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!!

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.

Key Articles in Health IT from 2017 (Part 1 of 2)

Posted on January 2, 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.

This article provides a retrospective of 2017 in Health It–but a retrospective from an unusual perspective. I will highlight interesting articles I’ve read from the year as pointers to trends we should follow up on in the upcoming years.

Indubitably, 2017 is a unique year due to political events that threw the field of health care into wild uncertainty and speculation, exemplified most recently by the attempts to censor the use of precise and accurate language at the Centers for Disease Control (an act of political interference that could not be disguised even by those who tried to explain it away). Threats to replace the Affordable Care Act (another banned phrase) drove many institutions, which had formerly focused on improving communications or implementing risk sharing health care costs, to fall back into a lower level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, obsessing over whether insurance payments would cease and patients would stop coming. News about health IT was also drowned out by more general health topics such as drug pricing, the opiate crisis, and revenue pressures that close hospitals.

Key issues

But let’s start our retrospective on an upbeat note. A brief study summary from January 4 reported lower costs for some surgeries when hospitals participated in a modest bundled payment program sponsored by CMS. This suggests that fee-for-value could be required more widely by payers, even in the absence of sophisticated analytics and care coordination. Because only a small percentage of clinicians choose bold risk-sharing reimbursement models, this news is important.

Next, a note on security. Maybe we should reprioritize clinicians’ defenses against the electronic record breaches we’ve been hearing so much about. An analysis found that the most common reason for an unauthorized release of data was an attack by an insiders (43 percent). This contrasts with 26.8 percent from outside intruders. (The article doesn’t say how many records were compromised by each breach, though–if they had, the importance of outside intruders might have skyrocketed.) In any case, watch your audit logs and don’t trust your employees.

In a bracing and rare moment of candor, President Obama and Vice President Biden (remember them?) sharply criticized current EHRs for lack of interoperability. Other articles during the year showed that the political leaders were on target, as interoperability–an odd health care term for what other industries call “data exchange”–continues to be just as elusive as ever. Only 30% of hospitals were able to exchange data (although the situation has probably improved since the 2015 data used in the study). Advances in interoperability were called “theoretical” and the problem was placed into larger issues of poor communication. The Harvard Business Review weighed in too, chiding doctors for spending so much money on systems that don’t communicate.

The controversy sharpened as fraud charges were brought against a major EHR vendor for gaming the certification for Meaningful Use. A couple months later, strangely, the ONC weakened its certification process and announced it would rely more on the vendors to police themselves.

A long article provided some historical background on the reasons for incompatibility among EHRS.

Patients, as always, are left out of the loop: an ONC report finds improvements but many remaining barriers to attempts by patients to obtain the medical records that are theirs by law. And should the manufacturers of medical devices share the data they collect with patients? One would think it an elementary right of patients, but guidance released this year by the FDA was remarkably timid, pointing out the benefits of sharing but leaving it as merely a recommendation and offering big loopholes.

The continued failure to exchange data–which frustrates all attempts to improve treatments and cut costs–has led to the question: do EHR vendors and clinicians deliberately introduce technical measures for “information blocking”? Many leading health IT experts say no. But a study found that explicit information blocking measures are real.

Failures in interoperability and patient engagement were cited in another paper.

And we can’t leave interoperability without acknowledging the hope provided by FHIR. A paper on the use of FHIR with the older Direct-based interoperability protocols was released.

We’ll make our way through the rest of year and look at some specific technologies in the next part of the article.

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.

Health IT Continues To Drive Healthcare Leaders’ Agenda

Posted on October 23, 2017 I Written By

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

A new study laying out opportunities, challenges and issues in healthcare likely to emerge in 2018 demonstrates that health IT is very much top of mind for healthcare leaders.

The 2018 HCEG Top 10 list, which is published by the Healthcare Executive Group, was created based on feedback from executives at its 2017 Annual Forum in Nashville, TN. Participants included health plans, health systems and provider organizations.

The top item on the list was “Clinical and Data Analytics,” which the list describes as leveraging big data with clinical evidence to segment populations, manage health and drive decisions. The second-place slot was occupied by “Population Health Services Organizations,” which, it says, operationalize population health strategy and chronic care management, drive clinical innovation and integrate social determinants of health.

The list also included “Harnessing Mobile Health Technology,” which included improving disease management and member engagement in data collection/distribution; “The Engaged Digital Consumer,” which by its definition includes HSAs, member/patient portals and health and wellness education materials; and cybersecurity.

