As I said in my previous EMR and Health IT in 2012 post, I’m going to create some of my own lists for 2012. I decided to tackle the first one on the list: My 2012 EMR and Health IT Wish List. This was kind of fun to think about. I’m also sure that I’ll come up with other ideas once this is posted, so don’t be surprised if I add things to this list in a future post.

I should also note that I’m not sure any of these things are going to happen in 2012. In fact, I bet that many of them aren’t, but this list isn’t about what is going to happen. This list is about what I wish would happen.

EHR Companies Would Embrace Interoperability – It’s an incredible shame that in 2012 we still don’t have interoperable health records. EHR companies need to get off the stump and make this a reality. The technology is already there and has been there for a while. EHR companies need to start making this dead simple because it’s the right thing to do. Sometimes doing the right thing is more important than the bottom line. Plus, doing the right thing ends up often being the best long term strategy for your bottom line as well.

Start doing what’s right and making your EHR interoperable!

Meaningful Use Would Go Away – I’m actually certain that this one won’t be happening in 2012, but I wish it would. I guess there’s a small chance that it could go away if Republicans take control of Washington and start slashing everything Obama related. However, I have a feeling that even then meaningful use will find its way back into Washington. There’s too much invested in it.

My reasoning for wanting meaningful use gone is clear. It provides a perverse incentive to providers and often incentivizes them to choose an EHR software that doesn’t work well for their practice. As I’ve mentioned in some recent posts, far too many clinics are so focused on meaningful use and EHR incentive money that they’re ignoring the real and tangible business cases for implementing an EHR in their clinic. I think this is a bad thing for healthcare and EHR software in general. The short term bump in EHR adoption won’t be worth the cost of EHR implementations focused on the wrong criteria.

I also really hate how meaningful use has hijacked the software development cycle of pretty much every EHR vendor out there. This is a real travesty since rather than developing for user/customer requirements EHR vendors are developing for a criteria. Talk about a perfect method for destroying innovation. This is a real travesty in my opinion.

Of course, I’m a realist and realize that meaningful use isn’t going away. We have to make the most with what we’re given and live with the realities that exist. However, in this New Year Wish list, I wish that meaningful use would be a past memory.

New Healthcare Model that Provides Care, Not Reimbursement – I’m sure many of you might be thinking that I’m calling for ACO’s in this wish list item. We’ll see how ACO’s evolve, but my gut tells me that the ACO model still won’t make the fundamental change that I wish would happen in healthcare. There’s far too much focus on reimbursement the way our healthcare is structured today. I’m not arguing that doctors and other healthcare professionals not get paid what they deserve. I’m just wishing that there was more focus on care for patients and less worry on maximizing the reimbursement.

How does this have to do with health IT and EHR? I’ve long argued that the biggest bane to EHR systems is the onerous reimbursement requirements. I can’t imagine how much healthcare could benefit from fabulous EHR systems if the energy spent on maximizing reimbursement were spent on improving patient care.

Diabetes Prevention App – I’ll admit that this is a little personal. I come from a long line of diabetes in the genes and I love sweets far too much. I’m pretty much destine to be a diabetic. I think that mHealth apps can have amazing power if done correctly. My wish is for someone to create a Diabetes app that will help me overcome the seeming destiny I have in this regard. The key will probably be illustrating in a profound way the impact of the choices I’m making.

Of course, you could insert hundreds of other chronic illnesses into this wish list too. I’d love to see mobile health work to solve those as well.

A True Patient Identifier – I realize that America is a large place, but we’re also a really creative country that can figure out creative solutions to problems. The lack of a true patient identifier is a challenge and a problem in healthcare. I’d love to see this problem finally resolved. I think every EHR company would rejoice at this as well.

Real EMR Differentiation – My heart absolutely goes out to doctors, practice managers and others who have the unenviable job of trying to sift through the 300+ EMR companies. I’d love for some EMR companies to really do something so innovative to differentiate themselves from the rest of the pack.

No doubt part of this problem is what I stated above about meaningful use. Hard to create innovation and differentiation in EHR when you have to develop for a government list of requirements.

EHR Data Liberation – I’ve wanted EHR data Liberation for a long time, but I think in 2012 this is one thing on the list that could become a reality. It’s a bit of a long shot, but I think there’s potential for this to happen.

My gut tells me that if we can find a way to liberate the data that’s stored in EHR software, then we’d see a dramatic increase in adoption of EHR. One of the major concerns doctors have with selecting an EHR is that once they select an EHR they know they’re locked in with that EHR for the long run. If a doctor knew that they could switch EHR software if they made a bad choice, then they’d be much more likely to pull the trigger on EHR adoption.

