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!

EMRs Should Include Telemedicine Capabilities

Posted on May 22, 2015 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 volume of telemedicine visits is growing at a staggering pace, and they seem to have nowhere to go but up. In fact, a study released by Deloitte last August predicted that there would be 75 million virtual visits in 2014 and that there was room for 300 million visits a year going forward.

These telemedicine visits are generating a flood of medical data, some in familiar text formats and some in voice and video form. But since the entire encounter takes place outside of any EMR environment, huge volumes of such data are being left on the table.

Given the growing importance of telemedicine, the time has come for telemedicine providers to begin integrating virtual visit results into EMRs.  This might involve adopting specialized EMRs designed to capture video and voice, or EMR vendors might go with the times and develop ways of categorizing and integrating the full spectrum of telemedical contacts.

And as virtual visit data becomes increasingly important, providers and health plans will begin to demand that they get copies of telemedical encounter data.  It may not be clear yet how a provider or payer can effectively leverage video or voice content, which they’ve never had to do before, but if enough care is taking place in virtual environments they’ll have to figure out how to do so.

Ultimately, both enterprise and ambulatory EMRs will include technology allowing providers to search video, voice and text records from virtual consults.  These newest-gen EMRs may include software which can identify critical words spoken during a telemedical visit, such as “pain,” or “chest” which could be correlated with specific conditions.

It may be years before data gathered during virtual visits will stand on equal footing with traditional text-based EMR data and digital laboratory results.  As things stand today, telemedicine consults are used as a cheaper form of urgent care, and like an urgent care visit, the results are not usually considered a critical part of the patient’s long-term history.

But the more time patients spend getting their treatment from digital doctors on a screen, the more important the mass of medical data generated becomes. Now is the time to develop data structures and tools allowing clinicians and facilities to mine virtual visit data.  We’re entering a new era of medicine, one in which patients get better even when they can’t make it to a doctor’s office, so it’s critical that we develop the tools to learn from such encounters.

Meaningful Use Stage 3 Success Could Rely On Vendors

Posted on May 20, 2015 I Written By

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

Today I was reading a report on the Health IT Policy Committee’s review of pending Meaningful Use Stage 3 rules — which would ordinarily be as about as exciting as watching rocks erode — when something leapt out at me which I wanted to share with you, dear readers.

The overview, brought to us courtesy of Medical Practice Insider, noted that proposed plans for the Stage 3 rule would allow providers to attest in 2017, though attesting wouldn’t be mandatory until 2018. What this means, editor Frank Irving notes, is that it would be up to EMR vendors to be ready for providers wishing to attest a year early.

The folks overseeing this discussion, the Advanced Health Models and Meaningful Use Workgroup, seem (wisely) to have had their doubts that vendors could be relied upon to meet the 2017 deadline. At the session, workgroup members proposed a couple of alternative ways of addressing this timeline. One was to make the 2017 deadline go away, requiring instead that EMRs have full 2015 certification by 2018. Another was to allow optional attestation in 2017, but if need be, with 2014 EMR certification.

I don’t know about you, but this whole thing makes me nervous. By “whole thing,” I mean adjusting the rules to deal with the likely resistance vendors will exhibit to keeping their roadmap in synch with federal requirements.

After all, consider the history of EMR vendors’ relationship with providers. As we’ve noted, HHS has paid out about $30B in Meaningful Use incentives under HITECH without insisting that vendors provide interoperability. And what have EMR vendors done?  They’ve avoided developing shared standards for interoperability with an alacrity which amazes the eye.

In fact, some EMR vendors — including top contender Epic Systems — have been slapping providers with fees for data sharing (even if they’ve kind of dropped them for now), at prices which could leave them millions in the hole. If that isn’t dead opposite to what those in public policy hope to see happen, I don’t know what is.

Bottom line, if the good people overseeing Meaningful Use want to see Stage 3 accomplish good things, they’ll need to see to it that the new rules give regulators some leverage when it comes to controlling vendors.

