I’m pretty sure that many readers of this site haven’t found my new EMR related website called EMR and EHR Thoughts and so you might have missed the post I did about Greenway Medical filing to go public. This is obviously big news for Greenway, but I also think it’s a sign of things to come. I believe that Greenway is likely the first of many EHR companies that we’ll see go public over the next year or so.

I’m sure that many of you haven’t followed the trends of tech company IPO’s and I’m far from an expert on this. However, the IPO window which was generally closed for tech companies now seems to be open after a number of successful public offerings from tech companies. I’m not sure why it took me so long to realize this, but I believe that we’re going to see a number of IPO’s from the larger privately held EHR companies during this period as well (Don’t be surprised if even Epic can’t resist).

Many people in silicon valley are suggesting that we’re in a startup internet bubble that in some ways is similar to the initial dot com (or bomb if you prefer) bubble. When you look at startup company valuations, I believe this is definitely the case. In some similar ways, we are also in an EHR bubble. However, I don’t believe this EHR bubble is going to pop for a couple years.

The obvious reason we’re in an EHR bubble is the EHR stimulus money. That’s going to continue to hold the EHR bubble up for at least another 2-3 years. Then, the real fun (or sadness depending on your position) is going to start to set in. However, until then HIMSS, MGMA and other EHR related conferences are going to have some really great parties.

We’ll see what the post EHR bubble looks like, but I can see a number of EHR companies enjoying the benefits of an IPO during the current bubble.

It seems like EMR innovation has been a strong theme on EMR and HIPAA ever since I wrote about the lack of EHR innovation at HIMSS. I of course clarified my original post with this post on the future of EMR and EMR innovation and then wrote about the challenge that doctors have to differentiate EHR software amidst all the noise. I also think it’s worth noting that EMR software can be a tremendous innovation for a practice that is using paper charts. I just don’t see an EMR software that is the must go to EMR system. There’s no “iPad” of EMR software (yet?).

After careful consideration of these ideas, I can’t help but wonder if an EMR that provides innovation in healthcare is the innovation that will have an “iPad-onian” moment. Basically the EMR facilitates a dramatic change in the way healthcare is delivered. This isn’t some feature or function that the EHR company can announce at HIMSS. EMR features and functions will never be heard above the noise. EHR vendors are already saying they can do everything, whether they can or not. Instead I’m talking about a real change to the way healthcare is provided and that’s facilitated by an EMR software.

For example, is there a doctor brave enough to have an all iPad/iPhone medical practice? Their EMR software would all be in the cloud and would facilitate online visits with patients or in house patients with visits where the EMR software was easily accessible using wireless technologies. They wouldn’t even have an office. They would do half of their visits from the comfort of their homes and half at people’s houses. Would that cause people to talk? I think so. Would the business model for the practice need to be different? I think so. Would an EMR and related technology be essential to make this happen? Yes. Could an EMR company be built to facilitate this type of a medical practice? Sounds like an interesting franchise model to me.

I’m not sure if this is a good idea or not. Plus, there are certainly people a lot smarter, more informed and innovative than me that could make this type of idea even better. However, it’s becoming quite clear that building just one more feature and function isn’t going to differentiate you from the rest of the EMR companies. That’s why I won’t be surprised if the real “innovative” EMR company will likely be a startup company. They’ll likely not know very much about how healthcare is “suppose” to work. They’ll also likely be told that their model is impossible and just won’t work. Instead they’ll just focus on using technology to connect the doctors and patients in some non-traditional manner. To me, that’s the type of companies that healthcare really needs.

There’s some really good comments happening on my previous post about EMR companies with an “In” with doctors. Check it out and join in with your thoughts. One of the comments reminded me of another interesting issue with all of these EMR vendors trying to vie for your attention. How does an EMR system rise above all the noise? Or if you prefer the doctor perspective, how can a doctor notice the really innovative and useful EMR companies amidst all the noise?

This is a serious problem and sadly I don’t know a very good answer. I talked with one company who was considering going into the EMR field and they said, “We know we can create a great product that works better than those that are present. Although, if we do, will anyone even notice.”

It’s a fine question that reminds me of my post about EMR software possibly being a commodity. Maybe it’s not a commodity, but the noise of 300+ EMR companies and meaningful use relegates it to a commodity because no one can tell the difference with all the noise. Bad singers sound a lot better in a noisy restaurant.

Basically, is there anything that an EMR system could say they deliver that would rise above the noise? In fact, this is essentially the question that I posted to the new Healthcare Scene LinkedIn group (You should join). I get a lot of pitches all the time running this site, and I’m not sure I’ve seen any EMR company have an iPad-onian (my new word for how the iPad revived the tablet industry) moment.

