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!

Should EMR Vendors Care If Patients Get Their Records?

Posted on August 11, 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.

Not long ago, Epic CEO Judy Faulkner and former Vice President Joe Biden reportedly butted heads over whether patients need and can understand their full medical records. The alleged conversation took place at a private meeting for Cancer Moonshot, a program with which Biden has been associated since his son died of cancer.

According to a piece in Becker’s Health IT & CIO Review, Faulkner asked Biden why patients actually needed their full medical records. “Why do you want your medical records? They’re a thousand pages of which you understand 10,” she is said to have told Biden.

Epic responded to the widely-reported conversation with a statement arguing that Faulkner had been quoted out of context, and that the vendor supported patients’ rights to having their entire record. Given that Becker’s had the story third-hand (it drew on a Politico column which itself was based on the remarks of someone who had been present at the meeting) I have little difficulty believing that something was lost in translation.

Still, I am left wondering whether this piece had touched on something important nonetheless. It raises the question of whether EMR vendor CEOs have the attitude towards patient medical record access Faulkner is portrayed as having.

Yes, I suspect virtually every EMR vendor CEO agrees in principle that patients are entitled to access their complete records. Of course, the law recognizes this right as well. However, do they, personally, feel strongly about providing such access? Is making patient access to records easy a priority for them? My guess is “no” and “no.”

The truth is, EMR vendors — like every other business — deliver what their customers want. Their customers, providers, may talk a good game when it comes to patient record access, but only a few seem to have made improving access a central part of their culture. In my experience, at least, most do what medical records laws require and little else. It’s hard to imagine that vendors spend any energy trying to change customers’ records practices for the better.

Besides, both vendors and providers are used to thinking about medical record data as a proprietary asset. Even if they see the necessity of sharing this information, it probably rubs at least some the wrong way to ladle it out at minimal cost to patients.

Given all this background, it’s easy to understand why health IT editors jumped on the story. While she may have been misrepresented this time, it’s not hard to imagine the famously blunt Faulkner confronting Biden, especially if she thought he didn’t have a leg to stand on.

Even if she never spoke the words in question, or her comments were taken out of context, I have the feeling that at least some of her peers would’ve spoken them unashamedly, and if so, people need to call them out. If we’re going to achieve the ambitious goals we’ve set for value-based care, every player needs to be on board with empowering patients.

The EMR Vendor’s Dilemma

Posted on June 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.

Yesterday, I had a great conversation with an executive at one of the leading EMR vendors. During our conversation, she stressed that her company was focused on the future – not on shoring up its existing infrastructure, but rather, rebuilding its code into something “transformational.”

In describing her company’s next steps, she touched on many familiar bases, including population health, patient registries and mobile- first deployment to support clinicians. She told me that after several years of development, she felt her company was truly ready to take on operational challenges like delivering value-based care and conducting disease surveillance.

All that being said – with all due respect to the gracious exec with whom I spoke – I wouldn’t want to be a vendor trying to be transformed at the moment. As I see it, vendors who want to keep up with current EMR trends are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

On the one hand, such vendors need to support providers’ evolving health IT needs, which are changing rapidly as new models of care delivery are emerging. Not only do they need to provide the powerhouse infrastructure necessary to handle and route massive floods of data, they also need to help their customers reach and engage consumers in new ways.

To do so, however, they need to shoot at moving targets, or they won’t meet provider demand. Providers may not be sure what shape certain processes will take, but they still expect EMR vendors to keep up with their needs nonetheless. And that can certainly be tricky these days.

For example, while everybody is talking about population health management, as far as I know we still haven’t adopted a widely-accepted model for adopting it. Sure, people are arriving at many of the same conclusions about pop health, but their approach to rolling it out varies widely.  And that makes things very tough for vendors to create pop health technology.

