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!

Long Standing EHR Issues That Remain Unaddressed

Posted on June 17, 2016 I Written By

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

Dr. Jayne has presented a pretty great voice of reason in her blog posts about the realities of being a doctor in the meaningful use era. In a recent post she offered this comment which I’ve heard from many doctors:

And while we as physicians are having to cope with arduous workflows as a result of the regulations, there are advancements that would really benefit us that remain unaddressed.

I realize that EHR vendors have to prioritize requests from users. Plus, they have to deal with massive government regulation which has made it hard to prioritize user requests over government regulations. However, I know from the end user standpoint Dr. Jayne’s comment about the advancements that could be made in an EHR that still haven’t been added creates a really awful feeling.

Dr. Jayne also added this sad observation:

We’re forced to gather loads of information that could be put to good use but isn’t. For example, we collect information on race, ethnicity, religious preference, language preference, sexual orientation, and more. In many cases, it’s not used to further clinical care. It would have been great to have a prompt to ask about religious fasting the other night when I was treating a patient with profound dehydration. Although it occurred to me to ask, it didn’t occur to my patient care technician or to the resident I was supervising.

The optimistic side of me says that comments like this are a very good thing. 5-10 years ago, doctors wouldn’t have even thought to request this kind of feature. All they wanted to do was automate the paper charts. So, it’s progress that now we’re talking about ways we can incorporate the data in an EHR at the point of care in a much more effective way.

Now if EHR vendors can just be given the flexibility to work on these challenging problems instead of a list of prescriptive goverment regulations which just add to the burden of doctors as opposed to creating magical experiences.

Government Involvement in Healthcare IT – How Meaningful Use Went Wrong

Posted on June 15, 2016 I Written By

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

I have about 150 draft blog posts on EMR and EHR. Most of them are ideas for future posts. Unfortunately, I get so many new ideas, a lot of the drafts remain draft blog posts for long periods of time. I probably should create a better process for tracking my blog post ideas, but this was worked so far. Plus, it’s fun to go back and see what past ideas I had for posts and then think about how things have changed or whether that insight has stood the test of time.

This post is an example of that and the draft blog post contained a tweet that Greg Meyer shared during a #HITsm Twitter chat back in December 2014. Here’s the tweet:

No doubt Greg’s tweet resonated with me back in 2014 and still resonates with me today. In meaningful use, the government got way too deep into the how and caused all sorts of unintended consequences. We’d be in a much better position if the government would have just defined the measures and functions and not how you actually got there.

What’s interesting is that this is more or less what I’ve been hearing from Andy Slavitt in regards to MACRA. I’m not sure CMS has executed this vision well, but it’s at least hopeful that their leader is espousing a similar approach to what Greg describes above.

I’d also point out an insight I believe I first heard from Dr. Michael Koriwchak. He espoused the principle that CMS shouldn’t require the collection of any data which it wasn’t going to actually use. Think about how meaningful use would have been totally different if they’d employed this rule. What value is there to healthcare if we collect a whole bunch of data that’s never actually used to improve care?

Do you think CMS will get this right with MACRA? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Is CMS Listening to Doctors’ Thoughts on MACRA?

Posted on June 10, 2016 I Written By

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

I have to admit that I have a lot of respect for Andy Slavitt. He’s doing a really hard job as Acting Administrator of CMS and he’s been very vocal and open about his view of what they’re doing and their efforts to listen to those of us in healthcare. I’ve really appreciated his willingness to engage the community on challenging topics. Did you ever see this from previous CMS administrators?

This tweet illustrates Andy’s efforts to really listen to doctors when it comes to MACRA:

This illustrates why I previously wrote that Andy Slavitt was very much in touch with the pulse of what doctors are feeling and experiencing. Although, with that comment I also said that I hoped that the policies and programs they implemented would match that understanding.

I realize that this concept is much easier said than done. Andy Slavitt and his team at CMS are sometimes not able to make changes to things like MACRA even if they know it’s the right thing to do. They aren’t the ones responsible for making the legislation. Their jobs are to implement the legislation. It’s a tough balance which always leaves people wanting.

The only thing awkward about Andy Slavitt’s tweet above is that he says CMS has “trained nearly 60,000.” It’s quite interesting that he views these MACRA sessions as trainings. I thought they were more listening sessions than training sessions, but I guess I was wrong. Certainly you have to train a doctor on the MACRA legislation if you want to get the right feedback from them. So, I guess training and listening aren’t mutually exclusive, but it’s not surprising that many doctors don’t want to be “trained” on MACRA. For some doctors, anything less than a full repeal of MACRA will be less than satisfying and that’s not going to happen.

