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!!

Restoring Humanity to Health Care – My Experience Part 1

Posted on February 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.

In light of yesterday’s short story post, and also my post on EMR and EHR about concierge medicine, I thought it timely for me to document might entrance into what many are calling the next generation of healthcare. They talk about it as primary care that puts people first.

In my case, it’s my recent membership in Turntable Health, an operating partner of Iora Health. When I had to switch insurance plans this year, I decided to try out this new approach to primary care. The insurance plan I chose included a membership to Turntable Health. For those not familiar with Turntable Health, it was started by the infamous ZDoggMD and is backed by Tony Hsieh’s (CEO of Zappos) Downtown Project in Las Vegas.

To be honest, I’m not sure exactly what I’ve gotten myself into, but that was kind of the point. I can’t remember the last time I went to a primary care doctor. In fact, if someone asked me who my primary care doctor was I wouldn’t have an answer or I might mention one that my wife visited. I’m a relatively healthy person (luckily I have some good orthopedic friends for my sports injuries) and so I’ve never felt the desire to go in and see my doctor. I feel healthy, so why should I go and pay a doctor to tell me I’m healthy? I think this view is shared by many.

Will Turntable Health be able to change my view on this? Will they be able to take a true Wellness approach to things that will change how I view primary care? I’ve written for years about Treating a “Healthy” Patient, and so I’m interested to see if Turntable Health is making that a reality.

One thing is for sure. They’re taking a different approach than most doctors. I scheduled my first appointment for later today (Side Note: Not sure what it says that it took me 1-2 months to schedule my first appointment.). They slotted me in for an hour long appointment (a requirement for the first appointment) so that they can really get to know me and my wellness needs. Plus, they said I’d get a chance to get to meet my care team. A care team? What’s that? I’ll let you know after my appointment, but looking at their team I’d say it includes physicians together with health and wellness coaches.

The idea of a team of people thinking about my and my family’s wellness is intriguing. Although, I’ll admit that this wasn’t the biggest reason I chose to sign up with Turntable Health. It was part of the reason, but I was also excited by the idea of unlimited primary care. With unlimited primary care, it opens the door to things like text messages or eVisits with your doctor since they’re truly interested in your wellness and not churning another office visit to get paid.

With a family of 4 kids, there are dozens of times where my wife and I debate whether an office visit is needed. Every parent knows the debate. Am I just being paranoid or are they really sick? Is that rash something that needs to be treated right away or should I give it some time? Final answer: Let’s just take them in, because I don’t want it to be something bad and then I feel like I’m an awful parent because I chose not to take them in. I’m hopeful that with Turntable Health we can alleviate those fears since we don’t have to pay for the visit and we can start with an online visit which saves us time. That’s extremely compelling to me.

I can already say that my experience has been different. After scheduling my first appointment, I got the usual email confirming my appointment, offering directions to the office, and inviting me to fill out an “Online Health Assessment.” I thought it was cool that they were asking me to fill out those lengthy health history forms electronically before the visit. Turns out I was wrong. It was a survey style assessment of my health and wellness. They asked questions about my mental and physical health. They asked about my diet and exercise. They even asked about my quality of life. There weren’t any questions about my neck issue or the pain in my hand, let alone my allergies or past medical history. I wonder if they’ll do that when I get to the office. Plus, I’ll be interested to see what questions they ask me about that true wellness assessment.

Like I said, this appointment should be interesting. To be honest, I feel like I’m learning a new healthcare system. I know what’s appropriate and how the regular doctors office works. Here I’m not sure what’s right or wrong. Take for example the list of health and wellness classes Turntable Health offers with their membership. What other primary care office offers Tai Chi, Hot Hula and Meditation courses? I might even have to start doing yoga. Why not? It’s free. Although, what a different approach to Wellness.

There you go. There’s part 1 of my introduction into a new model for primary care. How will it go? We will see. How will they handle the fact that I’m a picky eater and that doesn’t jive well with many of their perspectives on Wellness? Will they really care about my wellness enough to reach out to me beyond appointments? How will my family and I react to this outreach? Will we stonewall them or will we embrace the increased interaction? It will be a fun journey and I hope you’ll enjoy me sharing it with you.

