David Harlow's Health Care Law Blog
OK, so there’s a study to back up any statement you may want to make about EHRs.
Last week, it was: EHRs don’t improve outcomes. This week, it’s: EHRs save money over time. This week’s study was based on a much smaller sample size, and the major cost savings was on staff time spent pulling charts. Both studies were limited to ambulatory care settings.
Here's the scoop, from Archives of Internal Medicine, via Reuters/Yahoo, via iHealthbeat:The study found that…
The beat goes on -- Maggie Mahar's pulled together a diverse group of posts for…
Joe Paduda does a great job pulling together the best of recent policy posts from…
The social uses of data stored in EHRs and the privacy protections needed
EHRs either make sense clinically or economically on an individual patient or practice basis, or they don’t, depending on which study you read. Let’s assume that implementation does not make economic sense, or that implementation is cost-neutral, at the i
The HIPAA Compliance Toolkit
These two studies do not contradict each other. From a provider’s point of view, the savings from an EHR come entirely from the administrative side (chart pulls, etc.). From the public interest and payer point of view, the savings come almost entirely from the medical side (reduced ADEs, fewer duplicate tests, etc.).
One study questions the medical savings, the other affirms the admin savings. No contradiction between them.
JD — Check out the trackbacked post for further thoughts along those lines.