While you can complain about the way Andy might phrase things in a tweet, I don’t think that’s very productive. Although, I don’t think listening to (or should I say training) 60,000 physicians’ thoughts about MACRA is very useful either if we don’t see that feedback incorporated into the final MACRA rule. This tweet gives me some hope that the feedback has been heard and we’ll see some important changes to MACRA:

When the MACRA final rule comes out, I hope that along with the changes that were made we also get a look into the changes that people requested that CMS was unable to make because of the way the legislation was written. I’m not sure if CMS is allowed to be that transparent, but if we’re going to help push for better legislation it would be great to know which feedback was thwarted by legislation so that doctors can push for better legislation.

Bill Could Cut Meaningful Use Reporting Period Drastically

Posted on April 25, 2016 I Written By

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

A bill has been filed in Congress that would slash the Meaningful Use reporting period from one year to 90 days. This seems to be a challenge to CMS, which has reportedly held firm in the face of pressure to cut the reporting period on its own.

Supporters of the bill, which is backed by a broad coalition of industry trade groups, argue that a 365-day reporting period is unduly burdensome for providers, and will become even more awkward as MACRA requirements fall into place. Cutting the reporting period “will continue the significant progress providers are making to harness the use of technology to succeed in new payment and care delivery models,” argued a coalition of such groups in a letter sent to CMS last month.

That being said, it’s not clear how the structure of Meaningful Use incentives will play out under MACRA. So the reporting period change may or may not be as relevant as it might have been before the MACRA rules were set to be announced.

CMS leaders have said that the upcoming Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) – which will probably fall in place under MACRA in 2017 — is designed to unify incentive payments. Specifically, it integrates existing MU, PQRS and Value-Based Payment Modifier programs. MIPS payments will be based on a weighted score rating providers on four factors: quality (30%), resource use (30%), Meaningful Use (25%) and clinical practice improvement activities (15%). This suggests that a focus on reporting requirements is probably a matter of closing the barn door after the horse has left the stable.

On the other hand, since Meaningful Use isn’t going away completely, maybe cutting the reporting period required is necessary. If providers are being rated on a set of factors of which MU is just a part, reporting for an entire year could certainly impose an administrative burden. Why set providers up to fail by forcing them to overextend their resources on reporting?

I believe that reducing Meaningful Use requirements is a sensible step to take at this point. While there are probably those who would argue the point, I submit that MU has been pretty successful in motivating providers to rethink their relationship with HIT, and has even help a subset to completely rethink how they deliver care. Now, it’s time to move the ball forward, to a more holistic approach that goes beyond regulating care processes.

Admittedly, it’s possible that cutting the reporting period, or otherwise shifting the emphasis away from regulating HIT use, might cause some providers to slack off in some way. But to my way of thinking, that’s a risk we need to take. After investing many billions of dollars on promoting smart HIT use, we have to assume that we’ve done what we can, and focus on smart quality measures. With any luck, the new measures will work better for everyone involved.

Our Uncontrolled Health Care Costs Can Be Traced to Data and Communication Failures (Part 2 of 2)

Posted on April 13, 2016 I Written By

Andy Oram is an editor at O'Reilly Media, a highly respected book publisher and technology information provider. An employee of the company since 1992, Andy currently specializes in open source, software engineering, and health IT, but his editorial output has ranged from a legal guide covering intellectual property to a graphic novel about teenage hackers. His articles have appeared often on EMR & EHR and other blogs in the health IT space. Andy also writes often for O'Reilly's Radar site (http://oreilly.com/) and other publications on policy issues related to the Internet and on trends affecting technical innovation and its effects on society. Print publications where his work has appeared include The Economist, Communications of the ACM, Copyright World, the Journal of Information Technology & Politics, Vanguardia Dossier, and Internet Law and Business. Conferences where he has presented talks include O'Reilly's Open Source Convention, FISL (Brazil), FOSDEM, and DebConf.

The previous section of this article provided whatever detail I could find on the costs of poor communications and data exchange among health care providers. But in truth, it’s hard to imagine the toll taken by communications failures beyond certain obvious consequences, such as repeated tests and avoidable medical errors. One has to think about how the field operates and what we would be capable of with proper use of data.

