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!

No,The Patient Isn’t Disrupting Your Workflow!

Posted on February 26, 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.

Just recently, I had a personal experience which highlighted a serious problem in how hospital staffers handle health IT workflow.

The backstory is as follows. I was dispatched to the emergency department of a local mid-sized community hospital after complaining of chest pain and shortness of breath. (Turned out it was an asthma attack, not a cardiovascular complication, but the on-call doc I spoke with wasn’t taking any chances.)

This hospital ED seems efficient and well-run. Moreover, the clinicians and techs are uniformly attentive, thorough and patient. In other words, I feel safe and well-cared-for there.

That being said, I had a few experiences during this ED visit which I suspect are endemic to the industry. No one of these issues seemed serious in and of themselves, but collectively they gave me the sense that my feedback on what I observed wasn’t welcome.

They included the following:

  • When I called attention to the fact that my blood pressure reading was unusually low (80/60) they dismissed the data as a blip and discouraged further discussion.
  • After the expected EKG to rule out cardiac concerns , staff left the leads attached to my skin to allow further testing if needed. Because the adhesive attaching the leads to my skin came loose now and then, you guessed it, alarms went off. When I suggested that the leads be either reattached or removed, the tech’s response translated to: “Honey, you have no business asking these questions.”
  • When I tried to find the results of the tests they were running via the MyChart app on my phone (yes, they’re an Epic shop), none of them were available, even though the doctors already had them.

None of these issues represent a staggering problem. My blood pressure did normalize, we handled the EKG lead stickiness issue without incident, and I did get my test results as soon as the doctor had them. I got a nebulizer treatment and some feedback on my overall health, and went home feeling much better.

That being said, I still find it unsettling that I was discouraged from taking note of what I saw and heard, and had no access to test results on the spot that would have put many of my concerns to rest.

More broadly, I object strenuously to the “doctor knows best” scenario that played out in this setting, at least where IT workflow was concerned:

  • While I understand completely that nurses and techs are besieged with needless noises and suffer from alarm fatigue, treating my response to those alarms as trivial doesn’t seem appropriate to me.
  • Failing to share data on the spot with me via the portal deprived me of the chance to discuss the data with my ED doctor. Instead, I only got to go over the data very quickly and mechanically with the nurse at discharge.

What bugs me, ultimately, is the intangible sense that I was perceived as a force breaking the IT workflow rather than a participant in it. This incident has convinced me that we need to transform the way HIT systems are designed, in a manner which brings the patient into the process of care. You clinicians need my eyes and ears to be on the case too.

Patient Engagement Distracts the Health Care Field From Reform (Part 2 of 2)

Posted on January 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://radar.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 segment of this article looked at the movement for patient engagement, or the patient experience. Now I’ll highlight a true reform in the health care system.

Patients Left Out in the Cold
What activist patients and doctors have been demanding for years is not engagement or a better experience, but a central role for the patient in choosing treatment and carrying it out when they leave the doctor’s office. Patient empowerment is the key to all the things doctors profess to care about, such as preventing readmissions. It’s even more critical with chronic diseases that have a lifestyle component, such as congestive heart failure and diabetes.

Some patients come to the clinical setting endowed with more education than others, or a personality suited to pushing back and demanding rights. But some fight for years for such basics as access to their records. I was dejected to read just a few weeks ago of an attempt to improve care in Rhode Island, endorsed no less by the American College of Physicians, that boasts about giving access to everybody except the patient to health records.

The American College of Physicians is concerned about the hypothetical patient who “doesn’t know the name of the peach-colored pill that the orthopedist prescribed.” That particular patient is clearly not asking for empowerment. But millions do keep track of their medications and deserve equal knowledge about the rest of the information about their medical condition. If the peach-colored pill had been recorded in a patient health record, accessible to the patient (or a responsible care-giver) wherever she goes, all the complex Health Information Exchange infrastructure praised in the article could go by the wayside. Another article describes an emerging PHR solution.

Another recent example of the disdain for patients comes in a complaint by AHIMA about the difficulties of matching records for a single patient. Duplicate records are undeniably a serious problem (as is information mistakenly entered in a different person’s record). But instead of recognizing the obvious solution of a PHR, all they can come up with is a universal identifier (which is a privacy risk as well as a target for security attacks) and more determined efforts to match patients the old-fashioned way.

Empowered patients have control over their own information. Doctors guide them to make reasonable choices that affect their health, which includes sharing those records. Empowered patients set their own goals and timetables. A grant of power and information to patients will inevitably empower and inform the other health professionals with whom those patients interact, leading to a learning health system and a true team approach to care.

What’s the difference?
As I eventually admitted, the movement for patient engagement offers many good ideas that can contribute not only to a better experience in the health care center but to patient empowerment and better outcomes. What I complain about is the motive behind patient engagement.

