The Capital Justification Expenditure Is Vital For The Return On Investment Of A Per Provider For Electronic Medical Records

In a healthcare world that operates on stringent budgets and margins, we begin to see the need for a higher capacity healthcare delivery system. This in turn puts pressure on the healthcare organizations to ensure higher standards of patient care, and compliance with the reform provisions. However, these are the harsh realities of today’s healthcare environment, a setting in which value does not always equal quality. The use of technology can help to amend some of this by providing higher capacity care without compromising quality; this can be done with the use of such technology as electronic health records (EHRs). This paper will aim to address how EHRs influence healthcare today by expanding upon topics such as funding sources, reimbursement methods, economic factors, socioeconomic factors, business influences, and cost containment.

This case analysis of Stanford’s Hospital and Clinics (SHC) electronic medical record (EMR) system implementation will focus on how the healthcare organization focused on resolving a problem to meet regulatory pressures and responded to an opportunity to create operational efficiency, by capitalizing on the use of information technology to help reduce costs. We will discuss the organization’s IT problems, opportunities, and the alternatives available to address each. We will summarize an analysis of potential alternatives including the organization’s EMR system of choice and conclude with a recommendation to the Board on how to rollout the new system.

Prices of the different products and services of the organization should be market specific. The economic capability and disposable income of clients should be put into consideration in setting prices for the products and services offered by the organization. By matching prices with the economic capability of a people, it would be much easier to for customers to access the products and services without straining or having to compromise and going for other products of lower quality (Donna, 2012).

The software related Electronic health record implementation need to be appropriate for the needs of the organization and budget.(Swab, & Ciotti, 2010) The EHR software system has many areas of market depending upon the size of the hospital bed size. The first criteria for the vendors according to the bed with 100 and small hospital The Electronic health record system cost about between $ 1 million and 2 for the electronic health record system The electronic health record software cost for the organization about medium hospital cost is much larger than the first one. It comes around three to ten million. The hospital and organization with more than average bed cost for the electronic health record system will be higher amount than the other one. The cost and amount of electronic health record system will depend upon the size of the hospital . The management has to decide about the budget for the organization. (Swab, & Ciotti, 2010). The organization must evaluate its mission and goals in light of its particular strengths and weakness and in light of the demand for services and competition in the external environment. Based on that evaluation it can make a plan that will take advantage of opportunities like Electronic health record implementation according to the goals of an organization.(Finkler, Ward, & Baker, 2007).

One area that has contributed to the rise of healthcare costs are the varieties of healthcare services offered to the patient. Competition between providers has caused physicians and hospitals to offer the most current healthcare technologies and modern, eye-catching settings in order to attract and retain clients (Shi & Singh, 2015). Reimbursements for costly procedures and hospital services have been compensated at a higher rate which has also supported the expansion of hospital and specialty procedure settings (Schroeder & Frist, 2013). Renovations of the physical settings and the acquisition of expensive technologies have elevated healthcare services prices to encompass the additional costs of providing high technical services and attracting clients and cause the over-utilization of expensive treatments.

Competition between providers has caused physicians and hospitals to offer the most current healthcare technologies and modern, eye-catching settings has contributed to increasing healthcare costs, as well as providing unwarranted highly technical services (Shi & Singh, 2015). Renovations of the physical settings and the acquisition of expensive technologies elevated healthcare services prices to cover the additional costs of providing high technical services and attracting clients.

However, there’s an enormous amount of money involved to acquire these advanced EHR systems. There are fears of losing the capital investment. According to Prasad (2013), “better medicine means stable business.” With EHRs capability to provide efficient healthcare services, it is helping in containing the healthcare cost. However, some CFOs have looked beyond the financial gains of the EHR implementation. “You have to look beyond that to the intangible benefits, the improvements in delivery care and position your organization to be competitive in the future” (“ROI: Look beyond,” n.d.). Indeed, EHR is a long-term investment for HCOs with a great promise for future

The cons of an EHR are part of the driving force behind the model restricted from the need to integrate EHRs throughout the health system and share information with network of referring hospitals. However, this sharing of information is often not possible (EHR,2013). Finding a hospital partner that is willing to open the lines of communication is critical to the success. The cost associated with EHRs is often a deterrent. Not only must the provider pay for the physical hardware and/or software, the organization must also put forth a considerable dollar amount for setup, maintenance, training, IT support and system updates (EHR,2013). With EHRs, much more documentation is required of physicians before, during and after a patient visit. This has its pros and cons. For example, a benefit of more strong documentation is that it provides additional information for the coders that may justify a higher level of service being billed(EHR,2013).

