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!!

Flow – A Spoken Word HIE Piece by Ross Martin

Posted on August 27, 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.

Want to see brilliance in action? Check out this spoken word piece about HIEs by Ross Martin.

Here’s the background Ross Martin shares about the piece:

On Monday, August 17th, 2015 I begin a new chapter as Program Director for the new Integrated Care Network initiative at CRISP, Maryland’s health information exchange. We will be providing data to healthcare providers to enhance their care coordination efforts and providing additional care coordination tools to some of those providers who don’t already have these capabilities in place.

To mark the transition, I decided to make a video of this spoken word piece I wrote in 2012 (originally entitled “A Man among Millions”) for my last day consulting for the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT while I was working at Deloitte Consulting. This piece explains why I am so passionate about making health information exchange work for all of us.

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a difference with an amazing team of collaborators and look forward to providing updates on our progress over the coming months and years.

Words: http://rossmartinmd.blogspot.com/2015/08/flow.html

Department of Defense (DoD) EHR Project Opens Doors for HIT Vendors and Non-Vendors – Breakaway Thinking

Posted on August 19, 2015 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Carrie Yasemin Paykoc, Senior Instructional Designer / Research Analyst at The Breakaway Group (A Xerox Company). Check out all of the blog posts in the Breakaway Thinking series.
Carrie Yasemin Paykoc
Numerous medical advances can be traced back to development and research conducted by the U.S. military. In most instances, these developments were directly related to mitigating casualties and disease during times of war. The U.S. Civil War is seen as one of the most influential military events to advance modern medicine. Life-saving amputations, anesthesia, thoracic surgery, wound treatment, facial reconstruction, and the inception of the ambulance-to-ER transport system all originated with military intervention. While today’s medical advancements have certainly surpassed anything ever imagined by Civil War surgeons a century and a half ago, the model of healthcare innovations spurring from military initiatives remains steadfast. In fact, the U.S. military is one of the largest payers and providers within the modern day healthcare system, and the Department of Defense’s (DoD) current Electronic Health Records (EHR) project presents an unparalleled opportunity for development and implementation of an innovative solution that will inform advancement in both the military and private health systems. With this DoD decision, the contracted vendors will have opportunities and challenges to fulfill the reality of this EHR, and all other vendors will have an opportunity to innovate and capitalize on the private sector.

While the massive undertaking to update the DoD’s EHR system holds great promise, many health information technology experts have expressed skepticism surrounding the approach and associated costs of implementation via a complex public-private partnership model. Skeptics also continue to point to the failed implementation of HealthCare.gov as a litmus test for potential success. Potential pitfalls aside, the DoD EHR project does create opportunity for health information technology (HIT) vendors and start-ups across the industry who recognize that disruptive innovation can easily erupt in the private sector, and new market opportunities will arise as a result of this government-private sector partnership. Both critics and supporters should pay attention to the developments in the coming months.

The DoD contract will likely span 10 years with the aim of creating a new electronic health system to replace the DoD’s Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA). This collective effort, referred to as the Defense Healthcare Management System Modernization (DHMSM),  or “Dimsum” as commonly called by health IT insiders, creates opportunity for development of a commercial, off-the-shelf version of the government system. The price tag for this contracted venture is $4.34 billion, but that certainly may increase as development evolves. Compared to prior attempts by the DoD and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to create an integrated electronic health record at an estimated costs of $28 billion, the $4.34 billion price tag appears to offer staggering savings; however, the two projects differ greatly. The initial integrated EHR was scrapped due to cost estimates and disagreement between DoD and VA leadership, ultimately leading to DHMSM and the VA moving forward with a separate update to that EHR, which later became known as the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistaA) program.  Despite leadership disagreements and technological difficulties, one of the goals of DHMSM is interoperability between the new DoD system and the VA system.

Dr. Jonathan Woodson, assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, articulated the need for interoperability between both military and private systems during a July 29 briefing. He stated that the goal is for the new military system and the private sector systems to become interoperable. If private sector health IT vendors – whether partners in the contract or not – figure out how to easily exchange data and communicate with other platforms, they will truly capitalize on this opportunity and improve care simultaneously.

