What else could be written about meaningful use that hasn’t already been said? Really. I’ve been thinking this over since I think we’ve been writing about the EHR incentive money and meaningful use for almost two years now.

I still remember the first time I read about the government planning to give out incentive money for those who adopt an EMR. Some thought that they’d just give out the money to doctors who adopt an EHR kind of like they did for those who purchased a home. I guess the government assumes that when you purchase a home you’re going to use it, but when you purchase an EHR that’s not always the case. So, meaningful use was born.

One of my biggest problems with meaningful use has always been its conflict with certified EHR. I’ll never understand why the government wants to certify EHR software (ie. more expense) when they could have just built the requirements of meaningful use so that the only way for a user to meet the requirements is by using an EHR software that performed the functions required. I guess I can partially see some security checks that could be done in an EHR certification that wouldn’t show in meaningful use, but does anyone really think that EHR software is much more secure thanks to EHR certification?

Of course, much of this is water under a bridge. We have meaningful use and certified EHR and there’s no going back now.

At this point, I wonder how many doctors are still undecided on meaningful use and EHR software. Considering all the discussion and chatter, I feel like most doctors have made the decision on the subject. They’re either going to use an EHR or not. I guess there might b e a few doctors that want to use an EHR, but are waiting for the right one. Certainly there are many doctors that know that EHR is the future, but they just haven’t committed the time to evaluating the various EHR software and deciding which one is best for their office.

My gut feeling tells me that the EHR incentive money wasn’t enough for many of them to finally get down to the business of selecting and implementing an EHR. I imagine many of them are waiting and hoping for a clear EHR market leader to emerge. I’m sorry to inform them that I don’t think that’s going to happen for another 2-3 years at least. Plus, I still think we might have market leaders in each medical specialty.

I’ve heard some argue that it’s the future meaningful use stages that have people scared to implement an EHR. Basically, they believe that meaningful use stage 1 is reasonable, but they think that meaningful use stage 2 & 3 will be much harder and not worth the effort. Kind of reminds me of the arguments that businesses have made about the uncertainty of economic policy causing them not to “move” on more investments. I think many doctors are uncertain about the EHR stimulus money, future stages of meaningful use, and how private insurance companies may react in the future. This uncertainty does cause issues for their ability to plan.

One thing I think the EHR industry could do to provide more comfort to doctors is to provide doctors that adopt your EHR a pathway to leave your EHR if you don’t meet their expectations. Why vendors try to lock someone into their EHR that hates it is beyond me. Ok, I get the short term gain and why you hate losing customers. However, by locking them into a product they don’t like you’re creating an eternal enemy to your product and believe me when I say that doctors talk. Plus, if you have doctors that want to leave because your product doesn’t meet their expectations, then you have a bigger issue on your hands. Sure one or two that have work flows that don’t match your product, fine. A mass exodus from your product because you chose to make it easy for them to leave means you should probably fold up shop anyway or fix the reasons why they want to leave.

Unfortunately, the large EHR vendors won’t really care at all. They’re all about lock in whether you like it or not. I hope doctors start to kick against this and support EHR vendors that provide pathways out of their product. I’d still be happy to support a movement to “liberate” EHR data. Any EHR vendors want to join?

This brings us back to meaningful use. It’s too bad the meaningful use didn’t require practical elements that would make a lot of sense for government to institute. For example…
-Require EHR vendors to create an easy export of all patient data
-Require EHR vendors to communicate with other EHR vendors
-Require EHR vendors to send public health data (they’ve kind of done this)

I’m sure there are more, but that’s a good start.

Now the most interesting thing is going to be how this first wave of meaningful use doctors react to the EHR software they’ve chosen. Unfortunately, I’ve really only seen meaningful use doctors who’ve had an EHR software well before the term meaningful use was coined. If you are a doctor who recently implemented an EHR post meaningful use, I’d love to hear from you so we can tell your story.

An interesting piece of news (some might say rumor) is coming out of AHIMA as posted by Joseph Goedert on Health Data Management. Here’s an excerpt of what was said:

An idea floating around Washington could result in Stage 2 of the electronic health records meaningful use program being different in each of its two years.

