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!!

Process Re-engineering Can Produce Results, Lumeon Finds

Posted on November 19, 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.

A rigorous look at organizational processes, perhaps bolstered by new technology, can produce big savings in almost any industry. In health care, Lumeon finds that this kind of process re-engineering can improve outcomes and the patient experience too–the very Triple Aim cited as goals by health care reformers.

A bad process, according to Robbie Hughes, Founder and CEO for Lumeon, can be described as, “The wrong people have the wrong information at the wrong time.” One example is a surgery unit that Lumeon worked with on scheduling surgeries. The administrative staff scheduled the surgeries based on minimal contact with the clinicians–a common practice throughout the industry that might seem efficient. But unfortunately, people who are uninformed about the clinical aspects of the surgery make sub-optimal plans, directly leading to poorer outcomes. The administrative staff don’t use rooms and other resources effectively, and stumble over risks that the clinicians could have warned them about. Lumeon uncovered the problem during a single morning meeting with this particular hospital. By enabling the clinicians to better coordinate with the scheduling staff, the surgery unit more than doubled its presurgical screening capacity without asking for increased funding.

I recently wrote about a controversy over patient loads that erupted into a major political controversy (rarely a formula for rational process engineering). Thus, when talking to Hughes, I was sensitized toward the importance of good processes. The health care field is stuck in the kind of blindness toward process seen in the fictional medieval setting of Monty Python’s Jabberwocky, but some of the more forward-thinking institutions are doing the hard work of streamlining their processes. These include:

  • Cleveland Clinic, which reorganized their recommendations for patient behavior before and after surgery, called Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS)
  • BUPA, a major British insurer that has a formal process model
  • U.S. giant Kaiser Permanente, which uncovered enormous waste when clinicians search for supplies

The higher you rise above the scene, and the more you can think about the system rather than one silo, the more efficient you can become. The Kaiser inquiry covered the entire supply chain for each hospital. BUPA is fortunate to possess actuarial information that help it assign a predicted cost and likely outcomes to cancer cases, where the company can assign caretakers to patients as needed throughout the whole recovery process.

Another useful scope is the sequence leading from a patient’s initial contact to a successful outcome, a process or “pathway” that goes far outside the hospital’s walls and beyond the time in the doctor’s office or surgical unit.

Typically, Hughes says, one day is enough to find process improvements. Through interviews and through observation–because staff misunderstand and misrepresent their own processes–Lumeon can develop a process map, expressed visually like the post-operative pathway in the following figure.

Typical pathway, describing post-operative process

*Click to see Full Size – Typical pathway, describing post-operative process

The best motivation for taking a longitudinal view, of course, is risk-sharing. A doctor who will be rewarded or penalized for outcomes will be willing to invest in producing better outcomes. Similarly, an insurer such as BUPA will be motivated to reduce readmissions if it has a long-term responsibility for patients. Bundled payments are a round-about, highly diluted approach to risk-sharing.

Fee-for-service models mean having to define a deliverable that everybody can understand and achieve. A bundled payments model is far from this. UK outcome measures truly place risk on the provider. In the US, bundled payments dilute risk.

But Lumeon can find ways to improve processes even within a fee-for-service model by enabling health organizations to guide patients more successfully through their entire health journey. For instance, with the company’s Care Pathway Management solution, doctors can remind patients to come back in five years for a colonoscopy, thus potentially saving lives while ensuring the institution’s own revenue stream under fee-for-service. Other simple goals can be to make sure the patient has a complete list of tasks prior to surgery (such as not to drink water in the morning) in order to eliminate late starts or last-minute cancellations, which are very expensive as well as frustrating. Predictably, Lumeon finds a certain set of common problems over and over, regardless of medical disciplines or institutions. Hospitals sometimes optimize within each department, but not across multiple departments. Usually this change comes down to maximizing compliance with a known protocol, rather than trying to use sophisticated artificial intelligence techniques to look for new approaches that theoretically offer benefits.

Lumeon also works to minimize disruptions to existing workflows. Large institutions such as Kaiser can tell everybody to adopt a whole new way of doing things, but staff within most institutions might be more resistant. The staff can still be trained to do things like create quality standards and follow them, or call patients at certain intervals or after a procedure, but these processes need training before they become reliable and predictable. Culture and habit, not technology, turn out to be the biggest barriers to process improvement.

Software, too, must be molded to current ways of working. We all experience little tolerance in our work or everyday lives for non-intuitive computer interfaces that appear to be putting barriers in our way. For instance, I have never forgiven my phone vendor for changing the most common activity I do on the device (turning airplane mode on and off) from a three-step process to an eight-step process.

The most effective persuasion is evidence-based. If an institution can get one department or doctor to adopt a new process, and can then collect data showing that it improves outcomes and cut costs, other departments are likely to follow along. In contrast, staff are likely to be oblivious to a study from a journal with statistics from clinical trials, no matter how scientifically valid the study may be. Hughes says that resistance to change is often attributed to doctors, but he thinks that this resistance is primarily caused by change being forced on them without evidence. With proper, objective data supporting a change, doctors are often the first to lead new initiatives in the spirit of delivering better patient care.

New kinds of records are needed to keep track of outcomes and make use of the valuable data they provide. Ideally, Lumeon would integrate with electronic medical records, but the EMRs are rarely set up to hold and provide such information. Instead, Lumeon installs software on top of the EMR, calling their addition an “agility layer.”