As the whole sad interoperability saga has demonstrated, vendors will not take actions that advance health IT on their own. Unlike in other IT markets, where interoperability and meeting regulatory deadlines have been the signs of a winner, EMR vendors actually have strong incentives to ignore providers’ business imperatives.

With any luck, however, between tougher rules on Stage 3 and public pressure to achieve interoperability, EMR vendors will do the right thing.  They’ve certainly had long enough.

Customizable EMRs Are Long Overdue

Posted on May 5, 2015 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.

EMRs can be customized to some extent today, but not that much. Providers can create interfaces between their EMR and other platforms, such as PACS or laboratory information systems, but you can’t really take the guts of the thing apart. The reality is that the EMR vendor’s configuration shapes how providers do business, not the other way around.

This has been the state of affairs for so long that you don’t hear too much complaining about it, but health IT execs should really be raising a ruckus. While some hospitals might prefer to have all of their EMR’s major functions locked down before it gets integrated with other systems, others would surely prefer to build out their own EMR from widgetized components on a generic platform.

Actually, a friend recently introduced me to a company which is taking just this approach. Ocean Informatics, which has built an eHealth base on the openEHR platform, offers end users the chance to build not only an EMR application, but also use clinical modules including infection control, care support, decision support and advanced care management, and a mobile platform. It also offers compatible knowledge-based management modules, including clinical modeling tools and a clinical modeling manager.

It’s telling that the New South Wales, Australia-based open source vendor sells directly to governments, including Brazil, Norway and Slovenia. True, U.S. government is obviously responsible for VistA, the VA’s universally beloved open source EMR, but the Department of Defense is currently in the process of picking between Epic and Cerner to implement its $11B EMR update. Even VistA’s backers have thrown it under the bus, in other words.

Given the long-established propensity of commercial vendors to sell a hard-welded product, it seems unlikely that they’re going to switch to a modular design anytime soon.  Epic and Cerner largely sell completely-built cars with a few expensive options. Open source offers a chassis, doors, wheels, a custom interior you can style with alligator skin if you’d like, and plenty of free options, at a price you more or less choose. But it would apparently be too sensible to expect EMR vendors to provide the flexible, affordable option.

That being said, as health systems are increasingly forced to be all things to all people — managers of population health, risk-bearing ACOs, trackers of mobile health data, providers of virtual medicine and more — they’ll be forced to throw their weight behind a more flexible architecture. Buying an EMR “out of the box” simply won’t make sense.

When commercial vendors finally concede to the inevitable and turn out modular eHealth data tools, providers will finally be in a position to handle their new roles efficiently. It’s about time Epic and Cerner vendors got it done!

Epic Belatedly Accepts Reality And Drops Interoperability Fees

Posted on April 21, 2015 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.

Unbeknownst to me, and perhaps some of you as well, Epic has been charging customers data usage fees for quite some time.  The EMR giant has been quietly dunning users 20 cents for each clinical message sent to a health information exchange and $2.35 for inbound messages from non-Epic users, fees which could surely mount up into the millions if across a substantial health system.  (The messages were delivered through an EMR module known as Care Everywhere.)

And now, Epic chose #HIMSS15 to announce grandly that it was no longer charging users any fees to share clinical data with organizations that don’t use its technology, at least until 2020, according to CEO Judy Faulkner.  In doing so, it has glossed over the fact that these questionable charges existed in the first place, apparently with some success. For an organization which has historically ducked the press routinely, Epic seems to have its eye on the PR ball.

