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!!

Both US And International Doctors Unimpressed With Govt Telehealth Adoption

Posted on May 25, 2017 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she’s served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

A new survey by physician social network SERMO has concluded that both US and foreign physicians aren’t impressed with national and local telehealth efforts by governments.

The US portion of the survey, which had 1,651 physician respondents, found that few US doctors were pleased with the telehealth adoption efforts in their state. Forty-one percent said they felt their state had done a “fair” job in adopting telehealth, which 44 percent said the state’s programs were either “poor” or “very poor.” Just 15 percent of US physicians rated their state’s telehealth leaders as doing either “well” or “very well” with such efforts.

Among the various states, Ohio’s programs got the best ratings, with 22 percent of doctors saying the state’s telehealth programs were doing “well” or “very well.” California came in in second place, with 20 percent of physician-respondents describing their state’s efforts as doing “well” or “very well.”

On the flip side, 59 percent of New Jersey doctors said the state’s telehealth efforts were “poor” or “very poor.” New York also got low ratings, with 51 percent of doctors deeming the state’s programs were “poor” or “very poor.”

Interestingly, physicians based outside the US had comparable – though slightly more positive — impressions of their countries’ telehealth efforts. Thirty-eight percent of the 1,831 non-US doctors responding to the survey rated their country as having done a “fair” job with telehealth adoption, a stronger middle ground than in the US. That being said, 43 percent said their country has done a “poor” or “very poor” job with adopting telehealth programs, while just 19 percent rated their countries’ efforts as going “well” or “very well.”

As with state-by-state impressions in the US, physicians’ impressions of how well their country was doing with telehealth adoption varied significantly.  Spain got the best rating, with 26 percent of physicians saying efforts there were going “well” or “very well.” Meanwhile, the United Kingdom got the worst ratings, with 62 percent of doctors describing telehealth efforts there as “poor” or “very poor.”

Of course, all of this begs the question of what doctors were taking into account when they rated their country or state’s telehealth-related initiatives.

What makes doctors feel one telehealth adoption program is effective and another not effective? What kind of support are physicians looking for from their state or country? Are there barriers to implementation that a government entity is better equipped to address than private industry? Do they want officials to support the advancement of telehealth technology?  I’d prefer to know the answers to these questions before leaping to any conclusions about the significance of SERMO’s data.

That being said, it does seem that doctors see some role for government in promoting the growth of telehealth use, if for no other reason than that that they’re paying enough attention to know whether such efforts are working or not. That surprises me a bit, given that the biggest obstacles to physician telehealth adoption are generally getting paid for such services and handling the technology aspects of telemedicine delivery.

But if the study is any indication, doctors want more support from public entities. I’ll be interested to see whether Ohio and California keep leading the pack in this country — and what they’re doing right.

Starting with Small and Simple Changes

Posted on June 26, 2015 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

Today I had the chance to talk with Dr. Adam Sharp, CMO of par8o. While I’d followed at a very high level Dr. Sharp and Dr. Daniel Palestrant’s move from Founding Sermo to the launch of par8o, this was the first time I’d had a chance to really learn what they were doing in their new venture. I’d say that par8o’s core product now is managing the referral process, but they’ve built referral management on a platform that could facilitate all sorts of communication and data sharing across many parts of healthcare.

I love the way they’re approaching healthcare IT because I’ve long believed that many healthcare IT companies are trying to bite off more than they can chew. Many healthcare IT companies have really big visions of how they’re going to solve healthcare’s problems (of which there are many). They raise a bunch of money to go after those problems and then they never really solve anything. In most cases, the healthcare establishment kicks against such massive changes and so it makes it almost impossible for a health IT company to sell such a massive solution.

One reality of life is that we all hate change. This is true even when we know that change is the right thing to do. So, it shouldn’t be any wonder when a healthcare IT company comes in and wants to massively change what we’re doing that they find resistance. I consider that a failed strategy that I’ve seen far too many healthcare IT startup companies employ.

What I heard from par8o is that they’ve taken the opposite approach. They’re focused on a small change that can provide value to a healthcare organization. In this case it’s referral management. When you hear what they’re doing to make the round trip referral and response process electronic, you ask yourself why we haven’t been using technology to do this forever.

I’ve seen over and over again in healthcare IT that these small, simple and almost obvious solutions often make the biggest impact. They make a big impact because healthcare organizations actually adopt them. Dr. Sharp told me that even the small changes they’re introducing often meet resistance from their users. They have to invest a lot of time and effort to overcome that resistance. If even small changes are resisted, you can imagine why massive changes to an organization’s process are flat out refused.

What’s most interesting about this approach is that by successfully implementing these small changes, it opens the door for a company to eventually help a healthcare organization make much larger changes. I’ve often asked healthcare IT companies, what’s your gateway drug? (ie. What feature of your product do they really want to buy that gets them started with you?). Once you get them hooked on a specific feature, then you have the relationship and trust built to be able to offer broader changes.

It seems like par8o has taken the right approach to building trust in and providing value to their customers in referral management. I’ll be interested to watch how they leverage that trust and their healthcare communication and data sharing platform (they call it a healthcare operating system) to optimize other healthcare processes. In a fee for service world many healthcare organizations profited from a lack of optimization. In a new value based care world those optimizations are going to become extremely important.

Mobile Health App Ratings by Kaiser

Posted on May 29, 2012 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

I recently had the chance to sit down with Kaiser’s mobile group at the Health 2.0 conference in Boston. We had a really interesting discussion where I was able to learn a number of interesting things about Kaiser’s approach to mobile healthcare. As everyone knows they have a really unique environment with a number of incredible opportunities, but also with their own unique challenges. I’ll be discussing a number of these items in future posts.

Although one opportunity came to my mind in my discussion with Kaiser: A Mobile Health App Rating service by Kaiser.

Many people might remember my previous post about the atrocious idea of an mHealth App Certification. I think this is a really terrible idea and will do nothing to help physicians and patients be able to weed through the overwhelming number of mobile health apps.

With that side comment, I love the idea of Kaiser using its vast network of doctors and patients to rate various mobile health apps. Sure, there are some issues with this model as well, but the benefits of having so many valid doctors rate mobile health apps could be tremendous.

The challenge with most rating services is that you have no way of knowing if the person rating the service is actually who they say they are. For example, Sermo is supposedly a physician only forum. However, I know a lot of non-physicians that are on the forum. One advantage Kaiser has is that they could know if the person in their network is a Kaiser physician or not.

One key question is whether Kaiser would be open to making their physician mobile health app ratings available to the public. I’m sure this will be a tricky question for them to answer. No doubt they already kind of do some of this already in their internal network. Maybe it’s not totally codified into a website with a formal process, but it could be. Plus, the benefits to healthcare in general could be great.

What do you think of Kaiser physicians rating mobile health apps? Are there other better ways to filter through the volume of mobile health apps that exist out there?