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!!

Hospitals Aren’t Getting Much ROI From RCM Technology

Posted on July 24, 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.

If your IT investments aren’t paying off, your revenue cycle management process is clunky and consumers are defaulting on their bills, you’re in a pretty rocky situation financially. Unfortunately, that’s just the position hospitals find themselves in lately, according to a new study.

The study, which was conducted by the Healthcare Financial Management Association and Navigant, surveyed 125 hospital health system chief financial officers and revenue cycle executives.

When they looked at the data, researchers saw that hospitals are being hit with a double whammy. On the one hand, the RCM systems hospitals have in place don’t seem to be cutting it, and on the other, the hospitals are struggling to collect from patients.

Nearly three out of four respondents said that their RCM technology budgets were increasing, with 32% reporting that they were increasing spending by 5% or more. Seventy-seven percent of hospitals with less than 100 beds and 78% of hospitals with 100 to 500 beds plan to increase such spending, the survey found.

The hospital leaders expect that technology investments will improve their RCM capabilities, with 79% considering business intelligence analytics, EHR-enabled workflow or reporting, revenue integrity, coding and physician/clinician documentation options.

Unfortunately, the software infrastructure underneath these apps isn’t performing as well as they’d like. Fifty-one percent of respondents said that their organizations had trouble keeping up with EHR upgrades, or weren’t getting the most out of functional, workflow and reporting improvements. Given these obstacles, which limit hospitals’ overall tech capabilities, these execs have little chance of seeing much ROI from RCM investments.

Not only that, CFOs and RCM leaders weren’t sure how much impact existing technology was having on their organizations. In fact, 41% said they didn’t have methods in place to track how effective their technology enhancements have been.

To address RCM issues, hospital leaders are looking beyond technology. Some said they were tightening up their revenue integrity process, which is designed to ensure that coding and charge capture processes work well and pricing for services is reasonable. Such programs are designed to support reliable financial reporting and efficient operations.

Forty-four percent of respondents said their organizations had established revenue integrity programs, and 22% said revenue integrity was a top RCM focus area for the coming year. Meanwhile, execs whose organizations already had revenue integrity programs in place said that the programs offered significant benefits, including increased net collections (68%), greater charge capture (61%) and reduced compliance risks (61%).

Still, even if a hospital has its RCM house in order, that’s far from the only revenue drain it’s likely to face. More than 90% of respondents think the steady increase in consumer responsibility for care will have an impact on their organizations, particularly rural hospital executives, the study found.

In effort to turn the tide, hospital financial execs are making it easier for consumers to pay their bills, with 93% of respondents offering an online payment portal and 63% rolling out cost-of-care estimation tools. But few hospitals are conducting sophisticated collections initiatives. Only 14% of respondents said they were using advanced modeling tools for predicting propensity to pay, researchers said.

The Fight For Patient Health Data Access Is Just Beginning

Posted on July 11, 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 some of us fight to give patients more access to their health records, we pitch everyone on the benefits it can offer — and act as though everyone feels the same way.  But as most of us know, in their heart of hearts, many healthcare industry groups aren’t exactly thrilled about sharing their clinical data.

I’ve seen this first hand, far too many times. As I noted in a previous column, some providers all but refuse to provide me with my health data, and others act like they’re doing me a big favor by deigning to share it. Yet others have put daunting processes in place for collecting your records or make you wait weeks or months for your data. Unfortunately, the truth, however inconvenient it may be, is that they have reasons to act this way.

Sure, in public, hospital execs argue for sharing data with both patients and other institutions. They all know that this can increase patient engagement and boost population health. But in private, they worry that sharing such data will encourage patients to go to other hospitals at will, and possibly arm their competitors in their battle for market share.

Medical groups have their own concerns. Physicians understand that putting data in patient’s hands can lead to better patient self-management, which can tangibly improve outcomes. That’s pretty important in an era when government and commercial payers are demanding measurably improved outcomes.

Still, though they might not admit it, doctors don’t want to deluge patients with a flood of data which could cause them to worry about inconsequential issues, or feel that data-equipped patients will challenge their judgment. And can we please admit that some simply don’t like ceding power over their domain?