Other hot issues named by the group include value-based payments, cost transparency, total consumer health, healthcare reform and addressing pharmacy costs.

So, readers, do you agree with HCEG’s priorities? Has the list left off any important topics?

In my case, I’d probably add a few items to list. For example, I may be getting ahead of the industry, but I’d argue that healthcare AI-related technologies might belong there. While there’s a whole separate article to be written here, in short, I believe that both AI-driven data analytics and consumer-facing technologies like medical chatbots have tremendous potential.

Also, I was surprised to see that care coordination improvements didn’t top respondents’ list of concerns. Admittedly, some of the list items might involve taking coordination to the next level, but the executives apparently didn’t identify it as a top priority.

Finally, as unsexy as the topic is for most, I would have thought that some form of health IT infrastructure spending or broader IT investment concerns might rise to the top of this list. Even if these executives didn’t discuss it, my sense from looking at multiple information sources is that providers are, and will continue to be, hard-pressed to allocate enough funds for IT.

Of course, if the executives involved can address even a few of their existing top 10 items next year, they’ll be doing pretty well. For example, we all know that providers‘ ability to manage value-based contracting is minimal in many cases, so making progress would be worthwhile. Participants like hospitals and clinics still need time to get their act together on value-based care, and many are unlikely to be on top of things by 2018.

There are also problems, like population health management, which involve processes rather than a destination. Providers will be struggling to address it well beyond 2018. That being said, it’d be great if healthcare execs could improve their results next year.

Nit-picking aside, HCEG’s Top 10 list is largely dead-on. The question is whether will be able to step up and address all of these things. Fingers crossed!

Searching EMR For Risk-Related Words Can Improve Care Coordination

Posted on September 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.

Though healthcare organizations are working on the problem, they’re still not as good at care coordination as they should be. It’s already an issue and will only get worse under value-based care schemes, in which the ability to coordinate care effectively could be a critical issue for providers.

Admittedly, there’s no easy way to solve care coordination problems, but new research suggests that basic health IT tools might be able to help. The researchers found that digging out important words from EMRs can help providers target patients needing extra care management and coordination.

The article, which appears in JMIR Medical Informatics, notes that most care coordination programs have a blind spot when it comes to identifying cases demanding extra coordination. “Care coordination programs have traditionally focused on medically complex patients, identifying patients that qualify by analyzing formatted clinical data and claims data,” the authors wrote. “However, not all clinically relevant data reside in claims and formatted data.”

For example, they say, relying on formatted records may cause providers to miss psychosocial risk factors such as social determinants of health, mental health disorder, and substance abuse disorders. “[This data is] less amenable to rapid and systematic data analyses, as these data are often not collected or stored as formatted data,” the authors note.

To address this issue, the researchers set out to identify psychosocial risk factors buried within a patient’s EHR using word recognition software. They used a tool known as the Queriable Patient Inference Dossier (QPID) to scan EHRs for terms describing high-risk conditions in patients already in care coordination programs.

After going through the review process, the researchers found 22 EHR-available search terms related to psychosocial high-risk status. When they were able to find nine or more of these terms in the patient’s EHR, it predicted that a patient would meet criteria for participation in a care coordination program. Presumably, this approach allowed care managers and clinicians to find patients who hadn’t been identified by existing care coordination outreach efforts.

I think this article is valuable, as it outlines a way to improve care coordination programs without leaping over tall buildings. Obviously, we’re going to see a lot more emphasis on harvesting information from structured data, tools like artificial intelligence, and natural language processing. That makes sense. After all, these technologies allow healthcare organizations to enjoy both the clear organization of structured data and analytical options available when examining pure data sets. You can have your cake and eat it too.

Obviously, we’re going to see a lot more emphasis on harvesting information from structured data, tools like artificial intelligence and natural language processing. That makes sense. After all, these technologies allow healthcare organizations to enjoy both the clear organization of structured data and analytical options available when examining pure data sets. You can have your cake and eat it too.

Still, it’s good to know that you can get meaningful information from EHRs using a comparatively simple tool. In this case, parsing patient medical records for a couple dozen keywords helped the authors find patients that might have otherwise been missed. This can only be good news.

Yes, there’s no doubt we’ll keep on pushing the limits of predictive analytics, healthcare AI, machine learning and other techniques for taming wild databases. In the meantime, it’s good to know that we can make incremental progress in improving care using simpler tools.

