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!

MIPS APMs and MACRA Small Practice Support – MACRA Monday

Posted on February 13, 2017 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

This post is part of the MACRA Monday series of blog posts where we dive into the details of the MACRA Quality Payment Program.

As we mentioned previously, there are some benefits to practices that are participating in an APM, but don’t qualify as an advanced APM. These practices can’t participate in the APM program and they need to participate in the MIPS program or they’ll get the 4% penalty for not participating in MIPS. The good news is that there is a benefit to taking part in what is called a MIPS APM (ie. an APM that doesn’t qualify as an advanced APM).

Here’s the list of MIPS benefits for being in a MIPS APM:

MACRA also has a number of opportunities available to small practices. The first example is that many small practices were excluded from participating in MACRA because of their size. Second, the program itself made MACRA easier with Pick Your Pace and they also created more access to advanced APMs. Finally, they created what they call the Transforming Clinical Practice Initiative.

The Transforming Clinical Practice Initiative seems quite similar to the REC program under meaningful use. This program is a network of support for those participating in MACRA and MIPS. You can see a full interactive chart that shows a view of the various support centers around the country for more details on what’s available in your area.

That’s all for this edition of MACRA Monday. Next week we’ll finish off our overview of MACRA Monday and discuss what we think is the right strategy when it comes to MACRA.

Be sure to check out all of our MACRA Monday blog posts where we dive into the details of the MACRA Quality Payment Program.

Physician EHR Burnout Infographic

Posted on February 9, 2017 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

Physician burnout is a hot topic and one that’s not likely to go away anytime soon. There are a lot of elements to physician burnout and I was impressed with how well eMedApps captured the issue of physician burnout in the infographic below.

I think the question of the next decade is going to be, “How do we decrease the administrative tasks the doctors perform?” If we don’t find a satisfactory answer, our healthcare system will be permanently damaged. What’s even scarier is that this seems to be trending worse and not better.

What would you propose to help solve the problem of physician burnout?

Physician EHR Burnout and Administration Tasks - eMedApps

Switching Out EMRs For Broad-Based HIT Platforms

Posted on February 8, 2017 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.

I’ve always enjoyed reading HISTalk, and today was no exception. This time, I came across a piece by a vendor-affiliated physician arguing that it’s time for providers to shift from isolated EMRs to broader, componentized health IT platforms. The piece, by Excelicare chief medical officer Toby Samo, MD, clearly serves his employer’s interests, but I still found the points he made to be worth discussing.

In his column, he notes that broad technical platforms, like those managed by Uber and Airbnb, have played a unique role in the industries they serve. And he contends that healthcare players would benefit from this approach. He envisions a kind of exchange allowing the use of multiple components by varied healthcare organizations, which could bring new relationships and possibilities.

“A platform is not just a technology,” he writes, “but also ‘a new business model that uses technology to connect people, organizations and resources in an interactive ecosystem.’”

He offers a long list of characteristics such a platform might have, including that it:

* Relies on apps and modules which can be reused to support varied projects and workflows
* Allows users to access workflows on smartphones and tablets as well as traditional PCs
* Presents the results of big data analytics processes in an accessible manner
* Includes an engine which allows clients to change workflows easily
* Lets users with proper security authorization to change templates and workflows on the fly
* Helps users identify, prioritize and address tasks
* Offers access to high-end clinical decision support tools, including artificial intelligence
* Provides a clean, easy-to-use interface validated by user experience experts

Now, the idea of shared, component-friendly platforms is not new. One example comes from the Healthcare Services Platform Consortium, which as of last August was working on a services-oriented architecture platform which will support a marketplace for interoperable healthcare applications. The HSPC offering will allow multiple providers to deliver different parts of a solution set rather than each having to develop their own complete solution. This is just one of what seem like scores of similar initiatives.

Excelicare, for its part, offers a cloud-based platform housing a clinical data repository. The company says its platform lets providers construct a patient-specific longitudinal health record on the fly by mining existing EHRs claims repositories and other data. This certainly seems like an interesting idea.

In all candor, my instinct is that these platforms need to be created by a neutral third party – such as travel information network SABRE – rather than connecting providers via a proprietary platform created by companies like Excelicare. Admittedly, I don’t have a deep understanding of Excelicare’s technology works, or how open its platform is, but I doubt it would be viable financially if it didn’t attempt to lock providers into its proprietary technology.

On the other hand, with no one interoperability approach having gained an unbeatable lead, one never knows what’s possible. Kudos to Samo and his colleagues for making an effort to advance the conversation around data sharing and collaboration.

EMR Data Use For Medical Research Sparks Demand For Intermediaries

Posted on February 7, 2017 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 couple of years, it’s become increasingly common for clinical studies to draw on data gathered from EMRs — so common, in fact, that last year the FDA issued official guidance on how researchers should use such data.

Intermingling research observations and EMR-based clinical data poses different problems than provider-to-provider data exchanges. Specifically, the FDA recommends that when studies use EMR data in clinical investigations, researchers make sure that the source data are attributable, legible, contemporaneous, original and accurate, a formulation known as ALCOA by the feds.

It seems unlikely that most EMR data could meet the ALCOA standard at present. However, apparently the pharmas are working to solve this problem, according to a nice note I got from PR rep Jamie Adler-Palter of Bayleaf Communications.

For a number of reasons, clinical research has been somewhat paper-bound in the past. But that’s changing. In fact, a consortium of leading pharma companies known as TransCelerate Biopharma has been driving an initiative promoting “eSourcing,” the practice of using appropriate electronic sources of data for clinical trials.

eSourcing certainly sounds sensible, as it must speed up what has traditionally been the very long process of biopharma innovation. Also, I have to agree with my source that working with an electronic source beats paper any day (or as she notes, “paper does not have interactive features such as pop-up help.”) More importantly, I doubt pharmas will meet ALCOA objectives any other way.

According to Adler-Palter, thirteen companies have been launched to provide eSource solutions since 2014, including Clinical Research IO (presumably a Bayleaf client). I couldn’t find a neat and tidy list of these companies, as such solutions seem to overlap with other technologies. (But my sense is that this is a growing area for companies like Veeva, which offers cloud-based life science solutions.)

For its part CRIO, which has signed up 50 research sites in North America to date, offers some of the tools EMR users have come to expect. These include pre-configured templates which let researchers build in rules, alerts and calculations to prevent deviations from the standards they set.

CRIO also offers remote monitoring, allowing the monitor to view a research visit as soon as it’s finished and post virtual “sticky notes” for review by the research coordinator. Of course, remote monitoring is nothing new to readers, but my sense is that pharmas are just getting the hang of it, so this was interesting.

I’m not sure yet what the growth of this technology means for providers. But overall, anything that makes biopharma research more efficient is probably a net gain for patients, no?

Advancing Care Information (ACI) Category – MACRA Monday

Posted on February 6, 2017 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

This post is part of the MACRA Monday series of blog posts where we dive into the details of the MACRA Quality Payment Program.

Time to continue our journey through the MIPS performance categories. For today’s MACRA Monday we’re going to start talking about the Advancing Care Information (ACI) category. Most of you will know this category better as meaningful use. However, it does have some significant changes to what existed in meaningful use.

Some of the major changes include a shift from the “All or Nothing” approach to the EHR meaningful use program. CPOE and CDS objectives were also eliminated along with some redundant measures. ACI also reduces the number of required public health registries.

As we mentioned previously, ACI makes up 25% of your MIPS Composite Scoring. There is a significant hardship exemption available that will change the ACI weighting to zero and apply the 25% weight to other categories. Here’s a look at how the ACI score will be calculated:

The biggest piece of ACI scoring is the 5 required measures that make up the base score as follows:

Much like meaningful use, in advancing care information (ACI) clinicians are required to use a certified EHR. Which EHR certification you use will determine which ACI objectives and measures you will need to use as follows:

That’s the quick overview of the Advancing Care Information (ACI) category. Next week we’ll take a look at the MIPS APM benefits and MACRA small practice support.

Be sure to check out all of our MACRA Monday blog posts where we dive into the details of the MACRA Quality Payment Program.

E-Patient Update:  Portal Confusion Undermines Patient Relationships

Posted on February 3, 2017 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.

I’m not surprised that some medical practice staffers and doctors seem uncomfortable with their EMR system and portal. After all, they’re not IT experts, and smaller practices might not even have any full-time IT staffers to help. That being said, if they hope to engage patients with their healthcare, they need to do better.

