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!

Enterprise EHR Vendors Consolidating Hold On Doctors

Posted on September 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.

When I stumbled across a recent study naming the EHRs most widely used by physicians, I don’t know what I expected, but I did not think big-iron enterprise vendors would top the list. I was wrong.

In fact, I should have guessed that things would play out this way for giants like Epic, though not because physicians adore them. Forces bigger than the Cerners and Epics of the world, largely the ongoing trend towards buyouts of medical groups by hospitals, have forced doctors’ hand. But more on this later.

Context on physician EHR adoption
First, some stats for context.  To compile its 2016 EHR Report, Medscape surveyed 15,285 physicians across 25 specialties. Researchers asked them to name their EHR and rate their systems on several criteria, including ease of use and value as a clinical tool.

When it came to usage, Epic came in at first place in both 2012 and 2016, but climbed six percentage points to 28% of users this year. This dovetails with other data points, such that Epic leads the hospital and health system market, according to HIT Consultant, which reported on the study.

Meanwhile, Cerner climbed from third place to second place, but it only gained one percentage point in the study, hitting 10% this year. It took the place of Allscripts, which ranked second in 2012 but has since dropped out of the small practice software market.

eClinicalWorks came in third with 7% share, followed by NextGen (5%) and MEDITECH (4%). eClinicalWorks ranked in fifth place in the 2012 study, but neither NextGen nor MEDITECH were in the top five most used vendors four years ago. This shift comes in part due to the disappearance of Centricity from the list, which came in fourth in the 2012 research.

Independents want different EHRs
I was interested to note that when the researchers surveyed independent practices with their own EHRs, usage trends took a much different turn. eClinicalWorks rated first in usage among this segment, at 12% share, followed by Practice Fusion and NextGen, sharing the second place spot with 8% each.

One particularly striking data point provided by the report was that roughly one-third of these practices reported using “other systems,” notably EMA/Modernizing Medicine (1.6%), Office Practicum (1.2%) and Aprima (0.8%).

I suppose you could read this a number of ways, but my take is that physicians aren’t thrilled by the market-leading systems and are casting about for alternatives. This squares with the results of a study released by Physicians Practice earlier this year, which reported that only a quarter of so of practices felt they were getting a return on investment from their system.

Time for a modular model
So what can we take away from these numbers?  To me, a few things seem apparent:

* While this wasn’t always the case historically, hospitals are pushing out enterprise EHRs to captive physicians, probably the only defensible thing they can do at this point given interoperability concerns. This is giving these vendors more power over doctors than they’ve had in the past.

* Physicians are not incredibly fond of even the EHRs they get to choose. I imagine they’re even less thrilled by EHRs pushed out to them by hospitals and health systems.

* Ergo, if a vendor could create an Epic- or Cerner-compatible module designed specifically – and usably — for outpatient use, they’d offer the best of two worlds. And that could steal the market out from under the eClinicalWorks and NextGens of the world.

It’s possible that one of the existing ambulatory EHR leaders could re-emerge at the top if it created such a module, I imagine. But it’s hard for even middle-aged dogs to learn new tricks. My guess is that this mantle will be taken up by a company we haven’t heard of yet.

In the mean time, it’s anybody’s guess as to whether the physician-first EHR players stand a chance of keeping their market share.

Where’s the Humanity in Healthcare?

Posted on September 8, 2016 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post from Snarky Frog. Yes, that’s her real name. Ok. You got us. No, it’s not her real name, but that’s how she wants to be known online. Who are we to judge her if she loves frogs and snark that much?
Snarky Frog
There was a time when I blogged. There was a time when I wrote about living with POTS (Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome) and EDS (Ehlers Danlos Syndrome). There was time when I wrote about having a parent who…well…if I were to explain in this piece, I would lose all credibility.

There was time when I thought people would read what I wrote. There was a time when I thought people would care about how my father died (Yes hospital in CT, I do hold you accountable for that).

There was a time when I thought people would care that when I was half conscious after fainting, a nurse took it upon herself to show me what happens to drug users – apparently folks who use drugs have no rights to sexual dignity.

