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!

Provider-Backed Health Data Interoperability Organization Launches

Posted on April 12, 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.

In 1988, some members of the cable television industry got together to form CableLabs, a non-proft innovation center and R&D lab. Since then, the non-profit has been a driving force in bringing cable operators together, developing technologies and specifications for services as well as offering testing and certification facilities.

Among its accomplishments is the development of DOCSIS (Data-over-Cable Service Interface Specification), a standard used worldwide to provide Internet access via a cable modem. If your cable modem is DOCSIS compliant, it can be used on any modern cable network.

If you’re thinking this approach might work well in healthcare, you’re not the only one. In fact, a group of powerful healthcare providers as just launched a health data sharing-focused organization with a similar approach.

The Center for Medical Interoperability, which will be housed in a 16,000-square-foot location in Nashville, is a membership-based organization offering a testing and certification lab for devices and systems. The organization has been in the works since 2011, when the Gary and Mary West Health Institute began looking at standards-based approaches to medical device interoperability.

The Center brings together a group of top US healthcare systems – including HCA Healthcare, Vanderbilt University and Community Health Systems — to tackle interoperability issues collaboratively.  Taken together, the board of directors represent more than 50 percent of the healthcare industry’s purchasing power, said Kerry McDermott, vice president of public policy and communications for the Center.

According to Health Data Management, the group will initially focus on acute care setting within a hospital, such as the ICU. In the ICU, patients are “surrounded by dozens of medical devices – each of which knows something valuable about the patient  — but we don’t have a streamlined way to aggregate all that data and make it useful for clinicians,” said McDermott, who spoke with HDM.

Broadly speaking, the Center’s goal is to let providers share health information as seamlessly as ATMs pass banking data across their network. To achieve that goal, its leaders hope to serve as a force for collaboration and consensus between healthcare organizations.

The project’s initial $10M in funding, which came from the Gary and Mary West Foundation, will be used to develop, test and certify devices and software. The goal will be to develop vendor-neutral approaches that support health data sharing between and within health systems. Other goals include supporting real-time one-to-many communications, plug-and-play device and system integration and the use of standards, HDM reports.

It will also host a lab known as the Transformation Learning Center, which will help clinicians explore the impact of emerging technologies. Clinicians will develop use cases for new technologies there, as well as capturing clinical requirements for their projects. They’ll also participate in evaluating new technologies on their safety, usefulness, and ability to satisfy patients and care teams.

As part of its efforts, the Center is taking a close look at the FHIR API.  Still, while FHIR has great potential, it’s not mature yet, McDermott told the magazine.

Two Worth Reading

Posted on April 6, 2017 I Written By

When Carl Bergman isn't rooting for the Washington Nationals or searching for a Steeler bar, he’s Managing Partner of EHRSelector.com, a free service for matching users and EHRs. For the last dozen years, he’s concentrated on EHR consulting and writing. He spent the 80s and 90s as an itinerant project manger doing his small part for the dot com bubble. Prior to that, Bergman served a ten year stretch in the District of Columbia government as a policy and fiscal analyst.

HIT is a relatively small world that generates no end of notices, promotions and commentaries. You can usually skim them, pick out what’s new or different and move on. Recently, I’ve run into two articles that deserve a slow, savored reading: Politico’s Arthur Allen’s History of VistA, the VA’s homegrown EHR and Julia Adler-Milstein’s take on interoperability’s hard times.

VistA: An Old Soldier That May Just Fade Away – Maybe

The VA’s EHR is not only older than just about any other EHR, it’s older than just about any app you’ve used in the last ten years. It started when Jimmy Carter was in his first presidential year. It was a world of mainframes running TSO and 3270 terminals. Punch cards still abounded and dialup modems were rare. Even then, there were doctors and programmers who wanted to move vet’s hard copy files into a more usable, shareable form.

Arthur Allen has recounted their efforts, often clandestine, in tracking VistA’s history. It’s not only a history of one EHR and how it has fallen in and out of favor, but it’s also a history of how personal computing has grown, evolved and changed. Still a user favorite, it looks like its accumulated problems, often political as much as technical, may mean it will finally meet its end – or maybe not. In any event, Allen has written an effective, well researched piece of technological history.