I’m here to argue that training staff and doctors to help patients with portal use is not only feasible, it’s important to customer service, care quality and ultimately a practice’s ability to manage populations. If you accept the notion that patients must engage with their health, you can’t leave their data access to chance. Everyone who works with patients must know the basics of portal access, or at least be able to direct the patient immediately to someone that can help.

Start with the front line

If I have problems with accessing a practice portal, the first person I’m likely to discuss it with is someone on the front lines, either via the phone or during a visit. But front office staffers seldom seem to know Thing One about the portal, including how to access it or even where to address a complaint if I have one.  But I think practices should do at least the following:

* Train at least one front-desk staffer on how to access the portal, what to do when common problems occur and how to use the portal’s key functions. Training just one champion is probably enough for smaller practices.

* Create a notebook in which such staffers log patient complaints (and solutions if they have one). This will help the practice respond and address any technical issues that arise, as well making sure they don’t lose track of any progress they’ve made.

* Every front desk staffer (and every doctor) should have a paper handout at hand which educates patients on key portal functions, as well as the name of the champion described above.  Also, the practice should provide the same information on a page of their site, allowing a staffer to simply email the link to patients if the patient is calling in with questions.

* All doctors should know about the champion(s), and be ready to offer their name and number to patients who express concerns about EMR/portal access. They should also keep the handout in their office and share it when needed.

Honestly, I don’t regard any of these steps as a big deal. In fact, I see them as little more than common sense. But I haven’t encountered a single community practice that does any of them, or even pursued their own strategies for educating patients on their portal.

Maximizing your investment

For those reading this who think these steps – or your own version – are too much trouble, think again. There’s plenty of reason to follow through on patient portal support.  After all, if nothing else, you’ve probably spent a ton of money on your EMR and portal, so why not maximize the value it offers?

Also, you don’t want to frustrate patients needlessly when a little bit of preparation and education could make such a difference. Maybe this wasn’t the case even a few years ago, but today, I’d submit, helping patients access their data is nothing more than good customer service. Given the competition every provider faces, why would you ignore a clear opportunity to foster patient loyalty?

Bear in mind that a little information goes a long way with patients like me. You don’t have to write a book to satify me – you just have to help me succeed. Just tell me what to do and I’ll be happy. So don’t miss a chance to win me over!

Practice Management Market To Hit $17.6B Within Seven Years

Posted on February 1, 2017 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.

A new research report has concluded that the global practice management systems market should hit $17.6 billion by 2024, fueled in part by the growth of value-adds like integration with other healthcare IT solutions.

The report, by London-based Grand View Research, includes a list of what it regards as key players in this industry. These include Henry Schein MicroMD, Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, AdvantEdge Healthcare Solutions, athenahealth, MediTouch, GE Healthcare, Practice Fusion, Greenway Medical, McKesson Corp, Accumedic Computer Systems and NextGen Healthcare.

The report argues that as PM systems are integrated with external systems EMRs, CPOE and laboratory information systems, practice management tools will increase in popularity. It says that this is happening because the complexity of medical billing and payment has grown over the last several years.

This is particularly the case in North America, where fast economic development, plus the presence of advanced research centers, hospitals, universities and medical device manufacturers keep up the flow of new product development and commercialization, researchers suggest.

In addition, researchers concluded that while PM software has accounted for the larger share of the market a couple of years ago, that’s changing. They predict that the services side of the business should grow substantially as practices demand training, support and system upgrades.

The report also says that cloud-based delivery of PM technology should grow rapidly in coming years. As Grand View reminds us, most PM systems historically have been based on-premise, but the move to cloud-based solutions is the future. This trend took off in 2015, researchers said.

This report, while worthwhile, probably doesn’t tell the whole story. Along with growing demand for PM systems,I’d contend that vendor sales strategies are playing a role here. After all, integration of PM systems with EMRs is part of a successful effort by many vendors to capture this parallel market along with their initial sale.

This may or may not be good for providers. I don’t have any information on how the various integrated practice management systems compare, but my sense is that generally, they’re a bit underpowered compared with their standalone competitors.

Grand View doesn’t take a stand on the comparative benefits of these two models, but it does concede that emerging integrated practice management systems linking EMRs, e-prescribing, patient engagement and other software with billing are actually different than standalone systems, which focus solely on scheduling, billing and administration. That does leave room to consider the possibility that the two models aren’t equal.