I wasn’t using illegal drugs then and I don’t now. The more you read about POTS patients, the more you read about how strange our symptoms are. I still argue my symptoms don’t matter, the way I was stripped of my humanity did and still does – turns out nobody really agrees with me. Guess you can do whatever you want to drug users (I’ve since learned this again and again via EMTs and others). As it turns out, you can also pretty much do this to patients you think are faking their disease.

There was a time when I blogged about how I couldn’t understand that a patient advocacy org promoted things one day, disagreed with them the next, then went back and forth for years. By the way, what’s still up with that? Will exercise heal me or is it IVIG I need or is it small fiber neuropathy all around? Oh… you need to study more – well hate to tell you patient group, if I need IVIG, exercise won’t save me. Though, it honestly may help.

There was a time in life when I questioned things. There was a time when I wrote. There was a time I cared. I probably still do all of those things but I do all of it less.

Nobody cared what I wrote so I stopped publicly blogging. The things I tried to get folks to care about – I was on my own with. I wrote but my writing was for me. I took my blog pieces down one by one.

By that time my writing abilities were somewhat gone after I had taken a few too many hits to the head. Things became mostly jots on google docs. My posts are now long gone into the ether and even the WayBackMachine can’t find them.

Right now I could write about not having a single doc who knows much about any of my diseases. I could write about having 3 different specialists who each understood different pieces of EDS / POTS leave their practices in the same year. I could write about fighting with hospital billing offices. I could write about how a doctor who played a role in quality affairs at an academic medical center could literally get nowhere with my insurance when he tried to get me some assistance. I could write about the discussions I have had with the insurance co regarding how much my POTS costs them (about 90-100K in 2015, likely to be more this year) and the various suggestions I’ve given them to lower those costs. I could write about how they respond with the fact that none of those suggestions, while cost saving to them, are part of my plan, and as such, are not things they can or will do.

I could write about my grief over a friend. I could write about the things I saw happen to her the one time I visited her in the hospital. I could write about how I wanted to help more but couldn’t.

I could write about system failures. I could write and I could write and I could write some more about how every single part of the system has failed me and has failed my friends. It might not all make sense but I could write. The irony is the thing that matters to me the least is the specific cost yet that’s what people care about.

I care about the fact that my friend died.

I care about my losses as a human being. I care how much of my human dignity I have lost and how much has been taken away from me since I started getting sicker. I care about the fact that I will likely lose my job (days off, their having to worry or perhaps lack of worry about my falling on the job, my requests for accommodations etc.). I care about the fact that I will never be able to do what I wanted to do with my life – PhD, fieldwork – yeah, not a chance.

I care about the fact that I will eventually get so physically injured by a fall, by EMTs, by hospital staff, or other that I will no longer be able to get out of bed. I care about the fact that I will forever wonder whether one of these things will kill me, and if so, when.

I can give you the health care cost numbers but they don’t matter to me. Ask any chronic illness patient for his or her own costs of care and you’ll find the same thing. Once you go past “typical” or “trendy” chronic illnesses, there is no care coordination, there is nobody to turn to for help, and your insurance company, well maybe they’ll pay for something and maybe they won’t. I do wonder, if I were sick and rich would I still be as sick?

One thing I do know, I’m damned tired of being sick. I’m tired of identifying myself that way and I’m tired of others doing so. I’m also tired of wondering if it’s in my head and tired of having people tell me it is. (And if it is all in my head, then please, by god, someone help me treat that.)

If creating a blog post that delineates each and every expense will help me find a doctor who can help me with whatever the heck is wrong, yes, I will write one. That said, that post would take away a part of me, the part that says humanity matters most and that’s what we should care about.

This post is part of our effort to remind us of the patient perspective by sharing patients’ stories. Thanks Snarky Frog for sharing your story with us. If you have a patient story you’d like to share, please reach out to us on our Contact Us page.

Department Of Defense (DOD) EHR Delayed By “Aggressive Schedule”

Posted on September 7, 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.

The Department of Defense has announced that it will be delaying the deployment of its massive EHR project, citing issues identified in testing and an “aggressive schedule” as reasons for the decision. If the DoD and its vendors are right, the deployment delay will be a negligible few months, though one setback to an effort of this kind usually to leads to another.

On the plus side, military officials said, they’ve made significant progress with developing user-approved workflows, interfaces and technical integration of its legacy system to date. But they’re not ready to engage in the concurrent system configuration, cybersecurity risk management, contractor and government testing yet.

