Comentarios: We have about eight months into this software and are still struggling with very basic issues such as claims not making it to the carrier and reports not functioning to our (or our clients') level of expectation. I cannot report on many fields in the system and despite being told in the beginning that their reporting tool was being enhanced and we could report on individual fields, and spend additional money to export data so we could create our own reports.
Clients are increasingly frustrated with inability to get eligibility checks on many of their common carriers and to get anything much beyond just confirmation of coverage (not outline of actual benefits, etc.) Collections module is clunky and we have not found it to be effective.
On the upside, claims entry is fairly simple, and auto posting is a breeze, as is data entry of patient information.
Puntos a favor: Autoposting is fantastic. We find it does it correctly close to 100% of the time. When the system cannot effectively autopost, it "flags" the RA so that you can address it individually. When we initially converted, we found that importing patient demographics was refreshingly simple and something we could do on our own without additional costs.
Patient demographics are easy to enter and maintain.
Puntos en contra: Reporting is completely ineffective. Canned reports don't balance against each other, and it's hard to quantify values. Not much assistance from Customer Service, although they do try to be helpful.
EDI process has been nothing short of challenging. From enrollment issues in the beginning to claims submission and follow-up issues, we are finding as we work AR several months later we're still having issues with some of our claims from early on which can't seem to arrive at the payer, despite acceptance confirmation from Healthfusion/ENS. It's costing us hours of time on the phone and lost productivity. We also cannot actually see the acceptance reports and are told we can't have access to those because they're in larger batches, which again creates additional phone calls and work on our part.
Dermatology Office Using MediTouch's HealthFusion for nearly 1 year
Revisado el 05.12.2016
Translate with Google
Práctica médica, 2-10 empleados
Ha utilizado el software durante:
Fuente del revisor
Facilidad de uso
Características y funcionalidad
Asistencia al cliente
Comentarios: In 2015, I spent countless hours reviewing/sampling one EHR after another to find a good fit for what we needed/wanted in an EHR. We were moving from paper and wanted a cloud-based solution. As a dermatology office, we absolutely need the ability to document patient's skin findings on a diagram. HealthFusion was one of the few that gave this ability and even allowed us to upload our own images which we have designed for quick easy use. Most dermatologists will utilize a more derm-specific product such as Modernizing Medicine's EMA, PracticeStudio, etc, however, another criteria we wanted in our EHR was something that was truly platform-independent and browser-independent -- could work on a ChromeOS computer, a Mac, a Windows machine, Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Edge, Internet Explorer, etc. Again, MediTouch's HealthFusion EHR & Practice Management product provided this capability while other derm-specific products did not and continue not to. We also do our billing in-house and wanted a robust billing product. MediTouch is their own clearinghouse which is a big benefit so when there are issues, we don't hear from our vendor "Oh it's a problem with the Clearinghouse", instead MediTouch customer service tells us "Oh we need to fix that". Customer service is overall very good - it is here in the United States (Pacific Coast which is our local time zone) and available relatively quickly. So why not five stars? Well, the EHR itself is not designed very well for a specialty-specific practice like ours so we went through a process of customizing it for our needs. We are happy that customization was available however it was a daunting and time consuming process. While the EHR system allows for some meaningful use and PQRS measures it does NOT collect data for specialty-specific measures so it's basically useless for our PQRS/MU/MACRA reporting needs. Which is very unfortunate and might force us to move to a derm-specific product.
Puntos a favor: Platform-independent (works on ChromeOS, MacOS, iOS, Android, etc.)
Browser-independent (works in Chrome, Safari, Edge, Internet Explorer, Opera, etc)
Cloud-based with no need for specific hardware/software in-house.
Local to our time zone (Pacific) with U.S. based customer service
Clearinghouse is in-house with the vendor
Speed of operation - there have been moments when the cloud-based
Puntos en contra: Lack of specialty-specific Meaningful Use, PQRS, and MACRA measures
Need for heavy customization for the purposes of documenting specific scenarios (specialty or otherwise)
Extra components within standard documentation unnecessary for most specialties
Integration of PM and EHR could be a bit better