Free EMR Newsletter Want to receive the latest news on EMR, Meaningful Use, ARRA and Healthcare IT sent straight to your email? Join thousands of healthcare pros who subscribe to EMR and EHR for FREE!

E-Patient Update: Apple Offers iPhone EMR Access

Posted on June 22, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

Over the last few years, Apple has steadily beefed up the health data access provided by its iPhone operating system, in ways that have made some sense. But depending on how consumers react, its latest effort may have the biggest impact of all of its data sharing efforts to date.

In its latest mobile operating system, Apple is allowing users to store their EMR data directly in its Health app, using the HL7 CCD standard. And while this isn’t a huge step forward for interoperability, it does give e-patients like me a greater sense of control, which is definitely a good thing.

In recent years, Apple has made increasingly sophisticated efforts to unify healthcare data. Perhaps the highest profile effort is the summer 2014 launch of HealthKit, a healthcare data integration platform whose features include connecting consumer-generated data with traditional clinical sources such as the Epic EMR.

Meanwhile, it has steadily added capabilities to the Health app, which launched with iOS 8. Since then, it has been encouraging consumers to manage health data on their phone using HealthKit-enabled apps like the Epic MyChart patient portal app. The new EMR data retrieval function is available in the iOS 10 version of Health.

According to Apple blog 9to5Mac, consumers can import the CCD data from Mail, Safari and other applications as well as into Health. When consumers add the CCD file to Health, the app opens and providers a quick preview of the document’s data, including the healthcare provider’s name, patient’s name and document owner’s name. It also identifies the document’s custodian. Once downloaded, the device stores the document in encrypted form, indefinitely.

Also, when a user confirms that they want to save the record to the Health app, the CCD info is added to a list of all of the health record documents stored in the app, making it easier to identify the entire scope of what a user has stored.

Looked at one way, the addition of medical record storage capabilities to the latest iOS release may not seem like a big deal. After all, I’ve been downloading broad swaths of my healthcare data from the Epic MyChart app for a couple of years now, and it hasn’t rocked my world. The document MyChart produces can be useful, but it’s not easily shareable. How will it change patients’  lives to store multiple records on their cell phone, their tablet or heaven help us, their Apple Watch?

On the surface, the answer is almost certainly “not much,” but I think there’s more to this than meets the eye. Yes, this solution doesn’t sound particularly elegant, nor especially useful for patients who want to share data with clinicians. My guess is that at first, most consumers will download a few records and forget that they’re available.

However, Apple brings something unique to the table. It has what may be the best-integrated consumer technology base on the planet, and can still claim a large, fanatical following for its products. If it trains up its user base to demand EMR data, they might trigger a cultural shift in what data patients expect to have available. And that could prove to be a powerful force for change.

Practice Fusion Settles FTC Charges Over “Deceptive” Consumer Marketing

Posted on June 20, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

In what may be a first for the EMR industry, ambulatory EMR vendor Practice Fusion has settled Federal Trade Commission charges that it misled consumers as part of a campaign to gather reviews for its doctors.

Under the terms of the settlement, Practice Fusion agreed to refrain from making deceptive statements about the privacy and confidentiality of the information it collects from consumers. It also promised that if it planned to make any consumer information publicly available, it would offer a clear and conspicuous notice of its plans before it went ahead, and get affirmative consent from those consumers before using their information.

Prior to getting entangled in these issues, Practice Fusion had launched Patient Fusion, a portal allowing patients whose providers used its EMR to download their health information, transmit that information to another provider or send and receive messages from their providers.

The problem targeted by the FTC began in 2012, when Practice Fusion was preparing to expand Patient Fusion to include a public directory allowing enrollees to search for doctors, read reviews and request appointments. To support the rollout, the company began sending emails to patients of providers who used Practice Fusion’s EMR, asking patients to review their provider. In theory, this was probably a clever move, as the reviews would have given Practice Fusion-using practices greater social credibility.