The deployment has been in the works for little over a year. Last summer, the DoD Healthcare System Modernization Program awarded the $4.3 billion contract to upgrade its existing Military Health System EHR to a group including Cerner and defense contracting firm Leidos. The Cerner/Leidos team won out against some tough competition, including a partnership including Allscripts, HP and Computer Sciences Corp. and an Epic/IBM bid.

The ten-year project is about as large and complex an integration effort as you’re likely to see even by Cerner standards. The effort will connect healthcare systems located at Army hospitals, on Naval vessels, in battlefield clinics across the globe. MHS GENESIS will bring all of this data — on active-duty members, reservists, and civilian contractors — into a single open, interoperable platform. The new platform should serve 9.5 million military beneficiaries in roughly 1,000 locations.

The project is upgrading the DoD from AHLTA (Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application), which has been in place since 2004. AHLTA has many flaws, though none that would surprise a health IT expert. (For example, when patients are referred to non DoD providers, the data is not captured and integrated into the system.)

Ultimately, it won’t matter very much whether the DoD manages to kick off its project on time. The larger question, here, is whether over the course of a 10-year integration effort, the project becomes, as Forbes columnist Loren Thompson puts it, “obsolete before it’s even built” and incapable of the data sharing that fueled its conception. Of course, any systems integration with a long timeline faces that risk, but not all industries are changing as quickly as healthcare.

The truth is, this is arguably an awkward time for any large entity to be making big interoperability plans. I’d argue that while there are more initiatives than ever aimed at the problem, they’ve effectively made things worse rather than better. After all, the unfortunate truth is that the more people compete over interoperability standards, the less possible data sharing becomes.

A Circular Chat On Healthcare Interoperability

Posted on September 6, 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.

About a week ago, a press release on health data interoperability came into my inbox. I read it over and shook my head. Then I pinged a health tech buddy for some help. This guy has seen it all, and I felt pretty confident that he would know whether there was any real news there.

And this is how our chat went.

—-

“So you got another interoperability pitch from one of those groups. Is this the one that Cerner kicked off to spite Epic?” he asked me.

“No, this is the one that Epic and its buddies kicked off to spite Cerner,” I told him. “You know, health data exchange that can work for anyone that gets involved.”

“Do you mean a set of technical specs? Maybe that one that everyone seems to think is the next big hope for application-based data sharing? The one ONC seems to like.” he observed. “Or at least it did during the DeSalvo administration.”

“No, I mean the group working on a common technical approach to sharing health data securely,” I said. “You know, the one that lets doctors send data straight to another provider without digging into an EMR.”

“You mean that technology that supports underground currency trading? That one seems a little bit too raw to support health data trading,” he said.

“Maybe so. But I was talking about data-sharing standards adopted by an industry group trying to get everyone together under one roof,” I said. “It’s led by vendors but it claims to be serving the entire health IT world. Like a charity, though not very much.”

“Oh, I get it. You must be talking about the industry group that throws that humungous trade show each year.” he told me. “A friend wore through two pairs of wingtips on the trade show floor last year. And he hardly left his booth!”

“Actually, I was talking about a different industry group. You know, one that a few top vendors have created to promote their approach to interoperability.” I said. “Big footprint. Big hopes. Big claims about the future.”

“Oh yeah. You’re talking about that group Epic created to steal a move from Cerner.” he said.

“Um, sure. That must have been it,” I told him. “I’m sure that’s what I meant.”

—-

OK, I made most of this up. You’ve got me. But it is a pretty accurate representation of how most conversations go when I try to figure out who has a chance of actually making interoperability happen. (Of course, I added some snark for laughs, but not much, believe it or not.)

Does this exchange sound familiar to anyone else?

And if it does, is it any wonder we don’t have interoperability in healthcare?

Gastroparesis – A Patient Story

Posted on September 2, 2016 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Melissa Adams VanHouten. You can read more about her on her Gastroparesis: Fighting for Change website and her blog.
Melissa Adams VanHouten - Gastroparesis
Since being diagnosed with gastroparesis, my life has changed in unimaginable ways – and the medical community, which did not initially recognize my complex needs, left me ill-prepared for these changes.  In February 2014, I was hospitalized with severe pain and vomiting, put through a battery of tests, diagnosed, and sent home with only a brief explanation of my illness. No one prepared me for the seriousness of this condition.  Perhaps they thought I understood, but I did not.

