EMRs: Not the Healthiest Choice?

Readers write to say that electronic medical records cost more than you think; that companies should be required to make matching 401(k) contributions; and more.
CFO Readers - CFO Magazine

CFO welcomes your letters. Send them to: The Editor, CFO, 253 Summer St., Boston, MA 02210

E-mail us at ScottLeibs@cfo.com, or contact a specific author by clicking on his or her byline. You can also post a comment directly on CFO.com by clicking on the appropriate link at the end of any article.

Please include your full name, title, company name, address, and telephone number. Letters are subject to editing for clarity and length.

Although “Strong Medicine” (May) does provide some insight into why insurers want electronic medical records (EMRs), it has a lot of misconceptions and misstatements. Among them:

1. “Just as technology streamlined industries like retailing and financial services, it should create efficiencies in health care that will slow premium growth from its traditional annual rate of about 7%.” There are no citations offered to show a decent study demonstrating such “efficiencies.”

2. “Malpractice insurers have already linked electronic systems with better-quality care; some will reduce premiums by as much as 5% for doctors who have gone digital.” Very few have actually decreased their premiums. In fact, EMRs can actually result in increased errors, decreased quality, false documentation, and the loss of privacy.

3. “…only about 9% of the country’s 5,000 hospitals and just under 20% of its 800,000 physicians use computerized recordkeeping….” The only data of importance is what falls into the category of “meaningful use.” The actual numbers are 2% of hospitals and 4% of physicians.

4. “Rand…estimates that when 90% of…providers use such systems, the savings will amount to $77 billion a year.” This has never been proven. More here EMR