CCHIT’s own “CCHIT Certified® program goes beyond ONC’s Stage 1 and 2 MU testing criteria. CCHIT Certified® ambulatory and hospital EHR products are “inspected against integrated functionality, interoperability and security criteria independently developed by CCHIT’s broadly representative, expert work groups. Using CCHIT’s testing methods, these products have been found in full compliance with the criteria in effect on the date of inspection.”

As of today, there are just 72 ambulatory and only 2 hospital EHRs that have achieved a CCHIT Certified® status. Although CCHIT also tests the EHRs it certifies for integrated functionality, interoperability and security for usability, their usability scores are not yet part of achieving the CCHIT Certified® status.

CCHIT’s ONC-authorized MU certification program has also certified 637 Eligible Provider (EP) ambulatory EHRs for Stage 1 MU (2011 Edition) and 11 for Stage 2 (2014 Edition) criteria along with 284 Eligible Hospital (EH) inpatient EHRs for Stage 1 and 6 for Stage 2 (https://www.cchit.org/find-onc).

Physicians and hospitals overwhelmed by the current total of 4,189 ambulatory and inpatient EHR products certified for MU Stage 1 and 2 on the ONC Certified Healthcare Product List (1,904 complete and 2,285 modular) should consider first examining the EHR products with dual CCHIT certification. These EHRs are tested by using both the more rigorous CCHIT Certified® testing criteria and the ONC-MU Stage 1 and 2 criteria.

Right now, only 110 ambulatory EHRs and 15 inpatient EHRs have achieved dual CCHIT certification for 2011/2012 and no EHR has yet become dually certified for 2014 (https://www.cchit.org/find-onc) .

Mike I agree with you that cost is most important factor in implementation of any product or system. But, it all depends upon vendor needs or requirements how that product satisfy or meet his requirements. One of the affordable EHR products which I found is Panacea. You can get more information about Panacea at http://www.oasite.com.

But as soon as you include a list of required usability factors, it becomes just another checklist that may or may not actually mean anything beneficial to the end user. “Usable” to who? New check box, still not likely to be all that useful. The problem is that the vendors have been so focused on the check-boxes that they haven’t had time or resources for the stuff that’s actually more important to us docs. At least part of your point was that there are TOO MANY products – artificially limiting the choices in the market through regulatory burden will significantly raise the cost of healthcare because for the cost of complying to be a disincentive for participation by vendors, the cost will have to be very very high. I think one can make a strong argument that the reason there are “some vendors with crappy certified products…making millions of taxpayer funded dollars” is precisely because of too much government regulation, not too little. (Had I stayed in private practice primary care, there was no way I was going to attempt meaningful use stage II. The stage I money was nice, the stage II requirements too steep. The coming penalties for not complying are one of the many reasons I left private practice primary care, and part of why I am looking to leave primary care altogether. There is a very real cost to making participation in a profession a regulatory nightmare especially when that profession is essential to the health of a society.)

These complications are true, as are the excess profits being earned by vendors hawking crappy products. My questions are still unanswered. Why are health care providers unable to decide what is a good product for them? If they are irrational or uninformed decision makers, then you must make an argument for how the CHPL will do a better job than thousands of providers making decisions in a market.

Also, you’ve got a answer why this adverse reaction to government intervention in the EHR market is a reason for more government intervention?

And even if there is a lot of junk on the market, is it not true that lots of entrepreneurs in a space is a good sign of innovation? Why should a politically motivated CHPL be able to choose which companies to bless and dictate how many vendors are on the market?