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!

Everything Old is New Again at Lenovo #HIThinkTank Event

Posted on June 28, 2017 I Written By

Colin Hung is the co-founder of the #hcldr (healthcare leadership) tweetchat one of the most popular and active healthcare social media communities on Twitter. Colin is a true believer in #HealthIT, social media and empowered patients. Colin speaks, tweets and blogs regularly about healthcare, technology, marketing and leadership. He currently leads the marketing efforts for @PatientPrompt, a Stericycle product. Colin’s Twitter handle is: @Colin_Hung

Last week in Durham NC, 35 healthcare innovators gathered at the Lenovo offices to discuss three trendy topics: Value-base care, connected health and virtual care. Dubbed the Health Innovation Think Tank #HIThinkTank, it was the first summit-style event hosted by Lenovo Health.

#HIThinkTank was designed to be an opportunity for audience members to learn about the latest innovations from leading academics, technology companies and healthcare organizations. I went into the event expecting to hear about the latest in artificial intelligence, big data, predictive analytics and genomic medicine. It did not turn out to be that kind of event…and it was all the better for it.

I would say that the overall theme of #HIThinkTank was innovation through the application of old ideas in new ways. In other words, everything old is new again in healthcare.

The day started with Rasu Shrestha MD, Chief Innovation Officer at UMPC Enterprises, emphatically stating that we are “in a time of tremendous opportunity in healthcare” and that it was “time for us to move from ‘doing digital’ to truly ‘being digital’”. Shrestha went on to explain that our challenge now was to reimagine clinical processes/workflows in light of modern technologies and methodologies. Like the re-engineering wave that swept through manufacturing in the 1980s, Shrestha believes it’s time to engage all stakeholders and collaborate on reworking healthcare.

Shrestha was followed by Juliet Silver of Perficient who gave us all a dose of reality by telling her personal healthcare story. The day Silver’s husband was diagnosed with cancer was the day she became an advocate – “Google searching and academic research quickly became my constant companions as we struggled to make sense of his disease.” Silver made specific mention of how she had to manually obtain paper copies of her husband’s medical records in order to share them with members of his care team and what a difference that made in his care. She hinted that patients may be the key to truly solving healthcare’s interoperability problem as they are the one stakeholder with the most to lose/gain.

After Silver, several speakers made their case for a return to a more community-based approach to healthcare – one that harkens back to the days of early pioneers when physicians, nurses and members of the community worked together to keep each other healthy.

Holly Miller MD of MedAllies presented the results of a local implementation of CMS’s Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) program – a program that stressed simple post-discharge follow-up as a way to reduce readmissions and keep overall healthcare spending to a minimum. Miller specifically mentioned how community doctors do this all the time.

This was echoed by Marty Fattig, CEO of Nemaha County Hospital, a 16-bed facility 60 miles south of Omaha NE. Fattig spoke at length about the successful EHR, HIE data sharing and population health initiatives by his staff. Particularly noteworthy was his repeated statement: “We may not have the financial or technical resources of the large networks, but we get stuff done because we are all driven to improve the health of our community peers. It makes a big difference that we see our patients at church, at the grocery store and at the post office.” Ironically this old fashioned community approach to delivering healthcare is now the goal of many healthcare organizations.

In the afternoon Steve Aylward of Change Healthcare and Dr Sylvan Waller led the discussion on virtual care by first reminding the audience that over 90% of virtual visits still happen via the phone. Video consults is the fastest growing area of virtual care, but it has a long way to go to catch up to the telephone. Dr Waller said it best “In 30 years #telehealth will finally become the overnight success everyone expects it to be”. Both Aylward and Waller stressed that we cannot lose sight of these “older technologies” that work for patients when we think about innovation.

For me, what drove home this theme of old-is-new-again was the afternoon tour of the Lenovo model data center. This new highly efficient and “green” room prominently featured Lenovo’s latest innovation – direct water-cooled servers. The new NeXtScale WCT server series boasts high pressure water lines that physically run through the server and draw heat directly away from the quad CPUs. Back in the early 90’s I remember getting a tour of an IBM facility (not far from Lenovo’s facility in Durham) that still had a functioning 308X mainframe that featured…you guessed it…water cooling technology.

