Guest post by: Sarah Armstrong, a consultant at ARRYVE, a strategy consulting firm.
A recent study published by the RAND Corporation indicates that implementation of electronic health records (EHR) has not yielded the cost reduction predicted in 2005[i]. Their study identified process efficiency and patient safety savings as two primary outcomes of EHR implementation, leading to a forecasted $81 billion annual drop in healthcare costs. Instead, costs have risen significantly. RAND cites a number of reasons for this: sluggish adoption of health IT systems, coupled with the choice of systems that are neither interoperable nor easy to use; and the failure of healthcare providers and institutions to reengineer care processes to reap the full benefits of health IT.
While the latter can be attributable to the inability or unwillingness of care providers to change, the former places blames on the institutions’ IT departments and software companies. These parties know that disparate EHRs leave a significant gap, but providers are not empowered to bridge the gap. Furthermore, software companies may struggle to differentiate themselves should they modify their product to be compatible with that of a competitor. Assuming either option presented a real possibility, modified software products and altered care processes lie years down the road at best.
If something breaks, you fix it. Fixing this problem will not be easy, however, and many opinion pieces point to our federal government as the catalyst required to affect change. But instead of a major, time-consuming overhaul by the producers and users of health IT, I propose we consider incremental ways to mitigate some of the effects of the problem. I see great opportunity for 2013 to be a year not of rigorously planned change, but of simple workarounds. Specifically, these workarounds would be performed by the people most affected by 1) poor or nonexistent interoperability of EHRs and 2) their caregiver’s inability to effectively use the technology: patients.
Consider the primary problem that arises from non-interoperable health IT systems: incomplete patient data. This problem manifests itself in many ways. For patients, treatment options may be redundant, medicines prescribed may counteract each other, and they may find themselves repeating information they already gave another provider. For providers, if their patients seek care outside their facility and do not fully report their medical history, the current state of health IT does not afford them a way to see the full picture. Additionally, the quality of a provider’s aggregate patient data diminishes.
I would argue that incomplete patient data has long been a problem associated with paper medical records. So why the recent finger pointing at EHRs? Could the problem be attributed to behavioral changes on the part of both providers and patients? Within the past five years, I have changed primary care physicians twice. I have listed the names of my previous physicians, but neither has asked me to obtain my old records. Because I have not been asked to procure these, I have not troubled myself with the task.
A patient unfamiliar with health IT or health information privacy laws might think that listing their previous physician’s name (or current specialists’ names) automatically transfers their medical record. Unless a patient signs for a record transfer, caregivers must rely on what is optimistically a factual and complete patient history form that is often filled out during the minutes before an initial visit. Years of medical care are rewritten according to one’s ability to recall vaccinations, test results, and allergies, as well as the accuracy of a data analyst inputting the record into the patient’s brand spanking new, and likely abbreviated, EHR.
Patients want the best care and we look to our caregivers to tell us what to do. We may not always listen (e.g., quit smoking, exercise, etc.), but people consistently identify their physician as the person they trust most. A simple but powerful mitigation plan for addressing incomplete patient data could be to involve patients more closely in their care:
In addition to obtaining high-level health information in the intake form, ask new patients to procure their old records. Evaluate the records and input the most important details into the EHR.
When calling with appointment reminders, ask patients to bring all current medications and supplements to the medical center. An easy task for many, it can only help providers diagnose and suggest treatment options.
During the visit, ask if the patient has sought care elsewhere. A simple question, it would likely jog one’s memory that, yes, they did see the eye doctor for an annual exam or received a flu shot at the pharmacy since their last visit.
Providers would also benefit from involving patients more closely in their care. Not only do they have countless reasons to deliver care based on complete data, but many also want to publicize to prospective patients that they provide quality care. Complete patient data helps legitimize providers’ quality claims. For example, by asking all female patients about recent cancer screenings, they can truthfully state the percentage of patients who are current on these screenings. Without asking this question, a primary care clinic might report a lower percentage of current screenings among its patients than is accurate, since they would not take into account those performed by outside providers (e.g., OB/GYN, dermatology, etc.).
When discussing the ineffectiveness of EHRs, invite all affected parties to the table. I have confidence that behavior modifications aimed at mitigating the side effects of a rapidly evolving landscape, keeping the best interests of everyone at heart, will serve us all well. I dare say that the cumulative effect of millions of small modifications will reach further and quicker than one major change by software manufacturers or Uncle Sam.
