It’s not quite “no good deed goes unpunished” but closer to “no Epic news story goes uncommented.” Either way, the company seems to generate a mixture of praise and criticism depending on how successfully the Epic EHR implementation process goes.
Last week’s coverage included recent observations made by Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) CIO, John Halamka, MD, concerning the factors behind the increased adoption of EHR and health IT solutions developed by Epic Systems in Massachusetts.
Halamka’s observations elicited a variety of responses, although most centered on whether the decision to adopt Epic is both a popular and safe decision or it provides a streamlined and deeply integrated solution.
Concerning the first, a couple commenters took umbrage with the notion that an Epic EHR adoption is a wise decision and a foolproof process:
Have read several articles lately about organizations where people were in fact laid off due to the massive loss in revenue of implementing Epic. There is about a 6 month lull in revenue that has proven to cost organizations substantially. They must keep that in the small print and none of the Kool-Aid drinkers would ever want to admit it. Epic is great at what it does, but there are some key areas that it misses the mark on. I’ll probably start getting hate mail just for posting this.
—Alex“No one got fired by buying Epic”… not too sure. Recent postings challenge that (e.g., Who Says Chief Information Officers Can’t Lose By Choosing Epic?) Not particularly an Epic fan … still, I have to say that Epic’s CEO is brilliant. Faulkner understood the importance of a single solution from the beginning. There is a lot of work to be done around interoperability in healthcare; healthcare will not be successful without it.
—Sande
Numerous reports have certainly cited Epic as a factor negatively impacting the business of healthcare at certain hospitals and health systems. Just last month, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center indicated an operating loss of $62.8 million at the end of its third quarter, which varied dramatically from the previous year’s gains of $38.9 million.
Some of the operating loss was attributed to the one-time cost of implementing Epic and its disruption to business operations. Coincidentally, the organization’s CIO, who was hired to oversee the implementation of the Epic EHR, has resigned although the decision to step down was reportedly personal rather than the result of the Epic implementation.
As noted by another commenter, the emphasis on the ability to streamline EHR and health IT systems as a result of going with Epic appears to be motivated more by business concerns and less so for the improvement of healthcare delivery:
That Epic is “best of breed” is strong testimony to the current emphasis on business methods rather than quality healthcare. Isn’t it ironic that implementation of EHR has been partially sold as IMPROVING quality of care? Ten years from now we will all look back on this experiment with the same shame as our hunt for WMDs in Iraq. Just my opinion, of course.
—John
While it hasn’t reached the level of #EHRbacklash, it would not be at all surprising if #Epicbacklash were to appear and gain support given that those who are dissatisfied with the Epic EHR experience are more likely to voice their concerns than those who are not. Source
