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!

Who is Adopting EHRs and Why: ONC Turns up Some Surprises

Posted on December 15, 2014 I Written By

Andy Oram is an editor at O'Reilly Media, a highly respected book publisher and technology information provider. An employee of the company since 1992, Andy currently specializes in open source, software engineering, and health IT, but his editorial output has ranged from a legal guide covering intellectual property to a graphic novel about teenage hackers. His articles have appeared often on EMR & EHR and other blogs in the health IT space. Andy also writes often for O'Reilly's Radar site ( and other publications on policy issues related to the Internet and on trends affecting technical innovation and its effects on society. Print publications where his work has appeared include The Economist, Communications of the ACM, Copyright World, the Journal of Information Technology & Politics, Vanguardia Dossier, and Internet Law and Business. Conferences where he has presented talks include O'Reilly's Open Source Convention, FISL (Brazil), FOSDEM, and DebConf.

A high-level view of the direction being taken by electronic health records in the U.S. comes from a recent data brief released by the Office of the National Coordinator. Their survey of physician motivations for adopting EHRs turns up some puzzling and unexpected findings. I’ll look at three issues in this article: the importance of Meaningful Use incentives and penalties, the role of information exchange, and who is or is not adopting EHRs.

Incentives and Penalties
The impact of the Meaningful Use bribes–sorry, I meant incentive payments–in the HITECH act are legendary: they touched off a mad rush to adopt technology that had previously aroused only tepid interest among most physicians, because they found the EHRs outrageously expensive, saw no advantage to their use, or just didn’t want to leave the comfort zone of pen and paper. The dramatic outcome of Stage 1, for instance, can be seen in the first chart of this PDF.

This month’s data brief reconfirms that incentives and penalties played a critical role during the period that Meaningful Use has been in play. In the brief’s Figure 3, incentives and penalties topped the list of reasons for adopting records, with nothing else coming even close (although the list was oddly chosen, leaving out credible reasons such as “EHRs are useful”).

The outsized role payments play is both strange and worrisome. Strange, because the typical $15,000 paid per physician doesn’t even start to cover the costs of converting from paper to an EHR, or even from one EHR to another. Worrisome, because the escalator (a favorite metaphor of former National Coordinator David Blumenthal) on which payments put physicians is leveling off. Funding in the HITECH act ends after Stage 3, and even those payments will be scrutinized by the incoming budget-conscious Congress.

In addition, Stage 2 attestations have been dismally low. Critics throughout the industry, smelling blood, have swooped in to call for scaling back, to suggest that meaningful use provisions be eased or weakened, or just to ask for a more concentrated focus on the key goal of interoperability.

The ONC knows full well that they have to cut back expectations as payments dry up, although penalties from the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services can still provide some leverage. Already, the recent House budget has level-funded the ONC for next year. Last summer’s reorganization of the ONC was driven by the new reality. Recent initiatives at the ONC show a stronger zeal for creating and urging the adoption of standards, which would be consistent with the need to find a role appropriate to lean times.

Health Information Exchange
I am also puzzled by the emphasis this month’s data brief puts on health information exchange. Rationally speaking, it would make perfect sense for physicians to ramp up and streamline the sharing of patient data–that’s exactly what all the health care reformers are demanding that they do. Why should somebody ask a patient to expose himself to unnecessary radiation because an X-Ray hasn’t been sent over, or try to treat someone after surgery without knowing the discharge plan?

Actually, most physicians would. That’s how they have been operating for decades. Numerous articles find that most physicians don’t see the value of information exchange, and can profit from their ignorance of previous tests and treatments the patient has received.

And that’s probably why, after taking hundreds of millions of dollars from governments, the heavy-weight institutions called Health Information Exchanges have repeatedly thrown in the towel or been left gasping for breath. At least two generations of HIEs have come and gone, and the trade press is still searching for their value.

