Electronic health records

This article does not receive scheduled updates. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia. Contact our team to suggest an update.

* * *

* * *

Healthcare policy in the U.S.
Obamacare overview
Obamacare lawsuits
Medicare and Medicaid
Healthcare statistics

Obamacare glossary • Effect of Obamacare • Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

## Contents

* 1 Background
* 2 Meaningful use
* 3 Interoperability
* 4 Support
* 4.1 Higher quality of care
* 4.2 Greater physician efficiency
* 4.3 Healthcare cost reduction
* 5 Criticism
* 5.1 Data breaches
* 5.2 Doctor dissatisfaction
* 5.3 Increase in health costs
* 6 Recent news
* 7 See also
* 8 External links
* 9 Footnotes

Electronic health records (EHRs) are digital versions of patient medical files that can collect more comprehensive health histories from multiple providers than paper records. The federal government became a major proponent of EHRs when it enacted the HITECH Act in 2009, which established incentives and penalties for Medicare providers regarding EHR adoption. In 2013, 78 percent of physicians used some type of electronic health record (EHR) system, compared to only 18 percent in 2001.

The rules set by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for the HITECH Act included objectives for providers to achieve meaningful use of EHRs, with the ultimate goal of interoperability between systems for seamless sharing of patient information. However, interoperability has been a challenge for EMR systems, with only an estimated 20 percent to 30 percent of physicians using EHR systems to exchange information in 2015.

HIGHLIGHTS

* The Institute of Medicine first recommended the widespread adoption of electronic health records more than 20 years ago in a 1991 report.

* Supporters of electronic health records say they will lead to higher quality healthcare, greater physician efficiency, and a reduction in healthcare costs.

* Critics say electronic health records put patient data at risk of theft, reduce physician efficiency, and increase healthcare costs.

## Background[edit]

Although the terms 'electronic medical record' and 'electronic health record' are often used interchangeably, they technically have separate definitions and are treated differently under the law. An electronic medical record (EMR) is basically a digital version of a patient's paper medical file and is confined to one medical practice. Electronic health records (EHR) contain all of a patient's health history from multiple providers and can be accessed by more than one medical practice. EMRs can supply the information necessary to build EHRs.

Electronic health records (EHRs) are digital versions of patient medical files that can collect more comprehensive health histories from multiple providers than paper records. EHRs as a policy reform emerged in the early 1990s, when a 1991 report issued by the Institute of Medicine asserted that the adoption of EHRs was "needed to transform the health system to improve quality and enhance safety." The report called for the "widespread implementation" of EHRs within 10 years. However, adoption was slow, and in 2001 only 18 percent of physicians were using an EHR system.[1][2][3]

In 2004, then-President George W. Bush "launched the federal drive to widely disseminate" EHRs by establishing the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and tasking it with developing a national strategy to achieve the goal of an EHR for every citizen by 2014. Though there was little funding for the initiative, the prevalence of EHRs steadily increased over the remainder of Bush's term.[4][5]

In 2009, the Obama administration made another big push for EHR adoption, and Congress passed the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act) as part of the federal stimulus package that year, firmly setting the federal government's pro-EHR stance. The HITECH act included financial incentives for Medicare and Medicaid providers who make "meaningful use" of EHR systems and penalties for those who don't.[4][5][6]

According to the National Center for Health Statistics, by 2013, 78 percent of physicians "used any type of electronic health record (EHR) system," compared to the 2001 figure of 18 percent. A little under half of all physicians used an EHR system that met federal "criteria for a basic system." Below is a map showing the range across the states of the percentage of physicians using a basic EHR system in 2013.[1]

## Meaningful use[edit]

The term meaningful use refers to physicians using electronic health records (EHRs) to improve the quality and efficiency of care, care coordination, and the patient experience. In other words, "the adoption of EHRs is not a goal in itself – it is the effective use of EHRs to achieve health and efficiency that matters." In its final rule for the HITECH Act, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services established three stages of meaningful use with objectives that Medicare providers must meet to earn incentive payments; providers who ignore the objectives are penalized.[7][8]

The three stages are as follows:[9][10][11]

1\. Data capture and sharing

Stage 1 focuses on basic EHR adoption and involves digitally recording patient information such as symptoms, current medications, allergies, and vital signs. Stage 1 objectives also require physicians to use EHRs to make decisions and "[p]rovide health information to patients."

