Free Hospital EMR and EHR Newsletter Want to receive the latest news on EMR, Meaningful Use, ARRA and Healthcare IT sent straight to your email? Join thousands of healthcare pros who subscribe to Hospital EMR and EHR for FREE!

Erlanger Health System Takes A Chance On $100M Epic Plunge

Posted on May 11, 2015 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

The seemingly eternal struggle between EMR giants Cerner and Epic Systems has ended in another win for Epic, which was the final choice of Chattanooga, TN-based Erlanger Health System. The health system’s CEO, Kevin Spiegel, who said that Cerner had been its other finalist, announced last week that Erlanger would spend about $100 million over 10 years for the Epic installation.

Erlanger, a four-facility public hospital system with about 800 total beds, is an academic medical system and serves as a campus of the University of Tennessee College of Medicine. The system also partners with UT to operate the UT Erlanger Physicians Group, a 170-member multispecialty practice.

The health system, which fell in financial trouble in 2012, only recently saved itself and positioned itself for the massive Epic investment. It closed out FY 2014 with $618M in total operating revenue and $18M in operating income.

Erlanger’s turnaround is all well and good. But that being said, these numbers suggest that Erlanger is making something of a gamble by agreeing to an approximately $10M a year health IT investment. After all, the health system itself concedes that its return to financial health came in large part due to $20 million in new Medicare and Medicaid funding from CMS, along with new funding from the state’s Public Hospital Supplemental Payment Pool. And politically-obtained funds can disappear with the stroke of a pen.

The risky nature of Erlanger’s investment seems even more apparent when you consider that the system has an aggressive building plan in place, including a new orthopedic center, a $68M expansion of one of its hospitals, a 100,00 square foot children’s & women’s ambulatory center and a new health sciences center. Particularly given that Erlanger just completed its turnaround last year, does it make sense to squeeze in Epic payments alongside of such a large capital investment in infrastructure?

What’s more, the health system has a bond rating to rehabilitate. Faced with financial hardships in 2013, its bond rating was downgraded by Moody’s to a Baa2 and the system’s outlook was rated “negative.” By 2014, Erlanger’s had managed to boost the Moody’s outlook to “stable,” in part due to the influx of state and federal funds obtained by Erlanger execs, but the Baa2 rating on its $148.4 million in bond debt stayed in place.

While I imagine the hospital will realize a return on its Epic spending at some point, it’s hard to see it happening quickly.  In fact, I’d guess that it’ll be years before Erlanger’s Epic install will be mature enough to be evaluated for ROI, given the level of effort it takes to build a mature install.

In the meantime, Erlanger leaders may be left wondering, from time to time at least, whether they really can afford their expensive new EMR.

Four Things You Should Know About Deloitte’s “Evergreen” EHR Program

Posted on February 20, 2015 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Recently, consulting giant Deloitte announced a new program, named “Evergreen,” designed to cut down the cost of implementing and operating hospital EHRs. Unfortunately, much of the Evergreen coverage in the health IT trade press was vague or downright wrong, as it suggested that Deloitte was actually going into the EHR business itself. The key point Deloitte sought to make — that it could implement and operate EHRs for 20% to 30% less than hospitals — did come across, but the rest was a bit jumbled.

Having spoken to Mitch Morris, global healthcare leader for Deloitte Consulting LLP, I can clarify much of what was confusing about the Evergreen announcement and subsequent coverage.  Here’s some key points I took away from my chat with Morris:

  • Evergreen is a suite of services, not a product:  Though some HIT editors seem to have been confused by this, Evergreen isn’t an EHR offering itself.  It’s a set of EHR implementation and operation services provided by Deloitte Consultants. Evergreen also includes a financing scheme allowing hospitals and health systems to obtain a new EHR by making a series of equal payments to Deloitte over five to seven years. (“It’s like leasing a car,” Morris noted.) This allows hospitals to get into the EHR without making an enormous upfront capital investment over the first 18 months.
  • Evergreen is only offered in tandem with an Epic purchase:  The Evergreen program arose from what Deloitte learned after doing a great deal of work with Epic EHRs, including the famous multi-billion install at Kaiser Permanente and an extensive rollout for large hospital system Catholic Health Initiatives. So at the outset, the program is only available to hospitals that want to go with Epic.  Deloitte is considering other EHR vendors for Evergreen partnership but has made no decisions as to which it might add to the program.
  • Both onshore and offshore services are available through Evergreen:  One might assume that Deloitte is offering lower implementation and operation costs by offshoring all of the work.  Not so, Morris says. While Deloitte does offer services based in India and Ireland, it also taps U.S. operations as needed. Clients can go with offshore labor, onshore labor or a mix of services drawing on both.
  • This is a new application services management offering for Deloitte:  While the consulting giant has been managing Oracle and SAP installations for clients for some time, managing EHR platforms is a new part of its business, Morris notes.