To me, this announcement is troubling in several ways, including the following:

  • Charging fees of this kind smacks of a shakedown.  If a hospital or health system buys Epic, they can’t exactly back out of their hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars investment to ensure they can share data with outside organizations.
  • Forcing providers to pay fees to share data with non-Epic customers penalizes the customers for interoperability problems for which Epic itself is responsible. It may be legal but it sure ain’t kosher.
  • In a world where even existing Epic customers can’t share freely with other Epic customers, the vendor ought to be reinvesting these interoperability fees in making that happen. I see no signs that this is happening.
  • If Epic consciously makes it costly for health systems to share data, it can impact patient care both within and outside, arguably raising costs and increasing the odds of care mistakes. Doing so consciously seems less than ethical. After all, Epic has a 15% to 20% market share in both the hospital and ambulatory enterprise EMR sector, and any move it makes affects millions of patients.

But Epic’s leadership is unrepentant. In fact, it seems that Epic feels it’s being tremendously generous in letting the fees go.  Here’s Eric Helsher, Epic’s vice president of client success, as told to Becker’s Hospital Review: “We felt the fee was small and, in our opinion, fair and one of the least expensive…but it was confusing to our customers.”

Mr. Helsher, I submit that your customers understood the fees just fine, but balked at paying them — and for good reason. At this point in the history of clinical data networking, pay-as-you-go models make no sense, as they impose a large fluctuating expense on organizations already struggling to manage development and implementation costs.

But those of us, like myself, who stand amazed at the degree to which Epic blithely powers through criticism, may see the giant challenged someday. Members of Congress are beginning to “get it” about interoperability, and Epic is in their sights.

Adverse Event Reporting and EHRs: The MEDTECH Act’s Effects

Posted on December 18, 2014 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.

Medical systems generate adverse event (AE) reports to improve service delivery and public safety.

As I described in my first blog post on Adverse Events, these reports are both a record of what went wrong and a rich source for improving workflow, process and policy. They can nail responsibility not only for bad acts, but also bad actors and can help distinguish between the two. The FDA gathers AE reports to look for important health related patterns, and if needed to trigger recalls, modifications and public alerts.

EHRs generate AEs, but the FDA doesn’t require reporting them. Reporting is only for medical devices defined by the FDA and EHRs aren’t. However, users sometimes report EHR related AEs. Now, there’s proposed legislation that would preclude EHRs as medical devices and stop any consideration of EHR reports.

MEDTECH Act’s Impact

EHRs are benign software systems that need minimal oversight. At least that’s what MEDTECH Act’s congressional sponsors, Senators Orrin Hatch (R- Utah) and Michael Bennett (D- Colorado) think. If they have their way – and much of the EHR industry hopes so – the FDA can forget regulating EHRs and tracking any EHR related AEs.

EHRs and Adverse Events

Currently, if you ask MAUD, the FDA’s device, adverse event tracking system about EHRs, you don’t get much, as you might expect. Up to October, MAUD has 320,000 AEs. Of these about 30 mention an EHR in passing. (There may be many more, but you can’t search for phrases such as “electronic health,” etc.) While the FDA hasn’t defined EHRs as a device, vendors are afraid it may. Their fear is based on this part of the FDA’s device definition standard:

[A]n instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including a component part, or accessory which is:

…[I]ntended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals…

I think this section clearly covers EHRs. They are intended for diagnostic, cure, mitigation, etc., of disease. Consistent public policy in general and a regard for protecting the public’s health, I think, augers for mandatory reporting of EHR caused AEs.

Why then aren’t EHRs devices that require AE reporting? In a word, politics. The FDA’s been under pressure from vendors who contend their products aren’t devices just software. They also don’t want their products subject to being criticized for failures, especially in instances where they have no control over the process. That may be understandable from a corporate point of view, but there are several reasons for rejecting that point of view. Consider what the FDA currently defines as a medical device.

Other Devices. The FDA captures AE reports on an incredible number of devices. A few examples:

  • Blood pressure computers
  • Crutches
  • Drug dose calculators
  • Ice bags
  • Lab gear – practically all
  • Robotic telemedicine devices, and many, many more.