And what about patient engagement solutions? At present, the tools providers use to engage patients with their care are all over the map, from portals to mobile apps to back-end systems using predictive analytics. Synchronizing and storing the data generated by these solutions is challenging enough. Figuring out what configuration of options actually produces results is even harder, and nobody, including the savviest EMR vendors, can be sure what the consensus model will be in the future.

Look, I’m aware that virtually all software vendors face this problem. It’s difficult as heck to decide when to lead the industry you serve and when to let the industry lead you. Straddling these two approaches successfully is what separates the men from the boys — or the girls from the women — and dictates who the winners and losers are in any technology market.

But arguably, health IT vendors face a particularly difficult challenge when it comes to keeping up with the times. There’s certainly few industries are in a greater state of flux, and that’s not likely to change anytime soon.

It will take some very fancy footwork to dance gracefully with providers. Within a few years, we’ll look back and know vendors adapted just enough.

Do Vendor Business Models Discourage EMR Innovation?

Posted on April 4, 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.

Despite the ever-mounting levels of physician frustration, in some ways EMRs have changed little from their mass-market rollout. EMR interfaces are still counterintuitive, data sharing possibilities are limited, important information still lives in isolated silos and endless data entry is the rule rather than exception.

In theory, we could do better if we had a reasonable vision of what should come next. For example, I was intrigued by ideas proposed by Dr. Robert Rowley of Flow Health. He describes a model in which EMRs draw on a single, external data source which isn’t confined to any one organization. Providers would access, download and add data through a modern API.  Given such fluid access to data, providers would be able to create custom front-ends based on a collection of apps, rather than rely on a single vendor-created interface.

Unfortunately, EMR vendors are unlikely to take on a completely different approach like Rowley’s, for reasons inherent to their business model. After all, they have little reason to develop new, innovative EMRs which rely on a different data architecture. Not only that, the costs associated with developing and rolling out a completely new EMR model would probably be very high. And what company would take that chance when their existing “big iron” approach still sells?

Not only that, EMR vendors would risk alienating their customers if they stray too far off the ranch. While an innovative new platform might be attractive to some buyers, it might also be incompatible with their existing technology. And it would probably require both providers and vendors to reinvent workflows and transform their technical architecture.

Meanwhile, in addition to finding a way to pay for the technology, providers would have to figure out how to integrate their existing data into the new system, integrate the platform with its existing infrastructure, retrain the staff and clinicians and cope with reduced productivity for at least a year or two. And what would become of their big data analytics code? Their decision support modules? Even data entry could be a completely new game.

Smaller medical practices could be pushed into bankruptcy if they have to invest in yet another system. Large practices, hospitals and health systems might be able to afford the initial investment and systems integration, but the project would be long and painful. Unless they were extremely confident that it would pay off, they probably wouldn’t risk giving a revolutionary solution a try.

All that being said, there are forces in play which might push vendors to innovate more, and give providers a very strong incentive to try a new approach to patient data management. In particular, the need to improve care coordination and increase patient engagement – driven by the emergence of value-based care – is putting providers under intense pressure. If a new platform could measurably improve their odds of surviving this transition, they might be forced to adopt it.

Right now, providers who can afford to do so are buying freestanding care coordination and patient engagement tools, then integrating them into their existing EMRs. I can certainly see the benefit of doing so, as it brings important functions on board without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And these organizations aren’t forced to rethink their fundamental technical strategy.

But the truth is, this model is unlikely to serve their needs over the long term. Because it relies on existing technology, welding new functions onto old, clinicians are still forced to grappled with kludgy technology. What’s more, these solutions add another layer to a very shaky pile of cards. And it’s hard to imagine that they’re going to support data interoperability, either.

Ultimately, the healthcare industry is going to be bogged down with short-term concerns until providers and vendors come together and develop a completely new approach to health data. To succeed at changing their health IT platform, they’ll have to rethink the very definition of key issues like ease of use and free data access, care coordination, patient engagement and improved documentation.

I believe that’s going to happen, at some point, perhaps when doctors storm the executive offices of their organization with torches and pitchforks. But I truly hope providers and vendors introduce more effective data management tools than today’s EMRs without getting to that point.

