This book includes a plain text version that is designed for high accessibility. To use this version please follow this link.
in 2009?” (See Figure 1.) While many EMR developers said they felt no impact, 11 percent saw a benefi t from ARRA; EMR sales were down for 29 percent of EMR developers in 2009, so ARRA’s net impact was adverse on EMR developers by a factor of 3:1.


Since we are halfway through 2010, the EMR Bench- mark posed the question: “How are the continuing delays in defi ning MU impacting your business in 2010?” Figure 2 provides the following insights.


The results of the continued delay in resolving MU is becoming worse. In 2010 the group positively affected shrinks to 8 percent, and the group unaffected by the de- lay in defi ning MU shrinks to only 37 percent (down from 61 percent a year ago), while those that are adversely affected grows from 29 percent to 56 percent.


ment, which is one of the things ARRA was supposed to address. The answers are illuminated by Figure 3.


Figure 3 – Copyright 2010 by MSP. All rights reserved. Figure 1 – Copyright 2010 by MSP. All rights reserved.


Therefore, seven times more EMR developers are adversely impacted by Washington’s delays in clarifying MU, than those that are positive affected. In justifying ARRA the Obama administration claimed that unemployment would be held at 8 percent or below.


In 2009, there was some positive impact on jobs for 32 percent of EMR vendors. Yet there was negative impact, as well, for 11 percent who reported it caused layoffs. EMR developers with existing market share, who were receiving annual maintenance fees from current users of legacy and proprietary computer platforms, could af- ford to add new employees, building for the time when MU was clarifi ed, and the EMR market would reignite. However, newer EMR developers without large installed bases (paying maintenance revenues) and without a war chest of venture capital funding, would have to layoff employees to keep their reduced income in balance by reducing expenses (reducing headcount). Yet these are the very EMR products that support current standards and have the latest hardware platforms. But that was only the initial impact in 2009. Now it is mid-year 2010 so what is the impact now? Figure 4 indicates the impact.


Figure 4 – Copyright 2010 by MSP. All rights reserved. Figure 2 – Copyright 2010 by MSP. All rights reserved.


Now it is at approximately 10 percent nationally, but what about in the EMR market? After all, EMR adop- tion is a key underpinning of the massive health reform bill just forced through the Congress by the Democrats. What are some of these negative impacts of MU? How does failure to clarify MU impact jobs in the EMR seg-


www.healthmgttech.com


Eleven percent of EMR developers had to reduce jobs in 2009, and 8 percent had to reduce jobs again in 2010. However, while 32 percent of the EMR developers added jobs in 2009, only 16 percent planned to add more in 2010. For 76 percent of the EMR developers the delay in MU defi nition had no impact on jobs. So the ARRA legislation, through July 2010, has caused 24 percent of


HEALTH MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY July 2010 19


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36
Produced with Yudu - www.yudu.com