ECRI on EHR Adverse Events

The respected patient safety NGO, the ECRI Institute, puts the issue squarely. Each year, it publishes its Top Ten Health Technology Hazards. Number one is inadequate alarm configuration policies and practices. Number two: “Incorrect or missing data in electronic health records and other health IT systems.” Its report says:

Many care decisions today are based on data in an electronic health record (EHR) or other IT-based system. When functioning well, these systems provide the information clinicians need for making appropriate treatment decisions. When faults or errors exist, however, incomplete, inaccurate, or out-of-date information can end up in a patient’s record, potentially leading to incorrect treatment decisions and patient harm. What makes this problem so troubling is that the integrity of the data in health IT (HIT) systems can be compromised in a number of ways, and once errors are introduced, they can be difficult to spot and correct. Examples of data integrity failures include the following:

  • Appearance of one patient’s data in another patient’s record (i.e., a patient/data mismatch)
  • Missing data or delayed data delivery (e.g., because of network limitations, configuration errors, or data entry delays)
  • Clock synchronization errors between different medical devices and systems
  • Default values being used by mistake, or fields being prepopulated with erroneous data
  • Inconsistencies in patient information when both paper and electronic records are used
  • Outdated information being copied and pasted into a new report Programs for reporting and reviewing HIT-related problems can help organizations identify and rectify breakdowns and failures.

ECRI spells out why AE reporting is so important for EHRs:

…[S]uch programs face some unique challenges. Chief among these is that the frontline caregivers and system users who report an event—as well as the staff who typically review the reports—may not understand the role that an HIT system played in an event…

The MEDTECH Act’s Effects

The move to curtail the FDA’s EHR jurisdiction is heating up. Senators Hatch and Bennett’s proposed act exempts EHRs from FDA jurisdiction by defining EHRs as passive data repositories.

Most industry chatter about the act has been its exempting EHRs and others from the ACA’s medical device tax. However, by removing FDA’s jurisdiction, it would also exempt EHRs from AE reports. Repealing a tax is always popular. Preventing AE reports may make vendors happy, but clinicians, patients and the public may not be as sanguine.

The act’s first two sections declare that any software whose main purpose is administrative or financial won’t come under device reporting.

Subsection (c) is the heart of the act, which exempts:

Electronic patient records created, stored, transferred, or reviewed by health care professionals or individuals working under supervision of such professionals that functionally represent a medical chart, including patient history records,

Subsection (d) says that software that conveys lab or other test results are exempt.

Subsection (e) exempts any software that makes recommendations for patient care.

There are several problems with this language. The first is that while it goes to lengths to say what is not a device, it is silent about what is. Where is the line drawn? If an EHR includes workflow, as all do, is it exempt because it also has a chart function? The bill doesn’t say

Subsection (d) on lab gear is also distressing. Currently, most lab gear are FDA devices. Now, if your blood chemistry report is fouled by the lab’s equipment ends up harming you, it’s reportable. Under MEDTECH, it may not be.

Then there’s the question of who’s going to decide what’s in and what’s out? Is it the FDA or ONC, or both? Who knows Most important, the bill’s negative approach fails to account for those AEs, as ECRI puts it when: “Default values being used by mistake, or fields being prepopulated with erroneous data.”

Contradictory Terms

The act has a fascinating proviso in subsection (c):

…[P]rovided that software designed for use in maintaining such patient records is validated prior to marketing, consistent with the standards for software validation relied upon by the Secretary in reviewing premarket submissions for devices.

This language refers to information that device manufacturers file with HHS prior to marketing. Oddly, it implies that EHRs are medical devices under the FDA’s strictest purview, though the rest of the act says they are not. Go figure.

What’s It Mean?

The loud applause for the MEDTECH act coming from the EHR industry, is due to its letting vendors off the medical device hook. I think the industry should be careful about what it’s wishing for. Without effective reporting, adverse events will still occur, but without corrective action. In that case, everything will seem to go swimmingly. Vendors will be happy. Congress can claim to being responsive. All will be well.