First Time HIMSS: Hospital CEO John Kurvink

Posted on March 7, 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

I met John Kurvink from Georgian Bay General Hospital at the Salesforce party at HIMSS this year. We discussed the relative value of a VIP pass vs a regular guest pass. As a hospital CEO, John was wearing a shiny VIP necklace complete with sparkling flashing lights. We found the flashing light wands together and discussed how HIMSS was going for them.

John has the ability to motivate staff and managers to develop their potential and participated in the Intermountain Healthcare video series on healthcare in November 2016.  It was immediately clear that he was there with his team, to maximize the HIMSS experience. I wanted to hear more about the decision making process and differentiating between sales pitches on the exhibitor floor and value for Hopital CFO and CEOs. I asked if I could walk the exhibit floor a bit with their team.  After the show John shared his insights about his first visit to HIMSS.

What was your first health IT conference like?

It was a good experience.  Overwhelming at first.  It took a day to get my conference legs under me.

What were your goals?

See some of the latest health IT projects.  Connect with some of the vendors we do business with.

What was your favorite part of HIMSS?

Networking with other attendees and vendors.  I met some very interesting smart people

What did you learn about Health IT?

There are so many vendors who all appear to be offering the same solutions.  Differentiating between them is a challenge.

What did you learn?

I learned that as a hospital we have lots of options as far as technology solutions.  Need to be very careful before making a commitment.

What was your least favorite part of HIMSS?

Not having a plan which meant I wasted a lot of time walking back and forth arriving late for sessions.

What do people need to know about Health IT from HIMSS?

You need to be sure to have a plan before you arrive.  Know what you want to learn about and focus on executing instead of being caught up with the “new shiny object”.

Many vendors have similar offerings or business solutions and making buying decisions for a hospital or healthcare group can be overwhelming. Brenda and Elizabeth from the Georgian Bay were intelligent and hilarious. Georgian Bay had proposals from patient security partners and other vendors and walking the exhibit floor with John helped me see how vendors interact with Hospital CEOs. They are more aggressive and less technical in their product description. There are more invited dinners with sales pitches. His consideration for his team and ability to see past the “new shiny object” were impressive.

Here’s to many more years of learning with John and his team.

The Case For Dumping EMR Interoperability Goals

Posted on December 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 new year is upon us, and maybe we should consider some new approaches, or even throw out accepted wisdom. Why not consider some major pain points and reconsider how we’re handling them?

In that spirit, my question is this: Should we give up on the idea that EMR vendors will ever allow their data will be interoperable? While this conclusion isn’t exactly a no-brainer, many of us have certainly toyed with the idea. So let’s take ‘er out for a spin.

One major consideration is that EMR vendors have some very compelling reasons for keeping things as they are. Perhaps most notably, interoperability would mean that providers wouldn’t be trapped in deals with a single vendor, as they could just shift the data over to a new platform if the need arose. If I sold EMRs I’d fight tooth and nail to prevent my product from being dumped too easily.

As if that weren’t enough of a disincentive, EMR vendors would need to spend big bucks to achieve interoperability, with no direct reward in sight. Somehow, I doubt that they’re ever going to make such an investment to win some “nice guy” award from the industry.

And even if they could somehow achieve interoperability without breaking a sweat, we’ve got to contend with inertia. Making changes on that scale takes a great deal of effort, and EMR vendors have very little reason to do so.

Maybe the federal government could achieve interoperability through some kind of epic power play, like refusing to issue Medicare reimbursement to providers whose EMRs didn’t meet some ONC interoperability standard.

But even that kind of brute force wouldn’t solve the interoperability problem with one stroke. Such an approach would come with a raft of serious concerns. What interoperability standard would ONC use, and how long would it take to choose? Then, how long would vendors have to meet the standard?  How long would providers have to decommission their existing EMR — and let’s not forget, quite possibly interlocking HIT systems — and where would they get the money for the new/upgraded systems?

