I feel a need to contradict some of Jon Bertman's post. My partner was on our state selection committee and spent some time researching the available products at the time (1 1/2 yrs ago.). The main reason AC did not make the cut is that it was not certified at the time. Additional reasons were that several hospitals had partnered with other EHR vendors to give an attractive price to a system which would allow for freer data exchange if adopted by all physicians in their service area as well as extensive IT support, and the rather small size of the AC company. As to the latter, a number of members of the group had been burned when one or another software vendor went out of business. In the eyes of the selection group, it was both a strength and a weakness of AC that it is so dependent on one person. What happens if Jon Bertman is hit by a train?

Having said that, you will notice that we chose AC. Our hospital was not interested in providing a group purchase and support program, and we ourselves do not need to look to long term support and enhancements as much as our practice horizon is relatively close. But, the group had to make a recommendation for the entire state, and that is how they chose.

It is precisely because the working group was comprised of practicing physicians that there is no big move afoot to revisit this. Everyone volunteered their time (lots of it), and no one is anxious to do it all over again.

Would things have been different if AC had been fully certified? Very likely. But it is unfair to characterize the choice as foolish or uninformed because AC was a day late and a dollar short.

Last edited by dgrauman; 05/01/2011 8:19 PM.
David Grauman MD
Department of Medicine
Commonwealth Health Center
Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands