First, I would like to applaud Bertman for coming clean in his post and in doing so in a humorous way. Be it clear that I am a long time supporter of Amazing Charts and still am. Our clients that have AC love it and I have found it very easy to integrate with AC's database as opposed to other EMR's.
Disclosure: I am the software developer and IT support for a billing company.
At this point, I would like to address some of the comments made since Bertman's.
Doug,
Are you sure you would go with someone else so easily? AC is a great EMR. Is the other EMR as good? Are you robbing Peter to pay Paul in that the other EMR may integrate but you would lose much in features and useability? Or, perhaps you would be better of switching PM's to one that does interface with AC?
It may be that you could build an interface. I use SQL Server Integration Services to interface with Amazing Charts and many others. What PM are you using? I may be able to advise you.
todd,
Why are you hesitant? If you have used AC for many years and like it, it sounds like you already have your answer. Perhaps you could elaborate on what the big hold up is. . .
EasyRider,
Clearly, you have never been in a situation where outside investors are involved. I can assure you, that is not a smooth ride. When you take their money, you take their sheet as well. Outside investors want a quick return on their money and they start pulling all kinds of strings to get it. One of the first things I can see changing should outside investors get involved is the price of Amazing Charts. Think about it. You just gave Bertman $5 million. When you look at the average price of the EMR market and you see that AC is charging only a small fraction of what everyone else charges, you're going to ask why. You're going to walk up to Bertman and ask him why he is leaving that kind of money on the table. At this point, Bertman is going to give you his "kind capitalism" speech. And then you're going to ask why you shouldn't take your money back. Interestingly enough, in
another thread you made the comment: "If a business deal involves the word "trust" - just walk away and feel good that you avoided a disaster." Yet, you expect someone to just trust Bertman with their money to solve your problems for you. How do you resolve that?
The reason version 7 isn't ready yet is simple: Bertman underestimated the complexity of writing a PM system and I applaud him for admitting to it. I've written an ANSI 837 generator for sending claims and an ANSI 835 parser for auto-posting remittance. It took me 6 months to get my 837 generator to be accepted by Zirmed. When we switched to RealMed, I then had to make several changes for them. It took me 4 months to get my 835 parser to work correctly and post payments as it should. And in the years since, I've had to make several changes because of all the little stunts BCBS and Medicare/Medicaid like to pull. Now you know why most PM's have a "preferred clearinghouse." It's very difficult to write a 837 generator and 835 parser that will be universally accepted.
And if a developer as good as I am spent a year just on those two things, what about the rest of it? How do you mesh user interfaces such that everything flows and makes sense? What database changes will be needed? How will you handle upgrades so that a practice'ss database will be upgraded with zero dataloss? All those partners you have that interface with you - how will their systems be broken when they realize version 7 has all these new tables and several existing tables will be changed?
Lastly, I fail to see why AC should fail just because they don't have a PM. Many practices already have a PM solution, such as my company, and just want an EMR. I think AC does a great job of filling in the best need with the best product.
Please think these things through. You may find that you have most of the answers already.
JamesNT
.png "ACUF Donor I")