Let’s take patient portals. To proponents of patient engagement, it serves a few purposes related to public relations. The portal hopefully:

  • Indulges people’s preference for fast information, endearing them to the practice

  • Keeps them more “engaged,” meaning that they’ll come back and spend more money at the health care center.

  • Delivers information in more appealing ways (such as through video, when practices use it).

  • Takes routine tasks off the shoulders of staff, freeing them to do other things that improve the patient experience.

This poverty of vision is why most portals lack useful information that patients can use to actually improve their care. Discharge instructions are usually a crumpled page. Doctor notes are hidden away, available to malicious attackers more easily than to patients. Medical codes and raw numbers appear on the portal without further elucidation.

Modern health facilities use web sites along with text messaging, old-fashioned phone calls, and other tools as part of a strategy to keep patients on their treatment plans. They may have full discharge instructions, along with instructional videos for such important tasks as changing bandages, on a patient’s personal site. The patient is encouraged to report her progress along with any setbacks, and gets quick feedback when there is a change. Many face-to-face visits can be averted, and patients who can update their caretakers without leaving home are less likely to exhaust themselves at vulnerable times. The patient’s family members can easily keep up with changes and find out what they need to do, as can other professionals working on the case.

For every element of empowerment, there is a tawdry alternative that can be offered as “engagement.” That’s the risk in the patient experience movement. Unless the health care institutions start out with the philosophy of empowerment, it’s just another distraction from the work we need to do.

PHR Interaction with Doctors, A Shakespearean Tangle, and an iPhone EHR

Posted on December 18, 2015 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 regularly like to do a post that highlights interesting tweets from around the EHR and Healthcare IT twittersphere. Plus, I add in a bit of my own commentary. I hope you enjoy.


We’ve all known this for a long time. Glad to see that most doctors are finally realizing it too. With that said, I think we still have a long way to go when it comes to how we interact with patients through a PHR. However, we’re finally getting comfortable with the idea.


You need this part of the link above to understand the tweet:

Is ownership of medical data or workflow a Shakespearean comedy (happy ending) or tragedy (sad ending). At this point in time, the end result is not clear nor can an ending really be predicted. However, recognizing the issues can help draw focus and hopefully influence a better outcome.

It’s a fun question to ask. I think for most people it will be a generally happy ending. We usually end up with the right thing after we’ve exhausted all of our options (to modify a similar famous quote about the US). My only caution is that there may not be an ending to this. It will likely be a battle that will rage forever with give and take that goes on at least for our lifetimes.


I found this tweet ironic since I’d just had some searches to my website looking for an iOS EHR. It might be worth linking to my previous Apple EHR post. DrChrono built its brand on the back of an iPad EHR, so this isn’t a surprise. Of course, the proof is in the pudding as they say. I’ll hold out my judgment until I can hear from the doctors who actually use their iPhone as their EHR. As for the comment in the tweet above, I’m not sure it changes everything. We’ll still hear plenty of complaints from doctors on Epic and Cerner that they can’t do their EHR on their iPhone.

Significant Articles in the Health IT Community in 2015

Posted on December 15, 2015 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://radar.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.

Have you kept current with changes in device connectivity, Meaningful Use, analytics in healthcare, and other health IT topics during 2015? Here are some of the articles I find significant that came out over the past year.

The year kicked off with an ominous poll about Stage 2 Meaningful Use, with implications that came to a head later with the release of Stage 3 requirements. Out of 1800 physicians polled around the beginning of the year, more than half were throwing in the towel–they were not even going to try to qualify for Stage 2 payments. Negotiations over Stage 3 of Meaningful Use were intense and fierce. A January 2015 letter from medical associations to ONC asked for more certainty around testing and certification, and mentioned the need for better data exchange (which the health field likes to call interoperability) in the C-CDA, the most popular document exchange format.

A number of expert panels asked ONC to cut back on some requirements, including public health measures and patient view-download-transmit. One major industry group asked for a delay of Stage 3 till 2019, essentially tolerating a lack of communication among EHRs. The final rules, absurdly described as a simplification, backed down on nothing from patient data access to quality measure reporting. Beth Israel CIO John Halamka–who has shuttled back and forth between his Massachusetts home and Washington, DC to advise ONC on how to achieve health IT reform–took aim at Meaningful Use and several other federal initiatives.

Another harbinger of emerging issues in health IT came in January with a speech about privacy risks in connected devices by the head of the Federal Trade Commission (not an organization we hear from often in the health IT space). The FTC is concerned about the security of recent trends in what industry analysts like to call the Internet of Things, and medical devices rank high in these risks. The speech was a lead-up to a major report issued by the FTC on protecting devices in the Internet of Things. Articles in WIRED and Bloomberg described serious security flaws. In August, John Halamka wrote own warning about medical devices, which have not yet started taking security really seriously. Smart watches are just as vulnerable as other devices.