My ordeal began in the ER with blood tests and scans.  When these tests showed nothing of concern, the doctors forced a tube down my nose and pumped my stomach in preparation for an upper endoscopy.  To this day, I have never experienced anything quite so unpleasant and terrifying.  The doctors were kind and warned me that, though necessary, the procedure would be painful.  They did their best to talk me through it, but it was not an experience I ever wish to relive.  In addition to the endoscopy, I was sent for a Gastric Emptying Study (GES) the following day.  This was not a particularly harsh test except for the fact that I was required to keep the food down despite my frequent vomiting episodes.  My situation was not improved by the radiology technician warning me repeatedly and sternly that if I vomited, we would have to repeat the test.  My week was rounded out with more scans, additional blood tests, and a few IV changes.

The good news is that, though the tests were difficult to endure, the nurses and doctors were (for the most part) kind and understanding.  They controlled my pain well, answered my questions when they could, and took reasonable steps to ensure my comfort; however, my stay was not without issues.  There were numerous occasions where I had to ask what medication I was being given and why, and there were a couple of medications that I concluded were unnecessary – such as the “standard treatment” for heartburn, which they assured me everyone who complained of stomach pain received, when I was not experiencing heartburn.  I was also woken up by the blinding overbed light several times during the night, every night, for blood pressure checks and such when I really could have used the rest.  I was discouraged from showering and walking the halls as well, as this seemed to be an inconvenience for the nurses. The biggest issue by far, though, was the coordination of care.  I lost count of how many different medical providers I spoke to, could not understand their various roles in my care, and was required to repeat my “story” every time someone new arrived.  I would have loved to have felt as if everyone working with me was “on the same page.”

Fortunately, at the end of my week’s stay, I did receive a diagnosis.  I am thankful I was diagnosed so quickly, since many in my community spend weeks, months, or even years seeking answers.  What is not quite so fortunate is that, upon my release, I was sent home with very little information regarding my condition and was told simply to follow up with a gastroenterologist in about 6 weeks.  I had no detailed diet plan, no medications to try, and no idea what to expect.

I recall the doctors giving me an overview of gastroparesis.  They told me it was “paralysis of the stomach” and impressed upon me that there was no cure.  I remember them saying I would need to make some dietary changes, and if those didn’t work, there were a few medications to try – but they came with risks and negative side effects.  I recall them telling me that in some severe cases, people would opt for surgery to implant a gastric electrical stimulator or resort to feeding tubes.  Mostly, though, I remember them saying that some would recover almost completely over time and would not experience long-term effects.  Of course, this last statement is what I believed would be the case for me.  After all, I was in good overall health.  Not a big deal.  I would follow a liquids-only diet, work my way up to soft foods and solids, just as they indicated I should, and I would be fine.

But it did not happen that way.  I went home believing I would continue to improve; instead, my condition deteriorated.  Within a couple of days, I started vomiting again and could barely keep down liquids.  The attacks of pain worsened, and I became so weak that I honestly could not lift my head up.  I told my family goodbye.  I truly believed I would die.  I could not get in quickly to see my new gastroenterologist, and I had no idea what to do.  I finally mustered up the courage to call my doctor and told him that despite the risks, I thought I should try one of the medications the hospital doctors had mentioned.  He agreed, but because of FDA restrictions and requirements associated with my particular medication, it was two horrendous weeks before I could begin taking it.  These were without a doubt the longest two weeks of my life.

Since starting the medication, I have stopped vomiting (for the most part) and can now function well enough to make it through the day, but I still cannot eat without pain.  It is clear to me now that I will likely never again be able to eat “normal” foods in “normal” amounts, and it is crystal clear to me that this is a life-altering disease from which there is perhaps no coming back.  I have experienced levels of fatigue I previously thought impossible, endured unfathomable pain, and come to realize the horrors of hunger and malnutrition.  I had no idea I would face this.  The doctors did not impress on me that this was a serious, chronic illness, and they left me in the dark as to how to cope with my illness should it not resolve itself, as I had believed it would upon leaving the hospital.