However, this legislative penny in the fuse box will prove that keeping the lights on, regardless of consequences, isn’t the best policy. When something goes terribly wrong, but isn’t reported then, patients will pay a heavy price. Don’t be surprised when some member of Congress demands to know why the FDA didn’t catch it.

Microsoft Joins Battle for Wearables Market

Posted on November 4, 2014 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.

Following the lead of several other companies big and small, Microsoft has jumped into the wearables healthcare market with a watch, a fitness tracker and a cloud-based platform that condenses and shares data.

It’s little wonder. After a few years of uncertainty, it seems pretty clear that the wearables market is taking off like a rocket. In fact, 21% of US consumers own such a device, according to research by PricewaterhouseCoopers. That’s slightly higher that the number of consumers who bought tablets during the first two years after they launched, PwC reports. Not only Microsoft, but Apple and Samsung, as well as smaller players with a high profile — such as Fitbit — are poised to take the sector by storm.

Microsoft’s new entry is called Microsoft Health, a platform letting users store health and fitness data. The date in question is collected by a Microsoft Health app, available on Android, iOS and Windows Phone. The platform also gathers data generated from the Microsoft Band, a smart and designed to work with Microsoft’s new platform.

The idea behind pulling all of this data into a single platform is to integrate data from different devices and services in a smart way that allows consumers to generate insights into their health. The next step for Microsoft Health, execs say, is to connect all of that data in the platform to the tech giant’s HealthVault, a Web-based PHR, making it easier for people to share data with their healthcare providers.

Other tech giants are making their own wearables plays, of course. Google, for example, has released Google Fit, a fitness-based app designed to help users track physical activity. Google’s approach is  Android smart phones, relying on sensors built into the smart phones to detect if the user is walking, running or biking. Users can also connect to devices and apps like Noom Coach and Withings.

Apple, for its part, has launched HealthKit, its competing platform for collecting data from various health and fitness apps.  The data can then be accessed easily by Apple users through the company’s Health app (which comes installed on the iPhone 6.) HealthKit is designed to send data directly to hospital and doctor charts as well. It also plans to launch a smart watch early next year.

While there’s little doubt consumers are interested in the wearables themselves, it’s still not clear how enthusiastic they are about pulling all of their activity onto a single platform. Providers might be more excited about taming this gusher of data, which has proved pretty intimidating to doctors already overwhelmed with standard EMR information, but it remains to be seen whether they’ll find fitness information to be helpful.

All told, it looks like there will be a rollicking battle for the hearts and minds of wearables consumers, as well as the loyalty of providers.  As for me, I think it will be a year or two, at minimum, before we get a real sense of what consumers and providers really want from these devices.

The Other Talk: EHRs and Advance Medical Directives

Posted on September 11, 2014 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.

The Other Talk: EHRs and Advance Medical Directives

Most of us who have adult children can remember that awkward talk we had about life’s origins. We thought, whew, that’s done. Alas, there’s yet another talk. This time it’s with those adult children and it’s about you.

This one’s covered in Tim Prosch’s and AARP’s book, The Other Talk. The talk, or more accurately the process is how you want to spend the rest of your life.

The Other Talk

It’s about your money, where and how you’ll live and your medical preferences. It’s just as hard, if not harder, than the old talk because:

  • It’s hard to admit that you won’t be around forever and your independence may start to ebb away.
  • You don’t want to put your kids on the spot with difficult decisions.
  • Your children may be parents coping with their own problems. You don’t want to add to their burdens.
  • You’ve been a source of strength, often financial as well as emotional. That’s hard to give up.

Prosch and AARP want to make it easier on everyone to deal with these issues.

He covers many topics, but for those of us who live in the EHR world one is of significant importance: Medical directives.

Prosch explains directives and simply says you should give them to your doctor. Easier said, etc. Today, that means not only your PCP, but also making sure that hospitalists etc., know what you want. While the Meaningful Use program helps a bit. It’s still going to take some doing.