Because so much medical innovation is happening in fast-moving software, and low-budget developers are hankering for quick and cheap ways to release their applications, in February, the FDA started to chip away at its bureaucratic gamut by releasing guidelines releasing developers from FDA regulation medical apps without impacts on treatment and apps used just to transfer data or do similarly non-transformative operations. They also released a rule for unique IDs on medical devices, a long-overdue measure that helps hospitals and researchers integrate devices into monitoring systems. Without clear and unambiguous IDs, one cannot trace which safety problems are associated with which devices. Other forms of automation may also now become possible. In September, the FDA announced a public advisory committee on devices.

Another FDA decision with a potential long-range impact was allowing 23andMe to market its genetic testing to consumers.

The Department of Health and Human Services has taken on exceedingly ambitious goals during 2015. In addition to the daunting Stage 3 of Meaningful Use, they announced a substantial increase in the use of fee-for-value, although they would still leave half of providers on the old system of doling out individual payments for individual procedures. In December, National Coordinator Karen DeSalvo announced that Health Information Exchanges (which limit themselves only to a small geographic area, or sometimes one state) would be able to exchange data throughout the country within one year. Observers immediately pointed out that the state of interoperability is not ready for this transition (and they could well have added the need for better analytics as well). HHS’s five-year plan includes the use of patient-generated and non-clinical data.

The poor state of interoperability was highlighted in an article about fees charged by EHR vendors just for setting up a connection and for each data transfer.

In the perennial search for why doctors are not exchanging patient information, attention has turned to rumors of deliberate information blocking. It’s a difficult accusation to pin down. Is information blocked by health care providers or by vendors? Does charging a fee, refusing to support a particular form of information exchange, or using a unique data format constitute information blocking? On the positive side, unnecessary imaging procedures can be reduced through information exchange.

Accountable Care Organizations are also having trouble, both because they are information-poor and because the CMS version of fee-for-value is too timid, along with other financial blows and perhaps an inability to retain patients. An August article analyzed the positives and negatives in a CMS announcement. On a large scale, fee-for-value may work. But a key component of improvement in chronic conditions is behavioral health which EHRs are also unsuited for.

Pricing and consumer choice have become a major battleground in the current health insurance business. The steep rise in health insurance deductibles and copays has been justified (somewhat retroactively) by claiming that patients should have more responsibility to control health care costs. But the reality of health care shopping points in the other direction. A report card on state price transparency laws found the situation “bleak.” Another article shows that efforts to list prices are hampered by interoperability and other problems. One personal account of a billing disaster shows the state of price transparency today, and may be dangerous to read because it could trigger traumatic memories of your own interactions with health providers and insurers. Narrow and confusing insurance networks as well as fragmented delivery of services hamper doctor shopping. You may go to a doctor who your insurance plan assures you is in their network, only to be charged outrageous out-of-network costs. Tools are often out of date overly simplistic.

In regard to the quality ratings that are supposed to allow intelligent choices to patients, A study found that four hospital rating sites have very different ratings for the same hospitals. The criteria used to rate them is inconsistent. Quality measures provided by government databases are marred by incorrect data. The American Medical Association, always disturbed by public ratings of doctors for obvious reasons, recently complained of incorrect numbers from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. In July, the ProPublica site offered a search service called the Surgeon Scorecard. One article summarized the many positive and negative reactions. The New England Journal of Medicine has called ratings of surgeons unreliable.

2015 was the year of the intensely watched Department of Defense upgrade to its health care system. One long article offered an in-depth examination of DoD options and their implications for the evolution of health care. Another article promoted the advantages of open-source VistA, an argument that was not persuasive enough for the DoD. Still, openness was one of the criteria sought by the DoD.

The remote delivery of information, monitoring, and treatment (which goes by the quaint term “telemedicine”) has been the subject of much discussion. Those concerned with this development can follow the links in a summary article to see the various positions of major industry players. One advocate of patient empowerment interviewed doctors to find that, contrary to common fears, they can offer email access to patients without becoming overwhelmed. In fact, they think it leads to better outcomes. (However, it still isn’t reimbursed.)

Laws permitting reimbursement for telemedicine continued to spread among the states. But a major battle shaped up around a ruling in Texas that doctors have a pre-existing face-to-face meeting with any patient whom they want to treat remotely. The spread of telemedicine depends also on reform of state licensing laws to permit practices across state lines.

Much wailing and tears welled up over the required transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10. The AMA, with some good arguments, suggested just waiting for ICD-11. But the transition cost much less than anticipated, making ICD-10 much less of a hot button, although it may be harmful to diagnosis.

Formal studies of EHR strengths and weaknesses are rare, so I’ll mention this survey finding that EHRs aid with public health but are ungainly for the sophisticated uses required for long-term, accountable patient care. Meanwhile, half of hospitals surveyed are unhappy with their EHRs’ usability and functionality and doctors are increasingly frustrated with EHRs. Nurses complained about technologies’s time demands and the eternal lack of interoperability. A HIMSS survey turned up somewhat more postive feelings.

EHRs are also expensive enough to hurt hospital balance sheets and force them to forgo other important expenditures.

