Revenue cycle issues are important but not the only factor. It's simply no longer economically feasible for provider organizations to maintain bespoke EHRs. The costs have gone up too much. They can't afford to pay developers to build and maintain all of the functionality now required due to federal interoperability rules compliance and escalating user expectations.
As opposed to the Epic MUMPS pile?
Epic has been sold in in Denmark and Finland, where it was a disaster, and then in Norway, where they failed to take lessons from the disasters. I don't think it's federal requirements which is the selling point there, though I wonder what the hell the selling point is, or what the Epic sales people put in acquirers' coffee.
I'm not talking about bespoke EHRs - the GP made the claim that only governmental insistence compels EHR decisions. If that were true, there wouldn't ever be a change from one EHR system to another.
But these get announced all the time, so the premise is false.
> They can't afford to pay developers to build and maintain all of the functionality now required due to federal interoperability rules
Yep, and more and more payors - government and private - are demanding systems that are both interoperable and audiable
Internal, bespoke systems are notoriously nightmarish for auditing