT, "both patients and MDs need to see tangible benefits in patient outcomes and/or cost reductions."
The health IT discussion has turned to many studies showing doctors are ordering fewer tests in order to save money for their systems. With an EHR, you could use the data to determine which tests should be considered mandatory for patients, alleviating the usage of unneeded testing equipment.
Twitter user @dlschermd disagrees with this. "It may raise them [costs]," he tweeted. "[It's] the cost of interoperability. Also, by 2017, penalties over incentives estimate at $600M to physicians."
"Standardization and upgrade costs are still very expensive," said Healthcare IT News LinkedIn member Rebecca Troki, program analyst at Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. "Once you have an EHR, you need analysis and upkeep. It is a good investment but does it really save you any time? There is always human error and intentional and unintentional breaches of security."
Another LinkedIn member, Marc Shapiro, program manager at Serco -- North America, is convinced a national transition to EHRs would lower healthcare costs if software providers and insurance companies agree to a set of standards to make the records portable.
"Without standards, records will be maintained electronically, but cannot move with the patient, limiting their choices," commented Shapiro. "A key question is: Who owns a medical record? The patient? The provider? The insurance company?"
This question that Shapiro provides needs to be fully answered before consumers see any type of benefit.
At this time though, many are already seeing the merits of implementation. "We have seen it," tweeted @tmcaznews. "So yes, we are believers in the ability of EHRs to lower costs/improve quality."
If as patients, we want to see success of digitizing medical records, we have to secure the technology needed in order to do so, no matter the cost. Although some may be behind when it comes to health IT, our lives are too valuable to not take the time and money to achieve EHR implementation.
Have you had a personal experience where your organization's EHR system has lowered costs? Share your thoughts by commenting at @HFNewsTweet or following us on LinkedIn and Facebook.