That’s what Dan Rode, vice president of advocacy and policy at the American Health Information Management Association, told an audience during the AHIMA 2011 Convention & Exhibit in Salt Lake City.
…
So the scenario could be that Stage 2 starts in January 2013 with minor changes from Stage 1, such as raising meaningful use quality measures a bit. But any major changes or new requirements, such as requiring the use of SNOMED CT in certain parts of the medical record, would wait until 2014, Rode said.

I’m sure this would be welcomed by almost everyone in the healthcare IT and EMR industry. Doctors and EHR vendors in general want to do as little as possible to get the government EHR incentive money. Even if some will publicly say that they want to use meaningful use to raise the standard of care.

I purposefully created the title to highlight the irony of meaningful use stage 2 having 2 stages. I’m not sure if we’ll call it meaningful use stage 2.0 and meaningful use stage 2.5 for the second step of stage 2. Of course, they could just make meaningful use stage 2 a simpler model and then add a meaningful use stage 4 (assuming the legislation allows it). However, then we’d really confuse doctors more than they already are when it comes to EHR incentive money, meaningful use requirements and their various stages.

This to me is still just a rumor, but it will be interesting to see how they make it happen if in fact they do try and do it. I know many people who will welcome any watering down of meaningful use. Even if you won’t hear them saying it in public.

I’m really excited that this Common EHR implementation issues series has been so popular. If you missed it, you can see the previous posts in the series: Unexpected EHR Expenses, EHR Performance Issues, a little follow up to avoiding the EHR performance issues altogether, and inadequate EHR templates.

This weeks common EHR implementation issue is: EMR Upgrade Problems

I’d like to categorize this EHR implementation issue into two areas. One is upgrading to an EHR from an old legacy EHR and/or PMS. The second is upgrading your existing EHR that’s just outdated. I’ll take them in reverse order.

Upgrade of Existing Outdated EHR
In this world of your web browser and operating system auto updating at regular intervals it’s sometimes hard to remember that not all software does that. In fact, it turns out that most software doesn’t auto update (often for good reason). Of course, this problem doesn’t apply to a SaaS based EHR software since those updates are applied whether you like it or not. The nice part is that the SaaS EHR updates appear to the user to just happen automatically with little to no intervention on their part. Of course, we’ll save what happens when a SaaS EHR update causes you problems for another post. In the client server world of EHR (or hybrid EHR as some like to call themselves when they’re web based on an in house server) you will have to deal with updating your EHR.

I think with rare exception, it’s a huge mistake to not keep your EHR software up to date (goes for most other software as well). I’m not suggesting that even client server software should auto update. Considering the deployment and upgrade model of most EHR software, it’s almost essential to review the new feature list before doing an update to ensure that the update won’t cause you unnecessary heartache. Understanding the changes that will happen with the EHR Upgrade will let you warn your users about it so that they don’t come running into your office after the upgrade wondering why their favorite feature was changed.

What’s the problem with not upgrading? Many might just think that they don’t need to update their EHR software since they don’t want/need the extra features that are part of the upgrade. This is a bad strategy for a couple reasons. First, there are often security fixes that are part of the EHR upgrade that you’ll be missing out on if you don’t upgrade. Second, a bunch of relatively minor updates is much better on a clinic than one massive one that requires a ton of change. Third, when a future update comes that has a feature you do want, it’s not always pretty to go through multiple upgrades at the same time. Fourth, try calling the EHR support when you’re on an old version. Most of the time they’re going to say you need to upgrade for them to appropriately support you.

One other suggestion on EMR Upgrades now that I’ve supported the idea of upgrading. Just because I suggest you upgrade to the latest version of your EHR, doesn’t mean you have to be the beta tester for the company. Do the upgrade early in the process, but not necessarily so early that you’re going to be the bug tester for the company.

Upgrading an EHR from a Legacy EHR or PMS
This situation happens most often when either a clinic decides to switch from their old hasn’t been updated legacy PMS (which might include some basic EHR features) or when a clinic decides to move off their existing EHR to a new one.

Upgrading from a legacy PMS could easily be a whole series of blog posts. Suffice it to say that the biggest challenge with the upgrade from the old legacy PMS system is often getting the data out of it. Some legacy PMS systems don’t provide that data willing. In fact, many will even charge you to get access to it. They’ve basically lost you as a customers, so they’re trying to maximize whatever revenue they can get. It’s not pretty.

