I have not read the report by the W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University that demonstrates EHRs in some cases can impose higher costs to hospitals and lower quality of care. That said, I have some concerns about the study.
For one, the study looks at EHRs from 1998 to 2007. As everyone knows, the healthcare industry historically has been slow to adopt EHRs. The decade being scrutinized can be labeled as the early, developmental years of EHR implementation. Any time you introduce technology into an industry you're going to have a steep learning curve, cultural pushback, required reengineering of processes and policies, and bugs to work through. Users are going to take longer to complete their tasks, and no doubt there will be human errors.
On the technology side, compare usability and functionality of EHR systems developed in the early part of the decade to today's next-generation EHR systems. Huge difference.
So is it really fair to say some EHRs can be more costly and lower quality of care? You can find some EHRs that decreased cost and improved quality of care. Everybody in the industry knows that there is upfront cost and pain, and ROI is realized down the road. This is nothing new to us. Researchers say the study's message is that providers should temper expectations of short-term cost savings. I think the industry has already gotten that message because it's been repeated even by health IT advocates.
If we really want to see the impact of mature EHRs in the industry and come to some conclusion about whether they're beneficial to healthcare delivery, start gathering data beginning in 2007, when CCHIT began certifying EHR products. I'm not endorsing CCHIT, but it's a good starting point for when EHRs began to be evaluated and inspected. Conclude the study in 2017, which will reflect the impact of the meaningful use criteria. I guarantee there will be a huge difference between that study and the ASU study.