The problem was, however, that the request was marketed deceptively, the FTC found. Rather than admitting that this was an EMR marketing effort, Practice Fusion’s email messages appeared to come from patients’ doctors. And the patients were never informed that the information would be made public. And worse, a pre-checked “Keep this review anonymous” only withheld the patient’s name, leaving information in the text box visible.

So patients, who thought they were communicating privately with their physicians, shared a great deal of private and personal health information. Many entered their full name or phone number in a text box provided as part of the survey. Others shared intimate health information, including on consumer who asked for dosing information for “my Xanax prescription,” and another who asked for help with a suicidally depressed child.

The highly sensitive nature of some patient comments didn’t get much attention until a year later, when EMR and HIPAA broke the story and then Forbes published a follow up article on the subject. After the articles appeared, Practice Fusion put automated procedures in place to block the publication of reviews in which consumers entered personal information.

In the future, Practice Fusion is barred from misrepresenting the extent to which it uses, maintains and protects the privacy or confidentiality of data it collects. Also, it may not publicly display the reviews it collected from consumers during the time period covered by the complaint.

There’s many lessons to be gleaned from this case, but the most obvious seems to be that misleading communications that impact patients are a complete no-no. According to an FTC blog item on the case, they also include that health IT companies should never bury key facts in a dense privacy policy, and that disclosures should use the same eye-catching methods they use for marketing, such as striking graphics, bold colors, big print and prominent placement.

New Effort Would Focus HIE Data Around Patients

Posted on June 7, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

In theory, doctors should be able to pull up all data available on a patient located within any networks to which they have access. In other words, not only should they be able to see any data on Patient A within the EMR where A’s care is documented, but also retrieve data on A from within any HIEs which connect with the EMR. But the reality is, that’s not always the case (in fact, it’s rarely the case).

To help weave together patient data strung across various HIEs, three exchanges have teamed up to pilot test the idea of a patient-centered data home (PCDH). While many health leaders have looked at the idea of putting patients in charge of their own data, largely by adding to or correcting existing records, getting patients involved in curating such data has been difficult at best.

In this model, Arizona Health-e Connection, western Colorado’s Quality Health Network and the Utah Health Information Network are testing a method of data sharing in which the other HIEs would be notified if the patient undergoes an episode of care within their network.

The alert confirms the availability and specific location of the patient’s clinical data, reports Healthcare Informatics. Providers will then be able to access real-time information on that patient across network lines by initiating a simple query. Unlike in other models of HIE data management, all clinical data in a PCDH will become part of a comprehensive longitudinal patient record, which will be located in the HIE where the patient resides.

The PCDH’s data sharing model works as follows:

  • A group of HIEs set up a PCDH exchange, sharing all the zip codes within the geographic boundaries that their exchanges serve.
  • Once the zip codes are shared, the HIEs set up an automated notification process which detects when there is information on the patient’s home HIE that is available for sharing.
  • If a patient is seen outside of their home territory, say in a hospital emergency department, the event triggers an automated alert which is sent to the hospital’s HIE.
  • The hospital’s HIE queries the patient’s home HIE, which responds that there is information available on that patient.
  • At that point providers from both HIEs and query and pull information back and forth. The patient’s home HIE pulls information on the patient’s out-of-area encounter into their longitudinal record.

The notion of a PCDH is being developed by the Strategic Health Information Exchange Collaborative, a 37-member HIE trade group to which the Utah, Arizona and Colorado exchanges belong.

Developing a PCDH model is part of a 10-year roadmap for interoperability and a “learning health system” which will offer centralized consent management and health records for patients, as well as providing national enterprises with data access. The trade group expects to see several more of its members test out PCDHs, including participants in Arkansas, Oklahoma, Indiana, Kentucky and Tennessee.

According to the Collaborative, other attempts at building patient records across networks have failed because they are built around individual organizations, geographies such as state boundaries, single EHR vendors or single payers. The PCDH model, for its part, can bring information on individual patients together seamlessly without disrupting local data governance or business models, demanding new technical infrastructure or violating the rights of local stakeholders, the group says.

Like other relatively lightweight data sharing models (such as the Direct Project) the PCDH offers an initial take on what is likely to be a far more complex problem. But it seems like a good idea nonetheless.

