Categories

Month: April 2010

Dear Mr. President

I am writing this as a representative of the examination room – one who sits facing patients, dealing with   our healthcare delivery “system” on a daily basis. I am writing this as one who will bear the brunt of what you accomplish or fail to accomplish in your attempts to reform our “system.” I write this as a primary care doctor who makes a living (or not) by what I earn from that “system.” I write as someone who has seen people not take medicine they need, not get the help they should, and not care for themselves as they should because of our “system.”

I talk to patients every day about what you folks are doing, and let me tell you what they are saying: nobody has any confidence in you whatsoever. Whether conservative or liberal, insured or not, black or white, elderly or young, all of my patients express frustration, disillusionment, and pessimism over your chances at getting it right. Nobody is confident, nobody is all that passionate anymore, and nobody is holding their breath.

Continue reading…

The Governor’s Healthcare IT Conference

President Barack Obama and Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick

Although healthcare reform has its supporters and detractors, healthcare IT reform – the use of technology to improve the quality, safety and efficiency of healthcare throughout the country – has broad support from all stakeholders.

The passage of last year’s $787 billion economic stimulus bill brought with it a healthcare IT modernization program that could inject about $30 billion into the economy. Since Massachusetts is a leader both in the use and the manufacturing of healthcare IT systems, this could translate into over a $1 billion for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

This isn’t a “cash for computers” program though – it’s much more than that. The stimulus bill was crafted very wisely. It’s not a field day either for the doctors and hospitals who would receive these funds, or for the vendors selling this hardware and software. That’s because in order to get these dollars, physicians and hospitals have to not only buy the new systems, they have to prove that they’re using them to improve care before they’ll qualify to get any money back from the government. What does it mean to improve care? The requirements are actually quite specific and include: improving care coordination, reducing healthcare disparities, engaging patients and their families, improving population and public health, and ensuring adequate privacy and security protections.

The health IT modernization program promotes the use of advanced tools which could significantly improve the quality and efficiency of healthcare in the country today. Massachusetts is well positioned to lead this charge.

The genius of the program is that it is carefully tailored to fit our
uniquely American economy and culture. We are a society that prizes
individual initiative and rejects “top-down” solutions, and no other
part of the economy is more reflective of that than health care
delivery. We also believe in the power of markets to allocate resources
where they’ll create the most value and to drive innovation that
improves peoples’ lives. So unlike other countries where the government
is creating its own infrastructure and dictating which systems the
medical community must use, the Obama Administration’s health IT
program uses federal dollars to give an adrenaline boost to the market.

Continue reading…

Challenges in EMR Adoption by Doctors Offices

Adoption of Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) by physicians – particularly by primary care physicians – has been a challenge, for a number of reasons. The Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) has been charged with encouraging physicians to adopt Electronic Health Record (EHR) technology, as envisioned in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (ARRA).

The ONC vision is that a transformed healthcare delivery system which is able to reduce medical errors, implement best-practices standards as they emerge, reduce disparities in care delivery, involve patients in their care, and encourage the coordinated delivery of health care – all of this needs, as a base, the widespread adoption of EHR technology by physicians in all settings of care, across the country. Getting there is the challenge before us all.

EHR adoption has been seen mainly in hospitals, clinics and other large institutions – the costs of traditional EHR systems (both the direct costs, and the indirect costs of needing to build and maintain a local network system in order to make it work) have been prohibitive to smaller practice settings. However, it is precisely those smaller practice setting where the majority of healthcare is delivered in this country.

Fortunately, newer technologies – like secure web hosting, which removes the need to install anything locally – and new business models – like having alternative revenue sources subsidize the web-based EMR so that the system can be offered for free to physician end-users (e.g. Practice Fusion’s free EMR) – have overcome many of the barriers to adoption that have prevented smaller practices from adopting EHR technology.

In light of the recent Health 2.0 in the Doctor’s Office conference, with its focus on newer technologies, we wanted to review some EMR adoption strategies that might help clinicians move from paper-based offices to electronic ones. As a practicing family physician, and relatively early adopter of EMR technology – we have not had paper charts in our practice since 2004.