All in all, it does feel like they’re trying to restore humanity to healthcare. We’ll see how much we like humanity.

“Please Choose One” – A Short Story

Posted on February 25, 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.

Every once in a while I come across a piece of healthcare prose that I have to share, but there’s no good way to share it in pieces. I found that once in The Old Man and the Doctor Fable. It’s a must read if you haven’t read it.

I recently had another such example shared with me called “Please Choose One“. This one took me a second to really get into it, but about a quarter of the way through, I couldn’t stop reading and had to figure out how it ended. I’m sure that many physicians will feel the heartache shared in this short story. Thank you Philip Allen Green, MD for sharing. If you haven’t gone and read it, go read it…we’ll be back here once you’re done.

Obviously, the story is told in an exaggerated worst case scenario fashion. Although, to me that’s what illustrates the point so well. The lesson I took from the story is that we can’t take the human out of healthcare. Technology should help us offer more humanity to patients as opposed to less. Furthermore, we’re at risk for doing the opposite.

What’s your takeaway? I’d love to hear your thoughts on the story.

What’s Your Value Based Care Strategy? What Role Does IT Play?

Posted on February 23, 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 pretty regularly take a look at various healthcare IT whitepapers to glean insights into what’s happening in the industry and what advice vendors are offering healthcare organizations. I’ve been keeping a special eye on the changing reimbursement model and move to value based care and so I was interested in this whitepaper titled “How to Win with Value-based Care: Developing Your Practice’s EHR Strategy.”

The whitepaper starts with a dive into some of the changing care and reimbursement models that are emerging in healthcare. Then they offer this 4 step “Winning Strategy” for being ready for these changes:
Step 1: Assess your current situation
Step 2: Develop a customized VBC Plan that’s right for your practice
Step 3: Determine IT solution needs
Step 4: Implementation

In many ways, this 4 step plan could be applied to any project. Of course, the whitepaper dives into a lot more detail for each step. Although, I was struck by step 3. It takes for granted that value based reimbursement will require an IT solution. This whitepaper comes from a healthcare IT company with some value based IT product offerings so you have to question whether IT will be at the core of a practice’s value based care strategy or not.

As I think about the future of coordinated care and value based reimbursement, I think it’s more than fair to say that technology will be at the center of these initiatives. Value based care requires data to prove the quality of the care you’re providing. Certainly you could try and collect some of this data on paper, but does anyone think this is reasonable?

Try identifying all overweight patients in your patient population using paper chats. I can see in my mind’s eye an army of medical records professionals sifting through stacks of paper charts. It’s not a pretty solution and it’s fraught with error. That’s one query on an EHR system.

One of the biggest elements of value based reimbursement will be communication with patients. Can we build that real time communication on the back of snail mail? It sounds almost silly talking about it. Of course we’re going to use mobile devices, secure messages, and even secure video communication. We still have A LOT of work to do in this regard, but it’s the future.

Of course technology is going to be at the core of value based reimbursement. It’s the only way to accomplish what we’re striving to accomplish. The next question is: will the EHR make this possible or are we going to need something new and more advanced?

Were Anthem, CHS Cyber Security Breaches Due to Negligence?

Posted on February 19, 2015 I Written By

Katherine Rourke 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.

Not long ago, health insurance giant Anthem suffered a security breach of historic proportions, one which exposed personal data on as many as 80 million current and former customers. While Anthem is taking steps to repair the public relations damage, it’s beginning to look like even its $100 million cyber security insurance policy is ludicrously inadequate to address what could be an $8B to $16B problem. (That’s assuming, as many cyber security pros do, that it costs $100 to $200 per customer exposed to restore normalcy.)

