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!

Women Executives in Telehealth American Telemedicine Association ATA2017

Posted on May 18, 2017 I Written By

Healthcare as a Human Right. Physician Suicide Loss Survivor. Janae writes about Artificial Intelligence, Virtual Reality, Data Analytics, Engagement and Investing in Healthcare. twitter: @coherencemed

Susan Dentzer, Charlotte Yeh, Janet McIntyre, and Janae Sharp at the American Telemed Women Executives in Telehealth Panel

One of the highlights of the American Telemedicine conference in Orlando Florida was excellent coverage of women in telemedicine and leadership.  They had a panel of women in leadership which focused on promoting women in telemedicine and had the best moderation of a panel I’ve seen at a conference.  Highlights of great advice for women in HealthIT were from that panel, and from speaking with women that were tasked with going to the conference as buyers in the telemedicine space.

Charlotte Yeh acted as moderator of the panel. She framed what the panel would cover and what they were not concerned with. She mentioned that we would not cover work life balance since that also applies to men and has been covered on many platforms.  Framing a conversation within the conference and healthcare setting made a huge impact.  Promoting women in telemedicine and HealthIT needs to have a specific framework.

Susan Dentzer, President and CEO of the Network for Excellence in Healthcare innovation suggested making an award for advancing women in leadership in Telehealth.  I’m a huge fan of medals for participation. Every day I get up and when I work out I suspect that I deserve a medal.  The medals for best contribution for advancing women next year should be an amazing ceremony at ATA.

Susan quoted Madeline Albright that “there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t support other women.” Think deliberately about creating something you want to be a part of. This year I’ve personally seen Max Stroud of Doyenne Connections simply create something she wanted to be a part of.

Julie Hall-Barrow invited leaders to find a young woman and become their mentor. Some of the women in leadership in healthcare are happy to promote other women but the promotion seems more strategic than like actual concern. Leaders should purposefully craft their ideal mentor relationship. ATA discussed creating a group dedicated to what women and companies in the telemedicine space would like to do with collaboration.

Paula Guy, when asked what she would tell a younger self, said “first of all I would tell myself not to get married so many times.” Her advice was hilarious and focused on not letting people tell you no. There is a power in knowing what you are capable of and surrounding yourself with other women who are also in that space. Paula’s advice was also to be part of a group that promotes mentors and other women working together.

Kristi Henderson spoke about not being afraid to push boundaries. Never settle until you get where you want to go. The advice and positive belief that women are capable of breaking through boundaries and leveraging their social connecting makes women poised for success despite being underrepresented.

Janet McIntyre, The Vice President of Professional services of the Colorado Hospital association, decided to approach Patrick Kennedy about coming to Colorado to help with the opioid epidemic there. He shared his family story and personal conviction about making a difference and Janet decided to invite him to help with her state.  Women need to be fearless in their ask and expect that people will want to help them succeed.

Rachel Dixon, director of Telehealth for AccessCare services, pointed out that women should have a safe space to discuss gender issues in their work. We can create a place to discuss which companies are working well with women in the telemedicine space and which ask about an older man partner or lack professionalism. I shared a story with her about a potential employer asking if he should consider my job only a work proposition.  Gender issues for a younger woman in leadership can be complex in navigating personal relationship. A soft intelligence network about how a company treats women is valuable for investors and employees.

I was impressed with the positive planning of women in healthcare leadership in telehealth. The thought leadership at this conference was one of the best organized in terms of giving organizations and individuals actionable plans for increasing female technology talent in leadership positions.

Various Medical Practice Model Types

Posted on May 3, 2017 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.

The EHR vendor (and many other services), Kareo, has put out a practice model guide which they call “Practice Models: The ABCs from ACOs to Concierge and Everything in Between.” With this guide they shared this picture that includes various practice models:

When I see an image like this I’m torn on if this is an extremely exciting time for physicians or if it’s a miserable time to be a physician. One thing is clear, times are a changing. The medical practice models of the past are going to be blown up by new models.

Take for example Telemedicine. Can you imagine any healthcare future where telemedicine is not part of that future? I can’t.

