<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Monday Morning Update 3/10/08</title>
	<atom:link href="http://histalk2.com/2008/03/08/monday-morning-update-31008/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://histalk2.com/2008/03/08/monday-morning-update-31008/</link>
	<description>Healthcare IT News and Opinion</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:30:54 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Agent 99</title>
		<link>http://histalk2.com/2008/03/08/monday-morning-update-31008/comment-page-1/#comment-816</link>
		<dc:creator>Agent 99</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:28:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://histalk2.com/2008/03/08/monday-morning-update-31008/#comment-816</guid>
		<description>The Mass BCBS article and the other CPOE spin is at times fascinating and other times horrific to follow.  I find the irony of those hailing BCBS as a hero for forking over 50 mil for a study to announce oops nah lets not do that EMR stuff now. I don&#039;t know about you but if I were a subscriber I&#039;d want to know what is being done to lower my rates.  The spin and obvious connected parties on this subject in itself should be a study. - perhaps another insurance company could write a check on that one. 

Mass Collaborative seems to want to take over where the Leap Frog group failed to thrive - capitalizing on the ignorance of the big picture  and still no one says the Monarch has no clothes. The everyday Joe has no clue that CPOE does not mean your complete clinical documentation, not just meds ordered. No discussion on JCAHO Core Measure, zero on evidence based medicine.  Uhm where is the study on Adverse Drug Events with those items?

 I don&#039;t now about you but if I am in the hospital I am less worried about a docs signature than someone hanging someone else&#039;s meds on my IV poll or not scanning my wrist band (if I&#039;m given one with a bar code) to ensure I am who the system says I am.  This is not to say CPOE has zero merit - however its a placebo for more significant issues that await attention and education.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Mass BCBS article and the other CPOE spin is at times fascinating and other times horrific to follow.  I find the irony of those hailing BCBS as a hero for forking over 50 mil for a study to announce oops nah lets not do that EMR stuff now. I don&#8217;t know about you but if I were a subscriber I&#8217;d want to know what is being done to lower my rates.  The spin and obvious connected parties on this subject in itself should be a study. &#8211; perhaps another insurance company could write a check on that one. </p>
<p>Mass Collaborative seems to want to take over where the Leap Frog group failed to thrive &#8211; capitalizing on the ignorance of the big picture  and still no one says the Monarch has no clothes. The everyday Joe has no clue that CPOE does not mean your complete clinical documentation, not just meds ordered. No discussion on JCAHO Core Measure, zero on evidence based medicine.  Uhm where is the study on Adverse Drug Events with those items?</p>
<p> I don&#8217;t now about you but if I am in the hospital I am less worried about a docs signature than someone hanging someone else&#8217;s meds on my IV poll or not scanning my wrist band (if I&#8217;m given one with a bar code) to ensure I am who the system says I am.  This is not to say CPOE has zero merit &#8211; however its a placebo for more significant issues that await attention and education.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://histalk2.com/2008/03/08/monday-morning-update-31008/comment-page-1/#comment-815</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:52:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://histalk2.com/2008/03/08/monday-morning-update-31008/#comment-815</guid>
		<description>Want to bet that it was a hospital that provided that expensive and unused EMR? That Mass BCBS article that Inga quoted says it all: doctors don’t get much EMR benefit, so requiring EMR use for bonus programs doesn’t make sense. You can’t make a small business buy software that doesn’t pay its way no matter how much society might benefit. It would be great if paint stores recorded your custom colors on an electronic personal profile that was shared among them all, allowing you to stroll into any Home Depot or Sherwin Williams and have your records immediately available, but that’s not happening for exactly the same reasons. Unless enough customers demand it, of course. 