Hardware recommendations

Regardless of the cost of the EMR system in the first place, a certain investment in hardware will need to be made. With a web-based EMR, this can be pretty minimal. I would discourage the use of fixed, in-exam-room computer equipment (risk of damage when unsupervised, need to close and then log back in when you leave the room in order to keep HIPAA privacy). Instead, I would recommend a wireless laptop or notebook (costs of these are now in the $400-$800 range) – one per clinician – which can be used to carry around the office. Nurses might want to have a fixed desktop computer at their nursing station (these are about $100-$200 less than a notebook these days). Front desk personnel should have a fixed desktop computer – this has been the tradition for some time.

If a locally-installed EMR system is chosen, then there is the whole burden of housing a server, with hardware redundancy to guard against failure, and software costs for that server – operating system, anti-virus, firewall, possibly license fees for the database system used. In addition, there will be the need to do data backup. Such local systems have a vulnerability of theft of Protected Health Information (PHI), which can expose the clinician to a HIPAA breach. Web-hosted EMRs avoid this whole back-end burden.

With a web-based system, internet connectivity is critical. I would recommend a good broadband connection (T1 lines run about $400/month, though DSL services for about half that may be sufficient as well). For safety, a 3G cell phone fail-over backup is also advisable, in the event of breakdown of the internet connection (a rare event these days).

Workflow redesign

Apart from cost, workflow disruption is another barrier to adoption. This is especially true in primary care practices, which function very close to the margin in the first place – any dip in productivity can cause the practice to dip below profitability for a while. Therefore, an intuitive, easy-to-use and flexible EMR design is critical. All the workflows encountered by physicians in an ordinary day need to be facilitated, not disrupted, by the EMR.

There are 7 workflows in an ambulatory practice, which need to be addressed in order to fully abandon paper charts: (1) billing and accounts receivable; (2) scheduling; (3) in-house messaging; (4) documentation of patient interactions; (5) processing refill requests; (6) reviewing and acting on lab results; and (7) managing external correspondence about patients. A way of dealing with each of these items needs to be addressed in order to successfully embrace EHR technology and abandon paper.

Small medical practices have faced challenges in their path toward adopting EHR technology – cost and workflow disruption are the main ones. Newer technologies and business models have overcome many of those barriers. Achieving the “meaningful use of certified EHR technology,” which qualifies a clinician to access ARRA/HITECH incentive payments beginning in 2011, can be achieved through these newer technologies. The old paradigm of massive, burdensome, and stand-alone systems is giving way to novel approaches which can result in widespread EHR adoption, as we have seen from our experience to date.

ROBERT ROWLEY, MD, is the chief medical officer at Practice Fusion, a San Francisco based company.

Clinical Groupware: Platforms, Not Software

Kibbe

Clinical Groupware is rapidly gaining acceptance as a term describing a new class of affordable, ergonomic, and Web-based care management tools. Since David first articulated Clinical Groupware's conceptual framework on this blog early last year — see here and here — we've been discussing Clinical Groupware with a growing number of people and organizations who want to know what it is, where it's going, and what problems it may solve, particularly for small and medium size medical practices, their patients and their institutional/corporate sponsors and networks.

Clinical Groupware heralds a shift away from medical applications that are primarily based in local hardware and software. It creates a more fluid functionality in those applications, and empowers communications as well, by leveraging Internet connectivity, Web-based data resources, and new services (i.e., capabilities) performed upon these data by agents or applications.

In other words, Clinical Groupware is about platforms that can integrate modular applications, which in turn are supported by subsystems of data services. Although it is still in its infancy, Clinical Groupware is an end-to-end digital revolution in health IT.

Continue reading…

Well, point-less?

OK, so it’s a terrible and stolen pun but Wellpoint’s recent history is getting more and more bizarre. First they become the poster child for the recissions scandal (even if not the worst offender)—which eventually helped push the “evil insurer meme” which helped health care reform along its way.