Adler-Milstein: Interoperability’s Not for the Faint of Heart

Adler-Milstein, a University of Michigan Associate Professor of Health Management and Policy has two things going for her. She knows her stuff and she writes in a clear, direct prose. It’s a powerful and sadly rare combination.

In this case, she probes the seemingly simple issue of HIE interoperability or the lack thereof. She first looks at the history of EHR adoption, noting that MU1 took a pass on I/O. This was a critical error, because it:

[A]llowed EHR systems to be designed and adopted in ways that did not take HIE into account, and there were no market forces to fill the void.

When stage two with HIE came along, it meant retrofitting thousands of systems. We’ve been playing catch up, if at all, ever since.

Her major point is simple. It’s in everyone’s interest to find ways of making I/O work and that means abandoning fault finding and figuring out what can work.

ACP Offers Recommendations On Reducing MD Administrative Overload

Posted on March 30, 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.

As everyone knows, physicians are being overwhelmed by outsized levels of administrative chores. As if dealing with insurance companies wasn’t challenging enough, in recent years EMRs have added to this burden, with clinicians doing double duty as data entry clerks after they’re seen patients.

Unfortunately, streamlining EMR use for clinical use has proven to be a major challenge. Still, there are steps healthcare organizations can take to cut down on clinicians’ administrative frustrations, according to the American College of Physicians.

The ACP’s recommendations include the following:

  1. Stakeholders responsible for imposing administrative tasks – such as payors, government and vendors – should analyze the impact of administrative tasks on physicians. If a task is found to have a negative effect on care quality, needlessly questions a clinician’s judgment or increases costs, it should be challenged, fixed or removed.
  2. If an administrative task can’t be cut, it must be reviewed, revised, aligned or streamlined to reduce stakeholders’ burden.
  3. Stakeholders should collaborate with professional societies, clinicians, patients and EMR vendors to develop performance measures that minimize needless clinician burden and integrate performance reporting and quality improvement.
  4. All key stakeholders should collaborate in reducing, streamlining, reducing and aligning clinicians’ administrative tasks by making better use of health IT.
  5. As the US healthcare system shifts to value-based payment, stakeholders should consider streamlining or eliminating duplicative administrative demands.
  6. The ACP would like to see rigorous research done on the impact of administrative tasks on healthcare quality, time and cost; on clinicians, staff and healthcare organizations; patient and family; and patient outcomes.
  7. The ACP calls for research on best practices for cutting down on clinicians’ administrative tasks within both practices and organizations. All key stakeholders, including clinician societies, payors, regulators, vendors and suppliers, should disseminate these evidence-based best practices.

It appears that even the federal government has begun to take these issues to heart. According to Modern Healthcare, late last year CMS announced a long-term initiative intended to reduce physicians’ administrative burdens.  Then-acting CMS Administrator Andy Slavitt said the initiative would hopefully make it a bit easier for practices to meet the requirements of the Quality Payment Program under MACRA.

But other sources of administrative frustration are likely to linger for the foreseeable future, as they’re deeply ingrained in stakeholder business processes or simply difficult to change.

For example, the American Academy of Family Physicians notes that some of the biggest aggravations and time wasters for its members include the need to get prior authorizations from health plans and outdated CMS documentation guidelines for E/M services which don’t leverage EMR capabilities. Sadly, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for either of those problems to be solved.

Still, it seems some healthcare organizations want to take on the administrative overhead problem. The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center has launched an initiative aimed at reducing the number of computer-related tasks doctors have to perform. According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, UPMC is partnering with Microsoft to minimize physicians’ need to do electronic paperwork. Executives with the two organizations say this effort should result in tools for both doctors and patients.

E-Patient Update: Give Us Patient Data Analytics

Posted on March 24, 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.

The other day, I sat down with my husband to check out the features of his new connected glucose monitor. My husband, a Type 2 diabetic, had purchased the Accu-Chek Aviva Connect, which when synched with a computer, displays readings data on the web.

After synching up his results with his desktop via Bluetooth, he entered a web portal and boom! There was a two-week history of his readings, with data points organized by what times they were taken. As part of its dashboard, the portal also displayed the highest and lowest readings taken during the time period, as well as citing the average difference between high and low readings (the size of the delta).

