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!

Could On Demand Medical Services Be Good for Doctors?

Posted on August 19, 2015 I Written By

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Integrating Devices, Patients, and Doctors: HealthTap Releases an App for the Apple Watch

Posted on April 16, 2015 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 (http://radar.oreilly.com/) 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.

Doesn’t HealthTap want the same thing as all the other web sites and apps crowding into the health space? Immediate and intimate connections between doctors and patients. Accurate information at your fingertips, tailored to your particular condition. Software that supports your goals where automation makes sense and gets out of the way at other times.

HealthTap pursues this common vision in its own fashion. This week, its announcement of an app for Apple Watch pulls together the foundations HealthTap has been building and cleverly uses the visceral experience that the device on your wrist offers to meet more of the goals of modern, integrated health care.
Read more..

Connected Health takes the stage at Partners symposium

Posted on October 28, 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 (http://radar.oreilly.com/) 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.

The Connected Health Symposium is not one of the larger health conferences, but it is one of the most respected. I met a number of leaders in health IT there who praised it for the conference scope and seriousness, and told me they were glad to see me there covering it.

Many issues in health IT and patient empowerment, however, are best learned not from any conference, but from the tussles and tears of everyday life. Let us hope no reader has undergone the personal experience of having her reports dismissed and of being misdiagnosed, as did several speakers at the conference.

But many of us have spent three hours on the phone with an insurer to approve a single medication shipment, or fought in vain to get the medical records that US law requires providers to give us, or watched our doctor fumble with his new EHR for fifteen minutes while trying to stay engaged with us.

It’s encouraging to see the progress of patient engagement at Massachusetts General Hospital, as reported by Gregg Meyer of Partners Healthcare System (the funder behind the Center for Connected Health that put on the symposium). But can small and rural providers struggling with cash flow join the movement?

These institutions would be comfortable using swyMe, a HIPAA-compliant telemedicine system that allows doctors to interview patients over everyday mobile devices and perhaps avoid a trip to the hospital. swyMe can also transmit audio and video from devices that EMTs can connect up to the phone. (Not many devices with the necessary hardware connectors are on the market, though.)

swyMe was one of the “innovators” highlighted in a conference demo. Jeffrey Urdan, COO of the company that makes it, told me later that he felt “low tech” compared to some of the fancy, expensive devices at the demo. But most of the providers in the US, and elsewhere, are more on swyMe’s level than theirs.

Another hurdle to forming connected teams that serve the patient is interoperability. A sign of the distance we have yet to come can be found in iCancerHealth, a service for cancer patients offered by Medocity. A free app is available to individuals, but the main integrated service is offered through providers or pharma companies doing clinical trials. The service includes such conveniences as medication tracking, treatment plans, a diary, audio and video connections to their physician, and even a way to form communities with other patients.

This is great, but iCancerHealth works with data from only one provider. This can be a limitation even for the few months that cancer patients typically use the service, and could certainly be a problem if the service were expanded to a broader range of illnesses. Similarly, there’s no seamless way to share data with patient communities; it has to be re-entered manually. Enhancing the service to encompass multiple providers would probably require wider adoption of electronic health record standards.

As an example of finding a creative solution to devices that lack interoperability, Mobile Diagnostic Services demonstrated an app that could photograph the display panel of a device, interpret the bars on the display to create digital data, and transmit the values to a health record in the cloud. This is a process well-known to computer programmers from thirty years ago as “screen scraping,” now relevant to the health industry.

One of the strengths of the Connected Health Symposium was the platform it gave to patients and doctors to express their frustrations with the old way of delivering care and the slow pace of change. The testimony could come from entrepreneur Robin Farmanfarmaian, who lost three organs unnecessarily to misdiagnosis, or Sarah Krüg, president of the Society for Participatory Medicine, whose parents died from diseases that might have been caught if the doctors had paid attention to their reported symptoms.

Or the testimony could come from Greg LaGana and Barry Levy, MDs who write and perform in a musical review called Damaged Care that skewers everything about doctors behavior as well as the legal and financial environment in which they have to operate.

Anna MCollister-Slipp, co-founder of Galileo Analytics and a sufferer from type 1 diabetes, regaled us with the dozens of vital sign measurements, treatments, and other details she has to manage on her own manually. She still get lab reports only because her doctor sends them via email (using a private account, so that HIPAA zealots don’t discipline him–the rights and wishes of the patient are supposed to be paramount). Like other conference attendees, though, she reported progress in tools and patient-oriented culture.

Less was heard at the symposium from other sectors of the medical field, but we did hear from Michael of Aetna, Jonathan Bush of athenahealth, and Beverley Bryant of England’s National Health Service. The panel on which Bryant spoke proved to be discouraging. Many of us in the US like to think that other developed nations with their universal health care systems have solved the coordination and interoperability messes that the US is in. But the panelists expressed many familiar frustrations.

I plan to return to the Connected Health Symposium next year, and I’m sure each year will bring a bit of progress toward better communication among staff, better use of patient data, and better integration of tools. The mood at the show was largely positive. But a little probing turned up barriers in the way of the healthcare system we all want.

4 Things Your Patient Portal Should Include

Posted on May 30, 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.

Karen Gallagher Grant has a great blog post up on the MRA Health Information Services blog that talks about the ideal patient portal. She breaks it down into 4 things that a patient portal should provide:

  1. Information that is meaningful
  2. Easy access for patient review for data integrity
  3. Dashboard information about prescriptions that combine pharmacy information and clinical information
  4. Appointment scheduling

And 5 things she’d ideally like to see in a patient portal:

  1. Details about my next appointment
  2. Wellness tips
  3. Access to home health through telemedicine solutions
  4. Customized decision support via nationwide clinical data repositories
  5. Patient exchange of information

I found these lists really interesting, but I asked myself “Is this what we really want in a patient portal?

I think the number thing people want in a patient portal is access to a provider. Sure, it’s great to be able to access your paper records, your prescription history, your appointment list, and even some health information. Although the health information is never going to be as good as what Dr. Google can provide.

I was surprised that almost nothing (except the Telemedicine solution) talks about the patient portal being used to connect with the doctor. This is the most compelling reason for a patient to use the portal. They want to connect with someone. Notice the emphasis on the one, that means with an actual person. Yes, in many cases this can be the front desk, the biller, or the nurse, but patient portals see the most value when the portal is a way for a patient to connect to a person. Then, the rest of the resources become more valuable and used as well.

The problem is that most of the patient portals out there don’t do a good job connecting people. Although, maybe I’m just biased because of the Physia Connect messaging product we’ve developed and the docBeat messaging company I advise. However, seeing these two products helps me realize how beneficial it can be to make healthcare communication simple. Once we do that, it opens up whole new windows of opportunities.

Telemedicine Not Connecting With EMRs

Posted on June 5, 2013 I Written By

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

As smartphones and tablets become a standard part of healthcare as we know it, telemedicine is gaining a new foothold in medicine too.  In some cases, we’re talking off the cuff transactions in which, say, a patient e-mails a photo to a doctor who can then diagnose and prescribe.  But telemedicine is also taking root on an institutional level, with health systems rolling out projects across the country.

The problem is, however, that these telemedicine projects simply don’t integrate with EMRs, according to an article in SearchHealthIT.  The piece’s writer, Don Fluckinger, recently attended American Telemedicine Association’s 2013 Annual International Meeting & Trade Show, where complaints were rife that EMRs and telemedicine don’t interoperate.

I really liked this summary of the situation one executive shared with Fluckinger:

For now, the executive (who asked not to be named) said, telemedicine providers need to keep away from the “blast radius” of EHR vendor conflicts, lest their budgets get consumed by building interfaces to the various non-interoperable EHR systems.

Not only are health systems struggling to integrate telemedicine data with EMRs, telemedicine providers are in a bit of a difficult spot too, Fluckinger notes. As an example, he tells the tale of Seattle-based Carena Inc., a provider of primary care services to patients via phone and video, which provides after-hours support to physicians at Franciscan Health System in Tacoma, Wash.

Carena itself has an EMR which has the ability to share searchable PDF documents for use in patient EMRs, but Franciscan’s seven hospitals are bringing up an Epic implementation which can’t support this trick.  Top execs at Franciscan want to connect Carena’s data to Epic, but that won’t happen right away.  So Franciscan may end up setting up Carena’s after-hours service within Franciscan’s Epic installation to work around the interoperability problem.

This is just one sample of the interoperability obstacles healthcare organizations are encountering when they set out to create a telemedicine service. As telemedicine explodes with the use of portable devices, I can only imagine that this will impose one more pressure on vendors to conquer compatibility problems. (But sadly, I doubt it will force any real changes in the near future.)

Keys to Successful Telehealth

Posted on April 4, 2013 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.

Rob Sobie wrote a nice post on the Point of Care Corner blog about the 4 Keys to a Successful Telemedicine Launch. These are the 4 keys he offers:

  • Reliability
  • Ease of Use
  • Mobility
  • Flexibility

Most of the ideas are pretty self explanatory, but check out the full post for his explanation of each item. I agree with each item, but I think there are a number of other things that are needed for successful telehealth as well.

Multiple Application Support – While we’d love to have the entire Telehealth experience on one application, it’s unlikely to ever happen. While doing a Telehealth visit, the doctor is going to need access to a number of other applications such as their EHR. This is where the dual monitor Telehealth setup is so beneficial. They can have the Telehealth visit up on one screen while they browse their EHR or other health application on the other screen.

Telehealth Reimbursement – I recently asked an insurance company executive about Telehealth and if they’re really start reimbursing for it. He said they were happy to reimburse a Telehealth visit, as long as they had a way to know that there was indeed a visit that justified payment. You can see where they’re afraid of Telehealth reimbursement fraud. His solution to that was reimbursing Telehealth systems that were their trusted partners. With this in mind, you want to make sure whatever Telehealth solution you use is trusted by the payers so that you get paid.

Device Connectivity – One of the challenges of Telehealth is the ability to get device information from a patient. There’s a new wave of Telehealth technologies that are incorporating medical devices into the Telehealth experience. Integrating Telehealth and devices really takes Telehealth to the next level and since the cost of devices is dropping dramatically we’re going to see more and more integrations. Just be careful because many Telehealth platforms won’t have the forethought to do this type of device integration.

I’m sure there are other keys to Telehealth success. I’d love to hear your additional ideas in the comments. Where are you seeing it implemented? What’s been most successful?

I believe the Telehealth market is set to grow like it’s never grown before. The technology and infastructure are in place for it to become a reality. Things like shared savings will drive adoption of Telehealth as a way to lower costs. The article linked above says that Telehealth is projected to be a $27.3 billion industry in 2016. I’m personally looking forward to the shift to Telehealth.

New Telemedicine Stats Bode Well for EMRs

Posted on January 24, 2013 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.

With the recent projection that telemedicine will reach 1.8 million patients worldwide by 2017, I think it’s fitting to continue the discussion I started last week pertaining to the current ROI of EMRs. While current utilization based on scrambling to meet Meaningful Use for federal incentives may not be all it’s cracked up to be, I do believe EMRs will ultimately provide a fiscally sensible return on investment, especially if telemedicine technology becomes part of any given vendor’s standard EMR package/offering.

I decided to bounce the idea off Sande Olson, a Twitter friend (@sandeolson) and Senior Healthcare Consultant at Olson & Associates. Being a healthcare professional that has worked in telemedicine long enough to witness its evolution, Olson seemed a fitting expert to speak with on the subject of EMRs, telemedicine and the bottom line.

How have you seen the telemedicine landscape change over the last few years?
Olson: Until recently, telemedicine has been a niche industry. Early users recognized the potential value of telemedicine, but successful business models (showing a viable ROI) didn’t exist, and technology was costly. The challenge was reimbursement; who was going to pay for it?  Without reimbursement or a viable business model, telemedicine could not go viral.

The telemedicine landscape began to change with advancements in information and communication technology on the heels of The Affordable Care Act. The push for healthcare reform provided financial incentives to “nudge” healthcare providers towards EMRs. Reform mandates and the availability of government funding created new opportunities around technology. Telemedicine, a valuable if fledgling technology, became a buzzword around technology and healthcare reform.

Industries saw business opportunity as solution providers for an “industry poised to undergo radical change.” Entrepreneurs, inventors, investors and healthcare visionaries followed new and sometimes disruptive ideas. Care delivery tools moved from PCs to tablets, along with mobile apps.

The confluence of all these influencers is creating a potential tipping point for telemedicine; it only needs wider reimbursement and licensure portability. Our aging population and forecasted physician shortage will help continue to thrust telemedicine into the forefront of change. Telemedicine is already being used successfully; reimbursement is still a challenge. But, healthcare innovation is just getting started. We have challenging times ahead, but this is also the most exciting time to be in healthcare ever!

Do you think there’s been a trickle down effect from the Affordable Care Act in terms of increasing interest in and adoption of telemedicine?
There has been a trickle-down effect on telemedicine. The Affordable Care Act has increased interest in exploring the possibilities of telemedicine outside of previous niche markets. As I noted, it is the confluence of influencers around healthcare reform that continues to push the tipping point for telemedicine.

Do you think EMRs will prove their worth in the coming years by better facilitating more novel methods of healthcare delivery, like telemedicine, or integrating with consumer-friendly mobile health apps?
Will EMRs prove their worth? Well, data silos do not support healthcare’s philosophy of providing a continuum of care from cradle to grave. And, you cannot provide care without a medical record; you can’t measure outcomes. So, interoperability– across all silos– is critical to successful healthcare reform. EMRs today may fall a bit short, but they will create efficiencies and improve patient outcomes. They will get simpler to use. EMRs will assist in improving reimbursement and revenue cycles. And, future EMRs will push and pull data from HIEs, PHRs and mobile health apps; we are just not there yet.

Finding the Silver Lining in EMR Investment

Posted on January 17, 2013 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.

It’s been a week of doom and gloom news as far as healthcare IT goes. Apparently, providers aren’t seeing the ROI they’d hoped for from EMRs, and as I’m sure you’ve heard, RAND researchers have found that, despite predictions to the contrary some years ago, healthcare IT does not actually save money. Couple these with the 2% hike in social security tax everyone is seeing in their paychecks this month, and it’s easy to understand why the healthcare community might be a bit grumpy.

I’m here to propose that providers try to look on the bright side when it comes to recouping some of that EMR investment. Telemedicine programs may hold a ray of hope for providers looking to find additional value in their EMR. These programs, in my opinion, have gained a strong foothold in the healthcare industry – providers, payers and patients are certainly showing interest, especially given the industry’s stance on readmissions these days; the government seems supportive; and vendors are always eager to provide more product to willing customers.

Here are just a few of the telemedicine highlights I’ve come across in the last few weeks:

* A proposed bill in the House backed by the American Telemedicine Association – The Telehealth Promotion act of 2012 – would potentially expand telemedicine programs in Medicaid and Medicare programs, federal health employee plans, the VA, and others

* The federal government has set aside $1.9 million as part of its Telehealth Resource Center Grant Program in the hopes of expanding its current network of 14 centers to 20.

* The FCC will offer qualifying healthcare facilities up to $400 million annually as part of its Healthcare Connect Fund, which seeks to accelerate development of broadband networks in rural areas.

My thinking is that we’ll see these telemedicine initiatives grow as physicians become more scarce (at least in non-metropolitan areas), coordinated care programs increase, payers look to play a part in wellness programs and preventing readmissions, and everyone continues to look for ways to drive down costs. And from what I’ve read, I don’t see how a hospital or physician’s practice can successfully or meaningfully (pardon the pun) participate in a telemedicine program without an EMR.

Which brings us back to the bad news above. EMRs in recent years have mostly been designed with Meaningful Use measures in mind, not telemedicine, and so might not be adequately equipped to integrate data from teleconsultations. This is where vendors come in. If BCC Research’s prediction of the telehospital market growing to $17.6 billion in 2016 is true, they’ll come in droves. They’ll get to that value by working with hospitals and physicians that want to further their telemedicine programs, and will likely be looking for ways to increase the functionality of their EMRs as a result.