Containing ninety participants, 36% of the respondents were hospital CIOs and I.T. executives, 19% from integrated delivery systems headquarters, 19% from group practices, and 27% from other facilities. Survey results pertained to patient health records, electronic health record (EHR) certification, and other IT issues in healthcare. According to the survey, “81% of respondents said their I.T. budgets will grow, with the most common prediction being growth of 5% to 10%. Implementing electronic health records was the No. 1 software investment priority for the coming year for hospitals, integrated delivery systems and group practices alike.” (CIOs Predict Future Trends, n.d) Interestingly, despite the economy at the time showing signs of a recession, “the vast majority of health care organizations expect their information technology budgets to grow during the next fiscal year, and this growth is driven primarily by a need to improve access to information for clinicians, the survey shows.” (CIOs Predict Future Trends, n.d) This improved access to information can be applied to patients as well, as the push towards cloud storage and record/test results access alleviates the need to wait, call, and require record searches from the physician’s staff. On the subject of streamlining access to the implementation to patient EHRs, 19% of

The benefit of technology in healthcare can help improve quality of care and reduce adverse events. Kaiser Permanente invested in an electronic medical system to increase positive clinical outcomes. Implementation of the health information system would have three system functions. The first objective was to reduce operating cost by improving staff efficiency, reduce patient’s number of hospital days, and reduce adverse drug events and increase preferred prescription adherence. The second objective was to increase revenue which was accomplished by improving appropriate billed charges, improving coding accuracy for Medicare risk, and increase collections. Decreasing capital expenditures was the final function which was achieved by decreasing

As Harris Memorial Hospital and Harris Community Foundation aims to incorporate the Electronic Health Records (EHRs) in the system, being the Board of Trustees it is your imperative to have complete knowledge about the justification of soft costs and the financial benefits associated with the incorporation of EHRs. Hence, there is a requirement for EHR investment, I would like to explain the steps for justification of ROI soft return with an example and the capital acquisition required to support. This will eventually help you track the appropriate methods in expanding the overall potential of implementing EHRs.

It can overall increase productivity and profit in the long-term. For instance, my workplace instills usage of electronic medical records for new and current patients for efficiency, productivity, and accuracy for the long-term of patients dental x-rays and health history. The costs involved are considerable and hard to calculate depending on the fees and licensing. According to, (Health Resources and Services Administration, 2016), a persistent problem is demonstrating a return on investment from an (EHR) implementation is often times challenging and may be even more difficult for smaller practices. The cost and effort involved from staff and management is difficult, but necessary to carry out productivity for implementation of (EHR). Every company practice is different and every practice must adapt to changes of implementing (EMR) for the duration of patient accuracy. Aside from the challenges, cost, and effort of implementing (EMR)’s in health care organizations, there is a desire to generate a return on investment (ROI) from them.

price, quality, convenience, and superior products or services); however, competition can also be based on new technology and innovation. A key role of competition in health care is the potential to provide a mechanism for reducing health care costs. Competition generally eliminates inefficiencies that would otherwise yield high production costs, which are ultimately transferred to patients via high health service and delivery costs. With so much competition going on in the healthcare field and around the healthcare organization of my choosing, reducing cost for the patients will keep my organization in the competition for more patients to come

Competition drives innovation and ultimately leads to the delivery of better healthcare. Competition has played a vital role in shaping the delivery of healthcare in the United States. Competition results in lower prices and broader access to health care and health insurance. Competition among and between hospitals and physicians intensified with the development of managed care organizations. In addition to putting pressure on costs, managed care plans have pressured providers to use shorter hospital stays and to offer alternative outpatient treatments (Botti, 2007). This led to lower costs and an increase in choice without sacrificing quality. Lower costs and improved efficiency has made health insurance more affordable and available. Another benefit of competition in health care is the innovation in healthcare technology (i.e. endoscopic surgery, anesthetic agents available in ambulatory surgery centers).

Instead of using paper based records, technology allows physicians to use the electronic medical record (EMR) that improves the quality of programs. By using the EMR, this is not easy nor is it low cost. Physicians’ have to use this method as their daily task. There are some barriers that has been identified with the use of the EMR by the physicians we will discuss. There will be some suggestions made that might can help the policy interventions to overcome the barriers. This will include the support system of work/practice including electronic clinical data exchange, and financial rewards for quality improvement. (Sim, 2004)