By going over this data, we were able to learn a few things about his current disease management efforts. For example, we saw that virtually all of the highest readings were taken between 6PM and 9PM, which helped him identify some behaviors that he could change.

Of course, for the professionals reading this, none of these features are all that impressive. In fact, they’re practically kid’s stuff, though I imagine his endocrinologist will get at least some benefit from the charts.

But I’m here to tell you that as patient data management goes, this is off-the-charts cool. After all, neither of us has had a chance to track key health metrics and act on them, at least not without doing our own brute number crunching with a spreadsheet. As you can imagine, we greatly prefer this approach.

Unfortunately, few patients have access to any kind of analytics tools that put our health data in context. And without such tools most of us don’t get much benefit out of accessing the data. It’s time for things to change!

Upgrade the portal

One of the most common ways patients access their health data is via a provider portal. Most commonly, portals display the results of diagnostic tests, including lab tests and the text of imaging results.

Sharing this data is a step in the right direction, but it’s not likely to empower patients on its own. After all, even an experienced clinician would find it difficult to make sense of dozens (or in the case of chronically-ill patients like me, hundreds) of test results.  Even if the portal provided educational material on each test, it may be too much information for a patient to absorb.

On the other hand, patients could do a lot with their data if it was displayed in a patient-friendly manner. The possibilities for improving data display are manifold. They include:

  • Displaying tests relating to specific concern (such as thyroid levels) in sequence over time
  • Offer a chart comparing related data points, such as blood pressure levels and cardiac functioning or kidney functioning paired with blood glucose levels
  • Display only outlier test values, along with expected ranges, and link to an explanation of what these values might mean
  • Have the portal auto-generate a list of questions patients should ask their doctor, based on any issues suggested by test data

By provider standards, these displays might be fairly mundane. But speaking as a patient, I think they’d be very valuable. I am compulsive enough to check all of my health data and follow up with questions, but few patients are, and any tools which helped them decide what action to take would represent a big step forward.

It would be even more useful if patients could upload results from health bands or smartwatches and cross-reference that data with testing results. But for the short term, it would be enough to help patients understand the data already in the system.

Giving patients more power

At first, some providers might object to giving patients this much information, as odd as it may sound. I’ve actually run into situations where a practice won’t share test data with a patient until the doctor has “approved” the results, apparently because they don’t want patients to be frightened by adverse information.

But if we want to engage patients, providers have to give give patients more power. If nothing else, we need a better way to look at our data, and learn how we can respond effectively.

To be fair, few providers will have the resources in-house to add patient data analytics tools to portals. Their vendors will have to add upgrades to their portal software, and that’s not likely to happen overnight. After all, while the technical challenges involved are trivial, developers will need to decide exactly how they’re going to analyze the data and what search capabilities patients should have.

But there’s no excuse for letting this issue go, either. If providers want patients to engage in their healthcare process, helping them understand their health data is one of the most important steps they can take. Expecting patients to dive in and figure it out themselves is unlikely to work.

Encouraged By Political Changes, Groups Question ONC Functions

Posted on March 21, 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.

Riding on an anti-regulation drive backed by the White House, groups unhappy with some actions by ONC are fighting to rein it in. President Trump has said that he would like to see two regulations killed for every new reg, and the groups seemingly see this as an opening.

One group challenging ONC activities is HealthIT Now, a coalition of providers, payers, employers and patient groups.

In a letter to HHS Secretary Tom Price, Health IT Now argues that ONC exceeded its authority last year, when it backed an oversight rule designed to boost the certification process by evaluating vendor interoperability capabilities.

The 2016 rule also holds health IT vendors accountable for technology flaws that could compromise patient safety, an approach which, HITN argues, steals a move from federal agencies such as the FDA. The group also contends that ONC has not been clear about its criteria for critiquing HIT solutions for safety problems.

Meanwhile, a group of medical societies and specialties is asking federal health officials to hold off on 2015 EHR certification requirements, which providers are expected to start using January 2018, for at least one year. The group notes that since ONC released its final 2015 Edition requirements, few vendors – in fact, just 54 of 3,700 products currently certified – have fully upgraded their systems.

