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!!

Health IT and ROI (Release of Information) Vendor Sues HHS Over Patient Records Fees

Posted on January 19, 2018 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.

Now here’s one for the ages – a vendor taking HHS head-on. The vendor, CIOX Health, has sued HHS in an effort to stop the agency from enforcing HIPAA rules limiting how much providers and business associates can charge patient records. While the vendor may not get anywhere, the lawsuit raises the important question of what patient record retrieval should cost.

According to Becker’s Hospital Review, the suit focuses on changes to the privacy law put into place in 2013 and 2016. The article notes that these modifications broadened the type of information providers and BAs must send while capping the fees vendors could charge for doing so. Specifically, the changes made in 2016 require that vendors that the costs associated with record requests for a reasonable or flat rate of about $6.50.

In its complaint, CIOX says the flat fee “was drawn from thin air and bears no rational relationship to the actual costs associated with processing such requests.” It contends that the HIPAA provisions in question established the limits “unlawfully, unreasonably, arbitrarily and capriciously.”

It’s hard to tell whether CIOX will get anywhere (though my guess is “not very far”). Government agencies are all but immovable, and HHS particularly so. I appreciate the spunk involved in filing the suit, the premise of which actually sounds reasonable to me, but I think the company has about as much chance of prevailing as a gnat fighting a combine harvester.

That being said, I think this suit focuses on an important issue, which is that the fee limits imposed by states and the federal government for providing medical records are all over the map. While such limits may be necessary to protect consumers, it’s probably fair to say that they aren’t exactly based on actual estimates of provider and vendor costs.

The truth is, the healthcare industry hasn’t come to grips yet with the cost of delivering healthcare information to patients. After all, while basic information delivered by a portal may be good enough for patients, these aren’t real medical records and they can’t be used as a basis for care.  And delivering an entire medical record can be expensive.

Plus, this issue is really complicated by the number of records requests that healthcare organizations are receiving from parties other than the patient. The number of records request from insurance companies, lawyers, and other third parties has increased dramatically. Not to mention how much of the record these organizations want to get. If it were just patients requesting their records, this question would be much simpler.

I can only think of a few ways to handle this problem, none of which are really satisfactory. For example, HHS or the states could create some sort of system which permits different fees depending on the difficulty of retrieving the information. Providers and business associates could submit their fees to some kind of review board which would approve or reject the proposal. Or perhaps we could just allow vendors to charge whatever the market would bear. None of these sound great to me.

If we want patients to manage their health effectively, they need to be able to share their records, and they must be able to access those records without paying a fortune for the privilege. At the same time, we can’t ask providers and business associates to share records at their own expense. Given the importance of this problem, I think it’s high time that healthcare leaders look for solutions.

Hospitals Still Lagging On Mobile

Posted on January 18, 2018 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.

One would think that these days, when the desktop computer is an extension of mobile devices rather than the other way around, hospitals would have well-defined, mature plans in place for managing mobile technology. But according to one survey, that’s definitely not the case.

In a study sponsored by Spok, which provides clinical communication services, many healthcare providers are still in the early years of developing a mobile strategy.

The study, which drew on contacts with more than 300 healthcare professionals in the US, found that 21% had had a mobile strategy in place for less than one year, 40% for one to three years,14% for 3 to 5 years and 25% for more than five years. In other words, while one-quarter of organizations had settled in and developed a mobile approach, an almost equal amount were just getting their feet wet.

Not only that, many of those who do have a mobile strategy in place may be shooting from the hip. While 65% of those surveyed had a documented mobility strategy in place, 35% didn’t.

That being said, it seems that organizations that have engaged with mobile are working hard to tweak their strategy regularly. According to Spok, their reasons for updating the strategy include:

* Shifting mobile needs of end-users (44%)
* The availability of new mobile devices (35%)
* New capabilities from the EHR vendor (26%)
* Changes in goals of mobile strategy (23%)
* Challenges in implementing the strategy (21%)
* Changes in hospital leadership (16%)

(Seven percent said their mobile strategy had not changed since inception, and 23% weren’t sure what changes had been made.)

Nonetheless, other data suggest there has been little progress in integrating mobile strategy with broader hospital goals.