Not only that, it would it cost billions of dollars, without a doubt, to make this transition. It could take a decade before the transition was complete. A lot can happen to derail such an initiative over that amount of time, and market forces could render the premises of such an effort obsolete.

On top of that, any effort which encouraged providers to dump their existing EMR platform would greatly diminish, if not erase, the value of the billions of dollars invested in Meaningful Use incentives. A lot of effort has gone into workflow and interface designs that support MU compliance, and starting from scratch on a new platform would NOT be a walk in the park.  So meeting MU goals might be possible over time, but could fall by the wayside for the short term.

All told, it seems that we may be chasing our tails trying to push through interoperability. In theory it sounds good, but when you look at the details it seems unlikely to happen. That being said, the need to share patient data isn’t going to go away, so what alternatives might work? I’ll follow up with some additional thoughts.

If You Were an EHR, Which Would You Be?

Posted on August 6, 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.

I was recently watching a video of Derek Hough, Dancer on Dancing with the Stars (and much more). In the interview Derek was asked which dance best fit various periods of his life. As an #HITNerd, I thought we could do something similar with EHR vendors. So…

If You Were an EHR, Which Would You Be? Are you…

Epic – Single minded, focused and dominating in their sphere. Closed to outside discussions, but very thoughtful and caring of those in your inner circle. A bulldog if someone comes after something you consider important. Built on an aging system that’s done well, but many question how much longer they can be successful on top of such an old platform.

Cerner – The second child who’s done really well for themselves, but wonders why the older brother gets all the attention. They’re successful, well educated, built on a strong foundation, open to improvement. They’ve recently taken on a little bit of baggage. They decided to marry someone who’s been divorced and has four children. We’re not sure how this new marriage is going to work out and how it’s going to impact the family structure.

MEDITECH – This is the middle child. Ahead of their time, but no one notices them anymore. They’re quiet and mostly stay to themselves in their corner. Sure, they’d like to be noticed and get more attention, but they don’t mind too much since they’ve been so successful.

Allscripts – Flashy. Exciting and unpredictable. They’re the one that wears the flashy green jacket to the party. They’ve worked on so many things in their life that it’s hard to really place who they are and what they do. They’ve seen a lot of success, but don’t make us predict what they’ll do next. They seem to have a clear vision of where there going (albeit different than it was 2-3 years ago), but that could change so you have to stay on your toes.

athenahealth – Despite some ADD tendencies, they’ve largely stayed the course on what they want to do and what they want to become. They’re always interesting to be around, because they’re never shy to say what they think or feel about anything. While not as successful as some other people, they still have a lot of potential that could blow up for good or bad. If nothing else, they’re the life of the party and always keep things interesting.

I could keep going, but that’s a good start using a few of the larger or more well known EHR vendors. Which one is most like you? Also, I really hope that many of you will join me in the comments and revise/improve upon what I’ve written or do something similar for another EHR vendor. Let’s have some fun and learn about people’s perceptions of these companies in the process.

Note: Cerner is an advertiser on this site.

Don’t Blame Providers For Variations In EMR Use

Posted on June 20, 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.

A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association has documented what we all already know  — that providers have idiosyncracies in how they use EMRs. The question that remains unanswered is whether this is a bad thing.

According to iHealthBeat, researchers dug into a massive amount of data which painted a picture of how 112 physicians and nurse practitioners working in federally qualified health care centers in New York City used their EMRs. To conduct the study, the researchers looked at 430,803 visits by 99,649 patients who came to the centers.

After analyzing the data, the study found that providers varied in several key habits when using their EMRs, including how often the updated patient problem lists, when they would respond to clinical decision support alerts, whether the appointment was with a new patient or an established one, and the use of the meaningful use objective metrics, iHealthBeat reported.