Given all of this, I wasn’t surprised to read that several groups are working to improve patients’ access to their health data. Nor was it news to me that such groups are struggling (though it was interesting to hear what they’re doing to help).

MedCity News spoke to the cofounder of one such group, Share for Cures, which works to encourage patients to share their health data for medical research. The group also hopes to foster other forms of patient health data sharing.

Cofounder Jennifer King told MCN that patients face a technology barrier to accessing such records. For example, she notes, existing digital health tools may offer limited interoperability with other data sets, and patients may not be sure how to use portals. Her group is working to remove these obstacles, but “it’s still not easy,” King told a reporter.

Meanwhile, she notes, almost every hospital has implemented a customized medical record, which can often block data sharing even if the hospitals buy EMRs from the same vendor. Meanwhile, if patients have multiple doctors, at least a few will have EMRs that don’t play well with others, so sharing records between them may not be possible, King said.

To address such data sharing issues, King’s nonprofit has created a platform called SHARE, an acronym for System for Health and Research Data Exchange. SHARE lets users collect and aggregate health and wellness data from multiple sources, including physician EMRs, drug stores, mobile health apps and almost half the hospitals in the U.S.

Not only does SHARE make it easy for patients to access their own data, it’s also simple to share that data with medical research teams. This approach offers researchers an important set of benefits, notably the ability to be sure patients have consented to having their data used, King notes. “One of the ways around [HIPAA] is that patient are the true owners,” she said. “With direct patient authorization…it’s not a HIPAA issue because it’s not the doctor sharing it with someone else. It’s the patient sharing it.”

Unfortunately (and this is me talking again) the platform faces the same challenges as any other data sharing initiative.

In this case, the problem is that like other interoperability solutions, SHARE can only amass data that providers are actually able to share, and that leaves a lot of them out of the picture. In other words, it can’t do much to solve the underlying problem. Another major issue is that if patients are reluctant to use even something as simplified as a portal, they’re not to likely to use SHARE either.

I’m all in favor of pushing for greater patient data access, for personal as well as professional reasons. And I’m glad to hear that there are groups springing up to address the problem, which is obviously pretty substantial. I suspect, though, that this is just the beginning of the fight for patient data access.

Until someone comes up with a solution that makes it easy and comfortable for providers to share data, while diffusing their competitive concerns, it’s just going to be more of the same old, same old. I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

Tips on Implementing Text Analytics in Healthcare

Posted on July 6, 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.

Most of us would agree that extracting clinical data from unstructured physician notes would be great. At present, few organizations have deployed such tools, nor have EMR vendors come to the rescue en masse, and the conventional wisdom holds that text analytics would be crazy expensive. I’ve always suspected that digging out and analyzing this data may be worth the trouble, however.

That’s why I really dug a recent article from HealthCatalyst’s Eric Just, which seemed to offer some worthwhile ideas on how to use text analytics effectively. Just, who is senior vice president of product development, made a good case for giving this approach a try. (Note: HealthCatalyst and partner Regenstrief Institute offer solutions in this area.)

The article includes an interesting case study explaining how healthcare text analytics performed head-to-head against traditional research methods.

It tells the story of a team of analysts in Indiana that set out to identify peripheral artery disease (PAD) patients across two health systems. At first gasp, things weren’t going well. When researchers looked at EMR and claims data, they found that failed to identify over 75% of patients with this condition, but text analytics improved their results dramatically.

Using ICD and CPT codes for PAD, and standard EMR data searches, team members had identified less than 10,000 patients with the disorder. However, once they developed a natural language processing tool designed to sift through text-based data, they discovered that there were at least 41,000 PAD patients in the population they were studying.

To get this kind of results, Just says, there are three key features a medical text analytics tool should have:

  • The medical text analytics software should tailor results to a given user’s needs. For example, he notes that if the user doesn’t have permission to view PHI, the analytics tool should display only nonprivate data.
  • Medical text analytics tools should integrate medical terminology to improve the scope of searches. For example, when a user does a search on the term “diabetes” the search tool should automatically be capable of displaying results for “NIDDM,” as this broadens the search to include more relevant content.
  • Text analytics algorithms should do more than just find relevant terms — they should provide context as well as content. For example, a search for patients with “pneumonia,” done with considering context, would also bring up phrases like “no history of pneumonia.” A better tool would be able to rule out phrases like “no history of pneumonia,” or “family history of pneumonia” from a search for patients who have been treated for this illness.

The piece goes into far more detail than I can summarize here, so I recommend you read it in full if you’re interested in leveraging text analytics for your organization.

But for what it’s worth, I came away from the piece with the sense that analyzing your clinical textual information is well worth the trouble — particularly if EMR vendors being to add such tools to their systems. After all, when it comes to improving outcomes, we need all the help we can get.

Providers Work To Increase Patient Payments By Improving RCM Operations

Posted on June 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.

A growing body of research on healthcare payment trends is underscoring a painful fact: that consumers are footing a steadily growing share of their medical bills, and sometimes failing to pay. In response, providers are upgrading their revenue cycle management systems and tightening up their collections processes.

A new analysis by payment services vendor InstaMed has concluded that consumer spending on healthcare services should grow to $608 billion by 2019. This is a fairly substantial number even given the high volume of U.S. healthcare spending, which hit $3.4 trillion in 2016.

The growth in patient spending has been fueled by the emergence of high-deductible health plans, which are saddling consumers with increasingly large financial obligations. According to CMS figures cited in the report, the average deductible for covered workers with single coverage has doubled over the past several years, from $735 in 2010 to $1.487 in 2016.

But despite the increasing importance of consumers as healthcare payers, providers don’t seem to be doing enough to inform them about costs. More than 90% of consumers would like to know what the payment responsibility is prior to a provider visit, but they often don’t find out what they owe until they get a bill. What makes things worse is that very few consumers (7%) even know what a deductible, co-insurance and out-of-pocket maximum are, so they’re ill-prepared to understand bills when they receive them, studies have found.

Providers are waiting longer to collect what they are owed by patients, with three-quarters waiting a month or longer to collect outstanding balances from patients. And problems with collecting patient accounts are getting worse over time.  In fact, a new study from TransUnion Healthcare found that about 68% of patients with bills of $500 or less didn’t pay off the full balance during 2016, up from 49% in 2014.

Meanwhile, patient financial responsibility for care has risen from 10% to 30% of costs over the last few years, with more increases likely. This has led to expanding levels of consumer bad debt for medical expenses.

In attempt to cope with these issues, providers are buying new revenue cycle management systems. A survey released last year by Black Book Research, which included 5,000 management and user-level RCM clients, found that many healthcare organizations are rethinking RCM technology and demanding better performance.

Forty-eight percent of responding CFOs told Black Book that they weren’t sure they had the budget they needed to upgrade to an end-to-end RCM system this year.  Nonetheless, 93% of CFOs said they planned to eliminate RCM vendors, financial and coding technology firms, that are not producing a return on investment, up from 79% with similar plans in Q4 2015.

In addition to investing in newer RCM technology, providers are making it easier for patients to pay via whatever medium they choose. Not only are providers issuing bill reminders via text, and accepting payments online and by phone, they’re also adding new channels like PayPal payments, bank transfers and mobile payments.

Seven Factors That Will Make 2018 A Challenging Year For EMR Vendors

Posted on May 24, 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.

Unless they’re monumentally important, I generally don’t regurgitate the theories researchers develop about health IT. But this time I’m changing strategies. While their analysis may not fit in the “earth shattering” category, I thought their list of factors that will shape 2018’s EMR market was dead on, so here it is.

According to a report created by analyst firm Kalorama Research, a number of trends are brewing which could make next year a particularly, well, interesting one for EMR vendors. (By the by, the allegedly Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times” probably wasn’t Chinese in origin — it seems to have been minted in the 19th century by a British politician named Joseph Chamberlain. But I digress.)