2\. Advance clinical practices

In Stage 2, providers should begin exchanging patient health information and using EHRs to improve care coordination. Stage 2 objectives also promote the creation of web-based portals where patients can interact with their personal health records.

3\. Improved outcomes

While not yet finalized as of March 2016, Stage 3 objectives will likely focus on the use of EHRs to improve outcomes. CMS may also push for better interoperability in Stage 3.

Medicare providers who meet the meaningful use objectives are eligible for incentive payments at each stage. The incentives amount to 75 percent of normal payments made under Medicare Part B, up to an annual maximum amount. The penalties for providers not demonstrating meaningful use amount to a 1 percent reduction in Medicare payments in the first year, increasing by a percentage point each year to a maximum of a 5 percent reduction.[11][12]

## Interoperability[edit]

The term interoperability refers to the ability of different electronic health record (EHR) systems "to share information seamlessly." If EHR systems are interoperable, that means a physician treating a patient can access that patient's previous health record from another facility that uses a different EHR system and integrate that information into his or her own system. Interoperability is one of the ultimate goals of EHR adoption; policymakers and other stakeholders view interoperability as necessary for improving healthcare delivery and reducing costs.[13][14][15]

Interoperability has been a big challenge in the push for EHR adoption. While 70 percent to 80 percent physicians are now using EHR systems, only an estimated 20 percent to 30 percent are using those systems to communicate with one another and exchange information, according to Julia Adler-Milstein, an assistant professor of health management and policy at the University of Michigan. Adler-Milstein identified one of the barriers to interoperability as the lack of incentives EHR vendors have to develop the necessary technology. Regardless of the usefulness or interoperability of an EHR system, vendors can expect steady demand from providers due to the Medicare financial incentives and penalties included in the HITECH Act.[16][17]

Screenshots from an electronic health records system

In its November/December 2015 issue, the progressive magazine Mother Jones published an article investigating the state of EHR interoperability. While mostly focusing on one of the largest EHR vendors, Epic, the article also criticized the federal government for pushing providers to adopt EHRs too quickly, before the technology was ready to support interoperability. Because providers incurred large costs, both in money and time, to overhaul their IT systems and adopt EHRs, it will be more challenging to now go back and implement systems that are interoperable.[18]

A September 2015 report from the Government Accountability Office also reviewed the current state of various EHR systems and identified five barriers to interoperability:[15]

“  |

(1) insufficiencies in health data standards,
(2) variation in state privacy rules,
(3) accurately matching patients' health records,
(4) costs associated with interoperability, and
(5) the need for governance and trust among entities.[19]

| ”

|
|

The percentage of physicians using interoperable EHR systems could be lower than Adler-Milstein's estimate. According to the National Center for Healthcare Statistics, in 2014 about 13 percent of physicians said they used an EHR system that supported interoperability.[1]

## Support[edit]

### Higher quality of care[edit]

Supporters of electronic health records (EHRs) say they improve the quality of care by cutting down errors and improving patient safety. They eliminate errors that are due to illegible handwriting on paper records. EHRs make it easier to access complete patient medical histories and coordinate care, advocates say, particularly for patients with chronic conditions and complex histories. EHRs can also more easily alert physicians to patient allergies or conflicting medications, thereby avoiding a potentially dangerous adverse reaction. In emergency situations, physicians could access patient records more quickly, enabling critical decisions to be made more rapidly.[3][14][20][21]

