I recently saw a tweet to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCLS) list of “Top 12 Legislative Issues of 2012.” It’s an interesting look into issues that state legislatures will be dealing with in 2012. Plus, it makes an interesting observation at the outset that state budgets have been cut so much in past years that lawmakers won’t have to focus all of their initial energy on budget shortfalls.

Most of the list is not surprising with managing the state budget and jobs are at the top of the list. However, there are a couple healthcare and health IT related sections in their list of top government issues as well.

One of the issues is Medicaid: Efficiencies and quality. It talks about how the tough economy is making the Medicaid budgets in states a real challenge and many are looking for cost containing actions. Plus, it points to ACO type reimbursement based on patients’ health outcomes, medical homes and streamlining services. The ACO part was quite interesting to me. I wonder how much of an effect lack of Medicaid budget will push forward a new model of healthcare.

The disturbing part of the report comes in the “Health: Reform in the states, health care exchanges, technology and benefits. Here’s the section on health IT, the EHR incentive money and HIEs.

HEALTH INFORMATION EXCHANGE: One focus for state legislatures in 2012 will be how to move health care providers, especially those participating in the Medicaid program, toward the adoption of certified electronic health records (EHRs). Essentially, instead of having a different health record at each doctor or provider you visit, an EHR will serve as one file that all of your doctors can see. EHRs, once fully implemented, are expected to provide doctors and health professionals with easier access to patient histories and data, resulting in cost-savings and better health outcomes by removing costly errors and duplications in services.

I love how this basically assumes that by having widespread adoption of EHR software, that we’ll then have one patient record that each doctor you visit can see instead of having a different health record at every doctor. Of course, those of us in the EHR world know that this is a far cry from the reality of EHR software today. In most cases you can’t even share a patient record with someone using the same EHR software as you let alone sharing a patient record with a doctor who is using a different EHR.

The sad part is that whoever wrote these legislative issues must have realized that there was some issue with EHR software exchanging information, because then they wrote the following about the state HIE initiatives.

In addition, states are responsible for building and implementing health information exchanges (HIEs) where those EHRs can be accessed by health care providers. HIEs function like an online file cabinet where your medical record is securely stored, and can be accessed by any doctor or health care professional you visit. By mid-year 2012, every state should have Medicaid EHR Incentive programs in place and will be working toward building an HIE by late 2014 or early 2015 as required by deadlines attached to federal cooperative agreements.

So, wait. If EHR software has created one file where any doctor can access our patient record, then why do we need “an online file cabinet” for our medical records? We know the answer is that we need the online filing cabinet because EHR software isn’t connected and there isn’t one patient record. Each doctor maintains their own patient record and that’s not going to change any time soon.

The above quote also implies that every state is working towards an HIE program per the federal program. I must admit that I haven’t gone through every state, but is every state working on an HIE? I certainly know there are a lot of states working on some sort of HIE project, but I didn’t think that every state had funding for HIE. I guess maybe the question is whether there is any state that doesn’t have some sort of HIE program in the works.

Reading issues described like this, you can understand how government passes legislation with limited understanding. Based on this resource, EHR software creates one patient record. Wouldn’t that be nice if it were the case?

I’m not a big fan of reality shows, especially those that involve contestants singing, telling jokes, dancing, or anything else that could potentially result in public humiliation. I’m in the minority, of course, as this style of television programming shows no sign of abating anytime soon. It’s a worldwide epidemic, in my opinion.

I am a fan of creative marketing – applying concepts traditionally associated with one particular medium (like television) to something entirely different (like healthcare). Needless to say, the Big Break job recruitment program – you could also call them auditions – intrigued me.

In a nutshell, pre-screened candidates take part in a one-day audition process put on by recruitment firm Intellect Resources and participating hospitals. Candidates then compete to become trainers and instruct staff on the use of the sponsoring hospital’s electronic medical record system or related healthcare IT system.

Seems like a slam-dunk concept, in my opinion. Those who are unemployed get a job within their community, and also get a taste of what that popular 15 minutes of fame is like. Did I mention that candidates go through video interviews and public presentations during the daylong process?

