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!!

Can Providers Survive If They Don’t Get Population Health Management Right?

Posted on August 27, 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.

Most providers know that they won’t succeed with population health management unless they get some traction in a few important areas — and that if not, they could face disaster as their volume of value-based payment share grows. The thing is, getting PHM right is proving to be a mindboggling problem for many.

Let’s start with some numbers which give us at least one perspective on the situation.

According to a survey by Health Leaders Media, 87% of respondents said that improving their population health management chops was very important. Though the article summarizing the study doesn’t say this explicitly, we all know that they have to get smart about PHM if they want to have a prayer of prospering under value-based reimbursement.

However, it seems that the respondents aren’t making nearly as much PHM progress as they’d like. For example, just 38% of respondents told Health Leaders that they attributed 25% or more of their organization’s net revenue to risk-based pop health management activities, a share which has fallen two percent from last year’s results.

More than half (51%) said that their top barrier to successfully deploying or expanding pop health programs was up-front funding for care management, IT and infrastructure. They also said that engaging patients in their own care (45%) and getting meaningful data into providers’ hands (33%) weren’t proving to be easy tasks.

At this point it’s time for some discussion.

Obviously, providers grapple with competing priorities every time they try something new, but the internal conflicts are especially clear in this case.

On the one hand, it takes smart care management to make value-based contracts feasible. That could call for a time-consuming and expensive redesign of workflow and processes, patient education and outreach, hiring case managers and more.

Meanwhile, no PHM effort will blossom without the right IT support, and that could mean making some substantial investments, including custom-developed or third-party PHM software, integrating systems into a central data repository, sophisticated data analytics and a whole lot more.

Putting all of this in place is a huge challenge. Usually, providers lay the groundwork for a next-gen strategy in advance, then put infrastructure, people and processes into place over time. But that’s a little tough in this case. We’re talking about a huge problem here!

I get it that vendors began offering off-the-shelf PHM systems or add-on modules years ago, that one can hire consultants to change up workflow and that new staff should be on-board and trained by now. And obviously, no one can say that the advent of value-based care snuck up on them completely unannounced. (In fact, it’s gotten more attention than virtually any other healthcare issue I’ve tracked.) Shouldn’t that have done the trick?

Well, yes and no. Yes, in that in many cases, any decently-run organization will adapt if they see a trend coming at them years in advance. No, in that the shift to value-based payment is such a big shift that it could be decades before everyone can play effectively.

When you think about it, there are few things more disruptive to an organization than changing not just how much it’s paid but when and how along with what they have to do in return. Yes, I too am sick of hearing tech startups beat that term to death, but I think it applies in a fairly material sense this time around.

As readers will probably agree, health IT can certainly do something to ease the transition to value-based care. But HIT leaders won’t get the chance if their organization underestimates the scope of the overall problem.

Key Articles in Health IT from 2017 (Part 2 of 2)

Posted on January 4, 2018 I Written By

Andy Oram is an editor at O'Reilly Media, a highly respected book publisher and technology information provider. An employee of the company since 1992, Andy currently specializes in open source, software engineering, and health IT, but his editorial output has ranged from a legal guide covering intellectual property to a graphic novel about teenage hackers. His articles have appeared often on EMR & EHR and other blogs in the health IT space. Andy also writes often for O'Reilly's Radar site (http://oreilly.com/) and other publications on policy issues related to the Internet and on trends affecting technical innovation and its effects on society. Print publications where his work has appeared include The Economist, Communications of the ACM, Copyright World, the Journal of Information Technology & Politics, Vanguardia Dossier, and Internet Law and Business. Conferences where he has presented talks include O'Reilly's Open Source Convention, FISL (Brazil), FOSDEM, and DebConf.

The first part of this article set a general context for health IT in 2017 and started through the year with a review of interesting articles and studies. We’ll finish the review here.

A thoughtful article suggests a positive approach toward health care quality. The author stresses the value of organic change, although using data for accountability has value too.

An article extolling digital payments actually said more about the out-of-control complexity of the US reimbursement system. It may or not be coincidental that her article appeared one day after the CommonWell Health Alliance announced an API whose main purpose seems to be to facilitate payment and other data exchanges related to law and regulation.

