EMR reviews – What’s the catch?

There is yin and yang, black and white. Two sides to a coin, two interpretations, two or more point of views to everything. Heck, there are batman haters out there!
When talking about reviews there are good ones and bad ones right? May it be movies, restaurants or softwares. But when it comes to EMR’s, I wonder if there is another side to the story?
Every website you go to will paint a very pretty picture of the software, as if it’s your wonder drug. It would make all the pain go away. They would talk about how the software is “absolute best and has made their lives easier”. “There are absolutely no issues” or “Surpassed my expectations”. Such reviews really make me ask myself, can I trust these EMR Reviews?
The excessively optimistic tone, choice of words with industry specific jargons and outright admiration for the software really pose a question to its validity and reliability as if they are either paid reviews or written by the vendor’s marketing team itself. There are hardly any balanced reviews. What other possible explanation there could be that every other software has such high ratings with absolutely no problems or bug issues. Something which even huge IT giants like apple aren’t deprived off.



Are customers really writing them? It’s easy For a Practice to be disillusioned by these companies, that’s how marketing and sales functions work; it’s all hunky dory until your money is gone out of the pocket.
I don’t mean to be a cynic but websites like Software advice charge money from EMR Vendors to write referrals.  I believe there should be neutral third party reviews to these softwares for us to make the right decision. I personally rely more on word of mouth and physician referrals rather than these websites. I realize it’s necessary for the vendors to establish a brand image online, but they should always know where to draw the line.

What are your thoughts?



Choosing a billing vendor out of numerous top medical billing companies

Medical practices are required to undergo huge changes from time to time to keep up with the new regulations and technology introduced by CMS in healthcare industry. Take the upcoming ICD-10 implementation, for example. Physicians have already begun preparing their staff (both clinical personnel and billers) for the regulations introduced by CMS for the new coding system.
The challenge
One of these regulations requires practices to upgrade their medical billing system completely. As it sounds, upgrading the entire medical billing system of a practice is a very expensive and lengthy task, which is why many small and medium practices are considering outsourcing their billing to medical billing companies.

The risks
Outsourcing medical billing to a third party is indeed a huge risk. However, this option is feasible for practices that lack the resources, space, people or finances required to keep Medical Billing in-house.
Cheaper options: Despite the need, physicians must be very careful in choosing a billing vendor for their practice. They should avoid medical billing companies that cost much lower than the industry average. Yes, discard the “free medical billing” and “1% of your collections”. Such deals are backed by numerous hidden costs, substandard service, and huge cash flow disruptions for the practice that opts to join them.
References: Some vendors avoid giving any references other than the ones on their printed list.
Limited services:  Others don’t provide physicians with daily reports and access to their software to check patient accounts.
Such billing companies may not provide good results or improve practice workflow and can drag medical practices to bankruptcy.
The evaluation criteria
Alternatively, providers must carefully evaluate Medical Billing Companies on the following criterion:

1. Level of service

All medical billing companies offer basic billing services like claim generation and submission, payment processing and patient invoicing. Providers should thus look for companies that provide additional services like tracking of submitted claims, pursing of denied claims, regular follow-ups, and timely reporting. The medical billing companies should also comply with any recent or upcoming CMS regulations or health IT changes like ICD-10.

2. Industry experience:

In addition to relevant healthcare industry experience, the medical billing vendor must also be familiar with the specific medical specialty of the physician or medical practice. Choosing a vendor that is already familiar with the practice specialty will be a plus point for the physicians as this means the new partnership will get along smoothly and there will be no decline in practice revenue.

3. Use of technology

The medical billing service provider must also make use of technology in such a way that it reduces the gap between the provider and biller. For example, the billing company must have flexible medical billing software that can be integrated with the provider’s EHR.

4. Pricing options

Medical billing companies may charge medical practices a percentage of its collections or a flat fee. Some companies have a hybrid pricing option, which includes both flat fee and percentage rates. There are other billing companies that offer all three pricing options to medical practices. Physicians must look for a reasonable pricing option that does not exceed the industry rate or is very cheap. The pricing option can be compared to the kind of services the company offers or how other providers have reviewed the company.

5. Capacity to take on new clients

Lastly, providers must observe the past  the Medical Billing Services Reviews  and determine whether it has the capacity to take on a new client or not. Sometimes a medical billing service takes in too many clients that its resources fall short to handle the outstanding bills, or in following up on the numerous claims sent to different insurance companies. This can affect the performance of the company as well as the revenue of all the clients.
The criteria mentioned above can help medical practices in finding a suitable vendor to handle its outsourced medical billing. Moreover, physicians can further narrow down their lists of billing vendors by observing their ratings and reviews on top rating websites like Top Ten Reviews, Software Advice, Technology Advice and Capterra. These sites also offer consultancy services for practices that are still unable to find a suitable billing vendor.         




What does the Meaningful Use Stage 2 Requirement for Data Exchange offer to physicians?

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently announced its plans to reduce the 2015 Meaningful Use (MU) reporting period requirement from 365 to just 90 days. Many healthcare experts are of the view that the federal agency is taking this step (in addition to others) to lighten the burden on care providers.

The announcement
The announcement was made towards the end of January, and gave much needed relief to eligible hospitals (EHs) and professionals (EPs) who had faced immense difficulty in meeting the MU Stage 2 transition-of-care requirements.


The options
Through this requirement, an EP would need to exchange a care summary with a minimum of one other provider or third party possessing a certified Electronic Health Record (EHR) system; moreover, the receiver’s system must be different from that of the senders. As a secondary option, the EP could instead carry out a successful care summary exchange test with an EHR selected by CMS.

The challenge
However, for the secondary test, the provider needs an EHR which can directly transmit messages to a different EHR; and that too via a DirectTrust recognized health information service provider (HISP). The challenge for the provider would be that of his EHR’s compatibility with the accredited HISPs.

The solution
A CMS FAQ file in response to this query highlights that if the provider faces such an issue, they could be given leniency to perform the required test outside of the EHR reporting bracket, provided that they perform the test before the reporting year ends.
The finalization of the 90 day reporting period for MU would be vital in providing physicians the added time to meet this challenge.

Other options
Practices will also be able to use other methods of care summary exchange between different EHRs. There is also the option of using a health information exchange organization (HIO) for this process; however, many regional RHIOs are not fully functional at the moment.

That is why federal health agencies have continued to reiterate that interoperability is an important target, and one they are committed to achieve.