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 HIPAA for FREE!!

2 Major Problems with MACRA

Posted on May 4, 2016 I Written By

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

Everyone’s started to dive into the 10 million page MACRA (that might be an exaggeration, but it feels about that long) and over the next months we’ll be sure to talk about the details a lot more. However, I know that many healthcare organizations are tired of going through incredibly lengthy regulations before they’re final. Makes sense that people don’t want to go through all the details just for them to change.

As I look at MACRA from a very high level, I see at least two major problems with how MACRA will impact healthcare.

Loss of EHR Innovation
First, much like meaningful use and EHR certification, MACRA is going to suck the life out of EHR development teams. For 2-3 years, EHR roadmaps have been nothing but basically conforming to meaningful use and EHR certification. Throw in ICD-10 development for good measure and EHR development teams have basically had to be coding their application to a government standard instead of customer requests and unique innovations.

Just today I heard the Founder of SOAPware, Randall Oates, MD, say “I’m grieving MACRA to a great degree.” He’s grieving because he knows that for many months his company won’t be able to focus on innovation, but will instead focus on meeting government requirements. In fact, he said as much when he said, “We don’t have the liberty to be innovative and creative.” And no, meeting government regulations in an innovative way doesn’t meet that desire.

I remember going to lunch with a very small EHR vendor a year or so ago. I first met him pre-meaningful use and he loved being able to develop a unique EHR platform that made a doctor more efficient. He kept his customer base small so that he could focus on the needs of a small group of doctors. Fast forward to our lunch a year or so ago. He’d chosen to become a certified EHR and make it so his customers could attest to meaningful use. Meaningful use made it so he hated his EHR development process and he had lost all the fire he’d had to really create something beautiful for doctors.

The MACRA requirements will continue to suck the innovation out of EHR vendors.

New Layers of Work With No Relief
When you look at MACRA, we have all of these new regulations and requirements, but don’t see any real relief from the old models. It’s great to speak hypothetically about the move to value based reimbursement, but we’re only dipping our toe in those waters and so we can’t replace all of the old reimbursement requirements. In some ways it makes sense why CMS would take a cautious approach to entering the value based world. However, MACRA does very little to reduce the burden on the backs of physicians and healthcare organizations. In fact, in many ways it adds to their reporting burden.

Yes, there was some relief offered when it comes to meaningful use moving from the all or nothing approach and a small reduction in the number of measures. However, when it comes to value based reimbursement, MACRA seems to just be adding more reporting burdens on doctors without removing any of the old fashioned fee for service requirements.

MACRA is not like ICD-10. Once ICD-10 was implemented you could see how ICD-9 and the skills required for that coding set will eventually be fully replaced and you won’t need that skill or capability anymore. The same doesn’t seem to be true with value based care. There’s no sign that value based care will be a full replacement of anything. Instead, it just adds another layer of complexity, regulation, and reporting to an already highly regulated healthcare economic system.

This is why it’s no surprise that many are saying that MACRA will be the end of small practices. At scale, they’re onerous. Without scale, these regulations can be the death of a practice. It’s not like you can stop doing something else and learn the new MACRA regulations. No, MACRA is mostly additive without removing a healthcare organization’s previous burdens. Watch for more practices to leave Medicare. Although, even that may not be a long term solution since most commercial payers seem to follow Medicare’s lead.

While I think that CMS and the people that work there have their hearts in the right place, these two problems have me really afraid for what’s to come in health IT. EHR vendors the past few months were finally feeling some freedom to listen to their customers and develop something new and unique. I was excited to see how EHR vendors would make their software more efficient and provide better care. MACRA will likely hijack those efforts.

On the other side of the fence, doctors are getting more and more burnt out. These new MACRA regulations just add one more burden to their backs without removing any of the ones that bothered them before. Both of these problems don’t paint a pretty picture for the future of healthcare.

The great part is that MACRA is currently just a proposed rule. CMS has the opportunity to fix these problems. However, it will require them to take a big picture look at the regulation as opposed to just looking at the impact of an individual piece. If they’re willing to focus MACRA on the big wins and cut out the parts with questionable or limited benefits, then we could get somewhere. I’m just not sure if Andy Slavitt and company are ready to say “Scalpel!” and start cutting.

