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!

AMA Hopes To Drive Healthcare AI

Posted on July 6, 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.

Last month, the AMA adopted a new policy setting standards for its approach to the use of AI. Now, the question is how much leverage it will actually have on the use in the practice of medicine.

In its policy statement, the trade group said it would work to set standards on how AI can improve patient outcomes and physicians’ professional satisfaction. It also hopes to see that physicians get a say-so in the development, design, validation implementation of healthcare AI tools.

More specifically, the AMA said it would promote the development of well-designed, clinically-validated standards for healthcare AI, including that they:

  • Are designed and evaluated using best-practices user-centered design
  • Address bias and avoid introducing or exacerbating healthcare disparities when testing or deploying new AI tools
  • Safeguard patients’ and other individuals’ privacy and preserve security and integrity of personal information

That being said, I find myself wondering whether the AMA will have the chance to play a significant role in the evolution of AI tools. It certainly has a fair amount of competition.

It’s certainly worth noting that the organization is knee-deep in the development of digital health solutions. Its ventures include the MATTER incubator, which brings physicians and entrepreneurs together to solve healthcare problems; biotech incubator Sling Health, which is run by medical students; Health2047, which brings helps healthcare organizations and entrepreneurs work together and Xcertia, an AMA-backed non-profit which has developed a mobile health app framework.

On the other hand, the group certainly has a lot of competition for doctors’ attention. Over the last year or two, the use of AI in healthcare has gone from a nifty idea to a practical one, and many health systems are deploying platforms that integrate AI features. These platforms include tools helping doctors collaborate with care teams, avoid errors and identify oncoming crises within the patient population.

If you’re wondering why I’m bringing all this up, here’s why. Ordinarily, I wouldn’t bother to discuss an AMA policy statement — some of them are less interesting than watching grass grow — but in this case, it’s worth thinking about for a bit.

When you look at the big picture, it matters who drive the train when it comes to healthcare AI. If physicians take the lead, as the AMA would obviously prefer, we may be able to avoid the deployment of user-hostile platforms like many of the first-generation EHRs.

If hospitals end up dictating how physicians use AI technology, it might mean that we see another round of kludgy interfaces, lousy decision-support options and time-consuming documentation extras which will give physicians an unwanted feeling of deja-vu. Not to mention doctors who refuse to use it and try to upend efforts to use AI in healthcare.

Of course, some hospitals will have learned from their mistakes, but I’m guessing that many may not, and things could go downhill from there. Regardless, let’s hope that AI tools don’t become the next albatross hung around doctors’ necks.

AMA Says Med Students Don’t Get Enough EHR Training

Posted on June 20, 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.

Whether or not doctors like it, the U.S. healthcare industry has embraced EHR technology, and in most cases, medical groups depend on it for a number of reasons. Now, the industry may be taking the next step in this direction, with the AMA deciding that it’s time to enshrine EHR use as part of medical education.

At its recent annual meeting, the AMA released a new policy embracing two somewhat contradictory notions. On the one hand, it encouraged med schools to train students on using EHR technology, while on the other, underscored the need for future doctors to get their faces out of the computer screen and engage with patients.

According to the trade group, some medical schools actually limit student access to EHRs. The AMA contends that this is a bad idea. “Medical students and residents need to learn how to ensure quality clinical documentation within an electronic health record,” said AMA board member and medical student Karthik Sarma in a prepared statement. “There is a clear need for medical students to have access to – and learn how to properly use – EHRs well before they enter practice.”

That being said, the group’s report on this subject concedes that there’s a long way to go in making this happen. For example, it notes that many med school faculty members aren’t offering students and residents much of a role model for the appropriate use of and practices in working with EHRs.

To address this problem, the new policy urges medical schools and residency programs to design clinical documentation and EHR training. It also recommends that the training be evaluated to be sure that it’s useful for future medical practice.

The AMA also suggests that med schools and residency programs provide faculty members with EHR professional development options. These lessons will help faculty serve as better role models on EHR use during interactions between physicians and patients.

That being said, there is an inherent tension between these goals and the realities of EHR use. Yes, training students to create good clinical documentation makes sense. At the same time, there are good reasons to worry about the effects of EHRs on student and resident relationships with patients. Unfortunately, this problem seems to be unavoidable as things stand today. Either you train budding physicians to be clinical documentation experts or you encourage them to use EHRs as little as possible during patient encounters.

In short, we’ve already learned that we can’t have both at the same time. So what’s the point of telling medical students that they should try to do the impossible?