Electronic health records also took a hit from ONC’s Sentinel Events program. To err, it seems, is not only human but now computer-aided. A Sentinel Event Alert indicated that more errors in health IT products should be reported, claiming that many go unreported because patient harm was avoided. The FDA started checking self-reported problems on PatientsLikeMe for adverse drug events.

The ONC reported gains in patient ability to view, download, and transmit their health information online, but found patient portals still limited. Although one article praised patient portals by Epic, Allscripts, and NextGen, an overview of studies found that patient portals are disappointing, partly because elderly patients have trouble with them. A literature review highlighted where patient portals fall short. In contrast, giving patients full access to doctors’ notes increases compliance and reduces errors. HHS’s Office of Civil Rights released rules underlining patients’ rights to access their data.

While we’re wallowing in downers, review a study questioning the value of patient-centered medical homes.

Reuters published a warning about employee wellness programs, which are nowhere near as fair or accurate as they claim to be. They are turning into just another expression of unequal power between employer and employee, with tendencies to punish sick people.

An interesting article questioned the industry narrative about the medical device tax in the Affordable Care Act, saying that the industry is expanding robustly in the face of the tax. However, this tax is still a hot political issue.

Does anyone remember that Republican congressmen published an alternative health care reform plan to replace the ACA? An analysis finds both good and bad points in its approach to mandates, malpractice, and insurance coverage.

Early reports on use of Apple’s open ResearchKit suggested problems with selection bias and diversity.

An in-depth look at the use of devices to enhance mental activity examined where they might be useful or harmful.

A major genetic data mining effort by pharma companies and Britain’s National Health Service was announced. The FDA announced a site called precisionFDA for sharing resources related to genetic testing. A recent site invites people to upload health and fitness data to support research.

As data becomes more liquid and is collected by more entities, patient privacy suffers. An analysis of web sites turned up shocking practices in , even at supposedly reputable sites like WebMD. Lax security in health care networks was addressed in a Forbes article.

Of minor interest to health IT workers, but eagerly awaited by doctors, was Congress’s “doc fix” to Medicare’s sustainable growth rate formula. The bill did contain additional clauses that were called significant by a number of observers, including former National Coordinator Farzad Mostashari no less, for opening up new initiatives in interoperability, telehealth, patient monitoring, and especially fee-for-value.

Connected health took a step forward when CMS issued reimbursement guidelines for patient monitoring in the community.

A wonky but important dispute concerned whether self-insured employers should be required to report public health measures, because public health by definition needs to draw information from as wide a population as possible.

Data breaches always make lurid news, sometimes under surprising circumstances, and not always caused by health care providers. The 2015 security news was dominated by a massive breach at the Anthem health insurer.

Along with great fanfare in Scientific American for “precision medicine,” another Scientific American article covered its privacy risks.

A blog posting promoted early and intensive interactions with end users during app design.

A study found that HIT implementations hamper clinicians, but could not identify the reasons.

Natural language processing was praised for its potential for simplifying data entry, and to discover useful side effects and treatment issues.

CVS’s refusal to stock tobacco products was called “a major sea-change for public health” and part of a general trend of pharmacies toward whole care of the patient.

A long interview with FHIR leader Grahame Grieve described the progress of the project, and its the need for clinicians to take data exchange seriously. A quiet milestone was reached in October with a a production version from Cerner.

Given the frequent invocation of Uber (even more than the Cheesecake Factory) as a model for health IT innovation, it’s worth seeing the reasons that model is inapplicable.

A number of hot new sensors and devices were announced, including a tiny sensor from Intel, a device from Google to measure blood sugar and another for multiple vital signs, enhancements to Microsoft products, a temperature monitor for babies, a headset for detecting epilepsy, cheap cameras from New Zealand and MIT for doing retinal scans, a smart phone app for recognizing respiratory illnesses, a smart-phone connected device for detecting brain injuries and one for detecting cancer, a sleep-tracking ring, bed sensors, ultrasound-guided needle placement, a device for detecting pneumonia, and a pill that can track heartbeats.

The medical field isn’t making extensive use yet of data collection and analysis–or uses analytics for financial gain rather than patient care–the potential is demonstrated by many isolated success stories, including one from Johns Hopkins study using 25 patient measures to study sepsis and another from an Ontario hospital. In an intriguing peek at our possible future, IBM Watson has started to integrate patient data with its base of clinical research studies.

Frustrated enough with 2015? To end on an upbeat note, envision a future made bright by predictive analytics.

HealthTap’s Integrated, Patient-Centered, Data-Rich Care

Posted on November 18, 2015 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://radar.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.

Health reformers dream of integrated health delivery systems that leap across the barriers between providers, employers, insurers, and various supporting groups such as pharmacies and test labs. People who have investigated this goal realize that it can be achieved only by putting data in the hands of the patients. HealthTap recently announced a “health operating system” that suggests what this much-anticipated integration will look like.

