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!!

HIMSS Study Shows IT Pay Gaps Persist Between Genders, Races

Posted on March 14, 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.

It would be nice to think that, in a profession focusing on hard, measurable skills, that given the same experience level and skill set, HIT staffers would make more or less the same salaries. However, that doesn’t seem to be the case, according to data from the latest health IT compensation study by HIMSS.

Researchers found that as of previous years, race and gender seem to play a significant role in how much a health IT professional is paid. According to the study, females make 18% less than their male peers, and minorities make 12% less than non-minorities on average across all positions and number of years in a given position.

As the level of responsibility grows, the gap in pay seems to increase as well. The study found that women in executive roles actually face a larger salary gap versus their male counterparts than women at other levels in their organization. Moreover, that gap is growing. Meanwhile, minority females are particularly hard-hit, with the lowest average salaries of the four combinations of gender and racial groups studied, HIMSS reports.

Overall, respondents working in digital health reported being moderately satisfied with the current base salaries, while non-white respondents tended to be less satisfied than respondents who defined themselves as white.

Oddly, despite the substantial pay gap between them and their male peers, females in digital health appeared to be just as satisfied with their pay as their male peers. HIMSS researchers speculate that the reason women are satisfied with lower pay is that they simply don’t know they’re being under compensated. (Given my experience as a professional female, I’d also speculate that some women simply get tired of fighting to close the pay gap and make peace with what they’ve got.)

Having summed all of this up, HIMSS researchers made a few recommendations as to how health organizations can address pay gaps, such as accepting that these gaps exist, educating managers and why gender and racial equality is good for business and adopting strategies that help to reduce such disparities. The researchers also suggest making tools available that can help all health IT professionals understand what they’re worth and negotiate fair pay agreements.

As for me, I’d go a bit further. I’d argue that professionals whose gender and/or minority status have impacted their pay should speak out. It’s all well and good to have provider organizations recognize that their pay structure may not be fair and take action. But ultimately, drawing attention to these gaps both within and outside of the healthcare industry may have the biggest long-term effect.

New Study Suggests That HIEs Deliver Value by Aggregating Patient Data

Posted on March 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.

Historically, I’ve been pretty skeptical about the benefits that HIEs offer, not because the concept was flawed, but that the execution was uncertain. Toss in the fact that few have figured out how to be self-supporting financially, and you have a very shaky business model on your hands. But maybe, at long last, we’re discovering better uses for the vast amount of data HIEs have been trading.

New research by one exchange suggests that some of the key value they offer is aggregating patient data from multiple providers into a longitudinal view of patients. The research, completed by the Kansas Health Information Network and Diameter Health suggests that the Qualified Clinical Data Registries promoted by MACRA/QPP could be a winning approach.

To conduct the research, the partners extracted data from the KHIN exchange on primary care practices in which more than 50,000 patients visited toward 214 care sites in 2016 and 2017. This is certainly interesting, as most of the multi-site studies I’ve seen on this scale are done within a single provider’s network. It’s also notable that the data is relatively fresh, rather than relying on, say, Medicare data which is often several years older.

According to KHIN, using interoperable interfaces to providers and collecting near real-time clinical data makes prompt quality measure calculation possible. According to KHIN executive director Laura McCrary, Ed.D., this marks a significant change from current methods. “This [approach is in stark contrast to the current model which computes quality measures from only the data in the provider’s EHR,” she notes.

FWIW, the two research partners will be delivering a presentation on the research study at the HIMSS18 conference on Friday, March 9, from 12 to 1 PM. I’m betting it will offer some interesting insights.

But even if you can’t make it to this presentation, it’s still worth noting that it emphasizes the increasing importance of the longitudinal patient record. Eventually, under value-based care, it will become critical to have access not only to a single provider’s EHR data, but rather a fuller data set which also includes connected health/wearables data, data from payer claims, overarching population health data and more. And obviously, HIEs play a major role in making this happen.

Like other pundits, I’d go so far to say that without developing this kind of robust longitudinal patient record, which includes virtually every source of relevant patient data, health systems and providers won’t be able to manage patients well enough to meet their individual patient or population health goals.

If HIEs can help us get there, more power to them.

How Not to Handle EHR Certification Problems

Posted on February 26, 2018 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the 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 and 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 was thinking back on how differently EHR vendors have handled EHR Certification problems. First, take a look at the $155 million whistleblower lawsuit that eCW (eClinicalWorks) suffered thanks to improper EHR certification (amidst other things). They had to have known what they were doing and didn’t come clean.

