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!

CMS Opens Door to Possible MACRA Delay

Posted on July 15, 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.

In related news to yesterday’s meaningful use REBOOT relief legislation, Andy Slavitt, Acting Administrator of CMS, testified about MACRA before the Senate Finance committee. In his hearing, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the committee commented “Physicians will only have about two months before the program goes live. This seems to be a legitimate concern. Considering the MACRA law does give CMS flexibility as to the start of the physician reporting period, what options is CMS considering to make sure this program gets started on the right foot?”

In response to this Slavitt responded that CMS was open to options such as postponing implementation and establishing shorter reporting periods (both of which were widely requested during the MACRA comment period).

Both Slavitt and Senator Hatch talked about the importance of the MACRA legislation not killing the small practice physician. A delay and shorter reporting periods would be a great start. However, so many small practices have been burned by meaningful use that it might be too late for MACRA. It seems that MACRA is dead on arrival for many physicians based on historical experience with meaningful use and certified EHR. I’m not sure CMS could do anything with MACRA to really stem the tide.

This is reflected in a survey that Deloitte recently did to assess physician’s awareness of MACRA. The survey found that 21% of self-employed physicians and those in independently owned medical practices report they are somewhat familiar with MACRA versus 9% of employed physicians surveyed. 32% of physicians only recognize the name.

Basically, physicians barely even know about MACRA. Although, I’m quite sure if we asked them if they liked the MACRA government legislation they’d all say an emphatic No! (Kind of reminds me of Jimmy Kimmel’s Life Witness News) It’s too bad, because if doctors have already been participating in PQRS and Meaningful Use, MACRA won’t be that bad. Of course, the same can’t be said for those that haven’t participated in either program.

During the hearing mentioned above, Senator Hatch highlighted Andy Slavitt’s comment that “the focus must be focused on patients and not measurement.” Plus, he suggested that more needed to be done in this regard. Andy Slavitt responded that they need to reduce the documentation requirements so doctors can spend more time with patients.

Take those comments for what their worth. They’re hearing the right messages and I think they’re heading the right direction. Let’s hope we see that in the MACRA final rule.

Meaningful Use Relief from New REBOOT Legislation

Posted on July 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.

John Thune has introduced a new legislation called the Electronic Health Record (EHR) Regulatory Relief Act (S. 3173) to provide some relief to hospitals and eligible providers participating in the Medicare EHR Incentive Program (Better known as Meaningful Use). You can find the legislative text (ie. legalese) and the summary document (ie. readable).

This legislation was written by the “REBOOT members” John Thune (S.D.), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Mike Enzi (Wyo.), Pat Roberts (Kan.), Richard Burr (N.C.) and Bill Cassidy (La.) who previously released a white paper on their Health IT concerns.

Here’s a short summary of what the legislation would do:

  • Codify the 90-day reporting period for meaningful use
  • Remove the All-or-Nothing approach to Meaningful Use and set a 70% threshold
  • Increased flexibility in Hardship Exceptions

If I’m reading the legalese right, it also opens the door for the HHS Secretary to allow a 90 day reporting period for MIPS as well. It’s interesting that it wasn’t highlighted in the summary document.

Regardless, these are all changes that will be welcomed by the healthcare community. What I like most about these proposals is that I don’t think any of them will impact how a hospital or doctor was previously planning to use their EHR. At least it won’t impact care in any sort of adverse way. Doctors will still be using an EHR. However, it will provide some reporting relief and will open the door of meaningful use to organizations that wouldn’t have been able to comply previously. Of course, I’m sure there are a few people out there that will settle for nothing less than a repeal of meaningful use completely. I predict that such a thing will never happen.

What do you think of this proposed legislation? Are they enough? Should they be providing more relief? Will this change your meaningful use plans?

Smartphone Strategy May Cause Health Data Interoperability Problems

Posted on July 13, 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.

Tonight I was out at my local electronics store looking over the latest in Samsung gear. While chatting with the salesman behind the Samsung counter, I picked up a wireless charging pad and asked what it cost. “Don’t bother,” he said. “That won’t work with your phone,” which happens to be a none-too-old Galaxy Note Edge.

New batteries? Same problem. I strongly suspect that the lovely VR gear, headset and smart watch on display suffer from the same limitations. And heaven knows that these devices wouldn’t work with products produced by other Android-compatible manufacturers.

Now, I am no communications industry expert. So I won’t hold forth on whether Samsung’s decision to create a network of proprietary devices is a smart strategy or not. Intuitively, my guess is that the giant manufacturer is making a mistake in trying to lock in customers this way, but I don’t have data upon which to base that claim.

But when it comes to health IT, it’s clearer to me how things might play out. And I’d argue that Samsung’s emerging strategy should generate concern among providers.

Interconnecting proprietary tech is far from new. In fact, Apple long ago won the battle to force its users onto its proprietary platform, and AFAIK, the computing and media giant has never back down from the stance, including where its telecommunications gear was concerned. But at least until recently, we’ve had interoperable Android phones and tablets to work with, which ran on a freely-available operating system that played nicely with other devices running the system.

But with the device maker moving away from “works on Android” to “works on Samsung Android devices,” the chain of interoperability is broken. This could lead to shifts in the telecommunications industry which don’t bode well for healthcare users.

On the surface, we are only looking at relatively petty IT concerns for HIT leaders, such as seeing to it that the Samsung user gets a Samsung charging pad. Like enterprises in other industries, health leaders will adapt to this inconvenience. But the problems don’t stop there.

If telecommunications manufacturers follow Samsung’s lead, and decide to add proprietary quirks to their devices, providers may pay the price. Depending on how these newly-proprietary devices are configured, and how they must be supported, it could become much harder to dig data out of them on an ongoing basis. That’s the last thing we need right now.

Not only that, what happens if proprietary differences between Android phones and tablets make it harder for them to communicate with medical devices, a tantalizing possibility which is just beginning to present itself? While we don’t yet know how devices such as infusion pumps to interoperate with mobile devices, nor the latter two with desktops, wearables and servers, we don’t want to close off options.

Bottom line, I may be crying wolf too soon, but these developments alarm me. I’d hate to see additional walls go up between various data sources, particularly before we even know what we can do with them.

We Still Need More Female Leaders In Health Tech

Posted on July 12, 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.

Despite the looming presence of Epic’s Judy Faulkner, women are still underrepresented in the boardrooms of health tech companies. This point was underscored a recent article in Healthegy News, which offered a bracing reminder of the need for better gender balance in the industry, especially at the top.

As the article points out, women are grossly underrepresented within digital health, arguably the least traditional niche within the business, running only 6% of these ventures. I don’t know what the stats are for health IT at large but I can’t imagine the ratio is any better (and it may be worse).

And as writer Kirti Patel notes, it’s probably not a coincidence that only 6% of venture capitalists are female. Patel cites stats suggesting that VC teams with women on them are twice as likely to invest in management teams that include women, and three times more likely to invest in companies with female CEOs.

Of course, Faulkner isn’t the only woman to hold a powerful position in the health IT world. Female influencers and leaders in U.S. healthcare industry range from Nancy Ham, CEO of Medicity to Carla Kriwet, CEO of Patient Care and Monitoring Solutions at Phillips to AHIMA CEO Lynne Thomas Gordon. Other standouts include Deborah DiSanzo, General Manager of IBM Watson Health and of course Karen DeSalvo, Acting Assistant Secretary for Health at ONC. But numbers-wise, women with top roles in health IT are still in the minority.

To be fair, the lack of women in the health IT boardroom reflects the larger technology industry. Research suggests that only 25% of professional computing physicians in the 2015 U.S. workforce were held by women, and that just 17% of Fortune 500 CIO positions were held by women that year. This dovetails with other trends, such as the fact that only 15% of 2014 computer science bachelor’s degree recipients at major research universities were women.

Still, even given these statistics, I’d argue that we all know incredible women in health IT who might be capable of far more, including top leadership roles, if they had the opportunity. And while I’m not suggesting that conscious discrimination is going on, gender bias pops up in ways that people don’t always recognize.

The problem is so pervasive, in part, because it extends beyond technical positions to healthcare as a whole. According to statistics from a couple of years ago, women made up 80% of the healthcare workforce, but just 40% of the leadership roles in the industry.

Health IT faces too many challenges to pass over anyone who might have good solutions to offer. Health IT organizations should do everything they can to be sure that unseen gender bias in preventing them from moving the industry forward.

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.

When Will Doctors Teach Patients to Not Come In for a Visit?

Posted on July 8, 2016 I Written By

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

I’ve been thinking and writing a lot about the shifting medical reimbursement world. Technology is going to be an enabler for much of this shift and so understanding the changes are going to be key to understanding what technology will be needed to facilitate these changes.