So I’m left scratching my head and asking: if doctors adopt EHRs for information exchange, are they getting what they paid for? Redemption may have arrived through the Direct project, an ONC-sponsored standard for a low-cost, relatively frictionless form of data exchange. Although the original goal was to make HIE as simple as email, the infrastructure required to protect privacy imposes more of a technical burden. So the ONC envisioned a network of Health Information Service Provider (HISP) organizations to play the role of middleman, and a number are now operating. According to Julie Maas of EMR Direct, nearly half a million people were using Direct in July 2014, and the number is expected to double the next time statistics are collected next February.

So far, although isolated studies have shown that HIEs improve outcomes and reduce costs, we haven’t seen these effects nationwide.

What Hinders Adoption
Some of the most intriguing statistics in the data brief concern who is adopting EHRs and what holds back others from doing so. The main dividing line is simply size: most big organizations have EHRs and most small ones don’t.

I have explored earlier the pressures of health care reform on small providers and the incentives to merge. Health care technology is a factor in the consolidation we’re seeing around the country. And we should probabaly look forward to more.

Americans have trouble feeling good about consolidation in any field. We’re nostalgic for small-town proprietors like the pharmacist in the movie It’s a Wonderful Life. We forget that the pharmacist in that movie nearly killed someone by filling a prescription incorrectly. In real life, large organizations can pursue quality in a host of ways unavailable to individuals.

One interesting finding in the data brief is that rural providers are adopting EHRs at the same rate as urban ones. So we can discard any stereotypes of country hick doctors letting teenagers set up the security on their PCs.

Lack of staff and lack of support are, however, major barriers to adoption. This is the last perplexing question I take from the data brief. Certainly, it can be hard to get support for choosing an EHR in the first place. (The Meaningful Use program set up Regional Extension Centers to partially fill the gap.) But after spending millions to install an EHR, aren’t clinicians getting support from the vendors?

Support apparently is not part of the package. Reports from the field tell me that vendors install the software, provide a few hours of training, and tip their hats good-bye. This is poetic justice toward physicians, who for decades have sent patients out weak and groggy with a prescription and a discharge sheet. Smart organizations set aside a major percentage of their EHR funding to training and support–but not everybody knows how to do this or has grasped the need for ongoing support.

I certainly changed some of my opinions about the adoption of EHRs after reading the ONC data brief. But the statistics don’t quite add up. We could use some more background in order to understand how to continue making progress.

FHIR is on Fire

Posted on December 5, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the 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 and John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

Ever since the announcement yesterday about Project Argonaut, FHIR has been getting some widespread coverage. Although, even before this important announcement, I was hearing a lot of people talk really optimistically about the potential of FHIR for healthcare. However, with Project Argonaut, you get all of these big name organizations on board as well:

  • athenahealth
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
  • Cerner
  • Epic
  • Intermountain Healthcare
  • Mayo Clinic
  • McKesson
  • Partners HealthCare System
  • SMART at the Boston Children’s Hospital Informatics Program
  • The Advisory Board Company

That’s quite a list of powerhouses that are investing money behind FHIR. I’m excited that the majority of major hospital EHR are represented in that list. Although, I do wonder if this is a lot of the same people who ruined CCDA. Let’s hope I’m wrong and they learned their lesson.

FHIR was also the topic of today’s #HITsm chat. Here are some of the tweets from the chat that caught my eye.

How’s that for optimism about the future of FHIR? Keith is deep in the trenches of health IT standards so he’s got a very informed opinion on what’s happening.

A very good sign since everyone I talk to seems to hate CCDA. They say that it’s bloated and really not usable.

I agree with Donald. The real question I have is whether FHIR will get us open APIs to the data we want. I need to investigate more to know the answer to that question.

I generally think this is true also, but not if it is a limited set of data. If you limit the data and don’t provide write back function, then there’s a real limit on what you can do with that data. Of course, you can start with some functionality and then build from there.