Medical Directives and EHRs

EHR MU1 recognizes directives’ importance requiring that they be accounted for:

More than 50% of all unique patients 65 years old or older admitted to the eligible hospital’s or CAH’s inpatient department have an indication of an advance directive status recorded.

This means that the EHR has to have the directives. However, MU 1 only goes halfway to what’s needed. It’s what the EHR does with directives that’s unsaid.

If the EHR treats a directive as a miscellaneous document, odds are it won’t be known, let alone followed when needed. To be used effectively, an EHR needs a specific place for directives and they should be readily available. For example, PracticeFusion recently added an advance directives function. That’s not always the case.

Practice Fusion: Advanced Medical Directives

Googling for Directives

To see how about twenty popular EHRs treat directives, I did a Google site search, on the term directive. I got hits for a directives function only from four EHRs:

  • Athenahealthcare
  • Cerner
  • Meditech
  • PracticeFusion

All the others, Allscripts, Amazing Charts, eClinicalWorks, eMDs, McKesson, etc., were no shows. Some listed the MU1 requirement, but didn’t show any particular implementation.

Directives: More Honored in the Breech

This quick Google search shows that the EHR industry, with a few exceptions, doesn’t treat directives with the care they deserve. It should also serve as a personal warning.

If you already have directives or do have that talk with your family, you’ll need to give the directives to your PCP. However, you should also give your family copies and ask them to go over them with your caregivers.

Some day, EHRs may handle medical directives with care, but that day is still far off. Until then, a bit of old school is advisable.

Hospital M&A Cost Boosted Significantly By Health IT Integration

Posted on August 18, 2014 I Written By

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

Most of the time, hospital M&A is sold as an exercise in saving money by reducing overhead and leveraging shared strengths. But new data from PricewaterhouseCoopers suggests that IT integration costs can undercut that goal substantially. (It also makes one wonder how ACOs can afford to merge their health IT infrastructure well enough to share risk, but that’s a story for another day.)

In any event, the cost of integrating the IT systems of hospitals that merge can add up to 2% to the annual operating costs of the facilities during the integration period, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers. That figure, which comes to $70,000 to $100,000 per bed over three to five years, is enough to reduce or even completely negate benefits of doing some deals. And it clearly forces merging hospitals to think through their respective IT strategies far more thoroughly than they might anticipated.

As if that stat isn’t bad enough, other experts feel that PwC is understating the case. According to Dwayne Gunter, president of Parallon Technology Solutions — who spoke to Hospitals & Health Networks magazine — IT integration costs can be much higher than those predicted by PwC’s estimate. “I think 2% being very generous,” Gunter told the magazine, “For example, if the purchased hospital’s IT infrastructure is in bad shape, the expense of replacing it will raise costs significantly.”

Of course, hospitals have always struggled to integrate systems when they merge, but as PwC research notes, there’s a lot more integrate these days, including not only core clinical and business operating systems but also EMRs, population health management tools and data analytics. (Given be extremely shaky state of cybersecurity in hospitals these days, merging partners had best feel out each others’ security systems very thoroughly as well, which obviously adds additional expenses.) And what if the merging hospitals use different enterprise EMR systems? Do you rip and replace, integrate and pray, or do some mix of the above?

On top of all that, working hospital systems have to make sure they have enough IT staffers available, or can contract with enough, to do a good job of the integration process. Given that in many hospitals, IT leaders barely have enough staff members to get the minimum done, the merger partners are likely costly consultants if they want to finish the process for the next millennium.

My best guess is that many mergers have failed to take this massive expense into account. The aftermath has got to be pretty ugly.

I Want to Thank the Academy, Err, the Hospital CIO: EHR Hospital Market Share

Posted on July 7, 2014 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.

We’re always interested in who’s up and who’s down. Whether it’s TV shows, Senate races, book sales or baseball stats, we want to know who’s up, who’s down and who’s going nowhere.