Why were providers vary so widely and how they conducted these tasks? Researchers said that there are several reasons for this variation, including the providers overall familiarity with the EMR system, the familiarity with the patient’s medical problems, and workflow differences due to staffing differences at the health centers.

According to the researchers, significant variance among providers’ EMR use suggests that it’s a good idea to measure individual level measures of usage, as such studies might improve research on quality and cost outcomes of EMR use. In other words, the study suggests that variance in EMR usage might lead to positive or negative outcomes, and that standardization — once best practices are determined — might improve outcomes.

The problem with this logic, though it sounds  good on the surface, is that providers are struggling hard enough already to develop routines which make EMRs work for them. And as with any other technology, those workarounds are going to vary depending on who you’re talking about and what they’re trying to accomplish.

I’d argue that while tracking sources of variance in EMR use might have some value in improving outcomes, it’s no excuse to force standardization in professionals’ EMR habits, as long as their overall outcomes are appropriate. What’s more, a push to standardize how providers use EMRs puts the struggle to make them workable on providers, not the vendors whose product quirks are almost certainly responsible for this dilemma.

The bottom line, as I see it, is that while this research is useful, it should raise a red flag on vendors, whose usability levels are still far from where they should be. When you give providers a highly usable, well-thought-out interface to use which suits their daily routines, then it might be time to streamline their work habits. Until then, give  them a break if you don’t want to spark a revolution.

P.S. If you’re curious about what the best thinking on EMR usability is out there, check out this list.

Why ICD-10?

Posted on March 24, 2014 I Written By

At least half a dozen folks have asked me to explain why HHS is mandating the transition to ICD-10. So I thought I’d write a blog post about the subject.

First, I’ll examine some of the benefits that proponents of ICD-10 site. Then, I’ll examine the cost of transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10.

There are about a dozen frequently cited reasons to switch from ICD-9 to ICD-10. But they can be summarized into three major categories:

1) The US needs to catch up to the rest of the world.

2) The more granular nature of ICD-10 will lend itself to data analysis of all forms – claims processing, population health, improved interoperability, clinical trials, research, etc.

3) ICD-9 doesn’t support the latest diagnoses and procedures, and ICD-10 does.

Regarding #1, who cares? Coding standards are intrinsically arbitrary. Sequels are not necessarily better than their predecessors.

Although #2 sounds nice, there are a lot of problems with the supposed “value” of more granular data in practice. Following the classic 80-20 rule of life (80% of value comes from 20% of activity), the majority of codes are rarely used. By increasing the number of codes six-fold, the system is creating 6x the opportunities to inaccurately code. There is no reason to believe that providers will more accurately code, but the chances of incorrect diagnosis are now significantly higher than they were before. Garbage in, garbage out.

Below are some specific examples of how increasing the number of codes will affect processes in the healthcare system:

Payers – payers argue that making codes more granular will improve efficiency in the reimbursement process by removing ambiguity. There is nothing further from the truth. Payers will use the new granularity to further discriminate against providers and reject claims for what will appear to be no reason. With 6x the number of codes, there are at least 6x as many opportunities for payers to reject claims.

Clinical trials – ICD-10 proponents like to argue that with more granular diagnosis codes, companies like ePatientFinder can more effectively find patients and match them to clinical trials. This notion is predicated on the ability of providers to enter the correct diagnosis codes into EMRs, which is a poor assumption. Further, it doesn’t actually address the fundamental challenges of clinical trials recruitment, namely provider education, patient education, and the fact that most patients aren’t limited to trials by diagnosis codes, but rather by other data points (such as number of years with a given disease and comorbidities).

Public health – ICD-10 proponents also claim that the new coding system will help public health officials make better decisions. Again, this is predicated on accuracy of data, which is a poor assumption. But the greater challenge is that the most pressing public health issues of our time simply don’t need any more granularity in diagnosis codes. Public health officials already know what the top 20 public health problems are. Adding 6x the number of codes will not help address public health issues.