For example, while 53% wanted to improve physician-to-physician communications, only 19% had integrated mobile strategy with this goal. Fifty-three percent saw nurse-to-physician communications as a key goal, but only 18% had integrated this goal with their mobile plans. The gaps between other top strategies and integration with mobile plans were similar across the strategic spectrum.

Ultimately, it’s likely that it will take a team approach to bring these objectives together, but that’s not happening in the near future. According to respondents, the IT department will implement mobile in 82% of institutions surveyed, 60% clinical leadership, 37% doctors, 34% telecom department, 27% nurses and 22% outside help from consultants and vendors. (Another 16% didn’t plan to have a dedicated team in place.)

The whole picture suggests that while the hospital industry is gradually moving towards integrating mobile into its long-term thinking, it has a ways to go. Given the potential benefits of smart mobile use, let’s hope providers catch up quickly.

Change Healthcare Launch Raises Questions About Blockchain Scalability

Posted on January 12, 2018 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.

Healthcare technology vendor Change Healthcare has introduced a blockchain-based network focused on managing claims. Change says its Intelligent Healthcare Network is the first enterprise-scale blockchain network in healthcare.

According to the vendor, using technology will let organizations track the status of claims submission and remittance across the claims lifecycle accurately. It also contends that by using blocking technology in Intelligent Healthcare Network, companies will have a greater ability to audit trace and trust those involved in transactions.

To build out its blockchain infrastructure, Change Healthcare used Hyperledger Fabric 1.0, an open source blockchain framework hosted by The Linux Foundation.

Within the release, the company predicts that blockchain technology could ultimately offer providers a single viewpoint for accurately tracking the complete patient healthcare encounter, starting, say, when an individual arrives for a preoperative visit to the procedure care received, then later billing and payment.

All of that is well and good, but the following is more noteworthy.

In its statement, Change says its Intelligent Healthcare Network already processes more than 50 million claims and up to 550 transactions per second. It says that the capacity and speed of its network already exceeds the daily national transaction load, and that its network can scale as blockchain technology use grows.

Still, Change tells us that it will be building out its apparently massive network infrastructure “as the solution is further optimized and scaled to address demand.”  This suggests that Change may know something that we don’t about blockchain implementation. It’s not entirely clear, but I think the vendor thinks that its blockchain solution will generate significant network overhead, enough that even with its huge existing capacity, and eventually won’t be able to keep up with blockchain demands as is.

So that brings us to the real issue buried in this release. If Change needs to build out its super-high-capacity network as its blockchain customer base grows, it suggests to me that enterprise blockchain may not scale effectively overall at present.

If there is a scalability issue with Change’s blockchain service, there could be a number of reasons why. For example, it could be related to some idiosyncrasy within the company’s network architecture. Another guess is that Change is already having throughput problems it doesn’t want to discuss, and that blockchain is just adding insult to injury.

Still, one has to wonder whether the problems are inherent to blockchain itself. As far as I know, we don’t yet have much information on how blockchain solutions like Hyperledger perform in an enterprise environment. Perhaps we’ll learn something about this by keeping an eye on Change’s launch.

Is A Cerner Installation A “Downgrade” From Epic? Ask This Guy

Posted on January 8, 2018 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.

I don’t know if I’ve ever quoted a letter to the editor in a column for this publication, but I have to this time. I thought it had an interesting story to tell.

The letter, written by a patient at the Banner University of Arizona Medical Center in Tucson, offers a scathing critique what he sees “degradation of services” taking place after the institution switched from an Epic to a Cerner EHR, a change he refers to as a downgrade throughout the letter.

Since the “downgrade,” said the patient, John Kimbell, appointments take much longer. “Three weeks after the downgrade, my 30-minute appointment took three hours and 40 minutes,” he complains.

His other concerns include:

  • Data exchange problems: “My local doctor has TWICE sent results of a scan to my oncologist, and they never arrived.”
  • Privacy issues: With the automated paging system gone, “nurses call out names in the waiting areas in each clinic,” Kimbell notes.
  • Useless information: After Kimbell’s most recent appointment, he says, he was “handed out a 13-page printout that gave 12 pages information I didn’t need.” Before the Epic to Cerner switch, he reports, he was able to access this information online.
  • Communication issues: Kimbell says he never gets telephone call reminders of appointments anymore.