I’m still personally torn on concierge practices. I can see why they’re appealing to so many. I love the idea of unlimited primary care and getting insurance out of primary care. However, it’s not clear to me that this idea can scale across the entire healthcare system. Certainly the rich can do it no problem. Can the concierge model work for the middle and lower class? Many fans of concierge tell me it can. I’m still not so sure.

I know a lot of doctors that are part of ACOs. I don’t know very many that are excited by the work ACOs are doing. Most of them just feel like they need to be part of it to understand the future of medicine. They’re not joining ACOs because they think it’s something that shows a lot of promise for their patients.

I’m probably coming off a little more cynical than I am about these shifts. A number of these changes are really exciting to see happening. However, I’m also not blind to the challenges that many of these medical practice models face.

Needless to say, it’s an exciting and challenging time to be in medicine. The structure of how we pay for healthcare is being questioned and new models are being explored. This can be really exciting if you find yourself tracking the right wave. However, if you miss the wave, then you can be stuck out in the middle of the ocean wondering how you missed out.

E-Patient Update: Hey Government, Train Patients Too!

Posted on February 10, 2017 I Written By

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

Recently I got a most interesting email from the ONC and A-list healthcare educator Columbia University. In the message, it offered me a free online course taught by Columbia’s Department of Biomedical Informatics, apparently paid for by ONC funding. (Unfortunately, they aren’t giving away free toasters to students, or I definitely would have signed up. No wait, I’m sorry, I did register, but I would have done it faster for the toaster.)

The course, which is named Health Informatics For Innovation, Value and Enrichment) or HI-FIVE, is designed to serve just about anyone in healthcare, including administrators, managers, physicians, nurses, social workers an care coordinators. Subjects covered by the course include all of the usual favorites, including healthcare data analytics, population health, care coordination and interoperability, value-based care and patient-centered care.

If I seem somewhat flippant, it’s just because the marketing material seemed a little…uh…breathlessly cheery and cute given the subject. I can certainly see the benefits of offering such a course at no cost, especially for those professionals (such as social workers) unlikely to be offered a broader look at health IT issues.

On the other hand, I’d argue that there’s another group which needs this kind of training more – and that’s consumers like myself. While I might be well-informed on these subjects, due to my geeky HIT obsession, my friends and family aren’t. And while most of the professionals served by the course will get at least some exposure to these topics on the job, my mother, my sister and my best girlfriend have essentially zero chance of finding consumer-friendly information on using health IT.

Go where the need is

As those who follow this column know, I’ve previously argued hard for hospitals and medical groups to offer patients training on health IT basics, particularly on how to take advantage of their portal. But given that my advice seems to be falling on deaf ears – imagine that! – it occurs to me that a government agency like ONC should step in and help. If closing important knowledge gaps is important to our industry, why not this particular gap. Hey, go where the need is greatest.

After all, as I’ve noted time and again, we do want patients to understand consumer health IT and how to reap its benefits, as this may help them improve their health. But if you want engagement, folks, people have to understand what you’re talking about and why it matters. As things stand, my sense is that few people outside the #healthit bubble have the faintest idea of what we’re talking about (and wouldn’t really want to know either).

What would a consumer-oriented ONC course cover? Well, I’m sure the authorities can figure that out, but I’m sure education on portal use, reading medical data, telemedicine, remote monitoring, mobile apps and wearables wouldn’t come amiss. Honestly, it almost doesn’t matter how much the course would cover – the key here would be to get people interested and comfortable.

The biggest problem I can see here is getting consumers to actually show up for these courses, which will probably seem threatening to some. It may not be easy to provoke their interest, particularly if they’re technophobic generally. But there’s plenty of consumer marketing techniques that course creators could use to get the job done, particularly if you’re giving your product away. (If all else fails, the toaster giveaway might work.)

If providers don’t feel equipped to educate patients, I hope that someone does, sometime soon, preferably a neutral body like ONC rather than a self-interested vendor. It’s more than time.