As many of us head to HIMSS in a few weeks, it will be interesting to see if providers really are as disgruntled with HIT expenditures as the media would have us believe, and how much play is being given to telemedicine in the educational sessions and on the show floor.

What is your opinion? Do you currently participate in any sort of telehealth program? Do they have the ability to make EMRs more useful? Please share your thoughts in the comments below.

Doctors Dump Small Practices To Join Large Providers

Posted on November 5, 2012 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.

Intimidated, in part, by the health IT expenses they’re expected to bear, doctors are leaving private practices to seek jobs with large healthcare organizations, according to a new study by Accenture.  The need to purchase EMRs certainly isn’t the only reason doctors are jumping ship, but it is one of the most important reasons, the firm found.

Accenture interviewed 204 doctors in May, drawing from an even mix of primary care docs and specialists across equally-divided sections of the U.S.

The study results projected that only 36 percent of doctors will remain part of an independent practice by 2013, down from 39 percent this year and 57 percent in 2000. (I knew doctors were streaming into integrated health systems but that blew my mind.)

According to the Accenture survey, 53 percent of doctors responding said that EMRs requirements drove them to look for employment with big health organizations.

Doctors are also spending big on updated practice management, billing and scheduling applications. My guess is that in some cases mobile health spending is beginning to rear its head as well, even in smaller practices. After all, while doctors generally bring their own devices to the party, practices may see it as in their interest to own mobile gear and applications as they become more central to care delivery.

On the other hand, health IT may also be the saving grace for some. Doctors who do remain independent are likely to offer telemedicine or online consultations to help keep their profits at an acceptable level, researchers found.

Readers, I doubt any of you are too surprised by Accenture’s findings. I doubt public policy planners are either.

Given these realities, I’ve always wondered why no one has proposed re-structuring Meaningful Use for smaller organizations to account for the disproportionate effect such investments have on the smallest practices, say those with five doctors or less.  Incentives are all well and good, but if we don’t want to see independent practice all but wiped out, perhaps some up-front grants are in order.

Verizon’s Take: How HIT Can Transform Healthcare

Posted on July 27, 2012 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.

Every day, readers here wrestle with how health IT can improve patient care and remove costs from our monstrously bloated system.  And even though we share many of the same conclusions, the struggle is likely to continue for quite some time.

That being said, it never hurts to find out what big, super-mega-deep-pocketed giants of IT and telecom have to say on HIT trends, if only as an exercise. Not only does it tip their hand a bit as to where they’re headed, it adds more fuel to the fire. Here’s some trends Verizon’s big thinkers see as leading to care transformation:

  • Telemedicine:  An also-ran for decades, has telemedicine finally come into its own with abundant cheap bandwidth and relatively cheap mobile devices available?  Verizon says yes. The big V says telemedicine can suck $31 billion in annual costs out of the system.
  • mHealth:  This is a obvious one. But for the record, Verizon agrees that mHealth’s flexibility — with 10K health apps in the iTunes store alone — can do much to manage chronic disease, monitor patients and suchlike.
  •  Fraud detection becomes fraud prevention:  Interesting. Verizon, which, naturally, has a fraud prevention solution, argues that today’s claim analysis can catch fraud and abuse well before the claims are paid. Is Verizon thumping its chest or can this realistically be done folks?
  • Cloud computing spreads patient information: Verizon’s honchos say cloud computing will not only make healthcare businesses more efficient, it will make sharing of patient EMRs easier. (Methinks there may be a technical problem there, though; don’t you still need to be using compatible subsets of, say, HL7 to communicate, cloud or no? And isn’t that the problem overall?)

The rest of their big 10, well, you read and tell me whether you think they’re worth noting. If this represents the cutting edge of Verizon’s thinking, I’m not impressed. But I’ll give a call to the Verizon press contact and see if I can get more info. I’ll keep you posted.