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!!

CareSync Shutdown and CareSync Alternatives

Posted on July 13, 2018 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

I’ve been watching the shutdown of CareSync a little closer than I do most healthcare IT startup companies. Partially because it happened so quickly and partially because I’m an advisor to CareCognitics which has a CCM (Chronic Care Management – 99490) offering as part of their suite of healthcare loyalty products. So, I’m totally biased in this situation.

With that said, I thought that CareCognitics captured my feelings about CareSync shutting down really well. Here’s an excerpt from their post:

For companies like ours that work in the Chronic Care Management (CCM) space, it was big news this week that CareSync was shutting down their offices and laying off employees. The details of why this happened aren’t clear, but it’s unfortunate that such a well-respected company is shutting down. Our hearts go out to all the employees that lost their jobs and we hope that many of their skills and expertise can find a home at CareCognitics. The work we are doing is too important to let that talent go to waste.

The most heartbreaking part of CareSync shutting down is all of the patients that will miss out on the special care they receive from the CCM program. We see such tremendous opportunity and success with chronic care management and so we hope that CareSync’s customers will continue their chronic care management efforts and possibly even find new opportunities to take them to an even greater level.

Read the full post for more details. Obviously, I think CareCognitics is a good home for CareSync users who are looking to continue their CCM efforts but want to do so in the EHR which they control and will always have access to in the event of issues.

It really is unfortunate that one of the biggest names in the CCM space shutdown. I hope that those that are part of the company will share their learnings with the rest of healthcare since managing chronic conditions is such an important thing for healthcare to become what it needs to become. I know a number of them are going around trying to share what they can with others and I’ve talked to a few myself.

While painful, the good news for CareSync users is that there are plenty of alternative CCM companies out there. It won’t be fun to switch companies, but there are CareSync alternatives. It also seems that the Tampa Bay tech community has rallied to help many of the CareSync employees. That’s a good thing even though I’m sure some will still have challenges ahead as they search for a new job.

Does all of this mean that healthcare organizations should stop working with startup companies?

Of course not. If you’ve ever bought a product from a big company, you know that big companies can shut products down just as easily (and in some cases more easily) than a startup company. However, you should be thoughtful about which startup companies you work with and keep in mind the risks associated with working with startups.

Here are some questions and thoughts you should consider as you buy a product from a startup company. What’s the track record of the founding team? Worry less about how much money they’ve raised and how efficiently they’re using that money. People are expensive and that impacts what those of us in the startup world call burn rate. How much money you’ve raised doesn’t matter if you have too high of a burn rate. The best startup companies learn how to balance this effectively. This is sometimes hard to understand from the outside, but is possible if you dig enough. It’s also one reason why 2nd time entrepreneurs are often more successful. They’ve learned how to manage their burn rate effectively.

Other questions you should consider is “What happens if this company shuts down?” It’s never a bad idea to have a backup plan if things go awry like they did at CareSync. This question is also best asked before selecting a vendor. As CareSync users evaluate new CCM companies, this is a great question to ask. The answer to the question may determine which company you get in bed with for your chronic care management efforts.

Outside partners are essential to a healthcare organizations success. It’s just impossible for a healthcare organization to do 100% of what they need to accomplish in house. This is especially true for larger healthcare organizations. So, finding the right partners needs to be a key part of your strategy. Make sure your strategy includes what will happen if you choose the wrong partner. However, the great thing is that if you choose the right partner, you’ll benefit as that partner grows and enhances what you’re doing over time.

As was mentioned in today’s #HITsm chat, “We’re not buying from a vendor; we’re marrying them.”

A Missed Opportunity For Telemedicine Vendors

Posted on June 29, 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.

Today, most direct-to-consumer telemedicine companies operate on a very simple model.

You pay for a visit up front. You talk to the doctor via video, the doctor issues as a prescription if needed and you sign off. Thanks to the availability of e-prescribing options, it’s likely your medication will be waiting for you when you get to the pharmacy.

In my experience, the whole process often takes 45 minutes or less. This beats the heck out of having to wait in line at an urgent care center or worse, the emergency department.