Then they helped kill Arniecare, and tried hard to kill Obamacare, all the while being a fringe member of the AHIP coalition which actually wanted health reform. And they managed to both showcase a bizzaro interview with CEO Angela Braly and then ended up pouring gasoline on the fire dying embers of health reform in late February, early March by their crass mismanagement of their individual market business —which apparently required increases of 39% despite their alleged excellence at accurate market pricing.

Now we have a new article from Reuters who are zeroing in on the actual way that Wellpoint went after cancer patients with the aim of figuring out if there was any reason to cancel their coverage. It’s pretty unsavory stuff, but everyone knows from Lisa Girion’s reporting that this stuff was going on with all California insurers and most everyone else who could get away with it.

Continue reading…

(More) Madness in Massachusetts

Lately I have been watching with complete horror the events playing out in my home state of Massachusetts. A bill currently under review by the state legislature will make participation in the state and federal Medicare/Medicaid programs a condition of medical licensure, effectively making physicians employees of the state.

This is particularly alarming because Massachusetts is essentially a leading indicator of what will happen in the rest of the country. Several years ago the state passed a series of laws mandating health coverage. Like the recently passed national health reform bill, the Massachusetts law did not address any of the well known causes of runaway costs, including tort reform, drug costs, or insurance regulation.

Although the state now has one of the highest percentages of its population insured, it is grappling with exploding healthcare costs. In response, it is imposing capitation schedules, reductions in payment rates and now mandatory participation in the health programs by physicians. What most people don’t understand is that the private insurers are also free to lower their physician payments, based on the Medicare/Medicaid benchmarks. This is all the more concerning given the fact that the Federal reimbursement rate is now scheduled to be reduced 21% on April 15.

We will no doubt see the same sequence of events play out across the country as the current versions of healthcare reform are implemented. The net effect of these laws is that it will make it close to impossible for physicians to stay in private practice. Patient access to physicians will suffer as more and more physicians retire and/or move to different states. For our academic colleagues who think this turn of events can only “help” them because they won’t have to compete with physicians in private practice, just wait. 28 states are now imposing “comparability” laws that allow nurse practitioners and other allied healthcare professionals to work without the supervision of a physicians with equal pay. Few academic departments can avoid hiring “physician extenders” if they want to stay competitive. As this gains momentum, physician payments will be pushed downwards. As the “going rate” goes lower, academic salaries will also get pushed downwards. I knew this reform effort would be bad for the practice of medicine and even worse for patient care. I just had no idea things would deteriorate this fast.

Daniel Palestrant, MD, is the CEO of Sermo.

Nurseanomics

Twenty-eight states are now engaged in a heated debate over the difference between a doctor and a nurse: Legislators in these states are considering whether they should let a nurse practitioner (NP) with an advanced degree provide primary care, without having an M.D. looking over her shoulder.  To say that the proposal has upset some physicians would be an understatement. Consider this comment on “Fierce HealthCare”:

“An NP has mostly on the job training…they NEVER went to a formal hard-to-get into school like medical school,” wrote one doctor.

“I have worked with NPs before, and their basic knowledge of medical science is extremely weak. They only have experiential knowledge and very little of the underpinning principles. It would be like allowing flight attendants to land an airplane because pilots are too expensive. HEY NURSIE, IF YOU WANT TO WORK LIKE A DOCTOR…THEN GET YOUR BUTT INTO MEDICAL SCHOOL AND THEN DO RESIDENCY FOR ANOTHER 3-4 YEARS. NO ONE IS PREVENTING YOU IF YOU COULD HACK IT!” [his emphasis]

Fortunately, not all physicians exhibit the same degree of rancor. Some support the movement. Another reader notes the commenter’s emphasis on just how brutal med school  can be: “The anger reflected in the previous comments reveals not only the writers’ ignorance of scholastic achievement required of Nurse Practitioners, but mainly their fear that NPs will not be under physicians’ control…Many older doctors’ schooling and experience was conducted in punitive ways, sacrificing self esteem. It seems that anything less, isn’t sufficient.”

