Free EMR Newsletter Want to receive the latest news on EMR, Meaningful Use, ARRA and Healthcare IT sent straight to your email? Join thousands of healthcare pros who subscribe to EMR and HIPAA for FREE!!

The State Of Healthcare Cybersecurity (Part 1)

Posted on May 21, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

Healthcare data has never been under more outside threats than it is today. For a number of reasons, this data has become more attractive to cybercriminals and can be sold on the dark web for a pretty penny. Not only that, emerging threats like ransomware attacks are hitting home and wreaking havoc with the institutions they target.

Unfortunately, according to a new study by Black Book Market Research, healthcare organizations don’t seem to be adequately prepared for this onslaught.

The survey, which collected responses from more than 2,464 security pros working at 680 provider organizations, found that health IT leaders aren’t confident they can defend themselves against cyberattacks. In fact, 96% of IT professionals who responded said that the attackers are significantly ahead of them and could probably cut through the protection their organizations have in place.

Given that stat, it’s not surprising that over 90% of healthcare organizations have seen a data breach since Q3 2016. Worse, almost 50% reported that they had more than five data breaches during this period. Not only that, more than 180 million records have been stolen since 2015, a staggering haul which affects roughly one in every 12 healthcare consumers.

On the surface, it might seem surprising that healthcare organizations haven’t toughened their defenses given the number of threats they face. Actually, they are, but they’re being outgunned. It’s not that they’re not making cybersecurity investments, but both the level of investment and their strategy for deployment may be inadequate.

In a surprisingly frank set of disclosures, one-third of hospital executives that bought cybersecurity solutions between 2016 and 2018 said they did so blindly without much vision or understanding of what they were getting for their money. Respondents said that 92% of data security product and services buying decisions were made at the C-level, and the process didn’t include any users or affected department managers.

One reason that C-level executives with little relevant knowledge are making security investment decisions because they don’t have anyone senior to consult – and the problem is extremely common.

The survey found that 84% of hospitals responding had no dedicated security executive in place. Most say that it’s difficult to recruit a qualified chief security officer, which is why they’re going bare on data security and stumbling through the buying process as best they can.

Some organizations are responding to the shortage of C-level tech talent by outsourcing the function. Twenty-one percent said they outsource security to partners, consultants or selected security-as-a-service options as a placeholder.

Given this interest in outsourcing, healthcare organizations are signing deals with security services and outsourcing companies five times more often than they’re buying cybersecurity products and software. Vendors, in turn, are responding by diversifying the portfolio of services they offer. Still, that’s unlikely to be enough over the long term.

All of this suggests that the healthcare industry is in a security crisis. I’ll offer more details on the situation in part two of this series.

Be Skeptical About Health IT Research Reports

Posted on April 26, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

Look, I get it. While advice from colleagues is fine, it’s even better to have an objective research organization tell you which vendors dominate the market and which seem to have a lot of fans.

You know some of the headlines, in big bold letters: “Epic has the biggest EMR market share in the US” or “Doctors are very satisfied with eClinicalWorks.” Hey, if nothing else, you can wave the report in your boss’ face if your new system doesn’t work out.

The thing is, are you getting valuable, fair, unbiased feedback from research vendors? Not necessarily.

  • Pay for play: Some research firms are getting paid to promote certain products or organizations in their reports and client notes. The payment can be as subtle as a few introductions to potential customers or a straight up bundle of cash. Sadly, not all analyst firms who engage in this practice will tell you that they do.
  • Lack of experience: While some research reports are written by senior people with a long institutional memory, sometimes they are farmed out to junior staff members with a lot less perspective. I’m not suggesting that the younger people get it wrong, but they simply can’t offer the kind of insight senior people can.
  • Beauty contests: Be warned: sometimes reports are just not about you. It may appear, on the surface, that the research firm is offering you valuable insights, but the truth is that the research isn’t that substantial. In cases like these, the firms simply line up all the vendors in a row and rate them on scales they basically make up in their head.
  • Value of the data: Sure, it’s sort of fun and interesting to know whether Epic has nudged out Cerner or MEDITECH in the battle for US market share. It’s something to share over the health IT water cooler. And it seems to give you a sense of which vendors are offering the most value. But does it really? In most case, it probably isn’t that helpful to track market share unless you hold stock in one of these companies.

