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!

Should Doctors Offer Concierge IT Security Services?

Posted on December 20, 2017 I Written By

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

Today, just for fun, I’m gonna start with a thesis and work my way back to see if you agree with its foundations. My conclusion: With the cost of IT security services climbing, the cost of care coordination rising and practice income in many cases remaining relatively level, group practices will have to change their business model substantially.

Specifically, though this may sound insane, I’m suggesting that they may have to begin charging patients for beyond-the-call-of-duty security efforts.

Of course, as we all know, practices are required to offer at least a minimal level of security protection as specified in rules like those in HIPAA. Necessary though it is, it’s a pricey exercise for many groups.

Even so, cold economics may push them to cut data protection further. Given that care coordination will be necessary to meet population health goals, and that quality monitoring and management are indispensable, they may see security as the most dispensable of these spending options.

As the need for care coordination staff, quality management and other necessities of value-based care rise, paying for IT security services will become almost impossible to pay for without borrowing from another source.

That source can come from an internal budgetary resource, such as money allocated for routine general expenses, or other overhead, such as salaries for existing staff members, neither of which is desirable. Of course, there’s also the possibility of obtaining a line of credit, but that’s arguably even worse for the future of the company.

But since no medical organization can go entirely without IT security protection, it will have to find the funds to pay for it somehow. Given that any of the possibilities discussed above will drain the practice and possibly cut its finances to the bone, but something will have to give.

At this point, many practices decide to sell their group to a hospital or health system. That’s certainly a legitimate way of taking on unmanageable levels of overhead and getting access to far more infrastructure options and financial resources.

But if that’s not the direction you want to take, here’s off-ball idea for recapturing some IT security revenue: concierge security services.

While every patient’s data needs to be protected, obviously, you could offer concierge security patients access to extra layers of security attentiveness, such as a private IT staff or to answer any data privacy and security questions they might have about the practice, hospital where they are seen or other entity.

Toss in a special “security report” (in all candor, probably info they could’ve read in any trade magazine), personalized to patient needs, and a free zip drive with secured copies of their data and you’ll have them hooked.

If this worked, and I’m not suggesting that it necessarily would, it could help carry the cost of mundane IT security services. What do you think? Would this model have a chance?

Study Says Physicians Have Major Cybersecurity Problems

Posted on December 18, 2017 I Written By

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

New research sponsored by the AMA and consulting firm Accenture has concluded that cyberattacks on medical practices are common – in fact, far more common than one might think.

Not only do these numbers suggest patient data is far more vulnerable than expected, it suggests that clinicians are often poorly educated about security and the implications of handling it badly. It’s fair to say that unless this trend is turned around, it could undermine industry efforts to build trusting relationships with patients and encourage them to engage in two-way data exchange.

The study found that most physicians (85%) think that sharing electronic protected health information is a good idea and that two-thirds believe that giving patients more access to their health data would improve care. One-third of respondents said that they share ePHI if they trust the vendors involved.

Thirty-seven percent get training content on security from their health IT vendor, and 50% said they trust these training providers are sure the content is adequate. However, this may be a mistake. While 87% of respondents said that their practice is HIPAA-compliant, the study also found that two-thirds of doctors still have basic questions about HIPAA. It’s clear, in other words, that trusted relationships aren’t doing the job here.

In fact, an eye-popping 83% of medical practices have experienced some form of cyberattack such as malware, phishing or viruses. Not surprisingly, 55% of physicians surveyed are very worried about future cyberattacks. Unfortunately, worrying is what many people do instead of taking action, and that may be what’s going on here.

What makes these lax attitudes all the more problematic is that when attacks occur, the effect can be very substantial. For example, 74% of respondents said that a cyberattack was likely to interrupt their clinical practice, and 29% of doctors working in medium-sized practices said that it could take up to a full day to recover from an attack, a crippling length of time for any small business.

So what are practices willing to do to avoid these problems? Among these respondents, 60% said they would pay someone to create a security framework to protect ePHI. Also, 49% of practices surveyed have in-house security staffers on board. However, it should be noted that three times more medium and large practices have such an officer in place compared to smaller medical groups, probably because security expertise is very pricey.

However, probably the most valuable thing they can do is the least expensive of the list. Every practice should require that physicians stay current at least on HIPAA and cybersecurity basics. If medical groups do this, at least they’ve established a baseline from which they can work on other security issues.

Coping With The Loss Of Your Ambulatory EMR

Posted on December 13, 2017 I Written By

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

Despite the struggles involved, most practices seem to have settled in with an EMR they can at least tolerate. Their workflows are, well, working, the practice management features seem to connect with the clinical ones and most clinicians are complaining about using it.