Interoperability between private and military systems is underway. For example, the Military Health System in Colorado Springs, Colorado joined efforts with the Colorado Regional Information Organization (CORHIO) and is making progress with interoperability and data sharing through the utilization of Health Information Exchanges (HIEs). They are able to share patient information and data in both private and military health systems. As presented at this years’ HIMSS conference, the initial collaboration and efforts between the two organizations have shown promising results.

Dr. Karen DeSalvo, federal health IT coordinator, echoes further support and enthusiasm for DHMSM and private system interoperability. “[The DHMSM is] an important step toward achieving a nationwide interoperable health IT infrastructure.” As contributors to the Office of the National Coordinators Interoperability Roadmap, Dr. Karen DeSalvo and her cohorts appreciate the potential impact of establishing interoperability on such a large scale. It will be an incredible milestone in HIT history to attain true interoperability of military and private systems. Conversely, if large-scale interoperability is not achieved, it may lead to more spending and potentially the demise of the project altogether. To the chagrin of DHMSM supporters, this failure would only support assertions that the failed Healthcare.gov website was only the beginning of a litany of government HIT challenges. But given the track record of medical advances related to military research and development, the DHMSM project will likely achieve some level of interoperability and attain the goals set during the initial request-for-proposal phase.

The next opportunity and challenge is already happening. The selected DHMSM health IT vendors must maintain their private sector customer base while rapidly developing the new military system. This is no small task. Doing so will require additional resources and new partnerships to successfully manage this effort. It also means that if these vendors are not successful, their customer base may decide to switch EHRs and implement another EHR platform altogether. Either way, there are opportunities for HIT vendors and consultants to innovate and gain entry to new markets and customers.

Alternatively, the HIT vendors not selected for the DHMSM contract are positioned to innovate and create new technologies and supporting systems. Although the military is responsible for many medical advances, numerous technological advances have been developed in the private sector and can be traced to simple beginnings in a garage or dorm room without any direct military or government involvement. Those across the HIT marketplace have the opportunity and motivation to develop new, cutting-edge technology, by capitalizing upon the bright light currently being shone on new health technologies as a means of improving patient safety and health outcomes.

Data security is another area to pay attention to in the coming months. The DHMSM is an excellent opportunity to develop sophisticated systems to protect patient health information. Conversely, creating such a massive interoperable system opens up risk for data security of all integrated systems. In an age where devices, web searching, and systems leave a trail of bread crumbs and create an internet-of-things (ioT) or web of data points, the new DHMSM system must effectively protect this web of data to avoid compromising personal and national security.

We must also consider the ability to successfully implement and adopt the DHMSM system. This type of system will require a coordinated and focused effort of massive proportions. After coordinating logistics, adopting the new system will require another heroic level of effort. Difficulties may lie in establishing proper governance between the selected HIT vendors and military projects and ensuring that all companies involved have the stamina and focus for the entire life cycle of the system. The DoD began laying the foundation for governance structures during the initial proposal process, but it is yet to be seen if all involved parties will be able to adhere to the outlined parameters and work collaboratively to create their new DHMSM system. Additionally, once the system is designed and implemented, if proper funds are not available to sustain the system, the DoD would have to consider a potential redesign.

The military’s track record with medical advances positions them to successfully implement the new DHMSM system. Remarkably, this project has the potential to lay the foundation for interoperability and data security in the U.S. Despite the obvious challenges associated with the DHMSM EHR project, a system that is able to communicate and safely share data for large populations is worth the investment. From a global perspective, many countries are far ahead of the U.S. in designing and implementing national health records (e.g. Denmark, Finland, Sweden, UK, and Australia). There is also the potential for the DHMSM system to evolve one day into a national electronic health record, but doing so would require a national paradigm shift and lot more than $4.3 billion. Additionally, the challenges associated with this initial venture will surely be exacerbated due to the scale of the project and sheer importance. Health IT vendors and start-ups not directly involved in DHMSM should remain optimistic and on the lookout for new opportunities and challenges on the horizon. If the DoD and the contracted health IT vendors can successfully develop and deploy the DHMSM system, new opportunities, research and medical advances will likely follow.  It’s up to both HIT vendors and non-vendors of the DoD contract to decide whether they walk through this “door” of opportunity and make the most of this historic initiative.

Xerox is a sponsor of the Breakaway Thinking series of blog posts.

Transferring Custody of a Chart to the Patient – Could That Drive Patient Engagement?