In this article I’ll look at some of the building blocks HealthTap put in place, and then delve a bit into features of the health care landscape that support their work.

HealthTap has built an integrated health delivery system over a five-year period. They started with an audacious enough goal in its own right: signing up doctors to answer questions from the public. A couple dozen other capabilities were tacked on over time, such as ratings, various personalization features, and then checklists and a recommendation system for apps.

Doctor-to-doctor interaction is also built into HealthTap, echoing proposals in a 2012 book called #SOCIALQI. Doctors can check how peers handle cases similar to theirs, do online consultations, and carry out literal reviews online. Founder and CEO Ron Gutman describes the combined process as “virtual grand rounds.” And in a glowing endorsement by the medical establishment, HealthTap has won the right to grant CME to doctors for conducting these routine activities on its system.

Now the integrated impact of all these initiatives can be seen. Health care delivered through HealthTap might look something like this.

  1. An individual creates a HealthTap account directly with HealthTap, or in a private system that her clinic, hospital, or employer creates based on HealthTap. This brings the patient into the system, where information and other forms of communication take place. The provision of private environments run by single hospital or clinic is a recent innovation by HealthTap.

  2. The individual optionally adds information about personal data such as age, and conditions she is suffering from. HealthTap uses this to direct educational content at her, and to answer her questions in a personalized manner that is more informative than a typical web search. For instance, the query “Is aspirin good or bad for me?” would trigger answers that take the patient’s particular health information into account. HealthTap’s Personal Health Record (PHR) becomes the key component that links together the entire continuum of care.

  3. The patient can sign up for a reasonably-priced concierge service that allows her to request an online consultation with a doctor whenever she needs one. The doctor writes a SOAP note at the end of the consultation. He can also create a checklist of things to do (take medication every day, go to the gym, make a follow-up appointment in three months) and HealthTap will remind the patient to do these things in a way chosen by the patient to be convenient. HealthTap offers apps for both doctors and patients on all major mobile devices, including Apple Watch and Android Wear. Communications are HIPAA-compliant and have received SOC 2 Type II security certification, the highest level.

  4. A doctor can also order a lab test electronically. The patient can take the test and get results delivered directly and securely through HealthTap.

  5. All this information is stored in a record available to the patient. Therefore, data that used to be available only to institutions serving the patient (hospitals, insurers, labs, pharmacies), and was used only for marketing or improving service delivery, is now available to the patient.

  6. All the information ranging from patients’ online queries to test results become input into anonymized, aggregated sets that HealthTap gives health care providers. They can view dashboards of information about their patients, about people throughout their geographic area, about people with related conditions and demographics around the country, etc. Savvy institutions can use this data for value-based care and improving their outreach to at-risk patients.

Thus, a plethora of features that health care reformers are asking for appear in HealthTap, ranging from targeted educational materials to messages that promote compliance with treatment plans and even analytics. The service strives to make the experience as comfortable as possible for the patients, who have access to all their data.

The achievement of Ron Gutman, to whom I talked this week on the phone, and his crew is impressive. But we should also be aware that the technical infrastructure and features put in place by the health care industry play a crucial role. These include:

  • ePrescribing systems such as Surescripts, and electronic ordering for lab tests, along with coding standards to ensure the different parties can exchange messages

  • Electronic health records, which have become widespread only during the past five to six years since the start of Meaningful Use payments from the US government

  • Devices capable of secure messaging

  • Public health information provided by a number of government and private institutions

  • Analytics offered by a huge number of firms to health care providers

Thus, the health care ecosystem has been evolving for some time to create the possibility for an advance like HealthTap. Much more is needed throughout the healthcare system for instant communications and smooth data exchange. For instance, HealthTap hasn’t yet integrated fitness devices into its ecosystem. But HealthTap has built a huge service on existing system elements, which many more institutions could do so if we had a health care system as open and rich as exists in e-commerce.

EHR Data Integration and Changing Health Behaviors

Posted on November 16, 2015 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.

Every so often I like to highlight interesting tweets from the Twittersphere and add some of my own commentary. Here’s a few of them worth mentioning today.


How many EHR integrate with Fitbit? I’ve seen a few partial integrations, but none of them that really make an impact on the patients life. At best I’ve seen them take the data in, but then they do nothing with it. I’d love to see some examples where the EHR is actually doing something with the Fitbit data. In fact, is there anyone taking Fitbit data and making it more useful than what it is in the Fitbit app?


Speaking of outside data (Fitbit data), I agree with IBM that we’re heading towards a lot more data than just what the EMR can provide. In fact, I think the real breakthroughs in health care are going to come from the mixing of multiple data sources into a pretty little package with a bow on top. We’re still Christopher Columbus looking for the new world though. However, unlike Columbus, I know the world isn’t flat (ie. there’s value in the data).


