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!!

The Power of Combining Clinical & Claims Data

Posted on November 16, 2017 I Written By

The following is a guest blog by Monica Stout from MedicaSoft

Whether the goal is to improve outcomes or increase efficiency, the healthcare industry finds itself searching for more and better data to support its efforts. Clinical data provides substantial details on patient encounters, but it is often difficult to assemble and integrate data from more than one healthcare provider. Claims data is better at following a patient across multiple care providers, but lacks information on patient health status and outcomes. Individually, both sets of data tell helpful stories, from chronicling the cost of care to reflecting how medicine is practiced. Together, clinical and claims data provide a fuller picture of a patient’s interactions with health care systems, the costs involved, and the results achieved. This larger picture provides the information that healthcare providers and insurers can use to guide their actions.

Assembling this data and making it available in a useful framework remains challenging. Data is not always available from providers and payers. When data is available, it is often not standardized (a particular issue with clinical data), making analysis difficult. So, how do organizations avoid investing time and money in efforts that fail to produce meaningful results? How do you make the data useful and improve patient satisfaction, care quality, and drive down system costs?

  1. Better data sharing agreements. Both providers and payers need more stringent data sharing agreements in place as well as insistence that they receive good data from plans.
  2. Address data quality issues head-on. Use real experts armed with specific tools to address any data quality issues within an organization.
  3. Use technology to help. Clinical data platforms can aggregate and integrate data into clinically relevant patient records, and claims data platforms extract relevant information from the complexity of the underlying claims data. Further, new advanced platforms help integrate clinical and claims data to support meaningful analytics.

Bringing together clinical data and claims data in a form that supports a variety of tools and analytics is key to the efforts of both healthcare providers and payers to improve outcomes, quality, and cost. This integrated data approach will yield better results than can be achieved with clinical or claims data alone. Stakeholders can and should leverage both policy and technology to develop solutions that produce meaningful results.

Are you combining clinical and claims data in your organization? What value have you gotten out of doing so? Why aren’t you doing it if you’re not?

About Monica Stout
Monica is a HIT teleworker in Grand Rapids, Michigan by way of Washington, D.C., who has consulted at several government agencies, including the National Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). She’s currently the Marketing Director at MedicaSoft. Monica can be found on Twitter @MI_turnaround or LinkedIn.

About MedicaSoft
MedicaSoft designs, develops, delivers, and maintains EHR, PHR, and UHR software solutions and HISP services for healthcare providers and patients around the world. MedicaSoft is a proud sponsor of Healthcare Scene. For more information, visit www.medicasoft.us or connect with us on Twitter @MedicaSoftLLC, Facebook, or LinkedIn.

Is It Time To Redefine Interoperability?

Posted on October 26, 2017 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.

Recently, an article appearing in healthcare journal HealthAffairs argued that hospitals’ progress toward interoperability has been modest to date. The article, which looked at the extent to which hospitals found, sent, received and integrated information from outside providers in 2015, found that they’d made few gains across all four categories.

Researchers found that the percent of hospitals engaging in all four activities rose to 29.7% that year, up from 24.5% in 2014. The two activities that grew the most in frequency were sending (growing 8.1%) and receiving (8.4%). Despite this expansion, only 18.7% of hospitals reported that they used this data often. The extent to which hospitals integrated the information they received didn’t change from 2014 to 2015.

Interesting, isn’t it, how these stats fail to align with what we know of hospitals’ priorities?  Not only did the rate hospitals sent and received data increase slowly between those two years, hospitals don’t seem to be making any advances in integrating (and presumably, using) shared data. This doesn’t make sense given hospitals’ intense efforts to make interoperability happen.

The question is, are hospitals still limping along in their efforts, or are we failing to measure their progress effectively? For years now, looking at the extent to which they sent/received/found/integrated data has been the accepted yardstick most quarters. To my knowledge, though, those metrics haven’t been validated by formal research as being the best way to define and capture levels of interoperability.

Yes, hospital health data interoperability may be moving as slowly as the HealthAffairs article suggests. After all, I hardly have to tell readers like you how difficult it has been to foster interoperability in any form, and how challenging it has been to achieve any kind of consensus on data staring standards. If someone tells progress toward health data exchange between hospitals hasn’t reached robust levels yet, it probably won’t surprise you in the least.