As patients move from PCP to specialist, from hospital to rehab facility, and from district to district, their providers need not only discharge summaries but intensive coordination to prevent relapses. Our doctors are great at fixing a diabetic episode or heart-related event. Where we fall down is on getting the patient the continued care she needs, ensuring she obtains and ingests her medication, and encouraging her to make the substantial life-style changes that can prevent reoccurrences. Modern health really is all about collaboration–but doctors are decades behind the times.

Clinicians were largely unprepared to handle the new patients brought to them by the Affordable Care Act. Examining the impact of new enrollees, who “have higher rates of disease and received significantly more medical care,” an industry spokesperson said, “The findings underscore the need for all of us in the health care system, and newly insured consumers, to work together to make sure that people get the right health care service in the right care setting and at the right time…Better communication and coordination is needed so that everyone understands how to avoid unnecessary emergency room visits, make full use of primary care and preventive services and learn how to properly adhere to their medications.” Just where the health providers fall short.

All these failures to communicate may explain the disappointing performance of patient centered medical homes and Accountable Care Organizations. While many factors go into the success or failure of such complex practices, a high rate of failure suggests that they’re not really carrying out the coordinated care they were meant to deliver. Naturally, problems persist in getting data from one vendor’s electronic health record to another.

Urgent care clinics, and other alternative treatment facilities offered in places such as pharmacies, can potentially lower costs, but not if the regular health system fails to integrate them.

Successes in coordinated care show how powerful it can be. Even so simple a practice as showing medical records to patients can improve care, but most clinicians still deny patients access to their data.

One care practice drastically lowered ER admissions through a notably low-tech policy–refering their patients to a clinic for follow-up care. This is only the beginning of what we could achieve. If modern communications were in place, hospitals would be linked so that a CDC warning could go to all of them instantly. And if clinicians and their record systems were set up to handle patient-generated data, they could discover a lot more about the patients and monitor behavior change.

How are the hospitals and clinics responding to this crisis and the public pressure to shape up? They push back as if it was not their problem. They claim they are moving toward better information sharing and teamwork, but never get there.

One of their favorite gambits is to ask the government to reward them for achieving interoperability 90 days out of the year. They make this request with no groveling, no tears of shame, no admission that they have failed in their responsibility to meet reasonable goals set seven years ago. If I delivered my projects only 25% of the time, I’d have trouble justifying myself to my employer, especially if I received my compensation plan seven years ago. Could the medical industry imagine that it owes us a modicum of effort?

Robert Schultz, a writer and entrepreneur in health care, says, “Underlying the broken communications model is a lack of empathy for the ultimate person affected–the patient. Health care is one of the few industries where the user is not necessarily the party paying for the product or service. Electronic health records and health information exchanges are designed around the insurance companies, accountable care organizations, or providers, instead of around understanding the challenges and obstacles that patients face on a daily basis. (There are so many!) The innovators who understand the role of the patient in this new accountable care climate will be winners. Those who suffer from the burden of legacy will continue to see the same problems and will become eclipsed by other organizations who can sustain patient engagement and prove value within accountable care contracts.”

Alternative factors

Of course, after such a provocative accusation, I should consider the other contributors that are often blamed for increasing health care costs.

An aging population

Older people have more chronic diseases, a trend that is straining health care systems from Cuba to Japan. This demographic reality makes intelligent data use even more important: remote monitoring for chronic conditions, graceful care transitions, and patient coordination.

The rising cost of drugs

Dramatically increasing drug prices are certainly straining our payment systems. Doctors who took research seriously could be pushing back against patient requests for drugs that work more often in TV ads than in real life. Doctors could look at holistic pain treatments such as yoga and biofeedback, instead of launching the worst opiate addiction crisis America has ever had.

Government bureaucracy

This seems to be a condition of life we need to deal with, like death and taxes. True, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) keeps adding requirements for data to report. But much of it could be automated if clinical settings adopted modern programming practices. Furthermore, this data appears to be a burden only because it isn’t exploited. Most of it is quite useful, and it just takes agile organizations to query it.

Intermediaries

Reflecting the Byzantine complexity of our payment systems, a huge number of middlemen–pharmacy benefits managers, medical billing clearinghouses, even the insurers themselves–enter the system, each taking its cut of the profits. Single-payer insurance has long been touted as a solution, but I’d rather push for better and cheaper treatments than attack the politically entrenched payment system.

Under-funded public health

Poverty, pollution, stress, and other external factors have huge impacts on health. This problem isn’t about clinicians, of course, it’s about all of us. But clinicians could be doing more to document these and intervene to improve them.

Clinicians like to point to barriers in their way of adopting information-based reforms, and tell us to tolerate the pace of change. But like the rising seas of climate change, the bite of health care costs will not tolerate complacency. The hard part is that merely wagging fingers and imposing goals–the ONC’s primary interventions–will not produce change. I think that reform will happen in pockets throughout the industry–such as the self-insured employers covered in a recent article–and eventually force incumbents to evolve or die.

The precision medicine initiative, and numerous databases being built up around the country with public health data, may contribute to a breakthrough by showing us the true quality of different types of care, and helping us reward clinicians fairly for treating patients of varying needs and risk. The FHIR standard may bring electronic health records in line. Analytics, currently a luxury available only to major health conglomerates, will become more commoditized and reach other providers.

But clinicians also have to do their part, and start acting like the future is here now. Those who make a priority of data sharing and communication will set themselves up for success long-term.

Our Uncontrolled Health Care Costs Can Be Traced to Data and Communication Failures (Part 1 of 2)

Posted on April 12, 2016 I Written By

Andy Oram is an editor at O'Reilly Media, a highly respected book publisher and technology information provider. An employee of the company since 1992, Andy currently specializes in open source, software engineering, and health IT, but his editorial output has ranged from a legal guide covering intellectual property to a graphic novel about teenage hackers. His articles have appeared often on EMR & EHR and other blogs in the health IT space. Andy also writes often for O'Reilly's Radar site (http://oreilly.com/) and other publications on policy issues related to the Internet and on trends affecting technical innovation and its effects on society. Print publications where his work has appeared include The Economist, Communications of the ACM, Copyright World, the Journal of Information Technology & Politics, Vanguardia Dossier, and Internet Law and Business. Conferences where he has presented talks include O'Reilly's Open Source Convention, FISL (Brazil), FOSDEM, and DebConf.

A host of scapegoats, ranging from the Affordable Care Act to unscrupulous pharmaceutical companies, have been blamed for the rise in health care costs that are destroying our financial well-being, our social fabric, and our political balance. In this article I suggest a more appropriate target: the inability of health care providers to collaborate and share information. To some extent, our health care crisis is an IT problem–but with organizational and cultural roots.

It’s well known that large numbers of patients have difficulty with costs, and that employees’ share of the burden is rising. We’re going to have to update the famous Rodney Dangerfield joke:

My doctor said, “You’re going to be sick.” I said I wanted a second opinion. He answered, “OK, you’re going to be poor too.”

Most of us know about the insidious role of health care costs in holding down wages, in the fight by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker over pensions that tore the country apart, in crippling small businesses, and in narrowing our choice of health care providers. Not all realize, though, that the crisis is leaching through the health care industry as well, causing hospitals to fail, insurers to push costs onto subscribers and abandon the exchanges where low-income people get their insurance, co-ops to close, and governments to throw people off of subsidized care, threatening the very universal coverage that the ACA aimed to achieve.

Lessons from a ground-breaking book by T.R. Reid, The Healing of America, suggests that we’re undergoing a painful transition that every country has traversed to achieve a rational health care system. Like us, other countries started by committing themselves to universal health care access. This then puts on the pressure to control costs, as well as the opportunities for coordination and economies of scale that eventually institute those controls. Solutions will take time, but we need to be smart about where to focus our efforts.

Before even the ACA, the 2009 HITECH act established goals of data exchange and coordinated patient care. But seven years later, doctors still lag in:

  • Coordinating with other providers treating the patients.

  • Sending information that providers need to adequately treat the patients.

  • Basing treatment decisions on evidence from research.

  • Providing patients with their own health care data.

We’ll look next at the reports behind these claims, and at the effects of the problems.

Why doctors don’t work together effectively

A recent report released by the ONC, and covered by me in a recent article, revealed the poor state of data sharing, after decades of Health Information Exchanges and four years of Meaningful Use. Health IT observers expect interoperability to continue being a challenge, even as changes in technology, regulations, and consumer action push providers to do it.

If merely exchanging documents is so hard–and often unachieved–patient-focused, coordinated care is clearly impossible. Integrating behavioral care to address chronic conditions will remain a fantasy.

Evidence-based medicine is also more of an aspiration than a reality. Research is not always trustworthy, but we must have more respect for the science than hospitals were found to have in a recent GAO report. They fail to collect data either on the problems leading to errors or on the efficacy of solutions. There are incentive programs from payers, but no one knows whether they help. Doctors are still ordering far too many unnecessary tests.