Given this situation, rushing to deploy the latest certification requirements could create big problems, including a major disruption to medical practices’ business, the coalition argues.

If they’re forced to choose from the small number of systems which have upgraded their platforms, “physicians may be driven to switch vendors and utilize a system that is not suitable for their specialty or patient population,” the group said in a letter to CMS acting administrator Patrick Conway, MD, and acting ONC national coordinator Jon White, MD.

In addition to addressing certification concerns, there’s much the federal government can do to support health IT improvement, according to attendees at HIMSS17.

According to HITN, attendees would like policymakers to address interoperability, in part by reviewing Meaningful Use and the ONC Voluntary Certification programs; to focus on improving patient identification systems, and avoid imposing barriers to private market solutions; to clarify the role of the ONC in the marketplace; and to encourage the use of real-world evidence in healthcare and health IT deployment.

As I see it, these ideas veer between close-in detail and broad policy prescriptions, neither of which seem likely to have a big effect on their own.

On the one hand, while it might help to clarify ONC’s role, authority and process, the truth is that the health IT market isn’t living or dying on what it does. This is particularly the case given its revolving door leaders with too little time to do more than nudge the industry.

Meanwhile, it seems equally unlikely that the federal government will come up with generally-applicable policy prescriptions which can solve nasty problems like achieving health data interoperability and sorting out patient matching issues.

I’m not saying that government has no role in supporting the emergence of health IT solutions. In fact, I’m fairly confident that we won’t get anywhere without its assistance. However, until we have a more effective role for its involvement, government efforts aren’t likely to bear much fruit.

Paper Records Are Dead

Posted on March 14, 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.

Here’s an argument that’s likely to upset some, but resonate with others. After kicking the idea around in my head, I’ve concluded that given broad cultural trends, that the healthcare industry as a whole has outgrown the use of paper records once and for all. I know that this notion is implicit in what health IT leaders do, but I wanted to state this directly nonetheless.

Let me start out by noting that I’m not coming down on the minority of practices (and the even smaller percentage of hospitals) which still run on old-fashioned paper charts. No solution is right for absolutely everyone, and particularly in the case of small, rural medical practices, paper charts may be just the ticket.

Also, there are obviously countless reasons why some physicians dislike or even hate current EMRs. I don’t have space to go into them here, but far too many, they’re hard to use, expensive, time-consuming monsters. I’m certainly not trying to suggest that doctors that have managed to cling to paper are just being contrary.

Still, for all but the most isolated and small providers, over the longer term there’s no viable argument left for shuffling paper around. Of course, the healthcare industry won’t realize most of the benefits of EMRs and digital health until they’re physician-friendly, and progress in that direction has been extremely slow, but if we can create platforms that physicians like, there will be no going back. In fact, for most their isn’t any going back even if they don’t become more physician firendly. If we’re going to address population-wide health concerns, coordinate care across communities and share health information effectively, going full-on digital is the only solution, for reasons that include the following:

  • Millennial and Gen Y patients won’t settle for less. These consumers are growing up in a world which has gone almost completely digital, and telling them that, for example they have to get in line to get copies of a paper record would not go down well with them.
  • Healthcare organizations will never be able to scale up services effectively, or engage with patients sufficiently, without using EMRs and digital health tools. If you doubt this, consider the financial services industry, which was sharing information with consumers decades before providers began to do so. If you can’t imagine a non-digital relationship with your bank at this point, or picture how banks could do their jobs without web-based information sharing, you’ve made my point for me.
  • Without digital healthcare, it may be impossible for hospitals, health systems, medical practices and other healthcare stakeholders to manage population health needs. Yes, public health organizations have conducted research on community health trends using paper charts, and done some effective interventions, but nothing on the scale of what providers hope (and need) to achieve. Paper records simply don’t support community-based behavioral change nearly as well.
  • Even small healthcare operations – like a two-doctor practice – will ultimately need to go digital to meet quality demands effectively. Though some have tried valiantly, largely by auditing paper charts, it’s unlikely that they’d ever build patient engagement, track trends and see that predictable needs are met (like diabetic eye exams) as effectively without EMRs and digital health data.