I’m still early on in my understanding of FHIR. I’m doing a whole series of posts on EMR and HIPAA around interoperability and the challenges associated with interoperability. You can be sure that FHIR will be a major part of my research and discussion. The above links look like a good place to start.

Please add your thoughts on FHIR in the comments as well.

Treating a Patient with Partial Information

Posted on December 4, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the 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 and 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 some recent discussions, I’ve heard arguments against HIEs and healthcare interoperability which say that it’s a bad thing because “What if the HIE doesn’t provide me all the patient info I need?” This is actually a really important question and one worthy of consideration. In fact, it could be extended to say, “What if the HIE provides me the wrong information?

While these are really important challenges for HIEs to address, it returns to the common fallacy that I see over and over again in healthcare. We compare the implementation of future technology against perfection as opposed to the status quo.

The reality is that doctors have been treating patients with partial and incorrect information forever. An HIE that can only provide partial or even incorrect information sometimes is similar to the situation that doctors face every day.

Think about how many patients have chosen not to tell their doctor something because they didn’t remember to tell them that info. How many patients have told their doctors the wrong information because they couldn’t remember the right information? Millions. There are even many patients who are afraid to give their doctor their health information based on privacy concerns. Once again, the doctor is treating the patient with partial information.

I imagine the reason it feels different is that we feel like their should be a different level of trust with an HIE. Maybe there is a different level of trust in data coming from an HIE versus a patient’s memory. However, that doesn’t mean that a doctor should put 100% trust in the data that an HIE provides. There’s nothing wrong with a bit of healthy skepticism with any third party data source. No doubt there are varying degrees of trust with all third party data sources that are used by a doctor. The HIE needs to be at the high end of the trust spectrum, but its inability to be perfect shouldn’t hinder its use anymore than the imperfect EHR data hinders its use.

Over time these HIE systems will do a much better job of measuring the confidence of the data their providing. Ok, that might be pretty optimistic. Instead, it’s more likely that doctors will learn how confident they should be in the data they get from an HIE.

Doctors already have created a culture of appropriate skepticism with patient provided data. I think something similar is the right approach with HIE data. Plus, doctors are smart enough to evaluate when a medical situation requires confirmation of data and when it requires further investigation. They’re making these types of decisions all of the time.

Should Healthcare Institutes Perform “Rip-and-Replace” to Achieve Interoperability? Less Disruption, Please!

Posted on October 7, 2014 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Dr. Donald Voltz, MD, Aultman Hospital, Department of Anesthesiology, Medical Director of the Main Operating Room, Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology, Case Western Reserve University and Northeast Ohio Medical University.
Dr Voltz
A KLAS Research Report on the EMR buying trends of 277 hospitals with at least 200 beds has identified that almost half will be making a new EMR purchase by 2016.  Of the providers considering a change, 34 percent have already selected a vendor and another 44 percent are strongly leaning toward a specific vendor. Driving factors include concerns over outdated technology and health system consolidation.

But is the technology really outdated and health system consolidation necessary, or is the real issue lack of interoperability?  And if you are a hospital looking for a new EMR, let’s not forget the history of technology before we jump to conclusions that the greatest market share means the best of breed.

When we look at EMR adoption over the past number of years, we need to be careful with the data we use. Implementations, and now rip and replace switching to other venders, has been the only choice offices, clinics, hospitals and health systems had to address the issues with interoperability.

Most of current deployed EMRs are designed as a one-size-fits-all, leading to the situation where today out-of-the-box functionalities fit none of the care providers’ requirements. Besides that, EMR vendors have been designed with proprietary data where patient medical sharing (or exchange) becomes the biggest roadblock for patient care continuum. The reason for the rip-and-replace approach by some hospitals is to reach interoperability between inpatient and outpatient data with a single integrated and consolidated database approach.

A 50 percent turnover of EMRs is an incredibly high numbers of hospitals and clinics who have either replaced or are looking to replace their current EHR’s. Being that the majority of the initial implementations were supported by the HITECH act, one would think the government would raise issue with vendors to address this high turnover of EHR’s. There seems to be a general misperception that if our current systems do not meet the demands and needs of providers, administrators, and financial arms of a healthcare delivery system, ripping out the system and implementing a new one will solve the issues.

