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!

Wearables Data May Prevent Health Plan Denials

Posted on August 27, 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.

This story begins, as many do, with a real-world experience. Our health plan just refused to pay for a sleep study for my husband, who suffers from severe sleep apnea, despite his being quite symptomatic. We’re following up with the Virginia Department of Insurance and fully expect to win the day, though we remain baffled as to how they could make such a decision. While beginning the complaint process, a thought occurred to me.

What if wearables were able to detect wakefulness and sleepiness, and my husband was being tracked 24 hours a day?  If so, assuming he was wearing one, wouldn’t it be harder for a health plan to deny him the test he needed? After all, it wouldn’t be the word of one doctor versus the word of another, it would be a raft of data plus his sleep doctor’s opinion going up against the health plan’s physician reviewer.

Now, I realize this is a big leap in several ways.

For one thing, today doctors are very skeptical about the value generated by patient-controlled smartphone apps and wearables. According to a recent survey by market research firm MedPanel, in fact, only 15% of doctors surveyed see wearables of health apps as tools patients can use to get better. Until more physicians get on board, it seems unlikely that device makers will take this market seriously and nudge it into full clinical respectability.

Also, data generated by apps and wearables is seldom organized in a form that can be accessed easily by clinicians, much less uploaded to EMRs or shared with health insurers. Tools like Apple HealthKit, which can move such data into EMRs, should address this issue over time, but at present a lack of wearable/app data interoperability is a major stumbling block to leveraging that data.

And then there’s the tech issues. In the world I’m envisioning, wearables and health apps would merge with remote monitoring technologies, with the data they generate becoming as important to doctors as it is to patients. But neither smartphone apps nor wearables are equipped for this task as things stand.

And finally, even if you have what passes for proof, sometimes health plans don’t care how right you are. (That, of course, is a story for another day!)

Ultimately, though, new data generates new ways of doing business. I believe that when doctors fully adapt to using wearable and app data in clinical practice, it will change the dynamics of their relationship with health plans. While sleep tracking may not be available in the near future, other types of sophisticated sensor-based monitoring are just about to emerge, and their impact could be explosive.

True, there’s no guarantee that health insurers will change their ways. But my guess is that if doctors have more data to back up their requests, health plans won’t be able to tune it out completely, even if their tactics issuing denials aren’t transformed. Moreover, as wearables and apps get FDA approval, they’ll have an even harder time ignoring the data they generate.

With any luck, a greater use of up-to-the-minute patient monitoring data will benefit every stakeholder in the healthcare system, including insurers. After all, not to be cliched about it, but knowledge is power. I choose to believe that if wearables and apps data are put into play, that power will be put to good use.

Accenture: “Zombie” Digital Health Startups Won’t Die In Vain

Posted on August 24, 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.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve been screaming for a while about how VCs are blowing their money on questionable digital health ventures. To my mind, their investment patterns suggest that the smart money really isn’t that smart. I admit that sorting out what works in digital health/mHealth/connected health is very challenging, but it’s far from impossible if you immerse yourself in the industry. And given how much difference carefully-thought out digital health tools can make, it’s exasperating to watch failing digital health startups burn through money.

That being said, maybe all of those dollars won’t be wasted. According to no less an eminence grise than Accenture, failing digital health ventures will feed the stronger ones and make their success more likely. A new report from Accenture predicts that these “zombie” startups — half of which will die within two years, it says — will provide talent and technology to their surviving rivals. (OK, I agree, the zombie image is a bit unsettling, isn’t it?)

To bring us their horror movie metaphor, Accenture analyzed the status of 900 healthcare IT startups, concluding that 51% were likely to collapse within 20 months.  The study looked at ventures cutting across social, mobile, analytics, cloud and sensors technologies, which include wearables, telehealth and remote monitoring.

While most researchers try to predict who the winners will be in a given market, Accenture had a few words to say about the zombie also-rans. And what they found was that the zombies have taken in enough cash to have done some useful things, collecting nearly $4 billion in funding between 2008 and 2013.