But the full extent of the healthcare industry hack may be even greater than that. As information begins to filter out about what happens, a Forbes report suggests that the cyber security intrusion at Anthem may be linked to another security breach — exposing 4.5 million records — that took place less than six months months ago at Community Health Systems:

Analysis of open source information on the cybercriminal infrastructure likely used to siphon 80 million Social Security numbers and other sensitive data from health insurance giant Anthem suggests the attackers may have first gained a foothold in April 2014, nine months before the company says it discovered the intrusion. Brian KrebsAnthem Breach May Have Started in April, 2014

Class action suits against CHS were filed last August, alleging negligence by the hospital giant. Anthem also faces class action suits alleging security negligence in Indiana, California, Alabama and Georgia. But the damage to both companies’ image has already been done, damage that can’t be repaired by even the most favorable legal outcome. (In fact, the longer these cases linger in court, the more time the public has to permanently brand the defendants as having been irresponsible.)

What makes these exploits particularly unfortunate is that they may have been quite preventable. Security experts say Anthem, along with CHS, may well have been hit by a well-known and frequently leveraged vulnerability in the OpenSSL cryptographic software library known as the Heartbleed Bug. A fix for Heartbleed, which was introduced in 2011, has been available since April of last year. Though outside experts haven’t drawn final conclusions, many have surmised that neither Anthem nor CHS made the necessary fix which would  have protected them against Heartbleed.

Both companies have released defensive statements contending that these security breaches were due to tremendously sophisticated attacks — something they’d have to do even if a third-grade script kiddie hacked their infrastructure. But the truth is, note security analysts, the attacks almost certainly succeeded because of a serious lack of internal controls.

By gaining admin credentials to the database there was nothing ‒ including encryption ‒ to stop the attack. The only thing that did stop it was a lucky administrator who happened to be paying attention at the right time. Ken Westin – Senior Security Analyst at Tripwire

As much these companies would like to convince us that the cyber security breaches weren’t really their fault — that they were victims of exotic hacker gods with otherworldly skills — the bottom line is that this doesn’t seem to be true.

If Anthem and CHS going to point fingers rather than stiffen up their cyber security protocols, I’d advise that they a) buy a lot more security breach insurance and b) hire a new PR firm.  What they’re doing obviously isn’t working.

Mobile Health to Transform Care: The Case for Adoption Now – Breakaway Thinking

Posted on February 18, 2015 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Todd Stansfield from The Breakaway Group (A Xerox Company). Check out all of the blog posts in the Breakaway Thinking series.
Todd Stansfield
Mobile health (mHealth) is here to stay, and you don’t have to look far for proof. Patients now use mHealth to comparison shop basic healthcare services and access test results. Providers use it to increase efficiencies and lower costs. And CIOs use it to get more out of an electronic health record (EHR) while juggling new security challenges from the bring your own device (BYOD) movement.

Perhaps one of mHealth’s greatest areas of impact is providers’ bottom line. A new study finds that baby boomers and millennials prefer providers who incorporate mobile technology into their practices. Seven percent of patients responded that they are willing to leave their current provider for one who offers remote care, a move that could have a significant financial impact on independent physician practices. This is especially clear when considering that an overall 20 percent of patients reported seeing the same doctor for less than 2 years and 14 percent reported not having a doctor. Additionally, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is now offering providers roughly $42 a month to manage care for Medicare patients with two or more chronic conditions in its Chronic Care Management program. These patients comprise two-thirds of Medicare beneficiaries. For practices with 20 eligible patients, that figure translates to over $10,000 per provider per year. Providers must use mHealth to meet some requirements of Chronic Care Management, such as offering 24-7 access to consultation, and companies are now creating technologies to help. Just last month, Qualcomm and Walgreens announced a joint venture to pair medical devices with mobile and web apps to provide remote patient monitoring and transitional care support.