Sarah Armstrong is a consultant at ARRYVE, a strategy consulting firm, with a diverse mix of industry experience ranging from healthcare to software. Healthcare engagements have encompassed strategic planning, process design, revenue cycle, compensation planning, market analysis, quality management and regulatory compliance at academic medical centers, children’s hospitals, and both primary care and pediatric practices.
[i] Arthur L. Kellerman and Spencer S. Jones, What It Will Take To Achieve The As-Yet-Unfulfilled Promises of Health Information Technology, Health Affairs, 32, no. 1 (2013):63-68
Guest post by: Lauren Fifield, senior health policy advisor, Practice Fusion
Many HIT vendors will be largely focused on major development efforts to meet 2014 edition certification requirements for meaningful use. However, as Stage 2 measures aim at improving patient engagement, quality and interoperability, we may be surprised by the new technologies that existing and new companies develop to meet the requirements:
Patient health records or portals allowing for access to and transmission of health information
Consumer applications to provide patient education and communication with providers
Exchange platforms to share clinical information like immunizations, diseases and more
Clinical decision support tools for medical professionals to improve their quality of care
We’ll also see new industry movement toward improved patient safety through provider training, reporting and other efforts. Thanks to the successful collaboration between vendors and the agencies that help providers achieve meaningful use, we expect the Food and Drug Administration to work with the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to engage key stakeholders by addressing the 18-month study mandated in the FDA Safety and Innovation Act of June 2012.
Given the continued and ever-growing provider outcry to address the broken payment system, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) may finally develop plans to move to a reimbursement system that relies on quality and outcomes. With the recent announcement of more than 106 new ACO contracts, growing provider participation in new payment models, and the new possibilities opened up by technology vendors, it may at last be time to put this broken system behind us.
Though much of the 2013 transformation is fueled by government initiatives, the healthcare industry is at a tipping point regardless of any push on Uncle Sam’s part. Patients will soon be expected to pay for more of their care, making consumer health tools, telehealth and personalized medicine more appealing and important. Providers tired of the payment system will partner with technologists and private payers to try alternative models and cash-based business. And big data might just find a home amid all these new patient, provider and health system innovations.
Wolters Kluwer recently released a gem of a survey fit for the bandwagon of health IT topics currently underway.
On its head, the survey results are intriguing and the data does provide some insight into what the American public is thinking when led to think a certain way about a specific topic that, quite frankly, most don’t know much about.
Now, I’m not saying Wolters Kluwer data is flawed. On the contrary, the firm, which makes its living producing qualified data, knows what it’s doing. What I’m implying is that Wolters Kluwer is producing a survey with data collected by an audience that doesn’t truly understand the topic in which it’s responding to.
Let’s dive in and I’ll explain.
According to the survey by the Philadelphia-based company, 80 percent of consumers believe the greater “consumerization” of healthcare – or the trend of individuals taking a greater and more active role in their own healthcare – is positive for Americans.
“Survey data suggests many Americans feel that a greater role in their care is not only good, but necessary, with 86 percent of consumers reporting that they feel they have to take a more proactive role in managing their own healthcare to ensure better quality of care.”
Let’s start here. As a member of the healthcare community, I’ve helped produce similar reports based on surveys I have even helped write, produce, analyze and release to the public. Does that mean my data was a good as Wolters Kluwer? No, not at all.
My point is that there is nothing new here. Nearly every survey of the American public about healthcare tends to suggest that they need to be more involved in their care. All Americans want to take greater control of their car until, seemingly, it’s time to do so.
Even the results suggest that Americans have the information and tools available to them to take on more responsibility.
“Most consumers also say they feel prepared to take on a greater role in managing their own healthcare, with 76 percent reporting that they have the information and tools to take a more proactive role in healthcare decisions ranging from choosing healthcare providers to researching treatment options. Despite feeling prepared, only 19 percent report that they have their own electronic Personal Health Record (PHR).”
Well, there’s the catch. There always something holding people back; no, it’s not the fact that when it comes time for the rubber to meet the road no one is ready to actually start their journey. If only everyone had access to a PHR, everyone would clamor to be more involved in their care.
Certainly, most of us know that this is simply an excuse so no one has to take responsibility for their actions. And, when PHRs are readily available, some other hurdle will keep Americans from moving forward with their engagement.
Finally, of the 1,000 respondents, Wolters Kluwer suggests that a mind boggling 30 percent of Americans want the same experiences with their physicians as they have with other consumer interactions, such as while shopping, traveling or lodging, complete with choices and control.