The investments are part of an ongoing funding trend. In fact, digital health dollars are likely to pour in over the next two years as well, with healthcare IT startups poised to take in $2.5 billion more over the next two years, Accenture estimates. Funding should focus on four segments, including engagement (25%), treatment (25%), diagnosis (21%) and infrastructure (29%), the study found.

So what use are the dying companies that will soon litter the digital health landscape? According to Accenture, more-successful firms can reap big benefits by acquiring the failing startups. For example, healthcare players can do “acqui-hiring” deals with struggling digital health startups to pick up a deep bench of qualified tech staffers. They can pick up unique technologies (the 900 firms analyzed, collectively, had 1,700 patents). And acquiring firms can harvest the startups’ technology to improve their products and services lineups.

Not only that — and this is Anne, not Accenture talking — acquiring healthcare firms get a wonderful infusion of entrepreneurial energy, regardless of whether the acquired firm was booking big bucks or not. And I speak from long experience. I’ve known the leaders of countless tech startups, and there’s very little difference between those who make a gazillion dollars and those whose ventures die. Generally speaking, anyone who makes a tech startup work for even a year or two is incredibly insightful, creative, and extremely dedicated, and they bring a kind of excitement to any company that hires them.

So, backed by the corporate wisdom of Accenture, I’ve come to praise zombies, not to bury them. While they may give their corporate lives, their visions won’t be wasted. With any luck, the next generation of digital health companies will appreciate the zombies’ hard work and initiative, even if they’re no longer with us.

Could On Demand Medical Services Be Good for Doctors?

Posted on August 19, 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’ve been seeing a lot of discussion lately about the peer sharing economy and how it applies to healthcare. Some people like to call it the Uber of healthcare, but that phrase has been applied so many ways that it’s hard to know what people mean by it anymore. For example, is it Uber bringing your doctor to your home/work or is it an Uber like system of requesting healthcare? There are many more iterations.

I’ll to consider doing a whole series of posts on the Peer Sharing Economy and how it applies to healthcare. There’s a lot to chew on. However, most recently I’ve been chewing on the idea of on demand medical services. In most cases this is basically the Skype or Facetime telemedicine visit on a mobile device. These models are starting to develop and it won’t be long until all of us can easily hop on our mobile device and be in touch with a doctor directly through our phone. In some cases it will be a telemedicine visit. In other cases it might be the doctor coming to visit you. I’m sure we’ll have a wide variety of modalities that are available to patients.

Every patient loves this idea. Every insurance company is trying to figure out the right financial model to make this work. Most doctors are scared at what this means for their business. Certainly there are reasons for them to be concerned, but I believe that this new on demand medical service could be very good for doctors.

In our current system practices do amazing scheduling acrobatics to ensure that the doctor is seeing a full schedule of patients every day. They do this mostly because of all the patient no shows that occur. This makes life stressful for everyone involved. Imagine if instead of double booking appointments which leads to all sorts of issues, a doctor replaced no show appointments with an on demand visit with a patient waiting to be seen on a telemedicine platform. Basically the doctor could fill their “free time” with on demand appointments instead of double booking appointments which then causes them to get behind when both appointments do show up.

I can already hear doctors complaining about them being “mercenaries” and shouldn’t they be allowed free time to grab a coffee. I’d argue that in the current system they are mercenaries that are trying to fill their schedule as full as possible. The current double booking scheduling approach that so many take means that some days the doctor has a full schedule of appointments and some days they have more than a full schedule of appointments. If doctors chose to back fill no-shows with on demand appointments, then their schedule would be more free than it is today. Plus, if they didn’t want to back fill a no show, they could always make that choice too. That’s not an option in the double book approach they use today.

In fact, if there was an on demand platform where doctors could go and see patients anytime they wanted to see patients, it would open up a lot more flexibility for doctors much like Uber has done for drivers. Some doctors may want to work early in the morning while others want to work late at night. Some doctors might want to take off part of the day to see their kid’s school performance, but they can work later to make up for the time they took off (if they want of course).