I recently chatted with Tiffany Crenshaw, President and CEO of sponsoring organization Intellect Resources, about how the program came about and the impact it has had on its participants’ lives (and go-lives).

How did the Big Break come about?
Tiffany Crenshaw: The Big Break spawned out of a project we were working on at Mt. Sinai Hospital last year. Last fall, they were getting ready for their Epic training and called me in a panic. They were expecting to get 90 to 100 trainers, and were going to use nurses, but realized at the last minute that wasn’t a viable idea. So they called us and said, “We have to do something now – we have no budget and we have no time. And we want to do some sort of done-in-a-day type audition. What can you do?”

So we said this is right up our alley. We created a really cool event – it was at the big Marriott Marquis in Times Square. We had around 500 contestants, and they all went through a timed audition process – stressful for them, but it was still fun.

They had to go through seed interviews and get in front of cameras. They had to get in front of a boardroom of judges and do presentations. At the end of the day, we ended up with 100 trainers that worked at Mt. Sinai to help roll out the hospital’s Epic training and go-live.

So that’s really the model of Big Break. We created it as a solution for Mt. Sinai, and now other folks are getting the word about it. Ochsner Health System is our next one. We’ve got the Big Break event for them in just a couple of weeks (January 21).

Did they reach out to you?
A consultant and dear friend of mine that was actually helping them with their system selection and project planning for their Epic implementation recommended this business model, and brought us in as the vendor to run this product for them. So yes, they did reach out to us, but it was really a consultant that made it happen.

Are you an all-Epic recruiting firm?
At the moment, that’s just about all we’re doing. Through the years, we’ve worked with many other products – with McKesson, Cerner, Siemens. The demand right now is Epic, so by default we’re doing all Epic. That’s just where the demand is, and so that’s where we’re spending our time.

How have you seen this type of program impact sponsoring hospitals and surrounding communities?
We think it’s a business model that works very well for hospitals. It’s a very low-cost way to get good resources. It’s also a good marketing opportunity for them to promote the fact they’re installing an electronic health record to the benefit of their patients, and it’s a great way for them to reinvest in their own community.

At Ochsner, the idea is that this is really for the New Orleans community. They don’t like to hire outside consultants. They really want to empower and revitalize their own community.

Many of the folks that we worked with at Mt. Sinai have gone on to work at other places. Big Break was really their footprint in the door. The end result is that the consultants that come through with really good experiences.  Over 50 percent of them are now working in the industry. Mt. Sinai actually hired four full-time employees. There was a big project up in Rochester, N.Y., that a lot of the people went to after that first project. We redeployed probably 20 of them on several go-lives.

Is there an opportunity for this to work in other cities?
At our very first meeting with Ochsner’s project executive, we talked about the fact that there are several area hospitals in and around New Orleans gearing up for Epic implementations. Our original thought was, let’s do this together, but the go-live timeframes didn’t work.

It would make perfect sense if there were multiple hospitals that could do the event together, do the credentialing together, and then take people from a generic credentialing and deploy them to the individual hospitals to learn the individual builds. I think it’s a model that could be a really good collaboration.

I think one of the neatest things about Big Break is that this industry is so thin on the amount of really good resources that are out there. It’s a great way to breed new talent

In case you missed it, I’ve moved a lot of my discussion of the EMR and Health IT markets to my site: EMR Thoughts. I’ve done a lot of posts on that site that look at the EMR market, the health IT investments, the Health IT incubators (or accelerators if you prefer), and other movement in the EMR, EHR and Health IT markets. If you like that type of content, you should definitely subscribe to the EMR Thoughts email list.

Even though, I’ve moved a lot of my EMR market discussion to the other site, every once in a while I’ll drop in some EMR market stuff on here as well. In the article linked in my Costco EMR post, they discussed the size of the EMR market:

Millennium Research Group said in its November report, “U.S. Markets for Electronic Medical Records 2012,” that the U.S. market for EMRs will exceed $8 billion by 2016, with the fastest-growing segment occurring in the small-practice market. Web-based EMRs that don’t require an expensive information technology infrastructure are contributing to the growth, the report said, because they are an affordable option for small practices on tight budgets.

