<< Back to Summary 
Virtually every healthcare authority agrees that EMR systems will improve healthcare and reduce costs. It's therefore beneficial to rapidly convert paper medical records into EMR as soon as possible. If Microsoft offered you money to place patient's medical records in their online EMR system, and if the patient was aware that you are receiving compensation for that, would you accept remuneration for placing a patient's medical records on HealthVault or the equivalent?
#Response DateOther (please specify)
1.11/12/2007 7:52:00 PMDon't know, time-consuming and not necessarily updated
2.11/12/2007 8:57:00 PMpossibly
3.11/13/2007 3:07:00 AMdo not agree that EMR improves care or reduces costs
4.11/14/2007 5:19:00 PMbecause it would pay for other costs needed to run the EMR
5.11/14/2007 7:48:00 PMplease do not change MD into money addict secretary.... patient has to do it him/herself, for free or not (not my problem)
6.11/14/2007 8:49:00 PMIt has cost our medium sized multispecialty group $millions to start up and maintinance for hardware, software. trining everyone upgradestemporay unavailability,etc,etc.This is not a financial burden that can be added onto pactitioners and the current reimburement systems do no accomodate such costs even if one were willing to pass them on to Patients.
7.11/15/2007 1:37:00 AMWhy would they give money for records ? Are they somehow utilizing them for data banks for others ?
8.11/15/2007 11:45:00 PMnot for my own patients
9.11/16/2007 4:18:00 AMlikely
10.11/17/2007 8:59:00 PMi would want to recoup what it costs for me to print out the record and to pay an employee to fax them
11.11/19/2007 2:00:00 PMI would have to seek legal advice.
12.11/19/2007 7:01:00 PMyes, if we had patient's consent
13.11/19/2007 10:40:00 PMMaybe - if remuneration covered expenses
14.11/20/2007 5:36:00 AMNot until ethical guidelines of this were well clarified with my patients colleages and the College of Physicians and Surgeons
15.11/20/2007 3:14:00 PMNot sure Maybe to cover costs I would
16.11/20/2007 8:39:00 PMOnly if it was necessary to pay extra personnel to do it. I would not accept personal remuneration.
17.11/22/2007 4:41:00 PMnot sure
18.11/22/2007 5:04:00 PMdepends on how much time it takes for me or my staff
19.11/22/2007 5:16:00 PMWe still prefer a paper office
20.11/22/2007 5:39:00 PMassuming the money compensated for the time needed to transfer the records
21.11/22/2007 5:40:00 PMneed more info for decision
22.11/22/2007 5:44:00 PMn/a
23.11/22/2007 5:48:00 PMI would only accept enough to cover any additional costs to me of using the service, and would explain that to my patients.
24.11/22/2007 5:55:00 PMwith patient permission
25.11/22/2007 5:59:00 PMneed to know more
26.11/22/2007 6:01:00 PMWould consider, depending on amount. Our records are written--costs of converting to online EMR might be pretty high.
27.11/22/2007 6:05:00 PMthis is not ethical
28.11/22/2007 6:28:00 PMWe would have to discuss the specifics..not the money, but the use of the information...first.
29.11/22/2007 6:37:00 PMdo not know. Need more information
30.11/22/2007 7:06:00 PMmaybe
31.11/22/2007 7:20:00 PMwork= time = expenses why should we not be conpensated
32.11/22/2007 7:21:00 PMyes because this entails a huge amount of work and resources
33.11/22/2007 7:23:00 PMdon't know
34.11/22/2007 8:01:00 PMONLY if the the amount of money was significant for the first time upload, there was an interface created and paid for by Microsoft and I got an monthly AND annual stipend for maintaining records, critical in Primary care that is already severely underpaid and overworked to not have Family Physicians do even more for the same or less.
35.11/22/2007 8:40:00 PMAgain, the information is the patient's, so we would comply. But we would have our Enterprise Record as our source of truth. We would potentially update, after validation with patient, our enterprise record with data that was reviewed from Health Vault.,
36.11/22/2007 9:19:00 PMonly with the patient's agreement
37.11/22/2007 9:36:00 PMmaybe
38.11/22/2007 11:04:00 PMOnly to cover the costs of doing so.
39.11/22/2007 11:37:00 PMThe first sentence is yet an assumption, a good one, but as yet unproved. Storing paper electronically is not an EMR
40.11/23/2007 12:08:00 AMmaybe
41.11/23/2007 12:29:00 AMMaybe--but what strings are attached?
42.11/23/2007 12:49:00 AMThis idea is a scary one. What's the motivation, what use for this information does Microsoft have in mind that they're not disclosing?
43.11/23/2007 1:04:00 AMonly if forced to do so
44.11/23/2007 1:09:00 AMI don't know if that is appropriate
45.11/23/2007 1:20:00 AMpossibly, I need more information
46.11/23/2007 2:15:00 AMuncertain. the uploading of paper files is time consuming
47.11/23/2007 2:36:00 AMI think this would be considered a kick back and illegal
48.11/23/2007 3:40:00 AMb/c the contract would now **require** Microsoft to maintain the records, not just permit them to do so.
49.11/23/2007 4:01:00 AMnot applicable - we have no paper charts
50.11/23/2007 1:04:00 PMYes, I would be inclined to do so, however, physicians must be cautious about accepting rebates because of how it appears and what it infers (that we are not acting biased)
51.11/23/2007 1:30:00 PMnot sure
52.11/23/2007 2:05:00 PMActually, this statement is false, EMR may be improving healthcare in some aspects but may also be incresing errors elsewhere. Also, there is no good scientific proof that EMRs save any money. THis has been an assumption and not reality when the total costs have been looked at.