Specialty-Focused EHRs Re-Entering The Picture

Posted on June 6, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

Over time, I’ve read a great deal on whether specialist clinicians should invest in EHRs designed for their area of practice or not. One school of thought seems to be that specialists can do just fine by buying broadly-based systems and implementing practice-specific templates, a move which also offers them a longer list of EHRs from which they can choose. Another, meanwhile, is that EHRs designed for use by all clinicians can undercut practice efficiency by forcing specialist workflow into a one-size-fits-all straightjacket.

But the arguments in favor of specialized EHRs seem to be taking hold of late. According to the latest data from Black Book, specialist surgical and medical practices have been switching over to specialty-driven EHRs in overwhelming numbers during the first half of this year. Its researchers found that during the first and second quarter of 2016, 86% of the 11,300 specialty practices it surveyed were in favor of switching from generalist to specialist EHRs.

According to the research firm, 93% of specialists surveyed felt that templates available in specialty EHRs offered a substantial benefit to patients who needed individualized documentation, especially in practices that see a high volume of predictable diagnoses.

If that’s the case, why did so many specialists start out with generalized EHRs?  Eighty-nine percent of respondents said that they bought the non-specialist EHR they had because they were focused on meeting Meaningful Use deadlines, which left them too little time to vet their original EHR vendor sufficiently.

Lately, however, specialist practices have decided that generic EHRs just aren’t workable, Black Book found. Nearly all respondents (92%) said that given their workflow needs, they could not afford to spend time need to shape all-purpose systems to their needs. When they switched over to purchasing a specialty-driven EHR, on the other hand, specialists found it much easier to support ultra-specific practice needs and generate revenue, Black Book reported.

That being said, specialists also switched from generalized EHRs to practice-specific systems for reasons other than clinical efficiency. Black Book found that 29% of specialists make the change because they felt their current, generic EHR was not achieving market success, raising the possibility that the vendor would not be able to support their growth and might not even be stable enough to trust.

Specialists may also be switching over because the systems serving their clinical niche have improved. Black Book researchers note that back in 2010, 80% of specialist physicians felt that specialized EHRs were not configurable or flexible enough to meet their needs. So it’s no surprise that they chose to go to with more robust multi-use and primary care systems, argues Black Book’s Doug Brown.

Now, however, specialized EHRs perform much better, it seems. In particular, improvements in implementations, updates, usability and customization have boosted satisfaction of specialist EHRs from 13% meeting or exceeding expectations in 2012 to 84% in the second quarter of 2016.

Still, practices that buy specialty EHRs do make some significant trade-offs, researchers said. Specifically, 88% of specialists said they were concerned about a lack of interoperability with other providers, particularly inpatient facilities. Respondents reported that specialty-specific EHRs aren’t fitting well within hospital network and regional health information exchanges, imposing a considerable disadvantage over large multispecialty EHRs.

And not surprisingly, investing in a replacement specialty EHR has proven to be a financial burden for specialist practices, Black Book concluded. Forty-eight percent of all specialty practices switching EHRs between June 2014 and April 2016 said that making such investment has put the practice in an unstable financial position, the research firm found.

My general sense from reading this research is that specialist practices have good reasons to replace their generalized EHR with a specialist EHR these days, as such products appear to have matured greatly in recent years. However, these practices had better be ready to deploy their new systems quickly and effectively, or the financial problems they’ll inherit will outweigh the benefits of the switchover.

Low-Profile HIT Player Leidos A Major Presence

Posted on June 1, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

Here where I live in the Washington, DC metro, federal IT is a major presence. Government IT consulting firms cluster along the area’s highways, and their executives own countless sprawling manses in the nearby suburbs. Those players include Leidos, a northern Virginia-based contracting firm with clients in IT, biomedical research and public health.

Though the firm has annual revenues of about $5.1 billion, and 18,000 employees, Leidos generates little fanfare here, despite a pedigree that includes a $5 billion partnership with Lockheed Martin’s Information Systems & Global Solutions segment that provides IT and intelligence services. However, Leidos is actually the new identity of long-established power player SAIC, which restructured and changed its name in late 2013 and has deep roots in national security and government IT contracting.

