I am not a neurologist so my comments may not be as useful, but:
We started with AC as just an interim solution while we continued to shop for the perfect emr. I believe we started with Version 4.0 (maybe 3.something?) The improvements/upgrades have been delightful and are coming as fast as Jon can manage, but never fast enough to satisfy me. They are however faster than I can integrate everything.
We sould love to have the billing, but are getting along with one girl, (for three Dr's) copying all the billing from AC into EZ claims and billing from there. That is really no different than billing from a paper chart.
The critical issue (IMHO) is can you see the patients and chart them efficiently? If you are too slow to chart in a system then the billing becomes mote since you won't have much to bill!
AC HAS been so intuitive that no training was really needed, but Version 5 has a lot of bells and whistles, I am not sure I am using every feature yet. I do LOVE the e-scripts! It is such a STUNNING improvement over the prior system.
And as for the local IPA favoring one emr over another? Our local IPA wanted e-Clinical works and I believe part of the appeal was the internet based system would allow them "the utility of doing chart audits without disrupting your practice". Uh, NO, that's a deal breaker for me. That database is an asset that I only dimly understand the value of, but I know I want to keep it in house. One example of the data I want to mine, or dole out to the IPA that deserves my business is the ability to search for who in my practice is turning 65 next year. Medicare HMO lives are a valuable asset. I'll be trying to hang onto them.