Many companies in the health analytics space offer services that can bring more certainty to the practice of medicine, and I often cover them in these postings. Although increasingly cited as a priority, analytical services are still adopted by only a fraction of health care providers.

Patients across the country are suffering from disrupted care as insurers narrow their networks. It may be fair to force patients to seek less expensive providers–but not when all their records get lost during the transition. This is all too likely in the current non-interoperable environment. Of course, redundant testing and treatment errors caused by ignorance could erase the gains of going to low-cost providers.

Some have bravely tallied up the costs of waste and lack of care coordination in health care. Some causes, such as fraud and price manipulation, are not attributable to the health IT failures I describe. But an enormous chunk of costs directly implicate communications and data handling problems, including administrative overhead. The next section of this article will explore what this means in day-to-day health care.

How Twine Health Found a Successful Niche for a Software Service in Health Care

Posted on April 1, 2016 I Written By

Andy Oram is an editor at O'Reilly Media, a highly respected book publisher and technology information provider. An employee of the company since 1992, Andy currently specializes in open source, software engineering, and health IT, but his editorial output has ranged from a legal guide covering intellectual property to a graphic novel about teenage hackers. His articles have appeared often on EMR & EHR and other blogs in the health IT space. Andy also writes often for O'Reilly's Radar site (http://oreilly.com/) and other publications on policy issues related to the Internet and on trends affecting technical innovation and its effects on society. Print publications where his work has appeared include The Economist, Communications of the ACM, Copyright World, the Journal of Information Technology & Politics, Vanguardia Dossier, and Internet Law and Business. Conferences where he has presented talks include O'Reilly's Open Source Convention, FISL (Brazil), FOSDEM, and DebConf.

Apps and software services for health care are proliferating–challenges and hackathons come up with great ideas week after week, and the app store contains hundreds of thousands of apps. The hard thing is creating a business model that sustains a good idea. To this end, health care incubators bring in clinicians to advise software developers. Numerous schemes of questionable ethics abound among apps (such as collecting data on users and their contacts). In this article, I’ll track how Twine Health tried different business models and settled on the one that is producing impressive growth for them today.

Twine Health is a comprehensive software platform where patients and their clinicians can collaborate efficiently between visits to achieve agreed-upon goals. Patients receive support in a timely manner, including motivation for lifestyle changes and expertise for medication adjustments. I covered the company in a recent article that showed how the founders ran some clinical studies demonstrating the effectiveness of their service. Validation is perhaps the first step for any developer with a service or app they think could be useful. Randomized controlled trials may not be necessary, but you need to find out from potential users what they want to see before they feel secure prescribing, paying for, and using your service. Validation will differentiate you from the hoards of look-alike competitors with whom you’ll share your market.

Dr. John Moore, co-founder of Twine Health, felt in 2013 that it was a good time to start a company, because the long-awaited switch in US medicine from fee-for-service to value-based care was starting to take root. Blue Cross and Blue Shield were encouraging providers to switch to Alternative Quality Contracts. The Affordable Care act of 2010 created the Medicare Shared Savings Program, which led to Accountable Care Organizations.

The critical role played by value-based-care has been explained frequently in the health care space. Current fee-for-service programs pay only for face-to-face visits and occasionally for telehealth visits. The routine daily interventions of connected health, such as text messages, checks of vital signs, and supportive prompts, receive no remuneration. The long-term improvements of connected health receive no support in the fee-for-value model, as much as individual clinicians may with to promote positive behavior among their patients.

Thus, Twine Health launched in 2014 with a service for clinicians. What they found, unfortunately, is that the hype about value-based care had gotten way ahead of its actual progress. The risk sharing by Accountable Care Organizations, such as under the Medicare Shared Savings Program, weren’t full commitments to delivering value, as when clinicians receive full capitation for a population and are required to deliver minimum health outcomes. Instead, the organizations were still billing fee-for-service. Medicare compared their spending to a budget at the end of the year, and, if the organization accrued less fee-for-service billing than Medicare expected, the organization got back 50-60% of the savings In the lowest track of the program, the organization didn’t even get penalized for exceeding costs–it was just rewarded for beating the estimates.

In short, Twine Health found that clinicians in ACOs in 2014 were following the old fee-for-service model and that Twine Health’s service was not optimal for their everyday practices. A recent survey from the NEJM Catalyst Insights Council showed that risk sharing and quality improvement are employed in a minority of health care settings, and are especially low in hospitals.