For what it’s worth, I’ve written several in-depth research reports of my own, and I feel pretty good about the industry analysis I did. But thankfully, none of the publishers suggested that I was the Oracle of truth. I simply gathered up a pile the facts and tried to fit them together.

In saying all this, I’m not suggesting that health IT industry research is a waste of time. If a report offers context, input from your peers and no-nonsense answers to questions you have, it may well be worth the price. But don’t let one of these firms sell you a bunch of hot air.

 

Cerner $10 Billion VA Contract Comes To Screeching Halt

Posted on January 5, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

After Cerner captured the massive multi billion dollar contract to roll out its EMR for the Department of Defense, everyone was a bit stunned, as many thought Epic was a lock for the job.

Cerner seems to have been conducting the rollout as promised, so there’s that. But when it comes to its performance in meeting the requirements of its $10 billion contract with the VA, things aren’t looking as good. Apparently, Cerner’s DoD implementation isn’t sharing data well with Cerner’s VA systems. Oops.

According to Politico, the Cerner contract with the VA is running into serious questions about its capacity for fluid data sharing. The VA’s Cerner rollout has been held up by questions about its ability to interoperate with the DoD system.

VA Secretary David Shulkin, who’s perhaps the biggest critic of Cerner’s efforts, had his agency issue a request for information looking for examples of data-sharing solutions. Shulkin is proposing that the VA conduct tests of the system’s capacity for interoperability, in which the department would send patients through the VA system and see whether it can share useful data with the VA along the way. If the test has a bad outcome, it’s likely to ramp up the tension considerably.

What makes all of this particularly embarrassing is that the VA awarded the contract to Cerner without conducting the usual bidding process, largely because the agency believed having its own Cerner implementation would make it easier to share data with the DoD. Good luck with that, folks.

I’m sure that key managers on the VA project are freaking out at this point.  The combined multi billion dollars the DoD and VA have entrusted Cerner with represents a massive commitment, and when a customer that size starts questioning whether they’ve made a good investment, the ground must have begun trembling under Cerner’s feet. Not to mention the consultants from Leidos, etc who are charged with delivering a massive chunk of the project.

It’s hard to imagine that Epic isn’t seeing if it can take advantage of the situation. While it may not have the ability to horn in on the contracts themselves, I’m sure that it’s making sure customers know about what’s happening, and using the news to suggest that Cerner doesn’t have its act together.

I don’t know what will happen if the VA continues to find fault with Cerner, but it can’t be pretty.

IT Leaders Question Allscripts Acquisition of McKesson EIS

Posted on August 31, 2017 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

Not long ago, I shared the results of a poll featured on HISTalk on the potential benefits of the Allscripts acquisition of McKesson EIS. The poll asked readers “Who will benefit most from the proposed acquisition of McKesson EIS by Allscripts?”

Roughly equal numbers of respondents said Allscripts customers would benefit (29%) and McKesson customers (27%). However, a new research report from Reaction Data suggests that many of their peers doubt that things will work out for McKesson customers or even do much to build Allscripts’ market position.

A number of health IT leaders quoted in the report say they’re fearful that McKesson solutions will get short shrift under Allscripts management. Others suggest that both vendors are behind the curve, especially McKesson, and that Allscripts is unlikely to spend enough money on it to catch up to current standards.