Think about retired doctors. I’m reminded of my pharmacist friend who was still working at the age of 83. I asked him why he was still working at such an advanced age. He told me, “John, if I stop, I die.” I imagine that many retired doctors would love to still see some patients if they could do it in a less demanding environment that worked with their new retirement schedule. If there was an on demand platform where retired doctors could sign in and see patients at their whim, this would be possible. No doubt this is just one of many examples.

Currently there isn’t an on demand platform that doctors could sign into and see a patient who’s waiting to be seen. No doubt there are many legal, financial and logistical challenges associated with creating a platform of this nature. Not the least of which is that doctors are only licensed to practice in specific states. This is a problem which needs to be solved for a lot of reasons, but I think it will. In fact, I think that legal issues, reimbursement changes, and other logistical challenges will all be solved and one day we’ll have this type of on demand platform for healthcare. Patients will benefit from such a platform, but I believe it will open up a lot more options for doctors as well.

EMRs Should Include Telemedicine Capabilities

Posted on May 22, 2015 I Written By

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Customizable EMRs Are Long Overdue

Posted on May 5, 2015 I Written By

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Partnerships Between Behavioral Health & Telemedicine Drive Real Value and Impact Outcomes

Posted on April 24, 2015 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Dr. Bill Bithoney, Managing Director and Chief Physician Executive with The BDO Center for Healthcare Excellence & Innovation.
Bill Bithoney
The behavioral health and medical care delivery systems have long been separate, but the tides are changing. We’re starting to see more of a push to integrate the two, and it’s a trend expected to continue. Increased efforts to grow behavioral health service capacity through better integration with clinical care have health systems turning toward telemedicine. The benefits of this partnership are almost considered a “no brainer” when you take a look at the numbers and the opportunity for growth:

  • $6 billion: Where the telemedicine market will grow by 2020, according to the American Medical Association.
  • 7 million: The number of individuals with co-occurring substance abuse disorders and mental health issues, according to SAMHSA’s most recent National Survey on Drug Use and Health.
  • 38 percent: The number of adults with diagnosable mental health problems who actually receive needed treatment, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Still, providers and payors often find themselves asking, “How can I ensure this partnership will drive real value for the organization and impact outcomes?”

Telemedicine provides caregivers the ability to be in multiple locations at once – and provides patients access to care at times and places more convenient to them. As noted above, only 38 percent of adults with diagnosable mental health problems actually receive treatment. This means that more than 60 percent of individuals who know they need help aren’t able to receive it due to commonly cited challenges of not knowing where to go, inconvenience and lack of transportation. Further, psychiatrists, particularly those certified in addiction treatment, are in high demand nationwide. Indiana, which is experimenting with behavioral health telemedicine, has 462 in a state that should have 600.

And telemedicine has been proven effective in behavioral health treatment in numerous studies. Smartphones and apps are actually preferred by patients over prescriptions for medication. Through practices such as screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT)—included in Medicare telehealth services since 2013­­—problematic use issues, abuse and dependence on alcohol and illicit drugs can be proactively identified, reduced and prevented before ballooning into something greater. Moreover, the reduction in facility costs and increased access to patients makes telehealth, and telepsychiatry specifically, a cost-effective alternative to in-person treatments, while delivering much needed care.

Virtual visits and virtual early intervention through SBIRT impact not only the consumer’s health by extending the potential reach of substance abuse and mental health providers, but also the finances of the individual’s employer and insurer since the risks of costly and unanticipated urgent care and emergency department visits are greatly reduced. Additionally, insurers view this aggregation of data as a way to proactively monitor patients’ health, which can help prevent the risk of costly hospital admissions and readmissions.

The era of a partnership between behavioral health and telemedicine is upon us. Developing new avenues to deliver care that support behavior change, while engaging individuals in their own health, can not only be a more cost-effective strategy than simply providing more (or different) health care services, but can also be a smarter strategy to ensure better quality of care.

Dr. Bill Bithoney is a Managing Director and Chief Physician Executive with The BDO Center for Healthcare Excellence & Innovation. He can be reached at bbithoney@bdo.com

 

Getting Paid for Telemedicine

Posted on March 30, 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.