HIMSS17: Health IT Staff, Budgets Growing

Posted on March 1, 2017 I Written By

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

A new study announced last week at the HIMSS17 event concludes that demand for health IT staff continues to grow as employers expand their budgets. Not surprisingly, given this growth, the healthcare employers are having trouble recruiting enough IT staffers to meet their growing needs.

Results from the HIMSS Leadership and Workforce Survey reflect responses from 368 U.S. health IT leaders made between November 2016 and early January 2017. Fifty-six of respondents from vendors and consulting firms were in executive management, as compared with 41% of providers.

The survey concluded that the majority of health IT respondents have positions they’d like to fill, including 61% of health IT vendors/consultants and 43% of providers who responded. Only 32% of vendor/consultant organizations and 38% or providers said they were fully staffed, HIMSS said. We’ve seen this challenge from many of the healthcare IT companies which post their jobs on Healthcare IT Central.

Demand for IT recruits grew last year, as well. Researchers found that 61% of vendors/consultants responding and 42% of providers responding saw IT staffing increases over the past year, and that the majority of respondents in both groups expect to increase their IT staffing levels or at least hold them steady next year.

Of course, someone has to pay for these new team members. HIMSS researchers found that IT budgets were continuing to rise over time. Roughly nine out of ten vendors/consultants and 56% of providers said they expected to see increases in their IT budgets this year.

As often happens, however, vendors and consultants and providers seem to have different HIT priorities. While vendors seem to be addressing new technology issues, providers are still focused on how to manage their existing EMR infrastructure investments, HIMSS said.

That being said, the survey found, health IT stakeholders have many overlapping concerns, including privacy and security, population health, care coordination and improving the culture of care.

One of the key insights from this study – that vendors/consultants and providers have different views on the importance of enhancing existing EMRs – is borne out by another study released at the HIMSS event.

The study, which was backed by voice recognition software vendor Nuance Communications, found that providers are broadly interested in implementing new technologies that enhance their EMR, especially computer-assisted physician documentation, mobility and speech recognition tools.

However, when asked to be specific about which tools interested them, they were less enthusiastic, with 44% showing an interest in mobility tools, 38% computer-assisted physician documentation and 25% speech recognition. Documentation tools that enhanced existing functions were especially popular, with 54% of respondents expecting to see them support a reduction in denied claims, 52% improved performance under bundled payments, 38% reduced readmissions and 38% better physician time management which improves patient flow.

This survey also found that the most popular strategy for enhancing physician satisfaction with health IT tools was providing clinician training and education (chosen by 82%). Since their EMR is probably their biggest IT investment, my guess is that the training will focus there. And that suggests that EMRs are still the center of their universe, doesn’t it?

Can Interoperability Drive Value-Based Care?

Posted on December 14, 2016 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 the drive to interoperability has evolved over the last few decades — and those of you who are HIT veterans know that these concerns go at least that far back — open data sharing has gone from being a “nice to have” to a presumed necessity for providing appropriate care.

And along the way, backers of interoperability efforts have expanded their goals. While the need to support coordinated care has always been a basis for the discussion, today the assumption is that value-based care simply isn’t possible without data interoperability between providers.

I don’t disagree with the premise. However, I believe that many providers, health systems and ACOs have significant work to do before they can truly benefit from interoperability. In fact, we may be putting the cart before the horse in this case.

A fragmented system

At present, our health system is straining to meet the demand for care coordination among the populations it serves. That may be in part because the level of chronic illness in the US is particularly high. According to one Health Affairs study, two out of three Americans will have a chronic condition by the year 2030. Add that to the need to care for patients with episodic care needs and the problem becomes staggering.

While some health organizations, particularly integrated systems like the Cleveland Clinic and staff-model managed care plans like Kaiser Permanente, plan for and execute well on care coordination, most others have too many siloes in place to do the job correctly. Though many health systems have installed enterprise EMRs like Epic and Cerner, and share data effectively while the patient remains down in their system, they may do very little to integrate information from community providers, pharmacies, laboratories or diagnostic imaging centers.

I have no doubt that when needed, individual providers collect records from these community organizations. But collecting records on the fly is no substitute for following patients in a comprehensive way.

New models required

Given this history, I’d argue that many health systems simply aren’t ready to take full advantage of freely shared health data today, much less under value-based care payment models of the future.

Before they can use interoperable data effectively, provider organizations will need to integrate outside data into their workflow. They’ll need to put procedures in place on how care coordination works in their environment. This will include not only deciding who integrates of outside data and how, but also how organizations will respond as a whole.

