Tom Carter, a vice president at Kaiser Permanente, penned an opinion piece last week, discussing the benefits of EMRs. Carter's argument, however, is touting EMRs' business case for businesses - not healthcare providers.
It's a smart argument because one stream to critical mass is through employer groups. If large businesses think EMRs are good for them financially, they have the resources and the bandwidth to encourage EMRs - with incentives, of course - for their employees. And if all goes well, the employees will see the value of having their patient information computerized and demand from both employer groups and members to a payer will in turn drive demand from payer to healthcare provider.
In a nutshell, it's about population health, and for large employer groups, which Carter defined as more than 100 employees, being able to help manage their employees' health means lower cost for healthcare coverage, which is one of the biggest cost increases on the labor side for employers.
If you're a payer, what's not to love about positively impacting an employer group's employee health status. Unnecessary tests and treatments are reduced, costly treatment for conditions that can be caught early will be reduced.
The catch? Where is the prize for healthcare providers? It should rest on the shoulders of the payers. Fair reimbursements is another topic entirely. Quality improvement and pay-for-performance programs based on population health are entirely appropriate for this discussion.
If employees/consumers, large employer groups and payers stand to benefit off the bat, the game should be set up to enable all stakeholders, especially healthcare providers - perhaps the most critical stakeholder of all - to reap benefits.
Photo by TheTruthAbout via Creative Commons license.