Hughes identified two common practices that can interfere with process improvement. The first is the growing focus around “patient engagement,” which can be as superficial as sending reminders for online check-ins or as fundamental as giving patients access to data.

However, patient engagement by itself is not sufficient to deliver meaningful process improvement. Patient engagement measures can make a difference as an integral part of an effective operational process. For instance, there is no point in getting patients to fill in data online if it’s not going to be used by the clinicians.

Second, the focus on documenting compliance with standards, such as meaningful use, often becomes a documentation exercise rather than a way of improving care. Unfortunately, this is a problem that is seen all over the world by well-intentioned governments and funders who want to offer incentives for good behavior by paying for better processes. But this all too often ends in additional costs and effort to administer the care, rather than actually focusing on the basics.

Software Marks Advances at the Connected Health Conference (Part 2 of 2)

Posted on October 31, 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 focused on FDA precertification of apps and the state of interoperability. This part covers other interesting topics at the Connected Health conference.

Presentation at Connected Health Conference

Presentation at Connected Health Conference

Patient engagement

A wonderful view upon the value of collecting patient data was provided by Steve Van, a patient champion who has used intensive examination of vital signs and behavioral data to improve his diabetic condition. He said that the doctor understands the data and the patient knows how he feels, but without laying the data out, they tend to talk past each other. Explicit data on vital signs and behavior moves them from monologue to dialogue. George Savage, MD, co-founder and CMO of Proteus, described the value of data as “closing the loop”–in other words, providing immediate and accurate information back to the patient about the effects of his behavior.

I also gained an interesting perspective from Gregory Makoul, founder and CEO of PatientWisdom, a company that collects a different kind of data from patients over mobile devices. The goal of PatientWisdom is to focus questions and make sure they have an impact: the questionnaire asks patients to share “stories” about themselves, their health, and their care (e.g., goals and feelings) before a doctor visit. A one-screen summary is then provided to clinical staff via the EHR. The key to high adoption is that they don’t “drill” the patient over things such as medications taken, allergies, etc. They focus instead on distilling open-ended responses about what matters to patients as people, which patients like and providers also value.

Sam Margolis, VP of client strategy and growth at Cantina, saw several aspects of the user experience (UX) as the main hurdle for health IT companies. This focus was reasonable, given that Cantina combines strengths in design and development. Margolis said that companies find it hard to make their interfaces simple and to integrate into the environments where their products operate. He pointed out that health care involves complex environments with many considerations. He also said they should be thinking holistically and design a service, not just a product–a theme I have seen across modern business in general, where companies are striving to engage customers over long periods of time, not just sell isolated objects.

Phil Marshall, MD, co-founder and chief product officer of Conversa Health, described how they offer a chatbot to patients discharged from one partnering hospital, in pursuit of the universal goal by US hospitals to avoid penalties from Medicare for readmissions. The app asks the patient for information about her condition and applies the same standards the hospital uses when its staff evaluates discharged patients. Marshall said that the standards make the chatbot highly accurate, and is tuned regularly. It is also popular: 80 percent of the patients offered the app use it, and 97 percent of these say it is helpful. The chat is tailored to each patient. In addition to relieving the staff of a routine task, the hospital found that the app reduces variation among outcomes among physicians, because the chatbot will ask for information they might forget.

Jay V. Patel, Clinical Transformation Officer at Seniorlink, described a care management program that balances technology and the human touch to help caregivers of people with dementia. Called VOICE (Vital Outcomes Inspired by Caregiver Engagement) Dementia Care, the program connects a coach to family caregivers and their care teams through Vela, Seniorlink’s collaboration platform. The VOICE DC program reduced ER visits by 51 percent and hospitalizations by 18 percent in the six-month pilot. It was also good for caregivers, reducing their stress and increasing their confidence.

Despite the name, VOICE DC is text-based (with video content) rather than voice-based. An example of the advances in voice interfaces was provided at this conference by Boston Children’s Hospital. Elizabeth Kidder, manager of their digital health accelerator, reported using voice interfaces to let patients ask common questions, such as when to get vaccinations and whether an illness was bad enough to keep children home from school and day care. Another non-voice app they use is a game that identifies early whether a child has a risk of dyslexia. Starting treatment before the children are old enough to learn reading in school can greatly increase success.

Nathan Treloar, president of Orbita, reported that at a recent conference on voice interfaces, participants in a hackathon found nine use cases for them in health.

Pattie Maes of the MIT Media Lab–one of the most celebrated research institutions in digital innovation–envisions using devices to strengthen the very skills that our devices are now blamed for weakening, such as how to concentrate. Of course, she warned, there is a danger that users will become dependent on the device while using it for such skills.

Working at the top of one’s license

I heard that appealing phrase from Christine Goscila, a family nurse practitioner at Massachusetts General Hospital Revere. She was describing how an app makes it easier for nurses to collect data from remote patients and spend more time on patient care. This shift from routine tasks to high-level interactions is a major part of the promise of connected health.

I heard a similar goal from Gregory Pelton, MD, CMO of ICmed, one of the many companies providing an integrated messaging platform for patients, clinicians, and family caregivers. Pelton talks of handling problems at the lowest possible level. In particular, the doctor is relieved of entering data because other team members can do it. Furthermore, messages can prepare the patient for a visit, rendering him more informed and better able to make decisions.