Meanwhile, one thing the report doesn’t – and probably can’t – address is how these systems will evolve under value-based care in the US. While appointment scheduling and administration will probably be much the same, it’s not clear to me how billing will evolve in such models. But we’ll need to wait and see on that. The question of how PM systems will work under value-based care probably won’t be critically important for a few years yet.

(Side note:  You may want to check out John’s post from a few years ago on practice management systems trends. It seems that the industry goes back and forth as to whether independent PM systems serve groups better than integrated ones.)

KPMG: Population Health Taking Hold

Posted on January 31, 2017 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.

A new KPMG survey has concluded that population health management approaches are becoming popular – and for nearly half of respondents, are already working.

According to the consulting firm, which reached out to 86 respondents working for a payer or healthcare provider, 44% said that they have a population health platform in place which is being used “efficiently and effectively.” Twenty-four percent of respondents said that they were in the process of implementing a pop health program within the next three years, while 10% said they had no plans to use such a platform. (Another 21% said that their organization didn’t need one.)

Thirty percent of respondents said that the biggest individual obstacle to implementing a population health strategy was aggregating and standardizing information from multiple sources. Meanwhile, 10% cited stakeholder adoption as a barrier, and 10% named integrating with clinical work flows as a key issues. Meanwhile, another 34% cited “all of the above” as a significant barrier, along with enabling patient engagement, funding investments and choosing the right vendors.

Along the way, KPMG asked respondents where they stood with value-based payments. Thirty-six percent said “some of our revenue is generated by value-based payments,” and 14% said that the majority of their revenue came from value-based payments.  As for those that weren’t there yet, 26% said they were planning to enter into value-based contracts within one to three years, while just 7% said they were not planning to do so. (The remaining 17% said they don’t require value-based payments.)

All that being said, though, there’s a problem here. And that problem is that while everyone seems to think they mean the same thing when they discuss population health management, I’d submit that in many cases they aren’t on the same page. In fact, I’d argue that until we get that straight, studies like these don’t tell us a lot.

Yes, I think we all have the same broad idea in mind when the topic of PHM comes up, which is to say that we envision a system in which a health system, ACO or health insurer sets broad goals for key health metrics across a population.  And as most readers probably know, the health insurance industry has been managing a population-wide set of standards known as HEDIS (the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set) for decades. HEDIS is designed to make apples-to-apples comparisons of health plan performance possible by providing very carefully defined criteria.

On the other hand, the number of technologies, approaches and philosophies being implemented by health organizations for population health management do no such thing. While there’s probably many areas of broad consensus on what should be measured – particularly when it comes to chronic, costly conditions like diabetes and heart disease — we don’t have any shared performance standard.

So before we look at pop health stats, it might be a good idea to clarify what that means to those answering surveys like this. Otherwise, it’s GIGO.

Cost and Clinical Practice Improvement Activities (CPIA) Categories – MACRA Monday

Posted on January 30, 2017 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

This post is part of the MACRA Monday series of blog posts where we dive into the details of the MACRA Quality Payment Program.

We’re continuing to move through the various MIPS performance categories as we cover the details of MACRA. Today we’re going to cover the Cost and Clinical Practice Improvement Activities (CPIA) Categories.

MIPS Cost Category
We won’t cover much of the Cost (Formerly known as Resource Use) category since it has basically been relegated to future MACRA requirements. For those that missed it, the cost category has a weighting of 0% in 2017, so it basically won’t impact your MACRA payment adjustment at all. In 2017, they’re looking at feedback for this category, but it won’t affect your 2019 payments.

You’ll probably remember that the Cost category was the replacement to the value-based modifier and didn’t require any reporting on the part of the provider. Instead, the cost category is tracked using the Medicare claims data. This means that CMS will still have the data they need to evaluate this category without any additional work from providers.

MIPS Clinical Practice Improvement Activities (CPIA) Category
You’ll remember that the Clinical Practice Improvement Activities (CPIA) category is a new category that was added as part of MACRA. This category will account for 15% of your MIPS score. This category has some small practice exceptions and also special credit for those participating in a patient-centered medical home or other similar medical home model.