But what about caring for chronic illnesses that can’t be managed by a drive-by virtual visit? Can telemedicine vendors play a role here? Maybe so.

We already know that combining telemedicine with remote monitoring devices can be very effective. In fact, some health systems have gone all-in on virtual chronic care management.

One fascinating example is the $54 million Mercy Virtual Care Center, which describes itself as a “hospital without beds.” The Center, which has a few hundred employees, monitors more than 3,800 remote patients; sponsors a telehealth stroke program offering neurology services to EDs nationwide; manages a team of virtual hospitalists caring for patient around-the-clock using virtual visit tools; and runs Mercy SafeWatch, which the Center says is the largest single-hub electronic intensive care unit in the U.S.

Another example of such hospital-based programs is Intermountain Healthcare’s ConnectCare Pro, which brings together 35 telehealth programs and more than 500 clinicians. Its purpose is to supplement existing staffers and offer specialized services in rural communities where some of the services aren’t available.

Given the success of programs that maintain complex patients remotely, I think a private telemedicine company managing chronic care services might work as well. While hospitals have financial reasons to keep such care in-house, I believe an outside vendor could profit in other ways. That’s especially the case given the emergence of wearable trackers and smartwatches, which are far cheaper than the specialized tools needed in the past.

One likely buyer for this service would be health plans.

I’ve heard some complain publicly that in essence, telemedicine coverage just encourages patients to access care more often, which defeats the purpose of using it to lower healthcare costs. However, if an outside vendor offered to manage patients with chronic illnesses, it might be a more attractive proposition.

After all, health plans are understandably wringing their hands over the staggering cost of maintaining the health of millions of diabetics. In 2017, for example, the average medical expense for people diagnosed with diabetes was about $16,750 per year, with $9,600 due to diabetes. If health plans could lay the cost off to a specialized telemedicine vendor, some real savings might be possible.

Of course, being a telemedicine-based chronic care management company would be far different than offering direct-to-consumer telemedicine services on an occasional basis. The vendor would have to have comprehensive health data management tools, an army of case managers, tight relationships with clinicians and a boatload of remote monitoring devices on hand. None of this would come cheaply.

Still, while I haven’t fully run the numbers, my guess is that this could be a sustainable business model. It’s worth a try.

CMS Redefines Telemedicine by Bringing Better Care to 15 Million Patients and Huge Profitability to Medical Facilities

Posted on September 17, 2015 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Donald Voltz, MD.
Donald Voltz - Zoeticx
Telemedicine is about reaching out to patients in remote locations, but limited to videoconferencing between patients and health providers. It is similar to a face-to-face service with the exception that the patient and primary care provider are not physically together. Such efficiency is limited in term of scope and only addresses the geographical challenge and scarcity of physician availability, a far cry from what CMS wanted for its Chronic Care Management Services (CCM) which would fundamentally change telemedicine as it is practiced.

CCM services bring the telemedicine definition to the next level – a quiet continuous monitoring and collaboration from all care services to the patient, given the ability to anticipate and engage in care issues. Such ability not only curbs care costs, it would also increase care provider bandwidth, giving them the ability to cover more patients with better efficiency. The challenge is not on the requirements part of CCM services, but the lack of an IT solution to really address all CMS guidelines, including its intent to enforce the concepts through the healthcare industry.

The New England Journal of Medicine has covered the major challenges from the new CCM guidelines, touching on all the major shortcomings in today healthcare IT offerings.  Healthcare providers recognized that the fee-for-service system, which restricts payments for primary care to office-based visits, is poorly designed to support the core activities of primary care, which involve substantial time outside office visits for tasks such as care coordination, patient communication, medication refills, and care provided electronically or by telephone.

The time has come for a paradigm shift to reengineer how we deliver care and manage our patients. To arrive at a new plateau requires rethinking the needs of our patients and how to meet these needs in an already resource constrained system. Unless we develop solutions that both integrate with and enhance the technologies currently available and those yet to be realized, we will not realize a return on health IT investment.  This needs to be an area of focus for hospital CEOs, CIOs and CMOs.

