I told you on the weekends I’d try to go through and highlight some of my previous 774 posts (but who’s counting?). Obviously, there’s a lot to choose from. So, this time I decided to hit the big red button on my stats program that said “Top Posts for All Time” Yes, that’s crunching 2,636,682 pageviews to provide this data. That’s right. Over 2.6 million pageviews. I kind of shutter thinking about that. Plus, I didn’t implement this stats system (since it didn’t exist) until well into this blog, but I digress.

2 posts that I knew would be near the top is my Overwhelming List of EMR Companies post which I did back on 2/21/06 and my EMR and EHR vendors page. The former just barely edged out the prior.

Man a lot has changed since early 2006 with that list of EMR vendors. Kind of fun to look back at the state of EMR vendors in 2006. A lot more entrants. Also, I’ve mostly stopped updating that page, and instead have been linking to this EMR and EHR matrix wiki page. Although, I do generally update the EMR and EHR vendors page for those vendors that advertise on EMR and HIPAA.

Coming in close behind my list of EMR and EHR vendors was a couple posts about the EMR stimulus package (imagine that). One was called, “Details of Obama’s EMR stimulus Package” that I posted on 1/24/09 and the other was titled,”Economic Stimulus Bill Simplified” that I posted February 17, 2009.

I kind of shudder going back and reading those initial posts. So much of the information was vague and we were doing our best to guess what the government process would produce. Needless to say, we know a lot more about it now then we did then. I’m also glad I updated those posts with a link to my EMR Stimulus presentation. It’s mostly right, but we just have a lot more information now about Meaningful Use and Certified EHR than we had when I gave that presentation. The sad part of course, is that we’re still missing a lot of necessary details.

Another one that’s pretty interesting was a post I did back on June 21, 2006 about HIPAA Violation Examples. Turns out, a lot of people search the web for examples of HIPAA violations. I guess it’s kind of like passing a car wreck. You just need to look. This post is also proof that at least at some point, I’ve written about HIPAA. Thus the name EMR and HIPAA. Ok, I admit it’s probably about 99.6% EMR posts and 0.4% HIPAA posts. When I started I thought HIPAA would be interesting. I was wrong (at least for a computer nerd like me).

Another popular post was one listing the Top 10 Open Source EMR projects. Make sure you read the comments. That’s where the real action happened in that post. I might have to contact Sam Bowen about the Open Source Medical Software’s move to get OpenEMR certified. I’m guessing they still want to, but are just waiting for HHS to get their ducks in a row first.

I still love open source. I’d love to hear more updates about these open source EMR projects. So, if you’re someone who uses or codes for these open source EMR projects, I’d love to get an update (hopefully one I can share on the site).

Ok, that’s enough for now. Let me know if you like these type posts or not. I bet they’ll get better as I go down the list even more.

After I wrote my post about 50 EMR markets instead of 1 EMR market, I started to wonder what an EMR might look like that was just an EMR platform.

The basic idea would be that some vendor would create a platform where other vendors could build on top of their platform. They’d offer the core elements and foundation needed for an EMR and then companies could build applications on top of those core elements that focus on the 50 different EMR markets (or whatever the number actually is).

The easy part is seeing someone who builds some specialty specific applications like growth charts for pediatrics or a drawing application for dermatology. The hard part is to decide which elements of the EMR are “core elements” that can act as a foundation for every type of specialty, practice, location, etc.

I guess the question of core elements really comes down to whether we can define any part of the EMR to be something that EVERY doctor could use. I think of the iPhone as the example of a platform that people have taken and expanded with applications. The core elements are the phone, the GPS, the accelerometer, etc. Then, various companies have created applications using that platform that can cover a wide range of markets. Making the comparison of EMR features with iPhone features is not an easy one.

I honestly don’t think any EMR vendor has done something like this yet. Sure, some of them have some API’s where some customizations can be done. However, I’m not sure I’ve seen the full embrace of creating an EMR platform. The closest I’ve probably seen is some to the open source EMR software that’s out there. It seems like some of them have done a good job modularizing the software so that many different people can iterate on the software.