And then there’s efficiency. Another study finds that “the average hospital loses $1.7 million per year due to inefficient care coordination,” according to a HealthIT Analytics article. Providers are finding mobile technology valuable for improving health information exchange and communication, areas underserved by current EHR systems. More providers are text messaging care information rather than communicating face-to-face with colleagues, resulting in more informed care teams and fewer avoidable healthcare errors. Providers are also using mobile devices to enhance real-time patient engagement rather than relying on cumbersome computers to document in the EHR. Often the result is improved patient care, shorter appointments, and more time to see more patients. And besides getting in and out of their provider’s office sooner, patients are also welcoming new efficiencies with real-time access to their medical records via smartphone, a selling point among younger generations pursuing an active role in their care. In a recent survey of Americans, millennials indicated a preference for patient portals that they can access via a smartphone or tablet.

Yet providers should plan carefully when implementing mHealth, as there are major costs for failing to set up robust infrastructures that support safe mobile use. Providers should perform security risk analysis to ensure the safety of protected health information (PHI). This includes evaluating the security of all mobile devices—tablets and smartphones—ensuring that each device stores, sends, and receives PHI securely using encryption and other methods. Providers must perform this analysis routinely to receive payments under Meaningful Use (MU) and to prevent the ever-growing number of data breaches. Data security has remained a chief concern for healthcare providers and leaders and has largely stifled the widespread adoption of mHealth. This may change as the Department of Health & Human Services plans to offer more guidance to mHealth developers and users for adhering to HIPAA rules, as it recently announced.

Providers must adopt mHealth to survive in today’s competitive marketplace. Not only will they reap the short-term benefits of higher revenues through Chronic Care Management and attracting new patients, but they will also build the secure infrastructure and tools needed for long-term success. mHealth will be critical to population health and health information exchange, two eventual destinations for the healthcare industry. Providers who adopt mHealth now will be ready for when our industry makes the complete shift toward a population-focused, value-based care model.

In my experience at The Breakaway Group, A Xerox Company, effective adoption begins when leaders engage their workforce in the vision and mission of the project; when education is focused, accessible, and targeted; when performance is measured, collected, and analyzed; and when adoption is sustained amid changing technologies and process improvements. For providers to make the transition successfully healthcare leaders must find and implement technologies that patients and providers want to use. They must provide education that is convenient, focused, and practical for providers, education that spans not only how to optimize the technology but also how to use it safely and in accordance with government regulations. Healthcare leaders must also track performance in quality and efficiency, and highlight areas for improvement. And lastly, they must ensure all efforts are sustained, reinforced, and tailored to changing needs.

mHealth is poised to transform healthcare. It’s no wonder that mHealth raised $1.2 billion in venture capital last year, or more than triple what it raised in 2013. I’d venture to say that a significant share of new patients, new revenues, and new efficiencies will be earned by providers who are going “mobile.”

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

Element-Centric or Document-Centric Interoperability

Posted on February 17, 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.

A recent Chilmark blog post on national healthcare interoperability mentioned two approaches to healthcare interoperability: element-centric interoperability and document-centric exchange.

As I think back on the thousands of discussions I’ve had on interoperability, these two phrases do a great job describing the different approaches to interoperability. Unfortunately, what I’ve seen is that many people get these two approaches to interoperability mixed up. In fact, I think it’s fair to say that meaningful use’s CDA requirement is an attempt to mix these two concepts into one. It’s one part element data and one part document.

Personally, I think we should be attacking one approach or the other. Trying to mix the two causes issues and confusion for those involved. The biggest problem with mixing the two is managing people’s perception. Once doctors get a small slice of cake, they want the rest of it too. So, it’s very unsatisfying to only get part of it.

Document-Centric Exchange
The argument for document-centric exchange of healthcare data is a good one. There are many parts of the patient record that can’t really be slimmed down into a nice element-centric format. Plus, there’s a wide variation in how and what various doctors document. So, the document format provides the ultimate in flexibility when it comes to outputting and sharing this data with another provider.

Those who are against document-centric exchange highlight that this is really just a modernization of the fax machine. If all we’re doing is exchanging documents, then that’s basically replicating what we’ve been doing for years with the fax machine. Plus, they highlight the fact that you can’t incorporate any of the granular data elements from the documents into the chart for any sort of clinical decision support. It might say your allergies on the document, but the EHR won’t know about those allergies if it’s stored on a document you received from another system.