Collaborative care requires a complete rededication of time and resources. One must be willing to track one’s entire patient panel on a regular basis, guiding them toward ongoing behavior modification in the context of their everyday lives, with periodic office visits every few months. One also needs to go beyond treating symptoms and learn several skills of a very different type that traditional clinicians haven’t been taught: motivational interviewing, shared decision making, and patient self-management.

Over a period of months, a new model for Twine’s role in healthcare delivery started to become apparent: progressive, self-insured employers were turning their attention to value-based care and taking matters into their own hands because of escalating healthcare costs. They were moving much quicker than ACOs and taking on much greater risk.

The employers were contracting with innovative healthcare delivery organizations, which were building on-site primary care clinics (exclusive to that employer and located right at the place of work), near-site primary care clinics (shared across multiple employers), wellness and chronic disease coaching programs, etc. Unlike traditional healthcare providers, the organizations providing services to self-insured employers were taking fully capitated payments and, therefore, full risk for their set of services. Ironically, some of the self-insured employers were actually large health systems whose own business models still involved mostly fee-for-service payments.

With on-site clinics, wellness and chronic disease coaching organizations, and self-insured employers, Twine Health has found a firm and growing customer base. Dr. Moore is confident that the healthcare industry is on the cusp of broadly adopting value-based care. Twine Health and other connected health providers will be able to increase their markets vastly by working with traditional providers and insurers. But the Twine Health story is a lesson in how each software developer must find the right angle, the right time, and the right foothold to succeed.

Research Shows that Problems with Health Information Exchange Resist Cures (Part 2 of 2)

Posted on March 23, 2016 I Written By

Andy Oram is an editor at O'Reilly Media, a highly respected book publisher and technology information provider. An employee of the company since 1992, Andy currently specializes in open source, software engineering, and health IT, but his editorial output has ranged from a legal guide covering intellectual property to a graphic novel about teenage hackers. His articles have appeared often on EMR & EHR and other blogs in the health IT space. Andy also writes often for O'Reilly's Radar site (http://oreilly.com/) and other publications on policy issues related to the Internet and on trends affecting technical innovation and its effects on society. Print publications where his work has appeared include The Economist, Communications of the ACM, Copyright World, the Journal of Information Technology & Politics, Vanguardia Dossier, and Internet Law and Business. Conferences where he has presented talks include O'Reilly's Open Source Convention, FISL (Brazil), FOSDEM, and DebConf.

The previous section of this paper introduced problems found in HIE by two reports: one from the Office of the National Coordinator and another from experts at the Oregon Health & Science University. Tracing the causes of these problems is necessarily somewhat speculative, but the research helps to confirm impressions I have built up over the years.

The ONC noted that developing HIE is very resource intensive, and not yet sustainable. (p. 6) I attribute these problems to the persistence of the old-fashioned, heavyweight model of bureaucratic, geographically limited organizations hooking together clinicians. (If you go to another state, better carry your medical records with you.) Evidence of their continued drag on the field appeared in the report:

Grantees found providers did not want to login to “yet another system” to access data, for example; if information was not easily accessible, providers were not willing to divert time and attention from patients. Similarly, if the system was not user friendly and easy to navigate, or if it did not effectively integrate data into existing patient records, providers abandoned attempts to obtain data through the system. (pp. 76-77)

The Oregon researchers in the AHRQ webinar also confirmed that logging in tended to be a hassle.

Hidden costs further jacked up the burden of participation (p. 72). But even though HIEs already suck up unsustainable amounts of money for little benefit, “Informants noted that it will take many years and significantly more funding and resources to fully establish HIE.” (p. 62) “The paradox of HIE activities is that they need participants but will struggle for participants until the activities demonstrate value. More evidence and examples of HIE producing value are needed to motivate continued stakeholder commitment and investment.” (p. 65)

The adoption of the Direct protocol apparently hasn’t fixed these ongoing problems; hopefully FHIR will. The ONC hopes that, “Open standards, interfaces, and protocols may help, as well as payment structures rewarding HIE.” (p. 7) Use of Direct did increase exchange (p. 56), and directory services are also important (pp. 59-60). But “Direct is used mostly for ADT notifications and similar transitional documents.” (p. 35)

One odd complaint was, “While requirements to meet Direct standards were useful for some, those standards detracted attention from the development of query-based exchange, which would have been more useful.” (p. 77) I consider this observation to be a red herring, because Direct is simply a protocol, and the choice to use it for “push” versus “pull” exchanges is a matter of policy.