The biggest problem with this is that EMR vendors are saying everything under the sun. Including things that the EMR system can’t deliver.

I recently met with an EMR company that described an interesting situation where a clinic was confronted with being sold the following different EMR systems:

• Current PMS EMR
• Current Lab’s EMR
• Current Transcription Company’s EMR
• Current Billing Company’s EMR
• Current IT Vendor offered an EMR as well

Many of you might remember when I talked about the benefit that a lab company would have in selling their EMR to their current lab users. I still think this is a tremendous advantage, but looking at the above list of EMR companies that are connected with this one clinic it makes you stop and think.

Yes, each of the above “EMR” companies likely feels like they have an “in” with the clinic that will help them sell their EMR. Unfortunately, with so many companies “in” with the clinic, I have a feeling this mostly just causes confusion and angst for a clinic. Plus, none of the above companies were any of the “jabba the hutt” EMR companies that you can be certain are banging on the clinic’s door as well.

Is it any wonder why so many doctors are sitting on the sidelines with all this confusion?

This list also provides an interesting commentary on the popular saying that doctors are so reticent to use technology (or substitute EMR if you prefer). Yet, their PMS is electronic. Their labs are received electronically. Their transcription is sent and received electronically. Their billing company receives and submits claims electronically. Wait, I wonder why they have an IT vendor that supports them? Makes you think a little, doesn’t it?

It’s going to take a couple weeks to really process all that I saw and heard at HIMSS 2011. In fact, there’s no doubt that much of the content I publish over the next month or two will be things I learned from the people I learned from at HIMSS or influenced by what I saw and heard. However, after a good night’s sleep in my own bed I’m really happy with my experience at HIMSS. The energy and passion for healthcare IT that was found at HIMSS was really powerful and wonderful to be apart of.

I think those people out there that are asking if we’re in a healthcare IT bubble right now are on the mark. There’s very little doubt in my mind that we’re in a healthcare IT bubble. It’s a feature of $36+ billion in EHR incentive money being given out by the government. I can’t remember the size of the EMR market numbers off the top of my head, but $36 billion in money coming into what is a relatively small market is going to change things dramatically. So, it makes sense that this type of infusion of money would create a bubble of sorts.

One person in their comments that we’re in a healthcare IT bubble asked if the bubble would pop before HIMSS 12 in Las Vegas. I believe we have at least one or two more years before the healthcare IT bubble pops. In fact, if you thought that HIMSS 11 in Orlando was big, I predict that HIMSS 2012 in Las Vegas will be even bigger. The EHR incentive money will have started flowing and the trench battles will be in full swing as the 300+ EMR vendors battle each other for customers.

EMR software was obviously my focus at the conference and despite my comments about the lack of innovation by EMR vendors and the future of EMR, I think there are a ton of really interesting EMR approaches that in aggregate are going to impact the EMR world in really dramatic ways. Here’s some examples:

• Azzly described a meeting of EHR vendors they attended with ONC. The question was asked which EHR vendors in the room started development after the HITECH act was announced. Azzly was the only one to raise their hand. I’m sure there’s other EHR vendors in that same boat, but it will be interesting to see an Azzly EHR that was built post incentive go up against the legacy EHR software.
• ClearPractice was the first native iPad EMR (called Nimble) that I’d seen and there’s no doubt they’ve made a big play in that space. Will that combined with the backing of John Doerr and their internet driven sales change EMR as we know it?
• Will larger companies like Greenway and Sage continue to gain market share as they go after the EMR market while maintaining their customer experience? Or will they head the way of the Misys of the world and be bought up by other EMR vendors?
• What about NaviNet‘s entrance into the EMR world? Can they leverage their existing connections with so many providers to be a major player in not just interoperability but in EMR as well?
• Even the big behemoth of a company, GE surprised me when I visited with them. There was a polish and a professionalism that I loved about my visit with GE and GE’s Centricity Advance people. I think there’s a fair comparison with Microsoft. Something about the nature of the US loves the underdog and hates the big name player. Yet, the big company just keeps executing their vision and many doctors are going to happily buy and use their products.
• What about Ingenix‘s multiple EMR offering strategy? Will it just be confusing to clinicians or will they effectively differentiate their various offerings while providing a backbone for interoperability as well? Is the future large EMR vendor one that aggregates a bunch of niche specific EMR companies?
• What impact will the transcription based EMR vendors have on the market? I wrote about the change from transcription company to EMR vendor earlier this week. Watch for the names MD-IT, FutureNet, Intivia, and MxSecure.
• Many people probably don’t recognize the name MedPlus. However, everyone knows the company behind the MedPlus Care360 EMR: Quest Diagnostics. There’s something powerful about being able to turn on an EMR in a medical practice with basically the flip of an electronic switch. That’s what MedPlus can do since Care360 is already being used in so many clinics that use Quest for their lab work. Add in their existing lab sales staff that already have relationships with large numbers of clinics and they’re going to be a very interesting player in the EMR space.
• Free EMR is a really compelling marketing tool. There’s a reason that Practice Fusion and Mitochon Systems free EMR offerings get so much press and so many doctors evaluating their EMR offerings. While many might disagree with their model or even believe that it will fail, these companies have and will have an interesting impact on the EMR landscape.
• MicroMD offers an interesting approach. First, because of their existing LONG term practice management clients. Second, because of the interesting integration with the supply side of their company. Not to mention, the executives that I met with were some of the most realistic people and well thought out people I met at HIMSS.
• Props to EMR company MIE that could use a fake EMR company (Extormity) to launch themselves into the EMR discussion while also helping to open up the discussion as well.  If I were a doctor, I’d want to demo their EMR just so I could see if I could find any Extormity features in their EMR.  Although, maybe that’s just the blogger in me.