I love when things are timely. I’m extremely interested in this discussion about behavior change in health care. I’m glad that the #hcldr chat is about this topic. I’ll be watching with a keen eye on what people share. I hope everyone will take the time to share their thoughts on how to change people’s health behaviors.

Consumers Take Risk Trading Health Data For Health Insurance Discounts

Posted on August 28, 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.

When Progressive Insurance began giving car owners the option of having their driving tracked in exchange for potential auto insurance discounts, nobody seemed to raise a fuss. After all, the program was voluntary, and nobody wants to pay more than they have to for coverage.

Do the same principles apply to healthcare? We may find out. According to a study by digital health research firm Parks Associates, at least some users are willing to make the same tradeoff. HIT Consultant reports that nearly half (42%) of digital pedometer users would be willing to share their personal data in exchange for a health insurance discount.

Consumer willingness to trade data for discounts varied by device, but didn’t fall to zero. For example, 35% of smart watch owners would trade their health data for health insurance discounts, while 26% of those with sleep-quality monitors would do so.

While the HIT Consultant story doesn’t dig into the profile of users who were prepared to sell their personal health data today — which is how I’d describe a data-for-discount scheme — I’d submit that they are, in short, pretty sharp.

Why do I say this? Because as things stand, at least, health insurers would get less than they were paying for unless the discount was paltry. (As the linked blog item notes, upstart health insurer Oscar Insurance already gives away free Misfit wearables. To date, though, it’s not clear from the write-up whether Oscar can quantify what benefit it gets from the giveaway.)

As wearables and health apps mature, however, consumers may end up compromising themselves if they give up personal health data freely. After all, if health insurance begins to look like car insurance, health plans could push up premiums every time they make a health “mistake” (such as overeating at a birthday dinner or staying up all night watching old movies). Moreoever, as such data gets absorbed into EMRs, then cross-linked with claims, health plans’ ability to punish you with actuarial tables could skyrocket.

In fact, if consumers permit health plans to keep too close a watch on them, it could give the health plans the ability to effectively engage in post-contract medical underwriting. This is an unwelcome prospect which could lead to court battles given the ACA’s ban on such activities.

Also, once health plans have the personal data, it’s not clear what they would do with it. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that health plans would have significant legal latitude in using freely given data, and might even be seen to sell that data in the aggregate to pharmas. Or they might pass it to their parent company’s life or auto divisions, which could potentially use the data to make coverage decisions.

Ultimately, I’d argue that unless the laws are changed to protect consumers who do so, selling personal health data to get lower insurance premiums is a very risky decision. The short-term benefit is unlikely to be enough to offset very real long-term consequences. Once you’ve compromised your privacy, you seldom get it back.

I Have Seen The Portal, And It Is Handy

Posted on July 14, 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.

After writing about EMRs/EHRs and portals for many years, I’ve finally begun using an enterprise-class portal to guide my own care. Here’s some of my impressions as an “inside” (EMR researcher) and “outside” (not employed as a provider) user of this tool. My conclusion is that it’s pretty handy, though it’s still rather difficult to leverage what I’ve learned despite being relatively sophisticated.

First, some background. I get most of my care from northern Virginia-based Inova Health System, including inpatient, primary care, imaging and specialist care. Inova has invested in a honking Epic installation which links the majority of these sites together (though I’ve been informed that its imaging facilities still aren’t hooked up to core medical record. D’oh!) After my last visit with an Inova doctor, I decided to register and use its Epic portal.

Epic’s MyChart has a robust, seemingly quite secure process for registering and accessing information, requiring the use of a long alphanumeric code along with unique personal data to establish an account. When I had trouble reading the code and couldn’t register, telephone-based tech support solved the problem quickly.  (Getting nearsighted as I move from middle- to old-aged!)

Using MyChart, I found it easy to access lab results, my drug list and an overview of health issues. In a plus for both me and the health system, it also includes access to a more organized record of charges and balances due than I’ve been able to put together in many years.

When I looked into extracting and sharing the records, I found myself connected to Lucy, an Epic PHR module. In case you’ve never heard of it (I hadn’t) here’s Epic’s description:

Lucy is a PHR that is not connected to any facility’s electronic medical record system. It stays with patients wherever they receive care and allows them to organize their medical information in one place that is readily accessible. Patients can enter health data directly into Lucy, pull in MyChart data or upload standards-compliant Continuity of Care Documents from other facilities.

As great as the possibility of integrating outside records sounds, that’s where I ran into my first snag. When I attempted to hook up with the portal for DC-based Sibley Memorial Hospital — a Johns Hopkins facility — and integrate the records from its Epic system into the Inova’s Lucy PHR, I was unable to do so since I hadn’t connected within 48 hours of a recent discharge. When I tried to remedy the situation, an employee from the hospital’s Health Information Management department gave me an unhelpful kiss-off, telling me that there was no way to issue a second security code. I was told she had to speak to her office manager; I told her access to my medical record was not up for a vote, and irritated, terminated the call.