Breach Affecting 2.2M Patients Highlights New Health Data Threats

Posted on April 4, 2016 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

A Fort Myers, FL-based cancer care organization is paying a massive price for a health data breach that exposed personal information on 2.2 million patients late last year. This incident is also shedding light on the growing vulnerability of non-hospital healthcare data, as you’ll see below.

Recently, 21st Century Oncology was forced to warn patients that an “unauthorized third party” had broken into one of its databases. Officials said that they had no evidence that medical records were accessed, but conceded that breached information may have included patient names Social Security numbers, insurance information and diagnosis and treatment data.

Notably, the cancer care chain — which operates on hundred and 45 centers in 17 states — didn’t learn about the breach until the FBI informed the company that it had happened.

Since that time, 21st Century has been faced with a broad range of legal consequences. Three lawsuits related to the breach have been filed against the company. All are alleging that the breach exposed them to a great possibility of harm.  Patient indignation seems to have been stoked, in part, because they did not learn about the breach until five months after it happened, allegedly at the request of investigating FBI officials.

“While more than 2.2 million 21st Century Oncology victims have sought out and/or pay for medical care from the company, thieves have been hard at work, stealing and using their hard-to-change Social Security numbers and highly sensitive medical information,” said plaintiff Rona Polovoy in her lawsuit.

Polovoy’s suit also contends that the company should have been better prepared for such breaches, given that it suffered a similar security lapse between October 2011 and August 2012, when an employee used patient names Social Security numbers and dates of birth to file fraudulent tax refund claims. She claims that the current lapse demonstrates that the company did little to clean up its cybersecurity act.

Another plaintiff, John Dickman, says that the breach has filled his life with needless anxiety. In his legal filings he says that he “now must engage in stringent monitoring of, among other things, his financial accounts, tax filings, and health insurance claims.”

All of this may be grimly entertaining if you aren’t the one whose data was exposed, but there’s more to this case than meets the eye. According to a cybersecurity specialist quoted in Infosecurity Magazine, the 21st Century network intrusion highlights how exposed healthcare organizations outside the hospital world are to data breaches.

I can’t help but agree with TrapX Security executive vice president Carl Wright, who told the magazine that skilled nursing facilities, dialysis centers, imaging centers, diagnostic labs, surgical centers and cancer treatment facilities like 21st are all in network intruders’ crosshairs. Not only that, he notes that large extended healthcare networks such as accountable care organizations are vulnerable.

And that’s a really scary thought. While he doesn’t say so specifically, it’s logical to assume that the more unrelated partners you weld together across disparate networks, it multiplies the number of security-related points of failure. Isn’t it lovely how security threats emerge to meet every advance in healthcare?

What Would New Care Delivery Models Look Like If Created Today?

Posted on November 24, 2015 I Written By

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


This tweet has been on my mind the last month. I’m sure that many in the trenches probably think that this type of thinking is a pipe dream and not worthy of discussion. While it’s true that we can’t go back and change the past, this type of thinking may predict where we need to go in the future.

I and many others have long talked about the way EHR software was built to maximize billing and then meaningful use. The focus of the EHR was not on how to improve patient care, but was really built around how the organization could manage it’s billing and make more money. So, we shouldn’t be too surprised that the EHR systems we have today aren’t these amazing systems that dramatically improve the care we provide.

With that said, there’s a sea change happening in health care when it comes to how organizations are being reimbursed based on value. Might I suggest that an organization that wants to be ready for this change in reimbursement might want to take the time to think about what care models would look like if they were created from scratch today without the overhead of the past.

I’m not the only one thinking about this. Check out this tweet from Linda Stotsky that quotes Rasu Shrestha, MD, MBA.


In the article that’s linked to in that tweet Rasu describes the real challenge of rethinking our care models:

What does it truly mean to have a patient-centered approach to care? As a clinician, I can tell you confidently that most of my colleagues tend to get defensive amid talk of the need to adopt a patient-centric approach to care. “Of course, we’re focused on the patient!” seems to be the most common reaction. Many simply assume that because care is essentially imparted onto a patient, everything we do, naturally, is patient-centric

Then he offers this frank comment:

But where is the patient in all of this? Is a system designed to help document our attempts to cure the patient, and help bill for the associated services, really the best we can do? Perhaps the problem is bigger than just the EMR. Perhaps our frequently paternalistic, and often heroic, approaches to care have been cherished, celebrated and incentivized for far too long. Perhaps we need to rethink care in a big way.