Clinical trials get smarter

While most health IT and connected health practitioners focus on the doctor/patient interaction and health in the community, the biggest contribution connected health might make to cost-cutting may come from its use by pharmaceutical companies. As we watch the astounding rise in drug costs–caused by a range of factors I will cover in a later article, but only partly by deliberate overcharging–we could benefit from anything that makes research and clinical trials more efficient.

MITRE, a non-profit that began in the defense industry but recently has created a lot of open source tools and standards for health care, presented their Synthea platform, offering synthetic data for researchers. The idea behind synthetic data is that, when you handle a large data set, you don’t need to know that a particular patient has congestive heart failure, is in his sixties, and weighs 225 pounds. Even if the data is deidentified, giving information about each patient raises risks of reidentification. All you need to know is a collection of facts about diagnoses, age, weights, etc. that match a typical real patient population. If generated using rigorous statistical algorithms, fake data in large quantities can be perfectly usable for research purposes. Synthea includes data on health care costs as well as patients, and is used for FHIR connectathons, education, the free SMART Health IT Sandbox, and many other purposes.

Telemedicine

Payers are gradually adapting their reimbursements to telemedicine. The simplest change is just to pay for a video call as they would pay for an office visit, but this does not exploit the potential for connected health to create long-range, continuous interactions between doctor, patient, and other staff. But many current telemedicine services work outside the insurance system, simply charging patients for visits. This up-front payment obviously limits the ability of these services to reach most of the population.

The uncertainties, as well as the potential, of this evolving market are illustrated by the business model chosen by American Telephysicians, which goes so far as to recruit patients internationally, such as from Pakistan and Dubai, to create a telemedicine market for U.S. specialists. They will be starting services in some American communities soon, though. Taking advantage of the ubiquity of mobil devices, they extend virtual visits with online patient records and a marketplace for pharmaceuticals, labs, and radiology. Waqas Ahmed, MD, founder and CEO, says: “ATP is addressing global health care problems that include inaccessibility of primary, specialty, and high-quality healthcare services, lack of price transparency, substandard patient education, escalating costs and affordability, a lack of healthcare integration, and fragmentation along the continuum of care.”

The network is the treatment center

We were honored with a keynote from FCC chair Ajit Pai, who achieved notoriety recently in the contentious “net neutrality” debate and was highlighted in WIRED for his position. Pai is not the most famous FCC chair, however; that honor goes to Newton Minow, who as chair from 1961 to 1963 called television a “vast wasteland.” More recently, Michael Powell (who became chair in 2001, before the confounding term “net neutrality” was invented) garnered a lot of attention for changing Internet regulations. Newton Minow, by the way, is still on the scene. I heard him talk recently at a different conference, and Pai mentioned talking to Minow about Internet access.

Pai has made expansion of Internet access his key issue (it was mentioned in the WIRED article) and talked about the medical benefits of bringing fast, continuous access to rural areas. His talk fit well with the focus many companies at the Connected Health conference placed on telemedicine. But Pai did not vaunt competition or innovation as a solution to reaching rural areas. Instead, he seemed happy with the current oligopoly that characterizes Internet access in most areas, and promoted an increase in funding to get them to do more of what they’re now doing (slowly).

The next day, Nancy Green of Verizon offered a related suggestion that 5G wireless will make batteries in devices last longer. This is not intuitive, but I think can be justified by the decrease in the time it will take for devices to communicate with the cloud, decreasing in turn the drain on the batteries.

Devices that were just cool

One device I liked at Connected Health coll was the Eko stethoscope, which sends EKG data to a computer for display. Patients will soon be able to use Eko devices to view their own EKGs, along with interpretations that help non-specialists make sense of the results. Of course, the results are also sent to the patients’ doctors.

Another device is a smart pillbox by CUEMED that doubles as a voice-interactive health assistant, HEXIS. Many companies make smart pill boxes that keep track of whether you open them, and flash or speak up to remind you when it’s time to take the pills. (Non-compliance with prescription medications is rampant.) HEXIS is a more advanced innovation that incorporates Alexa-like voice interactivity with the user and can connect to other medical devices and wearables such as Apple Watch and blood pressure monitors. The device uses the data and vital signs to motivate the user, and provides suggestions for the user to feel better. Another nice feature is that if you’re going out, you can remove one day’s meds and take them with you, while the device continues to do its job of reminding and tracking.

I couldn’t get to every valuable session at the Connected Health conference, or cover every speaker I heard. However, the conference seems to be achieving its goals of bringing together innovators and of prodding the health care industry toward the effective use of technology.

Software Marks Advances at the Connected Health Conference (Part 1 of 2)

Posted on October 29, 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 precepts of connected health were laid out years ago, and merely get updated with nuances and technological advances at each year’s Connected Health conference. The ideal of connected health combines matching the insights of analytics with the real-life concerns of patients; monitoring people in everyday settings through devices that communicate back to clinicians and other caregivers; and using automation to free up doctors to better carry out human contact. Pilots and deployments are being carried out successfully in scattered places, while in others connected health languishes while waiting for the slow adoption of value-based payments.

Because I have written at length about the Connected Health conference in 2015, 2016, and 2017, I will focus this article on recent trends I ran into at this year’s conference. Key themes include precertification at the FDA, the state of interoperability (which is poor), and patient engagement.