While certainly not ideal, document-centric exchange can still be a nice improvement over the fax machine. In the fax world, there was still a lot of people required to get the documents faxed over to another provider. In the document-centric exchange world this could happen in real time with little to no interaction from the provider or their staff. The fact that this is possible is exciting and worrisome to many people. However, it would facilitate getting the right information (even if in document form) to the right people at the right time.

Element-Centric Exchange
We all know that the nirvana of health information exchange is element-centric exchange. In this exchange, your entire health record is available along with a series of meta data which tells the receiving system what each data element represents. This solves the allergy problem mentioned above since in an element-centric exchange the allergy would be stored in a specific field which notes it as an allergy and the receiving system could process that element and include it in their system as if it was entered natively.

This last line scares many people when it comes to element-centric exchange. Their fear is that the information coming from an external system will not be trustworthy enough for them to include in their system. What if they receive the data from an external system and it’s wrong. This could cause them to make an incorrect decision. This fear is important to understand and we need our systems to take this into account. There are a lot of ways to solve this problem starting with special notation about where the information was obtained so that the provider can evaluate that information based on the trustworthiness of the source. As doctors often do today with outside information about a patient, they have to trust but verify the information. If it says No Known Drug Allergy, the doctor or other medical staff can verify that information with the patient.

The other major challenge with element-centric exchange is that medical information is really complex. Trying to narrow a record down to specific elements is a real challenge. It’s taken us this long to get element-centric exchange of prescription information. We’re getting pretty close there and prescriptions are relatively easy in the healthcare information world. We’re still working on labs and lab results and anyone whose worked on those interfaces understand why it’s so hard to do element-centric exchange of health information.

This doesn’t even address the challenge of processing these elements and inputting them into a new system. It’s one thing to export the data out of the source system in an element-centric format. It’s an even bigger challenge to take that outputted document and make sure it imports properly into the destination system. Now we’re talking about not only knowing which element should go where, but also the integrity and format of the data in that field. Take something as simple as a date and see the various formats which all say the same thing: 2/17/15, 2/17/2015, 02/17/2015, February 17 2015, Feb 17 2015, 17/2/2015 etc.

Where Is This Heading?
As I look into the future of interoperability, I think we’ll see both types of exchange. Document-centric exchange will continue with things like Direct Project. I also love these initiatives, because they’re connecting the end points. Regardless of what type of exchange you do, you need to trust and verify who is who in the system so that you’re sending the information to the right place. Even if document exchange using Direct isn’t the end all be all, it’s a step in a good direction. Plus, once you’re able to send your documents using direct, why couldn’t an HIE of sorts receive all of your documents? We’re still very early in the process of what Direct could become in the document-centric exchange world.

I think we have a long ways to go to really do element-centric exchange well. One challenge I see in the current marketplace is that companies, organization, and our government are trying to bite off more than they can chew. They are trying to make the entire patient chart available for an element-centric exchange. Given the current environment, I believe this is a failed strategy as is illustrated by the hundreds of millions of dollars that the government has spent on this goal.

I look forward to the day when I see some more reasonable approaches to element-centric exchange which understand the realities and complexities associated with the challenge. This reminds me of many organizations’ approach to big data. So many organizations have spent millions on these massive enterprise data warehouses which have yet to provide any value to the organization. However, lately we’ve seen a move towards small data that’s tied directly to results. I’d like to see a similar move in the element-centric exchange world. Stop trying to do element based exchange with the entire health record. Instead, let’s focus our efforts on a smaller set of meaningful elements that we can reasonable exchange.

While the idea of document-centric exchange and element-centric exchange simplify the challenge, I think it’s a great framework for understanding healthcare interoperability. Both have their pros and cons so it’s important to understand which approach you want to take. Mixing the two often leaves you with the problems of both worlds.

HIPAA Compliance and Windows Server 2003

Posted on February 12, 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.

Last year, Microsoft stopped updating Windows XP and so we wrote about how Windows XP would no longer be HIPAA compliant. If you’re still using Windows XP to access PHI, you’re a braver person that I. That’s just asking for a HIPAA violation.

