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!!

Healthcare CIOs Focused On Patient Experience And Innovation

Posted on August 2, 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.

Not long ago, 22 healthcare CIOs had a sit-down to discuss their CEOs’ top IT-related priorities. At the meeting, which took place during the 2018 Scottsdale Institute Annual Conference, the participants found that they were largely on the same page, according to researchers that followed the conversation.

Impact Advisors, which co-sponsored the research, found that improving patient experiences was priority number one. More than 80% of CIOs said patient engagement and better patient experiences were critical, and that deploying digital health strategies could get the job done.

The technologies they cited included patient-facing options like wearables, mobile apps and self-service tools. They also said they were looking at a number of provider-facing solutions which could streamline transitions of care and improve patient flow, including care coordination apps and tools and next-generation decision support technologies such as predictive analytics.

Another issue near the top of the list was controlling IT costs and/or increasing IT value, which was cited by more than 60% of CIOs at the meeting. They noted that in the past, their organizations had invested large amounts of money to purchase, implement and upgrade enterprise EHRs, in an effort to capture Meaningful Use incentive payments, but that things were different now.

Specifically, as their organizations are still recovering from such investments, CIOs said they now need to stretch their IT budgets, They also said that they were being asked to prove that their organization’s existing infrastructure investments, especially their enterprise EHR, continue to demonstrate value. Many said that they are under pressure to prove that IT spending keeps offering a defined return on investment.

Yet another important item on their to-do list was to foster innovation, which was cited by almost 60% of CIOs present. To address this need, some CIOs are launching pilots focused on machine learning and AI, while others are forming partnerships with large employers and influential tech firms. Others are looking into establishing dedicated innovation centers within their organization. Regardless of their approach, the CIOs said, innovation efforts will only work if innovation efforts are structured and governed in a way that helps them meet their organization’s broad strategic goals.

In addition, almost 60% said that they were expected to support their organization’s growth. The CIOs noted that given the constant changes in the industry, they needed to support initiatives such as expansion of service lines or building out new ones, as well as strategic partnerships and acquisitions.

Last, but by no means least, more than half of the CIOs said cybersecurity was important. On the one hand, the participants at the roundtable said, it’s important to be proactive in defending their organization. At the same time, they emphasized that defending their organization involves having the right policies, processes, governance structure and culture.

Healthcare Leaders See AI Tech In Their Future

Posted on July 30, 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.

You’ve probably noticed that the movement of healthcare AI from visionary to commonplace has already begun. There are endless examples I could cite to demonstrate this, but here’s a taste:

  • A UK hospital is delegating some tasks usually performed by doctors and nurses to AI technology
  • The AMA is working to set standards for physician use of AI
  • Competition between AI-based disease management players is increasing
  • New AI software can detect signs of diabetic retinopathy without involving a physician

Of course, anytime a technology seems poised to take over the world, there’s a voice in our head saying “Are you sure?” And we all know there are many flashes in the technology pan.

When it comes to AI, however, we may be on the brink of such widespread adoption that no one could argue that it hasn’t arrived. According to a recent Intel survey of U.S. healthcare leaders, AI will be in use across the healthcare spectrum by 2023.

The research, which was conducted in partnership with Convergys Analytics, surveyed 200 US healthcare decision-makers in April 2018 on their attitudes about AI. The survey also asked subjects what barriers still existed to industry-wide AI adoption.

First, a significant number of respondents (54%) said that they expected AI to be in wide use in the industry within the next five years. Also, a substantial minority (37%) said they already used AI, though most reported that such use was limited.

Among those organizations that use AI, clinical use accounted for 77%, followed by operational use (41%) and financial use (26%). Meanwhile, respondents whose organizations hadn’t adopted AI still seem very enthusiastic about its possibilities, with 91% expecting that it will offer predictive analytics tools for early intervention, 88% saying it will improve care and 83% saying it will improve the accuracy of medical diagnoses.

Despite their enthusiasm, however, many of those surveyed were sure they could trust AI just yet. More than one-third of respondents said that patients wouldn’t trust AI enough to play an active role in their care (and they are probably right, at least for now). Meanwhile, 30% assume that clinicians wouldn’t trust AI either, predicting that concerns over fatal errors would kill their interest. Again, that’s probably a good guess.

In addition, there’s the issue of the AI “black box” to bear in mind. Though Intel didn’t go into detail on this, both clinicians and healthcare executives are concerned about the way AI gets its job done. My informal research suggests that until doctors and nurses understand how AI tools have made their decisions — and what data influenced these decisions — it will be hard to get them comfortable with it.