A survey by KLAS asked health care providers what they want in connected apps. Most apps currently just display data from a health record.

A controlled study revived the concept of Health Information Exchanges as stand-alone institutions, examining the effects of emergency departments using one HIE in New York State.

In contrast to many leaders in the new Administration, Dr. Donald Rucker received positive comments upon acceding to the position of National Coordinator. More alarm was raised about the appointment of Scott Gottlieb as head of the FDA, but a later assessment gave him high marks for his first few months.

Before Dr. Gottlieb got there, the FDA was already loosening up. The 21st Century Cures Act instructed it to keep its hands off many health-related digital technologies. After kneecapping consumer access to genetic testing and then allowing it back into the ring in 2015, the FDA advanced consumer genetics another step this year with approval for 23andMe tests about risks for seven diseases. A close look at another DNA site’s privacy policy, meanwhile, warns that their use of data exploits loopholes in the laws and could end up hurting consumers. Another critique of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act has been written by Dr. Deborah Peel of Patient Privacy Rights.

Little noticed was a bill authorizing the FDA to be more flexible in its regulation of digital apps. Shortly after, the FDA announced its principles for approving digital apps, stressing good software development practices over clinical trials.

No improvement has been seen in the regard clinicians have for electronic records. Subjective reports condemned the notorious number of clicks required. A study showed they spend as much time on computer work as they do seeing patients. Another study found the ratio to be even worse. Shoving the job onto scribes may introduce inaccuracies.

The time spent might actually pay off if the resulting data could generate new treatments, increase personalized care, and lower costs. But the analytics that are critical to these advances have stumbled in health care institutions, in large part because of the perennial barrier of interoperability. But analytics are showing scattered successes, being used to:

Deloitte published a guide to implementing health care analytics. And finally, a clarion signal that analytics in health care has arrived: WIRED covers it.

A government cybersecurity report warns that health technology will likely soon contribute to the stream of breaches in health care.

Dr. Joseph Kvedar identified fruitful areas for applying digital technology to clinical research.

The Government Accountability Office, terror of many US bureaucracies, cam out with a report criticizing the sloppiness of quality measures at the VA.

A report by leaders of the SMART platform listed barriers to interoperability and the use of analytics to change health care.

To improve the lower outcomes seen by marginalized communities, the NIH is recruiting people from those populations to trust the government with their health data. A policy analyst calls on digital health companies to diversify their staff as well. Google’s parent company, Alphabet, is also getting into the act.

Specific technologies

Digital apps are part of most modern health efforts, of course. A few articles focused on the apps themselves. One study found that digital apps can improve depression. Another found that an app can improve ADHD.

Lots of intriguing devices are being developed:

Remote monitoring and telehealth have also been in the news.

Natural language processing and voice interfaces are becoming a critical part of spreading health care:

Facial recognition is another potentially useful technology. It can replace passwords or devices to enable quick access to medical records.

Virtual reality and augmented reality seem to have some limited applications to health care. They are useful foremost in education, but also for pain management, physical therapy, and relaxation.

A number of articles hold out the tantalizing promise that interoperability headaches can be cured through blockchain, the newest hot application of cryptography. But one analysis warned that blockchain will be difficult and expensive to adopt.

3D printing can be used to produce models for training purposes as well as surgical tools and implants customized to the patient.

A number of other interesting companies in digital health can be found in a Fortune article.

We’ll end the year with a news item similar to one that began the article: serious good news about the ability of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) to save money. I would also like to mention three major articles of my own:

I hope this review of the year’s articles and studies in health IT has helped you recall key advances or challenges, and perhaps flagged some valuable topics for you to follow. 2018 will continue to be a year of adjustment to new reimbursement realities touched off by the tax bill, so health IT may once again languish somewhat.

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.

Three Words That Health Care Should Stop Using: Insurance, Market, and Quality (Part 2 of 2)

Posted on August 23, 2016 I Written By

Andy Oram is an editor at O'Reilly Media, a highly respected book publisher and technology information provider. An employee of the company since 1992, Andy currently specializes in open source, software engineering, and health IT, but his editorial output has ranged from a legal guide covering intellectual property to a graphic novel about teenage hackers. His articles have appeared often on EMR & EHR and other blogs in the health IT space. Andy also writes often for O'Reilly's Radar site (http://oreilly.com/) and other publications on policy issues related to the Internet and on trends affecting technical innovation and its effects on society. Print publications where his work has appeared include The Economist, Communications of the ACM, Copyright World, the Journal of Information Technology & Politics, Vanguardia Dossier, and Internet Law and Business. Conferences where he has presented talks include O'Reilly's Open Source Convention, FISL (Brazil), FOSDEM, and DebConf.