What is the True Total Cost of Ownership of an EMR?

Healthcare management must look beyond the actual cost paid to an EHR vendor as the only cost but they must look into the total cost, much beyond the normal Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). TCO only includes the initial license cost, maintenance cost, IT support cost, but in healthcare, there is another cost – it is the disruption of the care providers’ workflow. That disruption is directly correlated to healthcare system revenue and patient care outcomes.

Stop this disruption and let’s look for another solution where we integrate disparate systems since many of them are built upon databases that can address the needs of health. The cost to providers in time to learn a new system, the migration and loss of patient data that has been collected in the current systems, the capital expense of system software, the hardware, trainers, IT personnel, etc. all add to the burden, something that is currently being looked at as a necessary expense.

Interoperability Saves Resources

This need not be the case when platforms exist to connect systems and improve access for providers. Having a consistent display of data allows for more efficient and effective management of patients and when coupled with a robust collaborative platform, we close many of the open loopholes that exist in medicine today, even with EHR’s.

2.0 EMR connectors like Zoeticx and others have taken the medical information bus, middleware platform, to solve the challenges that current EHR’s have not.  This connection of systems and uniform display of information that physicians depend on for the management of patients is crucial if hospitals want their new EMRs to succeed. In addition, a middleware platform allows for patients to access their medical information between EMR’s in a single institution or across institutions, a major issue for Meaningful Use.

Fragmentation Prevents Some EMRs From Connecting With Their Own Software

Large EMR vendors’ lack of healthcare interoperability only reflects on how they compete against each other. Patient medical data and its proprietary structure is the tool for such competition where the outcome would not be necessarily beneficial for the hospital, medical professionals or patients. There are plenty of examples where healthcare facilities with EHRs even from the same vendor fail to interoperate with each other.

Such symptoms have little to do with the EMRs that have the same data structure, but about the fragmentation being put in place over the years of customization. We believe that the reason for this is to address fragmentation of the software product. Fragmentation is a case where deployments from the same software products have gone through significant amounts of customization, leading to its divergence from the product baseline.

To believe that ripping the whole infrastructure – inpatient and outpatient–as the method to reach interoperability would only cause a lot of disruption, yet the outcome would be very questionable down the road. Appreciating the backlash of calling the implementation of EMR’s a beta-release, we have much data to use in looking for the next solution to HIT.

As with much of medicine, we are constantly looking for the best way to take care of our patients. Like it or not, EMR’s have become a medical device and we need to start to evaluate them as we would any device used to manage health and disease. As we move forward, there will be an expansion in the openness of patient data, and in my prediction, a migration away from a single EHR solution to all of the requirements of healthcare, and into a system of interconnected applications and databases.

Once again, we have learned that massively engineered systems do not evolve into complex adaptive systems to respond to changing environmental pressures. Simple, interrelated and interdependent applications are more fluid and readily adaptable to the constantly changing healthcare environment. Currently, the only buffer for the stresses and changes to the healthcare system are the patients and the providers who depend on these systems to manage healthcare.

About Dr. Donald Voltz
By Dr. Donald Voltz, MD, Aultman Hospital, Department of Anesthesiology, Medical Director of the Main Operating Room, Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology, Case Western Reserve University and Northeast Ohio Medical University.  A board-certified anesthesiologist, researcher, medical educator, and entrepreneur. With more than 15 years of experience in healthcare, Dr. Voltz has been involved with many facets of medicine. He has performed basic science and clinical research and has experience in the translation of ideas into viable medical systems and devices.

Could Clinicians Create Better HIE Tools?

Posted on August 13, 2014 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Andy Oram.His post reminds me of when I asked “Is Full Healthcare Interoperability a Pipe Dream?