$155 million is just the first price they had to pay. Since then, providers have filed a class action lawsuit against eCW and the family of a patient also filed a lawsuit against eCW. This a painful and expensive experience for eCW.

Anne Zieger reported in August last year that the eCW settlement hadn’t led to customer defections (yet?), but we’ll see how that plays out over time. It makes me wonder if the eCW founder, Girish Navani, still feels the same about never selling your EHR company. Maybe these lawsuits have made him wish he’d taken a buy out offer after all, but I digress.

Today I remembered a situation where another EHR vendor had issues with how their certified EHR attested to meaningful use data. It was back in 2011, so I’m pretty sure many of you have forgotten it. Plus, I expect many of you have forgotten it because the EHR vendor in this case took ownership of the error and fixed it. Of course, this EHR vendor hasn’t fared quite as well as eCW in the marketplace. However, their choice to hide their certification issue would have no doubt made their market position even worse.

The clear message I see in these two stories is something we see often in the US. If you own up to mistakes and do your best to make them right, humans are surprisingly forgiving. However, if you hide it, then the damage can often be much worse than the crime.

I also loved this question I asked back in 2011 about the meaningful use and EHR certification program which are still relevant today when it comes to these complex programs:

“If a large EHR vendor that’s intimately involved in the meaningful use rule creation process can mess up some of the meaningful use guidelines, how many other EHR vendors are going to do the same?”

I didn’t know about eCW’s issues back in 2011, but I obviously could see how easily the eCW issues could happen. Has anything changed with EHR certification and now MACRA and MIPS to make us think that this has gotten any better? Should we be asking, whose the next EHR vendor that will have issues? Will it be because of deliberate skirting of the law or just overly complex, unclear, and changing government requirements?

Yes, you can believe that I’m with those organizations that have called for an end to EHR certification. I’ve been against it since I first heard about it and still don’t see how it’s provided any value since. Pro-EMR I am. Pro-EMR Certification I am not.

Practical Health IT Innovation Conference

Posted on February 15, 2018 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the 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 and John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

For those regular readers, you’ve probably been seeing some of the promotion we’ve been doing for a new healthcare IT conference called Health IT Expo. Yes, this is our first time hosting a healthcare IT Conference of our own, but we are in our 5th year organizing the Healthcare IT Marketing and PR Conference. While we attend and enjoy attending ~30 healthcare IT conferences per year, we think there’s something missing in these conferences that we can address at Health IT Expo.

Hundreds of people over the years have suggested that we should host our own healthcare IT conference. I’d always resisted doing so because I didn’t want to just create another me too conference. In many ways, it felt like there were enough conferences. However, having attended hundreds of conference over the years, I realized that something really big was missing at these conferences: practical innovation.

Most healthcare IT conferences are short on practical innovation and long on useless platitudes.

Last month I wrote that Health IT Expo was the Anti Moonshot Conference. Not that there’s anything wrong with people working on moonshot ideas. That’s a lot of fun and really exciting. However, if you’re a healthcare IT professional that’s overwhelmed by operational minutiea, listening to moonshot ideas ends up leaving you empty and longing for practical innovations that can improve your work life.

Long story short, we’ll be focusing the conference on the following 5 areas of healthcare IT innovation to start:

  • Security and Privacy
  • Analytics
  • Communication and Patient Engagement
  • IT Dev Ops
  • Operational Alignment and Support

We want to take everything we’ve learned attending conferences and organizing one for 5 years and make Health IT Expo a one of a kind experience for those working in these 5 areas.

As part of this conference, we also want to extend the innovation that’s shared over the 2 day event well beyond the conference. One of the other major challenges in healthcare IT is that innovations aren’t shared between organizations. Unlike healthcare data, we don’t mind sharing innovations in healthcare IT. However, there hasn’t been a great platform for this sharing.

For example, how does an IT professional at a hospital share a unique way they implemented 1000 new virtual desktops and saved their organization time and money? The sad answer is they don’t. How does a healthcare IT professional learn about a new company that can solve their physician communication problems? In many cases they don’t.