We need a wave of EHR vendors that aren’t afraid of liberating their EHR data, because they:
1. Know that their EHR software is so good users won’t leave
2. Know that if someone wants to leave their EHR software it’s better that they find one that’s good for them than the few extra dollars the EHR company will make off an unhappy user.

How’s that for a wish list? I think achieving these things would do an amazing amount of good in healthcare and EHR. Of course, I won’t be holding my breathe on any of them happening any time soon. That doesn’t mean I won’t keep holding out hope.

As is often common at the end of the year, a lot of companies have started putting together their “Top 10″ (or some similar number) lists for 2011. In fact, some of them have posted these lists a little bit earlier than usual. This week as people are often off work or on vacation, I thought it might be fun to take one list each day and comment on the various items people have on their lists.

The first list comes from Booz Allen Hamilton and is Booz Allen’s Top 9 ways IT is Transforming healthcare. Here’s their list of 9 items with my own commentary after each item.

Reduces medical errors. I prefer to say that Health IT has the potential to reduce medical errors. I also think long term that health IT and EMR will reduce medical errors. However, in the interim it will depend on how people actually use these systems. Used improperly, it can actually cause more medical errors. There have been studies out that show both an improvement in medical errors and an increase in medical errors.

My take on this is that EMR and health IT improves certain areas and hurts other areas. However, as we improve these systems and use of these systems, then over all medical errors will go down. However, remember that even once these systems are perfect they’re still going to be run be imperfect humans that are just trying to do their best (at least most of them). Even so, long term health IT and EMR software will be something that will benefit healthcare as far as reducing medical errors.

Improves collaboration throughout the health care system. I’m a little torn as we consider whether health IT improves collaboration. The biggest argument you can make for this is that it’s really hard to be truly interoperable in really meaningful and quick ways without technology. Sure, we’ve been able to fax over medical records which no one would doubt has improved health care. However, those faxes often get their too late since they take time to process. Technology will be the solution to solving this problem.

The real conundrum here is the value that could be achieved by sending specific data. A fax is basically a mass of data which can’t be processed by a computer in any meaningful way. How much nicer would it be to have an allergy passed from one system to another. No request for information was made. No waiting for a response from a medical records department. Just a notification on the new doctor’s screen that the patient is allergic to something or is taking a drug that might have contraindications with the one the new doctor is trying to prescribe. This sort of seamless exchange of data is where we should and could be if it weren’t for data silos and economics.

Ensures better patient-care transition. This year there was a whole conference dedicated to this idea. No doubt there is merit in what’s possible. The problems here are similar to those mentioned above in the care collaboration section. Sadly, the technology is there and ready to be deployed. It’s connecting the bureaucratic and financial dots to make it a reality.

Enables faster, better emergency care. I’m not sure why, but the emergency room gets lots of interesting technology that no one else in healthcare gets. I imagine it’s because emergency rooms can easily argue that they’re a little bit “different” from the rest of the hospital and so they are able to often embark on neat technology projects without the weight of the whole hospital around their neck.

One of the technologies I love in emergency care is connecting the emergency rooms with the ambulances. There are so many cool options out there and with 3G finally coming into its own, connectivity isn’t nearly the problem that it use to be. Plus, there are even consumer apps like MyCrisisRecords that are trying to make an in road in emergency care. I’d like to see broader adoption of these apps in emergency rooms, but you can see the promise.

Empowers patients and their families to participate in care decisions. Many might argue that with Google Health Failing and Microsoft HealthVault not making much noise, that the idea of empowering patients might not be as strong. Turns out that the reality is quite the opposite.

Patients and families are participating more and more in care decisions. There just isn’t one dominant market leader that facilitates this interaction. Patients and families are using an amalgamation of technologies and the all powerful Google to participate in their care. This trend will continue to become more popular. We’ll see if any company can really capture the energy of this movement in a way that they become the dominant market leader or whether it will remain a really fluid environment.

Makes care more convenient for patients. I believe we’re starting to see the inklings of this happening. At the core of this for me is patient online scheduling and patient online visits. Maybe it could more simply be identified as: patient communication with providers.

I don’t think 2011 has been the watershed year for convenient access to doctors by patients. However, we’re starting to see inroads made which will open up the doors for the flood of patients that want to have these types of interactions.

