Most Expensive Purchase is Second EHR
At an event this fall I happened upon an executive at one of the major EHR vendors. We had a brief discussion in the lobby, but he said something that I found really interesting and I think describes the strategy of many of the large ambulatory EHR vendors. Here’s what he said:
“The Most Expensive Purchase is Their Second EHR”
A popular EHR consultant was in on the conversation and he started shaking his head in agreement.
I’ve long suggested that practices usually get their second EHR selection and implementation right. It just makes common sense that a practice would use the lessons learned from their first EHR implementation and be able to do a better job selecting and implementing the second EHR implementation. Although, I have heard of cases where it took the third implementation to do it right.
What intrigued me more was that this EHR vendor executive tied the purchase price to a second EHR. He’s right that price becomes a very different discussion when you are talking to someone who is buying their second EHR. In a lot of cases, price becomes a non-issue for those implementing their second EHR. They will spend whatever amount is needed to be able to get an EHR that they like to use. This is reflected in the quote above. I expect that’s why a second EHR is the most expensive purchase.
I wonder how many EHR companies are capitalizing on this fact. I’ve heard from numerous people that there’s a lot of EHR switching that’s happening right now. So, the idea of a second EHR is not outlandish. For many, the second EHR implementation has become a major reality.
I agree completely, BUT…I say the most expensive EHR you purchase is your FIRST one. The one that killed your efficiency, the one that taught you what you really need. Practices should apply the expense of the second EHR on the one they are leaving, not the new one.
No doubt a second EHR is expensive.
But whether first, second, third or fourth EHR, if the practice doesn’t get the importance of this, and actually assign someone who understands to head the process, they will once again end up with a bad/mediocre choice and a lousy implentation process that will not improve their situation.
I’m surprised at the number of practices where the doc is also trying to be the IT guy.
I totally disagree. The second EMR could be cheaper than the first, and it could be a better selection. First of all, most of the first EMRs took advantage of the providers who were getting incentive money. Also, their support became terrible. Now you have several hundred Vendors that are much cheaper and better! They have learned from the issues with the others. I am working with providers everyday that talk about making the switch. There are better selections that will be more cost effective and easier to use.
I agree! But I think that the only reason the second one would be expensive is because the providers are switching for the wrong reasons. I heard providers wanting to switch all the times. If they feel like they are forced to use EHR, they are not going to like any product.
I agree most w/ John Brewer’s comments. Many organizations, large and small, are still not understanding the type of resource(s) they need. Most folks agree that a physician is not best utilized as an IT resource.
The next point I’d like to see more agreement on is this: Even though EMR projects have a large IT component (just as most any project does these days), IT should not “own” the project. There are so many operational challenges. Yet I still see and hear that EMR projects are IT projects.
Pete,
You make a really good point. Although, I’d say it “should” be as you describe. Sadly, many lose their minds and say essentially “money is no object” and spend whatever with the idea that if they spend more they’ll get more in return. We all know that’s not the case. Sounds like a good future blog post topic too.