A tense and flustered discussion took place on Monday, August 11 during a routine meeting of the HIT Standards Committee Implementation Workgroup, a subcommittee set up by the Office of the National Coordinator (ONC), which takes responsibility for U.S. government efforts to support new IT initiatives in the health care field. The subject of their uncomfortable phone call was the interoperability of electronic health records (EHRs), the leading issue of health IT. A number of “user experience” reports from the field revealed that the situation is not good.

We have to look at the depth of the problem before hoping to shed light on a solution.

An interoperability showcase literally takes the center of the major health IT conference each year, HIMSS. When I have attended, they physically arranged their sessions around a large pavilion filled with booths and computer screens. But the material on display at the showcase is not the whiz-bang features and glossy displays found at most IT coventions (those appear on the exhibition floor at HIMSS), but just demonstrations of document exchange among EHR vendors.

The hoopla over interoperability at HIMSS suggests its importance to the health care industry. The ability to share coordination of care documents is the focus of current government incentives (Meaningful Use), anchoring Stage 2 and destined to be even more important (if Meaningful Use lasts) in Stage 3.

And for good reason: every time we see a specialist, or our parent moves from a hospital to a rehab facility, or our doctor even moves to another practice (an event that recently threw my wife’s medical records into exasperating limbo), we need record exchange. If we ever expect to track epidemics better or run analytics that can lower health case costs, interoperability will matter even more.

But take a look at extensive testing done by a team for the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, recently summarized in a posting by health IT expert Brian Ahier. When they dug into the documents being exchanged, researchers found that many vendors inserted the wrong codes for diagnoses or drugs, placed results in the wrong fields (leaving them inaccessible to recipients), and failed to include relevant data. You don’t have to be an XML programmer or standards expert to get the gist from a list of sample errors included with the study.

And that list covers only the problems found in the 19 organizations who showed enough politeness and concern for the public interest to submit samples–what about the many who ignored the researchers’ request?

A slightly different list of complaints came up at the HIT Standards Committee Implementation Workgroup meeting, although along similar lines. The participants in the call were concerned with errors, but also pointed out the woeful inadequacy of the EHR implementations in representing the complexities and variety of patient care. Some called for changes I find of questionable ethics (such as the ability to exclude certain information from the data exchange while leaving it in the doctor’s records) and complained that the documents exchanged were not easy for patients to read, a goal that was not part of the original requirements.

However, it’s worth pointing out that documents exchange would fall far short of true coordinated care, even if everything worked as the standards called for. Continuity of care documents, the most common format in current health information exchange, have only a superficial sliver of diagnoses, treatments, and other immediate concerns, but do not have space for patient histories. Data that patients can now collect, either through fitness devices or self-reporting, has no place to be recorded. This is why many health reformers call for adopting an entire new standard, FHIR, a suggestion recognized by the ONC as valid but postponed indefinitely because it’s such a big change. The failure to adopt current formats seems to become the justification for keeping on the same path.

Let’s take a step back. After all those standards, all those certifications, all those interoperability showcases, why does document exchange still fail?

The JAMIA article indicated that failure can be widely spread around. There are rarely villains in health care, only people pursuing business as usual when that is insufficient. Thus:

  • The Consolidated CDA standard itself could have been more precisely defined, indicating what to do for instance when values are missing from the record.

  • Certification tests can look deeper into documents, testing for instance that codes are recorded correctly. Although I don’t know why the interoperability showcase results don’t translate into real-world success, I would find it quite believable that vendors might focus on superficial goals (such as using the Direct protocols to exchange data) without determining whether that data is actually usable.

  • Meaningful Use requirements (already hundreds of pages long) could specify more details. One caller in the HIT Standards Committee session mentioned medication reconciliation as one such area.

The HIT Standards Committee agonized over whether to pursue broad goals, necessarily at a slow pace, or to seek a few achievable improvements in the process right away. In either case, what we have to look forward to is more meetings of committees, longer and more mind-numbing documents, heavier and heavier tests–infrastructure galore.