53.11/23/2007 2:11:00 PMProbably; need to account for Stark issues, obviously. (Nb: Virtually every healthcare authority agrees that EMR systems will improve healthcare and reduce costs TO THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. It's therefore beneficial TO THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, NOT NECESSARILY TO ME AS AN INDIVIDUAL PRACTITIONER, to rapidly convert paper medical records into EMR as soon as possible.IN FACT, AS AN INDIVIDUAL CLINICIAN IT'S MORE LIKELY TO COST THAN SAVE.)
54.11/23/2007 2:15:00 PMsee #16
55.11/23/2007 2:20:00 PMI also think a charge for this could be included in the patient's bill
56.11/23/2007 2:24:00 PMOnly if Healthvault met my speciality specific needs.
57.11/23/2007 2:30:00 PMwith the full knowledge and consent of the patient concerning the issues raised above
58.11/23/2007 3:31:00 PMI ALSO REJECT THE PREMISE- EMR IS COSTLY AND TIME CONSUMING, AND THUS FAR HAS SAVED NOTHING, IT HAS ADDED COSTS, REDUCED EFFICIENCY
59.11/23/2007 3:43:00 PMnot sure
60.11/23/2007 3:57:00 PMHowever, it is my experience in our hospital that the existence of an EMR actually INCREASES paper consumption.
61.11/23/2007 4:27:00 PMif I decided it was worthwhile
62.11/23/2007 5:01:00 PMPossibly
63.11/23/2007 6:00:00 PMyes (the money would go for staff time to input the information)
64.11/23/2007 6:59:00 PMPossibly--would need to evaluate the whole agreement to answer this
65.11/23/2007 7:30:00 PMThe compensation must be commensurate to the effort and cost of switching.
66.11/23/2007 8:41:00 PMI have some concerns about the ethics of above
67.11/23/2007 8:56:00 PMI don't know
68.11/23/2007 9:59:00 PMAlredy are doing that with my vendor
69.11/23/2007 10:59:00 PMQuite frankly, there should be a national system, not piecemeal like you propose.
70.11/24/2007 12:39:00 AMI would not personally accept remuneration; but I would have no objection to the hospital's acceptance, if it was allowed by the O.I.G. of C.M.S.
71.11/24/2007 5:37:00 AMAlthough I disagree with these so-called authorities. Again, the devil is in the details.
72.11/24/2007 6:58:00 AMIT WOULD HAVE TO BE AWFULLY GOOD REMUNIRATION. A TOKEN AMOUNT WOULD NOT BE WORTH THE TROUBLE. YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE DOCTORS WORK EASIER AND ADD TO THE QUALITY OF MEDICINE AS WELL AS THE QUALITY OF THE DOCTOR PATIENT RELATIONSHIP AND THE DOCTOR'S LIFE IN GENERAL.
73.11/24/2007 3:03:00 PMFor Costs Only
74.11/24/2007 7:12:00 PMProbably
75.11/24/2007 9:17:00 PMunsure
76.11/24/2007 10:34:00 PMTo cover the office costs of personnel and time.
77.11/25/2007 12:48:00 AMThere is evidence to suggest that EMR does NOT improve patient care.
78.11/25/2007 1:37:00 AMNot sure.
79.11/25/2007 1:55:00 AMPossibly, but only if the patient specifically requested we do so.
80.11/25/2007 2:53:00 AMif it is enough
81.11/25/2007 7:08:00 PMi already have emr.
82.11/26/2007 2:04:00 AMIf the security and data access issues are resolved
83.11/26/2007 3:03:00 AMONLY health-care PAYORS want EMR. Significant research shows EMR does NOT improve quality of care for the patient
84.11/26/2007 11:04:00 AMin theory; however, in reality i work for a large healthcare entity and would not be able to accept remuneration for the above described scenario
85.11/26/2007 2:28:00 PMIt might be needed to support the personnel to enter the data into the new electronic system
86.11/26/2007 9:42:00 PMI would consider that.
87.11/27/2007 1:16:00 AMmaybe
88.11/27/2007 2:13:00 AMI work for Los Angeles County health system--they would have to make that decision.
89.11/27/2007 3:55:00 AMThere are privacy laws. I am sure most patients would not agree to online medical records
90.11/27/2007 1:06:00 PMconverting charts to EMR is time consuming!
91.11/27/2007 3:30:00 PMour hospital controls all these issues
92.11/27/2007 8:20:00 PMCOMPENSATION FOR TIME AND EFFORT
93.11/27/2007 10:17:00 PMI disagree with your assertion that EMRs are the answer for every problem. There is evidence that quality is not improved and our system costs us more money not less.
94.11/28/2007 2:55:00 PMAgain, the Medical Center would decide.
95.11/28/2007 9:02:00 PMif it could be documented that the money was directly paying for the costof the transfer of info.
96.11/29/2007 9:17:00 PMSee #9
97.11/29/2007 11:05:00 PMUncertain
98.11/30/2007 12:13:00 AMif the patient wanted it
99.11/30/2007 1:51:00 PMDepends on the TIME it takes to use the EMR. The most valuable commodity in the office is my TIME - if the EMR takes longer to chart than paper with check off boxes or a scribe, then it is too expensive even if it is free.