But even with better protocols, we’ll still need to fix the mismatch of the data being exchanged: “…the majority of products and provider processes do not support LOINC and SNOMED CT. Instead, providers tended to use local codes, and the process of mapping these local codes to LOINC and SNOMED CT codes was beyond the capacity of most providers and their IT departments.” (p. 77) This shows that the move to FHIR won’t necessarily improve semantic interoperability, unless FHIR requires the use of standard codes.

Trust among providers remains a problem (p. 69) as does data quality (pp. 70-71). But some informants put attitude about all: “Grantees questioned whether HIE developers and HIE participants are truly ready for interoperability.” (p. 71)

It’s bad enough that core health care providers–hospitals and clinics–make little use of HIE. But a wide range of other institutions who desperately need HIE have even less of it. “Providers not eligible for MU incentives consistently lag in HIE connectivity. These setting include behavioral health, substance abuse, long-term care, home health, public health, school-based settings, corrections departments, and emergency medical services.” (p. 75) The AHRQ webinar found very limited use of HIE for facilities outside the Meaningful Use mandate, such as nursing homes (Long Term and Post Acute Care, or LTPAC). Health information exchange was used 10% to 40% of the time in those settings.

The ONC report includes numerous recommendations for continuing the growth of health information exchange. Most of these are tweaks to bureaucratic institutions responsible for promoting HIE. These are accompanied by the usual exhortations to pay for value and improve interoperability.

But six years into the implementation of HITECH–and after the huge success of its initial goal of installing electronic records, which should have served as the basis for HIE–one gets the impression that the current industries are not able to take to the dance floor together. First, ways of collecting and sharing data are based on a 1980s model of health care. And even by that standard, none of the players in the space–vendors, clinicians, and HIE organizations–are thinking systematically.

Research Shows that Problems with Health Information Exchange Resist Cures (Part 1 of 2)

Posted on March 22, 2016 I Written By

Andy Oram is an editor at O'Reilly Media, a highly respected book publisher and technology information provider. An employee of the company since 1992, Andy currently specializes in open source, software engineering, and health IT, but his editorial output has ranged from a legal guide covering intellectual property to a graphic novel about teenage hackers. His articles have appeared often on EMR & EHR and other blogs in the health IT space. Andy also writes often for O'Reilly's Radar site (http://oreilly.com/) and other publications on policy issues related to the Internet and on trends affecting technical innovation and its effects on society. Print publications where his work has appeared include The Economist, Communications of the ACM, Copyright World, the Journal of Information Technology & Politics, Vanguardia Dossier, and Internet Law and Business. Conferences where he has presented talks include O'Reilly's Open Source Convention, FISL (Brazil), FOSDEM, and DebConf.

Given that Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) received 564 million dollars in the 2009 HITECH act to promote health information exchange, one has to give them credit for carrying out a thorough evaluation of progress in that area. The results? You don’t want to know.

There are certainly glass-full as well as glass-empty indications in the 98-page report that the ONC just released. But I feel that failure dominated. Basically, there has been a lot of relative growth in the use of HIE, but the starting point was so low that huge swaths of the industry remain untouched by HIE.

Furthermore, usage is enormously skewed:

In Q2 2012, for example, three states (Indiana, Colorado, and New York) accounted for over 85 percent of total directed transactions; in Q4 2013, five states (Michigan, Colorado, Indiana, New York, Michigan, and Vermont) accounted for over 85 percent of the total. Similarly, in Q2 a single state (Indiana) accounted for over 65 percent of total directed transactions; in Q4 2013, four states (California, Indiana, Texas, and New York) accounted for over 65 percent of the total. (p. 42)

This is a pretty empty glass, with the glass-full aspect being that if some states managed to achieve large numbers of participation, we should be able to do it everywhere. But we haven’t done it yet.

Why health information exchange is crucial

As readers know, health costs are eating up more and more of our income (in the US as well as elsewhere, thanks to aging populations and increasing chronic disease). Furthermore, any attempt to stem the problem requires coordinated care and long-term thinking. But the news in these areas has been disappointing as well. For instance:

  • Patient centered medical homes (PCMH) are not leading to better outcomes. One reason may be the limited use of health information exchange, because the success of treating a person in his own habitat depends on careful coordination.