Still, before we draw the sweeping conclusions about something as important as interoperability, it probably wouldn’t hurt to double-check that we’re asking the right questions.

For example, is the extent to which providers send data to outside organizations as important as the extent to which they receive such data?  I know, in theory, that health data exchanges would be just that, a back and forth between parties on both sides. Certainly, such arrangements are probably better for the industry as a whole long term. But does that mean we should discount the importance of one side or the other of the process?

Perhaps more importantly, at least in my book, is the degree to which hospitals integrate the data into their own systems a good proxy for measuring who’s making interoperability progress? And should be assumed that if they integrate the data, they’re likely to use it to improve outcomes or streamline care?

Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not suggesting that the existing metrics are useless. However, it would be nice to know whether they actually measure what we want them to measure. We need to validate our tools if we want use them to make important judgments about care delivery. Otherwise, why bother with measurements in the first place?

Patient Portal Use Rising Rapidly

Posted on October 25, 2017 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 new study has concluded that patient portal use has shot up over the past few years, with a substantial majority of patients reporting that they use provider portals if possible.

The purpose of the study, results of which was published in Perspectives in Health Information Management, was to examine how healthcare consumers saw their interactions with provider portals, their use of personal health records and their take on the process of releasing health data.

According to a 2015 study cited by the article’s authors, 53% of HIM professionals reported charging consumers for both electronic and paper copies of their health information. Thirty-eight percent said they had a patient portal, but less than 5% of patients were using it.

Over the last two years, however, the picture has changed a great deal. Researchers conducting the current study found that only 10% of consumers were charged for their health information. In addition, 49% reported that they maintained a personal health record. Eighty-three percent of respondents said that their providers had portals, and 82% said that they were taking advantage of their provider’s portal where available.

Patient uses for portals included viewing lab results (35%), requesting medication refills (19%), requesting appointments (22%), secure messaging (19%) and other (5%). Among portal users, 53% were very satisfied and 38% were satisfied with their experiences.

Meanwhile, 49% of respondents said they maintained PHRs, with top record format being combined paper and electronic (46%), followed by paper only (35%), electronic only (18%) and other (1%).

It’s important to note that the study population was especially healthcare-savvy. Participants chosen were campus-based and online students enrolled in a College of Health Professions course, alumni of BA programs in HIM at the researchers’ university, local AHIMA members and the researchers’ family and friends.

The article argues that because the participants were all current healthcare consumers, they were qualified participants. That may be so, but the high concentration of HIM-friendly respondents probably stacked the deck somewhat. (To be fair, the authors admit this.)

That being said, even these relatively sophisticated respondents weren’t completely comfortable with the health data access they had. Complaints cited by consumers included a lack of interoperability between physicians’ offices and electronic PHI, as well as the difficulty of getting data into the portal or updated when already present. Others reported having concerns about health data security.

All told, it looks like the hoped-for growth in patient health data use is taking place over time. I suspect that a direct comparison between less-informed consumers from 2015 and today would show less pronounced changes, though.

 

HIT for HIEs

Posted on October 17, 2017 I Written By

The following is a guest blog by Mike O’Neill, CEO at MedicaSoft. This is the third blog in a three-part sponsored blog post series focused on new HIT for integration. Each month, a different MedicaSoft expert will share insights on new and innovative technology and its applications in healthcare.

Health Information Exchanges (HIEs) have been in the news lately, and for good reason. With major hurricanes devastating Texas, Florida, the British Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico, accessibility of patient health information rapidly became a major concern. Electronic Health Record adoption has led to most patient data being in electronic form, but it hasn’t necessarily made that data available when and where care is delivered. HIEs can help make that data available; during the recent storms two HIEs were able to spring to action to help clinicians provide care for patients. The ability of the Houston and San Antonio-area HIEs (Greater Houston Healthconnect (GHHC) and Healthcare Access San Antonio (HASA) to exchange information allowed patient records to be accessed remotely – which was absolutely critical during this natural disaster.

