As I tried to convey (but apparently I didn’t) in my article (see above), unfortunately, the definitions for EMR and EHR were not created by HHS.

A few years ago (can’t remember exactly when) the two separate definitions (one for EHR, one for EMR) were created by HIMSS Analytics — to suit their data gathering needs. HIMSS Analytics is a division of HIMSS, the “large” trade organization to which I was referring in my article.

In 2008, ONC funded (i.e., federally-funded, at taxpayer expense) a project to provide “consensus-based” definitions for 6 HIT terms — EHR, EMR, PHR, HIE, HIO and RHIO. The National Alliance for Health Information Technology (NAHIT) was chosen to manage this project. NAHIT was the other trade organization to which I was referring in my article. Most of the members of the NAHIT-managed group who huddled to define these terms represented other trade organizations, such as HIMSS. And, once again, the same, two, separate definitions of EHR and EMR that HIMSS Analytics had been promoting were recommended by NAHIT. A year later, NAHIT ended all its operations.

Because of the NAHIT recommendations (provided to ONC in a report entitled “Defining Key HIT Terms”), HHS, other federal and national organizations, vendors, providers, journalists, etc., ACCEPTED (not created) these two, separate definitions.

Another point I tried to convey in my article (but apparently I didn’t), was that, interestingly, NOWHERE in the ARRA / HITECH legislation is there mention of the “EMR” — only the “EHR.” In response to one of his readers who noted this, I believe Mr.HISTalk when he wrote that the use only of the term “EHR” in the legislation probably was because (and based on the ACCEPTED, two separate definitions) EMRs have not conformed to nationally recognized interoperability standards, but EHRs have conformed.

Since I’m a healthcare professional who, along with so many of my healthcare professional colleagues believes that all these terms are nothing more than synonymous nouns and adjectives, I support using the term EHR “as is”, because (and not necessarily in this order) 1) ARRA / HITECH adopted it; and, 2) perhaps our industry can finally cease this debate over synonyms that were codified by trade organizations to suit their needs and not the needs of healthcare professionals!

And next time? Call me Greg!

PM systems and Y2K. Enter, EMR/EHR’s. Integrated or Interoperable? There is no difference if someone bothers to poll our physicians. RHIO’s gave way to IPA’s and morphed into HIEs. Sarbanes-Oxley. CCHIT may be a future retired King of the Hill.

Now: PC’s, tablets, or iPad? ASP vs. Client server? Hey, won’t Open Source save me money? Why does This guy want $50K per physician, and the other wants $500 a month for all of us?

All of this HITECH process is like the weather in Texas: If you don’t like it, just wait a minute.

Not sure if you are cynical about iPad, or cynical about regulation. If the former, well that’s appropriate.

If the latter, I have a syphilis experiment I’m planning and I need a collaborator.

There comes a point when terms have been so misused and so misunderstood, that they should be abandoned or replaced.

Another one of those terms: “informatics.”