I could keep going on, but that gives you a bit of flavor of some interesting EMR vendors and their market approaches. Plus, this is just 16 of the 300+ EMR companies that are working in this space. Each one with their own interesting story.

The most exciting thing for an EMR nerd like myself is that we’re really only at the beginning. Wait until we get beyond 15-25% adoption and reach 50% adoption. Then, the fun really begins.

Full Disclosure: Practice Fusion, MD-IT, MxSecure, and Mitochon Systems are all advertisers on this site. EMRandHIPAA.com’s HIMSS11 coverage was also sponsored by Practice Fusion, provider of the free, web-based Electronic Medical Records (EMR) system used by over 70,000 healthcare providers in the US.

Turns out that my previous post about lack of EMR innovation at HIMSS was a little more controversial than I expected it to be. Plus, I’m not sure that I communicated the entire message about EMR innovation and the future of EMR software in healthcare (I’m blaming the late nights and lack of sleep).

I’m still suffering the HIMSS hangover and on this too small to type well netbook, but let me try and add some more context to the previous post.

One person emailed me about my “disappointment with EMR software.” I’d be careful to characterize it as disappointment with the EMR industry. I’m really optimistic about the future of EMR. I still think they’re a great value proposition and that EVERY (leave a few rural settings aside) doctor should and will have an EMR and technology in their office. I guess the disappointment is mostly that meaningful use has killed some of the innovation that could have made EMR even more exciting.

One thing seems to be clear. Every EMR vendor that I talked to has conformed with the meaningful use guidelines. So, inasmuch as you see the meaningful use guidelines as innovative, EMR vendors are certainly hitting those guidelines.

Janice commented on my other post that she was optimistic because meaningful use gets content stored electronically and that will unleash the real power of technology. One thing that can’t be argued is the increased interest and focus on EMR software. That I believe will have a great effect on EMR software and I’m optimistic that doctors and clinics will generally do what’s right and best in selecting and implementing EMR software. Plus, while a little harsh to mention, doctors that are on their second EMR implementation do much better and rarely get it wrong the second time.

One vendor described it well when they mentioned that their original business was a great and useful service, but it wasn’t the heart of any clinics business. Thus their move to EMR (although, there were other reasons also). Either way, the message they sent was clear: EMR will be the heart of every medical practice.

With that message in mind, I want EMR vendors to take this to heart and improve their applications in innovative ways for both patients, doctors and healthcare in general. I look forward to seeing those iPad-onian innovations in EHR software. Just like none of us expected or predicted the impact of the iPad. I don’t know where exactly a similar innovation will come in EMR. However, I look forward to it and believe we’ll see many many iPad-onian innovations in healthcare IT.

EMRandHIPAA.com’s HIMSS11 coverage is sponsored by Practice Fusion, provider of the free, web-based Electronic Medical Records (EMR) system used by over 70,000 healthcare providers in the US.

One of the most disappointing parts of HIMSS for me is that the really creative and disruptive innovations are missing from HIMSS. There are a few items I saw like the Shareable Ink technology, some of the Nuance NLP/voice recognition work, and a pretty cool biometric kiosk by Fujitsu (which I’ll blog about later). Sadly I wasn’t seeing the really creative innovation coming from the EMR companies (and I talked to a lot of them) at HIMSS. I think there’s two possible things at play in this regard.