I always hate when they don’t split the EHR market into ambulatory EHR and hospital EHR. I also still haven’t figure out a good way to reconcile that the EMR market in the US will be $8 billion in 2016, but we’ll have spent a good portion of the $36 billion of EHR stimulus money by 2016. Those two numbers don’t jive very well.

I also find it interesting that the fastest-growing segment of the EMR market is the small-practices. I’m not sure I agree with this. I think the larger sales and hospital EHR sales are brisker than the small practice EMR market. Much of the small practice market is still “waiting and seeing.”

You’ve no doubt heard it. The healthcare industry has the dubious distinction of having had the three of the top six IT related security breaches this year. This article in the Healthcare Finance News quotes figures published by the Ponemon Institute, a research organization. According to the article, there’s been a 32 percent increase in frequency of data breaches, in other words, the frequency has increased by almost a third.And it has cost the industry $6.5 billion.

But a similar story in the NY Times shows us how woefully inadequate our existing data protection laws are (This story also quotes the numbers from the same Ponemon Institute study). An employee from a Massachussetts eHealth Collaborative lost a laptop containing 13,687 records. Each of those records contained some combination of a patient’s name, SSN, birthdate and other identifying information. Now, by law, healthcare organizations are required to report breaches involving 500 or more patients and the Department of Health and Human Services.

However, says NYT, Micky Tripathi, the non-profit’s president and CEO, soon figured out “just how many ways there were to count to 500. The law requires disclosure only in cases that “pose a significant risk of financial, reputational or other harm to the individual affected. His team spent hours poring over a backup of the stolen laptop files. Of the nearly 14,000 patient records on the stolen laptop, most records did not warrant disclosure. In 2,777 cases, for instance, a record listed only a patient’s name.”

The NYT story also points out another strange loophole that came to the aid of the non-profit – the entities responsible for protecting patient health are the providers, not contractors such as Mass. eHealth.

“In the eyes of the law, Mr. Tripathi’s nonprofit is a contractor that acts on behalf of health providers. The legal burden of protecting patient data actually falls on his clients: the physicians and hospitals who entrusted his nonprofit with their files.”The laws create a perverse outcome,” he says. “It was our fault, but from a federal perspective, it wasn’t our breach.”"

So of the 14,000 or so patients affected, Micky Tripathi’s non-profit only needed to notify 998 people. Of these, only one organization had patients more than 500 in number, requiring a mugshot report on the HHS wall of shame, and an offer of free credit monitoring from Mass eHealth.

In the end, the cost of credit monitoring services to Mass eHealth was a mere $6000 though the article says the non-profit ended up spending close to $300,000 in the aftermath. I wonder if this includes the cost of the necessary sleuthing involved and so on. If this is the case, the numbers are incidental expenses; the money spent directly on the breach itself was a fraction of that.

Compare this to the $1 million fine incurred by Mass. General Hospital for the loss of 192 patient records left by a negligent employee on a subway train.

With these numbers in mind, here are my takeaways from these stories:
- Who is responsible for what breach is not clear enough. I had to re-read the definition for covered entities to make sure that Mass eHealth doesn’t fall under it. If the law takes such a lax attitude to IT contractors – who BTW provide the bulk of the IT infrastructure at many hospitals – where’s the incentive for anyone to do things differently?
- There’s a crazy penalty structure in place. A hospital losing 192 records resulted in a million dollar fine. A non-profit losing 998 records incurred $6000 in expenses. So if you’re a hospital, you’re better off with contractor negligence than your employees/equipment being the responsible party.
- Rules can be creatively interpreted.
- There’s not enough negative fallout for data breaches for healthcare/HIT organizations to do things differently. Say, if in addition to the notice on the HHS wall of shame and fines, there were other repercussions like, I don’t know, a digital time-out of sorts for both contractors and healthcare organizations, maybe healthcare and IT would begin to care more.

John’s Comment: This is definitely an interesting case. With the new HITECH laws I can’t imagine how this doesn’t fall under the Business Associate agreement which would require that they follow the HIPAA laws just like any provider. The article does say that contractors aren’t responsible, but that seems like bad legal advice given by the contractor’s lawyer. I’m not a lawyer, but I’ll have to email a healthcare lawyer friend of mine to have him comment on this case as well.