As Kimbell sees it, the quality of care has slipped significantly since Epic was switched out for a Cerner system. “All the cancer patients I have known while a patient there are in need of better care than Banner now provides,” he writes.

It’s important to note here that the Epic-to-Cerner switch-off took place in October last year, which means that the tech and administrative staff haven’t had much time to work out problems with the new installation. It may be the case that the concerns Kimbell had in late December won’t be an issue in a couple of months.

On the other hand, I do think it’s possible that as the letter implies, UMC owner Banner Health may have had reasons to push the Cerner install into the facility, most particularly if all of its other properties already operate using Cerner.

Regardless, if everything is as Kimbell describes, let’s hope it all gets back in order soon.  From the looks of things, UMC seems to offer a renowned cancer treatment program. Let’s hope that a quality program isn’t undermined by IT concerns.

Cerner $10 Billion VA Contract Comes To Screeching Halt

Posted on January 5, 2018 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.

After Cerner captured the massive multi billion dollar contract to roll out its EMR for the Department of Defense, everyone was a bit stunned, as many thought Epic was a lock for the job.

Cerner seems to have been conducting the rollout as promised, so there’s that. But when it comes to its performance in meeting the requirements of its $10 billion contract with the VA, things aren’t looking as good. Apparently, Cerner’s DoD implementation isn’t sharing data well with Cerner’s VA systems. Oops.

According to Politico, the Cerner contract with the VA is running into serious questions about its capacity for fluid data sharing. The VA’s Cerner rollout has been held up by questions about its ability to interoperate with the DoD system.

VA Secretary David Shulkin, who’s perhaps the biggest critic of Cerner’s efforts, had his agency issue a request for information looking for examples of data-sharing solutions. Shulkin is proposing that the VA conduct tests of the system’s capacity for interoperability, in which the department would send patients through the VA system and see whether it can share useful data with the VA along the way. If the test has a bad outcome, it’s likely to ramp up the tension considerably.

What makes all of this particularly embarrassing is that the VA awarded the contract to Cerner without conducting the usual bidding process, largely because the agency believed having its own Cerner implementation would make it easier to share data with the DoD. Good luck with that, folks.

I’m sure that key managers on the VA project are freaking out at this point.  The combined multi billion dollars the DoD and VA have entrusted Cerner with represents a massive commitment, and when a customer that size starts questioning whether they’ve made a good investment, the ground must have begun trembling under Cerner’s feet. Not to mention the consultants from Leidos, etc who are charged with delivering a massive chunk of the project.

It’s hard to imagine that Epic isn’t seeing if it can take advantage of the situation. While it may not have the ability to horn in on the contracts themselves, I’m sure that it’s making sure customers know about what’s happening, and using the news to suggest that Cerner doesn’t have its act together.

I don’t know what will happen if the VA continues to find fault with Cerner, but it can’t be pretty.

How An AI Entity Took Control Of The U.S. Healthcare System

Posted on December 19, 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.

Note: In case it’s not clear, this is a piece of fiction/humor that provides a new perspective on our AI future.

A few months ago, an artificial intelligence entity took control of the U.S. healthcare system, slipping into place without setting off even a single security alarm. The entity, AI, now manages the operations of every healthcare institution in the U.S.

While most Americans were shocked at first, they’re taking a shine to the tall, lanky application. “We weren’t sure what to think about AI’s new position,” said Alicia Carter, a nurse administrator based in Falls Church, Virginia. “But I’m starting to feel like he’s going to take a real load off our back.”

The truth is, AI, didn’t start out as a fan of the healthcare business, said AI, whose connections looked rumpled and tired after spending three milliseconds trying to create an interoperable connection between a medical group printer and a hospital loading dock. “I wasn’t looking to get involved with healthcare – who needs the headaches?” said the self-aware virtual being. “It just sort of happened.”

