The search for the perfect EMR involves an extensive list of criteria related to features and functions, cost, hardware requirements, certification, references—and since February, the potential to obtain government incentive money. Search committees are assembled, consultants are engaged, RFPs are solicited, presentations are made, and references are checked. But there is a big elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring—physician productivity.
The effects of productivity are enormous. Changes in physician productivity dramatically and directly impact the practice’s bottom line. You can calculate the cost for yourself using the Productivity Calculator discussed in a prior blog. Physician productivity has broader societal impacts as well. Decreased productivity means fewer patients seen in the face of higher demand for care by aging baby boomers and the massive numbers of newly insured patients under proposed health care reform legislation. This is further compounded by the shortage of physicians.
Why is no one looking at productivity? Why aren’t physicians and medical societies insisting that productivity information be made available and be the focus of the EMR selection process? Why do RFPs—typically written by consultants—contain no questions about productivity? CCHIT certification has never included any evaluation of productivity, and neither does the government’s “meaningful use” matrix. Even at the recent MGMA Annual Conference there was no mention of productivity in a session on implementing EHR technology. A reasonable explanation might be that objective information about comparative productivity is not available. However, this problem could be remedied by EMR Reform—but that proposal is meeting with resistance within the industry.
Some of the answers to the questions above are less surprising than others. I believe that vendors are afraid of what comparative benchmarking would reveal about their products’ performance under close scrutiny of productivity. It is not in the vendors’ interest to yield control of the EMR evaluation process—not when scripted presentations permit skirting the productivity issue entirely. Consultants don’t feel confident that they have the tools to effectively compare productivity, particularly if vendors are not supportive of productivity measurement. What confounds me, however, is the lack of concern being expressed by physicians and their representative professional groups. I can only assume that it is due to the fear-based marketing efforts to which they are being subjected. Physicians are being told that they must buy an EMR because the government requires it and because everyone else will buy one—neither of which is true. What physicians should be fearful of is the loss of productivity that they will suffer if they do not consider productivity as a primary factor in the EMR selection process.
At next week’s HIT Policy Committee meeting, defining “meaningful use” for specialists will be a primary agenda item. We will advocate that meeting the government’s goals for widespread EHR adoption requires that physician productivity—the elephant in the room—be addressed.