Hospital Recycling Bins May Contain Sensitive PHI

Posted on April 6, 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.

A group of Canadian researchers studying hospitals information security practices found that hospital recycling bins contained a substantial amount of PHI.

The researchers, who summarized their findings in a letter published in JAMA, spent two years collecting materials from the recycling bins at five teaching hospitals in Toronto. The “recycling audit,” which took place November 2014 and May 2016, included­­­­ data for inpatient and outpatient care settings, emergency departments, physician offices and ICUs.

When they did their audit, the researchers found more than 2,600 items which contained personally identifiable information, including 1,885 items related to medical care. The majority of the items containing PHI (65%) had been created by medical groups.

Their audit also found that the most common locations at which they found particularly sensitive patient-identifiable information for physician offices (65%) and inpatient wards (19%).

The most commonly-found items included patient-identifiable information included clinical notes, medical reports (30%), followed by labels and patient identifiers (14%). Other items which contained PHI included diagnostic test results, prescriptions, handwritten notes, requests and communications, and scheduling materials.

According to the researchers, each of the five hospitals they audited had policies in place to protect PHI, along with secure shredding containers for packaging up private information. That being said, they guessed that as the hospitals transitioned to EHRs, they were discarding a high volume of paper records and losing control of how they were handled.

I don’t know what the EHR adoption rate is in Canada, but nearly all U.S. hospitals already have an EHR in place, so on first glance, it might appear that this couldn’t happen here. After all, once a hospital has digitized records, one would think the only way hospitals would expose PHI would be when someone deliberately steals data.

But the truth is, a great deal of hospital business still gets done on paper, and it seems likely that one could find a significant number of documents with PHI on them in U.S. recycling bins. (If someone was willing to do the dirty work, there might be a meaningful amount of PHI found in regular garbage cans as well.)

What I take away from this is that hospitals need to have stiffer policies in place to protect against paper-based security breaches. It may be time for hospital administrators to pay closer attention to this problem.

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?

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.

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.

Optimization Dominates CHIME17 Discussions

Posted on November 8, 2017 I Written By

Colin Hung is the co-founder of the #hcldr (healthcare leadership) tweetchat one of the most popular and active healthcare social media communities on Twitter. Colin speaks, tweets and blogs regularly about healthcare, technology, marketing and leadership. He is currently an independent marketing consultant working with leading healthIT companies. Colin is a member of #TheWalkingGallery. His Twitter handle is: @Colin_Hung.

“Our EHR Implementation is done”

“We completed our EHR roll-out last year”

“The last EHR module has gone live”

With these words, CIO presenters at the recent CHIME Fall CIO Forum (CHIME17) ushered in a new era in Healthcare IT. Instead of EHR implementations dominating the discussion, optimization was the hot topic of discussion at the event.

“It’s clear to us that CIOs are dedicating more time and energy towards optimizing their systems rather than just implementing them”, says Ed Rucinski, Senior Vice President Worldwide Healthcare Sales at Nuance and CHIME17 attendee. “Our clients, for example, are looking for ways to simplify the documentation physicians have to do in their EHRs so that they can focus their attention back on helping patients.”

Finding ways to better utilize the EHR infrastructure was the subject of many CHIME17 sessions. In one, Sallie Arnett, Vice President Information Systems and Chief Information Officer at Licking Memorial Health Systems, presented how her organization is leveraging EHR and patient monitoring data to detect the early signs of sepsis. Over 62 lives were saved through the work of Arnett and the staff at Licking Memorial.

These results would not have been possible without the investments made in EHR implementations and other digitization efforts.

Several sessions at CHIME17 were centered on the changing role of CMIOs. For the past several years CMIOs have been synonymous with EHR implementations. Now with EHRs up and running, CHIME presenters spoke about how CMIOs were morphing into CHIOs – Chief Health Information Officers – charged with extracting clinical value from the data within the hospital’s systems. This shift in focus is further evidence that healthcare is beginning to move beyond implementation and that we are entering a time of EHR optimization.

The new focus on optimization is a welcome development. It signifies that we are finally near the end of the road-building phase of the inudstry’s EHR journey and we are getting to the phase where we start building things to make the roads useful (like gas stations, diners and cars).

Personally I am looking forward to what the next few years will bring. It will be exciting to see how decision support tools, predictive analytics, artificial intelligence, personalized medicine applications and population health systems will leverage the data that is accumulating in EHRs. The next few years will be truly interesting for CIOs.

Is It Time To Redefine Interoperability?

Posted on October 26, 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.