What do you think? Is an EMR platform possible and what would it look like?

In the comments of one of my open source (free) EMR posts, we started an interesting discussion about the way that you evaluate a proprietary vendor and how the same methods of evaluation aren’t always possible once you start talking about an open source EMR. To keep things simple, I’ll just focus on one part of the evaluation of an EMR vendor: Stability.

I’m not talking about whether the EMR vendor’s software product is stable. I’m talking about the stability of the company behind the EMR vendor. There are a lot of aspects to consider, but probably the most important is how successful the company is doing financially. Are they making new sells? Is the EMR vendor expanding the business or is their business contracting? Are their current customers renewing or fleeing to other software products? At the end of the day, you’re basically making a judgement on the financial viability of the company. No one wants to deal with the challenge of an EMR vendor going bankrupt, being sold, or going out of business (see my previous post about when a SaaS EMR goes out of business). So, this is a really important issue to consider. Your EMR vendor becomes your partner and you want a reliable one.

The problem is that the same analysis can’t be done on an open source EMR. There is no company behind an open source EMR (usually) and so you can’t look at the company to make a prediction on whether the open source EMR software will be around a couple years from now. Instead you have to look to other indicators.

The most important point to consider with an open source EMR is the health of the community surrounding the open source EMR. If the community is strong, then you’ll see some amazing things happen. If the community is weak, then the open source EMR will still be around in a few years, but no improvements to the software will be made. The way technology progresses means that your software must improve or it will be outdated in a couple years time.

What makes a strong open source community? It can come in a variety of ways. Here’s just a few of them:
-Number of software releases that are made
-Method for delivering software releases
-Number of people with commit privileges on the project
-Number of people contributing code to the project
-Commercial entities backing the project
-Online activity and discussion around the project
-Software downloads over time

I’m sure there’s a lot more. I hope that people like open source EMR fanatic, Fred Trotter, will add to my short list.

It’s just as important to evaluate the health of the open source EMR community as it is for you to evaluate the financial stability of a commercial EMR vendor.

Yes, I completely understand the irony of the title. That’s the beauty that is open source software. I’ve often talked about my fandom for open source software and it seems that open source EMR software is finally gaining some significant momentum.

As I was looking over the Open EMR website I stumbled upon a page created by the Open Source Medical Softare organization about the advantages of OpenEMR (an open source EMR package). I found the list interesting and so here’s my modified version of their list of OpenEMR advantages that should apply to any well done open source EMR:
Corporate buy-outs – I’m sure that Misys EMR users will appreciate this one. It’s never fun when your EMR software is bought out by someone else.
Bankruptcy – This is similar to a buy-out often, but sometimes can go even worse with prolonged periods with little support from your EMR vendor.
Vendor lock-in – Definitely isn’t in your EMR vendor’s best interest to make your data portable to another EMR system.
Sunsetting – If you’ve ever gone through this it’s time consuming and seems to provide little benefit (at least initially).
Duplication of engineering costs – Many people argue that EMR software should just adopt open APIs (which is a great thing), but it does meant that there’s often duplication of engineering costs.
Meta-applications built on substrate without asking permission: simulators, bio-surveillance, yet-to-be-conceived apps
No one vendor with enough engineering resources – I’m not sure open source EMR movements have beat out the engineering resources of a major EMR vendor, but it seems like it’s getting close to that point.
Corporate agenda not in harmony with customer needs – Could this really be?

I’m sure there are other reasons too. Although, it is interesting to consider some of the ways open source EMR software is able to solve some of the major pain points people feel when working with an EMR vendor.