It turns out that Windows Server 2003 is 5 months away from Microsoft stopping to update it as well. This could be an issue for many practices who have a local EHR install on Windows Server 2003. I’d be surprised if an EHR vendor or practice management vendor was running a SaaS EHR on Windows Server 2003 still, but I guess it’s possible.

However, Microsoft just recently announced another critical vulnerability in Windows Server 2003 that uses active directory. Here are the details:

Microsoft just patched a 15-year-old bug that in some cases allows attackers to take complete control of PCs running all supported versions of Windows. The critical vulnerability will remain unpatched in Windows Server 2003, leaving that version wide open for the remaining five months Microsoft pledged to continue supporting it.

There are a lot more technical details at the link above. However, I find it really interesting that Microsoft has chosen not to fix this issue in Windows Server 2003. The article above says “This Windows vulnerability isn’t as simple as most to fix because it affects the design of core Windows functions rather than implementations of that design.” I assume this is why they’re not planning to do an update.

This lack of an update to a critical vulnerability has me asking if that means that Windows Server 2003 is not HIPAA compliant anymore. I think the answer is yes. Unsupported systems or systems with known vulnerabilities are an issue under HIPAA as I understand it. Hard to say how many healthcare organizations are still using Windows Server 2003, but this vulnerability should give them a good reason to upgrade ASAP.

Are Changes to Meaningful Use Certification Coming?

Posted on February 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.

I’d been meaning to write about the now infamous letter from the AMA and 20 other associations and organizations to Karen DeSalvo (ONC Chair and Assistant HHS Secretary). I’ve put a list of the organizations and associations that co-signed the letter at the bottom of this post. It’s quite the list.

In the letter they make these recommended changes to the EHR certification program:

1. Decouple EHR certification from the Meaningful Use program;
2. Re-consider alternative software testing methods;
3. Establish greater transparency and uniformity on UCD testing and process results;
4. Incorporate exception handling into EHR certification;
5. Develop C-CDA guidance and tests to support exchange;
6. Seek further stakeholder feedback; and
7. Increase education on EHR implementation.

Unfortunately, I don’t think that many of these suggestions can be done by Karen and ONC. For example, I believe it will take an act of Congress in order to decouple EHR certification from the meaningful use program. I don’t think ONC has the authority to just change that since they’re bound by legislation.

What I do think they could do is dramatically simplify the EHR certification requirements. Some might try to spin it as making the EHR certification irrelevant, but it would actually make the EHR certification more relevant. If it was focused on just a few important things that actually tested the EHR properly for those things, then people would be much more interested in the EHR certification and it’s success. As it is now, most people just see EHR certification as a way to get EHR incentive money.

I’ll be interested to see if we see any changes in EHR certification. Unfortunately, the government rarely does things to decrease regulation. In some ways, if ONC decreases what EHR certification means, then they’re putting their colleagues out of a job. My only glimmer of hope is that meaningful use stage 3 will become much more simpler and because of that, EHR certification that matches MU stage 3 will be simpler as well. Although, I’m not holding my breathe.

What do you think will happen to EHR certification going forward?

Organizations and Associations that Signed the Letter:
American Medical Association
AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine
American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology
American Academy of Dermatology Association
American Academy of Facial Plastic
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Academy of Home Care Medicine
American Academy of Neurology
American Academy of Ophthalmology
American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery
American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists
American Association of Neurological Surgeons
American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons
American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology
American College of Emergency Physicians
American College of Osteopathic Surgeons
American College of Physicians
American College of Surgeons
American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
American Osteopathic Association
American Society for Radiology and Oncology
American Society of Anesthesiologists
American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery and Reconstructive Surgery
American Society of Clinical Oncology
American Society of Nephrology
College of Healthcare Information Management Executives
Congress of Neurological Surgeons
Heart Rhythm Society
Joint Council on Allergy, Asthma and Immunology
Medical Group Management Association
National Association of Spine Specialists
Renal Physicians Association
Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions
Society for Vascular Surgery

6 Healthcare Interoperability Myths

Posted on February 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.