Their comments included the following observations:

  • I don’t see Allscripts as a major player in this space anymore and the acquisition will likely further stress the enterprise. Perhaps in combination they can cobble together a suite of tools, but integration will likely be clunky at best for some time.” – CIO
  • I do not see that McKesson brings anything beneficial to Allscripts, other than more users. McKesson’s products are very different from Allscripts’ current products and so will further dilute their efforts to bring quality product forward.” –CFO
  • McKesson is behind. Does not look like a smart choice moving forward.” –Director of IT
  • Just like Cerner buying Siemens, we were told they would support it and yada yada, here we are on Cerner after having to drop much more cash than we should have been required to.”—CIO

it’s worth noting, for the record, that all the feedback on the acquisition wasn’t negative. Positive comments included the following:

  • Combining Paragon, as the only true integrated, Microsoft SQL-based, hospital and ambulatory HIS on the market, with a solid vendor that focuses exclusively on HIT, is a win-win for the healthcare industry.” – CIO
  • “McKesson was losing and continues to lose ground on EHR systems to Epic and Cerner. They are withering on the vine. This acquisition will help them solidify their position in the market.”– Vice President of Finance

Still, most health IT leaders seemed to think the deal wouldn’t help either party that much. In particular, they were skeptical that McKesson’s high-profile Paragon solution was salvageable. “Paragon…is antiquated,” wrote one manager of information technology. “It will take a big bag of money and a lot of time to fix that.”

To summarize, while HIT execs conceded that the merger might buy Allscripts some customers and time, they felt it wasn’t likely to benefit their organizations. In fact, some argued that the deal could actually undercut the future of their McKesson systems: “Allscripts may focus on their own EMR and how those products I have with McKesson will interact with them rather than on McKesson products as a whole,” worried one director of information technology.

On top of everything else, the previous analysis by HISTalk doesn’t inspire much confidence that the acquisition will work on a corporate level. The analysis asserts that EMR vendors should be judged by the number of 250+ bed hospitals they have as customers, and points out that Allscripts controls only 6% of that market. (Epic, in contrast, has 20%, the article notes, citing HIMSS Analytics data.)

If I’m reading this right, it seems that Allscripts will take two mediocre and/or unfashionable solution sets and try to crossbreed them into a more popular set of tools, in the process scaring whatever loyal customers they have left. All sarcasm aside, I’d like to ask: Has this ever worked before?

We Share Health Data with Marketing Companies, Why Not with Healthcare Providers? Answer: $$

Posted on November 20, 2015 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

For those who don’t realize it, your health data is being shared all over the place. Yes, we like to think that our health care data is being stored and protected and that laws like HIPAA keep them safe, but there are plenty of ways to legally share health care data today. In fact, many EHR vendors sell your health care data for a pretty penny.

Of course, many would argue that it’s shared in a way that complies with all the laws and that it’s done in a way that your health record isn’t individually identified. They’re only sharing your health data in a de-identified manner. Others would argue that you can’t deidentify the health data and that there are ways to reidentify the data. I’ll leave those arguments for another post. We’ll also leave the argument over whether all this sharing of health data (usually to marketing, pharma and insurance companies) is safe or not for a future post as well.

What’s undeniable is that health data for pretty much all of us is being bought and sold all over health care. If you don’t believe it’s so, take a minute to look at the work of Deborah Peel from Patient Privacy Rights and learn about her project theDataMap. She’ll be happy to inform you of all the ways data is currently being bought and sold. It’s a really big business.

Here’s where the irony comes in. We have no trouble sharing health data (Yes, even EHR vendors have no problem sharing data and lets be clear that not all EHR vendors share data with these outside companies but mare are sharing data) with marketing companies, payers and pharma companies that are willing to pay for access to that data. Yet, when we ask EHR vendors to share health data with other EHR vendors or with an HIE, they balk at the idea as if it’s impossible. They follow that up with a bunch of lame excuses about HIPAA privacy or the complexity of health care data.

Let’s call a spade a spade. We could pretty easily be interoperable in health care if we wanted to be interoperable. We know that’s true because when the money is there from these third party companies, EHR vendors can share data with them. The problem has been that the money has never been there before for EHR vendors to be motivated enough to make interoperability between EHR vendors possible. In fact, you could easily argue that the money was instructing EHR vendors not to be interoperable.