According to Morris, Deloitte expects Evergreen customers to include not only health systems and hospitals that want to switch EHRs system-wide, but also those which have done some acquisitions and want to put all of their facilities on the same platform. “It’s expensive for a health system to maintain two or three brands, but they often can’t afford the upfront capital costs of putting every hospital on the same EHR,” he said. “We smooth out the costs so they can just make a payment every month.”

This could certainly be a big score for Epic, which is likely to scoop up more of the EHR-switching systems if Deloitte helps the systems cope with the costs. And Deloitte is likely to get many takers. Let’s see, though, whether it can actually follow through on the savings it promises. That could change the EHR game as we know it.

Another Health System’s Finances Weighed Down By Epic Investment

Posted on December 26, 2014 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

While Memphis-based Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp. may intend to be “the high-quality and low-cost provider” in its region, spending $200 million on an EMR purchase has got to make that a bit more, shall we say, challenging.

While health systems nationwide are struggling with issues not of their own making, such as some states’ decision not to expand Medicaid, it appears that Baptist Memorial’s financial troubles have at least some relationship to the size of its 2012 investment in an Epic EMR platform.

Baptist, which let 112 workers go in September, has seen Standard & Poor’s lower its long-term rating on the health system’s bond debt twice since mid-2013.  Through June, the system’s losses totaled $124 million, according to S&P.

Baptist employs 15,000 workers at 14 hospitals located across the mid-south of the US, so the staffing cuts clearly don’t constitute a mass layoffs. What’s more, the layoffs are concentrated corporate services, Baptist reports, suggesting that the chain is being careful not to gut its clinical services infrastructure. In other words, I’m not suggesting that Baptist is completely falling apart, Epic investment or no.

But the health system’s financial health has deteriorated significantly over the past few years. After all, back in 2009, S&P gave Baptist Memorial a long-term ‘AA’ rating, based on its strong liquidity and low debt levels; history of positive excess income and good cash flow; and solid and stable market share in his total surface area, with favorable growth in metropolitan Memphis.

However, at this point Baptist is clearly struggling, so much so that is taking the extraordinary step of cutting the salaries of top executives in the system by 22% to 23%. That includes cutting the salary of health system CEO Jason Little. But this is clearly a symbolic gesture, as executive pay cuts can’t dent multimillion dollar operating revenue shortfalls.

So what will help Baptist improve its financial health? In public statements,  Baptist CEO Little has said that the hospitals’ length of stay has been excessive for the compensation that they get from payers, and that fixing this is his key focus. This problem, of course, is only likely to get worse as value-based reimbursement becomes the rule, so that strategy seems to make sense.

But Baptist is also going to have to live with its IT spending decisions, and it seems obvious that they’ve had long-term repercussions. I don’t think any outsider can say whether Baptist should have bought the Epic system, or how much it should have spent, but the investment has clearly been a strain.

Epic Hires DC Lobbying Firm To Fight Closed-System Reputation

Posted on September 15, 2014 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

For quite some time, everybody’s favorite EMR giant has a “no marketing, no government relations” policy. (In fact, Epic staffers really seem to hate journalists, but maybe they just don’t like me — who knows?)

Anyway, a few weeks ago, reports the ever-watchful HISTalk, it came out that Epic has broken its rule, hiring on DC lobbying firm Card & Associates. While you might think Epic would hire a billion-dollar behemoth, Card is a smallish firm with seven modest accounts and only one healthcare client. It must help, however, that Card is run by the brother of the former White House Chief of Staff under Pres. George W. Bush.

So what made Epic change its standard operating procedure and begin lobbying The Hill? In its federal lobbying disclosure, the EMR firm says that it’s begun lobbying to “educate members of Congress on the interoperability of Epic’s healthcare information technology.”

The timing of the outreach effort isn’t a coincidence, Modern Healthcare astutely notes. As you read this, a team made up of Epic, IBM and a handful of other technology giants are fighting other equally ferocious IT firms to win the roughly $11 billion contract to update the Department of Defense’s clinical systems.