I am thankful I now have a physician who is willing to listen to my concerns and partner with me in evaluating treatment options.  Though there are few treatments available for gastroparesis, my doctor seems to genuinely care and refuses to give up on me.  That means the world to a person in my circumstances.  My experience differs from many in the gastroparesis community.  Unlike me, they remain lost and confused, as I was immediately after diagnosis.  They never find that competent, compassionate doctor.  These are the people for whom I advocate.  I hope that eventually we are able to establish a healthcare system that meets the needs of all.  We need better care, better treatments, and a medical community that comprehends our needs.

This post is part of our effort to remind us of the patient perspective by sharing patients’ stories. Thanks Melissa for sharing your story with us. If you have a patient story you’d like to share, please reach out to us on our Contact Us page.

Time To Build EHRs That Address Human Complexity

Posted on September 1, 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.

As things stand in our world, caring for patients generally falls into two broad categories: treating the body and its innumerable mysteries, and caring for practicalities of the patient’s mental and social health. The two are interrelated, of course, but often they’re treated independently, as if each existed in a separate world.

But we know that this is a false dichotomy. People don’t go from being patients at one point and human beings later, and treating them that way can fail or even cause them harm. At every point, they’re people living in a complex world which may overwhelm their capacity for getting good healthcare. Their values, social networks, resources (or lack thereof), education and mental health status are just a few of the many dimensions that influence a patient’s overall functioning in the world.

This isn’t a new idea. As Frances Peabody noted in a 1927 lecture to Harvard Medical School students, “the secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient,” by understanding how a patient’s personal and emotional circumstances influence their health status. It’s a concept that needs revisiting, particularly given that the automation of care seems likely to further alienate doctors from patients.

Given how seldom physicians have a chance to address patients’ life circumstances, and how important it is that medicine returns to this approach, it was good to see the The Journal of the American Medical Association weigh in on the issue.

In the Viewpoint piece, entitled “Evolutionary Pressures on the Electronic Health Record: Caring for Complexity,” the authors contend that next-generation EHRs will need to do much more to help physicians address an increasingly complex patient mix.  They suggest that rising patient complexity – due to issues such as co-occurring chronic and rare diseases, organ transplantation and artificial devices – are changing the practice of medicine. Meanwhile, they point out, patients’ personal experience of illness and the social context in which they live are still important considerations.

But EHRs aren’t developing the capacity to meet these needs, they note:

The evolution of EHRs has not kept pace with technology widely used to track, synthesize, and visualize information in many other domains of modern life. While clinicians can calculate a patient’s likelihood of future myocardial infarction, risk of osteoporotic fracture, and odds of developing certain cancers, most systems do not integrate these tools in a way that supports tailored treatment decisions based on an individual’s unique characteristics.

Existing EHRs aren’t designed to help physicians use predictive analytics to deliver preventative care or services to targeted individuals either, they note. Nor are they helping clinicians to learn from past cases in a systematic manner, the piece says:

When a 55-year-old woman of Asian heritage presents to her physician with asthma and new-onset moderate hypertension, it would be helpful for an EHR system to find a personalized cohort of patients (based on key similarities or by using population data weighted by specific patient characteristics) to suggest a course of action based on how those patients responded to certain antihypertensive medication classes, thus providing practice-based evidence when randomized trial evidence is lacking.

The JAMA authors also take EHR vendors to task for doing nothing to capture social and behavioral data (otherwise known as “social determinants of health”)  which could have a big impact on health outcomes and treatment responses:

In this world of patient portals and electronic tablets, it should be possible to collect from individuals key information about their environment and unique stressors – at home or in the workplace – in the medical record. What is the story of the individual?  The most sophisticated computerized algorithms, if limited to medical data, may underestimate a patient’s risk (eg, through ignorance about neighborhood dangers contributing to sedentary behavior and poor nutrition) or recommend suboptimal treatment (eg, escalating asthma medications for symptoms triggered by second-hand smoke).

If EHRs evolve successfully to embrace such factors – and move away from their origins in billing support – physicians may spend much less time with them in the future. In fact, the authors speak lovingly of a future in which “deimplementing the EHR” becomes a trend, and care no longer revolves around a computer. This may not happen anytime soon.

Still, perhaps we can speak of “rehumanizing the EHR” with information that address the whole, complex person. A rehumanized EHR that Francis Perkins would use, were he alive today, is something physicians should demand.