A room filled with paper-based patient records

Supporters of EHRs assert that they may also improve community health overall, "by tracking trends, identifying health disparities, monitoring the use of preventive care and helping patients manage chronic medical conditions." For instance, EHRs may enable physicians to "to identify and notify patients who are due for preventive care" or send medication reminders to a select group of patients.[14][21]

### Greater physician efficiency[edit]

Advocates of EHR adoption argue that physicians will be more efficient when they are using electronic records. They say EHRs reduce paperwork and streamline tasks such as filling out forms and billing. Additionally, with patient charts stored in a centralized server, physicians save time searching for an individual's file. The federal website HealthIT.gov identified the following efficiencies related to EHRs:[22]

“  |

* Reduced transcription costs
* Reduced chart pull, storage, and re-filing costs
* Improved and more accurate reimbursement coding with improved documentation for highly compensated codes
* Reduced medical errors through better access to patient data and error prevention alerts
* Improved patient health/quality of care through better disease management and patient education[19]

| ”

|
|

### Healthcare cost reduction[edit]

With greater efficiencies and higher quality of care, supporters of EHRs say they will lead to a reduction in healthcare costs. Easy access to patient records can help doctors identify expensive tests that have already been done, avoiding duplicate testing.[14][22]

“  | Less utilization means fewer costs.[19] | ”

|
|

—HealthIT.gov

Additionally, with more streamlined operations, providers can employ fewer administrative staff. EHRs may also facilitate more accurate coding and billing, preventing overcharges and reducing administrative tasks.[14][22][23]

## Criticism[edit]

### Data breaches[edit]

Critics of EHRs say storing health data electronically makes it more vulnerable to hacking and medical identify theft. According to the InfoSec Institute, a person's medical information is more valuable on the black market than his or her financial data. Health insurers and provider systems have suffered an increasing number of data breaches in recent years. Unlike with stolen financial data, in which victims can cancel their credit card and have their money refunded, there's no clear recourse for victims of medical identity theft. Additionally, medical identity theft can introduce potentially dangerous errors into a person's medical record that "can lead to serious consequences, such as a patient getting the wrong blood type for a blood transfusion."[14][24]

### Doctor dissatisfaction[edit]

Doctors have voiced a number of complaints against EHRs. A 2014 survey from the publication Medical Economics found that "nearly 70% of physicians say electronic health record (EHR) systems have not been worth it" and "67% of physicians dislike the functionality of their EHR systems." These critics say EHRs have slowed down their workflow and reduced their efficiency. They say the EHR system interfaces are based on old and outdated technology, making the systems "clunky" and difficult to use:[25][26][27]

“  | One complained that in his EHR, "to order aspirin takes eight clicks; to order full-strength aspirin takes 16."[19] | ”

|
|

—Healthcare IT News

As a result, some doctors say they see fewer patients in a day and feel that they are providing worse care because their computer screen gets in the way of emotionally connecting with patients. One doctor, "Dr. Scott A. Monteith, a psychiatrist and health I.T. consultant in Michigan," said electronic records disrupt the thinking process that goes into diagnosing.[27][28]

### Increase in health costs[edit]

Some critics argue that inefficiencies caused by electronic health records (EHRs) will increase healthcare costs, rather than reduce them as supporters say. Doctor's who have declined in productivity have started hiring medical scribes to enter data into EHRs while the doctor cares for the patient. This and other added labor associated with EHRs could increase costs as practices must pay salaries for more employees. Physicians may also charge more per patient if they see fewer of them in a day due to the added time it takes to enter data into the EHR system.[25][26][29]

Additionally, EHR systems are expensive to implement. According to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the total cost to implement an EHR system "is about $162,000 with an additional $85,500 in maintenance expenses during the first year." The publication Medical Economics found a similar figure in its survey of physicians, who reported costs between $100,000 and $200,000.[25][30]

## Recent news[edit]

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms electronic health records. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Electronic health records - Google News