 E-Patient Update:  The Impact Of Telehealth Confusion

Posted on January 27, 2017 I Written By

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

I am a huge fan of telemedicine consults. As far as I can tell, all of the chronic conditions I currently cope with can be addressed effectively by a virtual visit unless I’m in a medical crisis.

My reasons are not unusual. Like most people, I hate having to drive to a doctor’s office if I’m already feeling yucky, particularly if it’s not necessary. And since time is money – particularly when you work for yourself like me – there’s some material benefits to telehealth too. Not only that, since I’m a tech fan who lives online, these contacts “feel” as real as face-to-face visits, so I don’t have lingering doubts that I’m not getting much for my money.

Getting a quick visit in regarding an acute medical issue (like, say, a sinus infection) has been pretty easy and relatively affordable as well. But reaching out to a new specialist – or even connecting with my existing providers — is another story. Over the last several months, I’ve encountered a number of barriers which seem to be fairly entrenched in the system.

Garbage contact info

Over the last year, I’ve been with two major health insurers (CIGNA and United Healthcare) whose databases included a list of specialists which were allegedly willing to do telehealth consults. But as it turns out, actually moving ahead with such visits has been impossible.

At one point, I decided to go all out and see if I could actually schedule a telehealth visit with one type of specialist I need. Armed with a list of providers who were supposedly up for it, I called perhaps 15 or 20 offices to see how I could schedule my first virtual visit. But I got nowhere. Most of the physicians simply never returned my calls, and in the rare cases where I got a live person, they had no idea what I was talking about.

I’m assuming that this happened because the doctors had the option to check a “telemedicine” box if they were generally interested in implementing it, and that few if any had actually gone ahead with their plans. But I’m still very annoyed with the whole thing. Sure, insurers don’t have perfect information on hand at any given moment, but isn’t in their interests to steer patients to less-expensive telehealth services if they’re available?

Coverage confusion

Another thing that astonishes me is that while I allegedly have telemedicine coverage via my current insurer (CIGNA) I can’t find anyone who has the slightest idea of how I should use it!  I have called CIGNA’s call center four or five times in an attempt to straighten this out, but none of the reps I spoke with had a clue as to which providers were covered by my policy, if any, and under what circumstances.

At some point, telemedicine coverage will be known as “coverage,” of course. There’s really no reason to segment it out into a separate category if you’re going to pay for it anyway. But at present, if CIGNA is any indication, there’s still some confusion around how and when coverage is even applicable. I can’t understand it, but I can attest to you that such foolishness is a Real Thing.

Launch fears

The other problem I’ve encountered is that while medical practices may have the technical capability to deploy telemedicine, they seem afraid to do so. I’ve asked many of my doctors (and their staff) what it will take for them to begin offering virtual visits, and I’ve gotten a mix of confusion and concern. None, even for example the fairly large and seemingly well-funded PCP office I visit, appears to be anywhere close to rolling out such services.

I can’t prove it, but my sense is that two things are going on here. First, I sense that practice leaders don’t feel ready to take on the technical challenges involved in supporting virtual visits. Though my guess is that security is the only real issue — which can be addressed by using the right vendor — they seem quite timid about even experimenting with this approach. Second, I am pretty sure they’re not sure how to handle billing, or alternatively, what to charge if they don’t bill insurance.

I admit their concerns are reality-based. But I’d argue that the benefits of offering telehealth far outweigh these concerns. Apparently, my doctors don’t agree just yet.

Ultimately, I think we’d all agree that telemedicine uptake will grow by leaps and bounds over the next several years. But it seems we’ll have to deal with a lot of administrivia before that can happen.