Exhibition floor at Connected Health conference

Exhibition floor at Connected Health conference

Precertification: the status of streamlining approval for medical software

One of the ongoing challenges in the progress of patient involvement and connected health is the approval of software for diagnosis and treatment. Traditionally, the FDA regulated software and hardware together in all devices used in medicine, requiring rigorous demonstrations of safety and efficacy in a manner similar to drugs. This was reasonable until recently, because anything that the doctor gives to the patient needs to be carefully checked. Otherwise, insurers can waste a lot of money on treatments that don’t work, and patients can even be harmed.

But more and more software is offered on generic computers or mobile devices, not specialized medical equipment. And the techniques used to develop the software inherit the “move fast and break things” mentality notoriously popular in Silicon Valley. (The phrase was supposedly a Facebook company motto.) Software can be updated several times a day. Although A/B testing (an interesting parallel to randomized controlled trials) might be employed to see what is popular with users, quality control is done in completely different ways. Modern software tends to rely for safety and quality on unit tests (which make sure individual features work as expected), regression tests (which look for things that no longer work they way they should), continuous integration (which forces testing to run each time a change is submitted to the central repository), and a battery of other techniques that bear such names as static testing, dynamic testing, and fuzz testing. Security testing is yet another source of reliability, using techniques such as penetration testing that may be automated or manual. (Medical devices, which are notoriously insecure, might benefit from an updated development model.

The FDA has realized that reliable software can be developed within the Silicon Valley model, so long as rigor and integrity are respected. Thus, it has started a Pre-Cert Pilot Program that works with nine brave vendors to find guidelines the FDA can apply in the future to other software developers.

Representatives of four vendors reported at the Connected Health conference that the pilot is going quite well, with none of the contentious and adversarial atmosphere that characterizes the interactions between the FDA with most device manufacturers. Every step of the software process is available for discussion and checking, and the inquiries go quite deep. All participants are acutely aware of the risk–cited by critics of the program–that it will end up giving vendors too much leeway and leaving the public open to risks. The participants are committed to closing loopholes and making sure everyone can trust the resulting guidelines.

The critical importance of open source software became clear in the report of the single open source vendor who is participating in the pilot: Tidepool. Because it is open source, according to CEO Howard Look, Tidepool was willing to show its code as well as its software development practices to independent experts using multiple evaluation assessment methods, including a “peer appraisal” by fellow precert participants Verily and Pear Therapeutics. One other test appraisal (CMMI, using external auditors) was done by both Tidepool and Johnson & Johnson; no other participants did a test appraisal. Thus, if the FDA comes out with new guidelines that stimulate a tremendous development of new software for medical use, we can thank open source.

Making devices first-class players in health care

Several exhibitors at the conference were consulting firms who provide specific services to start-ups and other vendors trying to bring products to market. I asked a couple of these consultants what they saw as the major problems their clients face. Marcus Fontaine, president of Impresiv Health, said their biggest problem is the availability of data, particularly because of a lack of interoperable data exchange. I wanted to exclaim, “Still?”

Joseph Kvedar, MD, who chairs the Connected Health conference, spoke of a new mobile app developed by his organization, Partners Connected Health, to bring device data into their EHR. This greatly improves the collection of data and guarantees accuracy, because patients no longer have to manually enter vital signs or other information. In addition to serving Partners in improving patient care, the data can be used for research and public health. In developing this app, Partners depended heavily for interoperable data exchange on work by Validic, the most prominent company in the device interoperability space, and one that I have profiled and whose evolution I have followed.

Ideally, each device could communicate directly with the EHR. Why would Partners Connected Health invest heavily in creating a special app as an intermediary? Kvedar cited several reasons. First, each device currently offers its own app as a user interface, and users with multiple devices get confused and annoyed by the proliferation of apps. Second, many devices are not designed to communicate cleanly with EHRs. Finally, the way networks are set up, communicating would require a separate cellular connection and SIM card for each device, raising costs.

A similar effort is pursued by Indie Health, trying to solve the problem of data access by making it easy to create Bluetooth connections between devices and mobile phones using a variety of Bluetooth, IEEE, Continua, and other standards.

The CEO of Validic, Drew Schiller, spoke on another panel about maximizing the value of patient-generated data. He pointed out that Validic, as an intermediary for a huge number of devices and health care providers, possesses a correspondingly huge data set on how patients are using the devices, and in particular when they stop using the devices. I assume that Validic does not preserve the data generated by the devices, such as blood pressure or steps taken–at least, Schiller did not say they have that data, and it would be intrusive to collect it. However, the metadata they do collect can be very useful in designing interactions with patients. He also talked about the value of what he dubs “invisible health care,” where behavior change and other constructive uses of data can flow easily from the data.

Barry Reinhold, president and CTO of Lamprey Networks, was manning the Continua booth when I came by. Continua defines standard for devices used in the home, in nursing faciliies, and in other places outside the hospital. This effort should be open source, supported by fees by all affected stakeholders (hospitals, device manufacturers, etc.). But open source is spurned by the health care field, so Continua does the work as a private company. Reinhold told me that device manufacturers rarely contract with Continua, which I treat as a sign that device manufacturers value data silos as a business model. Instead, Continua contracts come from the institutions that desperately need access to the data, such as nursing facilities. Continua does the best it can to exploit existing standards, including the “continuing data” profile from FHIR.

Other speakers at the conference, including Andrew Hayek, CEO of OptumHealth, confirmed Reinhold’s observation that interoperability still lags among devices and EHRs. And Schiller of Validic admitted that in order to get data from some devices into a health system, the patient has to take a photo of the device’s screen. Validic not only developed an app to process the photo, but patented it–a somewhat odd indication that they consider it a major contribution to health care.