Meanwhile, the structure facilitating all this bureaucracy is crumbling. Many criticisms of Meaningful Use Stage 2 have been publicly aired–some during the HIT Standards Committee call–and Stage 3 now looks like a faint hope. Some journalists predict a doctor’s revolt. Instead of continuing on a path hated by everybody, including the people laying it out, maybe we need a new approach.

Software developers over the past couple decades have adopted a range of ways to involve the users of software in its design. Sometimes called agile or lean methodologies, these strategies roll out prototypes and even production systems for realistic testing. The strategies call for a whole retooling of the software development process, a change that would not come easily to slow-moving proprietary companies such as those dominating the EHR industry. But how would agile programming look in health care?

Instead of bringing a doctor in from time to time to explain what a clinical workflow looks like or to approve the screens put up by a product, clinicians would be actively designing the screens and the transitions between them as they work. They would discover what needs to be in front of a resident’s eyes as she enters the intensive care ward and what needs to be conveyed to the nurses’ station when an alarm goes off sixty feet away.

Clinicians can ensure that the information transferred is complete and holds value. They would not tolerate, as the products tested by the JAMIA team do, a document that reports a medication without including its dose, timing, and route of administration.

Not being software experts (for the most part), doctors can’t be expected to anticipate all problems, such as changes of data versions. They still need to work closely with standards experts and programmers.

It also should be mentioned that agile methods include rigorous testing, sometimes to the extent that programmers write tests before writing the code they are testing. So the process is by no means lax about programming errors and patient safety.

Finally, modern software teams maintain databases–often open to the users and even the general public–of reported errors. The health care field needs this kind of transparency. Clinicians need to be warned of possible problems with a software module.

What we’re talking about here is a design that creates a product intimately congruent with each site’s needs and workflow. The software is not imported into a clinical environment–much less imposed on one–but grows organically from it, as early developers of the VistA software at the Veterans Administration claimed to have done. Problems with document exchange would be caught immediately during such a process, and the programmers would work out a common format cooperatively–because that’s what the clinicians want them to do.

Rep. Phil Gingrey Comes After Healthcare Interoperability and Epic in House Subcommittee

Posted on July 30, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the 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 and John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

On July 17th, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on Communications and Technology and Health (that’s a mouthful) held a hearing which you can see summarized here. Brought into question were the billions of dollars that have been spent on EHR without requiring that the EHR systems be interoperable.

In the meeting Rep. Phil Gingrey offered this comment, “It may be time for this committee to take a closer look at the practices of vendor companies in this space given the possibility that fraud may be perpetrated against the American taxpayer.”

At least Rep. Gingrey is a former physician, but I think he went way too far when he used the word fraud. I don’t think the fact that many EHR vendors don’t want to share their healthcare data is fraud. I imagine Rep. Gingrey would agree if he dug into the situation as well. However, it is worth discussing if the government should be spending billions of dollars on EHR software that can’t or in more cases won’t share data. Epic was called out specifically since their users have been paid such a huge portion of the EHR incentive money and Epic is notorious for not wanting to share data with other EHR even if Judy likes to claim otherwise.

The other discussion I’ve seen coming out related to this is the idea of de-certifying EHR vendors who don’t share data. I’m not sure the legality of this since the EHR certification went through the rule making process. Although, I imagine Congress could pass something to change what’s required with EHR certification. I’ve suggested that making interoperability the focus of EHR certification and the EHR incentive money is exactly what should be done. Although, I don’t have faith that the government could make the EHR Certification meaningful and so I’d rather see it gone. Just attach the money to what you want done.

I have wondered if a third party might be the right way to get vendors on board with EHR data sharing. I’d avoid the term certification, but some sort of tool that reports and promotes those EHR vendors who share data would be really valuable. It’s a tricky tight rope to walk though with a challenging business model until you build your credibility.