Of course, as noted above, the countervailing argument to all of this is the first few generations of EMRs have done more to burden clinicians than help them achieve their goals, sometimes by a very large margin. That seems to be largely because most have been designed — and sadly, continue to be designed — more to support billing processes than improve care. But if EMRs are redesigned to support patient care first and foremost, things will change drastically. Someday our grandchildren, carrying their lifetime medical history in a chip on their fingernail, will wonder how providers ever managed during our barbaric age.

 

Physicians Ask New HHS Head For Health IT Help

Posted on February 28, 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.

The American Academy of Family Practitioners has written to new HHS Secretary Tom Price with a list of areas in which health IT could use a helping hand.  In its letter, the group outlines issues with physician use of health IT that the new leadership could tackle.

According to the AAFP, the top issues policymakers need to tackle include:

  • Lack of healthcare data access undercuts care: Without interoperability, it will be hard for doctors to ensure continuity of care, care coordination and a learning and accountable health system, the group says. It names the Direct protocols as an example of progress on this front.
  • HIT functions are too business-oriented: According to the AAFP, the healthcare industry has spent too much time focused on automating the business of healthcare, particularly documentation. The letter argues that it’s time to flip the focus from business functions to delivery of appropriate care.
  • HIT reduces physician satisfaction: The group argues that current health IT solutions are “extinguishing the joy of practice” for physicians and contributing to physician burnout and frustration.
  • EHR certification standards are undercutting clinicians: The AAFP contends that existing standards for EHR certification are causing problems physicians, as they don’t do much to push vendors to meet user demands or improve their technology.

This is certainly a reasonable summary of issues in physician HIT adoption. And they deserve to be addressed Unfortunately, it’s not likely that that the AAFP will get much satisfaction from HHS, CMS or any other government entity. I’ve reluctantly come to the conclusion that agencies like ONC aren’t going to get much more done.

I do have hope that current waves of technology will allow health IT issues to self-heal to some extent. In particular, as healthcare technology becomes more decentralized, connected and mobile, providers won’t have to manage clumsy, ugly EMR interfaces on the desktop. In part due to some chats with vendors, I’ve become convinced that next-gen HIT solutions will present data via lightweight clients (perhaps even lighter than existing apps) which create an EMR-on-the-fly. One example of a company working on this approach is Praxify which Healthcare Scene recently saw at HIMSS. This lightweight client approach could make existing concerns about HIT usability and architecture obsolete.

However, I’m realistic enough to know that no matter how nifty emerging HIT approaches are, we still have to get from here to there. And as long as clinicians remain something of an afterthought when EMRs are designed – something which despite vendor denials, remains a big issue – we’re likely to keep struggling with today’s HIT issues. Let’s hope the revolution comes before we’ve exhausted our issues fighting current health IT demons.

The Healthcare AI Future, From Google’s DeepMind

Posted on February 22, 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.

While much of its promise is still emerging, it’s hard to argue that AI has arrived in the health IT world. As I’ve written in a previous article, AI can already be used to mine EMR data in a sophisticated way, at least if you understand its limitations. It also seems poised to help providers predict the incidence and progress of diseases like congestive heart failure. And of course, there are scores of companies working on other AI-based healthcare projects. It’s all heady stuff.

Given AI’s potential, I was excited – though not surprised – to see that world-spanning Google has a dog in this fight. Google, which acquired British AI firm DeepMind Technologies a few years ago, is working on its own AI-based healthcare solutions. And while there’s no assurance that DeepMind knows things that its competitors don’t, its status as part of the world’s biggest data collector certainly comes with some advantages.

According to the New Scientist, DeepMind has begun working with the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, which oversees three hospitals. DeepMind has announced a five-year agreement with the trust, in which it will give it access to patient data. The Google-owned tech firm is using that data to develop and roll out its healthcare app, which is called Streams.

Streams is designed to help providers kick out alerts about a patient’s condition to the cellphone used by the doctor or nurse working with them, in the form of a news notification. At the outset, Streams will be used to find patients at risk of kidney problems, but over the term of the five-year agreement, the developers are likely to add other functions to the app, such as patient care coordination and detection of blood poisoning.