Helps care for the warfighter. This is an area where I also don’t have a lot of experience. Although, I do remember one visit with someone from the Army at a conference. In that short chat we had, he talked about all the issues the Army had been dealing with for decades: patient record standards, patient identifiers, multiple locations (see Iraq and Afghanistan), multiple systems, etc. The problem he identified was that much of it was classified and so it couldn’t be shared. I hope health IT does help our warriors. It should!

Enhances ability to respond to public health emergencies and disasters. I’ve been to quite a few presentations where people have talked about the benefits and challenges associated with electronic medical records and natural disasters. They’ve always been really insightful since they almost always have 5-6 “I hadn’t thought of that” moments that make you realize that we’re not as secure and prepared for disasters as we think we are.

It is worth noting that moving 100,000 patient records electronically to an off site location is much easier in the electronic world than it is in paper. With paper charts we can’t even really discuss the idea of remote access to the record in the case of a natural disaster.

Possibly even more interesting is the idea of EMR and health IT supporting public health emergencies. We’re just beginning to aggregate health data from EMR software that could help us identify and mitigate the impact of a public health emergency. Certainly none of these systems are going to be perfect. Many of these systems are going to miss things we wish they’d seen. However, there’s real potential benefit in them helping is identify public health emergencies before they become catastrophes.

Enables discovery in new medical breakthroughs and provides a platform for innovation. Most of the medical breakthroughs we’ve experienced in the last 20 years would likely have been impossible without technology. Plus, I don’t think we’ve even started to tap the power that could be available from the mounds of healthcare data that we have available to us. This is why I’m so excited about the Health.Data.Gov health data sharing program that Priya wrote about on EMR and EHR. There’s so many more medical discoveries that will be facilitated by healthcare data.

There you have it. What do you think of these 9 items? Are there other things that you see happening that will impact the above items? Are there trends that we should be watching in health IT in 2012?

Be sure to read the rest of my Health IT Top 10 as they’re posted.

I’m sure that many of you have read the always insightful and intriguing Vince Kuraitis and his e-CareManagement blog. If you haven’t you should start doing so now. I just recently came across his post called “Getting an Epic Opinion Off My Chest” about the proprietary solutions and walled gardens that have and are being created in healthcare.

He starts off really strong with the following points:

What are acceptable bases of competition in health care?

My sense is that the distinctions here are not well understood and often go undiscussed, so I’ll quickly get to the point:

It’s OK for care providers to compete on the bases of quality, price, patient satisfaction, and many other factors

It’s NOT OK for care providers to compete on the basis of controlling or limiting access to patient health information. It’s just not right.

He later goes on to assert that in many industries the idea of creating proprietary, non-interoperable technology is an acceptable means of competitive differentiation, but Health Care is different.

Certainly there are people’s lives involved in this and so it’s a different animal all together. If I can’t transfer my music from one MP3 to another it might be unfortunate, but having a loved one die because the right healthcare information was stuck in a closed system is a much more serious issue and one that should require careful consideration.

Outside the ethical reasons to support the benefits of access to patient information, I think there’s a great business case for doing so as well.

One example of the business case I outlined in my post about EMR data liberation. That’s a subtly different situation than what Vince described, but I believe you can make the business case for the benefits of an open system.

For those familiar with SalesForce.com, they could have easily been a few hundred million dollar company on the back of their CRM software. They could have then expanded into other related business verticals as they built off a closed garden. Instead, they opened up their system to allow a lot of other companies to build on their Force platform. As a platform, they’re a multi-billion dollar company.

Why healthcare IT vendors can’t see the value of open is a bit beyond me? I guess some might argue that the GE and Microsoft announcement was a step towards this type of open environment. Based on the analysis I’ve read, I think this is part of their vision for what they’re trying to create.

Whether Microsoft and GE will be able to execute on the vision of the platform is still not clear. However, what I believe is clear is that directionally this is where the market will eventually go. There will be a healthcare platform that does a great job connecting heterogeneous systems.

So, yes, I think that morally the right thing to do is to open your system, but I also think it makes great business sense to do so as well. The closed garden strategy might work well in the short term, but long term open always seems to find a way to win in a much bigger way.

I’m currently on the long flight from Las Vegas to New York City. The early flight time and long flight remind me why I prefer to just stay in Las Vegas with the occasional west coast trip, but I digress. In order to not lose an entire day of work on the airplane, I spent far too much for the overpriced internet service on my flight. As I’m traveling at 30,000 feet, it’s amazing to me that I’m connected nearly as good as when I’m sitting at home. Sure, in flight internet has been around for quite a while, but it still amazes me. What will amaze me even more is when the internet is free on every flight. Maybe pharma ads could pay for this too.