Yes, your practice may have had to go through a few systems before you found one everyone liked, wasn’t too expensive and had decent technical support to offer.  By this time, though you may have been a little scarred by the experience, hopefully practice leaders have gotten comfortable with the central role the EMR plays in the practice.

Then, you decide it makes sense to sell your practice to the local health system. It could be because it’s an irresistible deal financially, or you feel you can’t survive without their help and partnership, or any number of additional reasons. Everything looks good, but then you take a hit: your new “partner” wants to dump the EMR you worked so hard to find and customize. They want you to work on the same enterprise system they do.

Now, from a hospital’s perspective that may make sense. Here’s how one consulting firm lays things out:

“[When acquiring a medical practice] one critical issue is how to transition the workflow of these physicians and their staff from the practice-owned ambulatory EMR to the centralized hospital-owned EMR to ensure the efficient and safe delivery of care to patients,” it tells its hospital customers. In other words, it’s a question of when and how, not IF the hospital should require acquired practices to make the switch.

The thing is, while the hospital may have a comparatively large staff dedicated to integrating and managing the data pulled in from your ambulatory EMR, the reverse is probably not true. Unless your practice is particularly large, it probably only includes 5 to 10 doctors. In such practices, having even a single data expert on staff would be unusual. (Not to mention that hiring one part-time or as a consultant wouldn’t be cheap.)

In other words, for a while you may be fishing for your patients’ data as you transition to the larger team to which you will belong. Also, until the hospital health system completes integrating the data from your practice into its enterprise system, you may or may not have access to quality metrics important to running a practice these days, and the effect on your billing practices could turn out to be a disaster too.

At this point, I’m supposed to stop and tell you that all this can be handled efficiently if you take one step or the other. Unfortunately, I’m not sure there is any great happy ending to suggest at this point. If you have to give up your own ambulatory EMR, it’s probably going to be painful.

However, it doesn’t hurt to be prepared. There probably are some strategies, perhaps unique to your practice, that can blunt the impact of some of these problems if you’re prepared. That said, the move to a new EMR is always painful, even if the change ends up being a good one.

EHR-Based Order Prioritization Could Streamline MRI Use

Posted on December 5, 2017 I Written By

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

New research suggests that the overuse of STAT requests for MRIs could be trimmed down considerably if criteria for using such requests were integrated into healthcare organizations’ EHRs. The study also suggests, indirectly at least, that adding timing requests for various procedures into EHRs could help with overall workflow in many facilities.

Researchers from Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, who presented their findings at the RSNA 2017 show last month, found that the volume of STAT brain MRIs had increased to the point where 60% of all MRI orders were ordered as STAT between 2012 and 2015.

The increasing use of the STAT designation has ended up creating a bottleneck, researchers concluded. They found that the volume of STAT requests for brain MRIs was so high that it actually led to delays in turnarounds for those studies. In fact, they found that the mean turnaround time for STAT brain MRIs was roughly 50% longer than routine brain MRIs (23.43 hours versus 15.46 hours).

Among the sources of this problem, it seems, is that few clinicians were aware of the hospital’s policy for STAT MRIs. In an online survey of 97 providers, only 4% were aware that a STAT imaging study should be initiated within 30 minutes of the order. Instead, many expected that a stat MRI would be completed within the same day for inpatients within 2 to 3 days for outpatients, according to a story appearing in Radiology Business.

To address this problem, the researchers are proposing that hospitals add order prioritization criteria to their EHR.  These criteria will include definitions and clinical examples to help clinicians sort out which category to use when ordering a brain MRI.

This approach would also help clinicians better understand how the institution defines normal versus STAT priority for imaging orders. The researchers are recommending that hospitals include EMR documentation defining both STAT and routine categories, as well as a statement of when they can expect imaging to be completed under each category.

Adding categories and definitions of when imaging orders should be categorized as STAT would actually appeal to clinicians, the study suggests. Researchers found that more than 70% of clinicians said they would find clinical examples of an order prioritization scheme useful. What’s more, 84% of clinicians responding to the study said they would order routine MRIs if they were assured the studies would be completed within 24 hours.

The authors admitted that integrating order prioritization schemes for imaging could be time-consuming for IT departments, which suggests that finding other ways to set these priorities over the short term is probably a good idea. But given how supportive clinicians seem to be the idea of improving order turnaround, it seems likely that the EHR integration work should get done before too long.

Are Improved EMR UI Designs On The Way? I Doubt It

Posted on December 4, 2017 I Written By

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

More or less since EMRs were first deployed, providers have been complaining about the poor quality of the interface they’ve had to use.  Quite reasonably, clinicians complained that these interfaces weren’t intuitive, required countless extra keystrokes and forced their work processes into new and uncomfortable patterns.

