- During a Tuesday hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, the Director of Interoperability at Epic Systems revealed the EHR vendor charges $2.35 on a per-patient, per-year basis for Epic EHR end-users to exchange data with other providers.
"We charge on a per-patient, per-year basis — so it's not per transaction — and it's the same whether that patient is sent to a hundred different places or one another place. And that charge is $2.35," Peter DeVault said into response to a question posed by Senator Bill Cassidy, MD (R-LA).
DeVault was one of four witnesses who participating in the hearing, "America’s Health IT Transformation: Translating the Promise of Electronic Health Records Into Better Care."
Inquiries about the costs of EHR interoperability, however, began earlier than this exchange between Sen. Cassidy and DeVault when Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) began asking questions of the panel, which led to a curious exchange on the relationship between health IT standards and interoperability costs:
Lawsuit: Adventist failed to protect PHI of 763K patients Home health ploy to defraud Medicare leads to guilty plea CMS Clarifies Meaningful Use Broadband Hardship Exceptions Fraudulent EHR Use Leads to Multi-Million Dollar Settlement Is healthcare finally ready for big data, analytics? Patient EMR access leads to more clinical services Senate Passes Bill For VA EHR Interoperability, Funding Tips for Overcoming Health Information Exchange Challenges VA’s Levin, Baker resign ahead of Congressional iEHR hearing CMS Offers Aid for Clinical Quality Measure Reporting in MIPS Taking the physician perspective on EHR-HIT optimization ECRI Institute helps hospitals reach 2014 Alarm Safety Goal Will Watson help solve the mystery of the missing DOD EHR? You may have been misinformed about Stage 2 Five ways EHR implementation benefits healthcare providers How 2014 Proved the Need for Long-Term Care EHR Technology More Industry Groups Voice Opinions on Proposed MACRA Rules Highlights of HIMSS13: ICD-10 takes the spotlight ICD-10 Compliance a Struggle for Some Physician Practices Why patient engagement technology makes sense for providers California Overpays $23.2M in Medicaid EHR Incentive Payments NSF awards Health Fidelity big data EHR research grant Central Valley, Inland Empire HIE align to share health data Wake Forest’s Epic woes continue with slashed worker raises Accountable Care, Quality Metrics Must Combine for Improvement 3 Actions “Critical” to Advancing Healthcare Interoperability PCORI offers $206 million for patient care research EHRA responds to ONC HIE queries Pediatricians may face trouble with “convoluted” ICD-10 codes Legal Impetus for Strengthening Heath Information Governance Update on Apria Healthcare health data breach Ventura Country approves millions for EHR training ICD-10 Coding Concerns Dispelled with 5 CMS Facts Stage 1 Meaningful Use Checklist Connectathon 2013 to test interoperability Texas Health Information Exchange Receives EHNAC Accreditation Adding Consent-Based Exchange to a HIPAA-Based HIE Recapping Important HIMSS 2016 EHR Interoperability News Ambulatory EHR challenges from IDC webinar Disappointment pours in after ICD-10 delay, SGR fix vote Rural health as a training ground for HIE, healthcare reform False congratulations on the road to meaningful use How best to prepare for adoption of a cloud-based EMR What Resources Advance ICD-10 Transition Preparedness? Final Steps to Take Before the ICD-10 Implementation Deadline Manhattan Physician Group leans on EHR Hospitals doubted ICD-10 readiness of payers, providers in 2014 CMS Issues Merit-based Incentive Payment Systems Guidance Provider Consortium in OH Promotes Value-Based Care, EHR Use What ramifications will HIMSS14 have for health IT? How to run integrated testing of ICD-10, coding systems NIH Clinics Receive Stage 7 HIMSS Award for EHR Adoption MA House votes against EHR proficiency rule for licensure How Improving Physician EHR Use Can Benefit the Diagnoses Georgia Tech Furthers VA Vision for EHR Interoperability ICD-10 education, CDI training must be flexible for physicians Is Public Perception Negatively Impacting Epic Systems? How Health IT Interoperability Is Driving Healthcare M&A Oncologists Seek EHR Interoperability for Better Cancer Care Data analytics, info sharing vital to HHS nominee’s approach GAO, ACHCI highlight shortcomings of CMS Medicare oversight AHIMA applauds the new CMS plan for ICD-10 implementation Health information exchange grew by leaps and bounds in 2013 Immediate support pours in for ICD-10 testing decision What determines the efficiency of risk-based models, ACOs? EHR, HIE lessons learned by Colorado Beacon Consortium How HIE Helped One Health System Meet Stage 2 Meaningful Use Providers Look to Healthcare Analytics But Lack Strategy Radiologists slow to attest to Stage 1 Meaningful Use despite 90% eligibility