SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 10
H.I.S.-toryby Vince Ciotti
Episode #87: Meditech Part 5
© 2012 by H.I.S. Professionals, LLC, all rights reserved.
Which One Would You Buy in 1993?
Big Win From 20 Years Ago
• We left off last week with an RFI from Brooks Memorial, a 200-
bed hospital in upstate NY, being issued to the 10 leading HIS
vendors back in 1993 to see how Meditechbeat them so often.
• Before we wasted our time & their money flying in demo teams
to frozen Dunkirk NY (located near Anchorage…), we reviewed the
RFI results to determine which of the vendors were:
– Large &stable enough to last the expected 10 year life cycle
– Had a strong NY state presence to meet regulatory needs
– Were affordable, in terms of capital, operating and TCO
– Had clients of our bed size, apps, interfaces & conversion
The results are summarized in the table on the following page.
• If you don’t recognize the acronyms for the vendors on thetop
row, then you didn’t read last week’s episode that described
them! You can find all these past episodes at hispros.com
1993 Vendor RFI Responses
CHC
Compu
care
First
Data GTE HBO HCS IBAX Keane
Medi-
tech SMS SDS
Years in
HIS biz 21 20 25 18 18 25 12 20 25 25 15
Revenue
in 000s $43,400 $23,200 ≈$200,000 ≈$60,000 $280,000 ≈$10,000 ≈$50,000 $90,000 $92,300 $470,000 ≈$14,000
# of
FTEs 260 215 1,031 222 1,814 75 582 244 1,105 4,000 148
Nearest
office Texas Virginia N. Carolina Phila. Pitts. New Jersey Florida New York Mass. New Jersey Iowa
# of US
clients 42 34 128 238 188
(Not
provided) ≈200 15 104 54 85
NY state
Clients 2 3 7 5 2 1 6 9 10 3 1
Hard-
ware HP, G30
DG Aviion
9500
DEC
"Alpha" IBM AS/400
DG Aviion
5240 IBM AS/400 DEC 5000 DG or DEC
DEC
4000/Alpha
Capital
Costs $984,624 $1,124,604 $650,750 $904,991 $1,375,306 $1,162,938 $1,496,000 $909,800 $1,335,000 $950,000 $824,082
Opera-
tingCost $131,516 $104,052 $86,268 $137,652 $126,325 $178,553 $125,880 $79,200 $148,200 $96,000 $77,765
5 year
TCO $1,642,205 $1,644,864 $1,082,090 $1,593,251 $2,006,931 $2,055,701 $2,125,400 $1,305,800 $2,076,000 $1,430,000 $1,212,906
10 Year
TCO $2,299,787 $2,165,124 $1,513,430 $2,281,511 $2,638,556 $2,948,464 $2,754,800 $1,701,800 $2,817,000 $1,910,000 $1,601,730
Winnowing the Field
• We presented these RFI resultsto our selection committee, with
the caveats in red ink for those vendors with weak responses: small
annual revenue, minimal NY presence, etc. Meditech’s only issue
was high capital costs, however CFO Ralph Webdale said he would
gladly pay top dollar if they turned out to be the best system!
• So we next scheduled demos at Brooks for the 6 RFI “winners,”
making each vendor follow the same agenda (1-2 hours per user
department) and grading each through a numeric checklist on:
– User-friendly GUI (or not), patient search,
reports, security, flexibility, report writer, etc.
The checklists also helped to guide the committee
into evaluating the system, rather than just liking
the “demo dollie (or dude)” with the nicest
personality, so totally irrelevant after the sale!
Brooks’ Demo Results
• And here, 20 years later, are the results, which took a
few thousand keystrokes to update from MS Works 1.0 to Excel 2012!
• As you can see, the
highest score went to
Meditech, but HBO and
CHC did pretty well too.
• An no one really stunk,
showing the committee
that all modern systems
beat their old SAINT…
• Next we made phone calls to the top 3 vendors, but a lot different
approach than the near-perfect “98.5” scores KLAS comes up with:
- Ours were peer-to-peer: RN to RN, biller-to-biller, IT to IT, etc.