The previous part of this article ripped apart the use of the words “insurance” and “market” to characterize healthcare. Not let’s turn to another concept even more fundamental to our thinking about care.

Quality

The final element of this three-card Monte is the slippery notion of quality. Health care is often compared to the airlines (when we’re not being compared to the Cheesecake Factory), an exercise guaranteed to make health care look bad. Airlines and restaurants offer relatively homogeneous experiences to all their clients and can easily determine whether their service succeeded or failed. Even at a mechanical level, the airlines have been able to quantify safety.

Endless organizations such as the National Association for Healthcare Quality (NAHQ) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) collect quality measures, and CMS has tried strenuously to include quality measures in Meaningful Use and the new MACRA program. We actually have not a dearth of quality measures, but a surfeit. Doctors feel overwhelmed with these measures. They are difficult to collect, and we don’t know how to combine them to create easy reports that patients can act on. There is a difference between completing a successful surgery, caring for things such as pain and infection prevention after surgery, and creating a follow-up plan that minimizes the chance of readmission. All those things (and many more) are elements of quality.

Worst of all, despite efforts to rank patients by their conditions and risk, hospitals repeatedly warn that quality measures underestimate risky patients and therefore penalize the hospitals that do the most difficult and important work–caring for the sickest. Many hospitals are throwing away donor organs instead of doing transplants, because the organs are slightly inferior and therefore might contribute to lower quality ratings–even if the patients are desperate to give them a try.

The concept of quality in health care thus needs a fresh look, and probably a different term. The first, simple thing we can do is remove patient ratings from assessments of quality. The patient knows whether the nurse smiled at her or whether she was discharged promptly, but can’t tell how good the actual treatment was after the event. One nurse has suggested that staff turnover is a better indication of hospital quality than patient satisfaction surveys. Given our fascination with airline quality, it’s worth noting that the airline industry separates safety ratings from passenger experience. The health care industry can similarly leverage patient ratings to denote clients’ satisfaction, but that’s separate from quality.

As for the safety and effectiveness of treatment, we could try a fairer rating system, such as one that explicitly balances risk and reward. Agencies would have to take the effort to understand all the elements of differences in patients that contribute to risk, and make sure they are tallied. Perhaps we could learn how to assess the success of each treatment in relation to the condition in which the patient entered the office. Even better, we could try to assess longitudinal results instead evaluating each office visit or hospital admission in isolation.

These are complex activities, but we have lots of data and powerful tools to analyze it. Together with a focus on changing behavior and environments, we should be able to make a real difference in quality–and I mean quality of life. Is there anything an ordinary member of the health professions can do till then? Well, try issuing Bronx cheers and catcalls at any meeting or conference presentation where someone uses one of the three misleading terms.

Three Words That Health Care Should Stop Using: Insurance, Market, and Quality (Part 1 of 2)

Posted on August 22, 2016 I Written By

Andy Oram is an editor at O'Reilly Media, a highly respected book publisher and technology information provider. An employee of the company since 1992, Andy currently specializes in open source, software engineering, and health IT, but his editorial output has ranged from a legal guide covering intellectual property to a graphic novel about teenage hackers. His articles have appeared often on EMR & EHR and other blogs in the health IT space. Andy also writes often for O'Reilly's Radar site (http://oreilly.com/) and other publications on policy issues related to the Internet and on trends affecting technical innovation and its effects on society. Print publications where his work has appeared include The Economist, Communications of the ACM, Copyright World, the Journal of Information Technology & Politics, Vanguardia Dossier, and Internet Law and Business. Conferences where he has presented talks include O'Reilly's Open Source Convention, FISL (Brazil), FOSDEM, and DebConf.