If you were on the fence about “the cloud,” this is the perfect case study in its effectiveness. More than ever, HIEs are called upon to assist by making health records available during critical care encounters. HIEs need modern technology to best serve their communities in these instances, going beyond basic connectivity and interoperability to deliver tangible value using the wealth of data they collect –

  1. Organize the data into meaningful health records. HIEs often have access to years of raw data. They may need help organizing it into a clinical data repository, matching patients, and providing a health record that is clinically useful. This is one way we assist HIEs in using the data they’ve collected.
  2. Provide valuable alerts & notifications. These are useful, especially in a crisis, to locate patients, but they can also give patients notice on events they need to follow-up on. This is another layer we build onto HIEs’ data foundation.

Health records that are useful go a long way – beyond individual hospitals, and regions and state lines. To be useful, health records must go where the patients go, wherever that may be.

An emerging approach to meet this need is the Strategic Health Information Exchange Collaborative (SHIEC’s) Patient-Centered Data Home (PCDH) concept among HIEs. PCDH helps providers access real-time health information across regional and state lines, wherever the patient is seeking care. Regardless of where the clinical data originates, it becomes part of the patient’s longitudinal patient record – the PCDH – giving patients control of their data.

About Mike O’Neill
Mike is the CEO at MedicaSoft. He came to MedicaSoft from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) where he was a Senior Advisor and member of the founding team of the VA Center for Innovation. Mike serves as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Open Source Electronic Health Record Alliance (OSEHRA). Prior to VA, Mike was involved in the commercialization of new products and technology in startups and large companies. He is a die-hard Virginia Tech Hokie.  

About MedicaSoft
MedicaSoft designs, develops, delivers, and maintains EHR, PHR, and UHR software solutions and HISP services for healthcare providers and patients around the world. For more information, visit www.medicasoft.us or connect with us on Twitter @MedicaSoftLLC, Facebook, or LinkedIn.

Health Data Standardization Project Proposes “One Record Per Person” Model

Posted on October 13, 2017 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.

When we sit around the ol’ HIT campfire and swap interoperability stories, many of us have little to do but gripe.

Is FHIR going to solve all of our interoperability problems? Definitely not right away, and who knows if it ever will? Can we get the big EMR vendors to share and share alike? They’ll try, but there’s always a catch. And so on. There’s always a major catch involved.

I don’t know if the following offers a better story than any of the others, but at least it’s new one, or at least new to me. Folks, I’m talking about the Standard Health Record, an approach to health data sharing doesn’t fall precisely any of the other buckets I’m aware of.

SHR is based at The MITRE Corporation, which also hosts virtual patient generator Synthea. Rather than paraphrase, let’s let the MITRE people behind SHR tell you what they’re trying to accomplish:

The Standard Health Record (SHR) provides a high quality, computable source of patient information by establishing a single target for health data standardization… Enabled through open source technology, the SHR is designed by, and for, its users to support communication across homes and healthcare systems.

Generalities aside, what is an SHR? According to the project website, the SHR specification will contain all information critical to patient identification, emergency care and primary care along with background on social determinants of health. In the future, the group expects the SHR to support genomics, microbiomics and precision medicine.

Before we dismiss this as another me-too project, it’s worth giving the collaborative’s rationale a look:

The fundamental problem is that today’s health IT systems contain semantically incompatible information. Because of the great variety of the data models of EMR/EHR systems, transferring information from one health IT system to another frequently results in the distortion or loss of information, blocking of critical details, or introduction of erroneous data. This is unacceptable in healthcare.

The approach of the Standard Health Record (SHR) is to standardize the health record and health data itself, rather than focusing on exchange standards.

As a less-technical person, I’m not qualified to say whether this can be done in a way that will be widely accepted, but the idea certainly seems intuitive.

In any event, no one is suggesting that the SHR will change the world overnight. The project seems to be at the beginning stages, with collaborators currently prototyping health record specifications leveraging existing medical record models. (The current SHR spec can be found here.)

Still, I’d love for this to work, because it is at least a fairly straightforward idea. Creating a single source of health data truth seems like it might work.

Why Should Patients Control Their Health Data? Here Are A Few Ideas.

Posted on September 29, 2017 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.

Lately, healthcare organizations have begun working to give patients more access to their personal health data. They’ve concluded that the more control patients have, the more engaged they become in your care, which in turn leads to better outcomes.

But patient engagement isn’t the only reason for giving patients the keys to their PHI. In fact, organizational control of patient health data can cause problems for everyone in the healthcare data exchange chain.