Tasha van Es and Claire Huber of Redox, a company focused on healthcare interoperability and data integration, said that they are eager to work with FHIR, and that it’s a major part of their platform, but they think it has to develop more before being ready for widespread use. This made me worry about recent calls by health IT specialists for the ONC, CMS, and FDA to make FHIR a requirement.

It was a pleasure to reconnect at the conference with goinvo, which creates open source health care software on a contract basis, but offers much of it under a free license.

A non-profit named Xcertia also works on standards in health care. Backed by the American Medical Association, American Heart Association, DHX Group, and HIMSS, they focus on security, privacy, and usability. Although they don’t take on certification, they design their written standards so that other organizations can offer certification, and a law considered in California would mandate the use of their standards. The guidelines have just been released for public comment.

The second section of this article covers patient engagement and other topics of interest that turned up at the conference.

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

Posted on August 27, 2018 I Written By

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

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

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

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

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

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

At this point it’s time for some discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barriers to Patient-Centered Research Aired at Harvard Symposium

Posted on July 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.

While writing about health IT, I routinely find myself at legal conferences. Regulatory issues about patient privacy and safety arise everywhere health IT tries to have an impact, so people promoting change must keep in touch with policy-makers and lawyers in the health care area.

Thus I went this past Friday to Harvard for a one-day symposium, “Putting Patients at the Center of Research: Opportunities and Challenges for Ethical and Regulatory Oversight,” sponsored by Harvard’s Petrie-Flom Center.

Audience at Patient-Centered conference at Harvard

*Audience at Patient-Centered conference at Harvard

Involving patients in patient care is a surprisingly recent concern. There was a time when doctors made all the decisions, delivering them as if they had come directly from the entrails of an oracular temple. Visitors were severely limited at hospitals, because family members just got in the way of the professional staff. And although the attitude toward engaging patients and their families has softened somewhat in health care, rigid boundaries still exist in research.

As project leader Joel Weissman pointed out at the beginning of the Petrie-Flom conference, patient rights weren’t considered by health care professionals until the 1980s, as outgrowths of the civil rights and women’s rights movements. Patient engagement languished still longer. It received a legal toehold in the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which set up the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Although more researchers over the past eight years have warmed to the idea of engaging with patients in other ways than subjects of clinical trials, the Petrie-Flom conference highlighted how little progress we have made.

In a “nothing about us without us” era, it would seem odd to an outsider like me that patients should be excluded from the roles now being tentatively offered:

  • Joining the research team in some capacity
  • Recruiting subjects for trials and engaging the patient community
  • Helping disseminate results
  • Acting as consultants in some other way

But risks are certainly entailed by inserting non-professionals of any stripe into the research environment, so some criteria and processes need to be set up. Before filling non-traditional roles, patients should be required to undergo training in ethics, the science behind the study, and some of the methodology. There are particular risks when the patients have access to personally identifiable data. (I don’t see why this should ever be necessary, but the possibility was raised several times during the day.)

The panelists also cited conflicts of interest as a risk. Many researchers recruit engaged patients from the companies that make related drugs or other products, simply because those are easy places to recruit. This problem highlights the importance of casting a wide net and recruiting diverse populations as engaged patients. However, one could argue that merely suffering from the condition that the researchers are investigating leaves one with a conflict of interest: you want the research to produce a cure, so you may not be even-handed in your acceptance of negative results.

What spurred this conference? The Petrie-Flom Center and PCORI have spent the past academic year doing a study of patient-centered research, and recently published an article by a team led by Weissman. The center presented the results at Friday’s conference to an audience of some 80 members of the health care field and interested observers.

The study was narrow and intensive. It focused on the attitudes of those running Institutional Review Boards, which are notoriously conservative. Thus, in my opinion, the results focused on what was holding back patient-centered research rather than what was already working well. The process was quite drawn out: questionnaires sent to hundreds of medical schools, public health schools, and hospitals; six focus groups with an iterative process for evaluating recommendations; and a modified Delphi consensus process among 17 experts, including (of course) representative patients.

Respondents to the survey expressed strong support for patient-centered research, believing (at a rate of about 90%) that it would benefit patients and clinicians, as well as (at a rate of about 80%) researchers. Those IRBs who tried out patient-centered research were especially enthusiastic, likely to say that it improved the quality of research results.

But IRB heads also openly expressed confusion and frustration about the pressure to include patients in the “non-traditional” roles listed earlier. Some of their reactions were productive: for instance, large majorities of respondents called on the federal government to provide standards, guidelines, and training for patient engagement. But some of the immediate measures IRBs put in place were irrelevant and even counterproductive. For instance, some required patients to sign informed consent forms, even though these patients were not the subjects of trials and therefore had no reason to need to consent. As patient advocate Jane Perlmutter pointed out, patients in non-traditional roles don’t require protection but require training to ensure that they protect the subjects of the research.

Perlmutter emphasized the importance of financial compensation. Without it, researchers will recruit mostly unemployed patients with independent incomes. To reach out to multiple ethnic groups, age ranges, and economic strata, payment must be offered for the work performed.

Unfortunately, I didn’t see much at Friday’s conference about topics directly related to health IT, such as privacy and ownership of data. Researcher Luke Gelinas mentioned that patient-centered research is more likely to use sensors, networking, social media, and other modern technology than more traditional research, and that these raise issues of informed consent, privacy, and ownership of data.

