Yesterday I ran a panel at Teradata’s partner conference in MickeyMouseville, FL. On the panel were Liz Dudek from Medstat, Jill Burrington-Brown from AHIMA and David Cochran from Harvard Pilgrim health plan.
Pretty interesting conversation. David is particularly fun and funny. He thinks that consumers are being driven to the CDHP and have no real interest in it. Liz thinks that PHRs based on claims are going to be introduced by many more employers this fall. Jill is out educating anyone who listens about PHRs, but we all agreed that a unified consumer view of all their data is far away.
Funnily enough I was the most optimistic—I think that PHRs will be relatively common (15–20% uptake in 5–7 years?). Harris apparently said that it’s now 7% but I don’t believe that number. But after Wellpoint and United started providing it to their members
David had an interesting parsing out of the functions being lumped in a PHR
a) Communication transactions with physicians (appointment setting, refills, online visits)b) Information relevant to individuals health (Rx, Healthwise et al)—the Information therapy piecec) Financial transactions (EOB, related accounts)d) One other that I’ve forgotten!
His point is that not all organizations can do all pieces. The physician transaction piece is tough for a health plan, but is the most popular part of the PHRs run by Group Health, Caregroup, PAMF et al. So as in much of health care, expect spotty and varied implementation.
I agree, but I think that if the plans get serious about this it’ll force the providers to get involved. We shall see.