An item found on the Allscripts blog does a nice job of articulating issues that can arise.  According to the blog item, those issues include the following:

  • The patient is in the best position to address inconsistencies in their medical record. For example, if one doctor diagnoses the patient with asthma, then another physician conclusively demonstrates the patient is not asthmatic, the patient can reconcile the two physicians’ conclusions.
  • Patients have a better overview of their care than most doctors. When a chronically ill patient sees multiple clinicians, their impressions may conflict with one another, but the patient can provide context on their overall conditions.
  • If a patient consents to multiple uses of their health data, and the consents seem to be in conflict, only the patient can articulate what their intentions were.
  • If the master patient indexing process generates a false match with someone else’s records, the patient will recognize this immediately, while physicians may not.
  • Giving patients control of the record allows them to decide how long those records should be maintained. Otherwise, HIEs — or other entities not bound by record retention laws — might destroy the data prematurely.
  • When patients have control of their data, they can make sure it gets to whomever they choose. On the other hand, patient data may not make it to other care settings if providers drop the ball.

To be sure, delegating control of their PHI to patients can go too far.

For example, if they’re transmitting most or all of their health data between providers, it could pose a significant administrative burden.  Patients may not have the time or energy to route the data files between their providers, assure that data has been received on the other end and make certain that the data was formatted in a way their clinicians can use.

Also, if the patient is chronically ill and sees multiple providers, they may end up having to manage a large body of data files, and not everyone can do so effectively. Ultimately, they may get too overwhelmed to send their records to anyone, or send the wrong records, which can create complications of its own.

Still, on the whole, healthcare organizations are giving patients more control of their health data for good reasons. When patients take responsibility for their health data, they’re far more likely to understand their condition and take steps to address problems. Establishing a balance between patient and provider control may be tricky, but it can and should be done.

NY-Based HIE Captures One Million Patient Consents

Posted on September 28, 2017 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.

One of the big obstacles to the free exchange of health data is obtaining patient consent to share that data. It’s all well and good if we can bring exchange partners onto a single data sharing format, but if patients don’t consent to that exchange things get ugly. It’s critical that healthcare organizations solve this problem, because without patient consent HIEs are dead in the water.

Given these issues, I was intrigued to read a press release from HEALTHeLINK, an HIE serving Western New York, which announced that it had obtained one million patient consents to share their PHI. HEALTHeLINK connects nearly 4,600 physicians, along with hospitals, health plans and other healthcare providers. It’s part of a larger HIE, the Statewide Health Information Network of New York.

How did HEALTHeLINK obtain the consents? Apparently, there was no magic involved. The HIE made consent forms available at hospitals and doctors’ offices throughout its network, as well as making the forms available for download at whyhealthelink.com. (It may also have helped that they can be downloaded in any of 12 languages.)

I downloaded the consent form myself, and I must say it’s not complicated.

Patients only need to fill out a single page, which gives them the option to a) permit participating providers to access all of their electronic health information via the HIE, b) allow full access to the data except for specific participants, c) permit health data sharing only with specific participants, d) only offer access to their records in an emergency situation, and e) forbid HIE participants to access their health data even in the case of an emergency situation.

About 95% of those who consented chose option a, which seems a bit remarkable to me. Given the current level of data breaches in news, I would’ve predicted that more patients would opt out to some degree.

Nonetheless, the vast majority of patients gave treating providers the ability to view their lab reports, medication history, diagnostic images and several additional categories of health information.

I wish I could tell you what HEALTHeLINK has done to inspire trust, but I don’t know completely. I suspect, however, that provider buy-in played a significant role here. While none of this is mentioned in the HIE’s press release or even on its website, I’m betting that the HIE team did a good job of firing up physicians. After all, if you’re going to pick someone patients would trust, physicians would be your best choice.

On the other hand, it’s also possible patients are beginning to get the importance of having all of the data available during care. While much of health IT is too abstruse for the layman (or woman), the idea that doctors need to know your medical history is clearly beginning to resonate with your average patient.

The Subtle Signs of Sepsis Infographic

Posted on September 27, 2017 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.