It’s also worth noting that all of the breaches mentioned above have been through laptops or other devices left behind. None of the major breaches have been a hacker getting into an EMR or EHR system. Everyone likes to blame the EHR software for privacy issues, but so far they haven’t happened. They will one day, but the bigger privacy issue is still unsecured devices and human breaches (ie. staff looking at inappropriate records).

I thought this blog post on the 3M blog made a good point about ACO’s finally having some action behind them thanks to the Pioneer ACO awards that were announced recently. Until now, we’ve basically just had people talking to each other about the idea of an ACO, how an ACO should take shape, etc etc etc. It’s nice to see us starting to move beyond discussion of ACO models and now starting to see some real people and companies that have to start taking some ACO action to see what they can create.

I have a feeling that much of this initial ACO work is going to be like most startup companies: failures. In the startup world, it’s just expected that at least 9 of 10 companies will fail. That’s part of the algorithm of innovation that has worked so well in the entrepreneurial environment we know as tech startup companies. I imagine we’ll see the same with a bunch of these ACO models in healthcare as well.

One major problem I do have with this comparison is that the ACO programs that we see now aren’t entrepreneur or market driven, but instead are driven by some sort of government money. This means that those that participate have a bunch of perverse incentives.

The blog post mentioned above provides some interesting suggestions on how to improve healthcare. In response I offered these thoughts in their comment section:

The suggestions you make are reasonable and interesting, but they seem to ignore the idea that what people are really going to do with ACO legislation is find the simplest way to extract the most amount of money out of the regulation. There will be some exceptions, but this is how it works with most government programs.

I imagine some will see this as a bit cynical. I personally just see it as realistic. If we want to talk about real solutions we have to talk about the stark realities that face us and not the idealized models that could happen “IF…” ACOs are no different. Enough with the IFs and let’s talk about action.

Time for the next entry covering Shawn Riley’s list of 101 Tips to Make your EMR and EHR More Useful. I met someone at a conference who commented that they liked this series of posts. I hope you’re all enjoying the series as well.

15 Avoid multiple sign-ins if possible.
One thing seems abundantly clear to me: healthcare IT will be a heterogeneous environment. This is particularly true in the hospital world. Even the biggest behemoth of an HIS can’t satisfy all of the healthcare IT requirements of a hospital. So, getting a great SSO (single sign on) solution will be really important and turns out to be a great thing for your users and your help desk.

14 Make sure security is solid, but not prohibitive.
One thing about healthcare security and HIPAA that’s often misunderstood is that it should protect patient’s information, but it should also not get in the way of a clinician doing what they legitimately need to accomplish. Many security policies go too far and make legitimate healthcare work too hard. This is a huge mistake.

13 PDSA – Use it! Plan – Do – Study – Act
In this one, Shawn talks about the idea of continuous improvement which is a really good one. I also think far too many companies get stuck in the planning and do far too little doing and acting. All four steps of the process are important and useful, but don’t over think it either.

12 LEAN
Lean isn’t about being cheap. Lean isn’t about providing substandard care. Lean is about spending where it matters most. It’s about focusing on what’s most important and creating value from the things you spend money on. I’d love to see more LEAN concepts used in healthcare.

11 Buy MORE printers
Yep! Printing increases dramatically with an EHR. Almost all those forms that you use to print in bulk will now be coming out of your printer. Also, just because somewhere is fully electronic doesn’t mean that they are paperless. Paperless is a mythical creature that will likely never be achieved in our lifetime. Make the printers accessible for your providers.

If you want to see my analysis of the other 101 EMR and EHR tips, I’ll be updating this page with my 101 EMR and EHR tips analysis. So, click on that link to see the other EMR tips.

I’ve had the good fortune in the past year or two to watch one of my daughters’ favorite babysitters blossom into a full-time nursing student at the University of West Georgia. Not only do my girls benefit from her great bedside manner, including an infinite amount of patience, but I get an occasional inside glimpse into the world of digital medical record keeping in the greater Atlanta area.

