Today I read a press release trumpeting the new relationship between the Texas Hospital Association and Enterasys Networks, which is now the THA’s preferred provider for wired and wireless network infrastructure products.
When I read this I found myself thinking “wow, is it really that easy?” Will hospitals rely on intermediaries like the THA to do the due diligence and sort out what sort of networking gear they should buy?
To me, this is an intriguing concept which could easily and logically extend to EMRs. After all, state hospital associations could do an analysis of an EMR’s technical strength, usability, interoperability and features as well as a health system or hospital could.
It would certainly upend the industry if hospital associations routinely got down and dirty with EMRs, went through a selection process and put their “recommended” stamp on a small handful of systems.
If nothing else, it would be a shock to vendors, who would have to create new channel relationships with the associations, quickly and well. Marketing to associations wouldn’t superceded marketing to individual hospitals completely, but it would add a new layer of effort.
It would also give some attention to lesser-known EMR vendors. I’d argue that in an honest process, it’s unlikely that all — or even most — of the hospital associations would only choose as “winners” the enterprise EMRs that dominate the market today. This is not to say that giants like Epic and Cerner would never be selected; it’s just that as I imagine it, a thorough hospital association selection process would identify some underdogs that deserve hospitals’ business.
The truth is, though, that most hospital associations wouldn’t want to go down the road of officially putting their stamp of approval on a small collection of EMRs. The task is enormous, the political costs high if members don’t agree with their choices, and the downside is considerable if a recommended vendor completely flames out in some way.
No, it seems to me that while the THA has put its credibility on the line for Enterasys, I don’t see it (or its peers in other states) sticking an oar in the EMR selection business. There’s just too much at stake. They’ll spend their last penny fighting regulatory battles — particularly as Meaningful Use steams along — but hospital trade groups are not going to become the EMR Fairy.
Considering that every hospital is unique, EHRs must be heavily customized, and vendors are usually unwilling to put in the necessary work or otherwise charge exorbitant fees to do it, I think it rests on each hospital to evaluate its needs and find a (hopefully open source) EHR that it can adapt to those needs.