Reading the daily papers, I have gotten increasingly frustrated at the misunderstandings that journalists and the public bring to the debates of over health expansion, costs, and reform. But you can’t blame them–our own industry has created the confusion by misusing terms and concepts that work in other places but not in health. Worse still, the health care industry has let policy-makers embed the incorrect impressions into laws and regulations.

So in this article I’ll promote the long process of correcting the public’s impressions of health care–by purging three dangerous words from health care vocabulary.

Insurance

The health care insurance industry looks like no other insurance industry in the world. When we think of insurance, we think of paying semi-annually into a fund we hope we never need to use. But perhaps every twenty years or so, we suffer damage to our car, our house, or our business, and the insurance kicks in. That may have been true for health care 70 years ago, when you wouldn’t see the doctor unless you fell into a pit or came down with some illness they likely couldn’t cure anyway. The insurance model is totally unsuited for health care today.

The Affordable Care Act made some symbolic gestures toward a recognition that modern health care should embrace prevention and wellness. For instance, it eliminated copays for preventative visits. The insurance companies took that wording very literally: if you dare to bring up an actual medical problem during your preventative visit, they charge you a copay. Yet the “preventative” part of the visit usually consists of a lecture to stop smoking and go on the Mediterranean diet.

Effective wellness programs jettison the notion of insurance (although patients need separate insurance for catastrophic problems). They keep in regular contact with clients, provide coaching, and sometimes use intelligent digital interventions such as described by Dr. Joseph Kvedar in The Internet of Healthy Things (which I reviewed shortly after its release). There are scattered indications that these programs do their job. As they spread, the system set up to deal with catastrophic health events will have to adapt and take a modest role within a behavioral health model.

The term “insurance” is so widely applied to our healh funding model that we can’t make it go away. Perhaps we should put the word in quotation marks wherever it must be used.

Market

This term is less ubiquitous than “insurance” but may be even more harmful. Numerous commenters have pointed out the difference between health care and actual markets:

  • In a market, you can walk away and refuse to pay for a good that is too expensive. If the price of beef goes through the roof, you can switch to beans (and probably should, for your own health). So the best time to argue with someone who promotes a health care market may be right after he’s fallen from a ladder and is clutching at his leg in agony. Ask him, “Do you feel you can walk away from an offer of health care?” Cruel, but a lesson he won’t forget.

  • A market serves people who can afford it. It’s hard to find a stylish hair dresser in a poor neighborhood because no one can pay $200 for a cut. But here’s the rub: the people who need health care the most can’t afford it. Someone with serious mental or physical problems is less likely to find work or be able to attend a college with health insurance. Parents of seriously ill children have to take time off from work to care for them. And so on. It’s what economists–who have trouble discarding the market way of thinking–call a market failure.

  • In a market, you know what you’re going to pay for a service and what your options are. Enough said.

  • In a market, you can evaluate the quality of a service and judge (at least in retrospect) whether it was worth the cost. I’ll deal with quality in the next section.

The misconception of health care as a market came to a head in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Presumably, millions of “young invincibles” were avoiding health insurance because of the cost. The individual mandate, combined with affordable plans on health care exchanges, would bring them flooding into the insurance system, lowering costs for everyone and balancing the burden created by the many sick people who we knew would join. And yet now we have stubbornly rising health care rates, deductibles, and caps, along with new costs in the states where Medicaid expanded Where did this all fall apart?

Part of the problem is certainly the recession, which caused incomes to decline or stagnate and exacerbated people’s health care needs. Also, there was a pent-up need for treatment among people who had lacked health insurance and avoided treatment for some time. This comes through in a study of prescription medication use. Furthermore, people don’t change habits overnight: many continue to over-rely on the emergency room (perhaps because of a shortage of primary care providers).

But there’s another unanticipated factor: the “young invincibles” actually start using health care once they get access to it. An analysis showed that mental health needs among the young are much higher than expected. In particular, they suffer widely from depression and anxiety, which is entirely reasonable given the state of our world. (I know that these conditions are connected to genetics and biology, but environment must also play a role.)

Ultimately, until we get behavioral health in place for everybody, health care costs will continue to rise and we won’t realize the promise of near-universal coverage. Many health care activists–especially during the recent political primary season–call for a single-payer system, which certainly would introduce many efficiencies. But it doesn’t solve the problems of chronic conditions and unhealthy lifestyles–that will require policy action on levels ranging from improvements in air cleanliness to new opportunities for isolated individuals to socialize. Meanwhile, we still have to look at the notion of quality in tomorrow’s post.