New Program Trains Physicians In Health Informatics Basics

Posted on January 18, 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 program has emerged to help physicians make better use of the massive flow of health information they encounter on a day-to-day basis. With any luck, it will not only improve the skills of individual doctors but also seed institutions with clinicians who understand health IT in the practice of medicine.

The Indiana Training Program in Public and Population Health Informatics, which is supported by a five-year, $2.5 million award from the National Library of Medicine, focuses on public and population health issues. Launched in July 2017, it will support up to eight fellows annually.

The program is sponsored by Indiana University School of Medicine Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis and the Regenstrief Institute. Regenstrief, which is dedicated to healthcare quality improvement, supports healthcare research and works to bring scientific discoveries to bear on real-world problems.

For example, Regenstrief participates in the Healthcare Services Platform Consortium, which is addressing interoperability issues. There’s also the Regenstrief EHR Clinical Learning Platform, an AMA-backed program training medical student to cope with misidentified patient data, learn how different EHRs work and determine how to use them to coordinate care.

The Public and Population Health training, for its part, focuses on improving population health using advanced analytics, addressing public health problems such as opioid addiction, obesity and diabetes epidemics using health IT and supporting the implementation of ACOs.

According to Regenstrief, fellows who are accepted into the program will learn how to manage and analyze large data sets in healthcare public health organizations; use analytical methods to address population health management; translate basic and clinical research findings for use in population-based settings; creating health IT programs and tools for managing PHI; and using social and behavioral science approaches to solve PHI management problems.

Of course, training eight fellows per year is just a tiny drop in the bucket. Virtually all healthcare institutions need senior physician leaders to have some grasp of healthcare informatics or at least be capable of understanding data issues. Without having top clinical leaders who understand informatics principles, health data projects could end up at a standstill.

In addition, health systems need to train front-line IT staffers to better understand clinical issues — or hire them if necessary. That being said, finding healthcare data specialists is tricky at best, especially if you’re hoping to hire clinicians with this skill set.

Ultimately, it’s likely that health systems will need to train their own internal experts to lead health IT projects, ideally clinicians who have an aptitude for the subject. To do that, perhaps they can use the Regenstrief approach as a model.

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.

AMA Promotes Common Model For Health Data Organization

Posted on October 24, 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.

What do we really need to make the best use of shared patient data?  Some say that once we have adequate data sharing protocols in place (such as FHIR or Direct), organizing and using the data will be well within our capabilities. Other efforts assume that if we pulled together the right common data set, deciding how to exchange the data physically won’t be as big of an issue as it has been.

A new initiative from the American Medical Association seems to fall into the latter category The AMA has announced that it’s created a common data model which it says is missing in healthcare. The Integrated Health Model Initiative (IHMI), which has attracted the support of heavy hitters like IBM and Cerner, is a “shared framework for organizing health data, emphasizing patient-centric information, and refining data elements to those most predictive of achieving better outcomes,” according to an AMA statement.

The AMA and its partners said that the new model will include clinically-validated data elements which it says can speed up the development of improved data organization, management and analytics. Its initial focus will be on costly chronic diseases such as hypertension, diabetes and asthma.

The effort will include technical development efforts which will address interoperability problems, cumbersome or inadequate data structures and poor interface designs which forced physicians to click far too often, the trade group said.

From my standpoint, there’s a lot that’s hazy about this announcement, which was long on form but pretty short on substance.

For one thing, it’s not clear what Cerner, in particular, is getting out of this effort. It’s already an anchor member of the CommonWell Health Alliance which, having merged with rival group Carequality, arguably offers as mature an interoperability model as any out there today. Also, while even a giant like IBM needs continued press attention, I’m not sure how much benefit it will realize here.

Not only that, it’s hard to tell where the AMA and partners will take IHMI. The trade group has posted a set of data model specifications to its site. The group has also created a process wherein physicians review data elements and missions and decide whether they meet clinical applicability and consistency requirements. In addition, it’s creating technical and clinical communities focused on key sub-areas of interest. But it’s still not clear what all of this means and why it’s important.

Ultimately, the initial press release is as much a buzzword cloud as it is a statement of intent. Pardon my cynicism, but I doubt even a group with the AMA’s clout can fix interoperability problems, streamline data structures and foster more elegant UI design in health IT in one fell swoop.

The announcement does do something useful regardless, however. While I’m not personally qualified to say whether it will take universally accepted standards for data exchange, a widely-used reference set for health data or both, I believe someone should address these questions. As proposed interoperability solutions pop up on both sides, perhaps we’ll get some answers.