Sepsis has been a major challenge in healthcare for a long time. This was highlighted really well on the Wolters Kluwer Nursing Center website:

Throughout my experience in health care over the past 30 plus years, the diagnosis of sepsis has been one of the most challenging. Sepsis affects millions of people worldwide and one in four of the people affected will die. The way we recognize and treat sepsis has changed over the years, and in January 2017, the International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016 was published. This update to the 2012 guidelines, emphasizes that patients with sepsis should be viewed as having a medical emergency, necessitating urgent assessment and treatment.

According to the Advisory Board, the average direct cost per case for a primary sepsis diagnosis is $18,700, yet the typical Medicare reimbursement for sepsis and sepsis with complications is just $7,100-12,000. It’s no wonder so many hospitals are worried about sepsis.

I’ve been impressed with the way technology has been used to address the problem of Sepsis. I’ve seen a lot of companies working to use analytics to predict sepsis or identify it in real time as it’s happening. I recently saw where Wolters Kluwer partnered with Vocera to be able to connect the Sepsis risk analysis data with the providers, carrying Vocera badges, who can make the proper diagnosis and start treatment in the early stages when Sepsis is most treatable.

This kind of collaboration between healthcare IT vendors is the only way we’re going to make a dent in major healthcare problems like Sepsis. So, I applaud these two companies for working together.

For those that don’t know, September is Sepsis Awareness Month. As part of this month long recognition of Sepsis, Wolters Kluwer put together an infographic that shows the subtle signs of sepsis. While technology can certainly help with Sepsis identification and treatment, there’s still an important human element as well. This infographic highlights the signs that healthcare providers can and should look for and methods of treatment.

What efforts have you seen effective in identifying and treating sepsis in your healthcare organization?

Public Health Agencies Struggle To Integrate With HIEs

Posted on September 21, 2017 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.

New research by ONC suggests that while public health agencies might benefit from connecting with HIEs, there are still some significant barriers many need to address before doing so.

Public health agencies at both the state and local level collect information from providers as part of conducting disease surveillance activities and maintaining data registries. Though some of these registries are common – notably those focusing on childhood immunizations, birth defects and cancer—the agencies’ technical infrastructure and data formats still vary. This makes sharing data between them difficult.

One alternative to cumbersome data matching between agencies is for the agencies to integrate with an HIE. According to the ONC report, public health researchers have begun to find that at least some of the time, the data they get from HIE organizations is richer than data from clinical systems. Not only that, when public health agencies integrate their information systems with HIEs, it can help them conduct many of their functions more effectively. However, it’s still unusual to find HIE-connected agencies as of yet.

In its new report, ONC outlines what it learned about what the agencies hoped to accomplish with HIE integration and how they moved ahead with integration. To find this out, ONC contracted with Clinovations Government + Health, which participated in discussions with eight entities and analyzing more detailed information on 10 others.

Virtually all respondents had two goals for HIE integration: 1) Minimizing the number of connections needed to link providers, HIEs and agencies and 2) Helping providers meet public health requirements for Medicare and Medicaid EHR incentive programs. A small subset also said that over the longer term, they wanted to create a sustainable platform for clinical and public health exchange which could support enhanced analytics and quality measurement.

Not surprisingly, though, they face considerable challenges in making HIE integration actually happen. In most cases, technology issues were possibly the toughest nut to crack, and almost certainly the most complex. To connect with an HIE, agencies may confront incompatible transport and messaging protocols, standards problems, data classification and coding issues, inconsistent data quality, and their often-inflexible legacy systems, to name just a few of the many problems ONC cites.

As if that weren’t enough, the agencies may not have the funding in place to take on the integration effort, and/or lack a stable funding stream; don’t have the kind of cross-functional leaders in place needed to integrate their systems with HIEs; grapple with complicated patient data privacy and security issues; and bump up against state laws limiting data sharing methods.

However, through its research, the ONC did gather some useful feedback on how the agencies were coping with the long list of HIE integration challenges they face. For example, to win over the support of policymakers, some agencies have emphasized that they’ll be able to use HIE data for higher-level analytics and quality measures. The respondents also noted that HIE integration got more internal support when they got buy-in from top leaders and second-tier leaders have project management, technical and policy skills.

Given these odds, it’s little wonder that the number of public health agencies successfully integrating with HIEs is still small. That being said, there’s good reason for them to keep pushing for integration, so their number is likely to grow over the next few years.