While none of its contract competitors have a strong reputation for interoperability, Epic is seen as much worse, with a RAND Corp. study released in July calling Epic’s systems “closed records.” That had to hurt.

Unless Epic plans to hold health IT classes for Congress over the next several years, I doubt they’ll be able to make their point with largely Luddite Senators and Representatives in Washington on a technical basis. That is, Epic’s lobbyists won’t be able to convince legislators that Epic is interoperable on the merits.

But lobbyists may very well be able to break the ice on The Hill, and sell the idea that those mean, bad old health IT competitors haven’t been telling the truth about Epic. The pitch can include the somewhat matronly CEO, Judith Faulkner, who doesn’t look like the most powerful woman in healthcare or a competitor that would gladly bite your head off and spit it down your neck. Then they can roll out Epic’s pitch that its systems actually are interoperable (between other Epic installs at least). If it sticks even a little bit, whatever the $1.7 billion company spent will have been worth it.

Frankly, I find the idea of portraying Epic as an underdog in any way as downright laughable, and I bet you do too. But I simply can’t imagine another pitch that would work.

Sutter Health Ready To Deploy HIE, But Can It Succeed?

Posted on June 30, 2014 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Sutter Health doesn’t have a great reputation when it comes to EMR implementation. Late last year, when we reported that Sutter’s Epic EMR crashed for an entire day, comments came pouring in about the company’s questionable approach to training its staff on using the system.

According to Epic consultants who’d been involved in the project, Sutter leaders decided that Epic experts were there to “facilitate” training done by inexperienced in-house teams, rather than actually teach key users what they need to know. The result was strife, disorder and anxiety, according to several consultants who’d been involved. Since then, Sutter has connected its EMR to five medical foundations and 17 hospital campuses; by next year, it expects the EMR to connect to information on 3 million patients. But there’s no reason to think it’s changed its training strategy, which could cast a bit of a pall over the new project.

Now, Sutter Health is building out a health information exchange, working with Orion Health, which will tie together hospitals and doctors both inside and outside of its network across northern California. Sutter plans to begin deploying the HIE in phases this summer, starting with data integration with the Epic EMR and extending to testing exchange of inbound and outbound data. If the project works out, it seems likely that it will be a plus for every provider that does business with Sutter.

The question is, will Sutter do a better job of managing this process than it did in rolling out its EMR? While it’s easy to boast that your plans are going to be a “gamechanger” for the market, it’s hard to take that claim at face value when your EMR implementation hasn’t gone so splendidly.

Certainly, Orion is a reputable HIE vendor which has been praised for having strong products and service. And Sutter certainly has the financial wherewithal to see such an effort through. The thing is, if Sutter leaders (seemingly) took a wrongheaded approach to the all-important issue of EMR training, who knows what curveballs they might throw into the process of rolling out an HIE? Even if its EMR has stabilized and Sutter has somehow gotten past its training hurdles, its past missteps don’t inspire confidence.

If I were with Orion, I’d draw a firm line where training was concerned, as Sutter’s past strategy only seems to have cast its last major HIT vendor in a bad light. If not, I’d make sure the contract had a workable bailout clause…or be prepared for some serious headaches.

What Can Go Wrong With An Epic Implementation

Posted on December 9, 2013 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

With Epic owning the lion’s share of new EMR implementations — it has as many in progress or planned as all other major vendors combined — it’s good to stop and look at just what can go wrong with an Epic implementation.

After all, while Epic installations are a fact of life, all of the news they generate isn’t good. In fact, a growing number of stories of botched Epic installs and institutional fallout are beginning to mount.

In an effort to do learn more about Epic’s strengths and weaknesses, researchers at The Advisory Board Company interviewed some of Epic’s most experienced U.S. hospital customers, as well as some of the busiest Epic implementation consultants, writes senior research director Doug Thompson.

As Thompson points out, the problems Advisory Board identified could impact any big EMR install, but with Epic in the lead, it doesn’t hurt to focus on its products specifically.  (By the way, according to the Advisory Board, there were 194 Epic installs in process or contracted for 2012 and 2013; the closest competitor, MEDITECH, had 59 and Cerner came in at 55.)

So what’s behind the stumbling? Thompson names several limitations to Epic’s own approach to implementation, including the following:

* Its young implementation staffers may be enthusiastic, but some lack operational experience in hospitals or medical practices, which means they rely heavily on Epic’s standard methods and tools –and that may not be adequate for some situations.