According to Kalorama publisher Bruce Carlton, many forces are converging, including:

  • Frustrated physicians: Physician rage over clunky EMRs may boil over next year. No one vendor seems positioned to scoop up their business, but of course many will try.
  • Hospital EMR switches: While hospitals have been switching out EMRs for quite some time, defections may climb to new levels. Their main objective: Improve workflows.
  • Emerging technologies: Trendy approaches like dashboarding, blockchain and advanced big data analytics will begin to be integrated with existing EMR technologies. Or as the report notes, “the Old EMR doesn’t cut it anymore.”
  • IT staff shortages: It takes a pretty seasoned IT pro to run an EMR, but they’re hard to find, especially if you want them to have a lot of relevant experience. But without their expertise, provider organizations may not get the most out of their systems. This may spell opportunity for vendors offering better service, the report says.
  • Breach of the day: With each cybersecurity breach, EMRs get negative coverage, and the effects of this bad PR are accreting. Tales of ransomware, a particularly lurid form of cybercrime, are only making things worse.
  • Many EMR vendors remain: Despite a barrage of M&A activity in the sector, there are still over 1,000 vendors in the EMR space, Kalorama notes. In other words, competition for EMR customers will still be brisk, particularly given that no one vendor – even giants like Cerner and Epic – owns more than one-fifth of the market (This assertion comes from firm’s own market estimates.)
  • New Administration, new goals: To date the White House hasn’t proposed specific changes to health IT policy, but one clue comes from the appointment of an HHS Secretary who dislikes the meaningful use program. Anything could happen here.

In addition to the factors cited by Kalorama, I’d suggest one other trend to consider. As I’ve noted above, Kalorama argues that customers will demand EMRs that incorporate sexy new technologies, perhaps more so than in the past. I’d go further with this projection. From what I’m hearing, a consensus is emerging that EMR architectures must be completely deconstructed and rethought for today’s data.

With important data flows emerging from wearables, apps, remote monitoring devices and the like, it may not makes sense to put a big database at the center of the EMR platform anymore. After all, what’s the point of setting up an enterprise EMR as the ultimate source of truth if so much important data is being generated by mobile devices at the network edge?

Anyway, that’s my two cents, along with Kalorama’s predictions. What do you think 2018 will look like for EMR vendors, and why?

AMIA Shares Recommendations On Health IT-Friendly Policymaking

Posted on April 17, 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.

The American Medical Informatics Association has released the findings from a new paper addressing health IT policy, including recommendation on how policymakers can support patient access to health data, interoperability for clinicians and patient care-related research and innovation.

As the group accurately notes, the US healthcare system has transformed itself into a digital industry at astonishing speed, largely during the past five years. Nonetheless, many healthcare organizations haven’t unlocked the value of these new tools, in part because their technical infrastructure is largely a collection of disparate systems which don’t work together well.

The paper, which is published in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, offers several policy recommendations intended to help health IT better support value-based health, care and research. The paper argues that governments should implement specific policy to:

  • Enable patients to have better access to clinical data by standardizing data flow
  • Improve access to patient-generated data compiled by mHealth apps and related technologies
  • Engage patients in research by improving ways to alert clinicians and patients about research opportunities, while seeing to it that researchers manage consent effectively
  • Enable patient participation in and contribution to care delivery and health management by harmonizing standards for various classes of patient-generated data
  • Improve interoperability using APIs, which may demand that policymakers require adherence to chosen data standards
  • Develop and implement a documentation-simplification framework to fuel an overhaul of quality measurement, ensure availability of coded EHRs clinical data and support reimbursement requirements redesign
  • Develop and implement an app-vetting process emphasizing safety and effectiveness, to include creating a knowledgebase of trusted sources, possibly as part of clinical practice improvement under MIPS
  • Create a policy framework for research and innovation, to include policies to aid data access for research conducted by HIPAA-covered entities and increase needed data standardization
  • Foster an ecosystem connecting safe, effective and secure health applications

To meet these goals, AMIA issued a set of “Policy Action Items” which address immediate, near-term and future policy initiatives. They include:

  • Clarifying a patient’s HIPAA “right to access” to include a right to all data maintained by a covered entity’s designated record set;
  • Encourage continued adoption of 2015 Edition Certified Health IT, which will allow standards-based APIs published in the public domain to be composed of standard features which can continue to be deployed by providers; and
  • Make effective Common Rule revisions as finalized in the January 19, 2017 issue of the Federal Register

In looking at this material, I noted with interest AMIA’s thinking on the appropriate premises for current health IT policy. The group offered some worthwhile suggestions on how health IT leaders can leverage health data effectively, such as giving patients easy access to their mHealth data and engaging them in the research process.