All in all, I walked away from #HIThinkTank feeling encouraged about the future of healthcare. It was refreshing to be at an innovation event and hear about actual successful implementations rather than pie-in-the-sky promises. The event reaffirmed my belief that technology alone is insufficient to fix healthcare. Those of us in HealthIT need to do more than just create cool products, we need to help clients re-engineer their internal processes to better utilize those products to improve community health.

As Dr Shrestha said – It’s time for us to stop doing digital and truly be digital.

 E-Patient Update:  The Impact Of Telehealth Confusion

Posted on January 27, 2017 I Written By

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

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

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

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

Garbage contact info

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

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

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

Coverage confusion

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

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

Launch fears

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

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

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

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

American Well Deal Adds Remote Physical Exams To Its Offerings

Posted on December 9, 2016 I Written By

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talking Health Transformation at the First Ever #ATAChat

Posted on October 27, 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.

telemedicine-twitter-chat-ata

I’m excited to be the first host of the newly launched #ATAChat organized by the American Academy of Telemedicine. I was lucky to run into Nathaniel Lacktman, an expert legal resource on telehealth, at a recent conference and from that meeting it led to the opportunity for Healthcare Scene to host the first American Telemedicine Association Twitter chat.

For the first Twitter chat, we left the conversation pretty open ended to cover a variety of innovations and transformations happening in healthcare and telehealth. I imagine future ATA Chats will dive deeper into the challenges of telehealth and healthcare transformation. If you have an interest in this area, come and share your insights in what you see happening and things you’re working on. Plus, you’ll be able to learn and connect with a wide variety of other healthcare innovators.

To join the #ATAChat on Twitter, just search for the #ATAChat hashtag on Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 2 PM ET (11 AM PT). We’ll post the following 5 questions over the hour long chat:

  1. What role should technology play in healthcare and innovation?
  2. What are some of the most exciting ways providers are using virtual care to deliver services?
  3. How is telehealth changing the role of healthcare professionals’ “human touch”, and is it a good thing for patients?
  4. What are the biggest barriers to healthcare innovation and what solutions can we use to navigate them?
  5. What are the best opportunities and areas of unmet need for telehealth and virtual care in the next 3 years?

If you have an insight, question, or comment, just add #ATAChat to your tweets and everyone that’s following along will see it. We hope to make it a really interactive discussion. Plus, it’s always fun to meet new and interesting people that you can connect with on social media.

I look forward to seeing everyone at the #ACAChat on Wed November 9th!

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.

E-Patient Update: Video Visits Need EMR Support

Posted on July 11, 2016 I Written By

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

From what I’ve read, many providers would like to deliver telemedicine consults through their EMR platform. This makes sense, as doing so would probably include the ability to document such visits in the same way as face-to-face encounters. It would also make it far easier to merge notes from telehealth visits into existing records of traditional care.

Unfortunately, there’s little reason to believe that this will be possible anytime soon. If nothing else, vendors won’t face too much pressure from providers until the health insurers routinely pay for such care. Or one could argue that until providers are living on value-based care models, they have little incentive to aggressively push care to lower-cost channels like telemedicine. Either way, EMR vendors aren’t likely to focus on this issue in the near term.

But I’d argue that providers have strong reasons to add EMR support to their telemedicine efforts. If they don’t take the bull by the horns now, and train patients to see video visits as legitimate and worthwhile, they are unlikely to leverage telehealth fully when it becomes central to the delivery of care. And that means, in part, that providers must document video consults and integrate that data into their EMR anyway they can. After all, patients are already beginning to understand that it data doesn’t appear in their electronic record, it probably isn’t important to their health.

It seems to me that the lagging EMR support for telemedicine visits springs in part from how they grew up. Just the other day, I had a video visit with a primary care doc working for one of the major direct-to-consumer telehealth services. And his comments gave me some insight into how this issue has evolved.