Even if you can get access to the data, there’s often a lot of data manipulation that will have to occur. A common problem that’s related to this is whether you even want to get the data out of the old PMS. Far too often, the data in the old legacy system has so much junk in it, that it’s worth considering the option of starting from scratch. It’s not pretty to upload inconsistent and ugly data from a legacy system into your nice, new EHR software.

Switching from one EHR software to another is becoming more and more common. In 2-3 years I believe we’re going to see an amazing influx of EHR software switches. It will be the topic du jour. We’re already starting to see it in a number of situations: an EHR that isn’t certified, an EHR that the doctor hates, an EHR that’s gone under, an EHR that’s sold to another company, etc.

The biggest problem right now with switching EHR software is that there’s no standard for the data to be exported and imported into a new EHR company. Some of you might remember my post asking EHR vendors to consider the value of EHR data liberation. In it I describe why not only is it the right ethical thing to do, but it also can make a lot of business sense to do so. Sadly, I’ve only really seen one EHR software that has embraced the concept of really liberating the data in their EHR.

I’d love to support a movement from EHR vendors that embrace the concept of EMR data liberation. I imagine most are too afraid of giving their users an easy option to leave their EHR. It’s too bad EHR vendors are so focused on protecting their business instead of focusing everything they do on the customer experience, but I digress.

Considering the above described state of EHR data export, you can see why moving to an EHR is such an issue. It’s worth mentioning this topic before you even select an EHR. Before purchasing the EHR, ask the question, What if this EHR is terrible and I want to switch? This is water under a bridge if you’re already in a compromising position under contract with an EHR you don’t like.

Unfortunately, I don’t really have very many great suggestions for those in this position. Just some words of comfort. First, switching EHR software can actually be easier than implementing an EHR in the first place. You already have the computers and IT infrastructure. Plus, for some reason second EHR implementations have a much higher success and satisfaction rate from what I’ve seen. Second, while it’s a bitter bullet to bite, everyone that I know that’s done it wishes they’d done it earlier. Although, don’t rush into another EHR just because. Take your time to select an EHR properly if you’re going to switch, but don’t be afraid to switch based on what economists call sunk costs. Third, this is one case where it’s often good to hire someone who’s done these type of EHR switching before. They can be a big help.

There’s been an interesting situation going on between a couple EHR vendors. I first saw this when I got the press release that meridianEMR filed a lawsuit against UroChart. The lawsuit claims that UroChart obtained access to meridianEMR’s data.(Note: See this comment from IT Director of meridianEMR that discusses more details of what happened and how no data was breached.)

Lawsuits aside, meridianEMR is trying to capitalize on the situation by talking about their EMR security monitoring system was what notified them of the breach attack by UroChart. They call it their Advanced Monitoring System (AMS) and say it responds immediately to any breaches attacks and protects patient records.

I’m not sure if it’s a smart move to use a breach of their system as a way to promote their ability to protect patient records. I guess they can argue that their monitoring service was what protected their patient records. However, the lawsuit is claiming that patient records were at risk. I don’t think that’s something any EMR vendor wants tied to their name, is it?

Marketing strategy aside, this security monitoring service is interesting and I can’t say I’ve really seen something like it in any other EMR system. Sure, they all have some sort of audit tracking and trail. However, I think most EMR vendor’s strategy is not detection, but prevention. They harden their systems using the best techniques, but don’t do much to try and detect breaches. Should that be changed?

One problem with breaches is that good hackers know how to even avoid the detection part. I still remember when my friend showed me how he had hacked into a server and you could see him logged in. Then, he ran a script and you couldn’t see him anymore. I guess if you compare it to the physical world, it’s like having a camera watching the front door, but no camera on the back door. However, in the digital world there are lots of different doors, including those we don’t know about.

Some might argue that ignorance is bliss in this instance. Sure, no EMR vendor is going to admit that in public. Neither is a doctor. However, the regulations have made it pretty harsh when you know that there’s been a breach of your system. You basically have to make it known to all the world. However, if you don’t know that your EMR system has been compromised, then you have no such requirements.