Recently, an article appearing in healthcare journal HealthAffairs argued that hospitals’ progress toward interoperability has been modest to date. The article, which looked at the extent to which hospitals found, sent, received and integrated information from outside providers in 2015, found that they’d made few gains across all four categories.

Researchers found that the percent of hospitals engaging in all four activities rose to 29.7% that year, up from 24.5% in 2014. The two activities that grew the most in frequency were sending (growing 8.1%) and receiving (8.4%). Despite this expansion, only 18.7% of hospitals reported that they used this data often. The extent to which hospitals integrated the information they received didn’t change from 2014 to 2015.

Interesting, isn’t it, how these stats fail to align with what we know of hospitals’ priorities?  Not only did the rate hospitals sent and received data increase slowly between those two years, hospitals don’t seem to be making any advances in integrating (and presumably, using) shared data. This doesn’t make sense given hospitals’ intense efforts to make interoperability happen.

The question is, are hospitals still limping along in their efforts, or are we failing to measure their progress effectively? For years now, looking at the extent to which they sent/received/found/integrated data has been the accepted yardstick most quarters. To my knowledge, though, those metrics haven’t been validated by formal research as being the best way to define and capture levels of interoperability.

Yes, hospital health data interoperability may be moving as slowly as the HealthAffairs article suggests. After all, I hardly have to tell readers like you how difficult it has been to foster interoperability in any form, and how challenging it has been to achieve any kind of consensus on data staring standards. If someone tells progress toward health data exchange between hospitals hasn’t reached robust levels yet, it probably won’t surprise you in the least.

Still, before we draw the sweeping conclusions about something as important as interoperability, it probably wouldn’t hurt to double-check that we’re asking the right questions.

For example, is the extent to which providers send data to outside organizations as important as the extent to which they receive such data?  I know, in theory, that health data exchanges would be just that, a back and forth between parties on both sides. Certainly, such arrangements are probably better for the industry as a whole long term. But does that mean we should discount the importance of one side or the other of the process?

Perhaps more importantly, at least in my book, is the degree to which hospitals integrate the data into their own systems a good proxy for measuring who’s making interoperability progress? And should be assumed that if they integrate the data, they’re likely to use it to improve outcomes or streamline care?

Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not suggesting that the existing metrics are useless. However, it would be nice to know whether they actually measure what we want them to measure. We need to validate our tools if we want use them to make important judgments about care delivery. Otherwise, why bother with measurements in the first place?

NY-Based HIE Captures One Million Patient Consents

Posted on September 28, 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.

One of the big obstacles to the free exchange of health data is obtaining patient consent to share that data. It’s all well and good if we can bring exchange partners onto a single data sharing format, but if patients don’t consent to that exchange things get ugly. It’s critical that healthcare organizations solve this problem, because without patient consent HIEs are dead in the water.

Given these issues, I was intrigued to read a press release from HEALTHeLINK, an HIE serving Western New York, which announced that it had obtained one million patient consents to share their PHI. HEALTHeLINK connects nearly 4,600 physicians, along with hospitals, health plans and other healthcare providers. It’s part of a larger HIE, the Statewide Health Information Network of New York.

How did HEALTHeLINK obtain the consents? Apparently, there was no magic involved. The HIE made consent forms available at hospitals and doctors’ offices throughout its network, as well as making the forms available for download at whyhealthelink.com. (It may also have helped that they can be downloaded in any of 12 languages.)

I downloaded the consent form myself, and I must say it’s not complicated.

Patients only need to fill out a single page, which gives them the option to a) permit participating providers to access all of their electronic health information via the HIE, b) allow full access to the data except for specific participants, c) permit health data sharing only with specific participants, d) only offer access to their records in an emergency situation, and e) forbid HIE participants to access their health data even in the case of an emergency situation.

About 95% of those who consented chose option a, which seems a bit remarkable to me. Given the current level of data breaches in news, I would’ve predicted that more patients would opt out to some degree.

Nonetheless, the vast majority of patients gave treating providers the ability to view their lab reports, medication history, diagnostic images and several additional categories of health information.

I wish I could tell you what HEALTHeLINK has done to inspire trust, but I don’t know completely. I suspect, however, that provider buy-in played a significant role here. While none of this is mentioned in the HIE’s press release or even on its website, I’m betting that the HIE team did a good job of firing up physicians. After all, if you’re going to pick someone patients would trust, physicians would be your best choice.

On the other hand, it’s also possible patients are beginning to get the importance of having all of the data available during care. While much of health IT is too abstruse for the layman (or woman), the idea that doctors need to know your medical history is clearly beginning to resonate with your average patient.