Building a Usable Healthcare API

Posted on August 31, 2016 I Written By

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

I’ve long believed that a rock solid API is going to be required by healthcare IT software companies and EHR vendors in particular. If we want hospitals and doctors to be able to accomplish everything they need to accomplish, we need APIs to connect providers to services that will better serve the patients. EHR vendors aren’t going to do everything. With this in mind, we thought that it was time to start a discussion on how to build a usable healthcare API.

On Thursday, September 8th at 3:30 PM ET (12:30 PM PT), join us LIVE in our latest Healthcare Scene interview, as we discuss healthcare APIs with the following experts:

2016 September - Building a Usable Healthcare API-Headshots
There are a lot of people who talk generally about an API, but very few that have executed it well in healthcare. CareCloud and ManaHealth are two healthcare companies that are trying to implement a health care API in the right way, so we’re excited to sit down with them to talk about their experience building healthcare APIs.

If you’ve never watched one of our live video interviews, you can watch it live on this YouTube page (includes Live Chat room as well) or just visit this post on the day of the event and watch the video embedded below:

We look forward to shedding more light on what it takes to build a high quality, usable healthcare API.

Be sure to Subscribe to Healthcare Scene on YouTube to be updated on our future interviews or watch our archive of past Healthcare Scene Interviews.

One Example Of An Enterprise Telehealth System

Posted on August 30, 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.

While there’s a lot of talk about how telehealth visits need to be integrated with EMRs, I’m not aware of any well thought-out model for doing so. In the absence of such standardized models, I thought it worth looking at the approach taken by American Well, one of a growing list of telehealth firms which are not owned by a pre-existing provider organization. (Other examples of such telemedicine companies include MD Live, Teladoc and Doctor on Demand.)

American Well is now working with more than 170 health plans and health systems to streamline and integrate the telehealth process with provider workflows. To support these partners, it has created an enterprise telehealth platform designed to connect with providers’ clinical information systems, according to Craig Bagley, director of sales engineering for the firm.

Bagley, who recently hosted a webinar on EMR/telehealth integration for AW, said its system was designed to let providers offer telehealth consults labeled with their own brand name. Using its system, patients move through as follows, he said:

  • First, new patients sign up and enter their insurance information and demographics, which are entered into AW’s system.
  • Next, they are automatically connected to the provider’s EMR system. At that point, they can review their clinical history, schedule visits and get notifications. They can also contact their doctor(s).
  • At this point, they enter the telehealth system’s virtual “waiting room.” Behind the scenes, doctors can view the patients who are in the waiting room, and if they click on a patient name, they can review patient information collected from the EMR, as well as the reason for the visit.

Now, I’m not presenting this model as perfect. Ultimately, providers will need their EMR vendors to support virtual visits directly, and find ways to characterize and store the video content generated by such visits as well. This is becoming steadily more important as telemedicine deployments hit their stride in provider organizations.

True, it looks like AW’s approach helps providers move in this direction, but only somewhat. While it may do a good job of connecting patients and physicians to existing clinical information, it doesn’t sound as though it actually does “integrate” notes from the telehealth consult in any meaningful way.

Not only that, there are definitely security questions that might arise when considering a rollout of this technology. To be fair, I’m not privy to the details of how AW’s platform is deployed, but there’s always HIPAA concerns that come up when an outside vendor like AW interacts with your EMR. Of course, you may be handing off clinical information to far less healthcare-focused vendors under some business associate contracts, but still, it’s a consideration.

And no matter how elegant AW’s workaround is – if “workaround” is a fair word – it’s still not enough yet. It’s going to be a while before players in this category serve as any kind of a substitute for EMR-based conferencing technology which can document such visits dynamically.

Nonetheless, I was interested to see where AW is headed. It looks like we’re just at the start of the enterprise-level telemedicine system, but it’s still a much-needed step.

MIPS Performance Categories and the MIPS Composite Score – MACRA Monday

Posted on August 29, 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.

This post is part of the MACRA Monday series of blog posts where we dive into the details of MACRA.