Posted on August 11, 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 recently wrote about the concept of health information disposal and how we’re going to have to reevaluate how we approach disposing of patients charts in this new digital world. Plus, EHR vendors are going to have to build the functionality to make it a reality. However, some replied to that article that in this new world we shouldn’t ever dispose of charts.

We’ll leave that argument for that article (or in the comments) and instead discuss another concept that Deborah Green from AHIMA told me about. Deborah suggested that one possible solution for digital chart disposal would be to transfer custody of the chart to the patient. I think that terminology might not sit right with some people since the patient should have access to the chart regardless. However I think the word custody has a slightly different meaning.

When a healthcare organization is ready to dispose of an electronic chart based on their record retention laws (which usually vary by state), then it’s the perfect time to give patients the opportunity to download and retain a copy of their paper chart before it’s destroyed. In that way, the healthcare organization could worry less about deleting the electronic chart since they’ve transferred “custody” of the chart to the patient.

This removes the responsibility of storing the patient chart from the healthcare organization and puts it on the patients that want to have their entire medical chart. The perfect custodian of the patient chart is the patient. At least it should be.

I wonder if a healthcare organization informing patients that their old charts will be deleted would be enough to actually drive patient engagement and download of their electronic record. While meaningful use has required the view, download and transmit of records by patients, most people have been gaming that requirement without patients really getting the benefit. I have a feeling that patients hearing the words “deleted chart” would wake a lot of them up from their slumber. They wouldn’t know why they’d want the paper chart, but I imagine many would take action and preserve their medical record. Once they download the chart, it would be the first step towards actually engaging with their health data.

What do you think? Is transferring custody of the electronic record the right approach to health information disposal? Would this drive a new form of patient engagement? Would it wake up the sleeping giant which is involved patients?

Will Personal Health Information Exchanges (PHIE) Lead the Consumer Medical Record Revolution and Bridge the Gap Between PHRs and EHRs? (Part 2 of 2)

Posted on August 5, 2015 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Cora Alisuag, RN, MN, MA, CFP, President & CEO, CORAnet Solutions, Inc.
Cora Alisuag, CEO, CORAnet Solutions
Be sure to check out part 1 in this series where we talked about the movement towards an empowered patient who controls their health record.

Lack of Interoperability Continues to Hamper Patient Record Access

However, it has been six years since the HITECH Act passed, yet most Americans seeking medical care are still unable to obtain their full medical records for a variety of reasons. Some hospitals will simply not release them or proprietary EHR system vendors not allowing hospitals, let alone patients, direct access.

This capability also comes at a critical time as enormous obstacles hamper the ability of people to obtain their medical records. This is documented in the ONC’s “2015 Report to Congress on Health Information Blocking” which concludes that it is apparent that some health care providers and health IT developers are knowingly interfering with the exchange of health information in ways that limit its availability and use to improve health and health care.

This situation is only going to worsen as the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare (CMS) is considering a change to the EHR meaningful use rule that requires five percent of patients must view or download or transmit their health data to only one patient; not one percent, one patient.

Blue Button Not Gaining traction

In the meantime, other PHR technology has been introduced, but has not gained popularity including forays from Microsoft and Google. The ONC and other government organizations’ initiative to adopt and use the Blue Button platform for exchanging healthcare data between clinicians equipped with electronic health-record systems and patients with mobile computing devices is stalled, according to a recent survey by the not-for-profit Workgroup for Electronic Data Interchange (WEDI).

WEDI questioned 274 providers, health plans, HIT vendors and claims clearinghouses in the Second Annual Survey of Industry Awareness of Blue Button, conducted late in 2014. Only eight percent of respondents noted that their organizations actually used Blue Button, down from 15% of survey respondents in 2013.

PHRs Largely Unpopular

PHRs joined the lexicon of medical terminology several years ago as a convenience way for consumers to have copies of their medical records. It was largely born out of EHR’s lack of interoperability and access. However, as far back as 2009, a Health Affairs article detailed the major factors behind the slow adoption of PHRs. The article reviewed some of the reasons and includes cost, access, interoperability, security concerns, and data ownership.