However, times are changing. Certainly the government pressure to be interoperable is out there, but that doesn’t really motivate the industry if there’s not some financial teeth behind it. Luckily the financial teeth are starting to appear in the form of value based reimbursement and the move away from fee for service. That and other trends are pushing healthcare providers to want interoperable health records as an important part of their business. That’s a far cry from where interoperability was seen as bad for their business.

I heard about this shift first hand recently when I was talking with Micky Tripathi, President & CEO of the Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative. Micky told me that his organization had recently run a few RFPs for healthcare organizations searching for an EHR. As part of the EHR selection process Micky recounted that interoperability of health records was not only included in the RFP, but was one of the deciding factors in the healthcare organizations’ EHR selections. The same thing would have never been said even 3-5 years ago.

No doubt interoperability of health records has a long way to go, but there are signs that times are changing. The economics are starting to make sense for organizations to embrace interoperablity. That’s a great thing since we know they can do it once the right economic motivations are present.

Power of the Cloud EHR – Hidden Technology

Posted on August 6, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

Today’s post will be short. I’m hitting up the Black Hat conference in Las Vegas today and tomorrow. For those not familiar with Black Hat, it’s a hackers conference. It’s not quite as hardcore as Defcon when it comes to hacking, but they warn you about getting your devices hacked. I personally plan to play it safe and not bring my laptop and to turn my cell phone off. Anyway, hopefully I’ll do some future posts on security based on what I learn at the event. I always find deep value in going to a conference that doesn’t apply specifically to what I’m doing. Although, in the past they’ve had some medical device hacking sessions, but I digress.

The title of this post describes a concept I was recently considering. In fact, it was inspired by a comment on a previous post by Suzanne McEachron, that talked about a clinic needing to upgrade their in house EHR server from Windows Server 2003 to Windows Server 2008. Here’s the full comment:

Your statement, “While it’s sometimes disappointing to look at the old technology that powers healthcare,” must refer to an ambulatory vendor I am aware of, which installed its software onto a Windows Server 2003 just 3 years ago, and is now demanding the provider upgrade to Windows Server 2008. The provider wants to upgrade to Windows Server 2012, but the software company’s software won’t reliably work (yet) on that version. What is a poor country doctor to do?
He will be dumping his current vendor and finding a software company which uses the cloud instead of servers in his office.
Companies which continue to not keep up, will be left with few customers.

The last two lines are probably worthy of their own post. So, we’ll mostly set them aside for now. However, I was struck by Suzanne’s comment that they would be going with a cloud solution after this experience with an in house EHR vendor.

I’d never thought of this before I read this comment, but is one of the benefits of a cloud EHR that the user has no idea what type of back end technology you’re using to deliver the software? Sure, some of them will ask some questions during the EHR selection process, but I’ve never seen anyone ask a cloud EHR vendor how they’re doing at keeping their technology stack up to date. The reality for end users is that they don’t really care what technology is being used. They only care about the end result. Does it work? Yes. Is it fast enough? Yes. Then, since it’s in the cloud, who cares what technology is being used?

Of course, this may be exaggerating the situation a little, but not much. Certainly very few if any people are asking cloud providers how they’re doing at keeping their technology up to date. No doubt some do care about this and run into this problem even with cloud providers. My favorite example of this is when a cloud EHR provider requires a clinic to use an extremely outdated version of IE (internet explorer) to run the EHR. Yes, then they start to care a lot more.

Maybe it’s a mistake that practices don’t keep after their cloud provider more. However, the reality today is that the don’t. That makes it a huge advantage for cloud EHR providers. At least it does until they’re so outdated that they can’t hide it anymore. For example, when they can’t launch an iPad app because there’s no way for their old technology to work with it. Sounds like I need to create a new jokes series called, “Your EHR might be outdated if….” The problem is the jokes won’t be too funny if you’re suffering through it.

Side Note: So much for it being a short post.

The EMRs You Don’t Hear About

Posted on September 4, 2013 I Written By

James Ritchie is a freelance writer with a focus on health care. His experience includes eight years as a staff writer with the Cincinnati Business Courier, part of the American City Business Journals network. Twitter @HCwriterJames.

