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!!

New Study Suggests That HIEs Deliver Value by Aggregating Patient Data

Posted on March 5, 2018 I Written By

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some Of The Questions I Plan To Ask At #HIMSS18

Posted on February 23, 2018 I Written By

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

As always, this year’s HIMSS event will feature enough noise, sound and color to overwhelm your senses for months afterward. And talk about a big space to tread — I’ve come away with blisters more than once after attending.

Nonetheless, in my book it’s always worth attending the show. While no one vendor or session might blow you away, finding out directly what trends and products generated the most buzz is always good. The key is not only to attend the right educational sessions or meet the right people but to figure out how companies are making decisions.

Below, here are some of the questions that I hope to ask (and hopefully find answers) at the show. If you have other questions to suggest I’d love to bring them with me to the show —  the way I see it, the more the merrier!

-Anne

Blockchain

Vendors:  What functions does blockchain perform in your solution and what are the benefits of these additions? What made that blockchain the best technology choice for getting the job done? What challenges have you faced in developing a platform that integrates blockchain technology, and how are you addressing them? Is blockchain the most cost-efficient way of accomplishing the task you have in mind? What problems is blockchain best suited to address?

Providers: Have you rolled out any blockchain-based systems? If you haven’t currently deployed blockchain technology, do you expect to do so the future? When do you think that will happen? How will you know when it’s time to do so? What benefits do you think it will offer to your organization, and why? Do you think blockchain implementations could generate a significant level of additional server infrastructure overhead?

AI

Vendors: What makes your approach to healthcare AI unique and/or beneficial?  What is involved in integrating your AI product or service with existing provider technology, and how long does it usually take? Do providers have to do this themselves or do you help? Did you develop your own algorithms, license your AI engine or partner with someone else deliver it? Can you share any examples of how your customers have benefited by using AI?

Providers: What potential do you think AI has to change the way you deliver care? What specific benefits can AI offer your organization? Do you think healthcare AI applications are maturing, and if not how will you know when they have? What types of AI applications potentially interest you, and are you pilot-testing any of them?

Interoperability

Vendors:  How does your solution overcome barriers still remaining to full health data sharing between all healthcare industry participants? What do you think are the biggest interoperability challenges the industry faces? Does your solution require providers to make any significant changes to their infrastructure or call for advanced integration with existing systems? How long does it typically take for customers to go live with your interoperability solution, and how much does it cost on average? In an ideal world, what would interoperability between health data partners look like?

Providers: Do you consider yourself to have achieved full, partial or little/no health data interoperability between you and your partners? Are you happy with the results you’ve gotten from your interoperability efforts to date? What are the biggest benefits you’ve seen from achieving full or partial interoperability with other providers? Have you experienced any major failures in rolling out interoperability? If so, what damage did they do if any? Do you think interoperability is a prerequisite to delivering value-based care and/or population health management?

What topics are you looking forward to hearing about at #HIMSS18? What questions would you like asked? Share them in the comments and I’ll see what I can do to find answers.

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.