Another snag came when I tried to respond to information I’d found in my chart summary. When I noted that one of my tests fell outside the standard range provided by the lab, I called the medical group to ask why I’d been told all tests were normal. After a long wait, I was put on the line with a physician who knew nothing about my case and promptly brushed off my concerns. I appreciate that the group found somebody to talk to me, but if I wasn’t a persistent lady, I’d be reluctant to speak up in the future given this level of disinterest.

All told, using the portal is a big step up from my previous experiences interacting with my providers, and I know it will be empowering for someone like myself. That being said, it seems clear that even in this day and age, even a sophisticated integrated health system isn’t geared to respond to the questions patients may have about their data.

For one thing, even if the Lucy portal delivers as promised, it’s clear that integrating data from varied institutions isn’t a task for the faint of heart. HIM departments still seem to house many staffers who are trained to be clerks, not supporters of digital health. That will have to change.

Also, hospitals and medical practices must train employees to enthusiastically, cheerfully support patients who want to leverage their health record data. They may also want to create a central call center, staffed by clinicians, to engage with patients who are raising questions related to their health data. Otherwise, it seems unlikely that they’ll bother to use it.

Taking a New Look at the Lamented Personal Health Record: Flow Health’s Debut

Posted on June 8, 2015 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://radar.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.

After the disappointing lack of adoption suffered by Google Health and Microsoft HealthVault, many observers declared personal health records (PHRs) a non-starter, while others predicted that any progress toward personal control over health data would require a radically new approach.

Several new stabs at a PHR are emerging, of which Flow Health shows several promising traits. The company tries to take advantage of–and boost the benefits of–advances in IT standards and payment models. This article is based on a conversation I had with their general counsel, David Harlow, who is widely recognized as the leading legal expert in health IT and health privacy and who consults with companies in those spaces through the Harlow Group.

Because records are collected by doctors, not patients, the chief hurdle any PHR has to overcome is to persuade the health care providers to relinquish sole control over the records they squirrel away in their local EHR silos. Harlow believes the shift to shared risk and coordinated care is creating the incentive for doctors to share. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services is promising to greatly increase the role of pay-for-value, and a number of private insurers have promised to do so as well. In short, Flow Health can make headway if the tangible benefit of learning about a patient’s recent hospital discharge or treating chronic conditions while the patient remains at home start to override the doctor’s perception that she can benefit by keeping the patient’s data away from competitors.

The next challenge is technically obtaining the records. This is facilitated first by the widespread move to electronic records (a legacy of Meaningful Use Stage 1) and the partial standardization of these records in the C-CDA. Flow Health recognizes both the C-CDA and Blue Button, as well as using the Direct protocol to obtain records. Harlow says that FHIR will be supported when the standard settles down.

But none of that is enough to offer Flow Health what the doctors and patients really want, which is a unified health record containing all the information given by different providers. Therefore, like other companies trying to broaden access to patient data, Flow Health must deal with the problem that Dr. Eric Topol recently termed the Tower of EMR Babel. They study each format produced by different popular EHRs (each one using the C-CDA in slightly incompatible ways) and convert the data into a harmonized format. This allows Flow Health to then reconcile records when a diagnosis, a medication list, or some other aspect of the patient’s health is represented differently in different records.

What’s next for Flow Health? Harlow said they are preparing an API to let third parties add powerful functionality, such as care coordination and patient access from any app of their choice. Flow Health is already working closely with payers and providers to address workflow challenges, thus accelerating the aggregation of patient health record data for access and use by clinicians and patients.

A relative of mine could have used something like Flow Health recently when her eye doctor referred her to the prestigious Lahey Clinic in the Boston area. First of all, the test that led to the referral had to be repeated at the Lahey Clinic, because the eye doctor did not forward test results. Nor did anyone provide a medication list, so the Lahey Clinic printed out a five-year old medication list that happened to hang around from a visit long ago and asked her to manually update it. There was also confusion about what her insurer would cover, but that’s a different matter. All this took place in 2015, in the country’s leading region for medical care.

It seems inevitable that–as Flow Health hopes–patients will come to demand access to their medical records. A slew of interesting experiments will proliferate, like Flow Health and the rather different vision of Medyear to treat health information like a social network feed. Patient-generated data, such as the output from fitness devices and home sensors, will put yet more pressure on health care providers to take the patient seriously as a source of information. And I’ll continue to follow developments.

Cracking Open the Shell on the Personal Health Record

Posted on November 5, 2014 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://radar.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 concept of maintaining your own health data enjoyed a brief flurry of activity a few years ago with Google Health (now defunct) and Microsoft HealthVault (still active but not popular). It has gotten a second chance with Apple HealthKit, Google Fit, and other corporate offerings explicitly tied in with the convenience of mobile devices. Microsoft itself has galvanized HealthVault with a Microsoft Health initiative similar to Apple’s HealthKit. Recently I’ve been talking to health care reformers about the business and political prospects for personal health records (PHRs).