A little while back I read an interesting EMR success story using the open source EMR appropriately named OpenEMR. The story is by Joe Holzer and I got his permission to republish it here for all to enjoy. You can find more about Joe on his website (not the normal website) or at his email im@holzerent.com I think you’ll enjoy his story and some of the unique ways he used OpenEMR to address some challenging problems along with his passion for open source EMR software:

I have implemented OpenEMR in a number of sites, and I advise on its use in their forums at Sourceforge.net. My wife Lynne was my first “client”, and her use of FREE OpenEMR allowed her to eliminate all need for my services as her business office manager, as well as all clearinghouse costs, as it prepares both X12 and CMS 1500 directly.

Because she has a house call practice, and G3 dependability is a joke, I converted the Linux web-based OpenEMR to stand-alone on her windows tablet notebook. That works especially well with the VPN I used, since her biller is at another location entirely, but can do the billing whenever Lynne is at a hotspot without Lynne even having to be aware of it. And every night it backs itself up to our server, which is always accessible by the biller for looking at information which is no more than 24 hours old.

What Lynne gets in her practice is first and foremost the ability to eliminate all the lugging of paper records and the risk of their damage by the elements, etc., to say nothing of the nightly HIPAA backup security which paper could never afford. She uses the hotspots to connect to Allscripts for her FREE e-Rx so she can get the Medicare 2% incentive for 2009, which was simple to setup in OpenEMR both because it is open source, so can be made to do whatever the user wants for greatest efficiency and effectivity for their individual practice, and because it is designed for flexibility in configuration. In fact, the latest version, 3.1.0 just released, is the ONLY EMR system I am aware of which is operable in the native language of the user on a shared system with multiple users. So an inner-city clinic with primarily latino population, but also english speakers, need not have ALL its staff be bi-lingual. And yet it is STILL FREE.

You can see some of the support I have provided others as a volunteer at the OpenEMR forums at Sourceforge.net as ideaman911.

That ANY intelligent user would pay for a proprietary system merely makes me question their grades in economics. Checkout oemr.org for details.

For those that participated in the CCHIT town hall meetings at HIMSS, it seemed like the writing was on the wall that CCHIT needed to offer some more town hall meetings. There was certainly a lot more to discuss. CCHIT just announced 2 more web “conferences” where the public will have a chance to comment on CCHIT.

The first conference, “New Paths to Certification: Dialog with the Open Source Community,” will take place on June 16 at 1 p.m. EDT and focus on technology. It will address outlying concerns on certification of solutions that are licensed under open source models. Leavitt and Dennis Willson, the commission’s technology director, will be the moderators.

The second conference, “New Paths to Certification,” will take place on June 17 at 11 a.m. EDT and be more geared toward a generalized audience, with dicussion focused on new CCHIT programs.

I think it’s good that they’re having another open source EHR session. I’m just not sure why they would have it before the general session. That means that the open source discussion is going to not be as focused since many people will want to discuss the general issues with CCHIT certification during the open source session.

I’ve made my views on open source and CCHIT certification pretty clear. So, it will be interesting to hear what CCHIT could change to avoid some of the problems I’ve suggested. There’s just not the right motivations for open source EMR to certify. I’ll publish more details on these meetings as they become available.

In a different CCHIT issue, CCHIT has made a comment on the New Jersey bill I’ve written about previously. Here’s the part of their comment that really matters:

First, I do not believe this is an appropriate use of health IT certification. Our goal, stated in almost every presentation I’ve given, and to which I’ve adhered in my leadership of the Commission, has always been to unlock positive incentives for health IT adoption. Bridges to Excellence provides a role model for integrating health IT into outcome-based, pay for performance incentives. Successfully executed, ARRA might too. But the New Jersey bill is nowhere near that. Making software purchases illegal, like dangerous substances? Let’s “just say no” to that idea.

Second, neither I personally, nor CCHIT as an organization, have lobbied, advocated, sponsored, or had anything to do with that bill. We were unaware of it until it started showing up on listserves Friday. The bill has never been mentioned in any of our Trustee, Commission, or staff meetings.

Kudos to Mark Leavitt and CCHIT for making these comments. Underscores my previous feelings that Mike Leavitt and CCHIT really sincere in his desire to help. It’s just that they’re going about it the wrong way.