Most readers probably care little about government IT unless they service that industry. But I’d argue that we should all know about Leidos Health which, among other distinctions, was part of the team (Cerner, Leidos and Accenture Federal) that won the $4.3 billion plus contract to implement an EMR for the US Department of Defense last summer.

The DoD contract was hotly contested, by teams that included an Epic, IBM and Impact Advisors combination, but the Cerner-fronted team pulled off a win that may have saved the EMR vendor’s brand in a brutally competitive market. While it’s not clear what role Leidos played in the win, a DoD official was quoted as saying that a Cerner deal was projected to be “much cheaper,” and it’s possible Leidos support pricing played some role in its calculations. Perhaps more tellingly, DoD officials said cybersecurity considerations played a major role in the award, which plays to Leidos’ strengths.

Leidos Health hasn’t had unmitigated success. Most recently, it was part of a team scheduled to assist with a little-mentioned Epic EMR rollout for the US Coast Guard, which was cancelled due to “various irregularities.” The Coast Guard, which pulled the plug on the rollout in April, had been planning its EMR implementation since 2010.

However, this probably wasn’t much of a setback. And Leidos still delivers health IT services to several other federal agencies, including HHS and the Department of Veterans Affairs, including cybersecurity, health analytics, IT infrastructure and support and software development. And it works with the gamut of enterprise EMR vendors, including Allscripts, Cerner, Epic, McKesson and Meditech.

Truth be told, Leidos may not deserve the “quiet company” label given to it by Healthcare Informatics magazine, which recently dubbed it one the most interesting vendors of 2016. I’m sure Beltway execs who compete for federal contracts are well aware of Leidos Health, which had annual revenues of $593 million last year. And government IT decision-makers are well acquainted with parent company SAIC, a pillar of federal contracting which has been in the business since 1969. (In fact, SAIC president of technology and engineering Deborah Lee James was sworn in as Secretary of the Air Force in late 2013.)

That being said, the DoD deal has dramatically raised Leidos Health’s visibility in the broader health IT world. It will be interesting to see what it does going forward, don’t you think?

Practice Fusion Founder Launches Wearables Startup

Posted on May 31, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

Free EMR vendor Practice Fusion has always been something of a newsmaker. Since its launch in 2005, the company has drawn both praise and controversy for its revenue-generation approach, which has included the analysis and sale of de-identified patient data and advertising to physicians.

But it’d be hard to question Practice Fusion’s success, particularly given that it found its legs during a hyper-competitive period of EMR vendor growth capped by the Meaningful Use incentive program. Over the company’s lifespan, it has grown to serve over 110 million patients, and reportedly supported more than 70 million patient visits over 2015. It also attracted over $150 million in venture and private equity funding. Will it provide a great return for investors, time will tell, but they’ve definitely left their mark on the EHR industry.

At the helm of Practice Fusion until last year was CEO and Founder Ryan Howard. Howard – whom I’ve interviewed now and again over the years — certainly doesn’t lack for confidence or creative thinking. So I was intrigued to learn that Howard has stuck his toe into the wearables market. Clearly, Howard has not wasted time since August 2015, when he was booted out as Practice Fusion CEO. And if he believes a wearables startup can make money in this rapidly-maturing niche, I’m inclined to give it a look.

Howard’s new startup, dubbed iBeat, is creating a watch which constantly monitors and analyzes users’ heart activity. The device, which transmits its data to a cloud platform, can alert emergency medical services and, using an onboard GPS, provide the wearer’s location when a user has a heart attack or their heart slows down below a certain level. Unlike competitor AliveCor, whose electrocardiogram device can detect heart rhythm abnormalities such as atrial fibrillation, it has no immediate plans to get FDA approval for its technology.

iBeat expects to sell the device for less than $200, though if users want the emergency alert service they’ll have to pay an as-yet unnamed extra monthly fee. That puts it smack in the middle of the pack with competitors like the Apple Watch. However, the startup’s focus on cardiac events is fairly unusual. Another unusual aspect to the launch is that Howard is targeting the 50- to 70-year-old Baby Boomer market. (Imagine a more-focused version of the LifeAlert “I’ve fallen and I can’t get up” service, which focuses on the 75-plus market, Howard told MobiHealthNews.)