While experiencing this amazing connectivity, I can’t help but think of how poor so much of the connectivity in healthcare is. That’s right. We can find a way to offer internet connectivity at 30,000 feet in an aircraft moving hundreds of miles per hour and yet we can’t get connectivity to rural hospitals and other healthcare locations?

Plus, even speaking more broadly, I can access all of my normal services from an airplane, but for some reason I have no way to connect all of my healthcare data together.

Those in the industry realize the problems. The challenge of connecting all of our healthcare data from the various EHR (or maybe in this case EMR is appropriate) data silos is an academic exercise that’s easily accomplished. Hit any of the interoperability showcases at HIMSS or other healthcare IT events and you’ll see EHR software vendors communicating with each other and sharing data. Why then can’t we make this a reality?

The challenges are still the same they’ve been for a long time now: funding and politics.

I still cringe to think of the missed opportunity that ARRA and the HITECH Act could have provided in this regard. Instead of incentivizing use of an EMR, they should have and could have incentivized interoperability of healthcare data. The great part is that you’re not going to start exchanging data in healthcare without an EHR so you’d be getting more EHR software adopted and interoperability. Water under a bridge now I guess, but it keeps eating at me.

My biggest hope now is that a grass roots movement will form that will drive what we should be doing anyway. Everyone knows and understands the benefits to healthcare and the patient of exchanging healthcare data. It’s easy to make the case for how patient care improves and how duplicate costs are avoided. We need more people that are willing to hop on board interoperability of healthcare data cause it’s the right thing to do. Sure, we need to do it in a smart and reasonable way, but the ROI of healthcare data exchange goes well beyond dollars and cents. This ROI can’t be put on a spreadsheet, but instead will help us all sleep better at night.

Are there any movements like this out there? I can’t say I’ve seen any, but I’d love to see one. Then, we’d have a real beacon community that’s set on a hill because it earned and deserved the recognition as opposed to beacon communities paid for by tax payers.

Side Note: I’ll be in NYC this week at the Digital Health Conference and at the mHealth Summit in DC next week. I’m already planning to meet a number of my readers at these events, but I’d love to meet more.

Jeremy Bikman from KATALUS Advisors wrote this interesting comment on a LinkedIn discussion I was participating in:

Perhaps there is a place for MUMPS but only if healthcare continues to thumb its nose at the prevailing technology trends. It’s hard for me to envision healthcare to continue to embrace a technology that doesn’t like to play nicely with other non-MUMPS systems. If there were real advantages to it you would see a fair number of high tech firms utilizing it (Facebook, salesforce.com, Twitter, Spotify, etc).

If your goal is to have an enterprise system with a database that has some scale to it and certainly has good speed, and you don’t really care about interoperability with other systems, then MUMPS is certainly a good viable option. But IMO, the days of healthcare IT being insular, and moving out of phase with the rest of the tech world, are numbered.

I found this comment incredibly interesting. Mostly because I’ve never personally believed that the fact that many of the larger healthcare IT and EMR systems are built on MUMPS was any part of the reason why healthcare entities aren’t interoperable. I’m a tech guy by background, but I’ve never worked on a MUMPS software system myself so I don’t have first hand knowledge of MUMPS in particular. However, it seems wrong to “blame” MUMPS on the lack of healthcare data interoperability.

I guess the way I look at it is that no matter which database back end you have, you’re always going to need some front end interface to take care of the transport of the healthcare data to another system. Is this any harder with MUMPS than another SQL or even NOSQL database? From my experience it shouldn’t matter. I’d love to hear if there are reasons why it is harder.

I also don’t want to give the impression that Jeremy is trying to say that MUMPS is the only reason that healthcare IT has been so insular and closed. I’m pretty sure he agrees with me that a lot of other factors that have stopped healthcare from sharing data. I just don’t believe that MUMPS is one of those reasons.

Of course, the question of whether MUMPS should continue in healthcare is a different question. In fact, I wrote about MUMPS in healthcare IT and EMR here.

What are your thoughts? Is MUMPS the problem with healthcare interoperability? What are the other reasons stopping healthcare interoperability?

Update: Jeremy Bikman provided the following clarifying comment in the comments of this post:
Good points John. I really should have clarified. MUMPS is not really the issue (although I still stand by my assertion that if it was such a superior technology you’d see it all over Silicon Valley, RTP, etc). The main issue is really with the walled garden (w/ razor wire and machine guns along the top) approach of the major EMR/HIS vendors that have it as their foundation.