I agree with Rasu. He also quotes Ellen Stoval, survivor or three bouts of cancer who says, “We have been chasing the cure, rather than the care.” I’m actually optimistic that these changes are happening. We’re going to see a drastically improved health care system. It’s going to take time, but most changes do. What’s most exciting is that if we navigate these shifts properly, then doctors will finally get to practice medicine the way they imagined medicine. Instead of churning patients to meet revenue, they could actually spend more time caring for patients. That’s something worth aspiring towards.

How Will the Coming Election Year Impact Healthcare IT?

Posted on November 10, 2015 I Written By

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

It seems like the Presidential election should be closer since we’ve been hearing about possible Presidential candidates for the past year. However, we still have a whole year before the next Presidential election. Does anyone else think we’re going to be tired of this process a year from now? (But I digress)

In past years, there was certainly a lot to talk about when it comes to the impact a new president would have on healthcare IT. However, I don’t think that this presidential election will be the same. I think that’s true for healthcare in general as well.

On the healthcare IT side, meaningful use has basically run its course. Sure, Jeb Bush has asked to eliminate meaningful use and government mandates and penalties for EHR use. Although, John Halamka and Marc Probst have both recently asked for the same. We’ve written previously about how getting rid of meaningful use wouldn’t do much of anything to alter the current course of EHR and healthcare IT. It just wouldn’t change much of anything.

What could a presidential candidate do to impact healthcare IT? I really don’t see them having an interest in doing much of anything to impact the current course of healthcare IT. If you think otherwise, I’d love to hear why.

On the healthcare side of things we might see more changes. Certainly the topic of healthcare costing the US too much money is a very big an important topic for the president. However, I think Obamacare and those healthcare reform efforts are too far gone to be able to really go back and change them now. Sure, we could see some changes here and there, but I think it’s too late for a new President to really drastically change what’s already been done.

Related to this is the move away from fee for service to a value based reimbursement environment. Would any President condone this direction? Would any President advocate for a return to the old fee for service environment? I don’t see it happening. As many people have told me, the shift to value based care has left the building. There’s no coming back. Could they modify the approach and some of the details. Certainly! However, they’re not likely going to change the trajectory.

Long story short, I’m not sure any Presidential candidate will do anything that will drastically impact healthcare IT and healthcare as we know it. Sure there will be some tweaks that will have some impact, but nothing major like Obamacare or the HITECH Act.

Do you agree or disagree? I always love to hear other perspectives.

Insightful Tweets from Farzad Mostashari’s Session at #MGMA15

Posted on October 13, 2015 I Written By

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

Today, Farzad Mostashari took the stage at the MGMA Annual Conference. As a man that I respect and someone that has deep connections and insights into what’s happening in Washington and how that plays out in actual practice (thanks to his ACO company), I was interested in the insights he’d share.

Here’s a quick Twitter roundup of some of the insights he shared:

Beyond the Buzz: The Myths and Realities of Consumer and Patient Engagement

Posted on September 29, 2015 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Peter Edelstein, MD, is the Chief Medical Officer at Elsevier.
Peter Edelstein, MD
Today’s healthcare reform world is filled with buzzwords.  “Population Health Management.”  “Value-Based Care.”  “Patient Engagement.”  I am in no way suggesting that these topics do not play critical roles if we are to realize the enormous potential of healthcare reform.  However, if you ask ten people to define any one of these buzzwords, you’ll receive twelve different definitions.  And in a world of threatening reimbursement penalties and expanding healthcare legislation, the sooner that we come to some consensus on the basic meaning of these terms, the sooner we can understand the associated myths and realities.