Tom Giannulli, CMIO at Kareo, offers an additional insight, “The problem of data isolationism is that it’s practiced by both the vendor and the enterprise. Both need to have clear incentives and disincentives to promote sharing.” It’s a great point. The EHR vendors aren’t the only problem when it comes to not sharing health data. The healthcare organizations themselves have been part of the problem as well. Although, I see that starting to change. If they don’t change, it seems the government’s ready to step in and make them change.

Is Full Healthcare Data Interoperability A Pipe Dream?

Posted on July 11, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the 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 and John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

It’s always been very clear to me that healthcare interoperability is incredibly valuable. I still wish most organizations would just bite the bullet and make it a reality. Plus, I hope meaningful use stage 3 is blown up and would just work on interoperability. I think there are just so many potential benefits to healthcare in general for us not to do it.

However, I had a really interesting discussion with an EHR vendor today (Side Note: they questioned if interoperability was that valuable) and I asked him the question of whether full healthcare interoperability is even possible.

I’d love to hear your thoughts. As we discussed it more, it was clear that we could have full interoperability if the data was just exported to files (PDFs, images, etc), but that’s really just a glorified fax machine like we do today. Although it could potentially be a lot faster and better than fax. The problem is that the data is then stuck in these files and can’t be extracted into the receiving EHR vendor.

On the other end of the spectrum is full interoperability of every piece of EHR data being transferred to the receiving EHR. Is this even possible or is the data so complex that it’s never going to happen?

The closest we’ve come to this is probably prescriptions with something like SureScripts. You can pull down a patient’s prescription history and you can upload to it as well. A deeper dive into its challenges might be a great study to help us understand if full healthcare data interoeprability is possible. I’m sure many readers can share some insights.

I’m interested to hear people’s thoughts. Should we trim down our interoperability expectations to something more reasonable and achievable? We’ve started down that path with prescriptions and labs. Should we start with other areas like allergies, family history, diagnosis, etc as opposed to trying to do everything? My fear is that if our goal is full healthcare data interoperability, then we’re going to end up with no interoperability.

Next Week’s Guest Blogger – Julie Maas from EMR Direct

Posted on June 6, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the 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 and John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

Next week, it’s going to be a little different around here. Next week, I’m going to be spending the week at Zions National Park as part of a family reunion. We did this a couple years back and unless things have changed, I’ll be stuck completely off the grid with no wifi or even cell coverage (Although, I may slip into town one day to check my email). Should be quite the experience.

I’ve actually done this a few times before and you probably didn’t know it. I just schedule the posts to appear and no one even realized I was gone. In fact, when I’ve done it in the past, I’ve had some of my highest traffic days on the blog. Don’t ask me how that works.

Next week, I decided to do something a little bit different. When I first started blogging, I remember a blogger “turning over the keys” to his blog to another blogger for the week. I always thought that was a kind of cool idea. Usually the person who “drives” the blog for the week enjoys it, the readers get another perspective, and the blog keeps humming while I’m wrestling 4 children and 12 cousins in the wilderness.

While I’m away, I’m handing the keys over to my favorite HIMSS 2014 discovery, Julie Maas. Before HIMSS this year, I’d certainly interacted with Julie a number of times on Twitter, but I’d never really gotten to know her and what she did. Needless to say, once I met her in person and heard her story I was utterly impressed with her and what she’s doing in healthcare IT. Side Lesson: Don’t judge a person solely by their Twitter account or Twitter interactions. There’s usually a lot more to them.

As I consider who I trusted with the keys to this blog, I wondered if Julie would be willing to share her knowledge, expertise and perspective. For those who don’t know Julie (shame on you), she’s been living, eating, breathing and sleeping the Direct Project for the company she started EMR Direct.

I’ve heard really promising things about Direct Project, but have never dug into it like I should have done. So, I’m as excited to read Julie’s series of posts next week as any of you. She’s also going to throw in a little Health Datapalooza commentary as well. I’ll be interested to hear what you think of Direct Project after reading Julie’s posts.