 

Say It One More Time: EHRs Are Hard To Use

Posted on September 19, 2017 I Written By

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

I don’t know about you, but I was totes surprised to hear about another study pointing out that doctors have good reasons to hate their EHR. OK, not really surprised – just a bit sadder on their account – but I admit I’m awed that any single software system can be (often deservedly) hated this much and in this many ways.

This time around, the parties calling out EHR flaws were the American Medical Association and the University of Wisconsin, which just published a paper in the Annals of Family Medicine looking at how primary care physicians use their EHR.

To conduct their study, researchers focused on how 142 family physicians in southeastern Wisconsin used their Epic system. The team dug into Epic event logging records covering a three-year period, sorting out whether the activities in question involved direct patient care or administrative functions.

When they analyzed the data, the researchers found that clinicians spent 5.9 hours of an 11.4-hour workday interacting with the EHR. Clerical and administrative tasks such as documentation, order entry, billing and coding and system security accounted about 44% of EHR time and inbox management roughly another 24% percent.

As the U of W article authors see it, this analysis can help practices make better use of clinicians’ time. “EHR event logs can identify areas of EHR-related work that could be delegated,” they conclude, “thus reducing workload, improving professional satisfaction, and decreasing burnout.”

The AMA, for its part, was not as detached. In a related press release, the trade group argued that the long hours clinicians spend interacting with EHRs are due to poor system design. Honestly, I think it’s a bit of a stretch to connect the study results directly to this conclusion, but of course, the group isn’t wrong about the low levels of usability most EHRs foist on doctors.

To address EHR design flaws, the AMA says, there are eight priorities vendors should consider, including that the systems should:

  • Enhance physicians’ ability to provide high-quality care
  • Support team-based care
  • Promote care coordination
  • Offer modular, configurable products
  • Reduce cognitive workload
  • Promote data liquidity
  • Facilitate digital and mobile patient engagement
  • Integrate user input into EHR product design and post-implementation feedback

I’m not sure all of these points are as helpful as they could be. For example, there are approximately a zillion ways in which an EHR could enhance the ability to provide high-quality care, so without details, it’s a bit of a wash. I’d say the same thing about the digital/mobile patient engagement goal.

On the other hand, I like the idea of reducing cognitive workload (which, in cognitive psychology, refers to the total amount of mental effort being used in working memory). There’s certainly evidence, both within and outside medicine, which underscores the problems that can occur if professionals have too much to process. I’m confident vendors can afford design experts who can address this issue directly.

Ultimately, though, it’s not important that the AMA churns out a perfect list of usability testing criteria. In fact, they shouldn’t have to be telling vendors what they need at this point. It’s a shame EHR vendors still haven’t gotten the usability job done.

A Tool For Evaluating E-Health Applications

Posted on April 11, 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.

In recent years, developers have released a staggering number of mobile health applications, with nearly 150,000 available as of 2015. And the demand for such apps is rising, with the mHealth services market projected to reach $26 billion globally this year, according to analyst firm Research 2 Guidance.

Unfortunately, given the sheer volume of apps available, it’s tricky to separate the good from the bad. We haven’t even agreed on common standards by which to evaluate such apps, and neither regulatory agencies nor professional associations have taken a firm position on the subject.

For example, while we have seen groups like the American Medical Association endorse the use of mobile health applications, their acceptance came with several caveats. While the organization conceded that such apps might be OK, it noted that such approval applies only if the industry develops an evidence base demonstrating that the apps are accurate, effective, safe and secure. And other than broad practice guidelines, the trade group didn’t get into the details of how its members could evaluate app quality.

However, at least one researcher has made an attempt at developing standards which identify the best e-Health software apps and computer programs. Assistant professor Amit Baumel, PhD, of the Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, has recently led a team that created a tool to evaluate the quality and therapeutic potential of such applications.

To do his research, a write-up of which was published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, Baumel developed an app-rating tool named Enlight. Rather than using automated analytics, Enlight was designed as a manual scale to be filled out by trained raters.

To create the foundation for Enlight, researchers reviewed existing literature to decide which criteria were relevant to determine app quality. The team identified a total of 476 criteria from 99 sources to build the tool. Later, the researchers tested Enlight on 42 mobile apps and 42 web-based programs targeting modifiable behaviors related to medical illness or mental health.

