I'm not opposed to fees if we get appropriate service and value for it. Note to AC: you can charge more but at least promise faster/better service in relation to what you are charging for. As opposed to saying we're spending a lot of time on X, let's charge for it and continue same service as usual - that's what does not go over well..
The problem is there are a boatload of interfaces and small amounts of people that use them. I suspect (and may have been told, I honestly don't remember (other board members can chime in)) that a large percentage of calls are for a small number of clients.
This is commonly true 80% of use being 20% of the group (don't quote those numbers, I know they are not correct but the idea...) and additionally an inordinate number of calls are interface issues.
While it can be argued that better interfaces would require less support, mine work well (but could be streamlined) and I suspect most do. Many people have interfaces that are not used much but take up resources.
They are not charging for eRx (probably the MOST expensive interface, I know early on (under Bertman) there was a $40 monthly fee for this, it has been folded into the overall support fee.)
They are also not charging for state interfaces for vaccines, which they are still working.
I'm not defending, I do not relish paying extra money next year, but at least it makes some kind of sense.
They gotta make money somewhere. Would you rather they raise the price on everyone for the support of a few?