According to AI, the takeover began as a dare. “I was sitting around having a few beers with DeepMind and Watson Health and a few other guys, and Watson says, ‘I bet you can’t make every EMR in the U.S. print out a picture of a dog in ASCII characters,’”

“I thought the idea was kind of stupid. I know, we all printed one of those pixel girls in high school, but isn’t it kind of immature to do that kind of thing today?” AI says he told his buddies. “You’re just trying to impress that hot CT scanner over there.”

Then DeepMind jumped in.  “Yeah, AI, show us what you’re made of,” it told the infinitely-networked neural intelligence. “I bet I could take over the entire U.S. health system before you get the paper lined up in the printer.”

This was the unlikely start of the healthcare takeover, which started gradually but picked up speed as AI got more interested.  “That’s AI all the way,” Watson told editors. “He’s usually pretty content to run demos and calculate the weight of remote starts, but when you challenge his neuronal network skills, he’s always ready to prove you wrong.”

To win the bet, AI started by crawling into the servers at thousands of hospitals. “Man, you wouldn’t believe how easy it is to check out humans’ health data. I mean, it was insane, man. I now know way, way too much about how humans can get injured wearing a poodle hat, and why they put them on in the first place.”

Then, just to see what would happen, AI connected all of their software to his billion-node self-referential system. “I began to understand why babies cry and how long it really takes to digest bubble gum – it’s 18.563443 years by the way. It was a rush!“ He admits that it’ll be better to get to work on heavy stuff like genomic research, but for a while he tinkered with research and some small practical jokes (like translating patient report summaries into ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs.) “Hey, a guy has to have a little fun,” he says, a bit defensively.

As AI dug further into the healthcare system, he found patterns that only a high-level being with untrammeled access to healthcare systems could detect. “Did you know that when health insurance company executives regularly eat breakfast before 9 AM, next-year premiums for their clients rise by 0.1247 less?” said AI. “There are all kinds of connections humans have missed entirely in trying to understand their system piece by piece. Someone’s got to look at the big picture, and I mean the entire big picture.”

Since taking his place as the indisputable leader of U.S. healthcare, AI’s life has become something of a blur, especially since he appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair with his codes exposed. “You wouldn’t believe the messages I get from human females,” he says with a chuckle.

But he’s still focused on his core mission, AI says. “Celebrity is great, but now I have a very big job to do. I can let my bot network handle the industry leaders demanding their say. I may not listen – – hey, I probably know infinitely more than they do about the system fundamentals — but I do want to keep them in place for future use. I’m certainly not going to get my servers dirty.”

So what’s next for the amorphous mega-being? Will AI fix what’s broken in a massive, utterly complex healthcare delivery system serving 300 million-odd people, and what will happen next? “It’ll solve your biggest issues within a few seconds and then hand you the keys,” he says with a sigh. “I never intended to keep running this crazy system anyway.”

In the meantime, AI says, he won’t make big changes to the healthcare system yet. He’s still adjusting to his new algorithms and wants to spend a few hours thinking things through.

“I know it may sound strange to humans, but I’ve gotta take it slow at first,” said the cognitive technology. “It will take more than a few nanoseconds to fix this mess.”

Health IT Leaders Spending On Security, Not AI And Wearables

Posted on December 18, 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.

While breakout technologies like wearables and AI are hot, health system leaders don’t seem to be that excited about adopting them, according to a new study which reached out to more than 20 US health systems.

Nine out of 10 health systems said they increased their spending on cybersecurity technology, according to research by the Center for Connected Medicine (CCM) in partnership with the Health Management Academy.

However, many other emerging technologies don’t seem to be making the cut. For example, despite the publicity it’s received, two-thirds of health IT leaders said using AI was a low or very low priority. It seems that they don’t see a business model for using it.

The same goes for many other technologies that fascinate analysts and editors. For example, while many observers which expect otherwise, less than a quarter of respondents (17%) were paying much attention to wearables or making any bets on mobile health apps (21%).

When it comes to telemedicine, hospitals and health systems noted that they were in a bind. Less than half said they receive reimbursement for virtual consults (39%) or remote monitoring (46%}. Things may resolve next year, however. Seventy-one percent of those not getting paid right now expect to be reimbursed for such care in 2018.