* Though Epic’s recommended implementation staffing numbers are higher than that of most other EMR vendors, their estimate nonetheless falls short often by 20 percent to 30 percent of the need.

*Epic’s “foundation” (model) installation plan limits customization or extensive configuration until after the EMR has gone live, which can lead to less physician buy-in and end-user cooperation.

To address these concerns, Thompson offers fourteen techniques to help hospitals get the value they want.  Some of my favorites include:

Begin with the end in mind: Make sure your facility has specific, measurable benefits they hope to achieve with your Epic implementation, and prepare to measure and manage progress in that direction.

Governance: Make sure you assign appropriate roles and responsibilities in managing your Epic rollout and ongoing use. While IT will serve as the linchpin of the project, of course, it’s critical to make sure the appropriate operations leaders have a clear sense of how Epic can and should affect their areas of responsibility.

Get outside input on project staffing: While Epic is upfront about the need for extensive staffing in its implementation, as noted its estimates still come in rather low. It’s a good idea to get in objective outside estimate as to how big the project staff really needs to be.

For more information, I highly recommend you read the full Advisory Board brief. But in short, as  the report concludes, it seems that relying too much on Epic’s approach, staff and tools can lead to problems. Surprised?

Epic Implementation Problems Lead To Lower Hospital Credit Rating

Posted on November 7, 2013 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Of late, stories have begun to crop up about troubled Epic implementations and the financial problems that these shaky implementations can cause. In fact, we’re aware of at least one Epic investment which may have led to the departure of a CIO from a Maine hospital.

Now, we’re told that a troubled Epic implementation has led to the lowering of a hospital’s credit rating. Standard & Poor’s has lowered Winston-Salem, NC-based Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center’s debt from AA- to A+, primarily due to the problems Wake Forest has had in rolling out Epic, according to Becker’s Hospital Review.

According to a statement from Wake Forest, the EMR implementation had a bigger impact on the hospital’s finances and operations than it had anticipated, leading to poorer overall fiscal performance than expected for 2013. Earlier this year, the CIO for Wake Forest resigned in the wake of the Epic debacle.

Wake Forest spent about $13.3 million to bring Epic on board, and roughly $8 million on Epic-related expenses, but that doesn’t seem to have been the main reason the install caused financial problems. We know from a report in the Winston-Salem Journal that since the Epic rollout, the hospital said that it had lost $26.6 million in margin due to volume disruption caused by Epic-related problems.

The Epic implementation wasn’t the only reason for the downgrade. It came partly due to cuts in NIH research funding, lower volume growth, a lower provider tax and sequestration cuts, according to hospital CFO and vice president for finance Edward Chadwick. But clearly, the disruptions caused by the Epic install have been major.

S&P did show Wake Forest some mercy, changing its financial outlook from “negative” to “stable.”  The agency is predicting that the hospital should rebound financially in 2014 as the disruptive effect of the Epic install decreases.

EMRs Now A Patient Draw At Hospitals

Posted on November 5, 2013 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

In the past, the mere fact that a hospital had adopted an EMR wasn’t news in and of itself — at least not to a hospital’s current and potential patients. After all, hospitals didn’t let everyone know when they upgraded its network or added backup storage facilities, right?

These days, however, EMR adoption has become a consumer attraction, enough so that hospitals announce their go-live with press releases and public spectacle.

One example comes from Colorado Springs, CO-based Memorial Hospital, which is part of the University of Colorado Health system. Memorial, which launched its EMR this past weekend, spent $30 million on an Epic system.

The launch comes complete with a portal, My Health Connection, allowing  patients to access their medical records, request appointments online, communicate with doctors via secure e-mail and receive test results. The portal is also intended to make it easier for doctors throughout the UCHealth system to access patient records.

The Memorial press release announcing this milestone lumps the Epic implementation in with a laundry list of accomplishments aimed at selling consumers on the facility, including the hiring of 30 physicians, Chest Pain Center Accreditation with PCI and Primary Stroke Center Certification.

As this announcement points up, an EMR launch is seen as a consumer marketing win, not just another project completion by the IT department. Of course, that’s the case partly because the launch comes with the release of a portal offering convenient data access and appointment scheduling. But I’d argue that EMRs have grown sexy enough in consumers’ minds that the mere use of one has some cachet by itself.

Now, this marketing strategy can backfire if the EMR launch goes poorly. For example, I’m sure the C-suite execs at Sutter Health were dismayed when the nurses’ union there went public with safety concerns about the Epic EMR implemented across the system.