I hope you’ll give Julie a warm welcome to the blog next week. If you like this idea, maybe we’ll do it again. If you hate it or Direct Project, then we’ll be back with our usual snark the week after.

Now, what’s the ICD-10 code for internet withdrawal?

Meaningful Use is On the Ropes

Posted on May 9, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the 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 and John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

We’re entering a really interesting and challenging time when it comes to meaningful use. We’ve often wrote about the inverse relationship between incentive and requirements that exists with meaningful use. As meaningful use stage 2 is now becoming a reality for many organizations and EHR vendors, the backlash against it is really starting to heat up.

If you don’t think this is the case, this slide from the HIT Policy Committee presentation says it a lot when it comes to organizations’ view of meaningful use stage 2.

Meaningful Use Stage 2 Attesatation - May 2014

For those that can’t believe what they’re reading, you’re reading it right. 4 hospitals have attested to meaningful use stage 2 and 50 providers as of May 1st. Certainly it’s still relatively early for meaningful use stage 2, but these numbers provide a stark contrast when you think about the early rush to get EHR incentive money during meaningful use stage 1.

This article by Healthcare IT News goes into many of the strains that were seen in the HIT Policy Committee. Sounded like the healthcare IT version of Real Housewives. However, the point they’re discussing are really important and people on both sides have some really strong opinions.

My favorite quote is this one in reply to the idea that we don’t need EHR certification at this point: “Deputy national coordinator Jacob Reider, MD, disagreed. Ongoing certification is required to give physicians and hospitals the security they need when purchasing products.”

Looks like he stole that line from CCHIT (see also this one). What security and assurance does EHR Certification provide the end user? The idea is just so terribly flawed. The only assurance and security someone feels buying a certified EHR is that they can get the EHR ID number off the ONC-CHPL when they apply for the EHR incentive money. The EHR certification can’t even certify EHR to a standard so that they can share health data. EHR Certification should go away.

I’m also a huge fan of the movement in that committee to simplify and strip out the complexity of meaningful use. I wish they’d strip it down to just interoperability. Then, the numbers above would change dramatically. Although, I’ve learned that the legislation won’t let them go that simple. For example, the legislation requires that they include quality measures.

No matter which way they go, I think meaningful use is in a tenuous situation. It’s indeed on the ropes. It hasn’t quite fallen to the mat yet, but it might soon if something dramatic doesn’t happen to simplify it.

McKesson, Meditech Chosen As EHR Test Systems for Meaningful Use

Posted on January 23, 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 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 an interesting situation which is just popped up on my radar screen.  CMS and the ONC have chosen the first two vendors to serve as designated test EHR systems, and they’ve gone with McKesson and Meditech.

These test vendors are there to help eligible providers meet the requirements of Meaningful Use Stage 2.  To meet MU Stage 2 requirements, providers must successfully conduct at least one exchange test with a CMS-designated test EMR. (The providers can also meet the requirements by performing one electronic exchange of a summary of care document with a recipient using a different EMR technology.)

What intrigued me about this is that CMS and ONC are starting out with only two vendors for use as test EMR providers.  Given the diversity in the marketplace, you’d think that CMS would want to have fuller stock of vendors lined up before it went forward announcing its plans.

If I were an eligible provider going this route, I’d want to have the choice of a wider range test EMRs. Given how little real interoperability there is between EMRs, I’d like to know that I had a fallback position if my original tests didn’t work out.  After all, nothing I’ve read here suggests that EPs won’t have a chance to try again if the initial testing doesn’t go through, and if I were a provider, it’d be good to know that I could take the shot with other test EMRs. But I could be wrong, and that could have an effect on whether vendors see this as a win.

Let’s see if other substantial EMR vendors take up the ONC’s call to serve as test EMR participants.  It will be interesting to see whether vendors see participation as a credibility-raiser or a chance to get pantsed publicly if interoperating with their systems is a pain.