Given that they overlap with suggestions I’ve seen elsewhere, we may be getting somewhere as an industry. In fact, it seems to me that we’re approaching industry consensus on some issues which, despite seeming relatively straightforward have been the subject of professional disputes.

As I see it, AMIA stands as good a chance as any other healthcare entity at getting these policies implemented. I look forward to seeing how much progress it makes in drawing attention to these issues.

Will Data Aggregation For Precision Medicine Compromise Patient Privacy?

Posted on April 10, 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.

Like anyone else who follows medical research, I’m fascinated by the progress of precision medicine initiatives. I often find myself explaining to relatives that in the (perhaps far distant) future, their doctor may be able to offer treatments customized specifically for them. The prospect is awe-inspiring even for me, someone who’s been researching and writing about health data for decades.

That being the case, there are problems in bringing so much personal information together into a giant database, suggests Jennifer Kulynych in an article for OUPblog, which is published by Oxford University Press. In particular, bringing together a massive trove of individual medical histories and genomes may have serious privacy implications, she says.

In arguing her point, she makes a sobering observation that rings true for me:

“A growing number of experts, particularly re-identification scientists, believe it simply isn’t possible to de-identify the genomic data and medical information needed for precision medicine. To be useful, such information can’t be modified or stripped of identifiers to the point where there’s no real risk that the data could be linked back to a patient.”

As she points out, norms in the research community make it even more likely that patients could be individually identified. For example, while a doctor might need your permission to test your blood for care, in some states it’s quite legal for a researcher to take possession of blood not needed for that care, she says. Those researchers can then sequence your genome and place that data in a research database, and the patient may never have consented to this, or even know that it happened.

And there are other, perhaps even more troubling ways in which existing laws fail to protect the privacy of patients in researchers’ data stores. For example, current research and medical regs let review boards waive patient consent or even allow researchers to call DNA sequences “de-identified” data. This flies in the face of conventional wisdom that there’s no re-identification risk, she writes.

On top of all of this, the technology already exists to leverage this information for personal identification. For example, genome sequences can potentially be re-identified through comparison to a database of identified genomes. Law enforcement organizations have already used such data to predict key aspects of an individual’s face (such as eye color and race) from genomic data.

Then there’s the issue of what happens with EMR data storage. As the author notes, healthcare organizations are increasingly adding genomic data to their stores, and sharing it widely with individuals on their network. While such practices are largely confined to academic research institutions today, this type of data use is growing, and could also expose patients to involuntary identification.

Not everyone is as concerned as Kulynych about these issues. For example, a group of researchers recently concluded that a single patient anonymization algorithm could offer a “standard” level of privacy protection to patient, even when the organizations involved are sharing clinical data. They argue that larger clinical datasets that use this approach could protect patient privacy without generalizing or suppressing data in a manner that would undermine its usefulness.

But if nothing else, it’s hard to argue Kulynych’s central concern, that too few rules have been updated to reflect the realities of big genomic and medical data stories. Clearly, state and federal rules  need to address the emerging problems associated with big data and privacy. Otherwise, by the time a major privacy breach occurs, neither patients nor researchers will have any recourse.

Study: “Information Blocking” By Vendors And Providers Persists

Posted on April 6, 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 newly-released study suggests that both EHR vendors and providers may still be interfering with the free exchange of patient healthcare data. The researchers concluded that despite the hearty disapproval of both Congress and healthcare providers, the two still consider “information blocking” to be in their financial interest.

To conduct the study, which appears in this month’s issue of The Milbank Quarterly, researchers conducted a national survey between October 2015 and January 2015. Researchers reached out to leaders driving HIE efforts among provider organizations. The study focused on how often information blocking took place, what forms it took and how effective various policy strategies might be at stopping the practice.