I’m sure some people won’t like me saying this, but be sure that many doctors and EMR vendors have thought about this. I’m sure there were parallels in the paper world too. So, let’s not act like this is really that new. Although, certainly technology has made it possible to have much larger breaches.

One thing worth noting is that I haven’t seen a group of healthcare hackers forming. There’s no underground group of people that I’ve heard of that are trying to hack and get access to healthcare data. Financial data is much easier to monetize for a hacker than healthcare data. That’s not to say that healthcare data isn’t valuable and can’t have consequences if it’s put in the wrong hands. However, most hackers do it for the Lulz, for financial gain, or vengeance. Things could certainly change, but I haven’t seen healthcare as a prime target for hackers. I’d love to see if you have evidence that says otherwise.

If you evaluate the list of breaches that are published by HHS, this seems to agree with my above evaluation. Almost every single breach was just due to something being lost, a physical device being stolen (which you can almost guarantee they wanted the laptop and not the healthcare data which they probably didn’t even know was on the laptop), or inappropriate use by someone on a system already.

It will be interesting to see how these EMR security monitoring systems evolve. Plus, will we see more need for these type of protections and monitoring of EMR systems?

I’m not sure all the details of why this is the case (but I’m sure some will tell me why in the comments), but doctors are some of the most independent thinkers that I know. I’m not saying whether this is a good or a bad thing. It’s just an observation based on thousands of interactions with doctors from all specialties. This independence is shown in a plethora of areas from charting to treating to diagnosing to the business of medicine.

Turns out, this independence is part of why I’ve heard doctors say hundreds of times that they basically want their own EHR and not a mainstream one. Doctors want an EHR that fits their unique practice style. Thus they have an expectation that whatever EHR they choose should understand that each doctor is different and naturally adapt to each unique doctors need. Ok, that’s a pretty broad generalization and no one would ever vocalize it that way, but it’s an undercurrent that I’ve seen time and time again.

I believe this is an important characteristic of the EHR market that must be considered. If you don’t accept the broad theory of doctor independence in practice style and approach, then most of you will appreciate that doctors from various specialties have unique needs. The easy to understand examples are Pediatricians and OB/GYNs. Everyone can quite readily see that tracking child growth and pregnancy require different charting and documentation requirements. I believe each specialty could describe similar requirements that are unique to that specialty.

This doctor and specialty independence is why I’ve long argued against what everyone loves to call mass EHR vendor consolidation. Certainly we can all agree that we have too many EHR vendors right now. However, I’ve read many many people argue that there’s only going to be 3-5 EHR vendors left standing after the mass EHR consolidation (or EHR vendor failure). I just don’t believe that’s the case. If we get down to 100 EHR companies, I’ll be impressed.

There are two things that might partially affect my EHR consolidation prediction.

First, I won’t be surprised if some really smart company comes along and scoops up each of the best of breed EHR companies for various specialties. However, instead of sunsetting the acquired EHR software, they continue to offer that same EHR software to a specific specialty. Then, they do this over and over again across all the specialties. So, the larger company would own a pediactric EHR, an OB/GYN EHR, a Family Practice EHR, a Cardiology EHR, a Orthopedic EHR, an Oncology EHR, etc. You get the idea. Instead of getting benefits from software development consolidation, they get the benefits in other areas of their business. It would be really fun to run a company like this.

The other healthcare trends that could have a serious impact on this is the ACO movement and hospitals buying up clinics. I’m still not sure how those two trends are going to play out. However, this type of consolidation of healthcare entities could impact whether a specialty specific EHR is a viable option. Clinics that are bought by a hospital or become part of an ACO lose some of their independence. At least their independence in selecting an EHR software.

Are there things I’m missing? Any other trends that are happening that will change the EHR consolidation landscape?

I hope that everyone is enjoying this wonderful Fourth of July. I know I’ve had a great day so far and we’re gearing up to head to KFC and enjoy some fireworks with friends. Should be a great evening if the kids don’t get too cranky along the way.

It has been a great day for me to remember how lucky I am to live in this wonderful country. There are plenty of things that are messed up in this country, but over all the freedoms we enjoy and benefits of living in America far outweigh the down sides.

As I typed in the title of this post, I wondered what other things do I wish had their freedom when it came to the EMR world.

