|Meaningful Use is debated|
But a phunny thing happened on the way to this phase phorum. While insiders have saluted the good intentions behind the latest requirements, there's a lot of bad and even more ugly. It's telling when even the prestigious New England Journal publishes a highly critical perspective like this. It seems that skepticism over the fit of MU with the realities of clinical practices is being misinterpreted in some quarters as technophobic non-cooperation.
And so it goes.
Fortunately, for the Population Health Blog, its psychological EHR scars have long healed. It, like a lot of other colleagues, has moved to a market of (for example) electronic care solutions that are not local and PC-based, but are mobile and cloud-based. And the good news is that - so far - there is no ARRA statute intended to enable a well-intentioned lawyer from uttering those Nine Most Terrifying Words just when the health app ecosystem is reaching critical mass.
But that doesn't mean that we can't learn from the EHR-MU Wars. To wit:
1) Learn from mistakes; for example, better, not more, information technology begets more patient safety.
2) It's ultimately all about user value creation: for example, resist linking the technology to billings/revenue and link it to care/satisfaction.
3) Design with the end-user in mind: for example, release no product unless the intended user has shown that it can fit in their (provider) work flows or their (patient) home setting
4) Align the time frames: keep in mind that the short-term time technology horizon of 2-3 years to may not align with the 5 or more years it takes to "bend the curve" for a insurance risk-bearing organization
5) Resist the allure of government help: while incumbent companies may believe federal legislation may turbocharge their business models, the MU suggests that the downsides are considerable.