The best-known EMRs got that way because they target the masses. About a third of the country’s physicians focus on primary care, with the remainder fragmented across dozens of specialties and subspecialties. It’s easy to see, then, why the major EMRs are primary-care centric.

For specialists, the solution is often to use a general EMR and tailor it, with templates and other features, for the field’s common diagnoses and treatments, as well as its workflow. The question is whether the customization is enough. After all, the practice of, say, a nephrologist, who focuses on kidney ailments, doesn’t look much like that of the average family practitioner. And that’s not even considering other health care providers, such as optometrists, who aren’t MDs but who are eligible for meaningful use incentives all the same.

Some providers, then, choose a single-specialty EMR. Sometimes it’s a specific product from a larger health IT company. In other cases, it’s software from a vendor operating in but one niche.

Here are a few specialties with very specific practice patterns and the vendors who serve them with EMRs and practice-management software.

  • Nephrology. Physicians in this specialty deal with conditions and treatments such as kidney stones, hypertension, renal biopsy and transplant. A major part of the workflow is dialysis. One vendor catering to this specialty is Denver-based Falcon, which claims that its electronic notes transfer feature can “bridge the gap between your office EMR and dialysis centers.”
  • Eye care. Care in this field is provided by ophthalmologists, optometrists and opticians. Diagnosis and treatment rely on equipment and techniques unlike those found anywhere else in medicine. If you’ve ever had your eyes dilated, you know this is true. Hillsboro, Ore.-based First Insight created MaximEyes with eye care’s peculiar workflows in mind.
  • Gastroenterology. More commonly referred to as Gastro or GI. Florida based gMed (Full Disclosure: gMed advertises on this site) focuses on GI practices with GI specific problem forms, order sets, history forms, and Endoscopy reports to name a few. Plus, they are the only EHR which reports directly to the AGA registry.
  • Podiatry. These specialists of the foot train in their own schools. Bunions, gout and diabetic complications are among the problems they treat with therapies ranging from shoe inserts to surgery. DOX Podiatry, based in Arizona, concentrates on this field, providing clinical, scheduling and billing and collections modules. Its clinical component starts with a graphic of a foot, allowing the podiatrist to specify the problem area and tissue type. DOX claims that the software can eliminate the need to type reports.
  • Addiction. Chemical dependency and behavioral health providers include a variety of specialists, including psychiatrists, psychologists and counselors. Documentation in the field must account for outpatient, inpatient and residential services and for individual and group counseling sessions. Buffalo, N.Y.-based Celerity addresses the heavily regulated industry with its CAM solution, developed by a clinical director in the field.
  • Oral Surgery. This field is a dental specialty focused on problems of the hard and soft tissues of the mouth, jaws, face and neck. As such, an oral-surgery EMR needs heavy-duty support for the anatomy in play. DSN Software, based in Centralia, Wash., sells Oral Surgery-Exec for this group of providers. You might actually have heard about this one, because I interviewed its creator, Dr. Terry Ellis, in July for a post called “Develop Your Own EMR Crazy, But This Guy Did It Anyway.” In fact, there’s nothing crazy about using an EMR custom-designed for the work you do.

Benefits and Struggles of EMRs, and More – Around Healthcare Scene

Posted on June 9, 2013 I Written By

Katie Clark is originally from Colorado and currently lives in Utah with her husband and son. She writes primarily for Smart Phone Health Care, but contributes to several Health Care Scene blogs, including EMR Thoughts, EMR and EHR, and EMR and HIPAA. She enjoys learning about Health IT and mHealth, and finding ways to improve her own health along the way.

Are tablets going to take the place of traditional laptops and desktops? Well, Dr. Michael West seems to think so. He talks about his new-found love for his iPad mini, and how it fulfills all his current needs. Have you traded your desktop in for a tablet yet? The new Microsoft Surface is making me kind of want to!

Having a PHR on your phone doesn’t have to be complicated. In fact, if your phone has a camera (what phone doesn’t nowadays?) you can create when quickly and easily. Here are five health-related snapshots you could keep on your phone to assist in a variety of situations.