For example, hospitals and clinics will need to figure out who handles care coordination tasks, how many resources to pour into this effort, how this care coordination effort fits into the larger population health strategy and how to measure whether they are succeeding or failing in their care coordination efforts. None of these are trivial tasks, and the questions they raise won’t be answered overnight.

In other words, even if we achieved full interoperability across our health system tomorrow, providers wouldn’t necessarily be able to leverage it right away. In other words, unfettered health data sharing won’t necessarily help providers win at value-based care, at least not right away. In fact, I’d argue that it’s dangerous to act as though interoperability can magically make this happen. Even if full interoperability is necessary, it’s not sufficient. (And of course, even getting there seems like a quixotic goal to some, including myself.)

Planning ahead

That being said, health organizations probably do have time to get their act together on this front. The move to value-based care is happening quickly, but not at light speed, so they do have time to make plans to leverage interoperable health data.

But unless they acknowledge the weaknesses of their current system, which in many cases is myopic, siloed and rigid, interoperability may do little to advance their long-term goals. They’ll have to admit that their current systems are far too inward-looking, and that the problem will only go away if they take responsibility for fixing it.

Otherwise, even full interoperability may do little to advance value-based care. After all, all the data in the world won’t change anything on its own.

What Would A Community Care Plan Look Like?

Posted on November 16, 2016 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, I wrote an article about the benefits of a longitudinal patient record and community care plan to patient care. I picked up the idea from a piece by an Orion Health exec touting the benefits of these models. Interestingly, I couldn’t find a specific definition for a community care plan in the article — nor could I dig anything up after doing a Google search — but I think the idea is worth exploring nonetheless.

Presumably, if we had a community care plan in place for each patient, it would have interlocking patient-specific and population health-level elements to it. (To my knowledge, current population health models don’t do this.) Rather than simply handing patients off from one provider to another, in the hope that the rare patient-centered medical home could manage their care effectively on its own, it might set care goals for each patient as part of the larger community strategy.

With such a community care strategy, groups of providers would have a better idea where to allocate resources. It would simultaneously meet the goals of traditional medical referral patterns, in which clinicians consult with one another on strategy, and help them decide who to hire (such as a nurse-practitioner to serve patient clusters with higher levels of need).

As I envision it, a community care plan would raise the stakes for everyone involved in the care process. Right now, for example, if a primary care doctor refers a patient to a podiatrist, on a practical level the issue of whether the patient can walk pain-free is not the PCP’s problem. But in a community-based care plan, which help all of the individual actors be accountable, that podiatrist couldn’t just examine the patient, do whatever they did and punt. They might even be held to quantitative goals, if the they were appropriate to the situation.

I also envision a community care plan as involving a higher level of direct collaboration between providers. Sure, providers and specialists coordinate care across the community, minimally, but they rarely talk to each other, and unless they work for the same practice or health system virtually never collaborate beyond sharing care documentation. And to be fair, why should they? As the system exists today, they have little practical or even clinical incentive to get in the weeds with complex individual patients and look at their future. But if they had the right kind of community care plan in place for the population, this would become more necessary.

Of course, I’ve left the trickiest part of this for last. This system I’ve outlined, basically a slight twist on existing population health models, won’t work unless we develop new methods for sharing data collaboratively — and for reasons I be glad to go into elsewhere, I’m not bullish about anything I’ve seen. But as our understanding of what we need to get done evolves, perhaps the technology will follow. A girl can hope.

A New Meaning for Connected Health at 2016 Symposium (Part 4 of 4)

Posted on November 8, 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 section of this article continued our exploration of the integration of health care into daily life. This section wraps up the article with related insights, including some thoughts about the future.

Memorable moments
I had the chance to meet with Casper de Clercq, who has set up a venture capital plan devoted to health as a General Partner at Norwest Venture Partners. He recommends that manufacturers and clinicians give patients a device that collects data while doing something else they find useful, so that they are motivated to keep wearing it. As an example, he cited the Beddit sleep tracker, which works through sensors embedded (no pun intended) in the user’s bed.

He has found that successful companies pursue gradual, incremental steps toward automated programs. It is important to start with a manual process that works (such as phoning or texting patients from the provider), then move to semi-automation and finally, if feasible, full automation. The product must also be field-tested; one cannot depend on a pilot. This advice matches what Glen Tullman, CEO of Livongo Health, said in his keynote: instead of doing a pilot, try something out in the field and change quickly if it doesn’t work.