Under CPIA providers must choose from 90+ activities in the following 9 subcategories:

CPIA will be scored on a total of 40 points with “Medium” activities scoring 10 points and “High” activities scoring 20 points. These point totals are doubled for small, rural, and underserved practices. That means that small practices only need to do 1-2 activities to get full credit for this category. Larger practices only need to do 2-4.

The Cost and CPIA MIPS categories only make up 15% of your total MIPS score. So, they’re not going to be a significant impact on your MACRA score either way. However, if you do even just 1 improvement activity (CPIA), then you’ll avoid any negative payment adjustment thanks to MIPS pick your pace.

That’s all for this week’s MACRA Monday. Next week we’ll talk Advancing Care Information (ACI) or what most of you call meaningful use.

Be sure to check out all of our MACRA Monday blog posts where we dive into the details of the MACRA Quality Payment Program.

 E-Patient Update:  The Impact Of Telehealth Confusion

Posted on January 27, 2017 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.

I am a huge fan of telemedicine consults. As far as I can tell, all of the chronic conditions I currently cope with can be addressed effectively by a virtual visit unless I’m in a medical crisis.

My reasons are not unusual. Like most people, I hate having to drive to a doctor’s office if I’m already feeling yucky, particularly if it’s not necessary. And since time is money – particularly when you work for yourself like me – there’s some material benefits to telehealth too. Not only that, since I’m a tech fan who lives online, these contacts “feel” as real as face-to-face visits, so I don’t have lingering doubts that I’m not getting much for my money.

Getting a quick visit in regarding an acute medical issue (like, say, a sinus infection) has been pretty easy and relatively affordable as well. But reaching out to a new specialist – or even connecting with my existing providers — is another story. Over the last several months, I’ve encountered a number of barriers which seem to be fairly entrenched in the system.

Garbage contact info

Over the last year, I’ve been with two major health insurers (CIGNA and United Healthcare) whose databases included a list of specialists which were allegedly willing to do telehealth consults. But as it turns out, actually moving ahead with such visits has been impossible.

At one point, I decided to go all out and see if I could actually schedule a telehealth visit with one type of specialist I need. Armed with a list of providers who were supposedly up for it, I called perhaps 15 or 20 offices to see how I could schedule my first virtual visit. But I got nowhere. Most of the physicians simply never returned my calls, and in the rare cases where I got a live person, they had no idea what I was talking about.

I’m assuming that this happened because the doctors had the option to check a “telemedicine” box if they were generally interested in implementing it, and that few if any had actually gone ahead with their plans. But I’m still very annoyed with the whole thing. Sure, insurers don’t have perfect information on hand at any given moment, but isn’t in their interests to steer patients to less-expensive telehealth services if they’re available?

Coverage confusion

Another thing that astonishes me is that while I allegedly have telemedicine coverage via my current insurer (CIGNA) I can’t find anyone who has the slightest idea of how I should use it!  I have called CIGNA’s call center four or five times in an attempt to straighten this out, but none of the reps I spoke with had a clue as to which providers were covered by my policy, if any, and under what circumstances.

At some point, telemedicine coverage will be known as “coverage,” of course. There’s really no reason to segment it out into a separate category if you’re going to pay for it anyway. But at present, if CIGNA is any indication, there’s still some confusion around how and when coverage is even applicable. I can’t understand it, but I can attest to you that such foolishness is a Real Thing.

Launch fears

The other problem I’ve encountered is that while medical practices may have the technical capability to deploy telemedicine, they seem afraid to do so. I’ve asked many of my doctors (and their staff) what it will take for them to begin offering virtual visits, and I’ve gotten a mix of confusion and concern. None, even for example the fairly large and seemingly well-funded PCP office I visit, appears to be anywhere close to rolling out such services.

I can’t prove it, but my sense is that two things are going on here. First, I sense that practice leaders don’t feel ready to take on the technical challenges involved in supporting virtual visits. Though my guess is that security is the only real issue — which can be addressed by using the right vendor — they seem quite timid about even experimenting with this approach. Second, I am pretty sure they’re not sure how to handle billing, or alternatively, what to charge if they don’t bill insurance.

I admit their concerns are reality-based. But I’d argue that the benefits of offering telehealth far outweigh these concerns. Apparently, my doctors don’t agree just yet.

Ultimately, I think we’d all agree that telemedicine uptake will grow by leaps and bounds over the next several years. But it seems we’ll have to deal with a lot of administrivia before that can happen.