Despite many years of back and forth, EMR vendors don’t seem to be doing much better. But if a new story appearing in Modern Healthcare is to be believed, vendors are at least trying harder. (Better late than never, I suppose.)

For example, the story notes, designers at Allscripts create a storyboard to test new user interface designs on providers before they actually develop the coded UI. They use the storyboard to figure out where features should sit on a given screen.

According to the magazine, designers at several other EMR vendors have begun going through similar processes. “They are consulting with and observing users inside and outside of their natural work environments to build EHRs for efficient – and pleasant – workflows, layouts and functionality,” the magazine reports.

Reporter Rachel Arndt says that major EHR vendors now rely on a mix of approaches such as formal user testing and collection of informal feedback from end-users to meet their products more usable for clinicians. In some cases, this has evolved into official UI design partnerships between EHR vendors and customers, the story says.

Okay. I get it. We’re supposed to believe that vendors have finally gotten their heads together and are working to make end-users of their products happier and more productive. But given the negative feedback I still get from clinicians, I find myself feeling rather skeptical that the EHR vendors have suddenly gotten religion where UI design is concerned.

For what it’s worth, I have no doubt that Ms. Arndt reported accurately what the vendors were telling her. If any of us would ask vendors they are partnering with customers – especially end-users – to make their products more intuitive to work with, they will swear on a stack of user manuals that they’re improving usability every day.

Until I hear otherwise, though, I’m not going to assume that conditions have changed much out there where EHR usability is concerned. Today, all the feedback I get suggests that EHRs are still being designed to meet the needs of senior management within provider organizations, not the doctors and nurses that have to use them every day.

Of course, I hope I’m wrong, and that the story is accurate in ways that offer some hope to clinicians. But for now, color me very doubtful that EMR vendors are making any earth-shattering UI improvements at present.

Will 2018 Be The Year Of The Health IT/Non-Health-IT Merger?

Posted on December 1, 2017 I Written By

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

Within the last several days, the news broke that Amazon Web Services would probably be doing some sort of far-reaching cloud deal with Cerner. Given that AWS is a nearly $20 billion cloud organization, and Cerner one of the largest health IT players in the game, a lot could happen here.

My guess, not that it’s any leap of imaginative genius, is that if the currently-rumored deal between the two partners works, Amazon will make a serious bid to buy out Cerner as a whole. Given the massive profits potentially at stake in health IT, the idea of such an acquisition seems credible to me, at least if Cerner’s stockholders approve. After all, isn’t Amazon the company that just did a multibillion-dollar buyout of Whole Foods to fuel its growing (but still relatively small-scale) efforts in food retailing?

Not only is this particular deal interesting, I think it may portend some major structural changes in the health IT business as a whole. Specifically, I think we’re reaching a point where there will be a lot of pressure on companies with adequate cash and compatible goals to target HIT organizations, particularly if they need to scale up quickly and don’t have much internal knowledge on the subject.

And there’s no question that as healthcare settles into being a digital business, a range of digital businesses outside of healthcare will see that as an opportunity to step into such an important market. After all, how could they not want to be part of any organization that’s competing effectively in an industry that consumes a double-digit portion of the US GDP?

Over this period, many small internal workgroups outside healthcare will be transformed into scouting units seeking the next big digital healthcare deal. At the same time, these divisions will start forming quiet alliances strategic to their business, not only with giants like Cerner and Epic but also well-positioned startups in hot areas such as, say, blockchain security or supply chain management. (How could an ERP vendor not wonder how a healthcare supply chain management company running over blockchain could enhance their business?)

Then, of course, there are the more obvious moves which will bring a new critical mass of health IT customers, knowledge and talent to companies with a giant market presence already, such as Apple and Samsung.

Such M&A efforts won’t be optional. As Microsoft’s experience has proven in the past, and Amazon has apparently found more recently, you can’t just storm into the enterprise healthcare world and demand your cut, no matter how big a player you are. Getting there will take a well-finessed, mutually-fruitful agreement, if not an acquisition, even for a mega-company like Google/Alphabet.

Now, can I tell you which companies will be executing on such deals next year? I have a few theories, but no specific intelligence to share that you couldn’t pick up on your own by skimming industry headlines. But I do stand by my prediction that by the end of 2018, we’ll have seen a few spectacular deals between HIT vendors and digital companies outside the industry that will have a major influence for years to come.