We’re big on trends, shares and who’s going where. The closer the race, the more avid the interest – My Nats would be sitting pretty if only the Braves weren’t so pesky. The EHR market place is no exception for interest, even if the numbers are a lot harder to follow than the National League East.

In my last foray into EMR market share, I looked at SK&A’s stats from their rolling survey of US medical practices.

Another company, Definitive Healthcare similarly tracks the hospital EHR marketplace. They’ve generously shared their findings with Healthcare Scene and I’ve used them here. Please note: Any errors, mistakes or other screw-ups with their numbers are mine alone. With that said, here’s what I’ve found.

How Many Divisions Does the Hospital Market Have?

Definitive divides the hospital market into several categories that can be daunting to follow. That’s not their making. It’s the nature of the market.

The major division that Definitive reports on is inpatient versus ambulatory systems. You might think that ambulatory systems are only for non hospital setting, but hospitals, of course, have many outpatients and use ambulatory EHR systems to serve them.

The Inpatient Marketplace

Among inpatient systems, EPIC leads with a 20 percent share shown in Tables I and II. The market is highly concentrated with EPIC, Cerner and Meditech commanding 54 percent. The remaining 46 percent scatters with no one breaking double digits.

Table I All Inpatient Hospitals EHR Vendor Market Shares

Table II All Inpatient EHR Shares

 The Ambulatory Hospital Marketplace

The picture for hospital ambulatory systems used is notably different. See Tables III and IV. While EPIC and Cerner vary slightly from their inpatient share, the other vendors shift all over the place. Allscripts barely registers 4 percent in inpatient, jumps to third place with 14 percent.

Siemens and HMS drop off the top ten being replaced by eClinicalWorks and NextGen. At 22 percent is the catchall, Other EHRs. This is up 8 percent from its inpatient 14 percent.

Table III All Ambulatory Hospitals

Table IV All Amb Hospitals

Inpatient EHRs: Health Systems and Independent Hospitals

Definitive also breaks down inpatient hospitals by health system hospitals v independents. Almost a majority of health systems, 47 percent, choose EPIC and Cerner. See Tables V and VI. Indeed, the top four vendors, EPIC, Cerner, Meditech and McKesson astoundingly have a 74 percent share. The other vendors are at 7 percent or less.

Table V Inpatient Healthcare Systems Hospitals

Independent hospitals differ a bit from this pattern. Non major vendors have 12 percent and open source Vista has 5 percent, but otherwise the pattern is similar.

Table VI Inpatient Independent Hospitals

Inpatient Hospitals by Size: Under and Over 100 Beds

Hospitals with 100 plus beds, no surprise, favor EPIC, Cerner and Meditech. These three have a monopolistic 64 percent. See Table VII.

Table VII Inpatient Hospitals with =>100 Beds

Small, Inpatient Hospital Systems: A More Competitive Market

Small hospitals are a different story. The top five vendors are bunched around 14 percent each. See Table VIII. The mix of vendors is starkly different. Meditech and Cerner lead with EPIC third. However, Epic drops nine percent from the prior group to 14 percent in this.

In the prior tables, the top three vendors have a market majority. In this group, 65 percent of the market belongs to the third through tenth vendors. You can see the difference in competition in Tables VIII and IX.

Table VIII Inpatient Hospitals =>100 Beds

Table IX Inpatient Hospitals <100 Beds

Hospital Ambulatory EHR Systems by Bed Size

The ambulatory market for hospitals with 100 plus beds is similar to the inpatient market. EPIC, Cerner and Allscripts have a 53 percent share.

The remaining share is split among several vendors, with eClinicalWorks, and athenahealth making an appearance. Significantly, Other EHRs ranked second.

Smaller hospitals’ ambulatory systems, as with smaller inpatient hospitals, show a competitive market. The category Other EHRs actually leads with a 21 percent share. Tables X and XI show the difference between these two markets.

Table X Ambulatory Systems =>100 Beds Table XI Ambulatory Systems <100 Beds

Market Shares: What’s the Conclusion?