The more control you exert over your clients and the harder you make it to connect with other systems, the more money you can make…at least in the short-term.

John’s thought: I still look forward to the discussion around MUMPS and interoperability and healthcare interoperability in general.

I recently heard Arien Malec from ONC summarize the biggest challenge of Healthcare Information Exchange (HIE) in one simple phrase:

There’s no @ sign for healthcare

It’s a really basic idea, but sadly cuts straight to one of the core reasons HIE isn’t happening. We don’t have a great way to authenticate, verify and address health information to another provider.

Twitter has created this interesting concept of using @ to specify people. For example, you can find me @techguy and @ehrandhit. It’s amazing how quickly Twitter has created a whole new set of addresses where we can communicate with other people. Certainly it’s not designed for healthcare, but it’s amazing that they could create this whole new address system for people and organizations. And trust me when I say that Twitter is a great communication and collaboration mechanism.

One of the main reasons the fax machine is so successful in healthcare is that each clinic has a unique identifier, their fax phone number. I’ll be writing more about the fax machine in the future, but HIE needs to solve the problem of a verifiable address that’s unique to each healthcare provider if we want to move beyond the fax machine.

It seems like the people behind NHIN are trying to address this challenge, but they still have a ways to go. Does anyone else know of other ways people are trying to address the missing @ sign in healthcare?

I’ll admit to not being the most expert person on HIE, RHIO, NHIN, and all of the other acronyms associated what really is just creating systems and structures for sharing healthcare data between various doctors and systems. However, I do have some knowledge in the area since I believe all of these things will be important for those using an EMR. So, I was surprised when I’d never heard of HHS’ health connect software.

Here’s a short bit from Government Health IT of the government’s connect software’s latest update:

The Health & Human Services Department (HHS) has updated the government’s Connect software to improve information security and enterprise services for organizations that want to use it to exchange health data, said its senior architect.

Connect is federally developed software that lets agencies and healthcare organizations share health data by using the protocols, agreements and core services that make up the nationwide health information network (NHIN).

HHS is trying to develop improvements in the Connect gateway quickly so it can serve as an early model of the NHIN, executives said yesterday.

“The intent of the plan is that Connect will be a reference implementation of NHIN and provide a mechanism for organizations that are building gateways to have the ability to test against it and to provide for feedback to the NHIN specification group,” said Les Westberg, Connect technical lead in the Federal Health Architecture program and an executive with Agilex.

Is there anyone that knows more about this program that can give us a review of what’s going on. I’d love to hear about how far it’s come, the challenges its overcome and the challenges it still faces.

In fact, if you are someone working on one of the acronyms listed at the top that are trying to provide the all to elusive healthcare data interoperability I’d love to learn more about what’s going on in the comments or through a guest post if you have a lot to say.

Yes, I’m still on my kick of asking the question of why we’re making the definition of meaningful use so complicated. Certainly I could make an ambitious goal of every doctor having to document everything granularly and electronically and share everything with everyone so we give the best care possible to patients. The reality is that if you do that, then no one will care about meaningful use and the EHR stimulus money will go unspent.

Certainly the above is a bit of an exaggeration, but I can’t help but ask myself if the definition of “meaningful use” isn’t so ambitious that the above will be the net result (at least for small practices) of the current definition of meaningful use.

It’s a little bit wrong for me to say it’s too complex, but not offer a plan. Here’s a real simple idea that should accomplish nearly as much as the meaningful use matrix presented by the HIT policy committee. It has 2 main areas of focus:

Data Interoperability – Establish a standard (since there isn’t a really good and widely adopted one now) including the privacy requirements that should be part of healthcare data interoperability. Then, require that EMR users show you that they can share the data from their clinics with other clinics according to that standard.

Reporting – Require that doctors be able to report data to HHS. Focus on receiving data that will improve the management of Medicare (since that’s what they should be doing with all this data anyway) and also data that will improve public health. HHS should be required to have plans on how it will use this data to accomplish each of these goals. Otherwise, why report it?

Why keep it so simple? Because you have to keep it so that you can actually measure that it’s being done. If you can’t measure it, then why have it as a requirement?

Plus, try to satisfy the above requirements without some form of EMR. It’s nearly impossible. If we truly want to increase EMR adoption, then ONC better be very careful about setting the bar so high when it doesn’t need to be.