Streams will deliver its news to iPhones via push notifications, reminders or alerts. At present, given its focus on acute kidney injury, it will focus on processing information from key metrics like blood tests, patient observations and histories, then shoot a notice about any anomalies it finds to a clinician.

This is all part of an ongoing success story for DeepMind, which made quite a splash in 2016. For example, last year its AlphaGo program actually beat the world champion at Go, a 2,500-year-old strategy game invented in China which is still played today. DeepMind also achieved what it terms “the world’s most life-like speech synthesis” by creating raw waveforms. And that’s just a couple of examples of its prowess.

Oh, and did I mention – in an achievement that puts it in the “super-smart kid you love to hate” category – that DeepMind has seen three papers appear in prestigious journal Nature in less than two years? It’s nothing you wouldn’t expect from the brilliant minds at Google, which can afford the world’s biggest talents. But it’s still a bit intimidating.

In any event, if you haven’t heard of the company yet (and I admit I hadn’t) I’m confident you will soon. While the DeepMind team isn’t the only group of geniuses working on AI in healthcare, it can’t help but benefit immensely from being part of Google, which has not only unimaginable data sources but world-beating computing power at hand. If it can be done, they’re going to do it.

Denmark’s Health System Suffering Familiar EMR Woes

Posted on February 21, 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.

If you’re trying to navigate the US healthcare system – or worse, trying to pay for your care — Denmark’s alternative may sound pretty sweet. The Danish health system, which is funded through income taxes, offers free care to all Danish residents and EU citizens, as well as free emergency treatment to visitors from all other countries. And the Danes manage to deliver high-quality healthcare while keeping costs at 10.5% of its GDP (as opposed the US, which spends nearly 18% of the GDP on healthcare).

That being said, when it comes to health IT, Denmark is going through some struggles which should be familiar to us all. Starting in 2014, the Danish government began modernizing its healthcare system, an effort which includes developing both new hospitals and a modern health IT infrastructure. One of the linchpins of its efforts is a focus on directing care to fewer, more specialized hospitals – cutting beds by 20% and hopefully reducing average lengths of hospital stays from five to three days – supported by its HIT expansion.

You probably won’t be surprised to learn, meanwhile, that Epic has inserted itself into this effort, winning a $1B project to put its systems in place across 20 hospitals with 44,000 concurrent users. Unfortunately for the Danes, who are starting with a few hospitals in one of the country’s five regions, the effort has run into some early snags. Apparently, the Epic installs at these initial test hospitals aren’t going according to plan.

According to one publication, initial hospital go-lives in May and June of last year have seen  major problems, including errors that have put patients at risk, as well as creating erroneous test reports, results and prescriptions. The Epic systems were also having trouble communicating with the Danish health card, which stores patient information on a magnetic stripe.

The questionable rollout has since caused some controversy. As of August 2016, the local doctors’ union was demanding that a planned deployment in Copenhagen, at Denmark’s busiest hospital, be put off until authorities had figured out what was going wrong at the other two.

At first, I was surprised to hear about about Denmark’s IT woes, as I’d blithely assumed that a government-run health system would have a “central planning” advantage in EMR implementations. But as it turns out, that’s clearly not the case. It seems some frustrations are universal.

I got some insight into this yesterday, when I took a call from an earnest Danish journalist who was trying to understand what the heck was going on with Epic. “Things are going badly here,” she said. “There are lots of complaints from the first two hospitals. And the systems can’t talk to each other.”

I told her not to be surprised by all of this, given how complex Epic rollouts can be. I also warned that given the high cost of Epic software and support, it would not be astonishing if the project ended up over budget. I then predicted that without pulling Epic-trained (and perhaps Epic certified) experts into the project, things might get worse before they get better. “Just hire a boatload of American Epic consultants and you’ll be fine,” I told her, perhaps a bit insensitively. “Maybe.”

When I said that, she was clearly taken aback. Even from thousands of miles away, I could tell she was unhappy. “I was hoping you had a solution,” she finally said. “I wish,” I replied. And I had to laugh so I wouldn’t cry.

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.