- And not to “flagship” sites, but our bed size, state, version, etc.
- And scored with another thorough checklist, with these results:
Telephone Reference Calls
• Meditech led again, but only a tad ahead of HBO. It was
poor CHC who’s few users in NY state were only so-so…
• We’ve done
over HIS 150
searches by
now, and our
phone scores
are about 70%,
helping lower
end users’
expectations.
• The next step in our process hardly anyone ever does: look at the
user manuals before you buy! Paper binders were a pain to ship in
‘93, but today’s CDs and web sites are easily available. And you get
much lower scores than on any RFP “feature checklist” response!
User Manual Review
• You sure don’t get many “98.5” scoreshere either! Indeed,
some up-and-coming vendors don’t even have user doc…
• They claim their systems
are so user-friendly, no
manuals are needed!?
• (tell that to an RN on the
3rd shift trying to help a
physician figure out how
to DC a med via CPOE…)
• As you can see above, Meditech had superb user manuals back then,
HBO’s were pretty good, but CHC had a long way to go in this regard.
• So we pretty much had our two “finalist” vendors for the next steps:
- Site visits, once again peer-to-peer, with no sales “chaperones!”
- Detailed cost review, with over 10 pages per (poor) vendor
- And concurrent contract negotiations (no “VOC” beforehand)
Contract Questionnaire
• As you figured out by now, we don’t place much stock in an RFP
“Feature Checklist,” defined as a “Request For Prevarication.”
• One checklist we do make vendors fill out is for contract Ts & Cs.
Back in 1993, we had 25 items we drilled vendors on, such as:
– Sub-1-second system response times, or the vendor buys more hardware
– Veteran installers: 5 years in Healthcare, 2 with the vendor, 1 prior install
• By today, we have over 70 such nasty items on ARRA, ICD-10, etc.
• This is the one area where Meditech
did poorly, as illustrated on the right:
• The boys in Boston are just tough
negotiators, and we struggle to get
them togrant any concessions...
• At our next committee meeting, we
summed up all these scores & voted
Brook’s Committee Vote
• Here is how Brook’s 10 user departments ranked the 3 vendors;
we inverted their ranking for scores so the highestscore wins: 3
points to their first choice, 2 to runner up, and 1 for 3rd choice.
CHCFDCHBOCMeditech
Pharmacy 2 1 3
Data Processing 1 2 3
Human Resources 2 1 3
Radiology 3 1 2
Medical Records 2 3
Nursing 1.5 1.5 3
General Accounting 1.5 1.5 3
Laboratory 0.5 2 3
Nursing 1 2 3
Patient Accounting 2 1 3
Totals: 12.5 4 13 29
• No contest! Meditech just swept the vote except for Radiology
(maybe they had a deeper view?). It was so overwhelming, Ralph
called off the remaining steps in the process (site visits, etc.).
Meditech Recap
• So there you have it: how a handful of MIT grads formed a start-
up HIS vendor that swept the small to mid-range hospital market!
– Strengths: Satisfied clients (functionality & support), “Total
HIS” (financial & clinical systems), low operating costs (12% of
license fee/yr), and a stable management team/direction (no
acquisitions, C-Suite change, nor 90-day Wall Street panic).
– Weaknesses: High capital costs (you get
what you pay for?), proprietary data base
(tough interfaces – this ad is a lie!), and
rookie installers. Today, one might also
quibble about multiple product lines…
• Next week? We shift to the 6th ranking vendor of
today: GE Healthcare, and their roots in another
frozen northland – Burlington, Vermont. Any HIS
veterans who worked for “Burlington Data
Processing” please write: vciotti@hispros.com

