Hidden on the second page of an article on Information Week on healthcare IT was a quick comment regarding adoption of electronic medical records and their effect on malpractice insurance premiums. We all are aware that for the past several years, doctors have been told that if they implement EMR – with their superior documentation and coding compliance – they could expect a drop in the professional insurance costs.
But now there are reports that the opposite may be true. How could this be?
Well, I actually looked into this and couldn’t really substantiate it. I spoke with representatives of our own malpractice carrier FPIC and they said they have no plans to increase premiums on practices that adopt EMR and that it wouldn’t make much sense to do so. But that doesn’t really answer the question of whether or not there are insurance companies out there that have their reasons, whether publicly stated or not, for doing so.
Can it be that practices that document better are actually exposing themselves to more risk than their counterparts who are still charting on paper?
Are you aware of any cases where this has occurred?