Here’s where my suspension of disbelief ceases. There’s just no simple to explain this nor is there very much credibility in the statement. The flaw in this piece of detail, in my opinion, is that we’ll never be able to have the same experiences with our physicians as we can with our travel agent or the baker in the local supermarket.
Physicians, after all, develop a much more intimate with their “consumers.” I mean, physicians see us naked and stick us with needles and get a lot closer than the clerk at your local department store. There is simply no way the relationship nor the experience is going to be the same. Which brings me back to my original point: the survey just seems to try to be so much more than it is seemingly as a result of trying to be part of a larger conversation.
But, to mitigate against the risk of you thinking I’m holding out on you, here are the remaining results. Let me know if you agree with my assessment:
According to Wolters Kluwer: “When it comes to choices about physicians, assuming that experience levels and care reputations are similar, consumers rank costs of visits and procedures (20 percent); technologically advanced offices, including the ability to communicate via email with doctors and nurses, schedule appointments online (19 percent); location of practice/office (19 percent) and friendliness of staff (14 percent) as the top four factors influencing their decision.”
Among other findings from the survey:
Women (85 percent) are more likely than men (74 percent) to believe the “consumerization” of healthcare is positive
More women (81 percent) than men (72 percent) feel that they have the information and tools to make their own healthcare decisions
More women (59 percent) than men (50 percent) strongly agree that they need to take a more proactive role in managing their care to ensure better quality of care
Consumers aged 35-54 (60 percent) are the most likely to strongly agree that they need to be more proactive about their care, with those aged 55+ (56 percent) coming in second and younger adults (47 percent) being least likely to agree
I’ve long been an advocate of HealthIT.gov, which I’ve profiled here multiple times for the guidance the site provides about electronic health records and ways to use the technology.
A new addition to the site is guidance for physicians about mobile health technology, which is beginning to pervade the healthcare landscape.
As healthcare workers and professionals continue to use mobile devices in the care setting, they’ll need accurate and helpful information to protect them and their patients from issues such as security breeches.
To that end, it’s nice to see the Department of Health and Human Services to assemble a series of tips and information to the public’s greater good.
The site features several articles and videos designed to offer support and education about using mobile device in healthcare.
For example, articles include topics such as:
How Can You Protect and Secure Health Information When Using a Mobile Device?
You, Your Organization and Your Mobile Device
Five Steps Organizations Can Take To Manage Mobile Devices Used By Health Care Providers and Professionals
For those who prefer video, topics covered include:
Worried About Using a Mobile Device for Work? Here’s What To Do!
Securing Your Mobile Device is Important!
Dr. Anderson’s Office Identifies a Risk
A Stolen Mobile Device
Can You Protect Patients’ Health Information When Using a Public Wi-Fi Network?
In addition, there’s also frequently asked questions and downloadable materials. All in all, the site is filled with a great deal of rich content.
On top of that, there’s a plethora of other information including tips for integrating privacy and security into a medical practice, building a health information privacy and security plan, information about health IT security resources, cyber security and mobile device security.
Simply put, this is a great resource for all of us in healthcare, patients included. Well done, well done, HealthIT.gov.
Every leader of a competing electronics health records vendor probably jumped for joy once they heard the news that Glen Tullman was ousted by Allscripts, the company that he made what it is. Or, maybe I’m wrong. Perhaps leaders of competitive companies would have liked to have kept him around because of what he did to the organization following the acquisition of Eclipsys.
The man, for the most part, has been considered a genius. Peers in the industry gave his performance praise, patted him on the back and showered him in adulation through the maneuvered takeover of the hospital health IT giant. At the time, in 2010, the move made by Allscripts was hailed as a magnificent effort.
It was the kind of move that was supposed to have turned the industry on its head. Many thought it would, and many eyed the effort with envy for such a move was powerful and assertive.
It did rock the industry. Competitors shook in slight fear with the announcement of the news, and many feared for their longevity. In this fact I am serious. I know. I was at a competitor. The whispers went something like this: “Will this new monster kill us all?”
Though all of we worked to secure our shores, many of us were fearful of the coming tide.
But, from the beginning, there was always a sense that Allscripts, and Tullman specifically, was positioned as too big to fail. Perhaps we should have seen a previous merger, the failed move to integrate Mysis, as a harbinger of things to come.
There was even a point in which I had dubbed him the king of health IT. I referred to him as such during internal meetings in my effort to create the queen of health IT, who was a president of another firm in which I worked.
There was a level of pomp and circumstance about everything he seemed to do through his promoted PR moves and image building to his constant appearances and associations with Washington’s power elite, including the president.