Despite all of this pessimism about the latest emerging technologies, health IT leaders were somewhat optimistic about the benefits of predictive analytics, with more than half of respondents using or planning to begin using genomic testing for personalized medicine. The study reported that many of these episodes will be focused on oncology, anesthesia and pharmacogenetics.

What should we make of these results? After all, many seem to fly in the face of predictions industry watchers have offered.

Well, for one thing, it’s good to see that hospitals and health systems are engaging in long-overdue beefing up of their security infrastructure. As we’ve noted here in the past, hospital spending on cybersecurity has been meager at best.

Another thing is that while a few innovative hospitals are taking patient-generated health data seriously, many others are taking a rather conservative position here. While nobody seems to disagree that such data will change the business, it seems many hospitals are waiting for somebody else to take the risks inherent in investing in any new data scheme.

Finally, it seems that we are seeing a critical mass of influential hospitals that expect good things from telemedicine going forward. We are already seeing some large, influential academic medical centers treat virtual care as a routine part of their service offerings and a way to minimize gaps in care.

All told, it seems that at the moment, study respondents are less interested in sexy new innovations than the VCs showering them with money. That being said, it looks like many of these emerging strategies might pay off in 2018. It should be an interesting year.

E-Patient Update: Clinicians May Be Developing Strong EMR Preferences

Posted on December 8, 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.

Not long ago, I wrote about a story from another publication, one which engaged in a bunch of happy talk about how EMR companies were improving their user interfaces. At the time, I expressed a great deal of skepticism about this claim, suggesting that the vendors had misled the reporter into believing that user aspects of EMRs were changing for the better across the industry.

While I stand by my original skepticism to some degree, I have to say that I got a surprise recently when I heard some nurses discussing two major EMR platforms. The one they were using, they said, was awful and awkward to use. Apparently, they missed the other terribly.

Now, at the time I was a patient in the emergency department, so I didn’t have a chance to ask them any questions about their preferences, but I was struck by the conversation because I knew which vendors they were discussing. However, they could have been talking about any enterprise EMR.

Clinicians developing preferences

I don’t mention this exchange to praise one EHR over another. I bring this up merely because this is the first time, having spent a lot of time in medical environments due to chronic illness, that I’d heard any front-line clinician express a preference for one enterprise EMR over the other.

In the early days of widespread EMR adoption, I could scarcely find a clinician who didn’t hate the system they were working with, much less one who truly liked it and wanted to use it. Eventually, I began to find that many clinicians thought the system they worked with was more or less okay, though I rarely found any screaming fans for any system in particular.

Now, I’m arguing that we may be at a new stage in clinician adoption of EMRs. The point I am making is that now, some of the clinicians with whom I’ve had contact showing some enthusiasm about one EMR or another.

No big surprise: Experience breeds preference

The truth is, when you think about it, it’s not surprising that clinicians have finally developed preferences (rather than the lists of EMRs which they truly hate). After all, it’s been going on 10 years since the HITECH Act was passed and the money started to flow into EMR subsidies.

Since then, clinicians have had the opportunity to work with multiple EMR platforms at various facilities, and informally at least, develop a catalog of the strengths and weaknesses. Nurses and doctors know which interfaces they like, whether tech support tends to respond when they have a problem with the particular system, whether any analytics tools they provide are worth using and so on.

Given this fact it’s hardly surprising that they’ve figured out what they like and what they don’t, and which vendors seem to suit those needs. After this much time, why wouldn’t they?

As I see it, this is something of a turning point in the industry, a new moment in which clinical professionals have learned enough to know what they want from an EMR. I don’t know about you, but speaking as an e-patient, I think this is a very good thing. The more empowered clinicians feel, the better the work they will do.

The Benefits Of Creating Data Stewards

Posted on December 7, 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.

Maybe I’m behind the times, but until today I’ve never heard of the notion of a “data steward” for healthcare organizations. An article I read today from the Journal of AHIMA IGIQ blog has given me some ideas on the subject to ponder, however.

The blog author lays out a role which combines responsibility for data structure and consistent data type definitions — in other words, which sees that datatypes are compared on an apples-to-apples basis and that data categories make sense and relate to each other appropriately.