First, meaningful use is probably largely to blame for much of the lack of innovation that I saw. As someone told me, the regulation of EHR software has damaged and deterred the innovation. I guess you could say I’ve seen some interesting and innovative ways to approach meaningful use, but being innovative in meeting a government regulation is not the innovation I want to see. I think it’s generally clear that EMR vendors have spent the last development cycle focused on EHR certification and meaningful use.

I asked one large EMR vendor about this idea and what innovations their EHR had available. I don’t think he was very comfortable with the assertion. In response, he described how at his EMR company, they had a team that was focused on EHR certification and the meaningful use requirements but that they also had a whole other group that was focused on customer’s needs and meeting those customer needs.

It’s incredibly interesting that so many EHR vendors responded to my innovation (or what differentiated them from other vendors) by playing the EMR usability or “Doctors like using our EMR” better card. That’s related to the above, we have a group that focuses on our customer’s needs.

Certainly focusing on customer requests and needs is vital. However, it seems fitting to mention the oft quoted, “If I asked my customers what they wanted, they’d have said a faster horse. – Henry Ford” Seems like HIMSS was just displaying the faster “horses” [EMR].

A second possibility is that maybe EMR software has become a commodity. Maybe the reason we don’t see that much innovation is because EMR software has now basically become a commodity. I certainly heard many EMR vendors suggest that EMR is basically a commodity service now and that many other factors will determine the success of the EMR company instead of the EMR software itself. I argue that once you reach a certain set of features, functions and successful installs that the software itself does become secondary to the success of most EMR companies. Does that mean EMR is a commodity?

The other angle that a few new EMR vendors are taking is that EMR is not a commodity. It’s just that all the current EMR software is junk. Most then like to compare EMR software to tablets. The Apple iPad came along and finally presented what amounts to an incredibly well thought out and designed tablet and is destroying the market. These new EMR vendors see their product as the innovative “iPad” of EMR software.

Only problem is that I have yet to see any EMR company have an iPad-onian moment.

I could easily argue that the iPad was the most marketed IT device on the HIMSS exhibit floor. Yet, an Apple booth was absolutely no where to be seen.

I wonder what kind of EHR could be so innovative and disruptive that it would be the talk of HIMSS even if they didn’t exhibit?

EMRandHIPAA.com’s HIMSS11 coverage is sponsored by Practice Fusion, provider of the free, web-based Electronic Medical Records (EMR) system used by over 70,000 healthcare providers in the US.

I think the debate over a SaaS based EMR versus a Client Server EMR is never going to end. Maybe we should just have a peace treaty and decide that whoever has a SaaS EMR is going to love the SaaS model and the benefits and features of a hosted EMR solution. The client server EMR people are going to love their in house “doctor controlled” EMR software with its inherent features and benefits.

What inspired this post? A few old threads popped up on my stats page. First, is a SaaS EMR versus Client Server EMR poll I did back in June of 2009 about which type of EMR setup people prefer. Here’s the results (as of this posting):
Client Server EMR (Client Install) – 35 Votes
Client Server EMR (Web based) – 28 Votes
Hosted Web based EMR (SaaS/ASP) – 84 Votes
Huh? – 3 Votes
Doesn’t Really Matter – 7 votes

That’s good enough as a tie for me. Probably reflects the chasm we have in EHR and EMR companies. There’s plenty of each to go around.

The above poll also led me to this post about the myth that a SaaS EHR is required to show meaningful use. I forgot that some EMR companies (or likely their sales people) were spreading these crazy myths about meaningful use.

I’ve regularly talked about my belief that there isn’t just one major EMR market. Instead, I firmly believe that there are a number of EMR markets that are divided by clinic size, medical specialty, and possibly even location. In fact, there’s likely even other factors. There are just far too many EHR companies for this to not be the case.

I think this was also well illustrated in this blog post on Kevin MD about the “Perfect EMR Traits.” Here’s the perfect EMR trait #1:

Perfect EMR Trait #1: The ideal medical record would be tailored to the specific needs of a clinician, only exposing them to portions of the record which are relevant to their work.

Knowledge within healthcare is rapidly changing. Possibly more so than another other industry. Techniques which were considered state-of-the-art, can change in a matter of weeks. The electronic medical record has the potential to be the tool which disseminates those changes down to the clinician, through point-of-care decision support. EMR software should facilitate the clinician decision making, rather than requiring clinicians to keep track of the latest and greatest. This individualistic attitude creates discrepancies in care, which inherently leads to imprecise care.

