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.
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
jd says
July 23, 2007 at 8:22 pmThese 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.
David Harlow says
July 23, 2007 at 9:53 pmJD — Check out the trackbacked post for further thoughts along those lines.