Because health records which include clinical data, laboratory results and medical images do not flow freely among multiple organizations due to lack on EHR interoperability, PHRs do not automatically receive data. This means that the data must often be entered manually by consumers—a time-consuming and error-prone process. For most consumers, this lack of safe and reliable automation makes it problematic to maintain a PHR, and a PHR that is not up-to-date likely will not be used. Unlike PHIEs, the API-EHR connectivity connection is the missing link in PHRs.

However, the authors of the Health Affairs article offered a challenge. They described a gap between today’s personal health records (PHRs) and what patients say they want and need from this electronic tool for managing their health information. They noted that until that gap is bridged, it is unlikely that PHRs would be widely adopted, but noted that in the future; when these concerns are addressed, and health data is portable and understandable in content and format, PHRs will likely prove to be invaluable.

“While we all agree that lack of interoperability continues to stymie patient health record access and PHRs might not be the ultimate solution, but if a PHIE can bridge the gap by accessing EHR data through an open API while offering the security and convenience of a PHR. I believe PHIEs offer a solution that should satisfy the spontaneity of millennials’ and more frequent use of middle-aged and elderly users,” says Tiffany Casper, RNC, CNM, MSN and President of EMR Consultants which helps medical organizations transition to EMR systems.

About Cora Alisuag
Cora Alisuag is the CEO of CORAnet Solutions, Inc., a health information technology company. She is the inventor of CORAnet technology, the software engine that drives CORAnet’s Personal Health Information Exchange (PHIE), allowing patients’ mobile device access to their complete medical records. She is also an MN, MA, CFP and healthcare industry speaker and serial medical entrepreneur.

Will Personal Health Information Exchanges (PHIE) Lead the Consumer Medical Record Revolution and Bridge the Gap Between PHRs and EHRs? (Part 1 of 2)

Posted on August 4, 2015 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Cora Alisuag, RN, MN, MA, CFP, President & CEO, CORAnet Solutions, Inc.
Cora Alisuag, CEO, CORAnet Solutions
It has only been about two generations since traveling medicine shows were common forums for medical information. Phony research and medical claims were used to back up the sale of all kinds of dubious medicines. Potential patients had no real method to determine what was true or false, let alone know what their real medical issues were.

Healthcare has come a long way since those times, but similar to the lack of knowing the compositions of past medical concoctions and what ailed them, today’s digital age patients still don’t know what is in their medical records. They need transparency, not secret hospital –vendor contracts and data blocking, like the practices being questioned by the New York Times. One patient, Regina Holliday resorts to using art to bring awareness to the lack of patient’s access to their own medical records.

Testifying in July 2015 before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, Direct Trust President and CEO David C. Kibbe, MD MBA, has urged the federal government to take action to help overcome the problems impeding the sharing of health information between and among parties authorized to access electronic health data, commonly referred to as “information blocking.”

“While the responsibility for assuring secure interoperable exchange resides primarily with the health care provider organizations, and not with the EHR (electronic health record) vendors nor the government, I strongly believe there is a role for government to encourage and incentivize collaborative and interoperable health information exchange,” testified Dr. Kibbe, one of the nation’s foremost authorities on health information exchange security issues.

There are many reasons patients want access. Second opinions, convenience, instant access in a medical emergency and right of ownership—I paid for them, I own them. Other reasons patients need to view their records is for accuracy and validity. Inaccurate record keeping has even caused the EHRI Institute to cite incorrect or missing data in EHRs and other health IT systems as the second highest safety concern in its annual survey, outlining the Top Ten Safety Concerns for Healthcare Organizations in 2015.

Healthcare system executives, from CIOs to CEOs are very aware of the increasing requirements from patients asking for their records and the various state and federal laws that come into play. However, they are also aware that by making it too easy for patients to access records they risk liability and HIPAA issues. They also don’t want to provide documents that can easily enable cost comparisons or raise questions about charges.

Consumers Uniting

Riding the wave of interest in accessing personal medical records are organizations like Get My Health Data. Org. The organization was founded in June 2015 as a collaborative effort among leading consumer organizations, health care experts, former policy makers and technology organizations that believe consumer access to digital health information is an essential cornerstone for better health and better care, coordinated by the National Partnership for Women & Families, a non-profit consumer organization. On July 4 it launched #DataIndependenceDay to create awareness for the HIPAA law which states that patients must be granted access to their health information with very few exceptions. An update to those laws that was finalized in 2013 extends these rights to electronic health records.