What Would New Care Delivery Models Look Like If Created Today?

Posted on November 24, 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.


This tweet has been on my mind the last month. I’m sure that many in the trenches probably think that this type of thinking is a pipe dream and not worthy of discussion. While it’s true that we can’t go back and change the past, this type of thinking may predict where we need to go in the future.

I and many others have long talked about the way EHR software was built to maximize billing and then meaningful use. The focus of the EHR was not on how to improve patient care, but was really built around how the organization could manage it’s billing and make more money. So, we shouldn’t be too surprised that the EHR systems we have today aren’t these amazing systems that dramatically improve the care we provide.

With that said, there’s a sea change happening in health care when it comes to how organizations are being reimbursed based on value. Might I suggest that an organization that wants to be ready for this change in reimbursement might want to take the time to think about what care models would look like if they were created from scratch today without the overhead of the past.

I’m not the only one thinking about this. Check out this tweet from Linda Stotsky that quotes Rasu Shrestha, MD, MBA.


In the article that’s linked to in that tweet Rasu describes the real challenge of rethinking our care models:

What does it truly mean to have a patient-centered approach to care? As a clinician, I can tell you confidently that most of my colleagues tend to get defensive amid talk of the need to adopt a patient-centric approach to care. “Of course, we’re focused on the patient!” seems to be the most common reaction. Many simply assume that because care is essentially imparted onto a patient, everything we do, naturally, is patient-centric

Then he offers this frank comment:

But where is the patient in all of this? Is a system designed to help document our attempts to cure the patient, and help bill for the associated services, really the best we can do? Perhaps the problem is bigger than just the EMR. Perhaps our frequently paternalistic, and often heroic, approaches to care have been cherished, celebrated and incentivized for far too long. Perhaps we need to rethink care in a big way.

I agree with Rasu. He also quotes Ellen Stoval, survivor or three bouts of cancer who says, “We have been chasing the cure, rather than the care.” I’m actually optimistic that these changes are happening. We’re going to see a drastically improved health care system. It’s going to take time, but most changes do. What’s most exciting is that if we navigate these shifts properly, then doctors will finally get to practice medicine the way they imagined medicine. Instead of churning patients to meet revenue, they could actually spend more time caring for patients. That’s something worth aspiring towards.

How Will the Coming Election Year Impact Healthcare IT?

Posted on November 10, 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.

It seems like the Presidential election should be closer since we’ve been hearing about possible Presidential candidates for the past year. However, we still have a whole year before the next Presidential election. Does anyone else think we’re going to be tired of this process a year from now? (But I digress)

In past years, there was certainly a lot to talk about when it comes to the impact a new president would have on healthcare IT. However, I don’t think that this presidential election will be the same. I think that’s true for healthcare in general as well.

On the healthcare IT side, meaningful use has basically run its course. Sure, Jeb Bush has asked to eliminate meaningful use and government mandates and penalties for EHR use. Although, John Halamka and Marc Probst have both recently asked for the same. We’ve written previously about how getting rid of meaningful use wouldn’t do much of anything to alter the current course of EHR and healthcare IT. It just wouldn’t change much of anything.

What could a presidential candidate do to impact healthcare IT? I really don’t see them having an interest in doing much of anything to impact the current course of healthcare IT. If you think otherwise, I’d love to hear why.

On the healthcare side of things we might see more changes. Certainly the topic of healthcare costing the US too much money is a very big an important topic for the president. However, I think Obamacare and those healthcare reform efforts are too far gone to be able to really go back and change them now. Sure, we could see some changes here and there, but I think it’s too late for a new President to really drastically change what’s already been done.

Related to this is the move away from fee for service to a value based reimbursement environment. Would any President condone this direction? Would any President advocate for a return to the old fee for service environment? I don’t see it happening. As many people have told me, the shift to value based care has left the building. There’s no coming back. Could they modify the approach and some of the details. Certainly! However, they’re not likely going to change the trajectory.