My take on all of this is that there may very well be something here. As I wrote about previously, my own heart rhythm is being monitored by a set of devices created by Medtronic, a set-up which probably cost a few thousand dollars in addition to the surgical costs of implanting the monitoring device. While Medtronic’s technology is doubtless FDA approved, for not-so-serious cases such as my own a $200+ plus smart watch might be just the ticket.

On the other hand, I doubt that uncertified devices such as the iBeat watch will attract much support from providers, as they simply don’t trust the data. So consumers are really going to have to drive sales. And without a massive consumer marketing budget, it will be difficult to gain traction in a niche contested by Apple, Microsoft, Fitbit and many, many other competitors. Not to mention all the competitors in the “I’ve fallen and I can’t get up” category as well.

Regardless of whether iBeat survives, though, I think its strategy is smart. My guess is that more-specialized wearables (think, I don’t know, iSugar for diabetics?) have a bright future.

E-patient Update: Remote Monitoring Leaves Me Out of The Loop

Posted on May 24, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

As some readers may recall, I don’t just write about digital health deployment — I live it. To be specific, my occasional heart arrhythmia (Afib) is being tracked remotely by device implanted in my chest near my heart. My cardiac electrophysiologist implanted the Medtronic device – a “loop recorder” roughly the size of a cigarette lighter though flatter — during a cardiac ablation procedure.

The setup works like this:

  • The implanted device tracks my heart rhythm, recording any events that fit criteria programmed into it. (Side note: It’s made entirely of plastic, which means I need not fear MRIs. Neat, huh?)
  • The center also includes a bedside station which comes with a removable, mouse shaped object that I can place on my chest to record any incidents that concern me. I can also record events in real time, when I’m on the road, using a smaller device that fits on my key ring.
  • Whether I record any perceived episodes or not, the bedside station downloads whatever information is stored in the loop recorder at midnight each night, then transmits it to the cardiac electrophysiologist’s office.
  • The next day, a tech reviews the records. If any unusual events show up, the tech notifies the doctor, who reaches out to me if need be.

Now, don’t get me wrong, this is all very cool. And these devices have benefited me already, just a month into their use. For example, one evening last week I was experiencing some uncomfortable palpitations, and wondered whether I had reason for concern. So I called the cardiac electrophysiologist’s after-hours service and got a call back from the on-call physician.

When she and I spoke, her first response was to send me to my local hospital. But once I informed her that the device was tracking my heart rhythms, she accessed them and determined that I was only experiencing mild tachycardia. That was certainly a relief.

No access for patients

That being said, it bugs me that I have no direct access to this information myself. Don’t get me wrong, I understand that interacting with heart rhythm data is complicated. Certainly, I can’t do as much in response to that information as I could if the device were, say, tracking my blood glucose levels.

That being said, my feeling is that I would benefit from knowing more about how my heart is working, or failing to work appropriately in the grand scheme of things, even if I can’t interpret the raw data of the device produces. For example, it would be great if I could view a chart that showed, say, week by week when events occurred and what time they took place.

Of course, I don’t know whether having this data would have any concrete impact on my life. But that being said, it bothers me that such remote monitoring schemes don’t have their core an assumption that patients don’t need this information. I’d argue that Medtronic and its peers should be thinking of ways to loop patients in any time their data is being collected in an outpatient setting. Don’t we have an app for that, and if not, why?

Unfortunately, no matter how patients scream and yell about this, I doubt we’ll make much progress until doctors raise their voices too. So if you’re a physician reading this, I hope you’re willing to get involved since patients deserve to know what’s going on with their bodies. And if you have the means to help them know, make it happen!