Despite the introduction of Personal Health Records (PHRs), Blue Button technology and product introductions from blue chip technology leaders such as Microsoft and Google, there has been no significant, unifying technology to ignite pent up demand for their medical records by consumers. This lack luster interest and ongoing interoperability issues might be the unifying force to drive many consumers to consider Personal Health Information Exchanges (PHIEs) as an alternative to EHRs and Health Information Exchanges (HIEs) that unnecessarily duplicate data and risk HIPAA violations.

Will PHIEs Ignite the Patient Record Access Movement?

Frost & Sullivan, in its research report, “Moving Beyond the Limitations of Fragmented Solutions Empowering Patients with Integrated, Mobile On-Demand Access to the Health Information Continuum”, identifies Personal Health Information Exchange (PHIEs). They are described as providing individual patients, physicians, and the full spectrum of ancillary providers with immediate, real-time access to medical records regardless of where they are stored by using an open API.

The PHIE can provide access to the entirety of an individual patient record, regardless of the number of sources or EHR systems in which the patient data resides. This technology is made possible through fully interoperable integration servers that can access any EHR system with available APIs and portray the integrated data in a viewable, secure and encrypted format on a mobile device.

By leveraging the powerful simplicity of open APIs, PHIE technology can also access medical records in a way that is much more comprehensive than the closed EMR portals commonly used by doctors’ offices. Despite their pervasive use, these portals are cumbersome and expensive for patient’s use. The portals also include the same lack of interoperability that plagues hospital EHR systems.

“PHIEs can be the breakthrough everyone has been waiting for; challenging every consumer health organization, third-party payer, hospital, ACO network, and Congress to recognize the need to move away from proprietary systems. Adoption of this technology would also demonstrate the healthcare industries’ commitment to allowing patients access to their own records,” notes Dr. Donald Voltz, an anesthesiologist at Aultman Hospital in Canton, Ohio who leads a campaign for EHR connectivity.

“If done correctly, PHIEs can lead in the consumer health information campaign for change, interoperability now, quality and safety through license relationships with hospitals, payers, telecommunications companies, mobile device firms and large employers. Interoperability issues could be a thing of the past and lead to integration with leading EMR systems, integration with HIEs, VAR agreements with health and wellness IT firms and application distribution through the online market place with Google Play and iTunes,” says Voltz.

Tomorrow in part 2 of the series we’ll talk about current interoperability efforts and the challenges they face.

About Cora Alisuag
Cora Alisuag is the CEO of CORAnet Solutions, Inc., a health information technology company. She is the inventor of CORAnet technology, the software engine that drives CORAnet’s Personal Health Information Exchange (PHIE), allowing patients’ mobile device access to their complete medical records. She is also an MN, MA, CFP and healthcare industry speaker and serial medical entrepreneur.

How Do We Balance Improved Outcomes with Protecting Personal Information?

Posted on July 29, 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.

There’s an interesting article by the Pacific Standard (never heard of them before now) about the “hidden market” of medical data that exists. The final paragraph provides a great summary of the challenges we face when it comes to health data:

There is no perfect way to balance the competing priorities of using big data for improved health outcomes and protecting our personal information. Opinions on which interests should come first will differ—and should. But the debate cannot be open, honest, or effective if major companies like Walgreens or Safeway are secretive about what they do. People are often generous when it comes to volunteering personal data for the purpose of advancing medicine. They are less so when it comes to enriching sellers of information. Either way, the proper course of action is disclosure. Simply put, if our medical data is being bought and sold, we deserve to know it—and have a say. Perhaps making our data available to others is as helpful to medicine as IMS claims. But shouldn’t that be up to us?

That’s the best summary of balancing improved outcomes and personal information that I’ve ever read. We all want better outcomes and I think that most of us believe that the right healthcare data will get us to better outcomes. We also all want our data to be protected from people who will use it inappropriately. The balance between the two competing priorities will never be perfect.

The reality is that there’s going to be more and more healthcare data available about all of us. Much of that data is going to be shared with a large number of organizations. Most people are just fine with that sharing assuming they believe the sharing will help them receive better care. However, there does need to be some mechanism of transparency and disclosure about when and how data is used. That doesn’t happen today, but it should happen.