On the whole, the Petrie-Flom researchers thought there was no need for a whole new approach. But they are working on several recommendations to improve the current situation. In summary, the takeaways I derived from the symposium include:

  • The value of patient-centered research is widely appreciated, and its benefits have been demonstrated where it has been tried.
  • However, progress implementing patient-centered research is slow.
  • Training for patients in non-traditional roles is required, but not so much as to be daunting and make it difficult to participate.
  • Researchers have not devoted enough effort to diversity.
  • Governments can offer support in typical ways, such as setting standards and funding programs.

I also predict that the growth of patient-centered research will place additional strains on IT systems. Bringing in new team members in scattered environments will require multiple systems to interact without friction. Data will need to be segmented and released carefully to just the right people. Interfaces will have to be intuitive (if such a thing exists) and easy to use without much training and without risk of errors. So the field has its work cut out.

HITExpo ThankTanks Spur Online Discussion on the Nature of EHRs, Innovation & Patient Experience

Posted on June 7, 2018 I Written By

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

Last week at the inaugural 2018 Health IT Expo (#HITExpo), we kicked things off with three ThinkTank sessions:

  1. Going Beyond EHRs – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULVQA4xEIRU
  2. Practical Innovation – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Uc9_BCKQ84
  3. Communication & Patient Engagement – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60MAP04MoOw

These ThinkTanks were live-streamed via YouTube and were meant to engage members of the #HITMC, #HITsm, #hcldr and other online communities who could not be with us in person in New Orleans. Looking back over the tweets I believe it would be safe to say: mission accomplished.

The online discussion around the ThinkTanks was very rich and involved many different perspectives. During ThinkTank 1 Jim Tate had a keen bit of insight to share based on a comment made by panelist Shahid Shah of Netspective Media:

This was quickly followed by another interesting statement from Shah:

An interesting suggestion in ThinkThank 1 came from Dr. Fatima Paruk, Chief Medical Officer, Population Health at Allscripts – that it was never too late to get physicians involved in EHR optimization given that they are one of the main users of EHR systems. This was especially relevant given how much EHR frustration contributes to physician burnout.

Jeremy Coleman, one of the HITExpo’s social media ambassadors did an expert job at distilling a 5min during ThinkTank 1 into a single tweet:

The most interesting comment in ThinkTank 1 was made by Justin Campbell of Galen Healthcare. He suggested that one way to go beyond the EHR was to use the audit log information to identify workflow bottlenecks, training opportunities and UI improvements.

The second ThinkTank generated a spirited discussion amongst the panelists and with the online audience when the topic of blockchain technology was brought up. It started when John Lynn made the following statement:

Jared Jeffery from KLAS Research then immediately followed up his tweet with this humorous counter-point:

I agree with both John and Jared. The last thing we need is over-inflated hype around blockchain in healthcare. The technology itself holds promise but as an enabler of other technologies and processes. Simply slapping blockchain on existing processes is not going to yield the innovation healthcare needs. We need something more. The good news is that some pioneering organizations and HealthIT companies are experimenting with blockchain which will hopefully lead to incremental improvements.

Experimentation and the willingness to do something was on the mind of Jerry Cade – one of the panelist in ThinkTank 2. He had a poignant warning for all of us in healthcare:

In my opinion the most practical piece of advice of the day was shared by Shahid Shah during ThinkTank 2. It’s certainly something I’m going to pay more attention to in the future:

Your truly had the opportunity to moderate ThinkTank 3 and it was a blast. We had an amazing set of panelists that included nurses, HealthIT insiders, industry experts and the voice of the patient. It resulted in a robust discussion on the nature of patient experience.

Grace Jaime of Oneview Healthcare shared a keen insight which triggered a round of discussion on the need to clearly measure patient experience and communication effectiveness – If you can’t measure something, you can’t improve:

Grace Cordovano, professional patient advocate, then had this to add:

During ThinkTank 3 Sarah Bennight of Stericycle Communication Solutions made an interesting observation about patient advocacy and how it could be modeled after a legal precedent:

If you didn’t have the chance to catch the ThinkTanks live, I’d encourage you to watch the recordings (links above). The sessions were filled with valuable insights and practical advice that you can use right away. It was a lot of fun to participate in these ThinkTanks and I am definitely looking forward to doing more in the future.

In closing I think this tweet summed up the overall sentiment (from friend Ashley Dauwer at MEDITECH):

Patient Access to Health Data: The AHA Doesn’t Really Want to Know

Posted on March 8, 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.

As Spring holds off a bit longer this March in New England, it’s certainly pleasant to read a sunny assessment of patient access to records, based on a survey by the American Hospital Association. Clearly, a lot of progress has been made toward the requirement that doctors have been on the hook for during the past decade: giving patients access to their own health data. We can also go online to accomplish many of the same tasks with our doctors as we’re used to doing with restaurants, banks, or auto repair shops. But the researchers did not dig very deep. This report may stand as a model for how to cover up problems by asking superficial questions.

I don’t want to denigrate a leap from 27% to 93%, over a four to five year period, in the hospitals who provide patients with their health data through portals. Even more impressive is the leap in the number of hospitals who provide data to patient caregivers (from zero to 83%). In this case, a “caregiver” appears to be a family member or other non-professional advocate, not a member of a health team–a crucial distinction I’ll return to later.