E-Patient Update: All I Want For 2017

Posted on January 6, 2017 I Written By

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

Over the past year, I’ve done a lot of kvetching about the ways in which I think my e-relationships with doctors and hospitals have fallen short. I don’t regret doing so, but I think it’s just as important to focus on the future. So without further ado, here’s a list of ways in which providers could improve their digital interactions with me and my fellow patients during the coming year:

  • Have consistent policies and operations: Over time, I’ve found that many providers don’t seem to keep track of what they say about e-services such as portals and telemedicine visits. Others do little to let you know whether, say, doctors respond to email and how long it may take for them to do so. All of this creates patient confusion. This year, please be consistent in what you do and how you do it.
  • Create channels for patient feedback: As you may recall, I recently trashed a practice that didn’t respond to patient complaints about a broken appointment-making function on its site, and noted that all could have been avoided if patient objections had gotten routed to practice administrators sooner. Let’s make sure this doesn’t happen anymore. This year, make sure your patients don’t face this kind of frustration; create formal channels for patient technical feedback and have a process for escalating their concerns quickly.
  • Give us more access: While patients do have access to some data from their medical records, most of the time we still have to jump through onerous hoops if we need a complete record. Given that it’s all digital these days, this is very hard for us to understand, so fix this process. (And by the way, don’t pile on $2.50 per page charges when you produce a digitally-produced patient record; not only is it insulting and predatory, if that fee doesn’t reflect the costs of sharing the record it may be illegal in many states.)
  • Give us more control: Particularly when, like me, you have more than one chronic condition to manage, it gets very tiring to deal with the policies of multiple institutions when you want the big picture. We want more control of our records!  We’ll be much happier (and possibly healthier) if we have ways to compile complete record sets of our own.
  • Take us seriously: The following is not just an e-patient concern, but it still applies. Too often, when I raised a concern (“Why do you say I don’t have an appointment when I made one online?”) I’ve gotten a blank stare or defensive posturing. This year, providers, please take our digital problems as seriously as other any problems we face in interacting with you. We do!

As I look at this list, I think it’s interesting that I have no temptation to suggest one technology or another (though as your faithful scribe I’ve seen many intriguing options). The truth is, I’d submit, that most providers should get their social and operational ducks in a row before they roll out sophisticated patient engagement platforms or roll out major telehealth initiatives. Just make sure everything works, and everybody cares, and you’ll be off to a better start.

Patients Frustrated By Lack Of Health Data Access

Posted on January 3, 2017 I Written By

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

A new survey by Surescripts has concluded that patients are unhappy with their access to their healthcare data, and that they’d like to see the way in which their data is stored and shared change substantially.  Due to Surescripts’ focus on medication information management, many of the questions focus on meds, but the responses clearly reflect broader trends in health data sharing.

According to the 2016 Connected Care and the Patient Experience report, which drew on a survey of 1,000 Americans, most patients believe that their medical information should be stored electronically and shared in one central location. This, of course, flies in the face of current industry interoperability models, which largely focus on uniting countless distributed information sources.

Ninety-eight percent of respondents said that they felt that someone should have complete access to their medical records, though they don’t seem to have specified whom they’d prefer to play this role. They’re so concerned about having a complete medical record that 58% have attempted to compile their own medical history, Surescripts found.

Part of the reason they’re eager to see someone have full access to their health records is that it would make their care more efficient. For example, 93% said they felt doctors would save time if their patients’ medication history was in one location.

They’re also sick of retelling stories that could be found easily in a complete medical record, which is not too surprising given that they spend an average of 8 minutes on paperwork plus 8 minutes verbally sharing their medical history per doctor’s visit. To put this in perspective, 54% said that that renewing a driver’s license takes less work, 37% said opening a bank account was easier, and 32% said applying for a marriage license was simpler.

The respondents seemed very aware that improved data access would protect them, as well. Nine out of ten patients felt that their doctor would be less likely to prescribe the wrong medication if they had a more complete set of information. In fact, 90% of respondents said that they felt their lives could be endangered if their doctors don’t have access to their complete medication history.

Meanwhile, patients also seem more willing than ever to share their medical history. Researchers found that 77% will share physical information, 69% will share insurance information and 51% mental health information. I don’t have a comparable set of numbers to back this up, but my guess is that these are much higher levels than we’ve seen in the past.

On a separate note, the study noted that 52% of patients expect doctors to offer remote visits, and 36% believe that most doctor’s appointments will be remote in the next 10 years. Clearly, patients are demanding not just data access, but convenience.

