NueMD vs athenaOne

NueMD is a cloud-based practice management software that offers a suite of features, including medical billing, electronic health records (EHR), and appointment scheduling. While NueMD has been a popular choice for some practices, user reviews from the past year suggest that it may not be the best fit for everyone. One of the biggest strengths of NueMD is its comprehensive suite of features. Users praise the software's ability to handle everything from billing to scheduling, making it a one-stop shop for practice management. However, some users have expressed concerns about the software's user interface, which they find clunky and difficult to navigate. They also complain that the software is not as intuitive as other EHR systems on the market, such as Athenahealth or Kareo. NueMD's customer support has also been a point of contention, with some users reporting long wait times and unhelpful responses. NueMD's biggest differentiator is its focus on medical billing. The software's billing features are highly regarded by users, who appreciate its ability to streamline the billing process and reduce the number of errors. However, NueMD's billing features are not without their drawbacks. Some users have reported that the software's billing system is not as flexible as other systems on the market, making it difficult to customize for specific practice needs. Overall, NueMD is a solid EHR system that offers a comprehensive suite of features. However, its clunky user interface, lack of intuitive design, and inconsistent customer support may make it a less desirable option for some practices. NueMD is best suited for practices that are looking for a system with strong billing features and are willing to put in the time and effort to learn the software. It is important to note that AdvancedMD, the company behind NueMD, is sunsetting the software in 2025. This means that practices using NueMD will need to migrate to a different system in the near future.

Athena offers robust functionalities that streamline many daily tasks for care providers. Many users felt that the system offered all of the functionalities they were looking for and felt that the interface was easy to navigate and did not experience system downtime. Users also felt that customer support was able to address most of their concerns at a satisfactory level. However, some users felt that the claims functionality was unsatisfactory and recognized that the system couldn’t make their desired customizations. Users also noticed inaccuracies in their data, but many were unable to determine if this was a result of the system storing information incorrectly or the result of users experiencing difficulty navigating the platform. The high price of this system may be cost prohibitive as this system is best suited for smaller practices that won’t need to provide multiple care providers with access to the system.