I’m disappointed that only 50% of health systems allow patients to reorder prescriptions online, but that’s still a big improvement over 22% in 2012. A smaller increase (from 55% to 68%) is seen in the number of providers who allow patients to send secure online messages, a recalcitrance that we might guess is related to the lack of reimbursement for time spent reading messages.

That gives you a flavor of the types of questions answered by the survey–you can easily read all four pages for yourself. The report ends with four questions about promoting more patient engagement through IT. The questions stay at the same superficial level as the rest of the report, however. My questions would probe a little more uncomfortably. These questions are:

  • How much of the record is available to the patient?
  • How speedily is it provided?
  • Is it in standard formats and units?
  • Does it facilitate a team approach?

The rest of this article looks at why I’d like to ask providers these questions.

How much of the record is available to the patient?

I base this question on personal interactions with my primary care physician. A few years ago he installed a patient portal based on the eClinicalWorks electronic health record system used at the hospital with which he is affiliated. When I pointed out that it contained hardly any information, he admitted that the practice had contracted with a consultant who charges a significant fee for every field of the record exposed to patients. The portal didn’t even show my diagnoses.

Recently the affiliated hospital (and therefore my PCP) joined the industry rush to Epic, and I ended up with Epic’s hugely ballyhooed MyChart portal. It is much richer than the old one. For a while, it had a bug in the prescription ordering process that would take too long to describe here–an interesting case study in computer-driven disambiguation. My online chart shows a lot of key facts, such as diagnoses, allergies, and medications. But it lacks much more than it has. For instance:

  • There are none of the crucial lab notes my doctors have diligently typed into my record over multiple visits.
  • It doesn’t indicate my surgical history, because the surgeries I’ve had took place before I joined the current practice.
  • Its immunization record doesn’t show childhood immunizations, or long-lasting shots I got in order to travel to Brazil many years ago.

Clearly, this record would be useless for serious medical interventions. A doctor treating me in an emergency room wouldn’t know a childhood injury I got, or might think I was suffering from a tropical disease against which I got an inoculation. She wouldn’t know about questions I asked over the years, or whether and why the doctor told me not to worry about those things. My doctor and his Epic-embracing hospital are still hoarding the data needed for my treatment.

How speedily is it provided?

Timeliness matters. My lab results are shown quickly in MyChart, and it seems like other updates take place expeditiously. But I want to hear whether other practices can provide information fast enough for patients and caregivers to take useful steps, and show relevant facts to specialists they visit.

Is it in standard formats and units?

Although high-level exchange is getting better with the adoption of the FHIR specification, many EHRs still refuse to conform to existing standards. A 2016 survey from Minnesota says, “Most clinics do not incorporate electronic information from other providers into their EHRs as standardized data. Only 31 percent of clinics integrated data in standardized format for immunization, 25 percent for medication history, 19 percent for lab results, and just 12 percent for summary-of-care records.”

The paragraph goes on to say, “The vast majority said they fax/scan/PDF the data to and from outside sources.” So FHIR may lead to a quick improvement in those shockingly low percentages.

Labs also fail to cooperate in using standards.

Does it facilitate a team approach?

This is really the bottom line, isn’t it–what we’re all aiming at? We want the PCP, the specialist, the visiting nurse, the physical therapist and occupational therapist, the rehab facility staff, and every random caregiver who comes along to work hand-in-latex-glove as a team. The previous sections of this article indicate that the patient portal doesn’t foster such collaboration. Will the American Hospital Association be able to tell me it does? And if not, when will they get to the position where they can care collaboratively for our needy populations?

Why Should Patients Control Their Health Data? Here Are A Few Ideas.

Posted on September 29, 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.

Lately, healthcare organizations have begun working to give patients more access to their personal health data. They’ve concluded that the more control patients have, the more engaged they become in your care, which in turn leads to better outcomes.

But patient engagement isn’t the only reason for giving patients the keys to their PHI. In fact, organizational control of patient health data can cause problems for everyone in the healthcare data exchange chain.

An item found on the Allscripts blog does a nice job of articulating issues that can arise.  According to the blog item, those issues include the following:

  • The patient is in the best position to address inconsistencies in their medical record. For example, if one doctor diagnoses the patient with asthma, then another physician conclusively demonstrates the patient is not asthmatic, the patient can reconcile the two physicians’ conclusions.
  • Patients have a better overview of their care than most doctors. When a chronically ill patient sees multiple clinicians, their impressions may conflict with one another, but the patient can provide context on their overall conditions.
  • If a patient consents to multiple uses of their health data, and the consents seem to be in conflict, only the patient can articulate what their intentions were.
  • If the master patient indexing process generates a false match with someone else’s records, the patient will recognize this immediately, while physicians may not.
  • Giving patients control of the record allows them to decide how long those records should be maintained. Otherwise, HIEs — or other entities not bound by record retention laws — might destroy the data prematurely.
  • When patients have control of their data, they can make sure it gets to whomever they choose. On the other hand, patient data may not make it to other care settings if providers drop the ball.

To be sure, delegating control of their PHI to patients can go too far.

For example, if they’re transmitting most or all of their health data between providers, it could pose a significant administrative burden.  Patients may not have the time or energy to route the data files between their providers, assure that data has been received on the other end and make certain that the data was formatted in a way their clinicians can use.

Also, if the patient is chronically ill and sees multiple providers, they may end up having to manage a large body of data files, and not everyone can do so effectively. Ultimately, they may get too overwhelmed to send their records to anyone, or send the wrong records, which can create complications of its own.