Her training at West Georgia has taken her to Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta – Egleston, Wellstar Cobb and Austell, Fayette Piedmont, Tanner Medical Center and Gentiva Healthfield Hospice. She graciously offered to share her rookie’s perspective on the electronic medical records – including SCM/Quest (Allscripts Sunrise Clinical EHR system) and Meditech – she has used at several of the facilities she has trained in.

How long have your healthcare training facilities had EMRs in place?
All except Gentiva Healthfield Hospice – in-home hospice care, for the most part, sticks with paper charting. If they were to make the switch to an EMR, they would have to have access to a central database from their personal computers/iPads/Blackberries, etc. All others have had some sort of electronic database for at least five years.

How intuitive did you find them to be in your first training sessions/rounds?
Once I had been trained in the first system I encountered, the rest seemed very user-friendly. They have been in use long enough now that they are efficient and fairly self-explanatory.

They all allow an employee to cluster patient care and spend enough time with the patient because the time stamp on documentation can be changed to the time that the intervention was completed. For example, I could complete a full assessment on a patient, bathe them and administer their medications without having to document in the computer every few minutes. I could just open their EMR after completing their care and add the correct time stamp on my documentation.

What were the easiest to use, and what were the most difficult?
Meditech was the most difficult to use, perhaps because I had limited access as a student. It was difficult to find complete admission notes and patient histories.

Speaking from a “rookie’s” perspective, what would you tell vendors of these systems to better their products?
Add a patient verification requirement before each documentation session, i.e. each set of vital signs, medications given, etc. (Something simple, like a box with the patient’s name and DOB and an “Ok” button)

Did your supervisors express any enthusiasm or dissatisfaction with any particular systems?
All expressed enthusiasm, but they also were concerned any time a system was to be updated with even minor changes. Fayette Piedmont uses one EMR system for Labor and Delivery, and a completely different system for the rest of the hospital. This means, for the staff, that a new baby’s records have to be re-entered into a new system once they are discharged from labor and delivery and admitted to the NICU or postpartum unit. It also means the pharmacy has difficulty accessing vital information when, for instance, they need to know a baby’s weight to send the appropriate dose of medication to the NICU.

How aware are you of post-implementation training that goes on with EMRs, based on the facilities you’ve trained at? Do your supervisors ever mention it?
Once an employee is hired, they usually must display proficiency with the charting system within a specified training period. When Fayette Piedmont updated SCM/Quest, they did not retrain each employee, but they did send out a packet with a detailed description of the changes. From what I have seen, the older nurses who may have preferred paper charting at one point do not seem to have any problems with the electronic charting.

Have you been made aware of any increase/decrease in positive clinical outcomes as a result of physicians/nurses using these systems? Any examples you feel comfortable sharing?
The major changes to these systems each time they are updated usually involve the addition of safeguards. For example, the newest version of SCM/Quest has the patient’s name, weight, room number and allergies on every page of the charting system, and in multiple locations on the page.

For the employees who pay attention, this has reduced many documentation errors. There is also an embedded link to drug guides in every electronic medication order with explicit instructions and safe dose ranges. For the employee who knows these features are there, they are a tremendous help, and they do serve to protect the patient. It is still possible to document in the wrong patient’s chart, without realizing it, in any system.

Needless to say, it will be interesting to see how her experience with EMRs changes as she continues her studies and then moves into the professional world of nursing, which will likely coincide with healthcare facilities continuing to move through the various stages of Meaningful Use.

Stay tuned for next week’s post, in which I’ll profile an EMR educator, and find out what other students are facing when it comes to EMR training. In the meantime, what sort of healthcare IT-related challenges will our new workforce face in the coming year? Please share your thoughts in the comments below.

I’ve always got my eyes open for news of healthcare facilities marketing their healthcare IT systems to patients. To me, explaining the new high-tech gadgetry at check-in and the new computers/laptops/tablets in each exam room goes a long way towards making patients feel more comfortable before, during and after a visit to the doctor or even hospital.

I came across two recent examples of patient outreach that I think are great ideas, and would certainly get my attention, and perhaps even get me to consider switching providers.