For the most part, though, I think we’ll see hospitals bragging about their new EMR if it offers any advantage to consumers. EMRs have become a prominent enough part of medical care that implementing one wins the institution some brownie points.

Embattled Hospital Relies On Epic To Help Acquisition

Posted on October 28, 2013 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Here’s an interesting legal battle which puts a health system’s Epic EMR center stage.  Idaho-based St. Luke’s Health System, which is facing an antitrust challenge by a competing hospital, is responding to that challenge, in part, by citing the benefits of having an Epic system in place.

St. Luke’s was hit with an antitrust complaint lodged by Saint Alphonsus Medical Center, which claims that the system’s acquisition of Saltzer Medical Group of Nampa, Idaho will allow it to control nearly 80 percent of that market. The antitrust case, which involves both the FTC and the state of Idaho, is now before the U S District Court, reports EHR Intelligence.

During the proceedings last week, discussion focused on St. Luke’s decision to implement an Epic EMR, a move which reportedly cost $200 million. The install won’t be complete until 2017, according to the Idaho Statesman.

Though there’s a long road to walk before the Epic system will be complete, executives are already touting its benefits, with St. Luke’s CMIO testifying that Epic will allow patients to become engaged with their care, leading to better outcomes.

More importantly, for the purpose of the court  proceedings, adoption and implementation of the Epic system will eventually serve as the backbone of a St. Luke’s affiliate program under which independent doctors can use the system while paying only 15 percent of the costs, EHR Intelligence notes.

Saint Alphonsus Medical Center, for its part, argues that St. Luke’s reliance on the EMR is largely smoke and mirrors. In its joint pre-trial memorandum, the facility dismisses the claims regarding Epic’s benefits for Salzer as “speculative” and not a sufficient step to justify the acquisition. The memorandum also notes that Salzer already has its own EMR in place, making the purported benefits of substituting Epic even more tenuous.

So, what to make of this?  If nothing else, regardless of whether Epic contributes to the potential for this acquisition, the throwing down of the Epic gauntlet in court point to the prestige the vendor has achieved. Apparently, St. Luke’s feels that citing the availability of a system that won’t be fully implemented for five whole years is a workable defense given Epic’s high profile.

I find myself wondering whether a defense based on having another of the so-called “big 5″ EMRs would even be considered. Given Epic’s dominant position in the industry, it’s possible that it’s the only vendor whose name would do the trick.

Virtualization, Speech Recognition App Use Growing Among Hospitals

Posted on October 21, 2013 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Virtualization software and dictation with speech recognition are likely to see increased uptake among hospitals in coming years, according to data from HIMSS Analytics.

The data, which is drawn from its Essentials of the U.S. Hospital Market, Autumn 2013 report, suggests that virtualization and dictation with speech recognition are top areas for growth potential, ahead of most other apps profiled in the report.

According to a HIMSS statement, these findings are consistent with other research the organization has done in the past which has suggested growing adoption of voice recognition-based transcription technologies.

The HIMSS report also concludes that demand for ambulatory EMRs and ambulatory PACS seems to be growing, according to the press release.

My colleague John Lynn and I had a huddle to discuss these results and while I see the growth in demand for voice recognition, he’s a bit more skeptical.  In  his view, voice recognition hasn’t changed much over the last couple of years, so it’s not clear to him whey there’d be an upsurge in demand now. Did Siri-like technologies make us more comfortable with voice recognition?

The only exception to this, he suggested, may be some integration deals that Nuance did with Cerner and Epic that might cause an increase in voice recognition adoption. However, this will only be mostly those who wanted voice recognition already as opposed to converting new people to voice recognition.

On my end, I’m a bit more bullish on voice recognition technology, at least if EMRs are capable of parsing the narrative into fields in the EMR.  I’m aware of some EMR vendors and some independent software vendors that are doing this or headed in that direction.

As for virtualization, John is a bit more excited about the future. After all, as he notes, there’s some cost savings and redundancy, plus fail over, that are nice benefits of virtualization. He’s also a fan of its disaster recovery and business continuity capabilities, in that if one server dies, you can roll a whole virtual machine over to another seamlessly.

As for me, I’d argue that any technical trend you see here could be changed abruptly as the EMR market shifts. Let’s see how the next Meaningful Use phase, and the further consolidation of the EMR sector, affects what’s hot and what’s not.