by Joseph Ingemi

Like most programs, the Health IT Regional Extension Centers (RECs) that are being established across the nation as mandated by the stimulus are a great idea in theory. Their intent was to encourage the adoption of EMRs by providers by disseminating best practices for adoption. But what is the reality on the ground?

[More:]

I think the RECs are setting themselves up for failure in two areas. First, they do not get around the issue of providers simply not wanting to adopt EMRs. For whatever reason, providers do not think that EMRs help them in any way. Many subscribe to the idea that if it isn't broken, don't fix it. Others feel that the effort and cost (even after subsidies) is not worth the benefit. Providers tend to focus on innovation that allows them to deliver more billable services and/or speed up payment. From the providers' perspective, EMRs do not facilitate this goal. RECs do not provide a solution to this psychological obstacle.

Second, are RECs really providing best practices or integrated solution or are they becoming cattle calls for EMR providers? It seems that quite a few RECS are issuing Requests for Proposal geared toward EMR vendors. If the Office of the National Coordinator (ONC) is issuing the framework for EMRs through Meaningful Use, then what is the value-added of RECs? They will effectively become catalogues for preferred EMR vendors. This seems like another layer of bureaucracy rather than a tool for implementation.

With such little interest in Health IT adoption, the federal government cannot create even perceived boondoggles for everyone. This only will lead to more misgivings about the federal government's role. My recommendation would be to spend REC resources in other areas such as funding greater bandwidth for providers.

Joseph Ingemi is a blogger, Certified Information Systems Auditor, and certified Project Management Professional who writes about healthcare IT issues. He also consults on healthcare IT issues through his company, Pinarus Technologies.