In case you’re like me and missed the slow rolling out of reimbursement for telemedicine, it looks like it’s slowly becoming a reality. 22 state mandated reimbursement of telemedicine is a really big deal. Makes you wonder if a federal law will be far away.

The biggest complaint I’ve heard over and over from doctors about telemedicine is that they don’t get paid to do it. Sure, every once in a while some will say that they’re not sure how well they can treat a patient over video (which is true in a number of cases), but the majority of the physicians I talk to would have no issue using telemedicine if they could just get paid for doing the work.

In fact, I think it’s some pretty genius marketing of Chiron Health (who created the tweet above) for mentioning in their Twitter profile that they’re a telemedicine provider and they want doctors to get paid for it. That’s a message the resonates with many doctors.

In fact, I think Chiron Health’s website hits the key areas where I’ve seen telemedicine taking off: Follow-Up, Chronic Patients and Behavioral Health. This image from their website describes well where I see Telemedicine working well:
Telemedicine Options

I’ll admit that I didn’t know anything about Chiron Health until today (Looks like they’re hiring which is a good sign for a company). However, I’m impressed by the way they’re approaching the telemedicine market. I’d love to learn more about the ways they help doctors get paid for telemedicine. Although, I’m certain that list is about to grow in a really amazing way. I have no doubt that telemedicine will be an important part of the future of healthcare.

Telehealth, or ‘How to Ditch the Waiting Room’

Posted on February 13, 2015 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Ryan Nelson, Director of Business Development for Medical Web Experts.

Navigating the doctor’s office for a non-emergency can feel like getting lost in a quagmire of lengthy routines. For those who choose to forego the experience for as long as possible, haphazardly browsing WebMD in the middle of the night is no better. This could all change soon.

Telemedicine is on the rise as health insurers and employers have become more willing to pay for online video consultations in recent years. Convenience (imagine not having to leave the comfort of your home for every service!) and positive health outcomes – not to mention significant cost savings for both employers and patients – are propelling online video consultations to the forefront of healthcare strategies.

Convenience
People don’t like driving far, and they don’t like spending 45 minutes in a waiting room only to be discharged in under 15. The average wait time for a doctor’s appointment is 20 days in the US. This is more than enough time to deter patients from booking appointments for conditions that could be minor. Doctors usually don’t get reimbursed for time spent taking phone calls, so they often nix the medium altogether. Virtual doctor visits can fulfill patients’ need for instantaneous advice, closing a potentially dangerous communication gap while opening a new business opportunity for healthcare professionals.

A recent Harris Poll survey commissioned by Amwell found that around 40% of consumers would opt for video appointments for both antibiotics and birth control prescriptions, while at least 70% would rather have an online video visit to obtain a prescription than travel to their doctor’s office. Telehealth also offers a good solution for patients with mobility issues or chronic conditions, and it gives patients and doctors in rural or remote communities more options for receiving and dispensing care.

Health Outcomes
Biomed Central’s systematic review of telehealth service studies revealed that health outcomes for telehealth and in-person appointments are usually similar. About one-third of studies showed improved outcomes and only two indicated that telehealth was less effective. One way that online video appointments can improve health outcomes for the general population is to filter out minor health concerns and free up ER staff to deal with more serious ailments in-house. Additionally, video consultations can make it easier for physicians to track the recovery of discharged patients and to monitor patient adherence in a time-sensitive manner.

Cost Savings
The Amwell survey revealed that 64% of patients are willing to attend virtual appointments, challenging the dated assumption that in-person interactions tend to be perceived as a better experience. Contributing to this popularity is the fact that virtual appointments cost much less than an ER visit and are cheaper than an urgent care center or most face-to-face consults, generally figuring in around $40 to $50.

Biomed Central also found that out of 36 studies, nearly two-thirds showed cost savings for employers and patients. Meanwhile, Towers Watson predicted that the number of employers offering telemedicine will increase by 68% in 2015, which would result in $6B in employer savings.