More Related Content

What's hot

100. siemens, part 1
100. siemens, part 1100. siemens, part 1
100. siemens, part 1Tim Histalk
 
103. siemens, part 4
103. siemens, part 4103. siemens, part 4
103. siemens, part 4Tim Histalk
 
101. siemens, part 2
101. siemens, part 2101. siemens, part 2
101. siemens, part 2Tim Histalk
 
85. meditech part 3
85. meditech part 385. meditech part 3
85. meditech part 3Tim Histalk
 
107. cerner, part 4
107. cerner, part 4107. cerner, part 4
107. cerner, part 4Tim Histalk
 
106. cerner, part 3
106. cerner, part 3106. cerner, part 3
106. cerner, part 3Tim Histalk
 
108. cerner, part 5
108. cerner, part 5108. cerner, part 5
108. cerner, part 5Tim Histalk
 
5. december 1987
5. december 19875. december 1987
5. december 1987Tim Histalk
 
104. cerner, part 1
104. cerner, part 1104. cerner, part 1
104. cerner, part 1Tim Histalk
 
82. next gen part 4
82. next gen part 482. next gen part 4
82. next gen part 4Tim Histalk
 
105. cerner, part 2
105. cerner, part 2105. cerner, part 2
105. cerner, part 2Tim Histalk
 
88. ge healthcare part 1
88. ge healthcare part 188. ge healthcare part 1
88. ge healthcare part 1Tim Histalk
 
1. 2017 top his vendors
1. 2017 top his vendors1. 2017 top his vendors
1. 2017 top his vendorsTim Histalk
 
109. cerner, part 6
109. cerner, part 6109. cerner, part 6
109. cerner, part 6Hispros
 

What's hot (16)

78. cpsi part 3
78. cpsi part 378. cpsi part 3
78. cpsi part 3
 
100. siemens, part 1
100. siemens, part 1100. siemens, part 1
100. siemens, part 1
 
103. siemens, part 4
103. siemens, part 4103. siemens, part 4
103. siemens, part 4
 
Cerner Part 1
Cerner Part 1Cerner Part 1
Cerner Part 1
 
101. siemens, part 2
101. siemens, part 2101. siemens, part 2
101. siemens, part 2
 
85. meditech part 3
85. meditech part 385. meditech part 3
85. meditech part 3
 
107. cerner, part 4
107. cerner, part 4107. cerner, part 4
107. cerner, part 4
 
106. cerner, part 3
106. cerner, part 3106. cerner, part 3
106. cerner, part 3
 
108. cerner, part 5
108. cerner, part 5108. cerner, part 5
108. cerner, part 5
 
5. december 1987
5. december 19875. december 1987
5. december 1987
 
104. cerner, part 1
104. cerner, part 1104. cerner, part 1
104. cerner, part 1
 
82. next gen part 4
82. next gen part 482. next gen part 4
82. next gen part 4
 
105. cerner, part 2
105. cerner, part 2105. cerner, part 2
105. cerner, part 2
 
88. ge healthcare part 1
88. ge healthcare part 188. ge healthcare part 1
88. ge healthcare part 1
 
1. 2017 top his vendors
1. 2017 top his vendors1. 2017 top his vendors
1. 2017 top his vendors
 
109. cerner, part 6
109. cerner, part 6109. cerner, part 6
109. cerner, part 6
 

Viewers also liked

86. meditech part 4
86. meditech part 486. meditech part 4
86. meditech part 4Hispros
 
85. meditech part 3
85. meditech part 385. meditech part 3
85. meditech part 3Hispros
 
83. meditech part 1
83. meditech part 183. meditech part 1
83. meditech part 1Hispros
 
16. mini meditech
16. mini meditech16. mini meditech
16. mini meditechHispros
 
84. meditech part 2
84. meditech part 284. meditech part 2
84. meditech part 2Hispros
 
1. 2016 vendor review c 1
1. 2016 vendor review c 11. 2016 vendor review c 1
1. 2016 vendor review c 1Barry Mathis
 

Viewers also liked (6)

86. meditech part 4
86. meditech part 486. meditech part 4
86. meditech part 4
 
85. meditech part 3
85. meditech part 385. meditech part 3
85. meditech part 3
 
83. meditech part 1
83. meditech part 183. meditech part 1
83. meditech part 1
 
16. mini meditech
16. mini meditech16. mini meditech
16. mini meditech
 
84. meditech part 2
84. meditech part 284. meditech part 2
84. meditech part 2
 
1. 2016 vendor review c 1
1. 2016 vendor review c 11. 2016 vendor review c 1
1. 2016 vendor review c 1
 

Similar to 87. meditech part 5

87. meditech part 5
87. meditech part 587. meditech part 5
87. meditech part 5Tim Histalk
 
57. dairyland, part 2
57. dairyland, part 257. dairyland, part 2
57. dairyland, part 2Tim Histalk
 
3. 2017 other md vendors 5 5 b
3. 2017 other md vendors 5 5 b3. 2017 other md vendors 5 5 b
3. 2017 other md vendors 5 5 bTim Histalk
 
107. cerner, part 4
107. cerner, part 4107. cerner, part 4
107. cerner, part 4Hispros
 
7. 2016 Other MD Vendors
7. 2016 Other MD Vendors7. 2016 Other MD Vendors
7. 2016 Other MD VendorsElise Ames
 
