TECH: Fotsch talks sense on PHRs (let’s hope someone’s listening)

There’s a whole lot of rubbish talked by various MDs quoted in an article in Modern Physician called PHR liability, data overload making docs a little queasy. Essentially they’re all saying that they’re gong to be overrun by patients with printouts of their PHRs and because they’ll miss something on page 97 they’ll get sued. And one MD in particular Joseph Heyman (with whom THCB has had its run-ins before) is quoted as saying

there is a risk of ‘garbage in, garbage out,’ and if the record is populated by the patient, there are errors of understanding that can be inputted by the patient.”

It’s just the same as saying that if you give patients email access they’ll abuse it. Lots of doctors talked about that in the past. Several studies have shown it’s not true. You have to truck through a lot of rubbish in the article to get to someone who knows what he’s talking about. Luckily dog-owning Medem CEO Ed Fotsch does, and it’s worth reading:

Edward Fotsch, M.D., CEO of PHR-provider Medem, says that was something he rarely experienced during his years as an emergency medicine physician, ending in the early ’90s. “I saw 10,000 ER patients, and I can remember on one hand the number of patients who had any documented information when they came in,” he says. Fotsch says much of the confusion surrounding PHRs stems from a misunderstanding of what they are.“A disk with a mishmash of information is not a PHR, because I could call my dog a ‘Ferrari’ if I wanted to, but that doesn’t make him one,” Fotsch says. “A personal health record is, by definition, an online collection of structured data.” <SNIP>While agreeing that standards are needed, the AAFP’s Waldren disagrees that PHRs need to be Web-based. Although he thinks that Web-based models will eventually dominate the field, Waldren says there are desktop PHRs available “that are networkable.” But Fotsch wonders if the models mentioned by Waldren allow secured online communication between physicians and patients. Without that, Fotsch says a PHR is like an automated teller machine with no money in it that only allows you to check your balance. Fotsch says a PHR should resemble a continuity-of-care record or continuity-of-care document—two vetted and accepted formats for transmitting basic patient-care data. The PHRs should have defined fields where particular types of data should be entered and displayed, and they also should feature a secure e-mail connection between patient and physician. “There’s a structure around a personal health record,” Fotsch says. “So, if you say you accept a personal health record, you know what you’re accepting.”

So a structured useful PHR should be a good thing for doctors. And surprise surprise that’s what patients want to. So can we have a little less kvetching about this wave that‘s coming and a little more helping patients get these things?

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

Categories: Uncategorized

Tagged as:

Leave a Reply

4 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
Matthew GuldinelliottgRickJames Case Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Matthew Guldin
Matthew Guldin

Here are a few thoughts on the article and the comments here: 1. Using the analogy of an ATM and a PHR is flawed for several reasons. It is much more straightforward from both a technical and legal perspective to send, receive, and view financial data compared to health care data. 2. Heyman does have a legitimate point about the quality of data going into a PHR, especially from administrative sources such as claims repositories. I agree with his point about patient-entered data to a lesser extent although I do wonder the veracity/willingness of patients to use PHRs for sensitive… Read more »


ATMs vs. PHRs 1. Tellers make relatively low wages vs. Physicians highest paid in the US. 2. Tellers have to balance their drawer every day and are personally responsible for any mistakes no matter what vs. physicians will put a stent in or fuse a spine even when there is no reason and get paid. 3. Tellers have zero political power vs. the AMA and physicians personally lobbying their patients. 4. Tellers can look up your balance and your last 5 transactions with a few keystrokes vs. most physicians who are still using paper charts. 5. Tellers who decided that… Read more »


Man, that example of the ATM draws into focus just how far we have yet to go. It’s been over a quarter century since my first transaction with an ATM, and it wasn’t too long afterwards that it became a global technology, allowing me to put my card in a machine in Bangladesh and count on the transaction to be as reliable as one in my home town. I was too young to remember, but can someone tell me: when the ATM technology was proliferating, were all the stakeholders fighting to keep their ox from being gored the way the… Read more »

James Case

When reading articles like this it always makes me uneasy about the job that physicians are doing for the patients. Are they doing what they think is right, or are they doing just enough to not get sued? I think in many cases it is the later. So what really is the problem here? Is it that physicians are intimidated by new technology? I think that obviously is not the case. Every day physicians come into contact with some of the most sophisticated technologies in the world. Mastering database software is no problem to many of them. Instead, I look… Read more »