Continue reading…

We’re No. 37? Or Maybe Not …

By MERRILL GOOZNER

Goozner
Phil Musgrove, now at Health Affairs, was an editor at the World Health Organization when it compiled its international comparison of nations’ health status that ranked the U.S. 37th in the world, largely because of its poor performance on infant mortality and longevity. In a letter to the editor in today’s New England Journal of Medicine, he points out that the U.S. had no statistics for nearly half the measurements used in the rankings and that most of the national rankings were inputed from data from 30 of 191 countries in the survey who fully reported their health outcomes.

He concludes:

The number 37 is meaningless . . . Analyzing the failings of health systems can be valuable; making up rankings among them is not. It is long past time for this zombie number to disappear from circulation.

Fair enough. But the U.S. ranking in infant mortality and its lagging longevity are cause for alarm because they show that the U.S. lags in health status. There’s many factors well beyond the quality of the health care system that contribute to these lagging indicators: persistent poverty in certain parts of the country and among certain subpopulations; chronic un- and underemployment; high levels of income and status inequality; and high levels of social stress and insecurity, for instance.

Someone should update the rankings and stress that they measure health status, not the quality of health care systems. If not WHO, who?

Medicare To Cover Preventative Care

A nice surprise buried somewhere  in the Health Care Reform Bill is that starting next year Medicare patients will be able to get annual preventative care exams that are paid for by their health insurance. It may come as a surprise to those of you with commercial insurance who think of  coverage of an annual exam as a routine thing for insurance to cover, but up to now Medicare has only covered a “Welcome to Medicare” exam in the first year after turning 65.  From then on no physical exams at all are covered, and many preventative services like colonoscopy and mammography were either not covered, or subject to fairly high copays and deductible costs.  As a physician this has always seemed like this is backwards. I can make a pretty good argument that a physical exam for a 27 year old man is not needed annually, but it is essentially always a covered benefit in any plan the young insured patient has through an employer. Older adults are far more at risk for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, depression, and safety at home issues than young adults. I am pleased that better preventative services coverage for our older and more vulnerable adults will be a paid service starting in 2011. This is discussed nicely in a recent NY Times article by Leslie Alderman in his Patient Money column.

Starting Sept 23, 2010, 6 months after the signing of the bill, all new insurance plans, or current plans which make certain changes will be required to cover preventative services recommended by the United States Preventative Services Task Force as category A or B ratings (A = conclusive evidence and B = very strong evidence showing benefit of receiving the services) and beginning Jan. 1, 2011 Medicare will also cover these services with no copay or deductible applicable.

This is good news for our seniors and should make it much easier for their physicians to convince our seniors, some of whom now have to choose between shelter, food or medicine on their poverty level fixed incomes, to receive preventative care.

Ed Pullen, MD, is a board certified family physician practicing in Puyallup, WA. Dr. Pullen shares his viewpoints on medical news and policy from a primary care physician’s perspective at his blog, DrPullen.com.

Reputation versus quality: U.S. News Hospital Ranking

Each year, US News and World Report publishes its list of the top 50 hospitals in various specialties (example here). Now, an article has been published suggesting that one aspect of the methodology used by the magazine is flawed.

“The Role of Reputation in U.S. News & World Report’s Rankings of the Top 50 American Hospitals,” by Ashwini R. Sehgal, MD is in the current edition of theAnnals of Internal Medicine. (You can find an abstract here, and you can obtain a single copy for review from Dr. Sehgal by sending an email to axs81 [at] cwru [dot] edu.)

Dr. Sehgal finds that the portion of the U.S. News ranking based on reputation is problematic because reputation does not correlate with established indicators of quality:

The relative standings of the top 50 hospitals largely reflect the subjective reputations of those hospitals. Moreover, little relationship exists between subjective reputation and objective measures of hospital quality among the top 50 hospitals.Continue reading…