The challenge is that pandora’s already out of the box. The data is already flowing a lot of places and putting in accountability now will be a real challenge. Not that I’m against challenging things, but we’re kidding ourselves if we think that accountability and transparency around where and when are data is shared is going to be easy to accomplish. First, companies are going to be dragged kicking and screaming to make it happen. Some because they know they’re doing some things that are at least in the grey area and some are totally shady. Others aren’t doing anything inappropriate, but they realize the costs to implement transparency and accountability for the health data they share is going to be very high. A high cost project that doesn’t add any more revenue is a hard business proposition.

While I’m not hopeful that we’ll see a widespread transparency about what health data’s being shared where, I do think that some forward thinking healthcare companies could push this agenda forward. It will likely happen with some of the companies who have avoided the grey and shady areas of health data sharing that want to create a competitive advantage over their competitors and build trust with their users. Then, some others will follow along.

What do you think that could be done to make health data sharing that’s happening today more transparent?

Healthcare Standard Proliferation Comic

Posted on July 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.

It’s Friday and I’m in Utah where today is a state holiday (think a second July 4th party). What does all that mean? It’s time for another Fun Friday post. I thought this comic that Dan Munro shared would be perfect:

I think the only modification we need is to have it say “See: Healthcare.” If you want to make this educational, the comic does point out some other places we could look to see where standard proliferation has been a problem. Or you could just enjoy the humor and head for the weekend. Either way, Happy Friday!

Eyes Wide Shut – Making the Most of Meaningful Use, for Healthcare Providers, Insurers, and Patients

Posted on July 21, 2015 I Written By

Mandi Bishop is a hardcore health data geek with a Master's in English and a passion for big data analytics, which she brings to her role as Dell Health’s Analytics Solutions Lead. She fell in love with her PCjr at 9 when she learned to program in BASIC. Individual accountability zealot, patient engagement advocate, innovation lover and ceaseless dreamer. Relentless in pursuit of answers to the question: "How do we GET there from here?" More byte-sized commentary on Twitter: @MandiBPro.

When I ask a room of 100 health plan leaders, “how many of you know what HL7 is,” and only a third raise their hands, I realize there had been a “Meaningful Use” for my recent travels through the healthcare provider system and its maze of regulatory and payer mandates. I navigated change management hell in order to inform my future endeavors. I came out on the other side of an attestation nightmare with the knowledge to educate others who are embarking on extensions of that journey. This “Eyes Wide Shut” series has come full-circle.

For those who have followed this series, a quick update on the fate of the IDN highlighted throughout earlier posts: they have not yet successfully attested to all Meaningful Use Stage 2 measures across all the inpatient facilities and ambulatory practices. However, the continuing changes to attestation criteria (specifically, the engagement measures that caused so much consternation) may allow them to squeak in under the wire in fiscal year 2016 before penalties kick in. Although I’m no longer directly involved in the IDN’s pursuit of multi-EMR integration excellence, I am a “beneficiary” of those encounter data normalization efforts, as I am back to working with payer clients who are leveraging this clinically-integrated network. And I’m still having to adjust for inconsistencies in identity management rules, coding practices, and clinical workflow differences across each of the offices (and departments within offices), as I integrate their information with the insurer’s data ecosystem.

I began this series on my (woefully neglected) personal blog, almost 2 years ago: Eyes Wide Shut: Seeing the Dark Side of Health IT Mandates and Meaningful Use. Coming from the health insurance world, I had no idea of the magnitude of healthcare provider process impacts resulting from regulatory and payer demands (nee, mandates). I was insensitive to the plight of the independent general practitioner, and the size of the budget required to implement a certified EMR, let alone populate it with any patient history or integrate it with existing scheduling or billing processes. I didn’t realize that my request for chart data to support HEDIS measures would involve more work than simply clicking an indicator in an EMR configuration screen to suddenly send me my heart’s desire of data elements. I would never have believed that certified software would not be tested for conformance to code-level specifications (only visual output tests).

To all my clinician and provider office-worker friends: I am sorry for all the ways in which this ignorance may have contributed to the new reality forced on practitioners of medicine to also be data-entry clerks/contract lawyers/IT experts. Personally, I want my doctor to be my doctor. So, I’m dedicating the next leg of my career journey aligning all healthcare system actors to what should always have been our higher purpose: contributing positively to the health and well-being of the individuals and populations we serve.