I can’t imagine Tullman saw this coming during his rise to the top. Just 18 months ago he was on top of the health IT world, seemingly unafraid of the world in which he lived, or so it seemed from my outside position.
Hindsight is 20/20, though, and it’s easy to question failed policy after decisions have been made.
When the recent takeover bids failed to take the Allscripts private, the company had but one choice and he and other leaders of the company had to go. It’s a common scenario in the world of politics, another world which Tullman is known to frequent. As things grew worse for the once mighty giant, everyone associated with the debacle had to go.
And, even in lands where great kings have ruled, even their glory days come to an end.
But, does it surprise me that he and others at the disheveled vendor are gone? Gone from the vendor that positioned itself as too big to fail? Gone from the vendor that asserted itself upon the market; that worked to take over a market in which its ambitions were bigger than its capabilities?
No, I’m not surprised.
In many ways Tullman died at the hand of his own sword.
And, as we’ve seen countless times and will see again, no company nor its mascot is too big to fail. No kingdom too vast to conquer, no land immune from the trials of the nations it builds.
And so, the king of health IT is no longer king, but neither is he a pauper. And, like most who have achieved his heights, it’s safe to say we probably haven’t seen the last of him.
I continue to be a fan of quality reporting from publications such as Physicians Practice, and I’ve cited their reports in several of my blog posts in the past. Today is no different. As regular reader here may know, I’ve spent a good bit of time on the subject of patient engagement, specifically how physicians and practice leaders can engage patients to improve their care outcomes and their health.
In the piece, Nelson discusses “meaningful use incentives, increased profitability or improved quality of care.” In exacting terms, she makes a call for patient portals and how it can get “patients engaged in their own care and satisfy just about any goal.”
Though I’m somewhat of a skeptic at the party for patient portals (I don’t think that in their current status they’ll actually lead the patient engagement charge), she offers six pretty interesting and solid tips for helping practices lighten their administrative loads.
Thanks, Rosemarie. It’s hard to argue these points:
Self-registration: “Invite and encourage patients to self-register on the portal. It will save your front-desk staff time, reduce costs, and patient data will be more complete and accurate. When patients call to schedule appointments use that time to introduce them to your patient portal, and explain that advance online registration will save them time on the day of their visit, because their paperwork will already be filled out. Advance registration on the portal provides your practice with three core requirements to meet meaningful use too.”
Collect patient data. “A tightly integrated or interfaced patient portal and EHR will deliver data back to the patient from their encounter. Push the patient’s medication list, medication allergies, problem list, and diagnostic test results from the EHR into the portal and patients almost naturally become more engaged in their healthcare.”
Report patient data. “There has always been a mystery surrounding that paper medical chart for patients. By delivering key components of their health information to them automatically, you can satisfy their curiosity and engage them in their own healthcare. As your nurse discharges the patient at the end of the office visit, use that discharge instruction time as an opportunity to introduce patients to the kind of information they will be able to find on the portal.”
Provide clinical summaries. “The integration/interface from the portal to the EHR allows for automation of data exchange after the patient visit. Clinical documentation is completed and made available to the patient without any action from your staff. In addition to further engaging patients in their own care, you’ll have achieved two more core requirements of meaningful use.”
Secure messaging. “Once you’ve got your patients using the portal to access information, you can begin to communicate with them via the secure online messaging function. Communicating online instead of on the telephone will streamline your practice operations significantly, even if all of your patients aren’t using the portal. Your staff can use the portal to deliver automatic reminders to patients regarding preventive care and/or follow-up care. No more manual logs or tickler files and no more mail merges to process. Developing HIPAA-compliant processes and standard messages frees up your staff to provide direct patient care.”
Provide patient education materials. “Secure messaging can also be used to direct each patient to educational information that is specific to their own individual needs and conditions. Your practice will achieve greater percentages of patients meeting quality measures and your patients will feel as well cared for as their pets. Three more requirements for meaningful use can be checked off, too.”
Can a business model be beautiful? Yes, it can, according to Hello Health’s Steve Ferguson, vice president of marketing.
The business model, and the way things get done, at Hello Health are what set it apart from other electronic health records in the market place, Ferguson said.
Hello Health was built from the ground up and launched by the private company Myca in 2008. It made its meaningful use certified EHR available in 2011. The Hello Health system includes everything needed to run a small practice, the area of the ambulatory market in which the company focuses.
Originally designed for single doc practices, the system now scales up, with practices of as many as 10 physicians using it.