Once tested, researchers rolled out the tool. Enlight asked participants to score 11 different aspects of app quality, including usability, visual design, therapeutic persuasiveness and privacy. When they evaluated the responses, they found that Enlighten raters reached substantially similar results when rating a given app. They also found that all of the eHealth apps rated “fair” or above received the same range of scores for user engagement and content – which suggests that consumer app users have more consistent expectations than we might have expected.

That being said, Baumel’s team noted that even if raters like the content and found the design to be engaging, that didn’t necessarily mean that the app would change people’s behaviors. The researchers concluded that patients need not only a persuasive app design, but also qualities that support a therapeutic alliance.

In the future, the research team plans to research which aspects of app quality do a better job at predicting user behaviors. They’re also testing the feasibility of rolling out an Enlight-based recommendation system for clinicians and end users. If they do succeed, they’ll be addressing a real need. We can’t continue to integrate patient-generated app data until we can sort great apps from useless, inaccurate products.

AMA Approves List Of Best Principles For Mobile Health App Design

Posted on November 29, 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.

The American Medical Association has effectively thrown her weight behind the use of mobile health applications, at least if those apps meet the criteria members agreed on at a recent AMA meeting. That being said, the group also argues that the industry needs to expand the evidence base demonstrating that apps are accurate, effective, safe and secure. The principles, which were approved at its recent Interim Meeting, are intended to guide coverage and payment policies supporting the use of mHealth apps.

The AMA attendees agreed on the following principles, which are intended to guide the use of not only mobile health apps but also associated devices, trackers and sensors by patients, physicians and others. They require that mobile apps and devices meet the following somewhat predictable criteria:

  • Supporting the establishment or continuation of a valid patient-physician relationship
  • Having a clinical evidence base to support their use in order to ensure mHealth apps safety and effectiveness
  • Following evidence-based practice guidelines, to the degree they are available, to ensure patient safety, quality of care and positive health outcomes
  • Supporting data portability and interoperability in order to promote care coordination through medical home and accountable care models
  • Abiding by state licensure laws and state medical practice laws and requirements in the state in which the patient receives services facilitated by the app
  • Requiring that physicians and other health practitioners delivering services through the app be licensed in the state where the patient receives services, or will be providing these services is otherwise authorized by that state’s medical board
  • Ensuring that the delivery of any service via the app is consistent with the state scope of practice laws

In addition to laying out these principles, the AMA also looked at legal issues physicians might face in using mHealth apps. And that’s where things got interesting.

For one thing, the AMA argues that it’s at least partially on a physician’s head to school patients on how secure and private a given app may be (or fail to be). That implies that your average physician will probably have to become more aware of how well a range of apps handle such issues, something I doubt most have studied to date.

The AMA also charges physicians to become aware of whether mHealth apps and associated devices, trackers and sensors are abiding by all applicable privacy and security laws. In fact, according to the new policy, doctors are supposed to consult with an attorney if they don’t know whether mobile health apps meet federal or state privacy and security laws. That warning, while doubtless prudent, must not be helping members sleep at night.

Finally, the AMA notes that there are still questions remaining as to what risks physicians face who use, recommend or prescribe mobile apps. I have little doubt that they are right about this.

Just think of the malpractice lawsuit possibilities. Is the doctor liable because they relied on inaccurate app results collected by the patient? If the app they recommended presented inaccurate results? How about if the app was created by the practice or health system for which they work? What about if the physician relied on inaccurate data generated by a sensor or wearable — is a physician liable or the device manufacturer? If I can come up with these questions, you know a plaintiff’s attorney can do a lot better.

AMA Touts Physician Interest In Digital Health Tools

Posted on October 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.

A few months ago, the group’s annual meeting, American Medical Association head Dr. James Madara ignited a firestorm of controversy when he suggested that many direct to consumer digital health products, apps and even EMRs were “the digital snake oil of the early 21st century.” Madara, who as far as I can tell never backed down completely from that statement, certainly raised a few hackles with his pronouncement.

Now, the AMA has come out with the results of physician survey whose results suggest that community doctors may be more excited about digital health’s potential than the AMA leader. The survey found that physicians are optimistic about digital health, though some issues must be addressed before they will be ready to adopt such technologies.

The study, which was backed by the AMA and conducted by research firm Kantar TNS, surveyed 1,300 physicians between July 7 and 18. Its content addressed a wide range of digital health technologies, including mobile apps, remote monitoring, wearables, mobile health and telemedicine.