Despite his call for gradual change, de Clercq advises that companies show an ROI within one year–otherwise, the field of health care may have evolved and the solution may be irrelevant.

He also recommends a human component in any health program. The chief barrier to success is getting the individual to go along with both the initial activation and continuing motivation. Gamification, behavioral economics, and social connections can all enhance this participation.

A dazzling keynote on videogames for health was delivered by Adam Gazzaley, who runs Neuroscience labs at the University of California at San Francisco. He pointed out that conventional treatments get feedback on patient reactions far too slowly–sometimes months after the reaction has occurred. In the field of mental health, His goal is to supplement (not replace) medications with videogames, and to provide instant feedback to game players and their treatment staff alike. Videogames not only provide a closed-loop system (meaning that feedback is instantaneous), but also engage patients by being fun and offering real-time rewards. Attention spans, anxiety, and memory are among the issues he expects games to improve. Education and wellness are also on his game plan. This is certainly one talk where I did not multitask (which is correlated with reduced performance)!

A future, hopefully bigger symposium
The Connected Health symposium has always been a production of the Boston Partners Health Care conglomerate, a part of their Connected Health division. The leader of the division, Dr. Joseph Kvedar, introduced the symposium by expressing satisfaction that so many companies and organizations are taking various steps to make connected health a reality, then labeled three areas where leadership is still required:

  • Reassuring patients that the technologies and practices work for them. Most people will be willing to adopt these practices when urged by their doctors. But their privacy must be protected. This requires low-cost solutions to the well-known security problems in EHRs and devices–the latter being part of the Internet of Things, whose vulnerability was exposed by the recent attack on Dyn and other major Internet sites.

  • Relieving the pressures on clinicians. Kvedar reported that 45 percent of providers would like to adopt connected health practices, but only 12 percent do so. One of the major concerns holding them back is the possibility of data overload, along with liability for some indicator of ill health that they miss in the flood of updates. Partners Connected Health will soon launch a provider adoption initiative that deals with their concerns.

  • Scaling. Pilot projects in connected health invest a lot of researcher time and offers a lot of incentives to develop engagement among their subjects. Because engagement is the whole goal of connected health, the pilot may succeed but prove hard to turn into a widespread practice. Another barrier to scaling is consumers’ lack of tolerance for the smallest glitches or barriers to adoption. Providers, also, insist that new practices fit their established workflows.

Dr. Kvedar announced at this symposium that they would be doing future symposia in conjunction with the Personal Connected Health Alliance (Formerly the mHealth Summit owned by HIMSS), a collaboration that makes sense. Large as Partners Health Care is, the symposium reaches much farther into the health care industry. The collaboration should bring more resources and more attendees, establishing the ideals of connected health as a national and even international movement.

A New Meaning for Connected Health at 2016 Symposium (Part 3 of 4)

Posted on November 7, 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 section of this article paused during a discussion of the accuracy and uses of devices. At a panel on patient generated data, a speaker said that one factor holding back the use of patient data was the lack of sophistication in EHRs. They must be enhanced to preserve the provenance of data: whether it came from a device or from a manual record by the patient, and whether the device was consumer-grade or a well-tested medical device. Doctors invest different levels of trust in different methods of collecting data: devices can provide more objective information than other ways of asking patients for data. A participant in the panel also pointed out that devices are more reliable in the lab than under real-world conditions. Consumers must be educated about the proper use of devices, such as whether to sit down and how to hold their arms when taking their blood pressure.

Costantini decried the continuing silos in both data sharing and health care delivery. She said only half of doctors share patient data with other doctors or caretakers. She also praised the recent collaboration between Philips and Qualcomm to make it easier for device data to get into medical records. Other organizations that have been addressing that issue for some time include Open mHealth, which I reviewed in an earlier article, and Validic.

Oozing into workflow
The biggest complaint I hear from clinicians about EHRs–aside from the time wasted in their use, which may be a symptom of the bigger problem-is that the EHRs disrupt workflow. Just as connected health must integrate with patient lives as seamlessly as possible, it should recognize how teams work and provide them with reasonable workflows. This includes not only entering existing workflows as naturally as capillary action, but helping providers adopt better ones.