Relative to the patient population (that is, the general population), the population of providers (doctors, nurses, and other clinicians) represents a fairly homogeneous and small group to target with initial reform efforts.  In addition, we are all painfully aware of the unacceptable number of preventable deaths and complications which occur at the hands of providers each and every day.  Thus reform legislation has first focused on reducing variability, elevating quality, and controlling the cost of care delivery through programs focused on providers (hospitals and healthcare systems, as well as the physicians, nurses, other clinicians who work in such institutions). 

Again, this makes sense as a starting point.  That said, to believe that we will achieve our ultimate goals of evolving into a system dominated by preventative care and outpatient and home health maintenance (leaving hospitals to serve only those whose chronic conditions can no longer be controlled in the outpatient setting) solely by changing how providers deliver care is a myth of epic proportions.  Far-and-away our greatest opportunity to shift our population’s health from reactive, acute, and expensive to proactive, preventative, and cost-efficient is by directly engaging and educating and empowering the general population of patients and future patients themselves. 

This perspective is based on two major realities.  First, studies (as well as our own experience) confirms that even individuals with chronic conditions spend on average only a handful of hours annually in front of a professional care provider.  (How many hours did you or your spouse spend under the direct care of a provider in the previous twelve months?  For the overwhelming majority of you, the answer is less than a couple.)  Second, patients who demonstrate interest in and ownership of their health have better clinical outcomes and reduced costs of care.  In a nutshell, people spend virtually all of their lives away from doctors, nurses, and hospitals, and as with virtually any complex processes, those who are more involved and knowledgeable have better outcomes.

Now we come up against another reality:  limited resources.  Hospitals and healthcare systems have limited staff and finances, and Patient Engagement often draws the short straw when competing with electronic health records, computerized order sets, and other provider-specific support solutions.  But, as I’ve suggested, de-prioritizing Patient Engagement as “less important” or “less impactful” is a myth which greatly limits our potential to increase the value (elevate quality/reduce costs) of healthcare delivery.  Thus, the most important first step for healthcare stakeholders to accept is the reality that assigning resources to Patient Engagement must be as great a priority (if not greater) as allocating staff and money to products and solutions which target only traditional providers.

Once healthcare leaders accept the critical importance of Patient Engagement, they again have to consider their limited resources.  It is another common and perilous myth when trying to allocate resources and develop and implement Patient Engagement strategies to consider all patients within a healthcare system’s catchment area as a homogeneous population.  The reality here is that not all individuals have the same potential for or barriers to becoming engaged patients.  And understanding with which patient subpopulations you can get “the most bang for your buck” is a necessity which is often overlooked. 

For example, any of us who have directly cared for a large cohort of patients knows that there are some individuals (comprising a patient subpopulation) who simply have no intention of ever lifting a finger to care for themselves.  I think about the roughly 50% of Americans with chronic conditions who fail to take their medications as prescribed.  Or the diabetics who simply cannot be troubled with checking their blood sugars.  Every provider can immediately call to mind dozens of patients who, understanding how to better their own health, simply refuse to do so.  The reality is that as in all areas of life, there are simply some people who just will not engage, be accountable, take ownership.  To waste valuable resources trying to engage this patient subpopulation is foolish, disillusioning for staff, and wasteful, and it is best to quickly identify these individuals and accept that all you can do is provide reactive care when they become ill.

A second and large patient subpopulation is well worth the resources and efforts to engage.  These are the folks with limited literacy and numeracy skills.  Multiple studies have demonstrated the inverse relationship between literacy and healthcare outcomes.  Thus, assigning resources to clearly engage and educate these individuals so that they have the knowledge and understanding necessary to engage is worthwhile.

The third large patient subpopulation worth targeting is comprised of people whose upbringing or culture serves as a barrier to engagement.  Perhaps the largest of these cohorts is elderly Americans, many of whom were raised never to question a physician or ask for clarification.  Such patients are unable to engage because they refuse to address their lack of understanding of recommendations for their self care.  Another large faction are those who were raised in cultures (often outside of the United States) where, as with elderly Americans, the provider is God, never to be questioned.  Thus, these folks don’t really understand what they can do to improve their health, and they refuse to ask for further clarification.

The reality for these two large patient subpopulations is that the appropriate use of resources to understand and directly address the obstacles to true engagement and education can result in great successes.