EMR


Here is another slant on this discussion.  What if BCBS of Mass is actually seeing that the amount of documentation provide by an office EMR is allowing doctors to bill them for much higher paymnets.  In the past physicians and thier office staff did not have the elctronic back-up for higher coded claims.  Now with EMR documentation there is no way to refute these claims and pay a lower amount.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Want to bet that it was a hospital that provided that expensive and unused EMR? That Mass BCBS article that Inga quoted says it all: doctors don’t get much EMR benefit, so requiring EMR use for bonus programs doesn’t make sense. You can’t make a small business buy software that doesn’t pay its way no matter how much society might benefit. It would be great if paint stores recorded your custom colors on an electronic personal profile that was shared among them all, allowing you to stroll into any Home Depot or Sherwin Williams and have your records immediately available, but that’s not happening for exactly the same reasons. Unless enough customers demand it, of course. </p>
<p>EMR</p>
<p>Here is another slant on this discussion.  What if BCBS of Mass is actually seeing that the amount of documentation provide by an office EMR is allowing doctors to bill them for much higher paymnets.  In the past physicians and thier office staff did not have the elctronic back-up for higher coded claims.  Now with EMR documentation there is no way to refute these claims and pay a lower amount.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MSC Fan</title>
		<link>http://histalk2.com/2008/03/08/monday-morning-update-31008/comment-page-1/#comment-814</link>
		<dc:creator>MSC Fan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 04:36:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://histalk2.com/2008/03/08/monday-morning-update-31008/#comment-814</guid>
		<description>Re: Shahid Shah on Using Virtual Machines -- &quot;The folks from Medsphere, VISTA, ClearHealth, and other open source groups should take this advice.&quot;

Excellent points Shahid.  In fact, Medsphere already offers a VM of their core open source solution (OpenVista Server + CIS running on Linux).  You can download the VM here: http://medsphere.org/openvista_appliance.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: Shahid Shah on Using Virtual Machines &#8212; &#8220;The folks from Medsphere, VISTA, ClearHealth, and other open source groups should take this advice.&#8221;</p>
<p>Excellent points Shahid.  In fact, Medsphere already offers a VM of their core open source solution (OpenVista Server + CIS running on Linux).  You can download the VM here: <a href="http://medsphere.org/openvista_appliance.html" rel="nofollow">http://medsphere.org/openvista_appliance.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://histalk2.com/2008/03/08/monday-morning-update-31008/comment-page-1/#comment-813</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Mar 2008 06:12:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://histalk2.com/2008/03/08/monday-morning-update-31008/#comment-813</guid>
		<description>Re: Insider - The confusion between what Epic costs, and what the project costs may also be due to the fact that other vendors have whole consulting organizations within their companies, and so a large part of the total project cost also goes to the vendor. It is indeed gross misinformation for Mr. Histalk to imply that Epic wouldn&#039;t bother for a 10 million deal...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: Insider &#8211; The confusion between what Epic costs, and what the project costs may also be due to the fact that other vendors have whole consulting organizations within their companies, and so a large part of the total project cost also goes to the vendor. It is indeed gross misinformation for Mr. Histalk to imply that Epic wouldn&#8217;t bother for a 10 million deal&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Insider</title>
		<link>http://histalk2.com/2008/03/08/monday-morning-update-31008/comment-page-1/#comment-812</link>
		<dc:creator>Insider</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Mar 2008 02:57:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://histalk2.com/2008/03/08/monday-morning-update-31008/#comment-812</guid>
		<description>Re: TenaciousD: &quot;Re: Stanford and Legacy -  Wrong on the Anesthesia count.  They&#039;ll be early but others are already live on early release components.   Never heard an Epic person say Stanford is their beta for anything.  They don&#039;t do it that way in general.  

Re: Legacy, you might want to think about project cost v. vendor costs.  Epic typically doesn&#039;t cost as much as what most people think.  They just have that funny midwestern thing going where they actually try to estimate the whole project cost correctly and stick to their budgets.  I&#039;d guess the 10M number is what Epic is charging for their part of the whole thing.  The rest is just the cost of doing a very large and comprehensive project.

Maybe TenaciousD would rather people just didn&#039;t do anything and stuck with paper.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: TenaciousD: &#8220;Re: Stanford and Legacy &#8211;  Wrong on the Anesthesia count.  They&#8217;ll be early but others are already live on early release components.   Never heard an Epic person say Stanford is their beta for anything.  They don&#8217;t do it that way in general.  </p>
<p>Re: Legacy, you might want to think about project cost v. vendor costs.  Epic typically doesn&#8217;t cost as much as what most people think.  They just have that funny midwestern thing going where they actually try to estimate the whole project cost correctly and stick to their budgets.  I&#8217;d guess the 10M number is what Epic is charging for their part of the whole thing.  The rest is just the cost of doing a very large and comprehensive project.</p>
<p>Maybe TenaciousD would rather people just didn&#8217;t do anything and stuck with paper.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