  • Accountable Care Organizations are losing money and failing to attract new participants. A cynical series of articles explores their disappointing results. I suspect that two problems account for this: first, they have not made good use of health information exchange, and second, risk sharing is minimal and not extensive enough to cause a thoroughgoing change to long-term care.

  • Insurers are suffering too, because they have signed up enormous numbers of sick patients under the Affordable Care Act. The superficial adoption of fee-for-value and the failure of clinicians to achieve improvements in long-term outcomes are bankrupting the payers and pushing costs more and more onto ordinary consumers.

With these dire thoughts in mind, let’s turn to HIE.

HIE challenges and results

The rest of this article summarizes the information I find most salient in the ONC report, along with some research presented in a recent webinar by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) on this timely topic. (The webinar itself hasn’t been put online yet.)

The ONC report covers the years 2011-2014, so possibly something momentous has happened over the past year to change the pattern. But I suspect that substantial progress will have to wait for widespread implementation of FHIR, which is too new to appear in the report.

You can read the report and parse the statistics until you get a headache, but I will cite just one more passage about the rate of HIE adoption in order to draw a broad conclusion.

As of 2015, the desire for actionable data, focus on MU 2 priorities, and exchange related to delivery system reform is in evidence. Care summary exchange rates facilitated through HIOs are high—for example, care record summaries (89%); discharge summaries (78%); and ambulatory clinical summaries (67%). Exchange rates are also high for test results (89%), ADT alerts (69%), and inpatient medication lists (68%). (p. 34)

What I find notable in the previous quote is that all the things where HIE use improved were things that clinicians have always done anyway. There is nothing new about sending out discharge summaries or reporting test results. (Nobody would take a test if the results weren’t reported–although I found it amusing to receive an email message recently from my PCP telling me to log into their portal to see results, and to find nothing on the portal but “See notes.” The notes, you might have guessed, were not on the portal.)

One hopes that using HIE instead of faxes and phone calls will lower costs and lead to faster action on urgent conditions. But a true leap in care will happen only when HIE is used for close team coordination and patient reporting–things that don’t happen routinely now. One sentence in the report hints at this: “Providers exchanged information, but they did not necessarily use it to support clinical decision-making.” (p. 77) One wonders what good the exchange is.

In the AHRQ webinar, experts from the Oregon Health & Science University reported results of a large literature review, including:

  • HIE reduces the use lab and radiology tests, as well emergency department use. This should lead to improved outcomes as well as lower costs, although the literature couldn’t confirm that.

  • Disappointingly, there was little evidence that hospital admissions were reduced, or that medication adherence improved.

  • Two studies claimed that HIE was “associated with improved quality of care” (a very vague endorsement).

In the next section of this article, I’ll return to the ONC report for some clues as to the reasons HIE isn’t working well.

Are You Cheating Yourself and Your Patients When Meeting Regulations Like Meaningful Use?

Posted on February 11, 2016 I Written By

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

I spend a lot of time counseling clients that, although they may be able to check the box for attestation, they’re cheating themselves and their patients out of the improvements that systems were intended to drive.

The above quote was from a post by Dr. Jayne on HIStalk. Her comment really struck me on a number of levels. The first is that I know so many organizations that met the rule of the law when it came to meaningful use, but definitely didn’t meet the spirit of the law.

Dr. Jayne is so right that many organizations that just slapped an EHR in there in order to get the EHR incentive money cheated themselves and their patients out of benefits that could have been achieved. I realize the economic realities associated with waiting, but I think we’re going to suffer some long term consequences from all the rushed implementations that jimmy rigged things to meet the letter of the law as opposed to using the meaningful use regulations to improve the care they provide.

However, I’d take Dr. Jayne’s analysis one step further. It’s worth considering if doctors chasing the EHR incentive money and showing meaningful use are cheating themselves and their patients. Those fans of meaningful use will probably think I’m just being negative. Most doctors will likely think it’s a very good question.

The reality I’ve seen is that the happiest doctors I know chose to shun meaningful use and some of them are now laughing at their physician friends that are busy clicking meaningful use check boxes. Ok, most of them aren’t evil enough to laugh. However, in their heads they’re thinking how grateful they are that they chose not to pursue meaningful use. It’s not hard to make an argument for why not doing meaningful use is in the best interest of your patient.

My takeaway from the experience of the meaningful use “gold rush” was to slow down and think rationally. Mistakes happen when you make irrational choices. Taking the time to make a well thought out business decision is key when evaluating any software implementation and government program. Even a software implementation with $36 billion of government incentive money attached to it.