It certainly seems that the practice continues to be a major issue of concern to HIE leaders. Eighty-three percent of respondents said they were very familiar with information blocking, while just 12 percent reported having just some familiarity with the practice and 5 percent said they had minimal familiarity. On average, the respondents offered a good cross-industry view, having worked with 18 EHR vendors and with 31 hospitals or health systems on average.

Forms of Blocking:

If the research is accurate, information blocking is a widespread and persistent problem.

When questioned about specific forms of information by EHR vendors, 29 percent of respondents said that vendors often or routinely roll out products with limited interoperability capabilities. Meanwhile, 47 percent said that vendors routinely or often charge high fees for sharing data across HIEs, and 42 percent said that the vendors routinely or often make third-party access to standardized data harder than it needs to be. (For some reason, the study didn’t mention what types of information blocking providers have instituted.)

Frequency of blocking:

It’s hardly surprising that most of the respondents were familiar with information blocking issues, given how often the issue comes up.

In fact, a full fifty percent said that EHR vendors routinely engaged in information blocking, 33 percent said that the vendors blocked information occasionally, with only 17 percent stating that EHR vendors rarely did so.

Interestingly, the HIE managers said that providers were also engaged in information blocking, though fewer did so than among the vendor community. Twenty-five percent reported that providers routinely engage in information blocking, and 34 percent saying that providers did so occasionally. Meanwhile, 41 percent said information blocking by providers was rare.

Motivations for blocking:

Why do HIE participants block the flow of health data? It seems that at present they get something important out of it, and unless somebody stops them it makes sense to continue.

When it came to EHR vendors, the respondents felt that their motivations included a desire to maximize short-term revenue, with 41 percent reporting that this was a routine motivation and 28 percent that it was an occasional motivation. They also felt EHR vendors blocked information to improve the chances that providers would choose their platform over competing products, with 44 percent of respondents saying this was routine and 11 percent that it was occasional.

Meanwhile, they believed that hospitals and health systems, the most common motivation was to improve revenue by strengthening their competitive advantage, with 47 percent seeing this as routine and 30 percent occasional. Also, respondents said providers wanted to accommodate priorities other than data exchange, with 29 percent seeing this as routine and 31 percent occasional.

Solutions:

So what can be done about vendor and provider information blocking? There are a number of ways policymakers can get involved, but few have done so as of yet.

When given a choice of policy-based strategies, 67 percent said that making this practice illegal would be very effective. Meanwhile, respondents said that three strategies would be very or moderately effective. They included prohibiting gag clauses and encouraging public reporting and comparisons of vendors and their products (93 percent); requiring stronger demonstrations of product interoperability (92 percent) and national policies defining policies and standards for core aspects of information exchange.

Meanwhile, when it came to reducing information blocking by providers, respondents recommended that CMS roll out stronger incentives for care coordination and risk-based contracts (97 percent) and public reporting or other efforts shining a spotlight on provider business practices (93 providers).

Healthcare CIOs Focus On Optimizing EMRs

Posted on March 30, 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.

Few technical managers struggle with more competing priorities than healthcare CIOs. But according to a recent survey, they’re pretty clear what they have to accomplish over the next few years, and optimizing EMRs has leapt to the top of the to-do list.

The survey, which was conducted by consulting firm KPMG in collaboration with CHIME, found that 38 percent of CHIME members surveyed saw EMR optimization as their #1 priority for capital investment over the next three years.  To gather results, KPMG surveyed 122 CHIME members about their IT investment plans.

In addition to EMR optimization, top investment priorities identified by the respondents included accountable care/population health technology (21 percent), consumer/clinical and operational analytics (16 percent), virtual/telehealth technology enhancements (13 percent), revenue cycle systems/replacement (7 percent) and ERP systems/replacement (6 percent).

Meanwhile, respondents said that improving business and clinical processes was their biggest challenge, followed by improving operating efficiency and providing business intelligence and analytics.

It looks like at least some of the CIOs might have the money to invest, as well. Thirty-six percent said they expected to see an increase in their operating budget over the next two years, and 18 percent of respondents reported that they expect higher spending over the next 12 months. On the other hand, 63 percent of respondents said that spending was likely to be flat over the next 12 months and 44 percent over the next two years. So we have to assume that they’ll have a harder time meeting their goals.