The first is an ad from Martin Memorial Health Systems in Florida, promoting their transition from paper-based records to an electronic medical records system (Epic, if you must know.) News of the implementation in a recent HISTalk post mentions that the ad is part of a campaign announcing the system’s transition starting in December. I couldn’t find any mention of the campaign, or the transition, on the hospital’s website, so I’m not sure where exactly this ad will appear – hospital hallways, local newspapers, etc.

The second comes from Kay Gooding, Project Director of the Region D Health Information Technology Consortium at Pitt Community College. She alerted me to HealthIT.gov’s Campaign Toolkit – a variety of online resources that organizations can use to educate the general public about healthcare IT. The toolkit includes a short video (see below) on Ensuring the Security of Electronic Health Records. I could see this being played in hospital lobbies, doctor’s waiting rooms, or even embedded in some sort of physician-sponsored new patient welcome site, which could also house medical history/personal health records, consent and privacy forms, and the like.

I’d be interested to know from a marketing perspective, whether patient-facing educational campaigns result in an increase in new patients who are attracted to more technically advanced facilities, and if these same patients experience better clinical outcomes and satisfaction as a direct result of new HIT systems. If you hear of anything, let me know.

For those of you that work in the Hospital EMR and EHR market or have an interest in hospital healthcare IT, you should go over right now and make sure you’re subscribed to our sister site: Hospital EMR and EHR. The content that’s being created on that site is phenomenal.

For example, Chris O’Neal from KATALUS Advisors just finished a series of posts covering the Critical Access Hospital EMR & EHR market. Here are the posts from the series:
How Big is the Health IT Market for Critical Access Hospitals?
Pressures on Critical Access Hospitals – IT Budgets, Competition and IT Talent Retention
What Are the Health IT Trends Working in Favor of Small Hospitals?
Which Health IT and EHR Vendors Should Critical Access Hospitals Consider?

I’ve got another post titled The Argument for Meditech on the way as well. I’ve really enjoyed working with Chris and KATALUS Advisors on these posts and I believe we’ll have even more great Hospital EMR and EHR content from them in the future.

Plus, many of you probably remember many of the great posts here on EMR and EHR by Katherine Rourke. She has such a love for hospitals, that Katherine’s now posting on Hospital EMR & EHR. You can find all of her posts here.

I don’t know about you, but I’m not exactly sure what an Accountable Care Organization is. In fact, I’m betting nobody is — there’s a bunch of harrumphing and throat clearing out there, but I haven’t seen any crystal-clear descriptions out there.  Shall we say that ACOs are more honored in the breach than in the observance and leave it at that?

Now, we come to the puzzling part of this piece. If nobody’s managed to define an ACO clearly, how can any particular EMR be a better ACO tool than another?  We’ll have to ask KLAS about this one, since they’re the ones that discovered this “fact.”

Today, KLAS announced that it had interviewed 197 providers at 187 organizations to see how ACOs are forming up. A third of the respondents said that they were pursuing a formal Medicare ACO designation, and the majority were felt ACOs were the future, KLAS reported.

Sure, considering that ACOs are just risk-taking organizations with a capitated feel, some people already have a sense of what to expect. But throw an EMR into the mix and we’re in new territory — hopefully good territory, but new nonetheless.

So, tell me how providers know that Epic and Cerner are the most ACO-ready? Apparently, respondents believe that Cerner already has many of the IT pieces needed to run ACOs; moreover, they say Cerner is working closely with providers interested in the ACO model.

Survey takers also gave a nod to Epic, which they see as being close to ready (though behind in analyics and ability to share data with non-Epic users).

Wait a minute — let me get this straight.  Respondents know Cerner has the right pieces, even though the ACO doesn’t exist yet?  They like Epic, even though it doesn’t share data outside of its walled garden?  KLAS is kidding, right?

At this point, I’ll be kind and say that Epic and Cerner users are a bit brainwashed, which I too might be if I’d spent the kind of money those folks have on an EMR.

But the voice in my suggests that KLAS might have had its finger on the scales just a little bit. I will not publicly state that Allscripts, CPSI, GE Healthcare, McKesson, MEDITECH, QuadraMed and Siemens scored worse because they didn’t pay for play…but something sure isn’t right here.