One of our goals is to use Healthcare Scene and this new conference to create a platform for innovation sharing. As a simple example, we’re finalizing resource pages around each of the 5 topics listed above. These pages will list companies that are innovating in each spaceso they’re easy to find. I’ve been blogging for 12 years and published over 12,000 blog posts and even I was surprised by some of the companies we found. We’ll do a future post linking to those pages once they’re published.

At the end of the day, we have one major goal. How can we make healthcare IT professionals lives better so we improve healthcare?

If that goal interests you, take a minute to check out Health IT Expo. If you’re a healthcare IT professional that wants to be part of this community, reach out to us on our contact us page. Share your experience with us and we’ll give you a special discount code to attend the conference where it doesn’t break your budget.

Radiology Centers Poised To Adopt Machine Learning

Posted on February 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.

As with most other sectors of the healthcare industry, it seems likely that radiology will be transformed by the application of AI technologies. Of course, given the euphoric buzz around AI it’s hard to separate talk from concrete results. Also, it’s not clear who’s going to pay for AI adoption in radiology and where it is best used. But clearly, AI use in healthcare isn’t going away.

This notion is underscored by a new study by Reaction Data suggesting that both technology vendors and radiology leaders believe that widespread use of AI in radiology is imminent. The researchers argue that radiology AI applications are a “have to have” rather than a novel experiment, though survey respondents seem a little less enthusiastic.

The study, which included 133 respondents, focused on the use of machine learning in radiology. Researchers connected with a variety of relevant professionals, including directors of radiology, radiologists, techs, chiefs of radiology and PACS administrators.

It’s worth noting that the survey population was a bit lopsided. For example, 45% of respondents were PACS admins, while the rest of the respondent types represented less than 10%. Also, 90% of respondents were affiliated with hospital radiology centers. Still, the results offer an interesting picture of how participants in the radiology business are looking at machine learning.

When asked how important machine learning was for the future of radiology, one-quarter of respondents said that it was extremely important, and another 59% said it was very or somewhat important. When the data was sorted by job titles, it showed that roughly 90% of imaging directors said that machine learning would prove very important to radiology, followed by just over 75% of radiology chiefs. Radiology managers both came in at around 60%. Clearly, the majority of radiology leaders surveyed see a future here.

About 90% of radiology chiefs were extremely familiar with machine learning, and 75% of techs. A bit counterintuitively, less than 10% of PACS administrators reported being that familiar with this technology, though this does follow from the previous results indicating that only half were enthused about machine learning’s importance. Meanwhile, 75% of techs in roughly 60% of radiologists were extremely familiar with machine learning.

All of this is fine, but adoption is where the rubber meets the road. Reaction Data found that 15% of respondents said they’d been using machine learning for a while and 8% said they’d just gotten started.

Many more centers were preparing to jump in. Twelve percent reported that they were planning on adopting machine learning within the next 12 months, 26% of respondents said they were 1 to 2 years away from adoption and another 24% said they were 3+ years out.  Just 16% said they don’t think they’ll ever use machine learning in their radiology center.

For those who do plan to implement machine learning, top uses include analyzing lung imaging (66%), chest x-rays (62%), breast imaging (62%), bone imaging (41%) and cardiovascular imaging (38%). Meanwhile, among those who are actually using machine learning in radiology, breast imaging is by far the most common use, with 75% of respondents saying they used it in this case.

Clearly, applying the use of machine learning or other AI technologies will be tricky in any sector of medicine. However, if the survey results are any indication, the bulk of radiology centers are prepared to give it a shot.

5 Ways Your Certified EHR Can Help Boost Your MIPS Score

Posted on February 5, 2018 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Lisa Eramo, a regular contributor to Kareo’s Go Practice Blog.

How did you do in the first year of reporting under the Quality Payment Program? Are you expecting a negative payment adjustment under the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS)? Or did you only submit the minimum data necessary in 2017 to avoid this adjustment? The good news is that you can get on track to report critical MIPS measures in 2018 that will safeguard and perhaps even enhance your revenue in 2020 and beyond.

In fact, your electronic health record (EHR) technology may already include various features that can help increase your MIPS score, says Marina Verdara, senior training specialist at Kareo. All you need to do is take advantage of them. Verdara discusses five ways in which medical practices should be able to capitalize on their EHR to improve performance under MIPS.