Regarding #3, why do we need to reinvent the entire coding system and make the entire system more granular to accommodate new diagnoses and procedures? Why can’t we continue to use the existing structure and simply create new branches of the ICD tree using alphanumeric characters? Why do we need to complicate every existing diagnosis and procedure to support new diagnoses and treatments? We don’t. There are plenty of letters left to be utilized in ICD-9 to accommodate new discoveries in medicine.

Next, I’ll provide a very brief summary of the enormity of the cost associated with transitioning from ICD-9 to ICD-10. The root of the challenge is that a string of interconnected entities, none of whom want to work with one another or even see one another, must execute in sync for the months and years leading up to the transition. Below is a synopsis of how the stars must align:

EMR vendors – EMR vendors must upgrade their entire client base to ICD-10 compliant versions of their systems in the next couple of months to begin testing ICD-10 based claims. Given the timescales at which providers move, the burden of MU2 on vendors, and the upgrade cycles for EMR vendors, this is a daunting challenge.

Providers – providers don’t want to learn a new coding system, and don’t want to see 6 times the number of codes when they search for basic clinical terms. Companies such as IMO can mitigate a lot of this, but only a small percentage of providers use EMRs that have integrated with IMO.

Coding vendors – like EMR vendors, auto-coding vendors must upgrade their clients systems now to one that supports dual coding for ICD-9 and ICD-10. They must also incur significant costs to add in a host of new ICD-10 based rules and mappings.

Coders – coders must achieve dual certification in ICD-9 and ICD-10, and must double-code all claims during the transition period to ensure no hiccups when the final cut over takes place.

Clearinghouses – clearinghouses must upgrade their systems to support both ICD-9 and ICD-10 and all of the new rules behind ICD-10, and must process an artificially inflated number of claims because of the volume of double-coded claims coming from providers.

Payers – payers must upgrade their systems to receive both ICD-9 and ICD-10 claims, process both, and provide results to clearinghouses and providers about accuracy to help providers ensure that everyone will be ready for the cut over to ICD-10.

The paragraphs above do not describe even 10% of the complexity involved in the transition. Reality is far more nuanced and complicated. It’s clear from the above that the likelihood that all of the parties can upgrade their systems, train their staff, and double code claims is dubious. The system is simply too convoluted with too many intertwined but unaligned puzzle pieces to make such a dramatic transition by a fixed drop-dead date.

Lastly, switching to ICD-10 now seems a bit shortsighted in light of the changes going on in the US healthcare system today. ICD-10 is already a decade old, and in no way reflects what we’re learning as we transition from volume to value models of care. It will make sense to change coding schemes at some point, but only when it’s widely understood what the future of healthcare delivery in the US will look like. As of today, no one knows what healthcare delivery will look like in 10 years, let alone 20. Why should we incur the enormous costs of the ICD-10 transition when we know what we’re transitioning to was never designed to accommodate a future we’re heading towards?

At the end of the day, the biggest winners as a result of this transition are the consultants and vendors who’re supporting providers in making the transition. And the payers who can come up with more reasons not to pay claims. Some have claimed that HHS is doing this to reduce Medicare reimbursements to artificially lower costs. Although the incentives are aligned to encourage malicious behavior, I think it’s unlikely the feds are being malicious. There are far easier ways to save money than this painful transition.

The ICD-10 transition may be one of the largest and most complex IT coordination projects in the history of mankind. And it creates almost no value. If you can think of a larger transition in technology history that has destroyed more value than the ICD-9 to ICD-10 transition in the US, please leave a comment. I’m always curious to learn more.

#HIMSS14 Highlights: the Snail’s Pace of Interoperability

Posted on February 26, 2014 I Written By

As Social Marketing Director at Billian, Jennifer Dennard is responsible for the continuing development and implementation of the company's social media strategies for Billian's HealthDATA and Porter Research. She is a regular contributor to a number of healthcare blogs and currently manages social marketing channels for the Health IT Leadership Summit and Technology Association of Georgia’s Health Society. You can find her on Twitter @JennDennard.