Consumer Concerns
Consumers are concerned about how doctors can thoroughly examine patients through video, according to Amwell. However, the proliferation of self-monitoring mobile devices that can be used in conjunction with video consultations suggests that doctors may be able to get much of the information they need online. Besides, it can be argued that during most medical appointments a doctor doesn’t have much time to perform a comprehensive examination or truly get to know a patient.

Amwell subjects also questioned how a patient can be certain that he or she is speaking to a real doctor; however, this can easily be addressed by medical web platforms that thoroughly screen physicians and can thus provide adequate proof of their qualifications.

Digital Relationships
Research has shown that online video communication improves patient satisfaction and increases efficiency and access to healthcare for all demographics, at all times. While the medium appeals to people across all age groups, it especially appeals to younger, tech-savvy patients. This demographic tends to prefer instantaneous communication for non-emergencies and is generally comfortable communicating despite physical distance.

Consumers already use technology to communicate with their friends and families. Finally, doctors – another one of every person’s most intimate relationships – can join the ranks.

References:
Amwell
Biomed
Towers Watson

By Supporting Digital Health, EMRs To Create Collective Savings of $78B Over Next Five Years

Posted on December 1, 2014 I Written By

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

Here’s the news EMR proponents have been insisting would emerge someday, justifying their long-suffering faith in the value of such systems.  A new study from Juniper Research has concluded that EMRs will save $78 billion cumulatively across the globe over the next five years, largely by connecting digital health technologies together.

While I’m tempted to get cynical about this — my poor heart has been broken by so many unsupportable or conflicting claims regarding EMR savings over the years — I think the study definitely bears examination. If digital health technologies like smart watches, fitness trackers, sensor-laden clothing, smart mobile health apps, remote monitoring and telemedicine share a common backbone that serves clinicians, the study’s conclusions look reasonable on first glance.

According to Juniper, the growth of ACOs is pushing providers to think on a population health level and that, in turn, is propelling them to adopt digital health tech.  And it’s not just top healthcare leaders that are getting excited about digital health. Juniper found that over the last 18 months, healthcare workers have become significantly more engaged in digital healthcare.

But how will providers come to grips with the floods of data generated by these emerging technologies? Why, EMRs will do the job. “Advanced EHRs will provide the ‘glue’ to bring together the devices, stakeholders and medical records in the future connected healthcare environment,” according to Juniper report author Anthony Cox.

But it’s important to note that at present, EMRs aren’t likely to have the capacity sort out the growing flood of connected health data on their own. Instead, it appears that healthcare providers will have to rely on data intermediary platforms like Apple’s HealthKit, Samsung’s SAMI (Samsung Architecture for Multimodal Interactions) and Microsoft Health. In reality, it’s platforms like these, not EMRs, that are truly serving as the glue for far-flung digital health data.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that on reflection, my cynical take on the study is somewhat justified. While they’ll play a very important role, I believe that it’s disingenuous to suggest that EMRs themselves will create huge healthcare savings.

Sure, EMRs are ultimately where the buck stops, and unless digital health data can be consumed by doctors at an EMR console, they’re unlikely to use it. But even though using EMRs as the backbone for digital health collection and population health management sounds peachy, the truth is that EMR vendors are nowhere near ready to offer robust support for these efforts.

Yes, I believe that the combination of EMRs and digital health data will prove to be very powerful over time. And I also believe that platforms like HealthKit will help us get there. I even believe that the huge savings projected by Juniper is possible. I just think getting there will be a lot more awkward than the study makes it sound.

Insights from Dr. Eric Topol at #SHSMD14

Posted on October 16, 2014 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.


Patient care will eventually win, but sacred cows still have a lot of fight in them.


I’m still chewing on this one. I definitely love the idea of remote visits. Not sure it’s the smartest patient room.


This trend is definitely happening. Although, if you sound out Iwwiwwiwi, it sounds a lot like whining. I’m not sure that’s a good thing. Either way, I think the market is going to push towards on demand medicine.


I’d love to hear more about this topic. I think the first step is identifying the real cost problem. Seems like these top drugs could provide a really good start.