First thing that came to mind was data independence. How beautiful would it be if our healthcare data was independent. I’m sure the ePatients out there would love to have access to their patient data. I think they’ve made some great progress in this regard, but our systems still need to get to the point that healthcare data independence is an even bigger reality.

I also couldn’t think about the doctors that are held hostage by unscrupulous EHR vendors who are taking them for whatever money they can while they hold a doctor’s data hostage. You know what I’m talking about if you’ve ever wanted to leave one EMR vendor to go to another. There are some EHR vendors who do a great job of this, but most of them are terrible. Yes, most of them are large companies who are more worried about numbers than they are customers. Thus, the results aren’t pretty. Of course, the great companies out there realize the benefits of making the data available to users. Not to mention the trust that’s built with a customer when they know they could leave any time they want. That kind of customer first focus will carry through to all of the other features of the software. We need more data independence from EHR vendors.

I recently wrote a post on EMR and EHR about Technology Flourishing without the Chains of Insurance. I’m not sure if complete independence from the insurance companies is the right approach, but we need to allow more doctors to be free to be doctors. They need to have more independence from the insurance company requirements and more concerned about the health of patients. I’m not sure how we get there from here, but I applaud those many doctors who do this in the face of perverse financial incentives.

I’m sure there are many more. Let me know your thoughts about independence day and I hope you enjoy the holiday.

Looks like Estonia is the new model for system wide EHR http://bit.ly/liYLwe

June 19, 2011 10:27 pm via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite

@boltyboy

Matthew Holt

I’m always fascinated by other countries EHR implementations. So many other countries are interesting to consider since they’re missing so many of the barriers that make EHR adoption and even more specifically health information exchange between EHR software so difficult. Nice to learn more about the success that Estonia has had adopting EHR software. I’d like to learn a lot more about what’s being done with international EHR implementations.

The difference between an ambulatory and hospital EHR http://goo.gl/fb/YDWaO

June 19, 2011 7:01 am via GoogleReplyRetweetFavorite

@kevinmd

Kevin Pho, M.D.

I often have an internal battle when writing on this blog when I’m writing something that’s ambulatory EHR specific versus Hospital EMR specific. In fact, I was struck when someone recently told me that this site focuses more on hospital EMR and not ambulatory. I had to laugh since when I write, I’m mostly writing from the hospital EMR perspective.

This stuff aside, there are distinct differences between a hospital EHR software and an ambulatory EHR software. The article linked above highlights some of those differences. Coincidentally, I’m going to be working to write more about specific hospital EHR issues on the aptly named Hospital EMR and EHR blog. If you like Hospital IT, then go and sign up for the Hospital EMR and EHR email list. It will be a nice compliment to this blog and the EMR and EHR blog. I’ve got 3 other writers that will be starting to write on that blog as well. I’m excited to learn more about large hospital EHR vendors like the mythical Epic. Plus, as I learn more about hospital specific EHR issues, I think the content on this site will benefit as well.

What happened in the M&A arena had interesting ramifications, but what didn’t happen might be equally significant: The overcrowded electronic health records market didn’t consolidate.

Well over 200 EHR vendors are fighting for meaningful use business. How crowded is the field? As of mid-April, the federal government lists 393 Complete or Modular certified ambulatory EHR products, along with 182 certified inpatient Complete or Modular products.

There were several good reasons for the non-event, but consolidation’s got to come soon, says Rob Tholemeier, senior research analyst at Crosstree Capital Partners, a Tampa-based corporate financial advisory firm. “There has never in the history of software been 200-plus companies selling similar functionality,” he notes. “Less than a dozen-maybe a dozen at most-will survive.” -Source

I always find these reports on the EHR market fascinating. I’ve done some analyst work for a few companies that are looking at the EhR market. I should probably do more since it’s pretty fun to be able to provide investors a view at what I see happening in the EMR and EHR market.

I agree with the above statement that it’s been a little bit surprising that we haven’t seen more consolidation in the EHR market. I think we can all agree that there are far too many EHR vendors out there right now. I’m all about competition, but this many competitors makes it really hard for the clinician to choose an EHR. Certainly this is going to change.

The above linked article suggests that most of the EHR consolidation would be through attrition instead of acquisition. I don’t totally agree with this theory. There will be a nice mix of both. Although, I believe that acquisition of EHR vendors will actually be more common than EMR vendors shutting down the business.