Graham over at EMRUpdate found a really crazy bill being proposed in New Jersey that would make the use of non CCHIT certified EHR illegal.

Here’s the sections of the bill that seems to capture the crux of what’s being proposed:

“· On or after January 1, 2011, no person or entity is permitted to sell, offer for sale, give, furnish, or otherwise distribute to any person or entity in this State a health information technology product that has not been certified by CCHIT. A person or entity that violates this provision is liable to a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 for the first violation, not less than $2,500 for the second violation, and $5,000 for the third and each subsequent violation, to be collected pursuant to the “Penalty Enforcement Law of 1999,” P.L.1999, c.274 (C.2A:58-10 et seq.).

· The bill defines “health information technology product” to mean a system, program, application, or other product that is based upon technology which is used to electronically collect, store, retrieve, and transfer clinical, administrative, and financial health information.”
…
” 5. (New section) a. The Director of the Division of Consumer Affairs in the Department of Law and Public Safety, in consultation with the Office for e-HIT in the Department of Banking and Insurance and the Commissioner of Health and Senior Services, shall require that, on or after a date to be determined by the Office for e-HIT and in accordance with requirements established by that office pursuant to and in furtherance of the purposes of subparagraph (a) of paragraph (1) of subsection b. of section 8 of P.L.2007, c.330 (C.17:1D-1), each health care professional who is licensed or otherwise authorized, pursuant to Title 45 or Title 52 of the Revised Statutes, to practice a health care profession that is regulated by a professional and occupational licensing board within the division or by the director, shall purchase, rent, lease, or otherwise acquire for use in that person’s professional practice only those health information technology products that have been certified by the Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology.”

I’m really kind of speechless. If you read this blog regularly, you know that’s pretty rare. As Graham points out, why would they want to pre-empt whatever rules ONCHIT puts in place for EHR? I also wonder how they plan on enforcing this act. Plus, what is this senator really thinking? I think that each of these bills should require a full disclosure as to the impacts both good and bad and the reasoning behind even proposing such an idea. Reminds me a lot of the senator who called for an open source EMR, but this is much crazier.

Seriously, what’s the basis for this senator wanting to have it illegal for someone to use any EHR other than a CCHIT certified EHR? I’ve asked many times for some sort of study (independent hopefully) that shows that CCHIT certified EHR have a higher implementation success rate, or improve patient care, or save doctors time or any other benefit over the non CCHIT certified EHR out there. So far no one has produced such a finding. I’d suggest we haven’t found that study since the results of said study would find the opposite.

All I can say is that I’m glad that I don’t live in New Jersey and for their sake I hope this bill fails miserably.

I’ve had a number of people ask me my thoughts on this Wall Street Journal article which talks about open source EHR and in particular the open source EHR developed by the VA hospitals called Vista.

I must admit that I’ve been enamored by the concept of free EMR. One of my most popular blog posts was this guest post about Free EMR by Medicare. Turns out that Vista is one of those open source (free) emr software that keeps popping up. I imagine it will continue to pop up for a long time to come.

Let me offer three points that I keep hearing over and over when I hear people talk about open source Vista.

1. (We’ll start with the good) Those that go to the VA are quite happy that no matter what VA hospital they go to, they have their information available. I’ve heard this on multiple occasions. I’m not sure if people are saying this because they’ve actually experienced it (which is likely considering the transient nature of veterans) or because they’ve had the concept drilled into their head. Either way, this is the major perception and considering it’s all one nice package I’m inclined to think it’s a huge advantage of Vista in the VA hospitals. I’d love to hear someone address how this “EHR interoperability” using Vista would work in commercial hospitals.

2. The users of Vista really don’t like using the program. It’s clunky, unwieldy and not the friend of the user. I’ve heard this multiple places and not just from doctors, but also from nurses and the IT people supporting the software.