3. 2016 other md vendors
3. 2016 other md vendors3. 2016 other md vendors
3. 2016 other md vendorsTim Histalk
 
107. cerner, part 4
107. cerner, part 4107. cerner, part 4
107. cerner, part 4Tim Histalk
 
Why do we outsource to India
Why do we outsource to IndiaWhy do we outsource to India
Why do we outsource to Indiabrawg7d1si
 
ActsInfo BPO Solutions
ActsInfo BPO SolutionsActsInfo BPO Solutions
ActsInfo BPO Solutionsdesk6x6fgo
 
57. dairyland _part_2
57. dairyland _part_257. dairyland _part_2
57. dairyland _part_2Hispros
 
2. 2016 macro vendors 1
2. 2016 macro vendors 12. 2016 macro vendors 1
2. 2016 macro vendors 1Barry Mathis
 
2. 2016 macro vendors
2. 2016 macro vendors2. 2016 macro vendors
2. 2016 macro vendorsTim Histalk
 
2. 2016 macro vendors
2. 2016 macro vendors2. 2016 macro vendors
2. 2016 macro vendorsBarry Mathis
 
Tim holody NCOF 2011 Presentation
Tim holody NCOF 2011 PresentationTim holody NCOF 2011 Presentation
Tim holody NCOF 2011 PresentationMichael McMillan
 
Data capabilities and competitive advantage
Data capabilities and competitive advantageData capabilities and competitive advantage
Data capabilities and competitive advantageNUS-ISS
 
Ucan2fs Bus Opp Presentation
Ucan2fs Bus Opp PresentationUcan2fs Bus Opp Presentation
Ucan2fs Bus Opp PresentationHarmik Poghossian
 
Project Storyboard: Reducing Cycle Time for Bid Tab Creation by 33%
Project Storyboard: Reducing Cycle Time for Bid Tab Creationby 33%Project Storyboard: Reducing Cycle Time for Bid Tab Creationby 33%
Project Storyboard: Reducing Cycle Time for Bid Tab Creation by 33%GoLeanSixSigma.com
 
Icd10 Presentation
Icd10 PresentationIcd10 Presentation
Icd10 Presentationblabar
 

Similar to 87. meditech part 5 (20)

87. meditech part 5
87. meditech part 587. meditech part 5
87. meditech part 5
 
57. dairyland, part 2
57. dairyland, part 257. dairyland, part 2
57. dairyland, part 2
 
3. 2017 other md vendors 5 5 b
3. 2017 other md vendors 5 5 b3. 2017 other md vendors 5 5 b
3. 2017 other md vendors 5 5 b
 
107. cerner, part 4
107. cerner, part 4107. cerner, part 4
107. cerner, part 4
 
7. 2016 Other MD Vendors
7. 2016 Other MD Vendors7. 2016 Other MD Vendors
7. 2016 Other MD Vendors
 
3. 2016 other md vendors
3. 2016 other md vendors3. 2016 other md vendors
3. 2016 other md vendors
 
107. cerner, part 4
107. cerner, part 4107. cerner, part 4
107. cerner, part 4
 
8. diy rating
8. diy rating8. diy rating
8. diy rating
 
Why do we outsource to India
Why do we outsource to IndiaWhy do we outsource to India
Why do we outsource to India
 
ActsInfo BPO Solutions
ActsInfo BPO SolutionsActsInfo BPO Solutions
ActsInfo BPO Solutions
 
57. dairyland _part_2
57. dairyland _part_257. dairyland _part_2
57. dairyland _part_2
 
2. 2016 macro vendors 1
2. 2016 macro vendors 12. 2016 macro vendors 1
2. 2016 macro vendors 1
 
2. 2016 macro vendors
2. 2016 macro vendors2. 2016 macro vendors
2. 2016 macro vendors
 
2. 2016 macro vendors
2. 2016 macro vendors2. 2016 macro vendors
2. 2016 macro vendors
 
Tim holody NCOF 2011 Presentation
Tim holody NCOF 2011 PresentationTim holody NCOF 2011 Presentation
Tim holody NCOF 2011 Presentation
 
Data capabilities and competitive advantage
Data capabilities and competitive advantageData capabilities and competitive advantage
Data capabilities and competitive advantage
 
ucan2fs
ucan2fsucan2fs
ucan2fs
 
Ucan2fs Bus Opp Presentation
Ucan2fs Bus Opp PresentationUcan2fs Bus Opp Presentation
Ucan2fs Bus Opp Presentation
 