As mentioned, next up we’re going to cover the 4 MIPS performance categories. Each of these categories are listed in the graphic below and will contribute to what is called your MIPS Composite Score.
MIPS Performance Categories

At first, these four new category names might be confusing, but here’s the translation you need to know for each category that will illustrate how MIPS really just rolls up three existing programs and adds one new program as follows:

  • Quality Performance Category – PQRS Replacement
  • Resource Use (Cost) Category – Value Based Modifier Replacement
  • Clinical Practice Improvement Activities Category – New
  • Advancing Information Category – Meaningful Use (EHR Incentive Program) Replacement

I’m not sure why the government thought we needed new names for each program, but they decided that was the best route. Maybe they wanted to leave the past behind and move forward without the baggage that exists with the previous names. Regardless, 3 of the 4 MIPS performance categories are programs that most of you probably already know about. There are slight changes with each of the 3 programs (PQRS, Value Based Modifier, and Meaningful Use) under MIPS which we’ll cover in a future part of this series. In most cases, each of those 3 programs was simplified under MIPS.

In order to determine your MIPS Composite Score, each provider will receive a score on a 100 point scale. Each of the 4 performance categories contributes to the 100 point scale and have been weighted as follows:
MIPS Performance Categories Weighting - Year 1

Yes, that means that if you are already doing PQRS (Quality) and Meaningful Use (Advancing Care Information), then you’ll be well positioned for 75% of the points for the MIPS composite score. If you’re only doing PQRS, you’re still in a position to get 50% of the MIPS composite score without too many changes from what you’re doing today. Of course, that assumes you continue those efforts under the modified MIPS requirements in 2017. If you’re not doing PQRS, meaningful use, or value based reimbursement, then you’ll have some serious work to do in order to not be penalized under MIPS.

Once CMS calculates your MIPS composite score, they’ll compare that score against the threshold to determine the adjustment received. Speaking hypothetically, let’s say the MIPS threshold was set at 64 and your MIPS Composite Score was 64. Then, you wouldn’t receive an increase or decrease to your reimbursement. Of course, if you scored above a 64, then you’d receive a bonus payment. If you score below a 64, you’d be penalized.

CMS has said they intend to publish the benchmarks and thresholds prior to 2017. Given the short time frame, this is going to be a real challenge and is likely another reason why it’s possible that MACRA could be delayed. However, it’s good to know that they’re planning to publish the MIPS threshold in advance so practices can plan accordingly. The great part of this scoring system is that unlike meaningful use which was all or nothing, this scoring gives providers credit for partial performance.

It’s worth also noting that the MACRA program must be budget neutral. So, if more providers are getting penalized than are getting incentives, the HHS Secretary will use a scaling factor to increase the incentives paid to participating providers that qualify. HHS also has $500 million available separate from the normal incentive payments to reward exceptional performance. I have yet to see details on this, but it will be interesting to watch and see what they use as the criteria for exceptional performance. I wonder how much higher of a composite score you’ll need above the threshold to be considered an exceptional performer.

Next week we’ll start going through each of the performance categories at a high level and discuss the changes made to each program that’s been rolled into MIPS and the new Clinical Practice Improvement Activities category.

Be sure to check out all of our MACRA Monday blog posts where we dive into the details of the MACRA program.

What Do Consumers Demand from Modern Healthcare?

Posted on August 26, 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.

Consumer Demand for Modern Healthcare IT

This represents some really fascinating data and illustrates a major trend around consumer demand in healthcare. More and more patients are comfortable with some form of electronic healthcare. Over time I’m sure that this acceptance is going to grow into pure demand for these type of modern healthcare options. Are you prepared for this change?

Right now, most doctors don’t need to offer the services described above. Patients don’t generally choose their doctor using the above criteria, but over time I think that will likely change. As patients get the first glimpse of how much easier a telemedicine visit was as compared to an office visit, they’re going to want more. It’s the natural process of how these things evolve.

My fear is that many small practices are asleep at the wheel in this regard. This will likely lead to problems since their big health system competitors are going to roll this out in a broad way that could make it hard for small practices to compete if they don’t get on it early. Plus, large health system competitors will be able to do things like offer 24 hour services that a small practice just can’t reasonably offer.

At the end of the day, every small practice needs to ask themselves, what am I doing to create an amazing patient experience for those in my care. Small practices that do this will be successful and retain patients. Those that continue practicing business as usual will likely run into difficulties as consumer driven healthcare starts to take over.