Although the behavior of one EHR vendor was wrong, more serious problems are inflicted by government-run EHR certification criteria
This week eClinicalWorks resolved a lawsuit by agreeing to pay $155 million for falsely claiming it met Meaningful Use (MU) EHR certification criteria. Although the alleged behavior of eClinicalWorks was wrong, we have much more serious problems inflicted by the government-run EHR certification criteria.
The business of EHR vendors is to gain clients and earn profits. Developing innovative tools that help physicians care for patients should be the primary focus of their business. Instead, vendors are held hostage to government-run certification criteria that are constantly changing and sometimes ambiguous. While I do not condone the apparent behavior of eClinicalWorks, I am much more concerned about the certification processes that led to this situation.
The certification process evolved out of the 2009 HITECH Act that promoted the use of EHR technologies by offering incentive payments to hospitals and physicians who successfully adopted and used EHRs. This resulted in an unprecedented rush of business for EHR vendors. While EHR vendors began ramping up resources to meet the demands of the sales cycle and EHR implementations, they were also hit with government-imposed EHR certification criteria--criteria that are still changing frequently and sometimes are ambiguous. This exponential increase in EHR client demands along with rapidly changing certification criteria crushed EHR vendor resource availability. This constraint on resources forced them to focus on developing and testing EHR products to meet the specific certification criteria required by the government. In my opinion, the unintended consequence of overwhelmed EHR vendors is that they then did not have available resources to focus more on:
- Improving usability
- Identifying and managing patient safety risks inherent to EHR use
- Developing innovative tools and functions that actually improve how physicians care for patients
As a result, EHRs were developed to meet MU EHR certification criteria, but failed to improve poor usability. EHR products could meet certification criteria, yet fail to adequately address patient safety risks associated with implementation and use. And the constraint on EHR vendor resource availability remains an impediment to the development of innovative tools and functionalities that EHR vendors really should be focusing on today.
Physicians do benefit from EHR certification by reducing risk during the EHR selection process. That is why the Certification Commission for Health Information Technology (CCHIT) was created in 2006 as an independent, not-for-profit group. CCHIT certification was based on a consensus of stakeholders who determined core functionalities that a basic EHR should provide. I participated in that effort, albeit in a brief, very small way (providing some input on pediatric core criteria). I recall we were careful to avoid requirements that could hinder EHR product innovation. CCHIT ceased operations in 2014 after the government created the MU EHR Certification program.
CCHIT certification was much less prescriptive than what the government imposes today. Less prescriptive EHR certification was, in retrospect, the right approach to take. And we did it without government involvement. Government works at its own hindered pace, and that pace is much slower than what an unencumbered EHR market could accomplish. I think the government needs to get out of the EHR certification business. But whether government remains involved or not, the EHR certification process needs to learn from CCHIT and rely more heavily on building consensus of physician stakeholders. We will do what is best for our patients.
So, this week one vendor was called out by the government for false claims regarding EHR certification. But that one vendor is really not the problem. The real problem is that the development of all EHR products has been, and still is, impeded by the government's EHR certification program.
Matt Murray, MD
cook children's health care system..