Key findings of the study include the following:

  • While physicians across all age groups, practice settings and tenures were optimistic about the potential for digital health, their level of enthusiasm was greater than their current adoption rates.
  • The majority of physicians surveyed (85% of respondents) believe that digital health solutions can have a positive impact on patient care.
  • Physicians reported that they were optimistic a digital health can reduce burnout, while improving practice efficiency, patient safety and diagnostic capabilities.
  • Physicians said liability coverage, data privacy and integration of digital health tools with EMR workflows were critical to digital health adoption, as well as the availability of easy-to-use technologies which are proven to be effective and reimbursement for time spent conducting virtual visits.

All told, physicians seem willing to use digital health tools if they fit into their clinical practice. And now, it seems that the AMA wants to get out ahead of this wave, as long as the tools meet their demands. “The AMA is dedicated to shaping a future when digital health tools are evidence based, validated, interoperable, and actionable,” said AMA Immediate Past President Steven J. Stack, M.D

By the way, though it hasn’t publicized them highly, the AMA noted that it has already dipped its oar into several digital health-related ventures:

  • It serves as founding partner to Health2047, a San Francisco-based health care innovation company that combines strategy, design and venture disciplines.
  • It’s involved in a partnership with Chicago-based incubator MATTER, to allow entrepreneurs and physicians to collaborate on the development of new technologies, services and products in a simulated health care environment.
  • It’s collaborating with IDEA Labs, a student-run biotechnology incubator, that helps to support the next generation of young entrepreneurs to tackle unmet needs in healthcare delivery and clinical medicine.
  • It’s playing an advisory role to the SMART project, whose key mission is the development of a flexible information infrastructure that allows for free, open development of plug-and-play apps to increase interoperability among health care technologies, including EHRs, in a more cost-effective way.
  • It’s involved in a partnership with Omada Health and Intermountain Healthcare that has introduced evidence-based, technology-enabled care models addressing prediabetes.

Personally, I have little doubt that this survey is a direct response to the “snake oil” speech. But regardless of why the AMA is seeking a rapproachment with digital health players, it’s a good thing. I’m just happy to see the venerable physicians’ group come down on the side of progress.

 

AMA Introduces MACRA Tools – MACRA Monday

Posted on October 10, 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.

This post is part of the MACRA Monday series of blog posts where we dive into the details of the MACRA Quality Payment Program.

The American Medical Association has released a package of online tools designed to help physicians cope with major changes to Medicare rolling out next year under MACRA. While it’s likely that practices will still have plenty of challenges to address on their own, these tools seem like they may offer a leg up on the subject, particularly for smaller practices with less resources to throw at MACRA issues.

One of the tools being introduced is the AMA Payment Model Evaluator (Sadly an account is required, but there’s an option to create a new account), designed to help doctors determine how their practices will be impacted by MACRA. The Evaluator, which was developed in partnership with physicians and AMA partners, asks physicians and medical practice administrators to fill out an online questionnaire on their practice. The Evaluator then offers an assessment of their specific situation, along with educational material and other resources. This includes recommendations on which MACRA payment model is best for them, which can help your practice know the best direction for your specific needs.

The AMA has also added new MACRA-specific tools to its AMA Steps Forward collection of practice improvement strategies. The STEPS modules help physicians determine how to report on quality metrics central to MACRA as well as the Physician Quality Reporting System. The STEPS modules each focus on a specific issue and offer solutions, steps for implementation, case studies, CME opportunities and downloadable additional tools.

In addition, the physician group has launched a podcast series, Inside Medicare’s New Payment System, featuring acting CMS administrator Andy Slavitt, AMA staff experts and other healthcare leaders. The series, which will include five episodes, should help get physicians up to speed on MACRA-related changes. I for one am eager to hear what Slavitt has to say about MACRA, as he is about the best source on the subject you could have.

At first glance, it doesn’t seem that the AMA plans to spend a lot of time on the Advancing Care Information subset of MIPS, better known as the replacement for the Meaningful Use program. I guess that’s not a huge surprise, given that physicians are still grappling with broad implications of MACRA which go well beyond HIT issues. However, given how important Meaningful Use has been to physicians over the past few years, one might expect it to get a little bit of special attention. Maybe they’re waiting for the MACRA final rule to come out.

With CMS casting a wider net and looking for more from medical practices than just adequate levels of EMR adoption, the AMA is probably following CMS’ path in talking about more than just the meaningful use (Advancing Care Information) portion of MACRA.

Be sure to check out all of our MACRA Monday blog posts where we dive into the details of the MACRA Quality Payment Program.