Why EHR Clinical Decision Support Tools Need More Research Clinical Research to Gain from Health IT Interoperability Can Dell’s Latitude 10 grab a piece of the mHealth market, too? Study shows health IT’s positive, negative effects on safety Google Glass is making a convincing case for healthcare Kaiser Permanente joins DreamIT Baltimore accelerator How is CMS planning for provider ICD-10 testing in 2015? NWU Project for Patient-Reported Outcomes, EHR Integration McKesson to give away $1 million in software OIG Warns EHR Users of Information Blocking Consequences Post-acute care quality bill moves from House to Senate Q&A: Meaningful use is a patch for “the sins of the past” Researchers Propose ‘Health Information Exchange of One’ Clinical decision tools help emergency rooms reduce drug errors Ahead of ICD-10, where do payers rank on claims processing? How do mandates affect docs, health IT staff differently? ICD-10 Best Practices: Education and training CMS Clarifies Meaningful Use Attestation for Medicaid EPs CMS tool helps providers determine meaningful use in 2014 MBTC offers Medicare EHR Incentive Program training HELP Committee Passes Bills Supporting 21st Century Cures Act Patients Seek Physician Improvement in Health Data Exchange Arizona Eliminates State HIE Fees for Community Members Merits of investigating healthcare fraud well underestimated How standardization can put EHR adopters on the right path Oct. 2: ONC to Discuss New 2014 Edition EHR Certification Patient Engagement, Security Top the List among Hospitals Pathway for SGR Reform Act provides 3-month Medicare fix Health IT as an enabler, disabler in the patient experience Why a Full-Year Meaningful Use Reporting Period Worries CIOs How the Integrated Epic EHR/PM System Handles Reporting
WARREN: Once we have uniform standards, can we expect that health information exchange will be easier and cheaper:
DEVAULT: It's a very good question and often I hear that the problem with interoperability is the lack of standards and I would argue that's a minor problem compared to some of the others. We have had standards for several years now for being able to interoperate with some kinds of data —
WARREN: I'm sorry — Let me make sure I’m following this. Are you saying we already have uniform standards?
DEVAULT: We don't have standards for everything. We have standards for being able to exchange some information such as medications, laboratory results, problem lists —
WARREN: But we saw the business here: X-rays, blood tests —
DEVAULT: Absolutely, there's much more work to be done. However, we can do a lot of important —
WARREN: And so the question I'm asking is when we get standards, would we expect that the cost of creating interoperability among systems would decline?
DEVAULT: It will eventually decline. Here are some of the costs that —
WARREN: I just want to focus right now on this question about what standards will do for us and how it is that we get this cost down. And so I assume having better standards means we get these costs beaten down, at least some. There may be other issues going on here.
DEVAULT: Once they're implemented.
When Sen. Cassidy began his period of questioning, the focus turned to the specific costs on enabling health information exchange between providers.
"We're hearing over and over again about the cost," he said. "You all have 50-percent market share, so I guess that kind of looks, you know, at you. How much to you all charge each practice for each patient to interface with, if you will, to put each patient into Epic and to share their data?"
In response, DeVault revealed that costs fall into two categories for Epic, creating the connecting and charging for software licensing. The former is less predictable. "The creating the connection to begin with to that other system can wary widely. We charge for that based on an hourly fee," he stated.
DeVault did note that experience working with certain EHR vendors did make the process more straightforward. "With some vendors we have done it so many times that it is plug and play. For example, when we connect to a Greenway, we have done that many times," he added.
Moreover, Epic's Director of Interoperability credited Stage 2 Meaningful Use requirements with removing barriers to interoperability in the form of health IT standards.
"We have seen a large uptick in the last year and a half of our customers being able to connect easily to non-Epic systems," he described. "Previously, that was not the case — different implementations of standards was an impediment and now some of that has shaken out. That is reducing the cost of those connections significantly and the time to implementation."
While Epic was the only EHR vendor taking part in the hearing, its approach to charging for EHR interoperability provides insight into how a large portion of EHR adopters goes about paying for health data exchange among Epic and non-Epic EHR end-users.