When I initially began writing this post, I thought I’d be using it to end the series.

Instead, I’m just embarking on a new chapter: the post-provider world of healthcare actor convergence.

FHIR Optimism – Is It Misplaced?

Posted on July 9, 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.

We’ve all seen the optimism around FHIR. I even wrote the cheeky post titled FHIR is on Fire. I think that observation is still accurate. If you mention the word FHIR, then people start listening. I saw a number of sessions at HIMSS on FHIR and there was a lot of interest. I actually think that many people were (and are) still trying to figure out how FHIR is different from all the previous HL7 versions, but there was a definite interest in learning about it.

Admittedly, I’m still working to understand FHIR as well. However, in all the learning I’ve done, FHIR feels like more of the same. Certainly it’s a step forward from previous HL7 iterations. I think that it has much more robust capabilities. There is a lot to like about FHIR and I don’t want to thwart people’s efforts to bring it to light.

As I’ve thought about this more though, I don’t think FHIR is the coming of interoperability. Here’s what I asked in today’s #KareoChat:

I think most would agree that the reason we don’t have healthcare data interoperability yet has almost nothing to do with the technology. It has everything to do with political and economic reasons why healthcare organizations didn’t (and many still don’t) want to share data. I’m quite sure that if there was a political and financial reason to share data it would happen very quickly.

Assuming you agree with this premise, why then do we think that a new tech standard (FHIR in this case) will change those dynamics? Will FHIR be so plug and play obvious that healthcare executives will start being embarrassed for not sharing data when it’s so easy? My past experience with healthcare standards say that won’t be the case. FHIR will be a technical improvement over what we have today, but still will require a lot of effort.

I’d love to be proven wrong on this. Do you have a different view? I’d love to learn in the comments.

Starting with Small and Simple Changes

Posted on June 26, 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 I had the chance to talk with Dr. Adam Sharp, CMO of par8o. While I’d followed at a very high level Dr. Sharp and Dr. Daniel Palestrant’s move from Founding Sermo to the launch of par8o, this was the first time I’d had a chance to really learn what they were doing in their new venture. I’d say that par8o’s core product now is managing the referral process, but they’ve built referral management on a platform that could facilitate all sorts of communication and data sharing across many parts of healthcare.

I love the way they’re approaching healthcare IT because I’ve long believed that many healthcare IT companies are trying to bite off more than they can chew. Many healthcare IT companies have really big visions of how they’re going to solve healthcare’s problems (of which there are many). They raise a bunch of money to go after those problems and then they never really solve anything. In most cases, the healthcare establishment kicks against such massive changes and so it makes it almost impossible for a health IT company to sell such a massive solution.

One reality of life is that we all hate change. This is true even when we know that change is the right thing to do. So, it shouldn’t be any wonder when a healthcare IT company comes in and wants to massively change what we’re doing that they find resistance. I consider that a failed strategy that I’ve seen far too many healthcare IT startup companies employ.

What I heard from par8o is that they’ve taken the opposite approach. They’re focused on a small change that can provide value to a healthcare organization. In this case it’s referral management. When you hear what they’re doing to make the round trip referral and response process electronic, you ask yourself why we haven’t been using technology to do this forever.

I’ve seen over and over again in healthcare IT that these small, simple and almost obvious solutions often make the biggest impact. They make a big impact because healthcare organizations actually adopt them. Dr. Sharp told me that even the small changes they’re introducing often meet resistance from their users. They have to invest a lot of time and effort to overcome that resistance. If even small changes are resisted, you can imagine why massive changes to an organization’s process are flat out refused.

What’s most interesting about this approach is that by successfully implementing these small changes, it opens the door for a company to eventually help a healthcare organization make much larger changes. I’ve often asked healthcare IT companies, what’s your gateway drug? (ie. What feature of your product do they really want to buy that gets them started with you?). Once you get them hooked on a specific feature, then you have the relationship and trust built to be able to offer broader changes.

It seems like par8o has taken the right approach to building trust in and providing value to their customers in referral management. I’ll be interested to watch how they leverage that trust and their healthcare communication and data sharing platform (they call it a healthcare operating system) to optimize other healthcare processes. In a fee for service world many healthcare organizations profited from a lack of optimization. In a new value based care world those optimizations are going to become extremely important.