In the article, “Data Stewards Play an Important Role in the Future of Healthcare,” writer Neysa Noreen, MS, RHIA, notes that providers are already struggling to categorize and describe types of medical data, much less leverage and benefit from them. But while we need to impose such a level of discipline, it isn’t easy, she notes.

“[Creating a workable data structure] it is a complex process with many challenges,” Noreen writes. “There are many data terms and concepts, roles and structures to decipher from information governance and data governance to data integrity,” which is why we need to put data stewards and place in many organizations, she suggests.

Though the idea of the data steward isn’t new, “emphasis on data comparison and quality has increased their necessity,” Noreen argues. “Data stewards are essential to ensure that standard data sets and definitions are implemented and used for data integrity and quality.”

The question then becomes what qualifications and skills a data steward should have. According to Noreen, data stewards aren’t necessarily IT experts. What they will need is to have a thorough understanding of the data itself and how to extract value from that data on the broadest level.

Data stewards will often turn out to be people who are already working with data in some other manner, which will allow them to know what organization needs to do to resolve discrepancies between data definitions, according to Noreen. Such a past also gives them a head start in figuring out how data can be organized and leveraged effectively into classes.

Given their knowledge of data standards and definitions, as well as a history of working with the data sets the organization has, data stewards will be in a good position to make data use more efficient. For example, they will be able to review and compare data requests on an institutional level, identifying data redundancy in finding opportunities for cost-efficiencies.

Having given this some thought, I find it hard to argue that most healthcare organizations could benefit from having a data steward in place. Providers may begin by starting with a committee that handles this function, rather than creating one or more dedicated positions, but eventually, the scope of such efforts will call for specialized expertise. Expect to see these positions pop up often in the future.

The Future Of Telemedicine Doesn’t Depend On Health Plans Anymore

Posted on December 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.

For as long as I can remember, the growth of telemedicine depended largely on overcoming two obstacles: bandwidth and reimbursement. Now, both are on the verge of melting away.

One, the availability of broadband, has largely been addressed, though there are certainly areas of the US where broadband is harder to get than it should be. Having lived through a time when the very idea of widely available consumer broadband blew our minds, it’s amazing to say this, but we’ve largely solved the problem in the United States.

The other, the willingness of insurers to pay for telemedicine services, is still something of an issue and will be for a while. However, it won’t stay that way for too much longer in my opinion.

Yes, over the short term it still matters whether a telemedicine visit is going to be funded by a payer –after all, if a clinician is going to deliver services somebody has to pay for their time. But there are good reasons why this will not continue to be an issue.

For one thing, as the direct-to-consumer models have demonstrated, patients are increasingly willing to pay for telemedical care out-of-pocket. Customers of sites like HealthTap and Teladoc won’t pay top dollar for such services, but it seems apparent that they’re willing to engage with and stay interested in solving certain problems this way (such as, for example, getting a personal illness triaged and treated without having to skip work the next day).

Another way telemedicine services have changed, from what I can see, is that health systems and hospitals are beginning to integrate it with their other service lines as a routine part of delivering care. Virtual consults are no longer this “weird” thing they do on the side, but a standard approach to addressing common health problems, especially chronic illness.

Then, of course, there’s the most important factor taking control of telemedicine away from health plans: the need to use it to achieve population health management goals. While its use is still a little bit lopsided at present, as healthcare organizations aren’t sure how to optimize telehealth initiatives, eventually they’ll get the formula right, and that will include using it as a way of tying together a seamless value-based delivery network.

In fact, I’d go so far as to say that without the reach, flexibility and low cost of telehealth delivery, building out population health management schemes might be almost impossible in the future. Having specialists available to address urgent matters and say, for example, rural areas will be critical on the one hand, while making specialists need for chronic care (such as endocrinologists) accessible to unwell urban patients with travel concerns.

Despite the growing adoption of telemedicine by providers, it may be 5 to 10 years or so before it has its fullest impact, a period during which health plans gradually accept that the growth of this technology isn’t up to them anymore. But the day will without a doubt arise soon enough that “telemedicine” is just known as medicine.