The Power Of Presenting Health Data In Context

Posted on May 23, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

Today I read an interesting article on the 33 charts blog, written by the thoughtful pediatrician Bryan Vartabedian. In the article, Dr. Vartabedian describes an encounter with data at Texas Children’s Hospital:

When I walked into the patient’s room, I found this: A massive wall-mounted touchscreen at the foot of the bed with all of the patient’s critical data beautifully displayed…All of the patient’s Epic data is right there in real-time. Ins and outs, blood gases and trending art line readings in beautiful graphic display. And what isn’t there is accessible by with the poke of a finger.

He goes on to suggest that by displaying the data in this way, the hospital is changing how care is delivered:

The concept of decentralized, contextually-appropriate channeling of information is beginning to disrupt the clinical encounter. As ambient interfaces infiltrate the clinical environment, the right data will increasingly find us and our patients precisely at the point of care where it’s actionable.

I really enjoyed reading this piece, as it bottom-lined something I’ve had difficulty articulating. It made me realize that I’ve been wondering if the data that’s awkward to use on a laptop or PC can be used to greater effect elsewhere. After all, it’s not that doctors dislike access to EMR data — it’s just that they dislike the impact EMRs have on their work habits.

It’s not just workflow

Much of the discussion about fostering EMR adoption by physician focuses on improving user interfaces and workflow. And that is a legitimate line of inquiry. After all, healthcare organizations will never see the full benefits of their EMR investment unless clinicians can actually use them.

But Dr. Vartabedian makes the useful point that putting such data in the right context is also critical. Sure, making sure clinicians can get to clinical data via smart phone and tablet is a step in the right direction, as it allows them to use it in a more flexible manner. But ultimately, the data is the most useful when it’s presented in the right form, one which also allows patients to consume it.

For some clinical settings, the large touchscreen display he describes may be appropriate. For others, it might be a bedside tablet that the patient and doctor can share. Or perhaps the best approach for presenting healthcare data contextually hasn’t been invented yet. But regardless of what technology works best, organizing health data and presenting it in the right context is a powerful strategy.

Creating context is possible

Of course, talking about providing contextual healthcare data and delivering it are two different things. The presentation that works for Dr. Vartabedian may not work for other clinicians, and developing the unified data set needed to fuel these efforts can be taxing. Not only that, developing the right criteria for displaying contextual data could a major challenge.

Still, the tools needed to create the right context for EMR data delivery exist now, including interactive health tracking devices, smartphone apps and tablets. Meanwhile, these devices and platforms are delivering an ever-richer data set to clinicians. Toss in data from remote monitoring devices in the options multiply. What’s more, phones with GPS functions can provide location-based data dynamically.

Sure, it may not be practical to tackle this problem while your EMR implementation is young. But it would be smart to at least turn your imagination loose. If Dr. Vartabedian is right, putting data in context soon be a requirement rather than an option, and it’s best to be prepared.

Telemedicine Rollouts Are Becoming More Mature

Posted on May 19, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

For a long time, telemedicine was a big idea whose time had not come. Initially, the biggest obstacles providing video consults was consumer bandwidth. Once we got to the point that most consumers had high-speed Internet connections, proponents struggled to get commercial insurers and federal payers to reimburse providers for telemedicine. We also had to deal with medical licensure which most companies are dealing with by licensing their providers across multiple states (Crazy, but workable). Now, with both categories of payers increasingly paying for such services and patients increasingly willing to pay out of pocket, providers need to figure out which telemedicine business models work.

If I had to guess, I would’ve told you that very few providers have reached the stage where they had developed a fairly mature telemedicine service line. But data gathered by researchers increasingly suggests that I am wrong.

In fact, a new study by KPMG found that about 25% of healthcare providers have implemented telehealth and telemedicine programs which have achieved financial stability and improved efficiency. It should be noted that the study only involved 120 participants who reported they work for providers. Still, I think the results are worth a look.

Despite the success enjoyed by some providers with telemedicine programs, a fair number of providers are at a more tentative stage. Thirty-five percent of respondents said they didn’t have a virtual care program in place, and 40% had said they had just implemented a program. But what stands out to me is that the majority of respondents had telehealth initiatives underway.