  1. Use an EHR Certified With the 2015 Criteria

Technology certified using the 2015 criteria supports interoperability across the care continuum, and it also enables physicians to earn additional revenue under MIPS, says Verdara. According to the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act final rule, physicians earn a one-time bonus of 10 percentage points under the advancing care information (ACI) performance category of MIPS when they report objectives and measures using only 2015 edition certified electronic health record technology during calendar year 2018. In 2018, 25% of a physician’s MIPS score is tied to ACI.

“The federal rule indicates the clinician will earn a 10% bonus to their ACI score if they report using only a 2015 CEHRT, but they will determine this based on the measures submitted,” Verdara explains. “Therefore, a clinician can switch anytime during 2018 as long as they can report at least 90 days for the ACI category.”

In addition to this bonus, clinicians are eligible to receive a bonus of 10 percentage points applied to the ACI category if they report Stage 3 objectives and measures, says Verdara. They can do this if their certified EMR can document and track these measures. Refer to Table 7 in the MACRA final rule for more information about these measures.

  1. Choose Applicable Quality Measures

In 2018, 50% of your MIPS score is based on the quality measures you submit. Your 2015 Certified EHR should support your quality measure selection. “For instance, our physicians have an easy-to-use tool within our EHR that prompts them to narrow down measures that are most applicable for their specialty,” says Verdara. Customers can contact them directly for more information about each measure, its specifications, and what CMS is looking for when calculating numerators and denominators.

When using your EHR to choose measures, Verdara suggests running a report for all of the quality measures your vendor supports, including those you may not plan to submit for attestation. That’s because the data could reveal one or more measures you hadn’t anticipated as advantageous for your practice that could ultimately boost your score, she adds.

Examine the entire report, and identify your top 10 measures (i.e., those on which you’ve performed most effectively). Now dig into the data. Are each of these measures applicable for your specialty? If so, focus on data capture for those 10 measures. If some of your top 10 measures are in other specialties, eliminate those from your workflow and choose ones that are relevant. “Make sure you understand how to document and improve the score for that measure,” says Verdara.

Ultimately, submit all 10 measures to CMS even though only six are required, says Verdara. During the submission process, the CMS attestation website automatically scores each measure based on available benchmarks, and physicians have an opportunity to remove the measures on which they’ve performed most poorly prior to final submission.

  1. Don’t Overlook Reporting Opportunities

Your EHR should be looking out for reporting opportunities so that you can focus on patient care. Verdara provides the example of smoking cessation counseling. Physicians commonly perform this type of counseling but may not receive credit under MIPS because they don’t check the box indicating the work was done. “We have built-in guides to help physicians understand why they might be missing out on a particular quality metric,” says Verdara, adding that physicians should be able to look to their EHR to prompt and guide them to understand where missed opportunities may lie.

  1. Use Clinical Decision Support to Enhance MIPS Performance

Your EHR should also provide prompts to remind physicians about age- and condition-specific preventive screenings and care that, when provided to patients, can help improve MIPS scores. Physicians using Kareo, for example, can improve performance on MIPS measures related to influenza and age-specific immunizations as well as screening for clinical depression, high blood pressure, and more, all of which directly translate to higher scores, says Verdara. “It helps the physician provide better care,” she adds. “It’s a win-win for the clinician and the patient.”

  1. Run Clinical Reports to Pinpoint Opportunities for Care Improvement

MIPS reports not only allow for attestation, but they also help practices understand what they do well—and what needs improvement, says Verdara. For example, practices tracking patients whose hemoglobin A1C is greater than 9% during the performance period can use this report for MIPS attestation and to improve outcomes. More specifically, they can reach out to patients with a poor A1C to provide additional counseling and guidance. “This is a good one to track because diabetes is an epidemic,” says Verdara. “It helps practices target patients who are non-compliant.” The same is true for measures related to controlling high blood pressure and asthma.

To learn more about MACRA, visit

About Lisa Eramo
Lisa Eramo is a regular contributor to Kareo’s Go Practice Blog, as well as other healthcare publications, websites and blogs, including the AHIMA Journal. Her focus areas are medical coding, clinical documentation improvement and healthcare quality/efficiency.  Kareo is a proud sponsor of Healthcare Scene.

Federal Advisors Say Yes, AI Can Change Healthcare

Posted on January 26, 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.

The use of AI in healthcare has been the subject of scores of articles and endless debate among industry professionals over its benefits. The fragile consensus seems to be that while AI certainly has the potential to accomplish great things, it’s not ready for prime time.