As sometimes happens, I ended up straying from discussion of my health needs to comment on HIT issues with the visit, notably to complain about the fact that I had to reenter my long list of daily meds every time I sought help from that service. He agreed that it was a problem, but also pointed out that the service’s founders have assumed that their users would almost exclusively be seeking one-off urgent care. In fact, he noted, none of the data collected during the visit is formatted in a way that can be digested easily by an EMR, another result of the assumption that clients would not need a longitudinal record of their telemedical care.

Admittedly, this service is in a different business than hospital or ambulatory care providers with a substantial brick-and-mortar presence. But my guess is that the assumptions upon which the direct-to-consumer businesses were founded are still shared by some traditional providers.

As a patient, I urge providers to give serious thought to better documenting telehealth today, rather than waiting for the vendors to get their act together on that front. If your clinicians are managing relationships by a video visits today, they will be soon. And when that happens I want a coherent record of my digital care to be available. Letting all that data fall through the cracks just doesn’t make sense.

Providers: Today’s Telehealth Tech Won’t Work For Future

Posted on July 5, 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.

A new study has concluded that while healthcare leaders see major opportunities for growing their use of telehealth technologies, they don’t think existing technologies will meet the demands of the future.

For the study, which was sponsored by Modern Healthcare and Avizia, researchers surveyed more than 280 healthcare executives to see how they saw the future of telehealth programs and delivery models. For the purposes of the study, they defined telehealth as encompassing a broad mix of healthcare approaches, including consumer-focused wireless applications, remote monitoring of vital signs, patient consultations via videoconferencing, transmission of still images, use of patient portals and continuing medical education.

The survey found that 63% of those surveyed used telehealth in some way. Most respondents were with hospitals (72%), followed by physician groups and clinics (52%) and a grab bag of other provider organizations ambulatory centers in nursing homes (36%).

The most common service lines in use by the surveyed providers included stroke (44%), behavioral health (39%), staff education and training (28%) and primary care (22%). Other practice areas mentioned, such as neurology, pediatrics and cardiology, came in at less than 20%. Meanwhile, when it comes to telehealth applications they wish they had, patient education and training was at the top list at 34%, followed by remote patient home monitoring (30%) and primary care (27%). Other areas on providers’ wish lists include cardiology (25%), behavioral health (24%), urgent care (20%) and wound care (also 20%).

Not only did surveyed providers hope to see telemedicine extended into other service lines, they’d like to see the technologies used for telehealth delivery change as well. Currently, much telehealth is delivered via a computer workstation on wheels or ‘tablet on a stick.’  But providers would like to see technology platforms advance.

For example, 38% would like to see video visits with clinicians supported by their EMR, 25% would like to offer telemedical appointments through a secure messaging app used by providers and 23% would like to deliver telemedical services through personal mobile devices such as tablets and smartphones.

But what’s driving providers’ interest in telehealth? For most (almost 75%) consumer demand is a key reason for pursuing such programs. Large numbers of respondents also cited the ability to improve clinical outcomes (66%) and value-based care (62%).

That being said, to roll out telehealth in force, many respondents (50%) said they’d have to make investments in telehealth technology and infrastructure. And nearly the same number (48%) said they’d have to address reimbursement issues as well. (It’s worth mentioning, however, that at the time the study was being written, the number of states requiring reimbursement parity between telehealth and traditional care had already risen to 29.)

This study underscores some important reasons why providers are embracing telehealth strategies. Another one pointed out by my colleague John Lynn is that telehealth can encourage early interventions which might otherwise be delayed because patients don’t want to bother with an in-person visit to the doctor’s office. Over time, I suspect additional benefits will emerge as well. This is such an exciting use of technology!

Telemedicine Coverage and Payment Parity

Posted on June 14, 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 recently heard Nathaniel Lacktman from Foley & Lardner LLP give the best presentation on telehealth I’d ever seen. I’d never heard someone so familiar with the challenges and laws associated with telehealth. In fact, with that in mind, I’m hoping to get him on a Healthcare Scene interview in the future.

One of the key things he said about telehealth is the need for: Coverage and Payment Parity.

