Effects of implementing electronic medical records on primary care billings and payments: a before-after study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several barriers to the adoption of electronic medical records (EMRs) by family physicians have been discussed, including the costs of implementation, impact on work flow and loss of productivity. We examined billings and payments received before and after implementation of EMRs among primary care physicians in the province of Ontario. We also examined billings and payments before and after switching from a fee-for-service to a capitation payment model, because EMR implementation coincided with primary care reform in the province. METHODS: We used information from the Electronic Medical Record Administrative Data Linked Database (EMRALD) to conduct a retrospective before-after study. The EMRALD database includes EMR data extracted from 183 community-based family physicians in Ontario. We included EMRALD physicians who were eligible to bill the Ontario Health Insurance Plan at least 18 months before and after the date they started using EMRs and had completed a full 18-month period before Mar. 31, 2011, when the study stopped. The main outcome measures were physicians' monthly billings and payments for office visits and total annual payments received from all government sources. Two index dates were examined: the date physicians started using EMRs and were in a stable payment model (n = 64) and the date physicians switched from a fee-for-service to a capitation payment model (n = 42). RESULTS: Monthly billings and payments for office visits did not decrease after the implementation of EMRs. The overall weighted mean annual payment from all government sources increased by 27.7% after the start of EMRs among EMRALD physicians; an increase was also observed among all other primary care physicians in Ontario, but it was not as great (14.4%). There was a decline in monthly billings and payments for office visits after physicians changed payment models, but an increase in their overall annual government payments. INTERPRETATION: Implementation of EMRs by primary care physicians did not result in decreased billings or government payments for office visits. Further economic analyses are needed to measure the effects of EMR implementation on productivity and the costs of implementing an EMR system, including the costs of nonclinical work by physicians and their staff.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".