Project Storyboard: Reducing Cycle Time for Bid Tab Creation by 33%
Project Storyboard: Reducing Cycle Time for Bid Tab Creationby 33%Project Storyboard: Reducing Cycle Time for Bid Tab Creationby 33%
Project Storyboard: Reducing Cycle Time for Bid Tab Creation by 33%
 
Icd10 Presentation
Icd10 PresentationIcd10 Presentation
Icd10 Presentation
 

More from Hispros

2. 2017 Macro Vendors
2. 2017 Macro Vendors 2. 2017 Macro Vendors
2. 2017 Macro Vendors Hispros
 
1. 2017 Top 10 HIS vendors
1. 2017 Top 10 HIS vendors1. 2017 Top 10 HIS vendors
1. 2017 Top 10 HIS vendorsHispros
 
112. mckesson part 1 intro
112. mckesson part 1   intro112. mckesson part 1   intro
112. mckesson part 1 introHispros
 
115. mc k part 4 hboc
115. mc k part 4   hboc115. mc k part 4   hboc
115. mc k part 4 hbocHispros
 
114. mc k part 3 hbo
114. mc k part 3   hbo114. mc k part 3   hbo
114. mc k part 3 hboHispros
 
117. mc k part 6 amex
117. mc k part 6   amex117. mc k part 6   amex
117. mc k part 6 amexHispros
 
116. mc k part 5 ibax
116. mc k part 5   ibax116. mc k part 5   ibax
116. mc k part 5 ibaxHispros
 
120. mckesson part 8 deal
120. mckesson part 8   deal120. mckesson part 8   deal
120. mckesson part 8 dealHispros
 
118. mc k part 7 cycare
118. mc k part 7   cycare118. mc k part 7   cycare
118. mc k part 7 cycareHispros
 
122. mckesson 10 end
122. mckesson 10   end122. mckesson 10   end
122. mckesson 10 endHispros
 
119. santa letters
119. santa letters119. santa letters
119. santa lettersHispros
 
113. mc k part 2 osf
113. mc k part 2   osf113. mc k part 2   osf
113. mc k part 2 osfHispros
 
108. cerner, part 5
108. cerner, part 5108. cerner, part 5
108. cerner, part 5Hispros
 
106. cerner, part 3
106. cerner, part 3106. cerner, part 3
106. cerner, part 3Hispros
 
105. cerner, part 2
105. cerner, part 2105. cerner, part 2
105. cerner, part 2Hispros
 
104. cerner, part 1
104. cerner, part 1104. cerner, part 1
104. cerner, part 1Hispros
 
103. siemens, part 4
103. siemens, part 4103. siemens, part 4
103. siemens, part 4Hispros
 
102. siemens, part 3
102. siemens, part 3102. siemens, part 3
102. siemens, part 3Hispros
 
100. siemens, part 1
100. siemens, part 1100. siemens, part 1
100. siemens, part 1Hispros
 
101. siemens, part 2
101. siemens, part 2101. siemens, part 2
101. siemens, part 2Hispros
 

More from Hispros (20)

2. 2017 Macro Vendors
2. 2017 Macro Vendors 2. 2017 Macro Vendors
2. 2017 Macro Vendors
 
1. 2017 Top 10 HIS vendors
1. 2017 Top 10 HIS vendors1. 2017 Top 10 HIS vendors
1. 2017 Top 10 HIS vendors
 
112. mckesson part 1 intro
112. mckesson part 1   intro112. mckesson part 1   intro
112. mckesson part 1 intro
 
115. mc k part 4 hboc
115. mc k part 4   hboc115. mc k part 4   hboc
115. mc k part 4 hboc
 
114. mc k part 3 hbo
114. mc k part 3   hbo114. mc k part 3   hbo
114. mc k part 3 hbo
 
117. mc k part 6 amex
117. mc k part 6   amex117. mc k part 6   amex
117. mc k part 6 amex
 
116. mc k part 5 ibax
116. mc k part 5   ibax116. mc k part 5   ibax
116. mc k part 5 ibax
 
120. mckesson part 8 deal
120. mckesson part 8   deal120. mckesson part 8   deal
120. mckesson part 8 deal
 