In the end, our ability to achieve truly dramatic and impactful healthcare reform depends to a great extent on engaging and educating the patients of today and tomorrow.  Appreciating this reality, and understanding the realities related to identifying patient subpopulations which can truly be engaged and educated is the best approach to achieving successful reform.

About Peter Edelstein, MD
Peter Edelstein, MD, is the Chief Medical Officer at Elsevier. Edelstein is board certified by the American College of Surgeons and the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgery. He has more than 35 years of experience practicing medicine and in healthcare administration. Edelstein was in private practice for several years before serving on the surgical faculty at Stanford University, where he focused on gastrointestinal, oncologic and trauma surgery. He then spent more than a decade as an executive in the Silicon Valley medical device industry. Edelstein’s most recent role was as Chief Medical Officer for the healthcare business at LexisNexis Risk Solutions, a Reed Elsevier company. He is also the author of the recently published book, ‘Own Your Cancer: A Take-Charge Guide for the Recently Diagnosed & Those Who Love Them’.

CMS Redefines Telemedicine by Bringing Better Care to 15 Million Patients and Huge Profitability to Medical Facilities

Posted on September 17, 2015 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Donald Voltz, MD.
Donald Voltz - Zoeticx
Telemedicine is about reaching out to patients in remote locations, but limited to videoconferencing between patients and health providers. It is similar to a face-to-face service with the exception that the patient and primary care provider are not physically together. Such efficiency is limited in term of scope and only addresses the geographical challenge and scarcity of physician availability, a far cry from what CMS wanted for its Chronic Care Management Services (CCM) which would fundamentally change telemedicine as it is practiced.

CCM services bring the telemedicine definition to the next level – a quiet continuous monitoring and collaboration from all care services to the patient, given the ability to anticipate and engage in care issues. Such ability not only curbs care costs, it would also increase care provider bandwidth, giving them the ability to cover more patients with better efficiency. The challenge is not on the requirements part of CCM services, but the lack of an IT solution to really address all CMS guidelines, including its intent to enforce the concepts through the healthcare industry.

The New England Journal of Medicine has covered the major challenges from the new CCM guidelines, touching on all the major shortcomings in today healthcare IT offerings.  Healthcare providers recognized that the fee-for-service system, which restricts payments for primary care to office-based visits, is poorly designed to support the core activities of primary care, which involve substantial time outside office visits for tasks such as care coordination, patient communication, medication refills, and care provided electronically or by telephone.

The time has come for a paradigm shift to reengineer how we deliver care and manage our patients. To arrive at a new plateau requires rethinking the needs of our patients and how to meet these needs in an already resource constrained system. Unless we develop solutions that both integrate with and enhance the technologies currently available and those yet to be realized, we will not realize a return on health IT investment.  This needs to be an area of focus for hospital CEOs, CIOs and CMOs.

Huge Market Opportunity

According to the 2010 Census, the number of people older than 65 years was 40 million with increasing trends to 56 million in 2020 and not reaching a plateau until 2050 at 83.7 million.  With two-thirds of Medicare beneficiaries having two or more chronic conditions while one-third has more than three chronic conditions according to CMS data, putting the number of patients who qualify for CCM services at 15 million. This number is predicted to continue on an upward trend until 2050.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recognized the growing burden this trend in chronic disease places on the healthcare system and addressed the need for innovative solutions in their 2002 report. While the potential market is huge, in the billions of dollars yearly, healthcare organizations have been struggling to address the CMS guidelines with key requirements from CMS. We can no longer afford not to address the needs of patient with chronic medical conditions along with engaging them in their healthcare decisions.

CMS’ CCM guidelines are as follows:

  • 24×7 access to clinical staff
  • Patient care continuum
  • Collaboration, coordination between primary care providers and other care services
  • Electronic management of care transition among care providers
  • Coordination between home and community care services
  • Patient engagement

Here is how these guidelines are now being addressed:

The Patient-Centric Model

While each patient has a primary care provider who is responsible for CCM service, they are not confined to receiving care in a single practice or institution. The primary care provider assumes the role of care coordinator, but care is likely to be distributed between multiple care providers, often across different care locations. In a patient-centric care model, care services can come from any care providers – geographically and organizationally diverse, necessitating an accountable provider to coordinate and orchestrate high-quality care across multiple chronic conditions.

