CCHIT. . . Again.

At the risk of sounding a one-note tune lately, here's more CCHIT news.  We've had several focused and steadfastly anti-CCHIT comments recently and I've been thinking much about the subject.  It is, after all, our job to understand the issues of the day and this is clearly one of them.  However much I listen to and try to understand criticisms of CCHIT, though, I just can't help but feel like it's somewhat misguided.  This piece, for example, which isn't really news [in the sense that it isn't really new] points out that among the list of eleven newly certified EHR "[m]ost. . . are inexpensive products from small vendors. Health IT experts say that this undercuts claims by CCHIT critics that certification is a plot by big vendors to drive small ones out of the market. On the other hand, the fact that six products didn't make the cut this time suggests that many EHRs can't pass the test." Which is as it should be.  If they could all pass, then why would the test be necessary?  It does seem to beg the question: Why are these smaller, less expensive vendors getting involved if it's true that CCHIT is the shillelagh of the big, corporate vendors?  Hasn't anyone told them what's going on?

Comments

[William Bryson]

I'm sorry. That link didn't take. Here's the URL: http://calyxllc.typepad.com/it_for_healthcare/2006/09/cchit_biased_ag.html

[William Bryson]

Al,

We don't moderate comments. If there's something inappropriate (say a spammy ad or something of the sort) I'll go in and delete it but comments are generally published immediately. Just to be sure, I went in and checked all comments listed and I only have one from you and it was published. Check here to see if this is the one you are looking for. If not, let me know - resend it and I'll make sure it's up. Without a free flow of ideas, a forum like this is little more than a soapbox so we welcome your input.

[Alberto Borges, MD]

I posted a message, but was told it was being held up for "moderation". Can you please post it finally?