Policy Committee Establishes Multiple EHR Certifiers
They are killing me.
How about that for strategic guidance. If they state that the earth is flat, and create multiple certifiers, I guess it’s time for Elvis to leave the building.
May we consider this for a moment, just between the two of us? We are paying them to come up with this, and I want a refund.
Does anyone esle take issue with this? Here’s my problem–or at least the one I am legally allowed to disclose.
Certification, by definition, only exists because of a high possibility of systems being implemented that won’t do what some group deems they need to do.
Allow me to be a heretic for a few minutes. Maybe certification is bad. Catch your breath and think about it. The only thing certification gets you is the possibility of stimulus rebates being made available to healthcare providers by people who have demonstrated all most no understanding of the business issues you face. Is that possibly true?
For many, the rebates are nothing more than a rounding error. Why build a system to be able to attest to goals which may not benefit your business? In spite of how it’s written, I think certification and meaningful use won’t be known for a few years. When it’s finally defined, it will have to do with how well your EHR connects to their network. That’s what they want, that’s what the money is for interoperability. The other issues are window dressing.
Build your EHR as though Washington and certification don’t exist. Build it based on what it does for you, not on what they think it may do for them.