118. mc k part 7 cycare
118. mc k part 7   cycare118. mc k part 7   cycare
118. mc k part 7 cycare
 
122. mckesson 10 end
122. mckesson 10   end122. mckesson 10   end
122. mckesson 10 end
 
119. santa letters
119. santa letters119. santa letters
119. santa letters
 
113. mc k part 2 osf
113. mc k part 2   osf113. mc k part 2   osf
113. mc k part 2 osf
 
108. cerner, part 5
108. cerner, part 5108. cerner, part 5
108. cerner, part 5
 
106. cerner, part 3
106. cerner, part 3106. cerner, part 3
106. cerner, part 3
 
105. cerner, part 2
105. cerner, part 2105. cerner, part 2
105. cerner, part 2
 
104. cerner, part 1
104. cerner, part 1104. cerner, part 1
104. cerner, part 1
 
103. siemens, part 4
103. siemens, part 4103. siemens, part 4
103. siemens, part 4
 
102. siemens, part 3
102. siemens, part 3102. siemens, part 3
102. siemens, part 3
 
100. siemens, part 1
100. siemens, part 1100. siemens, part 1
100. siemens, part 1
 
101. siemens, part 2
101. siemens, part 2101. siemens, part 2
101. siemens, part 2
 

87. meditech part 5

  • 1. H.I.S.-toryby Vince Ciotti Episode #87: Meditech Part 5 © 2012 by H.I.S. Professionals, LLC, all rights reserved. Which One Would You Buy in 1993?
  • 2. Big Win From 20 Years Ago • We left off last week with an RFI from Brooks Memorial, a 200- bed hospital in upstate NY, being issued to the 10 leading HIS vendors back in 1993 to see how Meditechbeat them so often. • Before we wasted our time & their money flying in demo teams to frozen Dunkirk NY (located near Anchorage…), we reviewed the RFI results to determine which of the vendors were: – Large &stable enough to last the expected 10 year life cycle – Had a strong NY state presence to meet regulatory needs – Were affordable, in terms of capital, operating and TCO – Had clients of our bed size, apps, interfaces & conversion The results are summarized in the table on the following page. • If you don’t recognize the acronyms for the vendors on thetop row, then you didn’t read last week’s episode that described them! You can find all these past episodes at hispros.com
  • 3. 1993 Vendor RFI Responses CHC Compu care First Data GTE HBO HCS IBAX Keane Medi- tech SMS SDS Years in HIS biz 21 20 25 18 18 25 12 20 25 25 15 Revenue in 000s $43,400 $23,200 ≈$200,000 ≈$60,000 $280,000 ≈$10,000 ≈$50,000 $90,000 $92,300 $470,000 ≈$14,000 # of FTEs 260 215 1,031 222 1,814 75 582 244 1,105 4,000 148 Nearest office Texas Virginia N. Carolina Phila. Pitts. New Jersey Florida New York Mass. New Jersey Iowa # of US clients 42 34 128 238 188 (Not provided) ≈200 15 104 54 85 NY state Clients 2 3 7 5 2 1 6 9 10 3 1 Hard- ware HP, G30 DG Aviion 9500 DEC "Alpha" IBM AS/400 DG Aviion 5240 IBM AS/400 DEC 5000 DG or DEC DEC 4000/Alpha Capital Costs $984,624 $1,124,604 $650,750 $904,991 $1,375,306 $1,162,938 $1,496,000 $909,800 $1,335,000 $950,000 $824,082 Opera- tingCost $131,516 $104,052 $86,268 $137,652 $126,325 $178,553 $125,880 $79,200 $148,200 $96,000 $77,765 5 year TCO $1,642,205 $1,644,864 $1,082,090 $1,593,251 $2,006,931 $2,055,701 $2,125,400 $1,305,800 $2,076,000 $1,430,000 $1,212,906 10 Year TCO $2,299,787 $2,165,124 $1,513,430 $2,281,511 $2,638,556 $2,948,464 $2,754,800 $1,701,800 $2,817,000 $1,910,000 $1,601,730
  • 4. Winnowing the Field • We presented these RFI resultsto our selection committee, with the caveats in red ink for those vendors with weak responses: small annual revenue, minimal NY presence, etc. Meditech’s only issue was high capital costs, however CFO Ralph Webdale said he would gladly pay top dollar if they turned out to be the best system! • So we next scheduled demos at Brooks for the 6 RFI “winners,” making each vendor follow the same agenda (1-2 hours per user department) and grading each through a numeric checklist on: – User-friendly GUI (or not), patient search, reports, security, flexibility, report writer, etc. The checklists also helped to guide the committee into evaluating the system, rather than just liking the “demo dollie (or dude)” with the nicest personality, so totally irrelevant after the sale!