The Veterans Administration is forging into this area with a new interface called the Enterprise Health Management Platform (eHMP). I mentioned it in a recent article on the future of the VA’s EHR. A data integration and display tool, eHMP is agnostic as to data source. It can be used to extend the VistA EHR (or potentially replace it) with other offerings. Although eHMP currently displays a modern dashboard format, as described in a video demo by Shane Mcnamee, the tool aims to be much more than that. It incorporates Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) and the WS-Human Task Specification to provide workflow support. The Activity Management Service in eHMP puts Clinical Best Practices directly into the workflow of health care providers.

Clinicians can use eHMP to determine where a consultation request goes; currently, the system is based on Red Hat’s BPMN engine. If one physician asks another to examine the patient, that task turns up on the receiving physician’s dashboard. Teams as well as individuals can be alerted to a patient need, and alerts can be marked as routine or urgent. The alerts can also be associated with time-outs, so that their importance is elevated if no one acts on them in the chosen amount of time.

eHMP is just in the beginning stages of workflow support. Developers are figuring out how to increase the sophistication of alerts, so that they offer a higher signal-to-noise ratio than most hospital CDS systems, and add intelligence to choose the best person to whom an alert should be directed. These improvements will hopefully free up time in the doctor’s session to discuss care in depth–what both patients and providers have long said they most want from the health care field.

At the Connected Health symposium, I found companies working on workflow as well. Dataiku (whose name is derived from “haiku”) has been offering data integration and analytics in several industries for the past three years. Workflows, including conditional branches and loops, can be defined through a graphical interface. Thus, a record may trigger a conditional inquiry: does a lab value exceed normal limits? if not, it is merely recorded, but if so, someone can be alerted to follow up.

Dataiku illustrates an all-in-one, comprehensive approach to analytics that remains open to extensions and integration with other systems. On the one hand, it covers the steps of receiving and processing data pretty well.

To clean incoming data (the biggest task on most data projects), their DSS system can use filters and even cluster data to find patterns. For instance, if 100 items list “Ohio” for their location, and one lists “Oiho”, the system can determine that the outlier is a probably misspelling. The system can also assign data to belonging to broad categories (string or integer) as well as more narrowly defined categories (such as social security number or ZIP code).

For analysis, Dataiku offers generic algorithms that are in wide use, such as linear regressions, and a variety of advanced machine learning (artificial intelligence) algorithms in the visual backend of the program–so the users don’t need to write a single line of code. Advanced users can also add their own algorithms coded in a variety of popular languages such as Python, R, and SQL. The software platform offers options for less technically knowledgeable users, pre-packaged solutions for various industries such as health care, security features such as audits, and artificial intelligence to propose an algorithm that works on the particular input data.

Orbita Health handles workflows between patients and providers to help with such issues as pain management and medication adherence. The company addresses ease of use by supporting voice-activated devices such as Amazon Echo, as well as some 250 other devices. Thus, a patient can send a message to a provider through a single statement to a voice-activated device or over another Internet-connected device. For workflow management, the provider can load a care plan into the system, and use Orbita’s orchestration engine (similar to the Business Process Modeling Notation mentioned earlier) to set up activities, such as sending a response to a patient’s device or comparing a measurement to the patient’s other measurements over time. Orbita’s system supports conditional actions, nests, and trees.

CitiusTech, founded in 2005, integrates data from patient devices and apps into provider’s data, allowing enterprise tools and data to be used in designing communications and behavioral management in the patient’s everyday life. The company’s Integrated Analytix platform offer more than 100,000 apps and devices from third-party developers. Industry studies have shown effective use of devices, with one study showing a 40% reduction in emergency room admissions among congestive heart failure patients through the use of scales, engaging the patients in following health protocols at home.

In a panel on behavior change and the psychology of motivation, participants pointed out that long-range change requires multiple, complex incentives. At the start, the patient may be motivated by a zeal to regain lost functioning, or even by extrinsic rewards such as lower insurance premiums. But eventually the patient needs to enfold the exercise program or other practice into his life as a natural activity. Rewards can include things like having a beer at the end of a run, or sharing daily activities with friends on social media.

In his keynote on behavioral medicine, the Co-founder & CEO of Omada Health, Sean Duffy, put up a stunningly complex chart showing the incentives, social connections, and other factors that go into the public’s adoption of health practices. At a panel called “Preserving the Human Touch in the Expanding World of Digital Therapies”, a speaker also gave the plausible advice that we tell patients what we can give back to them when collecting data.

The next section of this article offers some memorable statements at the conference, and a look toward the symposium’s future.