If you have been following the Affordable Health Care Act, you’ll know that an optional Medicaid State Plan called Medicaid Health Homes was introduced. There are, of course, many questions that people have about this, including what kind of technology will be required for successful implementation. Lori Bernstein, president of GSI Health, addresses some questions and lays out the benefits that this new model has to offer in her guest post at EMR and EHR last week. what kind of technology will Medicaid Health Homes require to ensure successful implementation?

Paper to EMR is a necessary evil for for hospitals, therefore, it’s easy to justify the expense required to do so. But what about when you decide to switch EMRs. Is it justifiable? Not always. There is no ROI to switch from EMR and EMR, and it can be a big risk.

A current pilot program is currently underway to help identify high-risk pregnancies by using an EMR. This pilot program is being led by researchers and people from Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Population Health IT to find hints in a mother’s health history to help determine if her pregnancy is high-risk. It’s a slow-moving project, but may prove to be worth it if it helps get mothers the help they nee.d

EMR-Switching Physicians Demand Mobile EMR Apps

Posted on June 3, 2013 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

We already know that many physicians are considering dumping their current EMR, with up to one fifth telling research firm Black Book Rankings that they were considering a switch in 2013. Now,  Black Book says that it’s found a focus for the switch:  that physicians are looking for new EMRs to offer integrated mobile applications as front ends.

Seldom do you see as unanimous a decision as doctors seem to have made in this case. One hundred percent of practices responding to Black Book’s follow-up poll on EMR systems told the researchers that they expect vendors to allow access to patient data wherever physicians are providing or reviewing care, according to the firm’s managing partner Doug Brown.

Not surprisingly, vendors are responding to the upsurge in demand, which has certainly been building for a while. As part of the current survey, 122 vendors told Black Book that they plan to launch fully-functional mobile access and/or iPad-native versions of their EMR products by the end of this year, while another 135 say they have mobile apps on their near-term product roadmap.

Demand for core patient care functionality in mobile EMRs outpaces physicians’ interest in other types of mobile functionality by a considerable margin.

According to Black Book researchers, 8 percent of office-based physicians use a mobile device for electronic prescribing, accessing records, ordering tests or viewing result.  But 83 percent said they would jump on mobile EMR functions to update patient charts, check labs and order medications if their currrent EMR made them available.

When asked what  mobile EMR feature problems need to be addressed, current users of both virtualized and native iPad applications saw the same flaws as being the most important. Ninety-five percent of both groups said that the small screen of a smartphone was the biggest mobile EMR feature problem. Eighty-eight percent said difficulties with easy of movement within the chart was an issue, 83 percent said they wanted a simplified version of the EMR on their mobile screen and 71 percent wanted to see screens optimized for touch use.

For more info on EMR Switching check out this whitepaper called Making the Switch: Replacing Your EHR for More Money and More Control.

EMR Selection Time, Mobile EMR, and Difficult EMR Selection

Posted on May 19, 2013 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.


A prudent investment is an understatement. The very best use of your time in an EMR implementation is in the selection process. Although, I’ve also seen some clinics go too far and run into the issue called “paradox of choice.”


Mobile EMR has always been a wonderful idea, but how many are really using their EMR on a mobile device. Let’s also not confuse mobile EMR with remote EMR. Certainly many doctors are using the same EMR from multiple clinics. That’s common and beautiful. However, far fewer are using their EMR on a mobile device. The most common response I get from doctors about a mobile EMR is “I can access my EMR on a mobile device, but the experience is terrible.” I expect this will dramatically change over the next 3-5 years, but won’t likely be the full EMR. Instead, I think it will be a really focused set of EMR functions on the mobile device. I’m not sure anyone has nailed that experience yet. Although, a lot of EMR vendors are working on it.


Everyone that’s read this site for a while knows how much I love analogies. Both of these are pretty spot on. The root canal is necessary and can relieve a lot of long term pain, but it’s no fun going through the process. Buying a car is hard because there are so many choices and so many details that it’s hard to know what really differentiates the complex item you want to buy.