Secure Electronic Care Transition

CMS clearly states these CCM care plans must be electronically available at all times to all care providers who will be delivering care to these patients, not available by faxing, or scanning as patient data is currently shared. The chronic care management plan must be available to all healthcare providers who might take care of these patients 24×7. In addition, the primary care provider who assumes the care coordinator responsibility for a patient is expected to follow-up on the care delivered, additional needs of the patient and changes in chronic condition that may have been addressed by a healthcare professional remote to the patients’ primary practice.

CMS neither authorizes how such a CCM system is designed nor enforces how efficient the implemented care service is. The monthly reimbursement limits the time and additional resources physicians are able to allocate for the development, implementation and daily operations of a CCM program in their practice. The manual implementation of a system that meets all of the requirements defined by the CMS will far exceed the reimbursement recovered. It is also likely to be inferior to one with some degree of automation coupled with messaging when a patient’s condition changes or their chronic care management plan is accessed by other providers. Efficiency along with automated logging of time spent on care coordination are critical requirements for a service to be effective.

A CCM service solution must meet the requirements defined by CMS while integrating into the current operational structure of primary care practice and integrate with current health IT systems and manage the secure documentation flow.  It must also offer a built-in notification system to alert physicians to changes in patient status and/or access to the care plan while maintaining an efficient operation in clinics with a lower overhead and no need for additional infrastructure.

While CMS does not enforce the efficiency of a CCM care service, the monthly payment must represent an increase of revenue to care providers. Care providers cannot implement a new potential code while increasing its cost due to manual labor increase. So, efficiency must be part of the solution requirements.

The answer to CCM service would be a new healthcare application offering secure documentation flow, built-in notification and collaboration services to support a low cost, efficient operation for clinics.

The CCM application must address the following requirements:

  • No disruption of existing services. The application must operate and integrate seamlessly with any existing EHR so to not change provider workflow or disrupt current processes; defining a very stringent requirement to keep the existing EHR systems untouched and unchanged while allowing for this new service to co-exist.
  • Secure electronic care transition with CCM care plan sharing. Patients can engage with this new care service even when the service may not be contained within the same network as the primary care provider. Patients ultimately maintain control of what information and with whom this information is shared. The primary care provider is responsible for maintaining the CCM care plan, as well as the patient, and should expect any information shared will be used for a single care session and not beyond it. Although the CCM care plan is expected to contain the most up-to-date medication information, primary care providers are not interested in opening up their entire system to others, but instead need to maintain control and secure access while allowing for access to these protected documents.
  • Automation, automation and automation. Efficiency of the whole CCM service must be at the core so that primary care providers can enhance patient care without adding expense and resources to implement it. Consider a patient with Congestive Heart Failure (CHF) where continuous monitoring of weight is critical for early intervention and the avoidance of hospitalizations. To engage patient’s in their care, they must be given a mechanism to report daily weight to their primary care provider. The primary care provider must have a solution where attention is given if the patient’s condition so it not has exceeded a certain threshold. Automation is required so that primary care providers can be efficient and only given attention when attention is required. Automation must be in place so that no activities such as follow-up would be omitted.
  • An EHR-agnostics solution. Implementation of a CCM service must address the constraints of a non-homogeneous environment. Healthcare organizations and physician practices are not able to control the EHR environments when patients receive care outside of their primary practice. The requirement for electronic document exchange along with the expectation of the latest patient health data being contained in the CCM care plan goes beyond a static solution offered by a data duplicated HIE (Health Information Exchange) infrastructure.
  • Visible value to a patient. A critical requirement for CMS reimbursement is a patient’s opting into a CCM management program that includes out-of-pocket monthly co-pay for the service of 8 dollars per month. A patient must see the value for CCM services which can be demonstrated through enhanced engagement, access to providers and the assurance that their condition is being overseen each month by their chronic care coordinator. Anticipation of an early intervention for potential problems along with the ability to inquire and receive feedback on their condition(s) brings added value to patients and their loved ones. This value can only be delivered if such a service can be developed in an efficient manner with a low cost of operating and a limited expansion of personal to bring it about.
  • Documentation of discontinuous time spent on care coordination. CMS requires at least 20 minutes are spent on care coordination activities each month in order to bill for this for patients enrolled in the program. Without a seamless component to log such activity, the efficiency of the overall process comes into question. A comprehensive CCM application must address the practice management side to account for and generate monthly reports of the CCM activities completed.