Plus, while we will see some consolidation, I totally disagree with the above quoted articles assertion that the EHR market will consolidate down to “a dozen at most” EHR vendors. I’ll be surprised if we get down to 100 different EHR vendors. The SaaS EHR vendor business model just doesn’t need that many doctors using their system to work. Unlike many other industries, I think that there’s a whole set of very conservative EHR vendors who can run their business very well with a small subset of providers.

Of course these EHR vendors are always looking to grow, but I see many of these companies ready for the long EHR grind. They’ve been very conservative in their approaches and can last a very long time with their current EHR user base. Many aren’t even trained in the thinking of how to exit the business. They’re entrenched and ready for a long battle. So, while we’ll see some consolidation of the EHR industry, don’t believe these analysts that are predicting a massive consolidation to a handful of companies.

It seems like EMR innovation has been a strong theme on EMR and HIPAA ever since I wrote about the lack of EHR innovation at HIMSS. I of course clarified my original post with this post on the future of EMR and EMR innovation and then wrote about the challenge that doctors have to differentiate EHR software amidst all the noise. I also think it’s worth noting that EMR software can be a tremendous innovation for a practice that is using paper charts. I just don’t see an EMR software that is the must go to EMR system. There’s no “iPad” of EMR software (yet?).

After careful consideration of these ideas, I can’t help but wonder if an EMR that provides innovation in healthcare is the innovation that will have an “iPad-onian” moment. Basically the EMR facilitates a dramatic change in the way healthcare is delivered. This isn’t some feature or function that the EHR company can announce at HIMSS. EMR features and functions will never be heard above the noise. EHR vendors are already saying they can do everything, whether they can or not. Instead I’m talking about a real change to the way healthcare is provided and that’s facilitated by an EMR software.

For example, is there a doctor brave enough to have an all iPad/iPhone medical practice? Their EMR software would all be in the cloud and would facilitate online visits with patients or in house patients with visits where the EMR software was easily accessible using wireless technologies. They wouldn’t even have an office. They would do half of their visits from the comfort of their homes and half at people’s houses. Would that cause people to talk? I think so. Would the business model for the practice need to be different? I think so. Would an EMR and related technology be essential to make this happen? Yes. Could an EMR company be built to facilitate this type of a medical practice? Sounds like an interesting franchise model to me.

I’m not sure if this is a good idea or not. Plus, there are certainly people a lot smarter, more informed and innovative than me that could make this type of idea even better. However, it’s becoming quite clear that building just one more feature and function isn’t going to differentiate you from the rest of the EMR companies. That’s why I won’t be surprised if the real “innovative” EMR company will likely be a startup company. They’ll likely not know very much about how healthcare is “suppose” to work. They’ll also likely be told that their model is impossible and just won’t work. Instead they’ll just focus on using technology to connect the doctors and patients in some non-traditional manner. To me, that’s the type of companies that healthcare really needs.

There’s some really good comments happening on my previous post about EMR companies with an “In” with doctors. Check it out and join in with your thoughts. One of the comments reminded me of another interesting issue with all of these EMR vendors trying to vie for your attention. How does an EMR system rise above all the noise? Or if you prefer the doctor perspective, how can a doctor notice the really innovative and useful EMR companies amidst all the noise?

This is a serious problem and sadly I don’t know a very good answer. I talked with one company who was considering going into the EMR field and they said, “We know we can create a great product that works better than those that are present. Although, if we do, will anyone even notice.”

It’s a fine question that reminds me of my post about EMR software possibly being a commodity. Maybe it’s not a commodity, but the noise of 300+ EMR companies and meaningful use relegates it to a commodity because no one can tell the difference with all the noise. Bad singers sound a lot better in a noisy restaurant.

Basically, is there anything that an EMR system could say they deliver that would rise above the noise? In fact, this is essentially the question that I posted to the new Healthcare Scene LinkedIn group (You should join). I get a lot of pitches all the time running this site, and I’m not sure I’ve seen any EMR company have an iPad-onian (my new word for how the iPad revived the tablet industry) moment.

The biggest problem with this is that EMR vendors are saying everything under the sun. Including things that the EMR system can’t deliver.