EMR subsidies might help, but who gains from efficiency savings?

The law of unintended consequences is a nasty little bugger that seems to rear its ugly head quite often in health care. As so many of our dear readers know, the great paradox in health IT, particularly with EMRs, is that those who buy the technology to make them more efficient, i.e., hospitals and physician practices, tend to receive the least financial benefit from their hefty investment.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is supposed to take some of the pressure off of providers by subsidizing their IT purchases. The problem is, without a change in how healthcare is paid for, the bulk of the savings accrue to the payers. No, we're not advocating single payer here, so hold the hate mail; we're saying that the current fee-for-service model of reimbursement encourages doctors and hospitals to see more patients and provide more services. A more efficient system with less duplication would mean a sharp drop in revenue for these providers.

The remedy could either be for hospitals to raise their prices or to move to a quality-based reimbursement model. David St. Clair, CEO of payer-side health IT vendor MEDecision, says insurers likely could be convinced to up their payments to providers, but we're concerned that the uninsured might get stuck with higher out-of-pocket costs.

For more on this paradox:
- have a look at this CNNMoney.com story

Suggested Articles

Roche, which already owned a 12.6% stake in Flatiron Health, has agreed to buy the health IT company for $1.9 billion.

Allscripts managed to acquire two EHR platforms for just $50 million by selling off a portion of McKesson's portfolio for as much as $235 million.

Artificial intelligence could help physicians predict a patient's risk of developing a deadly infection.