Google, Stanford Pilot “Digital Scribe” As Human Alternative

Posted on November 29, 2017 I Written By

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

Without a doubt, doctors benefit from the face-to-face contact with patients restored to them by scribe use; also, patients seem to like that they can talk freely without waiting for doctors to catch up with their typing. Unfortunately, though, putting scribes in place to gather EMR information can be pricey.

But what if human scribes could be replaced by digital versions, ones which interpreted the content of office visits using speech recognition and machine learning tools which automatically entered that data into an EHR system? Could this be done effectively, safely and affordably? (Side Note: John proposed something similar happening with what he called the Video EHR back in 2006.)

We don’t know the answer yet, but we may find out soon. Working with Google, a Stanford University doctor is piloting the use of digital scribes at the family medicine clinic where he works. Dr. Steven Lin is conducting a 9-month long study of the concept at the clinic, which will include all nine doctors currently working there.

Patients can choose whether to participate or not. If they do opt in, researchers plan to protect their privacy by removing their protected health information from any data used in the study.

To capture the visit information, doctors will wear a microphone and record the session. Once the session is recorded, team members plan to use machine learning algorithms to detect patterns in the recordings that can be used to complete progress notes automatically.

As one might imagine, the purpose of the pilot is to see what challenges doctors face in using digital scribes. Not surprisingly, Dr. Lin (and doubtless, Google as well), hope to develop a digital scribe tool that can be used widely if the test goes well.

While the information Stanford is sharing on the pilot is intriguing in and of itself, there are a few questions I’d hope to see project leaders answer in the future:

  • Will the use of digital scribes save money over the cost of human scribes? How much?
  • How much human technical involvement will be necessary to make this work? If the answer is “a lot” can this approach scale up to widespread use?
  • How will providers do quality control? After all, even the best voice recognition software isn’t perfect. Unless there’s some form of human content oversight, mis-translated words could end up in patient records indefinitely – and that could lead to major problems.

Don’t get me wrong: I think this is a super idea, and if this approach works it could conceivably change EHR information gathering for the better. I just think it’s important that we consider some of the tradeoffs that we’ll inevitably face if it takes off after the pilot has come and gone.

In The Hot Seat Again: eClinicalWorks Faces Billion-Dollar Suit Over Alleged Software Problems

Posted on November 27, 2017 I Written By

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

Earlier this year, eClinicalWorks agreed to pay $155 million to the U.S. Department of Justice to resolve allegations that it had faked its conformance with Meaningful Use criteria. The DoJ suit alleged that by withholding information needed for certification, eCW violated the False Claims Act.

Now, the vendor is facing what could be an even more serious legal threat, according to a news report appearing in Becker’s Hospital Review. BHR is reporting administrator of the estate of a deceased cancer patient is suing the vendor over data display errors that may have affected the patient’s care.

What makes the stakes so high in this case is that the complaint is asking the court to certify the case as class action, with members to include “all persons residing in the United States whose physicians used eCW to record and store their medical records at all dates relevant.” The suit is asking the court to award plaintiffs $999 million in damages, Becker’s Hospital Review reports.

According to the complaint, which was filed by Kristina Tot, administrator of the estate of the deceased Stjepan Tot, errors with eCW software began to appear before the cancer patient’s death. For example, “he was unable to display his medical history or progress notes,” the complaint reportedly states.

The cancer patient’s problems were far from unique, however, the suit asserts. According to the complaint, important eCW software functions didn’t work or violated regulatory guidelines. The filing claims the vendor didn’t provide accurate and reliable health information, displayed incorrect panels and didn’t record EHR user actions in audit logs.

The bottom line, the suit claims, is that millions of patient records were compromised, leaving patients and physicians unable to rely on the eCW platform.

I am not qualified to speak on whether there’s any merit to the latest suit against eCW, though I think it’s reasonable to assume that the company may not have its act together. (You might also want to check out the angry eCW critiques on this site — whose publisher, like our fearless leader John Lynn, I know to have an impeccable reputation for honesty.)

Ultimately, it’s hard to say whether this latest suit is largely blowback from the previous certification problem or yet another (extremely) costly headache. Either way, if I were part of its leadership team I’d be more than a little shaken by recent events even if the recent complaint gets dismissed.

Patients Showing Positive Interest In NY-Based HIE

Posted on November 16, 2017 I Written By

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

A few months ago, I shared the story of HEALTHeLINK, an HIE serving Western New York. At the time, HEALTHeLINK was announcing that it had managed to obtain 1 million patient consents to share PHI. The HIE network includes 4,600 physicians, in addition to hospitals, health plans and other providers.

This month, HEALTHeLINK has followed up with another announcement suggesting that it’s making significant progress in getting patients and physicians connected and perhaps more importantly, interested in what it can do for them. In particular, the study suggested that consumers were far more aware of the HIE’s existence, function and benefits than one might’ve assumed.