3. The “database” that Vista uses, MUMPS, is a piece of junk and a major anchor on what could be an otherwise interesting open source project. I’m sure there’s some really interesting history behind the VA’s decision to use this MUMPS “database” system instead of one of the current SQL based database systems. Unfortunately, I’ve seen numerous people talking about the pains of MUMPS and the problem it creates for the future of open source EHR Vista.

I’ll admit that I’m not an expert on Vista, but I’m just telling you about the common themes I’ve read over and over again. Any other ones we should know about or other perspectives on Vista EHR?

I love when senators come out and write bills requesting for the government to fund an open source EMR. Turns out the most recent request came from Senator John D. Rockefeller has proposed a new law which would establish federal grants to develop open source software and standards for electronic medical records. You can read more about it on ars technica.

I have to admit that I strongly support the concept of open source EMR and really open source software in general. I just don’t know why government thinks that government grants would really help open source software. I could be wrong, but has there ever been a significant open source software project that was grant funded by the government? It just generally seems contrary to the open source development model.

I guess I just wonder how a senator gets it in his mind to write a proposal for open source EMR grants. Did an open source project request for him to do it? Where did the senator get this idea that it was a good idea to have an open source EMR? Did he consult the existing EMR projects to see if this is something that they would find beneficial to the cause?

Maybe he in fact did do all of these things, but I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that Senator Rockefeller knows little about open source software and in particular the challenges that open source EMR software is currently facing.

I’ve been meaning to post about the CCHIT and open source meeting at HIMSS for a while now and just haven’t ever gotten around to it. I did post my twitter thoughts on the CCHIT/Foss meeting, but I think there’s plenty more that could be said about that meeting.

For those of you that missed it, you can find the audio of the meeting on the CCHIT website and I’ll embed the powerpoint presentation from the meeting below:

My biggest complaint from the meeting was a slide that Mark Leavitt used to describe why he feels that CCHIT isn’t excluding the little guy. Basically it talks about the size and market share of the EHR vendors that have applied for CCHIT certification (you can see it as slide 12 above).

I can’t quite place why this measure feels wrong, but it does. Maybe it goes back to something one of my professors taught me when doing research analysis. He basically said, that when first looking at the numbers does it feel right. Considering what I know about the EHR and EMR market and CCHIT certification in particular, I know that something doesn’t feel right. Let me explain a few reasons and hopefully someone else smarter than me can comment on what else is wrong with this measurement.

First, the graph showing practice sizes served is misleading. I don’t know specifically how they found out which size practices a certified EHR vendor served, but I’m guessing it was self reported by the EHR vendor itself. If this is the case, most EHR vendors will say they can work in any practice size. So, that basically makes the data pretty useless. Possibly you could look at the size of the practices using the EHR system, but even then you get into trouble because how do you define “using” the system. A few EHR vendors can claim tons of purchases of their EHR software, but then you find out that very few if any of those purchases are actually implemented.

The second part of the slide shows a nice pie chart of the size of EHR vendors that are certified. The challenge I have with this chart is that it may just illustrate how small the EHR industry really is right now. The revenues of EHR companies are spread out over 300-400 EHR companies. Considering 5-15% (depending on where you look) adoption, that means that the majority of EHR companies are all small businesses with very low revenue.

I bet if we did a percentage of EHR vendors that did CCHIT certification for each of their annual revenue classifications you’d see something like this:
> $100 million – 100% CCHIT certified
$21 – 100 million – 90% CCHIT certified
$11 – 20 million – 50% CCHIT certified
$1 – 10 million – 15% CCHIT certified
< $1 million – 3% CCHIT certified

I’m just pulling these numbers out of the air, but I think you can see the principle of how CCHIT certification is being adopted by large EHR vendors and not as many small EHR vendors. CCHIT’s measure is just wrong. It should be percent in that EHR size category that are getting certified. It’s not the percentage of all CCHIT vendors that are doing it.

Reminds me of the common phrase that statistics can tell you anything you want to know. Something for all you EMR and EHR fans to chew on over the weekend.