American Well Deal Adds Remote Physical Exams To Its Offerings

Posted on December 9, 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.

Telehealth provider American Well has partnered with a vendor allowing patients to conduct and transfer data from their own basic physical exam during telemedical consults.

The partner, TytoCare, offers an “examination platform” allowing patients to do their own medical examination of the heart, lungs, abdomen, ears, throat, skin and temperature at home, then share the information with the clinician before or during their virtual visit.

Tyto’s consumer platform TytoHome, which is priced at $299, combines a digital stethoscope, otoscope, thermometer and examination camera. The company also offers a model, TytoPro, designed for professional use, which offers extended battery life, a headset for listening to heart and lung sounds, initial set of disposables for the otoscope and tongue depressor, and software designed specifically for clinician use. The company doesn’t say what the Pro technology costs.

Tyto’s software platform, meanwhile, offers cloud-based secure digital exchange of clinical data and a clinical repository. The company says it can integrate with most EHR systems as part of its TytoLink integration services. It doesn’t say what those integration services will cost, but it seems likely that they don’t come free.

At least at the outset, the partners plan to deliver services to health systems and employers, but without a doubt plans to scale beyond this. And they’re likely to have the resources to do so. American Well has established a foothold in telemedicine, while Tyto Care has received over $19 million in funding to date from investors that include Walgreens.

It’s worth noting at this point that TytoCare is far from the only player in the market offering remote examination tools. For example, I’m familiar with at least one vendor, MedWand Digital Health, offering a similar bundle of remote examination technologies. The MedWand platform lets consumers measure their heart rate or pulse or pulse ox level, listen to their heart, lungs or abdomen, look into their mouth, throat and ears, examine their skin and take the temperature. It can also integrate with other remote monitoring tools, such as connected glucometers of blood pressure monitors. It sells for $249.

And MedWand, like TytoCare, has venture backing, in this case from a technical partner. The company recently received a “major” investment from the venture arm for Maxim Integrated Products, which designs, manufactures and sells semiconductor products.

In my opinion, however, American Well may have a meaningful advantage over other competitors, as it appears to have fairly strong connections with health plans and health systems. The telehealth vendor has partnerships with more than 170 health plans and systems, and has created an enterprise telehealth platform designed to connect with providers’ clinical information systems.

While a company like MedWand may be better position to scale up a consumer technology offering — given backing by a semiconductor maker — over the near term I’d argue that better to be on good terms with those delivering and financing care. Right now, my guess is that very few consumers are willing to sink almost $300 into a home telehealth platform, even if they occasionally use telemedicine services, but this seems little doubt that health systems and health plans see the value of offering such services in a sophisticated way.

If I were either of these companies — or one of their competitors — I’d try to employers, health plans and health systems to buy and place the devices in the homes of chronically ill or high risk patients. But I don’t know if that’s in their plans. Let’s see how the next 12 months go.

How IRIS Puts the Real Triple Aim of Healthcare In Action

Posted on November 22, 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.

As I’ve been doing my Fall Healthcare IT Conference tour, I’ve had the chance to meet with hundreds of companies and thousands of people working to improve healthcare. While all this travel takes its toll, I also come away from all of these meetings invigorated by the quality of people and their desire to make healthcare better. That’s true almost across the board.

While most of the solutions I see are an evolution of something I’ve seen before, every once in a while I meet with a company that’s really impacting healthcare in a unique and interesting way. I found just such a case when I met with Patrick Cresson from IRIS – Intelligent Retinal Imaging Systems.

On face value, many might look at IRIS as just another diabetic retinopathy exam that’s been done by ophthalmologists forever. While this is true, what makes IRIS unique is that they have an FDA cleared exam that can be done in the primary care setting as opposed to being referred to an ophthalmologist. As Patrick pointed out to me, of all the diabetic screenings that need to be done for diabetic patients can be done in the primary care setting except for the retinal exam. At least that was the case before IRIS brought those exams to the primary care setting.