  • 5. Brooks’ Demo Results • And here, 20 years later, are the results, which took a few thousand keystrokes to update from MS Works 1.0 to Excel 2012! • As you can see, the highest score went to Meditech, but HBO and CHC did pretty well too. • An no one really stunk, showing the committee that all modern systems beat their old SAINT… • Next we made phone calls to the top 3 vendors, but a lot different approach than the near-perfect “98.5” scores KLAS comes up with: - Ours were peer-to-peer: RN to RN, biller-to-biller, IT to IT, etc. - And not to “flagship” sites, but our bed size, state, version, etc. - And scored with another thorough checklist, with these results:
  • 6. Telephone Reference Calls • Meditech led again, but only a tad ahead of HBO. It was poor CHC who’s few users in NY state were only so-so… • We’ve done over HIS 150 searches by now, and our phone scores are about 70%, helping lower end users’ expectations. • The next step in our process hardly anyone ever does: look at the user manuals before you buy! Paper binders were a pain to ship in ‘93, but today’s CDs and web sites are easily available. And you get much lower scores than on any RFP “feature checklist” response!
  • 7. User Manual Review • You sure don’t get many “98.5” scoreshere either! Indeed, some up-and-coming vendors don’t even have user doc… • They claim their systems are so user-friendly, no manuals are needed!? • (tell that to an RN on the 3rd shift trying to help a physician figure out how to DC a med via CPOE…) • As you can see above, Meditech had superb user manuals back then, HBO’s were pretty good, but CHC had a long way to go in this regard. • So we pretty much had our two “finalist” vendors for the next steps: - Site visits, once again peer-to-peer, with no sales “chaperones!” - Detailed cost review, with over 10 pages per (poor) vendor - And concurrent contract negotiations (no “VOC” beforehand)
  • 8. Contract Questionnaire • As you figured out by now, we don’t place much stock in an RFP “Feature Checklist,” defined as a “Request For Prevarication.” • One checklist we do make vendors fill out is for contract Ts & Cs. Back in 1993, we had 25 items we drilled vendors on, such as: – Sub-1-second system response times, or the vendor buys more hardware – Veteran installers: 5 years in Healthcare, 2 with the vendor, 1 prior install • By today, we have over 70 such nasty items on ARRA, ICD-10, etc. • This is the one area where Meditech did poorly, as illustrated on the right: • The boys in Boston are just tough negotiators, and we struggle to get them togrant any concessions... • At our next committee meeting, we summed up all these scores & voted
  • 9. Brook’s Committee Vote • Here is how Brook’s 10 user departments ranked the 3 vendors; we inverted their ranking for scores so the highestscore wins: 3 points to their first choice, 2 to runner up, and 1 for 3rd choice. CHCFDCHBOCMeditech Pharmacy 2 1 3 Data Processing 1 2 3 Human Resources 2 1 3 Radiology 3 1 2 Medical Records 2 3 Nursing 1.5 1.5 3 General Accounting 1.5 1.5 3 Laboratory 0.5 2 3 Nursing 1 2 3 Patient Accounting 2 1 3 Totals: 12.5 4 13 29 • No contest! Meditech just swept the vote except for Radiology (maybe they had a deeper view?). It was so overwhelming, Ralph called off the remaining steps in the process (site visits, etc.).
  • 10. Meditech Recap • So there you have it: how a handful of MIT grads formed a start- up HIS vendor that swept the small to mid-range hospital market! – Strengths: Satisfied clients (functionality & support), “Total HIS” (financial & clinical systems), low operating costs (12% of license fee/yr), and a stable management team/direction (no acquisitions, C-Suite change, nor 90-day Wall Street panic). – Weaknesses: High capital costs (you get what you pay for?), proprietary data base (tough interfaces – this ad is a lie!), and rookie installers. Today, one might also quibble about multiple product lines… • Next week? We shift to the 6th ranking vendor of today: GE Healthcare, and their roots in another frozen northland – Burlington, Vermont. Any HIS veterans who worked for “Burlington Data Processing” please write: vciotti@hispros.com