While it is certainly technically feasible for an EMR vendor to be able to create software that satisfies Perfect EMR Trait #1, it’s just not practically feasible for an EMR vendor to satisfy every clinic size, medical specialty, and in many cases locale. This means that we’re going to see a wide variety of EMR software that satisfies the various EMR market needs.

With this as a preface, consolidation of EMR companies is going to become a very very real thing. However, I’d caution EMR companies that choose to just directly sunset an EMR software acquisition. In some cases, this is a reasonable solution based upon the EMR company’s existing EMR software. Plus, in many cases EMR vendors will be acquiring the EMR market share for their existing EMR software. I’m sure we’ll see more of this.

My recommendation for EMR vendors acquiring EMR software, is to be more selective in the types of EMR software that you acquire. It’s definitely worth considering the idea of sustaining the EMR software development of multiple EMR products. Is it really that hard to see a large EMR company that has an ED EMR software, a General Medicine EMR software, an OB/GYN EMR software, a Pediatric EMR software, etc etc etc.

An EMR vendor making a decision to act in this manner will require them to change how they look at EMR acquisitions. The EMR acquisition targets will dramatically change. Instead of looking for failing EMR companies where they can cheaply buy more EMR market share, EMR companies with this approach should be focusing on a quality EMR software that hasn’t yet achieved the EMR market share that they deserve.

The cool part about the strategy of maintaining multiple EMR software instead of the strategy of sunsetting one or the other is that you purchase a bunch of happy EMR users instead of alienating a whole mass of EMR users that’s software is no longer supported. Of course, this will require proper communication of your goals and objectives so that current EMR users see the benefit of the acquisition and aren’t left wondering what the acquisition means to them. I’m not just talking about standard PR spin. I mean real tangible communication and interaction which demonstrates your plans for the acquired EMR going forward.

An EMR company with this method of EMR software acquisition, also needs a different set of skills. After sunsetting an acquired EMR, you need to have a strong set of integration and transition services to make the change to your EMR as smooth as possible. You also require a unique sales force that can sell the transition to your EMR over a transition to an altogether new EMR software. None of these services are needed if you continue to maintain the acquired EMR. Instead, your company must focus on other redundant services like marketing that could be leveraged across companies.

Of course, this isn’t an easy task to do well. Acquisitions rarely are an easy process. However, I think this is a lesson that was recently learned by Google as well. There’s value after an acquisition to keep autonomous business units. In fact, doing so opens up a whole new set of acquisition targets in a less competitive environment.

If I were a board member at an EMR company, this is the type of stuff I’d be considering. Certainly not every EMR vendor is 1. in a position to do these things and 2. has the culture to make it happen. However, I predict that the EMR company of the future will be a conglomerate of multiple specialty specific EMR software and not just a one size fits all atrocity.

A few months ago, the blogger over at Health Finch wrote blog post which analyzes 3 of the top health care IT companies and how they were started. It is very interesting to see the evolution of the large health care IT companies. Here’s the summary of the 3 companies Health Finch looked at:
Epic Systems – Started with Scheduling and Billing
Cerner – Started as a Laboratory Information System
McKesson – Started dong Rx Management

As a PS to the post, they point out Epocrates working on the same model with their Epocrates EMR. That is one of the most interesting things I’ve noted when attending the various EMR related conferences that I attend. There’s a whole variety of ways that EMR companies are approaching the market.

Another example of this trend is the Care360 EHR from Quest. Think about all the benefits that Quest has over many other providers. Sure, the most obvious one is that they have easy access to the lab data. You can be sure that an interface with Quest labs will be free (unlike most other EMR vendors). Although, certainly it also could be a challenge if you want your EMR to interface with another lab. That could be interesting.

However, Quest has a number of other advantages over a new EMR company. They have an entire sales force (which I think they prefer to call consultants) that already have existing relationships with thousands and thousands of doctors. Quest could literally only sell EMR software to their existing lab customer base and do fine. Of course, that’s probably not the best strategy, but that’s a powerful advantage over the other EMR companies.

There are a ton of other companies that we could talk about. Those entering ePrescribing first. Those transcription companies that are offering an EMR solution. I find it absolutely fascinating. So, if you know of others, I’d love to hear your EMR vendor’s story in the comments.

Suffice it to say that we’re in the middle of an all out war by EMR vendors. The good part is that it’s not likely to be a winner takes all affair, but there will be many many EMR vendors that will end up on the winning end.