A look at the numbers is quite telling. There are 116 million patients with diabetes or pre-diabetes and that number is increasing every day. It’s estimated that 30 million diabetes patients get referred for an eye exam every year and 19 million diabetes patients do not get the annual retinal exam. There are plenty of reasons why this is the case, but it’s not hard to see why this happens. The same thing happens with referrals across healthcare. Diabetic patients that can’t tell any difference in their eyesight are unlikely to keep going back for an annual retinal exam. Who really wants to go to the pain of scheduling an appointment for what doesn’t seem to be an issue? So, they don’t.

The problem with this thinking is that diabetic retinopathy is asymptomatic. The only way to know if you’re heading for trouble is to have a retinal exam. The good news is that early detection can solve the problem and literally save diabetic patients’ eyesight. I know this first hand since it saved my grandfather’s eyesight.

This is the compelling story that IRIS tells as it pushes the retinal exam into the primary care setting where they can ensure patients are getting the early screenings they’ve so often missed in the past. This plays out in the numbers. Over the past 3 years, IRIS has performed 120,000 diabetic retinopathy exams which resulted in 56,000 patients identified with a pathology and 11,600 patients saved from potential blindness.

While this type of early detection can help healthcare organizations HEDIS compliance, I’m intrigued by the way IRIS straddles the fee for service and value based care worlds. I’ve seen very few models that get a primary care provider paid in the fee for service world, but also work to significantly lower the costs of healthcare in a value based care world. However, that’s exactly what you get from IRIS’s early screening exams.

What’s also fascinating to consider about IRIS is ophthalmologists’ response. It’s easy to see how many ophthalmologists could be afraid of diabetic retinal exams being done in the primary care setting and not in the ophthalmologists’ offices. That’s taking business away from them. While this is true, it’s also easy to see how an increase in retinal exams will drive more previously undiagnosed higher acuity exams, surgeries and interventions to ophthalmologists. Every ophthalmologist I know would much rather do a higher acuity surgery than a basic diabetic retinopathy exam. That’s the reality that IRIS creates since it’s an FDA cleared exam for diabetic retinopathy, but it’s only a screening tool for other eye diseases that require a full exam by an ophthalmologist.

Stories like IRIS are why I love blogging about healthcare IT. IRIS is changing healthcare as we know it by reducing healthcare costs, improving the patient experience, and getting doctors paid. That’s the real triple aim of healthcare in action.

E-Patient Update: Bringing mHealth To The People

Posted on November 11, 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.

Today, it’s standard for patients to travel to a central hub of some kind, spend as much as a half hour in the lobby and fill out a few minutes of paperwork to get a maximum of 15 minutes of time with their doctor. But thankfully, we’ve come to a time when care can return to the home. And it’s time we take full advantage of that fact.

I’d argue that it’s long overdue to bring the medical visit back to patient homes, not just for those in need of chronic care, but for all patients who are less than markedly stable. If we’re not quite at the point where we can provide every standard primary care service in a home, we’re pretty close, and it should be our goal to close the gap.

Consumers want convenience
While it might not be practical to roll out the service to everyone at once, we could start with patients who are healthy, but in higher risk categories due to age or condition. My mother comes to mind. At age 74, she has a history of cardiac arrhythmia, is slightly overweight and suffers from joint problems. None of these may pose an immediate risk to her health, but they are part of the complex process of aging for her, and all that goes with it.

I believe her health would be managed better if someone saw her “in her element,” taking care of my disabled brother, rushing around cooking dinner and climbing stairs. It would also be easier for clinicians to show her health information at her kitchen table, and get her engaged with making progress. (Kitchen tables are inherently less intimidating.)

Besides, there’s the issue of travel. Often, she finds it taxing to get organized and get to medical appointments, which take place 20 minutes away at the offices of her local health system. “I wish someone would bring a van with testing devices like an x-ray machine in it, bring their tablets into my house and do the check up at home,” she says. “There’s no reason for me to do all the traveling.” And believe me, folks, if a technophobe like my mom — who won’t touch a computer — is wondering why her physicians aren’t making better use of mobile healthcare tools, you can bet other patients are.