Twenty-nine percent of survey respondents said that one of the key reasons they were in favor of telehealth programs is that they felt it would increase patient volumes and loyalty. Other providers have different priorities. Seventeen percent felt that implement the telehealth with help of care coordination for high-risk patients, another 17% said they wanted to reduce costs for access to medical specialists, and 13% said they were interested in telemedicine due to consumer demand.

When asked what challenges they faced in implementing telehealth, 19% said they had other tech priorities, 18% were unsure they had a sustainable business model, and 18% said their organization wasn’t ready to roll out a new technology.

As I see it, telemedicine is set up to get out of neutral and pull out of the gate. We’re probably past the early adopter stage, and as soon as influential players perfect their strategy for telemedicine rollouts, their industry peers are sure to follow.

What remains to be seen is whether providers see telemedicine as integral to the care they deliver, or primarily as a gateway to their brick-and-mortar services. I’d argue that telemedicine services should be positioned as a supplement to live care, a step towards greater continuity of care and the logical next step in going digital. Those who see it as a sideline, or a loyalty builder with no inherent clinical value, are unlikely to benefit as much from a telemedicine rollout.

Admittedly, integrating virtual care poses a host of new technical and administrative problems. But like it or not, telemedicine is important to the future of healthcare. Hold it is at arms’ length to your peril.

Making Health Data Patient-Friendly

Posted on May 6, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

Most of the efforts designed to make healthcare processes more transparent hope to make patients better shoppers. The assumption is that better-informed patients make better decisions, and that ultimately, if enough patients have the right data they’ll take steps which improve outcomes and lower the cost of care. And while the evidence for this assumption is sparse, the information may increase patient engagement in their care — and hopefully, their overall health.

That’s all well and good, but I believe too little attention has been paid to another dimension of transparency. To wit, I’d argue that it’s more than time to present patients with clinical data on a real- or near-real-time basis. Yes, shopping for the right doctor is good, but isn’t it even more important for patients to see what results he or she actually gets in their particular medical case?

Patients rarely get a well-developed look at their clinical data. Patient portals may offer access to test and imaging results from today through 10 years ago — my health system does — but offer no tools to put this data in context. If a patient wants to take a good look at their health history, and particularly, how test results correlate with their behavior, they’ll have to map the data out themselves. And that’s never going to work for your average patient.

Of course, there are obstacles to making this happen:

  • Physicians aren’t thrilled with the idea of giving patients broad healthcare data access. In fact, more than one doctor I’ve seen wouldn’t let me see test results until he or she had “approved” them.
  • Even if you set out to create some kind of clinical data dashboard, doing so isn’t trivial, at least if you want to see patients actually use it. Significant user testing would be a must to make this approach a success.
  • To my knowledge, no EMR vendor currently supports a patient dashboard or any other tools to help patients navigate their own data. So to create such an offering, providers would need to wait until their vendor produces such a tool or undertake a custom development project.

To some extent, the healthcare IT industry is already headed in this direction. For example, I’ve encountered mobile apps that attempt to provide some context for the data which they collect. But virtually all healthcare apps focus on just a few key indicators, such as, say calorie intake, exercise or medication compliance. For a patient to get a broad look at their health via app, they would have to bring together several sets of data, which simply isn’t practical.

Instead, why not give patients a broad look at their health status as seen through the rich data contained in an EMR? The final result could include not only data points, but also annotations from doctors as to the significance of trends and access to educational materials in context. That way, the patient could observe, say, the link between blood pressure levels, exercise, weight and med compliance, read comments from both their cardiologist and PCP on what has been working, and jump to research and education on cardiovascular health.

Ultimately, I’d argue, the chief obstacle to creating such an offering isn’t technical. Rather, it’s a cultural issue. Understandably, clinicians are concerned about the disruption such approaches might pose to their routine, as well as their ability to manage cases.

But if we are to make patients healthier, putting the right tools in their hands is absolutely necessary. And hey, after paying so much for EMRs, why not get more value for your money?

P.S. After writing this I discovered a description of a “digital health advisor” which parallels much of what I’m proposing. It’s worth a read!