At its most basic, Hello Health is a web-based EHR and patient health record, and it’s free to for qualified physicians to use. A qualified practice is typically one with 1,500 active patients on its panel. Unlike Practice Fusion, another well-known free cloud-based electronic health record, it’s not powered by ads, but instead is a revenue source for practices as monthly access subscriptions can be sold to practices’ patients, allowing the patient to access the system’s patient portal, where their personal information is kept.
The patient subscription model allows patients to schedule appointments, view lab results, communicate with their physicians through the HIPAA-compliant portal and, in some cases, view their complete record including visit notes.
Steve Ferguson, vice president of marketing at Hello Health
Those patients that don’t subscribe are still allowed limited access to the portal, but they can’t access all of the information available to them. Cost of monthly subscriptions range between $3 and $10, Ferguson said, but the average is closer to $5.
The annual revenue earned through patient subscriptions is $10,000 per practice, he said, with 30 percent of patients, on average, signing up in each of the practices Hello Health serves. In some cases, more than 50 percent of a practice’s patients have signed up for access to their health information.
Currently, the typical age of a Hello Health subscribing patient is 57 years old and has at least on chronic condition. The “indestructible” 30-something is less likely to subscribe to access to the portal, said Ferguson.
In some cases, patients are able to skip a practice visit or an in-office consult because of their prescription to Hello Health, Ferguson said, and practices are okay with it because they can still bill for the visit.
It’s a simple model, and with the number of portals currently available and the likelihood that access to them will increase alongside meaningful use stage 2, it’s a wonder why other vendors are not creating similar strategies.
“Companies are so in grained in the license model, and on paper it may seem easy to change, but it’s tough to change a business model,” Ferguson said.
Among another key difference between Hello Health and competitor systems is that it doesn’t charge for training and allows as much training as is needed so practice employees are comfortable using the system and are able to educate patients about the value of subscribing to the patient portal.
“Practices really have a partner in Hello Health,” he said. “We take extra time to implement and train employees so they can educate patients to use the systems and better understand the benefits of it.”
Ferguson said Hello Health is experiencing explosive growth, though, would not confirm the number of practices using the system nor the number of patient subscribers because the company is private. However, it is currently available in 27 states, with concentrations of users in New York, New Jersey, Texas, California, Georgia and Florida.
The value proposition to physicians is Hello Health’s business model and the fact that it is a revenue driver.
“Our differentiator is our business model,” Ferguson said. “Everyone tries to sell to the physicians, but most physicians are forced to push back because they can’t afford another bill.”
The fact that the system is free to implement and offers unlimited training is also a plus, he said.
According to the results of the 2nd Annual HIMSS Mobile Technology Survey, mobile technology is increasingly important to healthcare. Patients are obviously on board, but so are physicians and their employers.
Extensive adoption of almost every type of technology continues to take hold in the space, including smartphones, tablets, laptops and “movable workstations.”
An argument I remember hearing during my time in the vendor space is that if patients/consumers evolved into a mobile community, physicians would follow. Obviously, we’re seeing this prediction come true, but I can’t think of any reason why it wouldn’t be the case as it’s the type of technology that’s cheap, assessable, mobile and effective.
More so, according to the HIMSS study, “physicians are embracing new ways of collecting information and connecting with patients.” I do wonder, though, if physicians thought they’d be using their technology to connect with their patients as much as they have reported through the survey.
Surprisingly, (for me, at least) is the HIMSS reports that 93 percent of all physicians use mobile health technology in their day-to-day activities, and 80 percent use it to provide patient care.
A little less surprising is that nearly 25 percent have EHR systems that capture clinical information from mobile devices, and 36 percent allow patients to access information and health records using a mobile device.
The survey featured 180 individuals who “were directly responsible for some aspect of a healthcare organization’s mobile health policy shows that the number of mobile health programs in hospitals and individual practices increased.”
In my experience with this type of research, and as my former colleagues in research might point out, the sample size is statistically pretty small, though, and I’d like to see how the numbers would come out with an inflated sample size. I’d be surprised if 93 percent of physicians used so much mobile tech.
Finally, according to the survey, and I’m just reporting the facts here:
68 percent of participants reported that their organization already had a mobile technology plan in place
An additional 27 percent are currently developing theirs
Only 4 percent indicated that they had no plans to develop a mobile technology policy at the time.
Two thirds of participants report that they are in the process of developing a policy, expected to be completed in the next six months
25 percent anticipate completion of the policy within six months to a year
Two percent believe it will take more than two years to implement a program