Future of Healthcare Impacted by Integration, Patient Data and New Modes of Delivery

The future of healthcare will be impacted by the integration of technology, patient collected data, and enhancement of healthcare professionals’ ability to deliver care in modes not yet imaged. With respect to management of chronic medical conditions, leveraging technology to coordinate the care delivered so these patients can lead productive lives at a reduced cost with less time in the hospital for exacerbations of their disease is a goal that is now possible.

Development of tools to coordinate care without additional health IT expense, in either time spent learning a new workflow or cost of such an application, is now available. Finding such an innovate model that works for patients, healthcare professionals and health systems for chronic care management will likely spread into other areas of healthcare. CCM services and care coordination allow remote, discontinuous, non-face-to-face management of patients with complex health conditions when it meets stringent requirements – a quiet, continuous monitor of health status and interventions, collaboration of all care delivered to the patient, an ability to anticipate, engage and alert patients and care professionals of impending issues, along with the administrative side of billing and logging such activity.

This ability not only changes the direction of the chronic care cost curve, it also increases care provider bandwidth, giving them the ability to successfully manage more patient, with better efficiency while delivering high quality, valuable care.

About Donald Voltz, MD
Donald Voltz, MD, Aultman Hospital, Department of Anesthesiology, Medical Director of the Main Operating Room, Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology, Case Western Reserve University and Northeast Ohio Medical University.

Board-certified in anesthesiology and clinical informatics, Dr. Voltz is a researcher, medical educator, and entrepreneur. With more than 15 years of experience in healthcare, Dr. Voltz has been involved with many facets of medicine. He has performed basic science and clinical research and has experience in the translation of ideas into viable medical systems and devices.

Thanh Tran, CEO of Zoeticx, also contributed.

Solving Medical Device Interoperability – Is Qualcomm Building that Platform?

Posted on September 15, 2015 I Written By

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

If you’ve spent some time in the mHealth and mobile health space (which are basically the same thing), then you’ve likely run into Qualcomm. They’ve made a big investment in that space with their Qualcomm Life initiative together with their 2Net platform that helps home health devices connect and share data. In many ways it made a lot of sense for a wireless provider (mostly chips from my understanding) to get involved in this space since it was a way for them to sell more chips. It seems like every new medical device needs some wireless technology embedded in it. On the other hand it sometimes felt awkward since Qualcomm really doesn’t directly sell products to healthcare organizations or consumers.

Many people probably missed the announcement that Qualcomm Life acquired Capsule Tech. A lot of people in healthcare don’t know about Capsule Tech. Even fewer probably know about Qualcomm Life. However, Capsule Tech has done a great job building a business around medical device management. Capsule Tech is known as the black box under the hospital bed that captures all the medical device data in a hospital room and sends that data where it needs to go. They’ve recently expanded beyond the black boxes into things like data analytics, but at their core they’re all about collecting and sharing medical device data.

When you think about it from that perspective, that’s kind of what Qualcomm Life has been doing with home health devices and their 2Net platform. They’re collecting and sharing home health data where it needs to go.

As you look at a combined company, you can easily see a platform for medical device data starting to form. It will take some time for them to make it a reality, but you can see how Capsule together with Qualcomm Life could become the hub of medical device data. Now they have expertise in hospital grade medical devices and more patient focused home health devices as well. I can’t think of any other organization that’s merging the two like they could do. Some specific healthcare organizations are doing it on their own, but not a vendor.

Kevin Phillips, VP of Marketing and Product Management at Capsule Tech, told me that many of their customers were asking them for medical device solutions that reached into the home. It makes sense that a hospital using Capsule Tech for their enterprise medical devices would turn to them for their home health efforts as well. Now that Capsule Tech is part of Qualcomm Life, they’ll have a suite of solutions they can make available to their hospital customers.