The study found that 90% of respondents said they knew their doctors use EHRs, a percentage which differed but remained high across all demographic groups study. Respondents also knew that their doctor could send and receive medical information back and forth with other healthcare providers involved in their care using EHRs.

Not only that, 51% of respondents felt that the use of EHRs by doctors and hospitals made healthcare “more safe,” though 24% said EHRs made no impact on their care and 18% said EHRs made care “less safe.” Fifty-eight percent of respondents said that electronic access is good for healthcare, and 24% answered “strongly yes” when asked whether electronic access was beneficial.

When asked whether electronic access is good for healthcare, 24% of respondents said “strongly yes” and 58% said “yes.” Things looked even more positive for the future of the HIE when patients were specifically aware of HEALTHeLINK, with 57% of this group of patients rating care as “more safe.”

Those who rated care as “more safe” using HEALTHeLINK also included respondents with a two-year degree, those who visited Dr. more than 15 times a year and those who fell into 35 to 44-year-old age bracket.(However, it is worth noting that 41% to respondents said they weren’t aware of the name HEALTHeLINK.)

The only significant downside mentioned by HEALTHeLINK users was a lack of face time, with 37% reporting that their doctor or healthcare professional was spending too much time on a laptop or computer, and another 11% saying that this was a significant problem. (Another 60% had no issue with this aspect of the electronic medical records use process.)

Despite those reservations, when asked if they were willing to cut their doctor to use the HIE to give the other providers instant access to medical records, 57 percent said “yes” and 24% said their answer was “strongly yes.”

Lest this begin to sound like a press release for HEALTHeLINK, let me stop you right there. I am in no way suggesting that these folks are doing a better overall job of running its business than those in other parts of the country. However, I do think it’s worth noting that HEALTHeLINK’s management is building awareness of its benefits more effectively than many others.

As obvious as the benefits of health information sharing may seem to folks like us, it never hurts to remind end users that they’re getting something good out of it — and if they’re not, to find out quickly and address the problem.

Elderly Doctor May Lose Medical License Due In Part To Lack Of Computer Skills

Posted on November 10, 2017 I Written By

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

Do physicians need to be computer-literate to run a safe and effective medical practice? The question has come into high relief recently as an 84-year-old New Hampshire physician fights to get her medical license reinstated.

Dr. Anna Konopka, who recently lost her license due in part to a lack of computer skills, is suing the New Hampshire Board of Medicine in an effort to get it reinstated.

Back in September, Konopka had signed an agreement to surrender her license with the medical board. The agreement settled pending allegations regarding her “record-keeping, prescribing practices, and medical decision-making,” according to an article in Ars Technica. The agreement reportedly permits her to apply to regain her license, but to succeed in doing so she’d have to prove that she did no wrong.

In her interview with the publication, the elderly physician denied any misconduct and said she was under duress when she voluntarily surrendered her license previously. She has said that she wants to continue practicing medicine, but does not want to participate in what she calls “electronic medicine.”

“I am getting the patients from the system [her term for the medical bureaucracy surrounding the use of EMRs today], and I see how badly they are mistreated and misdiagnosed or not diagnosed at all,” she told Ars Technica. “Therefore, I am not going to compromise patients’ lives or health for the system.”

For what it’s worth, Konopka’s troubles with the state medical board didn’t arise from computer use or lack thereof. They were triggered when a formal complaint was filed with the board alleging that she treated a young patient with asthma incorrectly.

The dispute resulted in a formal reprimand from the medical board in April 2017. The board also required her to undergo 14 hours of medical training as a condition of continuing to practice. After that, other investigations followed, including disputes over the scope of her original agreement with the medical board.

Ordinarily, Konopka’s struggles for reinstatement might never have come to public view. What differentiates them from others is the role her unwillingness to use computers has played in the process. Specifically, unless she learns to use the Internet, she won’t be able to comply with the state’s new law requiring her to access an online opiate monitoring program. (As part of her attempts to regain her license, she’s agreed to do so.)

It’s hard to tell who is right in this particular case, but the situation does raise interesting questions about the role of computer use in medical practice generally.

Should physicians be required to use computers as part of their practice in this day and age, and if so, what level of competency should they be required to attain? Are there specific pieces of software, such as EMRs, they have become as important to medicine as a stethoscope was in a prior era? Should use of health IT software be a required part of all medical training at this point?

I don’t have any answers to these questions, and you may not either. But if a doctor’s license can be threatened, even in part, by failing to use computer technology, we’d better work on finding some.