Huge Market Opportunity

According to the 2010 Census, the number of people older than 65 years was 40 million with increasing trends to 56 million in 2020 and not reaching a plateau until 2050 at 83.7 million.  With two-thirds of Medicare beneficiaries having two or more chronic conditions while one-third has more than three chronic conditions according to CMS data, putting the number of patients who qualify for CCM services at 15 million. This number is predicted to continue on an upward trend until 2050.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recognized the growing burden this trend in chronic disease places on the healthcare system and addressed the need for innovative solutions in their 2002 report. While the potential market is huge, in the billions of dollars yearly, healthcare organizations have been struggling to address the CMS guidelines with key requirements from CMS. We can no longer afford not to address the needs of patient with chronic medical conditions along with engaging them in their healthcare decisions.

CMS’ CCM guidelines are as follows:

  • 24×7 access to clinical staff
  • Patient care continuum
  • Collaboration, coordination between primary care providers and other care services
  • Electronic management of care transition among care providers
  • Coordination between home and community care services
  • Patient engagement

Here is how these guidelines are now being addressed:

The Patient-Centric Model

While each patient has a primary care provider who is responsible for CCM service, they are not confined to receiving care in a single practice or institution. The primary care provider assumes the role of care coordinator, but care is likely to be distributed between multiple care providers, often across different care locations. In a patient-centric care model, care services can come from any care providers – geographically and organizationally diverse, necessitating an accountable provider to coordinate and orchestrate high-quality care across multiple chronic conditions.

Secure Electronic Care Transition

CMS clearly states these CCM care plans must be electronically available at all times to all care providers who will be delivering care to these patients, not available by faxing, or scanning as patient data is currently shared. The chronic care management plan must be available to all healthcare providers who might take care of these patients 24×7. In addition, the primary care provider who assumes the care coordinator responsibility for a patient is expected to follow-up on the care delivered, additional needs of the patient and changes in chronic condition that may have been addressed by a healthcare professional remote to the patients’ primary practice.

CMS neither authorizes how such a CCM system is designed nor enforces how efficient the implemented care service is. The monthly reimbursement limits the time and additional resources physicians are able to allocate for the development, implementation and daily operations of a CCM program in their practice. The manual implementation of a system that meets all of the requirements defined by the CMS will far exceed the reimbursement recovered. It is also likely to be inferior to one with some degree of automation coupled with messaging when a patient’s condition changes or their chronic care management plan is accessed by other providers. Efficiency along with automated logging of time spent on care coordination are critical requirements for a service to be effective.

A CCM service solution must meet the requirements defined by CMS while integrating into the current operational structure of primary care practice and integrate with current health IT systems and manage the secure documentation flow.  It must also offer a built-in notification system to alert physicians to changes in patient status and/or access to the care plan while maintaining an efficient operation in clinics with a lower overhead and no need for additional infrastructure.

While CMS does not enforce the efficiency of a CCM care service, the monthly payment must represent an increase of revenue to care providers. Care providers cannot implement a new potential code while increasing its cost due to manual labor increase. So, efficiency must be part of the solution requirements.

The answer to CCM service would be a new healthcare application offering secure documentation flow, built-in notification and collaboration services to support a low cost, efficient operation for clinics.

The CCM application must address the following requirements:

  • No disruption of existing services. The application must operate and integrate seamlessly with any existing EHR so to not change provider workflow or disrupt current processes; defining a very stringent requirement to keep the existing EHR systems untouched and unchanged while allowing for this new service to co-exist.
  • Secure electronic care transition with CCM care plan sharing. Patients can engage with this new care service even when the service may not be contained within the same network as the primary care provider. Patients ultimately maintain control of what information and with whom this information is shared. The primary care provider is responsible for maintaining the CCM care plan, as well as the patient, and should expect any information shared will be used for a single care session and not beyond it. Although the CCM care plan is expected to contain the most up-to-date medication information, primary care providers are not interested in opening up their entire system to others, but instead need to maintain control and secure access while allowing for access to these protected documents.
  • Automation, automation and automation. Efficiency of the whole CCM service must be at the core so that primary care providers can enhance patient care without adding expense and resources to implement it. Consider a patient with Congestive Heart Failure (CHF) where continuous monitoring of weight is critical for early intervention and the avoidance of hospitalizations. To engage patient’s in their care, they must be given a mechanism to report daily weight to their primary care provider. The primary care provider must have a solution where attention is given if the patient’s condition so it not has exceeded a certain threshold. Automation is required so that primary care providers can be efficient and only given attention when attention is required. Automation must be in place so that no activities such as follow-up would be omitted.
  • An EHR-agnostics solution. Implementation of a CCM service must address the constraints of a non-homogeneous environment. Healthcare organizations and physician practices are not able to control the EHR environments when patients receive care outside of their primary practice. The requirement for electronic document exchange along with the expectation of the latest patient health data being contained in the CCM care plan goes beyond a static solution offered by a data duplicated HIE (Health Information Exchange) infrastructure.
  • Visible value to a patient. A critical requirement for CMS reimbursement is a patient’s opting into a CCM management program that includes out-of-pocket monthly co-pay for the service of 8 dollars per month. A patient must see the value for CCM services which can be demonstrated through enhanced engagement, access to providers and the assurance that their condition is being overseen each month by their chronic care coordinator. Anticipation of an early intervention for potential problems along with the ability to inquire and receive feedback on their condition(s) brings added value to patients and their loved ones. This value can only be delivered if such a service can be developed in an efficient manner with a low cost of operating and a limited expansion of personal to bring it about.
  • Documentation of discontinuous time spent on care coordination. CMS requires at least 20 minutes are spent on care coordination activities each month in order to bill for this for patients enrolled in the program. Without a seamless component to log such activity, the efficiency of the overall process comes into question. A comprehensive CCM application must address the practice management side to account for and generate monthly reports of the CCM activities completed.

Future of Healthcare Impacted by Integration, Patient Data and New Modes of Delivery

The future of healthcare will be impacted by the integration of technology, patient collected data, and enhancement of healthcare professionals’ ability to deliver care in modes not yet imaged. With respect to management of chronic medical conditions, leveraging technology to coordinate the care delivered so these patients can lead productive lives at a reduced cost with less time in the hospital for exacerbations of their disease is a goal that is now possible.

Development of tools to coordinate care without additional health IT expense, in either time spent learning a new workflow or cost of such an application, is now available. Finding such an innovate model that works for patients, healthcare professionals and health systems for chronic care management will likely spread into other areas of healthcare. CCM services and care coordination allow remote, discontinuous, non-face-to-face management of patients with complex health conditions when it meets stringent requirements – a quiet, continuous monitor of health status and interventions, collaboration of all care delivered to the patient, an ability to anticipate, engage and alert patients and care professionals of impending issues, along with the administrative side of billing and logging such activity.

This ability not only changes the direction of the chronic care cost curve, it also increases care provider bandwidth, giving them the ability to successfully manage more patient, with better efficiency while delivering high quality, valuable care.

About Donald Voltz, MD
Donald Voltz, MD, Aultman Hospital, Department of Anesthesiology, Medical Director of the Main Operating Room, Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology, Case Western Reserve University and Northeast Ohio Medical University.

Board-certified in anesthesiology and clinical informatics, Dr. Voltz is a researcher, medical educator, and entrepreneur. With more than 15 years of experience in healthcare, Dr. Voltz has been involved with many facets of medicine. He has performed basic science and clinical research and has experience in the translation of ideas into viable medical systems and devices.

Thanh Tran, CEO of Zoeticx, also contributed.

Mobile Health to Transform Care: The Case for Adoption Now – Breakaway Thinking

Posted on February 18, 2015 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Todd Stansfield from The Breakaway Group (A Xerox Company). Check out all of the blog posts in the Breakaway Thinking series.
Todd Stansfield
Mobile health (mHealth) is here to stay, and you don’t have to look far for proof. Patients now use mHealth to comparison shop basic healthcare services and access test results. Providers use it to increase efficiencies and lower costs. And CIOs use it to get more out of an electronic health record (EHR) while juggling new security challenges from the bring your own device (BYOD) movement.