With my new fascination with healthcare interoperability, I’m drawn to anything and everything which looks at the successes and challenges associated with it. So, it was no surprised that I was intrigued by this whitepaper that looks at the 6 Healthcare Interoperability Myths.

For those who don’t want to download the whitepaper for all the nitty gritty details, here are the 6 myths:

  1. One Size Fits All
  2. There Is One Standard to Live By
  3. I Can Only “Talk” to Providers on the Same EHR as Mine
  4. If I Give Up Control of My Data, I’ll Lose Patients
  5. Hospitals Lead in Interoperability
  6. Interoperability Doesn’t Really “Do” Anything. It’s Just a Fad like HMOs in the 90s

You can read the whole whitepaper if you want to read all the details about each myth.

The first two hit home to me and remind me of my post about achieving continuous healthcare interoperability. I really think that the idea of every health IT vendor “interpreting” the standard differently is an important concept that needs to be dealt with if we want to see healthcare interoperability happen.

Another concept I’ve been chewing on is whether everyone believes that healthcare interoperability is the right path forward. The above mentioned whitepaper starts off with a strong statement that, “It’s no tall tale. Yes. We need interoperability.” While this is something I believe strongly, I’m not sure that everyone in healthcare agrees.

I’d love to hear your thoughts. Do we all want healthcare interoperability or are there are a lot of people out there that aren’t sure if healthcare interoperability is the right way forward?

Why No Disclosure of Financial Relationships with KLAS When You Win Best in KLAS?

Posted on February 6, 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 week I’ve been inundated with press releases and companies promoting their Best in KLAS ranking/rating (whatever you want to call the award). In fact, I’ve gotten so many notices from so many healthcare IT companies, it prompted to me to send the following tweet:

Ironically, that tweet was before I got another dozen more press releases, blog posts and tweets informing me of how great their company is because they’re “Best in KLAS.”

In a conversation I had with someone who was “Best in KLAS” and when I saw a blog post by a CEO that was so proud of their Best in KLAS rating, I wondered why we don’t have some expectation of financial disclosure with these type of ratings and awards. This isn’t an issue for KLAS alone, but would apply to Gartner and a number of other organizations that offer these type of healthcare IT software ratings.

In the blogging and media world, the topic of disclosing financial interests is often discussed. It’s a policy that I follow myself. If I ever write about a company for which I have a financial relationship (advertiser, sponsored content, email campaigns, etc), I disclose that financial relationship in the article. I believe it’s important for anyone reading that article to know that there’s a financial relationship which could sway the content.

Shouldn’t we expect the same from companies who have a financial relationship with these ratings organizations? There’s a possibility that the financial relationship could have made a difference in those ratings. Shouldn’t we know about this potential for bias?

Of course, I don’t expect we’ll see many organizations take me up on this idea that they disclose their financial relationship. So instead, I’m calling on those Best in KLAS companies who don’t have a financial relationship with KLAS to come forward and disclose that they don’t have a financial relationship with KLAS and they still were given a Best in KLAS rating. I’ll be interested how many come forward.

As I’ve long told people who ask me about the value of KLAS, I think there’s so many ways to skew their results that I don’t put much value in their results. Plus, I’m not sure about their methodologies which include doing ratings at EHR user conferences (biased sample anyone?).

However, for marketers, I tell them they absolutely should make the most from a Best in KLAS rating. Most healthcare organizations don’t understand (likely because they’re too busy) the nuance in proper ratings and therefore blindly use KLAS for their decision making. Unfortunately in healthcare IT, these people don’t have any other choice but KLAS. So, given no better alternative, it’s no surprise that they use what’s available.

Of course, my hope is that most healthcare organizations use KLAS, Gartner magic quadrants and whatever other ratings and rankings that exist as just another data point. Triangulating across those and your colleagues is often going to lead people to the best solution.

Full Disclosure: I have an affiliate partnership with a company Gartner bought for some EHR lead generation. I’m sure they’ll love this article.