When it came to infrastructure, about one-quarter of respondents said that their organizations were implementing or investing in cloud computing-related technology, including servers, storage and data centers, while 18 percent were spending on ERP solutions. In addition, 10 percent of respondents planned to implement cloud-based EMRs, 10 percent enterprise systems, and 8 percent disaster recovery.

The respondents cited data loss/privacy, poorly-optimized applications and integration with existing architecture as their biggest challenges and concerns when it came to leveraging the cloud.

What’s interesting about this data is that none of the respondents mentioned improved security as a priority for their organization, despite the many vulnerabilities healthcare organizations have faced in recent times.  Their responses are especially curious given that a survey published only a few months ago put security at the top of CIOs’ list of business goals for near future.

The study, which was sponsored by clinical communications vendor Spok, surveyed more than 100 CIOs who were CHIME members  — in other words, the same population the KPMG research tapped. The survey found that 81 percent of respondents named strengthening data security as their top business goal for the next 18 months.

Of course, people tend to respond to surveys in the manner prescribed by the questions, and the Spok questions were presumably worded differently than the KPMG questions. Nonetheless, it’s surprising to me that data security concerns didn’t emerge in the KPMG research. Bottom line, if CIOs aren’t thinking about security alongside their other priorities, it could be a problem.

Nursing Informatics Pros Seeing Growing Salaries, Opportunities

Posted on March 24, 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.

Here’s something I missed in the explosion of news around HIMSS17. According to a recent study released late last month by the organization, nurse informaticists are largely well-paid and satisfied with their jobs.

According to the American Nurses Association, nurse informaticists have broad responsibilities, including integrating data and supporting provider and patient decision-making. The job description continues evolve with health IT trends, and may vary from one institution to the other,but their work usually involves a mix of nursing science, health records management and information technology solutions.

As the job description has solidified, nursing informatics has begun to become a well-liked specialty. Eighty percent of respondents to the HIMSS study, the 2017 Nursing Informatics Workforce Survey, reported being satisfied or highly satisfied with their careers, HIMSS found. This may be in part due to their pay, with almost half respondents telling researchers that they had a base salary of over $100,000. Not only that, 34 percent said they also got a bonus.

Meanwhile, highly-trained nursing informaticists did better still. Those who had gotten a nursing informatics certification or post-graduate degree took home higher salaries than those who hadn’t. With over half of those who had additional education made more than $100,000 a year, as opposed to 37 percent of those who didn’t, the trade group said.

In addition, nurse informaticists are advancing themselves to a striking degree, with over half of respondents having a post-graduate degree, often in informatics or nursing informatics, HIMSS reported. (Of this group, 57 percent had completed post-graduate degrees, and 29 percent had a master’s degree or PhD in informatics.)

Meanwhile, 41 percent of nurses are involved in a formal informatics program, and almost half had a certification. These efforts seem be paying off, with two-fifths of respondents reporting that they moved into a new position with more responsibility after they got certified.

As nurse informaticists grow, they are accumulating deeper levels of experience.  All told, 31 percent of respondents had more than 10 years of informatics experience, 36 percent had five to 10 years of experience – dwarfing the 24 percent that had just one to four years. One-third of respondents said they’d been in their current position for more than five years, and a majority of respondents reported having seven years plus of related experience.

While these nurses seem like they enjoy their careers, they are still facing some bureaucracy-related problems.  For example, when asked about their concerns, they rated a lack of administrative and staffing resources as the top barrier to their success.

Ongoing shifts in their reporting roles may also be leading to some dissatisfaction. While most respondents told HIMSS that they reported to the information systems or tech department of their organization, a growing number report to administrative or corporate headquarters. (On the other hand, one-third said that their organization has a senior nursing informatics executive or CNIO, which one would hope proves to offer extra support.)

Though the HIMSS summary doesn’t say so explicitly, it seems very likely that demand for nurse informaticists is outstripping supply, given the substantial salaries these experts can command. If your organization needs to recruit such a person, be prepared for some tough competition.