Perhaps one of mHealth’s greatest areas of impact is providers’ bottom line. A new study finds that baby boomers and millennials prefer providers who incorporate mobile technology into their practices. Seven percent of patients responded that they are willing to leave their current provider for one who offers remote care, a move that could have a significant financial impact on independent physician practices. This is especially clear when considering that an overall 20 percent of patients reported seeing the same doctor for less than 2 years and 14 percent reported not having a doctor. Additionally, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is now offering providers roughly $42 a month to manage care for Medicare patients with two or more chronic conditions in its Chronic Care Management program. These patients comprise two-thirds of Medicare beneficiaries. For practices with 20 eligible patients, that figure translates to over $10,000 per provider per year. Providers must use mHealth to meet some requirements of Chronic Care Management, such as offering 24-7 access to consultation, and companies are now creating technologies to help. Just last month, Qualcomm and Walgreens announced a joint venture to pair medical devices with mobile and web apps to provide remote patient monitoring and transitional care support.

And then there’s efficiency. Another study finds that “the average hospital loses $1.7 million per year due to inefficient care coordination,” according to a HealthIT Analytics article. Providers are finding mobile technology valuable for improving health information exchange and communication, areas underserved by current EHR systems. More providers are text messaging care information rather than communicating face-to-face with colleagues, resulting in more informed care teams and fewer avoidable healthcare errors. Providers are also using mobile devices to enhance real-time patient engagement rather than relying on cumbersome computers to document in the EHR. Often the result is improved patient care, shorter appointments, and more time to see more patients. And besides getting in and out of their provider’s office sooner, patients are also welcoming new efficiencies with real-time access to their medical records via smartphone, a selling point among younger generations pursuing an active role in their care. In a recent survey of Americans, millennials indicated a preference for patient portals that they can access via a smartphone or tablet.

Yet providers should plan carefully when implementing mHealth, as there are major costs for failing to set up robust infrastructures that support safe mobile use. Providers should perform security risk analysis to ensure the safety of protected health information (PHI). This includes evaluating the security of all mobile devices—tablets and smartphones—ensuring that each device stores, sends, and receives PHI securely using encryption and other methods. Providers must perform this analysis routinely to receive payments under Meaningful Use (MU) and to prevent the ever-growing number of data breaches. Data security has remained a chief concern for healthcare providers and leaders and has largely stifled the widespread adoption of mHealth. This may change as the Department of Health & Human Services plans to offer more guidance to mHealth developers and users for adhering to HIPAA rules, as it recently announced.

Providers must adopt mHealth to survive in today’s competitive marketplace. Not only will they reap the short-term benefits of higher revenues through Chronic Care Management and attracting new patients, but they will also build the secure infrastructure and tools needed for long-term success. mHealth will be critical to population health and health information exchange, two eventual destinations for the healthcare industry. Providers who adopt mHealth now will be ready for when our industry makes the complete shift toward a population-focused, value-based care model.

In my experience at The Breakaway Group, A Xerox Company, effective adoption begins when leaders engage their workforce in the vision and mission of the project; when education is focused, accessible, and targeted; when performance is measured, collected, and analyzed; and when adoption is sustained amid changing technologies and process improvements. For providers to make the transition successfully healthcare leaders must find and implement technologies that patients and providers want to use. They must provide education that is convenient, focused, and practical for providers, education that spans not only how to optimize the technology but also how to use it safely and in accordance with government regulations. Healthcare leaders must also track performance in quality and efficiency, and highlight areas for improvement. And lastly, they must ensure all efforts are sustained, reinforced, and tailored to changing needs.

mHealth is poised to transform healthcare. It’s no wonder that mHealth raised $1.2 billion in venture capital last year, or more than triple what it raised in 2013. I’d venture to say that a significant share of new patients, new revenues, and new efficiencies will be earned by providers who are going “mobile.”

Xerox is a sponsor of the Breakaway Thinking series of blog posts.