From the 2Net partner perspective, Capsule Tech brings a large number of healthcare organizations to the table that could now consider buying their wireless health solutions. The key is going to be how well Qualcomm can integrate their 2Net platform with Capsule Tech. Capsule Tech has integrated with pretty much all of the major EHR vendors out there. Can Qualcomm leverage these EHR integrations to the benefit of their 2Net partners?

I asked this very question of Dr. James R. Mault, VP and Chief Medical Officer of Qualcomm Life. He danced around the subject citing the EHR blocking that was highlighted by ONC earlier this year and how many EHR vendors and health systems have made it really hard to create these type of integrations. However, Dr. Mault also described how there’s been some major changes recently in this regard thanks to the push towards value based care and reduced hospital readmissions. Organizations are realizing they have to start opening up. I’d describe his answer as hopeful, but realistic when it comes to the challenges they face with EHR integrations. If Qualcomm Life could offer their partners a path to the EHR through Capsule Tech, that would be a real coup.

At the end of the day, the proof is in the pudding. This conceptual medical device data sharing platform across the healthcare enterprise and home health sounds great. I’ll be interested in how Qualcomm Life and Capsule Tech do at executing it. Are hospitals really ready to purchase the home health products? Will these solutions help them in their value based reimbursement, ACO, and/or reduced hospital readmission efforts? It’s going to be interesting to watch and see which Qualcomm Life partners are of interest to the hospital market. I told them I’d follow up at HIMSS 2016 to see how they’re doing.

Are ACOs More About Good Accounting and Reporting Than Improving Care?

Posted on August 28, 2015 I Written By

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

I was recently reading David Harlow’s analysis of the recently released data from CMS on ACO performance and found a lot to chew on. Most people have found the results underwhelming unless they’re big proponents of ACOs and value based reimbursement and then they’re trying to spin it as “early on” and “this is just the start.” I agree with both perspectives. Everyone is trying to figure out how to reimburse for value based care, and so far we haven’t really figured it out.

These programs aside, after reading David Harlow’s post, I asked the following question:

The thing I can’t figure out with ACOs is if they’re really changing the cost of healthcare or if they’re mostly a game of good accounting and reporting. Basically, do the measures they’re requiring really cause organizations to change how they care for patients or does it just change how organizations document and report what they’re doing?

I think this is a massive challenge with value based reimbursement. We require certain data to “prove” that there’s been a change in how organizations manage patients. However, I can imagine hundreds of scenarios where the organization just spends time managing how they collect the data as opposed to actually changing the way they care for patients in order to improve the data.

Certainly there’s value in organizations getting their heads around their performance data. So, I don’t want to say that collecting the right data won’t be helpful. However, the healthcare system as a whole isn’t going to benefit from lower costs if most ACOs are just about collecting data as opposed to making changes that influence the data in the right way. The problem is that the former is a program you can build. The later is much harder to build and track.

Plus, this doesn’t even take into account that we may be asking them to collect the wrong data. Do we really know which data we need to collect in order to lower the costs of healthcare and improve the health of patients? There is likely some low hanging fruit, but once we get past that low hanging fruit, then what?

In response to my comment, David Harlow brought up a great point about many of the ACO program successes not being reproducible. Why does an ACO in one area improve quality and reduce costs and in another it doesn’t?

All of this reminds me of the question that Steve Sisko posed in yesterday’s #KareoChat:

There are a lot of things that seem to make sense until you dig into what’s really happening. We still have a lot of digging left to do in healthcare. Although, like Steve, I’m optimistic that many of the things we’re doing with ACOs and value based care will provide benefits. How could they not?

The Post SGR Replacement World – An SGR Infographic

Posted on July 13, 2015 I Written By

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

I’ve been regularly blogging about the changes from a fee for service world to a new value based reimbursement world and everything that’s involved in that. I think it’s a key change that’s happening in healthcare that’s going to drive everyone to do things differently. This is particularly true as a healthcare IT vendor.

With that in mind, I found this history of Medicare SGR patches quite interesting. Understanding the past is a great way to take a look at where we’re heading in the future.
SGR Timeline and Move to MIPS and MACRA