In this and previous posts, I’ve looked at EHR vendor market shares sliced up in several ways. I’ve used what I consider reliable, independent data sources from SK&A and Definitive Healthcare. I used their information because they are careful to include all practices in their surveys not just those that bother to reply.

I also used them for the simple reason that they were freely available to us. There are other sources, such as KLAS, that produce market surveys, but they charge about $2,500 for their analysis. Moreover, they keep all but the most general findings behind their paywall.

What then is the message from all these numbers? It’s this: there is a competitive market, but it’s only robust among small practices. Those with three or less practioners have the most competitive market with eClinicalWorks in the lead. Within major segments, EPIC, Cerner and Meditech dominate. The non hospital market is more mixed, but EPIC, Cerner, etc., share increases as practice size grows.

For these larger practices, it’s monopolistic competition. If you’re looking for an EHR and you have ten or more docs, you can find any number of vendors. It’s most likely you’ll end up choosing among just a few big guys.

This reminds me of when we shopped for kitchen cabinets and counter tops. We were impressed with some dramatic possibilities. The sales rep, who we got to know well, laughed:

“When folks start out they focus on the avant garde. Then they realize they’re choosing for several years. Suddenly they get more conventional.”

If you come by our place, you’ll see our oak cabinets and white tile counter top. I think it goes that way with hospital execs choosing EHRs. They may toy with something different, but in the end, they’ll go with what they know. After all, no one every got fired for buying EPIC. Well, almost no one.

Next: Attribution and Market Share

If you still haven’t got your fill of market numbers, I have one more topic to explore. I’m interested in knowing how market share relates to MU attestations. That is, does a high market share guarantee a high attestation rate? The next post in this series will look at that.

If you have questions on market share, please post a comment or write me at: carl@healthcarescene.com

HIE Cuts Back On Excess Imaging, But Savings Aren’t Huge

Posted on January 21, 2014 I Written By

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

For years now, we’ve been told that HIEs would save money and reduce redundant testing by hospitals and doctors.  Until recently, such has mostly been the stuff of anecdote rather than hard results.  But a new study comparing hospitals on an HIE with those that were not seems to offer some of the hard evidence we’ve been waiting for (though the cost savings it finds aren’t spectacular overall).

According to a piece in Healthcare IT News, a new study has come out which demonstrates a link between HIE participation and the level of imaging performed in hospital emergency departments.

The study, which was done by Mathematica Policy and the University of Michigan, found that when hospitals were joined in an HIE, the number of redundant CT scans, x-rays and ultrasounds fell meaningfully, generating savings in the millions of dollars.

To conduct the study, Mathematica and the U of Michigan compared the level of repeat CT scans, chest x-rays and ultrasounds for two groups.  One group consisted of 37 EDs connected to an HIE; the other group was 410 EDs not connected to an HIE.  Researchers collected data on the two groups, which were based in California and Florida, between 2007 and 2010, using the state emergency database and HIMSS Analytics listing of hospital HIE participation.

The researchers found that hospital EDs participating in an HIE reduced imaging across all the modalities compared with hospitals not participating in an HIE.  For example, EDs using an HIE worth 13 percent less likely to repeat chest x-rays, and 9 percent less likely to repeat ultrasounds.

Ultimately, the study concluded that if all of the hospital EDs in California in Florida were participating in HIEs, the two states could save about $3 million annually by avoiding repeat imaging.  This is just fine, but this translates to $3 million in lost revenue for those hospitals. Once you split up $3 million across that many hospitals, you don’t end up with an impressive amount per hospital, but it’s still a cut to revenues. A cut in revenue isn’t a strong motivator to implement an HIE even if it does help to lower healthcare costs.

This is why it’s a real challenge to get many hospitals on an HIE. When you throw in the technical issues involved in HIE membership, it could be quite some time before the majority of hospitals jump on board without more external incentives.