Healthcare administrators must ensure that implementation of electronic health records software will enable their practice to improve patient care as well as increase fiscal benefits for it to be economically viable. Computing a return on investment (ROI) is important to evaluate whether the transition to the new system was successful in achieving the desired results.

The Costs:

Before taking this initiative, members from different departments, including the Administration and Operations units, should be engaged to carry out a detailed cost benefit analysis. This will help identify all possible methods of saving expenses and prospects to increase revenue. Other than the direct cost connected to EHR, there are also a number of hidden costs associated with it that may be difficult to compute and identify. These include custom interfaces charges, training of staff to adapt to the new system specific to the practice and ongoing maintenance etc. These expenses also consist of hardware that’s necessary to switch from a paper-based or semi-automated system to a fully automated one such as: database servers, laptops, printers, scanners, computers, tablets etc. During the transition period, changes in workflow may affect productivity briefly and cause temporary time management issues; however with the best EHR software, its usability will easily become second nature to all members of the staff.

Covering Implementation Costs:

A recent study at University of California, San Francisco, found that providers (including small practices) were easily able to recover EHR implementation costs in the short time span of approximately two and a half years. In fact, some saw it as the foremost reason behind their rapid financial improvement. The research also stated that as the medical industry continues to focus on quality of healthcare delivered rather than number/volume of patients, the ROI for EHR deployment will continue to grow.

Enhancing Revenue:

According to the UCSF study, accurate coding levels, charting, advanced reporting & analysis, and better tools were the key resources that made billing process and revenue cycle management simpler whilst saving time and money as well as improving outcomes. Savings ranged from $3,040 to $41,711 per FTE provider and revenue grew by $33,000 per FTE provider annually. Practices were able to increase efficiency and cut down administration costs up to $42,500 per FTE provider every year. The system was also able to eliminate supply redundancies and reduce overhead by decreasing or reallocating staff such as transcribers, record keepers etc. This made workflow increasingly efficient and value-based. As a result of processes being streamlined, more patients could be accommodated in a day which subsequently generated added revenue.

Adopting new technology also has certain reimbursement payments associated with them; in this case, Meaningful Use incentives for practices that meet the requirements and fulfill CMS guidelines, which further raises to the ROI.

In conclusion, incentives of EHR adoption are numerous and it is clearly a practice-building, cost-saving solution that provides long term operational and financial benefits, simultaneously increasing delivery of care as well as patient satisfaction.