Ah, HIMSS. The frenetic pace. The ridiculously long exhibit hall. The aching feet. The Google Glass-ers. As I write this, day three for me is in full swing and I’ve finally managed to find some time to reflect on what I’ve seen, which includes a ridiculously long taxi queue at the airport, more pedicabs than I can count, beautiful weather and lots of familiar faces, which is what makes HIMSS so much fun. I’ve heard lots of buzzwords and sales talk, and seen only about an eighth of the exhibit hall, barely scratching the surface of what’s out there on the show floor.

Several common themes stand out based on the sessions and events I’ve been to, and the passions of those I’ve encountered. Whether it’s vendor breakfasts, social networking functions, exhibit elevator pitches or educational sessions, interoperability and engagement are still the buzzwords to beat. This particular HIMSS has given me a different perspective on each, and offered new insight into what’s happening with the Blue Button Connector. I’ll cover each of these in HIMSS Highlights posts over the next several weeks, starting with interoperability.

The industry seems far more realistic this year regarding interoperability – downright frustrated by the slow pace at which such a lofty goal is proceeding. Industry experts Brian Ahier and Shahid Shah perhaps expressed it best during a lively panel discussion at the Surescripts booth:

interoppanel

interoptweet3

interoptweet1

interoptweet2

Putting vendors’ feet to the fire will certainly initiate a quick and painful reaction, but probably not a sustainable one. True momentum will occur only when providers get singed a bit, too. Panelist comments at a Dell / Intel breakfast on analytics for accountable care brought this into sharper focus for me. The fact that too many disparate EMRs (and thus too many vendors poised to cause inertia) are making it hard for analytics to successfully be adopted and utilized at an enterprise level, highlights a bigger problem related to hindsight and strategy.

From my perspective – that of an industry observer and commentator – it seems many providers felt compelled to purchase EMRs because the federal government offered them money to do so, and hopefully just as many were optimistic about the role technology would play in positively affecting patient outcomes. Vendors saw a great business opportunity and moved quickly to develop systems that met Meaningful Use criteria (not necessarily going for best-fit as related to workflow needs and usability). Neither group truly knew what they were in store for, especially regarding longer term plans for health information exchange.

Providers now find themselves wanting to move forward with health information exchange and greater interoperability, but slowed down by the very IT systems they were so insistent on purchasing just a few years ago. Vendors (some more than others) are hesitant to crack open their products to allow data to truly flow from one system to another, and who can blame them? The EMR market, in particular, is poised to shrink, which begs the question, who will survive? What companies will be around at HIMSS 15 and 16? Those who keep their systems siloed, like Epic? Or those who are trying to break down the silos, such as Common Well Alliance members like athenahealth and Greenway?

It makes me wonder if providers wouldn’t have been better served with just had a handful of EMRs to choose from around the time of HITECH, all guaranteed to evolve as needed and play nicely with each other in the interest of health information exchange. Too many options have caused too many barriers. That’s not just my opinion, by the way. I’m willing to bet that a sizeable chunk of the 37,537 HIMSS 14 attendees would agree with me.

Do you disagree? Are providers (and patients) better served by more IT options than less? Let me know your thoughts, and impressions of interoperability advancement at HIMSS, in the comments below.

From 5 EHR to the Cloud, EMR Is Just a Tool, Startups to Improve EMR Usability

Posted on February 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.


This is a big preview of coming attraction. EHR vendors are going to have to be ready for this type of EHR purchase going forward. Well, maybe not 5 EHR, but it could be close to as complex. Add in all of the practice acquisitions and the EMR switching is happening.


This is a good reminder. EMR is a tool and how you use it determines its real value.


The real question is whether the EMR systems will allow it or at least which EMR vendors will support it. If they don’t, startups won’t be able to do much. Even if they do open it, I’m still not confident that a startup built on top of today’s EMRs can solve what pains EMR.