WSJ writes about the perils of an EMR stimulus

From the opinion page of the WSJ from April 14, 2009: "A competitive marketplace would produce the most innovative medical-records system"

I wrote earlier about the dangers of having the government force physicians into buying the "right" EMR systems. That is, systems approved or certified by the government, possibly CCHIT certification. This may have the unintended consequences of stifling competition and innovation. Can you imaging if the government had mandated that all businesses use a "certified" word processing system or a "certified" search engine? If this was the case, we'd all be using a Wang word processing system and Google may never have been created.

The WSJ puts it very nicely in this opinion piece:

"The ideal system would be an open platform for many developers to write applications that are allowed to succeed and fail, much like Apple's iPhone software. They argue that the key is "allowing competition and 'natural selection' for high-value, low-cost products."

"The stimulus hands the Obama Administration the power to define and approve "certified" records, therefore the power to create a health-tech monopoly. With stimulus money being shoveled out as quickly as possible, doctors and hospitals may end up prematurely investing in the costly systems that happen to have the government seal of approval -- and in the process freezing out an innovative marketplace."

Healthcare IT Stimulus and EHRs

The 20 billion dollar Health IT stimulus could potentially force doctors to choose "between VHS or Betamax at a time when we see Blue Ray on the horizon".
I fear that any large scale government spending on health care IT, especially in the area of EHRs (Electronic Health Records), will end up being corporate welfare for the large, established IT vendors. There are a lot of smart people developing the next generation of health care computing, but unfortunately they may be shutout from the market if this spending plan comes to fruition.

I've seen over the past several years how federal and state dollars have been wasted in creating RHIOs. Many of these RHIOs found that after the initial grant money dried up, there really wasn't a compelling business value that would lead to sustainability. The grant funds just made these entities chase some misguided business plan/vision which really did not address true needs in the community for which providers would be willing to pay for.

If EHRs are truly vital to the efficient and safe delivery of health care, and actually help physicians and other providers do their job well, then these end users should pay for the technology themselves. The argument made from the other side is that the cost of EHRs is more than physicians can afford. I think then, the real issue is, perhaps the current crop of EHRs is based on old, clunky, expensive technology. Unfortunately, we may not get to see the future technology for EHRs if the government dumps billions into forcing physicians to buy current systems.