## See also[edit]

* All-payer claims databases

* Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

* Healthcare policy in the United States

## External links[edit]

* HealthIT.gov
* Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, "Electronic Health Records (EHR) Incentive Programs"
* National Center for Healthcare Statistics, "Use and Characteristics of Electronic Health Record Systems Among Office-based Physician Practices: United States, 2001–2013"
* American Academy of Family Physicians, "Introduction to Electronic Health Records (EHRs)"
* Healthcare IT News, "Frustrations linger around electronic health records and user-centered design"

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 National Center for Health Statistics, "Use and Characteristics of Electronic Health Record Systems Among Office-based Physician Practices: United States, 2001–2013," accessed March 23, 2016
2. ↑ Institute of Medicine, "The Computer-Based Patient Record," accessed March 25, 2016
3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 American Academy of Family Physicians, "Introduction to Electronic Health Records (EHRs)," accessed March 25, 2016
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Modern Healthcare, "Health IT coordinators look back at the nation's progress," April 5, 2014
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 HITECH Answers, "HITECH Act Summary," accessed March 25, 2016
6. ↑ HealthIT.gov, "Are there penalties for providers who don’t switch to electronic health records (EHR)?" accessed March 30, 2016
7. ↑ HealthIT.gov, "Meaningful Use Definition & Objectives," accessed March 31, 2016
8. ↑ Health Resources and Services Administration, "What is 'Meaningful Use'?" accessed March 31, 2016
9. ↑ The Advisory Board Company, "Daily Briefing primer: Understanding 'meaningful use' and its three stages," August 22, 2014
10. ↑ HealthIT.gov, "Meaningful Use Definition & Objectives," accessed March 31, 2016
11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Practice Fusion, "What is Meaningful Use?" accessed March 31, 2016
12. ↑ SRSsoft, "EHR Incentives," accessed March 31, 2016
13. ↑ HealthIT.gov, "What is EHR Interoperability and why is it important?" accessed March 30, 2016
14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 U.S. News & World Report, "Understanding Your Electronic Medical Records," August 24, 2015
15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Government Accountability Office, "Electronic Health Records: Nonfederal Efforts to Help Achieve Health Information Interoperability," September 16, 2015
16. ↑ CIO, "EHR adoption up, challenges in interoperability and meaningful use remain," March 19, 2015
17. ↑ CIO, "Why the EHR Market Is Poised for Disruption," February 10, 2014
18. ↑ Mother Jones, "Epic Fail," accessed March 31, 2016
19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
20. ↑ HealthIT.gov, "Benefits of EHRs: Health Care Quality & Convenience," accessed April 1, 2016
21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 HealthIT.gov, "Benefits of EHRs: Improved Diagnostics & Patient Outcomes," accessed April 1, 2016
22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 HealthIT.gov, "Benefits of EHRs: Medical Practice Efficiencies & Cost Savings," accessed April 1, 2016
23. ↑ Practice Fusion, "Benefits of switching to an electronic health record," accessed April 1, 2016
24. ↑ InfoSec Institute, "Hackers Selling Healthcare Data in the Black Market," July 27, 2015
25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 25.2 Medical Economics, "Physician outcry on EHR functionality, cost will shake the health information technology sector," February 10, 2014
26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 U.S. News & World Report, "Doctors Say Electronic Records Waste Time," September 8, 2014
27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 Healthcare IT News, "Frustrations linger around electronic health records and user-centered design," March 10, 2016
28. ↑ The New York Times, "The Ups and Downs of Electronic Medical Records," October 8, 2012
29. ↑ HIT Consultant, "Electronic Medical Records–Past, Present and Future?" March 27, 2014
30. ↑ Agency for Healthcare Research and Qualiy, "Study identifies costs of implementing electronic health records in network of physician practices," accessed April 1, 2016

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

* * *

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond
External Relations:  Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

* * *

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams, Managing Editor of Events • Joseph Greaney, Managing Editor of Policy • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Victoria Edwards • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Brandon McCauley • Andrew McNair • Ellie Mikus • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox