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!

Don’t Be The Last Practice To “Get” Digital Health

Posted on September 14, 2018 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.

Physicians, are you savvy about the digital health technologies your patients use? Do you make it easy for them to interact with you digitally and share the health data they generate? If not, you need to move ahead and get there already. While you may be satisfied with sidestepping the whole subject, patients aren’t, a recent report suggests.

As you probably know already a growing number of patients, most notably millennials, are integrating digital health tools into their everyday lives.

Research from Rock Health, which surveyed about 4,000 consumers, found that the share of respondents using at least one digital tool (such as telemedicine, digital health tracking apps or wearables) hit 87% last year. To get a sense of how impressive this is, bear in mind that just five years ago, only a tiny handful of consumers had given any of these tools a try.

What’s also of note is that some of these consumers were willing to skip insurance and pay out of pocket for digital care. One particularly clear example of this involves live video telemedicine; Sixty-nine percent of consumers who paid out of pocket for such consults said they were “extremely satisfied” with the experience.

Patients who reported having a chronic health condition seemed less likely to use digital tools to track their health metrics. Case in point: When it came to blood pressure tracking, just 11% captured this data with a digital app or journal. However, this may reflect the higher-than-average of those diagnosed with elevated pressures, a senior population with a lower level of tech sophistication.

Lest all of this sound intimidating, there’s at least some good news here. Apparently, a full 86% of respondents said that they’d be willing to share data with their physician, a much larger share than those who would exchange data with a health plan (58%) or pharmacy (52%). In other words, they trust you, which is a big asset under these circumstances.

If you want to dive into digital health more deeply, here’s a few obvious places to start:

  • Link in-person and telemedicine visits: Rock Health found that a whopping 92% pf respondents who had an in-person visit first were satisfied with their video visit.
  • Be vigilant about data security: Almost 9 out of 10 consumers participating in the survey said that they would be willing to share data with you. Don’t lose that trust to a health data breach; it will be hard if not impossible to get it back.
  • Bring chronically-ill seniors on board: While this group may not be terribly inclined to digitize their healthcare, doing so can help you treat them more effectively, so you’ll probably want to make that point up front.

Like it or not, wearables, fitness bands, mobile health apps, and other digital health tools have arrived. It’s no longer a matter of if you take advantage of them, but when and how. Don’t be the last practice in your neighborhood that just doesn’t get it.

It’s Time To Work Together On Technology Research

Posted on September 12, 2018 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.

Bloggers like myself see a lot of data on the uptake of emerging technologies. My biggest sources are market research firms, which typically provide the 10,000-foot view of the technology landscape and broad changes the new toys might work in the healthcare industry. I also get a chance to read some great academic research, primarily papers focused on niche issues within a subset of health IT.

I’m always curious to see which new technologies and applications are rising to the top, and I’m also intrigued by developments in emerging sub-disciplines such as blockchain for patient data security.

However, I’d argue that if we’re going to take the next hill, health IT players need to balance research on long-term adoption trends with a better understanding of how clinicians actually use new technologies. Currently, we veer between the micro and macro view without looking at trends in a practical manner.

Let’s consider the following information I gathered from a recent report from market research firm Reaction Data.   According to the report, which tabulated responses from a survey of about 100 healthcare leaders, five technologies seem to top the charts as being set to work changes in healthcare.

The list is topped by telemedicine, which was cited by 29% of respondents, followed by artificial intelligence (20%), interoperability (15%), data analytics (13%) and mobile data (11%).

While this data may be useful to leaders of large organizations in making mid- to long-range plans, it doesn’t offer a lot of direction as to how clinicians will actually use the stuff. This may not be a fatal flaw, as it is important to have some idea what trends are headed, but it doesn’t do much to help with tactical planning.

On the flip side, consider a paper recently published by a researcher with Google Brain, the AI team within Google. The paper, by Google software engineer Peter Lui, describes a scheme in which providers could use AI technology to speed their patient documentation process.

Lui’s paper describes how AI might predict what a clinician will say in patient notes by digging into the content of prior notes on that patient. This would allow it to help doctors compose current notes on the fly.  While Lui seems to have found a way to make this work in principle, it’s still not clear how effective his scheme would be if put into day-to-day use.

I’m well aware that figuring out how to solve a problem is the work of vendors more than researchers. I also know that vendors may not be suited to look at the big picture in the way of outside market researcher firms can, or to conduct the kind of small studies the fuel academic research.

However, I think we’re at a moment in health IT that demands high-level research collaboration between all of the stakeholders involved.  I truly hate the word “disruptive” by this point, but I wouldn’t know how else to describe options like blockchain or AI. It’s worth breaking down a bunch of silos to make all of these exciting new pieces fit together.

2019 CPT Codes To Cover Remote Monitoring And Digital Care Coordination

Posted on September 10, 2018 I Written By

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

The American Medical Association has released CPT code set changes 2019, and among them are some new options specific to digital health practices.

While providing such codes is a no-brainer — and if anything, the AMA is late to the party – it’s still a bit of noteworthy news, as it could have an impact on the progress of digital care.  After all, the new codes to make it easier to capture the value of some activities providers may be self-funding at present. They can also help physicians track the amount of time they spend on remote monitoring and digital care coordination more easily.

The 2019 release includes 335 changes to the existing code set, such as new and revised codes for adaptive behavior analysis, skin biopsy and central nervous system assessments. The new release also includes five new digital care-related codes.

The 2019 code set includes three new remote patient monitoring codes meant to capture how clinicians connect with patients at home and gather data from care management and coordination, and two new “interprofessional” Internet consult codes for reporting on care coordination discussions between a consulting physician and the treating physician

It’s good to see the AMA follow up with this issue. To date, there have been few effective ways to capture the benefits of interactive care online or even via email exchanges between physician and patient.

As a result, providers have been trapped in a vicious circle in which virtual care doesn’t get documented adequately, payers don’t reimburse because they don’t have the data needed to evaluate its effectiveness and providers don’t keep offering such services because they don’t get paid for performing them.

With the emergence of just five new CPT codes, however, things could begin to change for the better. For example, if physicians are getting paid to consult digitally with their peers on patient care, that gives vendors incentives to support these activities with better technology. This, in turn, can produce better results. Now we’re talking about a virtuous circle instead.

Obviously, it will take a lot more codes to document virtual care processes adequately. The introduction of these five new codes represents a very tentative first step at best. Still, it’s good to see the AMA avoid the chicken-and egg-problem and simply begin to lay the tracks for better-documented digital care. We’ve got to start somewhere.

 

AI-Based Tech Could Speed Patient Documentation Process

Posted on August 27, 2018 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 researcher with a Google AI team, Google Brain, has published a paper describing how AI could help physicians complete patient documentation more quickly. The author, software engineer Peter Lui, contends that AI technology can speed up patient documentation considerably by predicting its content.

On my initial reading of the paper, it wasn’t clear to me what advantage this has over pre-filling templates or even allowing physicians to cut-and-paste text from previous patient encounters. Still, judge for yourself as I outline what author Liu has to say, and by all means, check out the write-up.

In its introduction, the paper notes that physicians spend a great deal of time and energy entering patient notes into EHRs, a process which is not only taxing but also demoralizing for many physicians. Choosing from just one of countless data points underscoring this conclusion, Liu cites a 2016 study noting that physicians spend almost 2 hours of administrative work for every hour of patient contact.

However, it might be possible to reduce the number of hours doctors spend on this dreary task. Google Brain has been working on technologies which can speed up the process of documentation, including a new medical language modeling approach. Liu and his colleagues are also looking at how to represent an EHR’s mix of structured and unstructured text data.

The net of all of this? Google Brain has been able to create a set of systems which, by drawing on previous patient records can predict most of the content a physician will use next time they see that patient.

The heart of this effort is the MIMIC-III dataset, which contains the de-identified electronic health records of 39,597 patients from the ICU of a large tertiary care hospital. The dataset includes patient demographic data, medications, lab results, and notes written by providers. The system includes AI capabilities which are “trained” to predict the text physicians will use in their latest patient note.

In addition to making predictions, the Google Brain AI seems to have been able to pick out some forms of errors in existing notes, including patient ages and drug names, as well as providing autocorrect options for corrupted words.

By way of caveats, the paper warns that the research used only data generated within 24 hours of the current note content. Liu points out that while this may be a wide enough range of information for ICU notes, as things happen fast there, it would be better to draw on data representing larger windows of time for non-ICU patients. In addition, Liu concedes that it won’t always be possible to predict the content of notes even if the system has absorbed all existing documentation.

However, none of these problems are insurmountable, and Liu understandably describes these results as “encouraging,” but that’s also a way of conceding that this is only an experimental conclusion. In other words, these predictive capabilities are not a done deal by any means. That being said, it seems likely that his approach could be valuable.

I am left with at least one question, though. If the Google Brain technology can predict physician notes with great fidelity, how does that differ than having the physician cut-and-paste previous notes on their own?  I may be missing something here, because I’m not a software engineer, but I’d still like to know how these predictions improve on existing workarounds.

HPV Surveillance Project Reminds Us Why HIEs Still Matter

Posted on August 24, 2018 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.

When healthcare organizations use EHR data to improve care or streamline processes, it seems like an obvious way to go. There are many benefits to doing so – certainly far more than I could cover in a single story—and odds of finding better ways to leverage such data further keep increasing over time.

Given the attention commercial EHR data use gets, it’s easy to forget the role of such data in improving public health. Yes, medical practices need to meet criteria that converge with public health objectives, such as managing diabetes and its side effects. And of course, population health management efforts directly mirror and sometimes overlap with public health goals. But it’s seldom the work of which rockstars are made.

However, given that the bulk of efforts have typically been spearheaded by government agencies or independent non-profits in the past, it’s a good idea to keep track of what they’re doing, especially if you’re wondering what else you can do with patient health data. It’s even more important to remember that even a cache of regional health data can be very valuable in supporting community health.

I was thinking about this recently when the following story turned up in my inbox.  On the surface, it’s not a big deal, but it’s the kind of cooperative effort that can improve community health in ways that work for everyone in healthcare.

This story looks at the kind of data harvesting exercise that flies under the radar of most providers. It describes an HPV surveillance effort, the HPV Vaccine Impact Monitoring Project (HPV-IMPACT), which is sponsored by the CDC and implemented by the Center for Community Health and Prevention at the University of Rochester.

The HPV-IMPACT project is relying in part on data by the Rochester RHIO, which is sharing anonymized patient health information collected between 2008 to 2014. The researchers are also using data from California, Connecticut, Oregon and Tennessee.

The goal of HPV-IMPACT is to identify trends such as changes in the percentage of women screened for HPV, the implications for different age groups and overall test outcomes. Once they complete this analysis, research will use it to determine whether HPV incidence rates can be attributed to vaccine use or alternatively, decreases in detection.

While this kind of project is bread-and-butter research, something that won’t ever make headlines in medical journals, it deserves some thought.

With things being as they are, it’s easy to dismiss HIEs as parts of a broken national interoperability effort. Hey, I’ve been as guilty of this as anyone. For many years, I waited for the HIE model today, in part because it just didn’t seem to be a sustainable business model, but at least some just kept on chuggin’.

As it turns out, regional HIEs aren’t abandonware — they just have their own niche. This kind of story reminds me that even limited health data collection efforts can make a difference. Keep up the good work, folks.

The Latest Look At How Physicians Share PHI Electronically

Posted on August 22, 2018 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.

Over the last several years, I’ve read many a report on physicians’ sharing of health data. The key metrics most observers use to measure these efforts are how often physicians send and receive data and what type of data they’re sending.

I’m not so sure that this measurement offers the best look at health data sharing. I’m more interested in what doctors do with the information than what they shared and received. My guess is that these reports measure PHI coming and going because it’s simply more practical and does offer at least some insight.

In that spirit, I present to you some numbers from the CDC’s National Health Statistics Reports. That data comes from the 2015 National Electronic Health Records Survey, a nationally-representative survey of nonfederal office-based physicians. The study estimates the types PHI doctors electronically sent, searched for, received and integrated.

Survey results included the following:

  • Among physicians who sent PHI electronically, the most common types of data sent were referrals (67.9%), laboratory results (67.2%) and medication lists (65.1%). The least commonly observed types were summary of care records (51.5%), registry data (55.9%) and imaging reports (56.6%).
  • When these physicians received PHI, the most common types the study found were laboratory results (78.8%), imaging (60.8%) and medication lists (54.4%). The types seen least often included ED notifications (34.5%), hospital discharge summaries (42.5%) and registry data (43.2%).
  • For physicians who integrated PHI electronically, the most commonly observed types were laboratory results (73.2%), imaging reports (49.8%) and hospital discharge summaries (48.7%). PHI least commonly integrated included registry data (30.9%), problem lists (32.7%) and medication allergy lists (36.1%).
  • The most common reasons physicians searched for PHI electronically were to find medication lists (90.2%), medication allergy lists (88.2%) and hospital discharge summaries (80.4%), followed by imaging reports (58.9%), laboratory results (48.5%) and problem lists (41.2%).

The CDC analysis of this data notes that it might be smart to articulate the differences between primary care PHI exchange and specialist PHI exchange. It rightfully points out that research which breaks down such data not only by specialty, but also office setting, practice size and EHR vendor would be a good idea.

These aren’t the only issues left unaddressed, though. What strikes me about this data is that there’s little symmetry between what doctors send and what they receive. There’s also little overlap between the sharing stats and those regarding what they integrate. Their priorities when searching for information seem to be on their own track as well.

What does this mean? It’s hard to tell. But I think someone should look at the differences in how doctors participate in various forms of electronic exchange of PHI. These differences probably say something, and it would be nice to know what it is.

 

 

Let Vendors Lead The Way? Are You Nuts?

Posted on August 13, 2018 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 now and then, a vendor pops up and explains how the next-gen EHR should work. It’s easy to ask yourself why anyone should listen, given that you’re the one dishing out the care. But bear with me. I’ve got a theory working here.

First of all, let’s start with a basic assumption, that EHRs aren’t going to stay in their current form much longer. We’re seeing them grow to encompass virtually every form of medical data and just about every transaction, and nobody’s sure where this crazy process is going to end.

Who’s going to be our guide to this world? Vendors. Yup, the people who want to sell you stuff. I will go out on a limb and suggest that at this point in the health data revolution, they’re in a better position to predict the future.

Sure, that probably sounds obnoxious. While vendors may employ reputable, well-intended physicians, the vast majority of those physicians don’t provide care themselves anymore. They’re rusty. And unless they’re in charge of the company they serve, their recommendations may be overruled by people who have never touched a patient.

On the flip side, though, vendor teams have the time and money to explore emerging technologies, not just the hip stuff but the ones that will almost certainly be part of medical practice in the future. The reality is that few practicing physicians have time to keep up with their progress. Heck, I spend all day researching these things, and I’m going nuts trying to figure out which tech has gone from a nifty idea to a practical one.

Given that vendors have the research in hand, it may actually make sense to let them drive the car for a while. Honestly, they’re doing a decent job of riding the waves.

In fact, it seems to me that the current generation of health data management systems are coming closer to where they should be.  For example, far more of what I’d call “enhanced EHR” systems include care management tools, integrating support for virtual visits and modules that help practices pull together MIPS data. As always, they aren’t perfect – for example, few ambulatory EHRs are flexible enough to add new functions easily — but they’re getting better.

I guess what I’m saying is that even if you have no intention of investing in a given product, you might want to see where developers’ ideas are headed. Health data platforms are at an especially fluid stage right now, tossing blockchain, big data analytics, AI and genomic data together and creating new things. Let’s give developers a bit of slack and see what they can do to tame these beasts.

eClinicalWorks Faces Additional Fine For Violating Terms Of Fraud Settlement

Posted on August 10, 2018 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.

In mid-2017, the news broke that EHR vendor eClinicalWorks had agreed to pay $155 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit brought by a former employee. The government had accused the company of doctoring its code to cover the fact that its platform couldn’t pass certification testing,

Following the agreement with the government, eCW was hit with two class-action lawsuits related to the certification fraud, one filed by a group of clinicians over funds lost due to the certification and another by patients who say that data display errors may have affected their care.

Unfortunately for eCW, its legal troubles aren’t over. The vendor is now on the hook for a fine it incurred for failing to comply with the Corporate Integrity Agreement it signed as part of its settlement deal. The $132,500 fine probably won’t have a massive impact on the company, but it’s a reminder of how much trouble the certification problem continues to cause.

In signing the CIA, which will be in place for five years, eCW agreed to a number of things, including that it would adhere to software standards and practices, identify and address patient safety and certification issues and meet obligations to existing and future customers. eCW also promised to report patient safety issues in a timely manner.

Apparently, it didn’t do so, and that triggered the penalty stipulated in the CIA. Among the terms buried in the hefty CIA document is that the vendor would be fined $2,500 for each day eCW failed to establish and implement patient safety issues as reportable events. Somehow, the vendor let this go for almost two months. Bummer.

Of course, eCW leaders must be reeling. This has to have been the most painful year in the company’s history, without a doubt. Customers are understandably quite angry with eCW, and some of them are suing. Patients are suing. Its reputation has taken a major hit.

The financial implications of the settlement are staggering too. Very few companies could cover a $155 million payout without a struggle, and even if a business liability insurer is covering the loss, the settlement can’t be good for its relationships with financial institutions. It’s a mess I’d wish on no one.

On the other hand, am I being too harsh when I suggest that under the circumstances, letting a reporting problem go for 53 days doesn’t speak well of eCW’s recovery? Yes, I’m sure that keeping up with CIA requirements has been pretty burdensome, but we’re talking about survival here.

I’m not going to hazard a guess as to whether eCW is on the skids or just struggling to recover from a massive blow to its fundament. But geez, folks. Let’s hope you get on top of these issues soon. Violating the terms of the CIA within year two of the five-year agreement doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.

Physicians Are (Justfiably) Ambivalent About Virtual Care

Posted on July 30, 2018 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.

It’s easy for pundits like myself to support virtual care. From my standpoint, it’s obvious that virtual care is the easiest and most effective way to handle many health conditions, from handling one-off issues like sore throats and sinusitis to managing long-term chronic conditions.

Not only that, emerging devices will allow patients to test their own blood, urine, heart rhythm and more. When these devices are perfected and put into common use, virtual care will become even more useful and appropriate.

Despite all of these signs of progress, though, physicians aren’t all in with virtual care just yet. According to a study by consulting firm Deloitte, doctors think virtual care might help with patient engagement and support. However, doctors said they would need to overcome several obstacles to virtual care use before they get involved.

Generally speaking, survey respondents seem to “get it” about telemedicine. In fact, according to the survey nine in 10 physicians understand the benefits of virtual care, particularly when it came to connecting with patients. They reported that these benefits include improved patient access to care (66%), increased patient satisfaction (52%) and staying connected with patients and their caregivers (45%).

They also said virtual care could improve patient care coordination (42%), boost the cost-effectiveness of care (42%), offer increased flexibility to clinician schedules (41%), streamline workflow (32%) and help them stay connected with peers and other clinicians (28%). Only 11% said they didn’t see any benefits to virtual care.

Given these advantages, you might think that physicians were gung-ho about virtual care adoption – but you’d be wrong. Just over a third (38%) have rolled out email/patient portal consultations, and 17% are conducting physician-to-physician electronic consultations. Only 14% are conducting virtual/video visits.

On a side note, I was interested to learn adoption of such technologies is higher among primary care physicians than specialists. The survey found that 48% of primary care physicians have implemented portals, compared with 34% of specialists, and that 17% of PCPs were offering video visits versus 13% of specialists.

Meanwhile, I was interested to learn that 43% of respondents who had electronic consultation tools at their disposal connected with colleagues at least once a week. In fact, I’m surprised to learn that this is even happening– electronic consults with between doctors and their peers was not on my radar.

But I wasn’t taken aback to learn that physicians employed or affiliated with hospitals and health systems (62%) made regular use of at least one virtual care technology. After all, hospitals are generally ahead of other providers when it comes to telemedicine. (For example, check out Intermountain’s virtual hospital program.)

Bottom line, physicians still face big obstacles to rolling out virtual care, including a need for training (51%), a lack of access to this technology (35%) and worries about security and privacy of patient data (33%).

All told, when I read about their reasonable objections, low physician adoption of virtual care makes a whole lot more sense. Until these concerns are addressed little is likely to change.

Physicians Lack IT Tools Needed For Value-Based Care

Posted on July 23, 2018 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 sponsored by Quest Diagnostics has concluded that progress toward value-based care has slowed because physicians lack the IT tools they need.  In fact, the survey of health plan executives and physicians found that both groups see the progress of VBC as backsliding, with 67% reporting that the U.S. still has a fee-for-service system in place.

The study, which was conducted by Regina Corso Consulting, took place between April 26 and May 7 of 2018, included 451 respondents, 300 which for primary care physicians in private practice. The other 151 were health plan executives holding director-level positions.

More than half (57%) of health plan respondents said that a lack of tools is preventing doctors from moving ahead with VBC, compared with 45% last year. Also, 72% of physicians and health plan leaders said that doctors don’t have all the information they need about their patients to proceed with VBC.

A minority of doctors (39%) reported that EHRs provide all the data they need to care for the patients, though 86% said they could provide better care for patients if their EHR was interoperable with other technologies. Eighty-eight percent of physicians and health plan execs said that such data can provide insights that prescribing and claims data typically can’t.

All of the survey respondents agreed that making do with existing health IT tools is better than spending more. Fifty-three percent said that optimizing existing health information technology made sense, compared with 25% recommending investing in some new information technology and just 11% suggesting that large information technology infrastructure investments were a good idea.

Survey respondents said that a lack of interoperability between health IT systems with the biggest barrier to investing in new technology, followed by the perception that it would create more work while producing little or no benefit.

On the other hand, respondents named several technologies which could help speed VBC adoption. They include bioinformatics (73%), AI (68%), SMART app platform (65%), FHIR (64%), machine learning (64%), augmented reality (51%) and blockchain (47%). In its commentary, the report noted that SMART app platform use and FHIR might offer near-term benefits, as they allow companies to plug new technologies into existing platforms.

Bottom line, new ideas and technologies can make a difference. Eighty-nine percent off health plan execs and physicians said that healthcare organizations need to be more innovative and integrate more options and tools that support patient care.