I thought it was the perfect synopsis of what’s holding telehealth back. If we had telehealth insurance coverage and payment parity, then telehealth services would go through the roof! Although, it’s worth pointing out that you need both of these things.

One problem I’ve seen with many telehealth initiatives is that a telehealth visit is treated like a second class citizen. Why would a doctor want to do a telehealth visit if they aren’t getting paid the same? This is why payment parity is so important and hasn’t been addressed nearly enough in the telehealth laws that have been passed.

The real question is why shouldn’t a telehealth visit be paid the same? If you’re able to document and code the telehealth visit to the same level as you would an in-person visit, why would we pay a doctor less for doing the same type of visit, just virtually?

There are a few states where they’re making progress with coverage and payment parity. It’s too bad we don’t have a national effort to get this in place. Telehealth is not the end all be all. It won’t replace all in-person visits to your PCP, but it could replace a lot of them. Plus, it will encourage a lot of early interventions that would have been delayed because a patient didn’t want to go to the hassle of an in-person visit to the doctor’s office.

3 Benefits of Virtual Care Infographic

Posted on May 20, 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.

The people at Carena have put out an infographic that looks at 3 ways virtual clinics are improving care quality. I’d like to see better sources since most of the sources for the data in this infographic come from virtual care providers. However, it’s also interesting to look at the case virtual care providers are making so we can test if they’re living up to those ideals.

What do you think of these 3 benefits? Are they achievable through virtual care?

3 Ways Virtual Clinicals are Improving Care Quality

Telemedicine Rollouts Are Becoming More Mature

Posted on May 19, 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.

For a long time, telemedicine was a big idea whose time had not come. Initially, the biggest obstacles providing video consults was consumer bandwidth. Once we got to the point that most consumers had high-speed Internet connections, proponents struggled to get commercial insurers and federal payers to reimburse providers for telemedicine. We also had to deal with medical licensure which most companies are dealing with by licensing their providers across multiple states (Crazy, but workable). Now, with both categories of payers increasingly paying for such services and patients increasingly willing to pay out of pocket, providers need to figure out which telemedicine business models work.

If I had to guess, I would’ve told you that very few providers have reached the stage where they had developed a fairly mature telemedicine service line. But data gathered by researchers increasingly suggests that I am wrong.

In fact, a new study by KPMG found that about 25% of healthcare providers have implemented telehealth and telemedicine programs which have achieved financial stability and improved efficiency. It should be noted that the study only involved 120 participants who reported they work for providers. Still, I think the results are worth a look.

Despite the success enjoyed by some providers with telemedicine programs, a fair number of providers are at a more tentative stage. Thirty-five percent of respondents said they didn’t have a virtual care program in place, and 40% had said they had just implemented a program. But what stands out to me is that the majority of respondents had telehealth initiatives underway.

Twenty-nine percent of survey respondents said that one of the key reasons they were in favor of telehealth programs is that they felt it would increase patient volumes and loyalty. Other providers have different priorities. Seventeen percent felt that implement the telehealth with help of care coordination for high-risk patients, another 17% said they wanted to reduce costs for access to medical specialists, and 13% said they were interested in telemedicine due to consumer demand.

When asked what challenges they faced in implementing telehealth, 19% said they had other tech priorities, 18% were unsure they had a sustainable business model, and 18% said their organization wasn’t ready to roll out a new technology.

As I see it, telemedicine is set up to get out of neutral and pull out of the gate. We’re probably past the early adopter stage, and as soon as influential players perfect their strategy for telemedicine rollouts, their industry peers are sure to follow.

What remains to be seen is whether providers see telemedicine as integral to the care they deliver, or primarily as a gateway to their brick-and-mortar services. I’d argue that telemedicine services should be positioned as a supplement to live care, a step towards greater continuity of care and the logical next step in going digital. Those who see it as a sideline, or a loyalty builder with no inherent clinical value, are unlikely to benefit as much from a telemedicine rollout.

Admittedly, integrating virtual care poses a host of new technical and administrative problems. But like it or not, telemedicine is important to the future of healthcare. Hold it is at arms’ length to your peril.