Patient access to data was enshrined as a right back when HIPAA was passed and is still championed by the US government through Meaningful Use (whose Stage 3 may well focus on it) and other initiatives, and has been endorsed by the industry as well. But this requirement won’t be satisfied by the limited patient portals that hospitals and clinics are hanging out on the Web. Their limitations include:

  • Many provide only viewing data, not downloading or transmitting it (all of these are mandated by Meaningful Use).
  • Data maintained by providers can’t easily be combined into a holistic, comprehensive view, which is what providers need to provide good care.
  • Data on portals is usually a thin sliver of all the data in the record: perhaps prescriptions, appointments, and a few other bare facts without the rich notes maintained by clinicians.
  • You can’t correct errors in your own data through a portal.
  • Clinicians rarely accept data that you want to put in the record, whether personal observations or output from fitness devices and other technical enhancements.

All these problems could be solved by flexible and well-designed personal health records. But how does the health care field navigate the wrenching transition to giving people full control over their own data?

Dr. Adrian Gropper has investigated PHRs for years and even considered building a simple device to store and serve individual’s health data. Now he says, “I can’t recall any physician in my medical society that has ever said they wished their patient had a PHR. Nor do I, after many years on the Society for Participatory Medicine list, ever recall a patient praising the role of their PHR in their care. Today’s PHRs are clinically irrelevant.”

This is not a condemnation of PHRs, but of the environment in which vendors try to deploy them. Many health reformers feel that several aspects of this care environment must evolve for PHRs to be accepted:

  • PHR data must become appealing to doctors. This means that device manufacturers (and perhaps patients themselves) must demonstrate that the data is accurate. Doctors have to recognize value in receiving at least summaries and alerts. Many benefits can also accrue from collecting vital statistics, behavioral data, and other aspects of patients’ daily lives.
  • The doctor’s EHR must seamlessly provide data to the patient, and (we hope) seamlessly accept data from the patient–data that the doctor acts on. Currently, most manufacturers store the data on their own sites and offer access through APIs. Another programming step is required to get the data into the PHR or the doctor’s EHR.
  • Clinicians have to agree on how to mark and collect the provenance of data. “Provenance” deals with assertions such as, “this data was generated by a Fitbit on October 10, 2014” or “this diagnosis was challenged by the patient and changed on August 13, 2010.”
  • Add-on services must make the data interesting and usable to both patients and physicians. For instance, such apps can alert the patient, clinician, or family members when something seems wrong, let them visualize data taken from the PHR and EHR over time, get useful advice by comparing their data to insights from research, and track progress toward the goals they choose.

“A critical force in increasing consumer engagement in digital health is the development of compelling, easy to use tools that make it simple to collect, understand and use health information to reach the goals consumers define for themselves, whether that’s managing a chronic condition, saving money, or fitting into their ‘skinny jeans’,” writes Lygeia Ricciardi, former director of the Office of Consumer e-Health at the ONC. “In an age of ‘one click purchasing,’ it must become incredibly easy for patients to access and share their own health information digitally–if it’s too complex or time consuming, most people probably won’t do it.”

In addition to sheer inertia, a number of disincentives keep PHRs from congealing.

  • Many doctors are afraid of letting patients see clinical notes, either because the patient will ask too many questions or will be upset by the content.
  • Hospitals and clinics want control over records so that patients will return to them for future treatment.
  • Marketing firms live off of rich data lodes on our health data.
  • Other organizations with dubious goals, commercial and governmental, want to track us so they can deny us insurance or control our lives in other ways.

Wait–what about the patients themselves? Why haven’t they risen up over the past several years to demand control over their data? Well, maintaining your health data is intimidating. The data is highly detailed and full of arcane medical concepts and terminology. Most patients don’t care until they really need to–and then they’re too sick and disabled to form an effective movement for patient control.

Still, several leaders in health care believe that a viable business model can be built on PHRs. The spark of hope comes from the success of apps that make people pay for privacy, notably SnapChat and Whatsapp. Although some sloppy privacy practicies render these services imperfect, their widespread use demonstrates that people care about protecting their personal data.

Private storage can be offered both in the cloud and by personal devices, using standardized services such as Direct and Blue Button. These will start out as high-end services for people who are affluent and have particular concerns about storing their own data and choosing how it is shared. It will then become commoditized and come down in price.

What about people who can’t afford even the modest prices for cloud storage? They can turn patient data into a civil rights issue. There’s a potent argument that everyone has the right to determine who can get access to their health data, and a right to have data generated during their daily lives taken into account by doctors.

We don’t need one big central service–that’s insecure and subject to breaches. Multiple services and distributed storage reduce security risks.

We’ll see change when a substantial group of people start to refuse to fill out those convoluted forms handed to them as them enter a clinic, saying instead, “Get it from my web site before you treat me.” Before that protest begins, there’s a lot of work in store for technologists and businesses to offer patients a usable record system open to the wide range of data now available for health.