Still, on the whole, healthcare organizations are giving patients more control of their health data for good reasons. When patients take responsibility for their health data, they’re far more likely to understand their condition and take steps to address problems. Establishing a balance between patient and provider control may be tricky, but it can and should be done.

Patients Message Providers More When Providers Reach Out

Posted on April 26, 2017 I Written By

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

A new study has concluded that patients use secure electronic messaging more when their primary care providers initiate and respond to secure messages.

To conduct the study, the research team worked a large database stocked with information on health care transactions and secure messaging records on 81,645 US Army soldiers. The data also included information from almost 3,000 clinicians with access to a patient portal system. The dataset encompassed the 4-year period between January 2011 and November 2014.

The data, which appears in a paper published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, suggests that current provider-patient exchanges via secure messaging aren’t that common. For example, during the study period just 7 percent of patients initiated a secure message during a given month. Meanwhile, Providers initiated an average of 0.007 messages per patient each month, while responding to 0.09 messages per patient during a month.

That being said, when physicians got more engaged with the messaging process, patients responded dramatically.

Patients who knew their providers were responsive initiated a whopping 334 percent more secure messages than their baseline. Even among patients whose providers responded infrequently to their messages, the level at which they initiated messages to their clinicians was 254 percent higher than with PCPs who weren’t responding. (Oddly, when PCP response rates were at the “medium” level, patients increased messaging by 167 percent.)

In fact, when clinicians communicated more, there seemed to be spillover effects. Specifically, the researchers found that patients messaged PCPs more if that provider was very responsive to other patients, suggesting that there’s a network effect in play here.

Meanwhile, when PCPs were the ones prone to initiating messages, patients were 60 percent more likely to send a secure message. In other words, patients were more energized by PCP responses than clinician-initiated messages.

Of course, for secure messaging to have any real impact on care quality and outcomes, a critical mass of patients need to use messaging tools. Historically, though, providers have struggled to get patients to use their portal, with usage levels hovering between 10 percent and 32 percent.

Usage rates for portals have stayed stubbornly low even when doctors work hard to get their patients interested. Even patients who have signed up to use the portal often don’t follow through, research suggests. And of course, patients who don’t touch the portal aren’t exchanging care-enhancing messages with their provider.

If we’re going to get patients to participate in messaging with their doctor, we’re going to have to admit that the features offered by basic portals simply aren’t that valuable. While most offer patients access to some details of their medical records and test results, and sometimes allow them to schedule appointments, many don’t provide much more.

Meanwhile, a surprising number of providers haven’t even enabled a secure messaging function on their portal, which confines it to being a sterile data receptacle. I’d argue that without offering this feature, portals do almost nothing to engage their typical patient.

Of course, physicians fear being overwhelmed by patient messages, and reasonably fear that they won’t have time to respond adequately. Even though many organizations including the research of Dr. CT Lin has shown this just isn’t the case. That being said, if they want to increase patient engagement – and improve their overall health – secure messaging is one of the simplest tools for making that happen. So even if it means redesigning their workflow or tasking advanced practice nurse with responding to routine queries, it’s worth doing.

CVS Launches Analytics-Based Diabetes Mgmt Program For PBMs

Posted on December 29, 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.

CVS Health has launched a new diabetes management program for its pharmacy benefit management customers designed to improve diabetes outcomes through advanced analytics.  The new program will be available in early 2017.

The CVS program, Transform Diabetes Care, is designed to cut pharmacy and medical costs by improving diabetics’ medication adherence, A1C levels and health behaviors.

CVS is so confident that it can improve diabetics’ self-management that it’s guaranteeing that percentage increases in spending for antidiabetic meds will remain in the single digits – and apparently that’s pretty good. Or looked another way, CVS contends that its PBM clients could save anywhere from $3,000 to $5,000 per year for each member that improves their diabetes control.

To achieve these results, CVS is using analytics tools to find specific ways enrolled members can better care for themselves. The pharmacy giant is also using its Health Engagement Engine to find opportunities for personalized counseling with diabetics. The counseling sessions, driven by this technology, will be delivered at no charge to enrolled members, either in person at a CVS pharmacy location or via telephone.

Interestingly, members will also have access to diabetes visit at CVS’s Minute Clinics – at no out-of-pocket cost. I’ve seen few occasions where CVS seems to have really milked the existence of Minute Clinics for a broader purpose, and often wondered where the long-term value was in the commodity care they deliver. But this kind of approach makes sense.

Anyway, not surprisingly the program also includes a connected health component. Diabetics who participate in the program will be offered a connected glucometer, and when they use it, the device will share their blood glucose levels with a pharmacist-led team via a “health cloud.” (It might be good if CVS shared details on this — after all, calling it a health cloud is more than a little vague – but it appears that the idea is to make decentralized patient data sharing easy.) And of course, members have access to tools like medication refill reminders, plus the ability to refill a prescription via two-way texting, via the CVS Pharmacy.

Expect to see a lot more of this approach, which makes too much sense to ignore. In fact, CVS itself plans to launch a suite of “Transform Care” programs focused on managing expensive chronic conditions. I can only assume that its competitors will follow suit.

Meanwhile, I should note that while I expect to see providers launch similar efforts, so far I haven’t seen many attempts. That may be because patient engagement technology is relatively new, and probably pretty expensive too. Still, as value-based care becomes the dominant payment model, providers will need to get better at managing chronic diseases systematically. Perhaps, as the CVS effort unfolds, it can provide useful ideas to consider.