Long story short, I’m not sure any Presidential candidate will do anything that will drastically impact healthcare IT and healthcare as we know it. Sure there will be some tweaks that will have some impact, but nothing major like Obamacare or the HITECH Act.

Do you agree or disagree? I always love to hear other perspectives.

The Post SGR Replacement World – An SGR Infographic

Posted on July 13, 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.

I’ve been regularly blogging about the changes from a fee for service world to a new value based reimbursement world and everything that’s involved in that. I think it’s a key change that’s happening in healthcare that’s going to drive everyone to do things differently. This is particularly true as a healthcare IT vendor.

With that in mind, I found this history of Medicare SGR patches quite interesting. Understanding the past is a great way to take a look at where we’re heading in the future.
SGR Timeline and Move to MIPS and MACRA

ICD-10 Claims Monitoring Infographic

Posted on June 30, 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.

I’m told that there are only 92 days left for Congress to delay ICD-10 until the deadline to implement ICD-10. A few weeks ago we published a great post from Vishal Gandhi, CEO of ClinicSpectrum, that talked about a part of ICD-10 preparation that is often forgotten: Claims Monitoring.

I know this is going to be a major problem for many healthcare organizations and is going to cause some major cash flow problems if they don’t get on top of their ICD-10 claims by implementing some sort of ICD-10 claims monitoring process. ICD-10 hiccups are the perfect excuse for a payer not to pay your claims.

For those that prefer a more visual approach to this discussion, Vishal and his team have put together an infographic that shares the same message as his post. Pretty cool. What won’t be cool is if you’re stuck with a lot of unpaid claims thanks to ICD-10. Make sure you and your organization are ready to deal with it.
What Are You Doing to Monitor Your Claims

Full Disclosure: ClinicSpectrum is a sponsor of EMR and HIPAA.

Farzad Mostashari’s Aledade Raises $30 Million on the Back of the Switch to Value Based Care

Posted on June 15, 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.

On Aledade’s 1 year anniversary, they just announced that they’ve raised a $30 million Series B round of funding from new investor ARCH Venture Partners and return investor Venrock. That brings their total funding to $35 million. For those not familiar with Aledade, it was Founded by Farzad Mostashari and Mat Kendall soon after Farzad left ONC. They work with independent, primary care physicians who want to participate in ACOs and value based reimbursement programs.

Farzad’s blog post announcing the funding says that by end of the year Aledade will have 100 physician practices managing 75,000 Medicare Patients. With such small numbers, this should illustrate what a huge opportunity value based reimbursement will be for many companies that get it right.

Aledade has an interesting business model. They take about $500/provider as a membership fee and then they split the value based reimbursement commission with the provider. 60% of the reimbursement goes to the provider and 40% goes to Aledade. I’ll be interested to see how well this commission structure holds up. While certainly not an Apple to Apples comparison, doctors are use to paying 5-10% commission to billing companies. Will they be ok with paying 40% to what will feel like a billing company to many? Is this an opportunity for medical billing companies?

I have no doubt that physicians and hospitals are going to need a great mix of technology and healthcare knowledge to be successful in this new world of value based reimbursement. Aledade is on the cutting edge of this trend. Time will tell if they’re too early or right on time for the change.

In a recent article in the Palm Beach Post, they said the following about Aledade:

Thanks to Aledade’s focus on data analytics and physician reminders, Mostashari’s doctors became five times more likely to give recommended preventative care to their older patients, such as annual wellness visits and vaccinations against pneumonia.

This sounds great on face. It’s great that primary care physicians are interested in the wellness of their patients. I also think it’s great that we have a method for incentivizing these kinds of actions. However, my fear with this trend is that we’ll push out guidelines for “wellness care” without knowing if those guidelines actually improve someone’s health.

One lesson Mostashari should have learned well from meaningful use is that if you regulate something too early, you might freeze something in regulation that adds a lot of burden without actually improving healthcare. I’m glad they’re on the cutting edge of this trend. Let’s just be thoughtful that we don’t give our doctors more hoops to jump through that don’t actually provide value. That’s the massive challenge we face with the shift to value based reimbursement and we’re just getting started.

Aledade and company are explorers of a new land. I think we’ve only found the Bahamas. Most of us believe the Americas are still out there to be discovered, but we haven’t found it yet. So, let’s be careful drawing the final maps.