I feel today medical practitioners are looking to avail of this federal incentive by trying to comply with the definition of meaningful use but at the same time EHR providers are looking at their own set of profits.
This misunderstanding is mostly I believe as a result of wrong interpretation of the federal guidelines.. The EHR providers need to look at these guidelines from the prospective of the practitioners who deal with different specialties.
Each specialty EHR has its own set of challenges or requirements which I believe is overlooked by in most EHR vendors in a effort to merely follows federal guidelines. This is resulting in low usability to the practitioners, thus less ROI, finally redundancy of the EHR solution in place.
I think ROI is very important factor that should be duly considered when look achieve a ‘meaning use’ out of a EHR solution. Though one may get vendors providing ‘meaning use’ at a lower cost, their ROI / savings through the use of their EHR might be pretty low when compared to costlier initial investment. Found a pretty useful ROI tool that is pretty customizable and easy to use. It also accounts for the different specialty EHR’s too.
Also the introduction of REC’s through the HITECH act. is a great way to avail of quality EHR solutions at competitive prices. The stiff competition among not only these REC’s but also among EHR vendors ( to become a preferred vendor of a given REC) will result in lot of positives to medical practioners.
Looking the funding provided to the REC’s, the staggered grant allocation system also promises to be an unbiased way of allocating funds. It will also help in the concept of REC’s helping out each with their own unique business models. It can be one of the possible answers to the ‘safe EHR vendor’ challenge as discussed by many critics.

Sorry to have diverted a bit from the topic but I feel this HITECT act and the REC’s are going to play an important role, as discussed above in the successful EHR implementation in the medical practices in our country.

As far as implementation challenges goes, the federal guidelines for certification and usability are pretty much clear. Useful improvisation on these lines can make ones EHR’s friendly to most practices of varying specialties.

Be patient – thing move in big slow waves in healthcare.

Cooperation as a community seems to be the trick…read more @
http://iagllc.blogspot.com/2010/02/should-cowpaths-of-cooperation-be-first.html#more

A few things that I noticed were:

As you mention Microsoft has stepped it up with HVCC which is good for me because we just become HealthVault partners.

Platforms: Makes total sense, add software engineering to healthcare and you get platforms. BEA, ATG, WebSphere just to name a few that modernized Internet sites. If they build platforms like these, it will revolutionize the building and customizing of health care systems.

Google Health: Looks like Google is moving from “science project” to a real PHR. They have also removed their beta label from the site. I spoke with one of their engineers and they told me that they are adding things like full compliant CCR and CCD compliance. They are also planning more support for developers with has been an issue in the past.
Regardless of what you think about Google in the PHR space it will help bring overall exposure to the concept.

Even though I saw a lot and learned a little less than I expected, I really enjoyed the show and look forward to the next one.

Next year I predict will be the year of wireless innovation across the spectrum, from home healthcare to in-patient devices, which are currently in majority RS-232 (unbelievable)

Jeff Brandt
http://www.hieconnect.net