That being said, some well-informed healthcare observers disagree. In an ONC blog post, a collection of thought leaders from the agency, AHRQ and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation believe that over the long-term, AI could play an important role in the future of healthcare.

The group of institutions asked JASON, an independent group of scientists and academics who advise the federal government on science and technology issues, to look at AI’s potential. JASON’s job was to look at the technical capabilities, limitations and applications for AI in healthcare over the next 10 years.

In its report, JASON concluded that AI has broad potential for sparking significant advances in the industry and that the time may be right for using AI in healthcare settings.

Why is now a good time to play AI in healthcare? JASON offers a list of reasons, including:

  • Frustration with existing medical systems
  • Universal use of network smart devices by the public
  • Acceptance of at-home services provided by companies like Amazon

But there’s more to consider. While the above conditions are necessary, they’re not enough to support an AI revolution in healthcare on their own, the researchers say. “Without access to high-quality, reliable data, the problems that AI will not be realized,” JASON’s report concludes.

The report notes that while we have access to a flood of digital health data which could fuel clinical applications, it will be important to address the quality of that data. There are also questions about how health data can be integrated into new tools. In addition, it will be important to make sure the data is accessible, and that data repositories maintain patient privacy and are protected by strong security measures, the group warns.

Going forward, JASON recommends the following steps to support AI applications:

  • Capturing health data from smartphones
  • Integrating social and environmental factors into the data mix
  • Supporting AI technology development competitions

According to the blog post, ONC and AHRQ plan to work with other agencies within HHS to identify opportunities. For example, the FDA is likely to look at ways to use AI to improve biomedical research, medical care and outcomes, as well as how it could support emerging technologies focused on precision medicine.

And in the future, the possibilities are even more exciting. If JASON is right, the more researchers study AI applications, the more worthwhile options they’ll find.

UPMC Sells Oncology Analytics Firm To Elsevier

Posted on January 22, 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.

Using analytics tools to improve cancer treatment can be very hard. That struggle is exemplified by the problems faced by IBM Watson Health, which dove into the oncology analytics field a few years ago but made virtually no progress in improving cancer treatment.

With any luck, however, Via Oncology will be more successful at moving the needle in cancer care. The company, which offers decision support for cancer treatment and best practices in cancer care management, was just acquired by information analytics firm Elsevier, which plans to leverage the company’s technology to support its healthcare business.

Elsevier’s Clinical Solutions group works to improve patient outcomes, reduce clinical errors and optimize cost and reimbursements for providers. Via Oncology, a former subsidiary of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, develops and implements clinical pathways for cancer care. Via Oncology spent more than 15 years as part of UPMC prior to the acquisition.

Via Oncology’s Via Pathways tool relies on evidence-based content to create clinical algorithms covering 95% of cancer types treated in the US. The content was developed by oncologists. In addition to serving as a basis for algorithm development, Via Oncology also shares the content with physicians and their staff through its Via Portal, a decision support tool which integrates with provider EMRs.

According to Elsevier, Via Pathways addresses more than 2,000 unique patient presentations which can be addressed by clinical algorithms and recommendations for all major aspects of cancer care. The system can also offer nurse triage and symptom tracking, cost information analytics, quality reporting and medical home tools for cancer centers.

According to the prepared statement issued by Elsevier, UPMC will continue to be a Via Oncology customer, which makes it clear that the healthcare giant wasn’t dumping its subsidiary or selling it for a fire sale price.

That’s probably because in addition to UPMC, more than 1,500 oncology providers and community, hospital and academic settings hold Via Pathways licenses. What makes this model particularly neat is that these cancer centers are working collaboratively to improve the product as they use it. Too few specialty treatment professionals work together this effectively, so it’s good to see Via Oncology leveraging user knowledge this way.

While most of this seems clear, I was left with the question of what role, if any, genomics plays in Via Oncology’s strategy. While it may be working with such technologies behind the scenes, the company didn’t mention any such initiatives in its publicly-available information.

This approach seems to fly in the face of existing trends and in particular, physician expectations. For example, a recent survey of oncologists by medical publication Medscape found that 71% of respondents felt genomic testing was either very important or extremely important to their field.

However, Via Oncology may have something up its sleeve and is waiting for it to be mature before it dives into the genomics pool. We’ll just have to see what it does as part of Elsevier.

Are there other areas beyond cancer where a similar approach could be taken?

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.