Mobile satisfaction
If you’re a health leader reading this, you may be flinching at the idea of reorganizing your services to hit the road. But it’s worth doing, particularly now that patients are demanding mobile health access. After all, rolling out a mobile-enhanced door to door primary care service would be an unbeatable way to differentiate yourself from your competitors and enhance patient satisfaction.

I believe that whatever investments you have to make would be modest in comparison to the benefits your patients would realize. If you come to them, not only are you getting to know them better, and as a result, you’re likely to improve care quality.

Now, I understand that if you’re traveling, you probably can’t pack four patient encounters into an hour, and that is certainly a financial consideration. But I believe patients would pay more to see their very own doctor (not a stranger, as with some startups) visit them at home. More importantly, I’d argue, a reworked system that puts patients at the center of their care would eventually save money, time and lives which is where value based reimbursement is headed anyway.

Point Of Care Testing Expansion Poses Data Management Challenges

Posted on November 3, 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.

With the advent of remote monitoring and other mHealth tools, the treatment process is again moving out towards the perimeter, perhaps not with a full return to house calls, but certainly a far greater emphasis on providing care in the field. And that will pose some new data collection and management challenges with their own unique character.

Collecting results from these devices won’t be difficult in and of itself. But we should think about how testing results vary from other types of physician-generated and patient-generated data before we pour it into existing oceans of clinical data.

A revolution in the wings
While you may not be familiar with the point of care diagnostics market, it’s definitely worth a look. The POC diagnostics industry, which includes both professional point of care testing and consumer options, should be worth almost $40 billion within five years, according to research firm Markets and Markets.

Over the next five years, a wide range of new POC options are likely to emerge, in categories that include ultrasound and other imaging, blood tests, cardiovascular imaging and more, Markets and Markets reports. And the devices that fuel this revolution are far more capable than a testing strip in a box; they’re emerging in a world where health advances are almost always found somewhere along the digital spectrum.

Want an example? Consider Scanadu Urine, a urine test kit designed to help monitor maternal and women’s health. The product package does include an old-fashioned paddle to dip in a urine sample, but it doesn’t stop there. Once the user dips the disposable paddle into the sample, they use the Scanadu app and their smartphone to read and interpret color changes on the paddle. Then, they can display, store or share the results via the app. Like many of its competitors, parent company Scanadu hasn’t gotten FDA approval for this or its other health monitoring devices, but that’s in the works.

Other niches already have multiple FDA-approved entrants, such as the mobile ultrasound category, but also emerging smartphone-based competitors such as Clarius Mobile Health. Like Scanadu Urine, Clarius isn’t FDA-approved yet, but the company reports that approval is pending.

As long as these devices remain unapproved by the FDA, they’ll stay in the background. But once devices like these get approved and start hitting the market, they should shake up the healthcare industry. After all, they don’t just empower consumers doing routine tests, they should also make it possible for patients to share important, reliable testing results to telemedicine doctors more or less in real time.

Managing POC data

Eventually, POC diagnostics data – even devices aimed almost exclusively at consumers — will become a completely standard part of the clinical diagnostic process. This much seems obvious. After all, if we want patients to engage with their health, putting powerful, reliable urine testing devices in their hands makes as much sense as giving them a connected glucose monitor, doesn’t it?

That being said, managing and integrating this data into patient data warehouses poses some unique challenges.

For example, how do providers weight the importance of various data streams when integrating them into databases?  After all, some devices are FDA-approved and some are not; some tests are administered by consumers and some by mobile professionals; some data comes from hospital- or clinic-provided remote monitoring devices and some from consumer-grade wearables or sensors.

Another question is how we’ll integrate these results. Even if we were to treat all data as equal (consumer- and professional-grade testing devices alike) do we have to integrate it in real time? Do we only do analysis and data dumps POC data into a big pool, do we pair it with other relevant data as needed or ignore it unless it seems immediately relevant?  We need to figure this out.

Bottom line, it’s probably smart to handle these data streams differently, but figuring out how to do so will be a challenge. We’ll have to develop algorithms for sorting this data soon, or risk being overwhelmed.