As part of this thinking, I recently wondered when a doctor will start teaching patients when they shouldn’t come for a visit. I realize this is a bit of a tricky space since our current liability laws scare doctors from providing this kind of information. Dealing with these liability laws will be key to this shift, but if we want to lower the cost of healthcare and improve the patient experience, we need to make this change.

Turns out, we already do this in healthcare, but it’s not so formal. Plus, it’s usually the older, more experienced doctors that do it (from my experience). I think the older doctors do this for a couple unique reasons. First, hey’ve had years of experience and so the patterns of when someone should go to a doctor or not are very clear to them since they’ve seen it over and over for 30 years. Second, they aren’t as worried about patients returning in the future, so they’re not afraid to educate the patient on when they shouldn’t come for a visit. Third, these older doctors are likely tired of seeing patients for something that’s totally unnecessary.

We’ve had an older pediatrician that did this for us and our children and we loved the experience. In some ways, I think he just liked to hear himself talk and we loved it as parents. There’s no handbook you get as a parent and so we wanted to learn as much as possible about how to take care of our child. Since we had 4 children, we were able to use that knowledge pretty regularly, but even so, it was hard to remember 6 months or a year later what the doctor had told us. It was all very clear when he explained it in the exam room, but remember when to take them to the doctor and when to wait it out was often forgotten 6 months later.

The decision of when to go to the doctor and when not to go to the doctor is always a challenge and I always forget when I should and when I shouldn’t. Far too often my wife and I error on the side of caution and take our kids in for needless visits. We don’t want to be irresponsible parents and not take them. With my own personal health, I likely wait too long to go to the doctor because I’m busy or I can just tough it out when a quick visit to the doctor would make my life better and avoid something worse.

I guess this is why we see so many health decision tree apps out there. They try and take the collective knowledge and help you as a potential patient know if you should go in for the doctor visit or not. However, most of them are really afraid to make a hard conclusion that you shouldn’t go to the doctor. Instead, they all end with some sort of disclaimer about not providing medical advice and that you should consult a healthcare professional for medical advice. I’m not sure how we overcome the liability of really offering a recommendation that doesn’t need the disclaimer. Although, this is exactly what many of us need.

What do you see as the pathway forward? Will the consumer health apps be our guide as patients? Will doctors start spending time educating us on when to come for an office visit and when not to come? Will they want to do this thanks to ACOs and other value based reimbursement? Will doctors leverage the consumer health apps or a PHR tool to help their patients with retention of the concepts they teach them about when to come in for a visit?

Duplicate Work in Healthcare

Posted on July 7, 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.

One of my favorite stories is the time we implemented an EHR in the UNLV health center. At first, we decided to do a phased implementation in order to replace some legacy bubble sheet software that was no longer being supported. So, we just implemented enough of the PM system to handle the patient scheduling and to capture the charge data in the EHR. Of course, we were also a bit afraid if we implemented the full EHR, the staff would revolt.

A week or two into the partial implementation, something really amazing happened. First, some of the providers started to document the patient visit in the EHR even though they still had to document it in the paper chart as well. I asked them why and they just said, “It was there and I thought it would be good to have my info in the note.”

Second, some of the providers started asking me why they had to do duplicate work. They really hated having to enter the diagnosis and charge codes into the EHR and then document them again in the paper chart. Plus, they followed up that they could see the other section of the notes in the EHR and “why couldn’t they just use that instead of the paper chart.” The reality was: Doctors hated doing duplicate work!

Once I heard this, I ran to the director of the Health Center’s office and told her what they’d said. We both agreed, why wait? A week or so later we’d moved from paper charts to a full EHR implementation.

There were a lot of lessons learned from this experience. First, it’s amazing how people want to use the new system when they can see that it’s possible. They basically drove the EHR implementation forward. However, what was interesting to me was the power of “duplicate work.” We all hate it and it was a driving force for using technology the right way.

While we used the concept of duplicate work for good, there’s a lot of duplicate work in healthcare which drives patients and healthcare staff totally nuts. However, we don’t do anything about it. This was highlighted perfectly in a recent e-Patient update from Anne Zieger. Go and read her full account. We’ll be here when you get back.

What’s astounding from her account is how even though doctors hate duplicate work for themselves, we’re happy to let our patients and support staff do duplicate work all the time. I’ve seen some form of Anne’s experience over and over. Technology can and should solve this. This is true across multiple clinics but is absolutely true in the same clinic where you handle the workflow.

I get that there are reasons why you may want a staff to verify a patient’s record to ensure it was entered correctly and is complete. That’s absolutely understandable and would not have likely been an issue for Anne. However, to disregard the work a patient had done on their intake paperwork is messed up. Let alone not tapping into a patient’s history that may have been entered at another clinic owned by the same organization or collecting/updating the info electronically through a patient portal. I’m reminded of @cancergeek’s recent comment about the excuse that “it’s how we’ve always done it.”

In the past this might not have mattered too much. Patients would keep coming back. However, the tides of consumerism in healthcare are changing. Do you enjoy doing duplicate work? Of course not! It’s time to purge duplicate work for patients and healthcare staff as well!

No, The Market Can’t Solve Health Data Interoperability Problems

Posted on July 6, 2016 I Written By

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

I seldom disagree with John Halamka, whose commentary on HIT generally strikes me as measured, sensible and well-grounded. But this time, Dr. Halamka, I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Dr. Halamka, chief information officer of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and co-chair of the ONC’s Health IT Standards Committee, recently told Healthcare IT News that it’s time for ONC and other federal regulators to stop trying to regulate health data interoperability into existence.

“It’s time to return the agenda to the private sector in the clinician’s guide vendors reduce the products and services they want,” Halamka said. “We’re on the cusp of real breakthroughs in EHR usability and interoperability based on the new incentives for outcomes suggested by MACRA and MIPS. {T}he worst thing we could do it this time is to co-opt the private sector agenda more prescriptive regulations but EHR functionality, usability and quality measurement.”

Government regs could backfire

Don’t get me wrong — I certainly appreciate the sentiment. Government regulation of a dynamic goal like interoperability could certainly backfire spectacularly, if for no other reason than that technology evolves far more quickly than policy. Regulations could easily set approaches to interoperability in stone that become outmoded far too quickly.

Not only that, I sympathize with Halamka’s desire to let independent clinical organizations come together to figure out what their priorities are for health data sharing. Even if regulators hire the best, most insightful clinicians on the planet, they still won’t have quite the same perspective as those still working on the front lines every day. Hospitals and medical professionals are in a much better position to identify what data should be shared, how it should be shared and most importantly what they can accomplish with this data.

Nonetheless, it’s worth asking what the “private sector agenda” that Halamka cites is, actually. Is he referring to the goals of health IT vendors? Hospitals? Medical practices? Health plans? The dozens of standards and interoperability organization that exist, ranging from HL7 and FHIR to the CommonWell Health Alliance? CHIME? HIMSS? HIEs? To me, it looks like the private sector agenda is to avoid having one. At best, we might achieve the United Nations version of unity as an industry, but like that body it would be interesting but toothless.

Patients ready to snap

After many years of thought, I have come to believe that healthcare interoperability is far too important to leave to the undisciplined forces of the market. As things stand, patients like me are deeply affected by the inefficiencies and mistakes bred by the healthcare industry’ lack of interoperability — and we’re getting pretty tired of it. And readers, I guarantee that anyone who taps the healthcare system as frequently as I do feels the same way. We are on the verge of rebellion. Every time someone tells me they can’t get my records from a sister facility, we’re ready to snap.

So do I believe that government regulation is a wonderful thing? Certainly not. But after watching the HIT industry for about 20 years on health data sharing, I think it’s time for some central body to impose order on this chaos. And in such a fractured market as ours, no voluntary organization is going to have the clout to do so.

Sure, I’d love to think that providers could pressure vendors into coming up with solutions to this problem, but if they haven’t been able to do so yet, after spending a small nation’s GNP on EMRs, I doubt it’s going to happen. Rather than fighting it, let’s work together with the government and regulatory agencies to create a minimal data interoperability set everyone can live with. Any other way leads to madness.

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!

Happy Fourth of July!

Posted on July 4, 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.

EMR and EHR - 4th of July

I’m taking a break today and spending some time with family. I hope you’re doing the same. Despite the craziness that we see on the news every day, I still feel lucky to live in an extraordinary country. Having lived in a number of other countries, it gives me a great appreciation for the things we do have. It’s too bad the media seems to focus so much effort and energy on the things that divide us.

A big thank you to all those in the healthcare profession that are working on this day. I can only imagine the horrors that come from fireworks on this holiday. Thanks for taking care of us even on holidays.