- Edit page
- New page
- Restrict access
- Attach file
- Move page
- Delete page
- Print page
- More
- Table of contents
You are not logged in.Log In
SOAPedia > Implementation Guides > 1. Pre-Purchase Considerations > D. Dispelling the EMR Industry Myths > Myth #1: Amount of capital needed for EMR implementation is too great.
Myth #1: Amount of capital needed for EMR implementation is too great.
Table of contents
No headers
The costs associated with implementing a CCHIT certified EMR are generally quoted to be in the range of $20,000 to $40,000 (per physician) with an average of $30,000. SOAPware users are typically spending from $5000 to $15000 for total, system costs, and few do not recover this investment the first year. And, this is a solution that usually has a far greater usability along with superior functionality to the higher cost alternatives.
A billing solution by SOAPware, for SOAPware is in the works. Today, most practices are spending more on just their billing systems than they will be spending on a complete clinical and financial solution offered through SOAPware. Most other options may soon appear not to be reasonable options.
Even though it is low in cost, SOAPware is the real deal, and not just another stripped-down EMR. In these tough economic times, it is an increasingly wise choice. The future belongs to practices able to obtain and maintain true data. SOAPware delivers elegantly. And, unlike most current, full-featured, high-priced electronic record systems, it is based on the latest technologies and a non-proprietary database.
****************************************************************************************
The real cost within most systems is the loss in physician productivity. Before implementing any particular electronic record system:
Count the steps and use a stopwatch to time:
1. Creation of a new prescription.
2. Authorization of a refill request.
3. Creation of a completed encounter note for a typical visit type that is common to your practice.
4. Ask for a simple modification of a simple encounter Docuplate/Template.
5. Accept no return on investment analysis (ROI) from a vendor that does not include line items calculating physician productivity losses over time (based on your own measurements).
Determine who absorbs the expense and consequences for the increased clerical time associated with the above items and the other documentation tasks in your practice. For example, if the system adds an additional minute per encounter, and you average 25 patients daily, who absorbs the extra 25 minutes each day of lost "productivity?" This is most often the real cost to physicians for EMR systems. The cost savings to have a "donated" system often pales in proportion to the cost of lost physician productivity. If an employer is necessitating that physicians use a less efficient EMR, is the physician to be paid extra for working another 25 minutes each day? Or, will the physician's salary be cut because they are seeing fewer patients? Get written answers that deal with the consequences over the long-term after the initial implementation.
****************************************************************************************
Paper vs. Electronic Costs: A Case Study:
Quote by EMR user…”There's no question about it. Buying and installing an EMR system represents a significant capital investment. I spent about $60,000 for software, hardware, installation and training for my three-physician practice. Yet my system completely paid for itself within a year of buying it. It substantially lowered my overhead by reducing my transcription costs. At 11 to 15 cents per line for transcription, the cost savings add up quickly. EMRs also reduce overhead costs in other ways. For example, by not having to make paper charts, we save $3 to $6 in raw materials per new patient. That may not sound like much, but if your practice sees 100 new patients per month, using paper charts can reduce your annual gross income by $7,000. Since there are no longer charts to shelve, we no longer need a file clerk. Medical offices generally require one file clerk per three physicians. Switching to an EMR saves one-third of a file clerk's salary and benefits for each physician in the practice. Our nursing assistants estimate that using an EMR saves them each two hours a day in requisitioning, obtaining, reviewing and dispensing charts needed for phone calls, refills, etc.
William Soper; Family Practice Management October 2002. http://www.aafp.org/fpm/20021000/35whyi.html
****************************************************************************************
Paper vs. electronic costs for a 2 clinician practice:
Direct costs for a 2-clinician practice over five years for a paper system can easily be greater than an EMR system. The examples below are from an actual site report, but will require a lot of editing to be relative to your site. It includes major expenses typically experienced.
After 2-3 years, the paper charts can usually be moved to a back room, basement or attic and the freed space in the clinic used more productively. The need for a coding clerk should also be significantly reduced as the codes can automatically be generated from the documentation.
Please note, in an established practice, we advocate a dual paper and electronic system the first year, so some of the cost savings are delayed until a year later once the paper charts are no longer being pulled and dictation ended.
| Paper Charts |
|
|
| FIVE-YEAR TOTAL: | $ | 114,500 |
| Electronic Medical Records |
|
|
| FIVE-YEAR TOTAL: | $ | 60,200 |
| NET SAVINGS: | $ | 54,300 |
(More to come)
