Why Direct is a Hit and PCAST is an Outcast

Regular readers know that I find Professor Clay Christen’s theory of disruptive innovation to be a useful lens to explain industry evolution. Let’s look at two recent health IT initiatives and see why one is working and the other is stalled.

Characterizing the Direct Project — why it’s working:

  1. A low-end industry disruption. The Direct Project takes transactions that are routine but inefficient — fax, telephone, mail exchanges between health care providers — and specifies standardized, Internet based technologies to conduct them electronically.
  2. Incremental change — a few specified transactions.
  3. Bottom up — ONC hired a capable project manager (Arien Malec) who choreographed a small team of volunteers working under short deadlines.
  4. Implementing “better, faster, cheaper” technology on the fly (i.e., Internet transactions replace fax, phone).
  5. Under the radar — invoking little response from incumbents. Direct was seen as focusing on transactions that were peripheral to the core EHR.

Characterizing the recommendations of the PCAST report — why it’s stalled under bureaucratic inertia:

  1. A direct frontal assault on the mainstream architecture and technology of today’s health IT vendors and customers — calling for the rapid replacement of billions of dollars of investment in current HIT.
  2. Systemic change — rethinking HIT architecture from the ground up.
  3. Requiring top-down governmental actions to reform an industry. Invoking polarized political responses — “PCAST is socialist.”
  4. Requiring an ONC workgroup to spend 3 months simply to conduct hearings and evaluate possible next steps.
  5. Invoking organized, persistent and uniform denouncements by many industry incumbents and their trade associations. The PCAST report became a political piñata. Many of the objections to the PCAST report were couched in terms of reducing quality and patient safety.

There are some great lessons here.

Vince Kuraitis JD, MBA, is a health care consultant and primary author of the e-CareManagement blog, where this post first appeared.

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

Categories: THCB

Tagged as: , ,

Leave a Reply

2 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
2 Comment authors
Vince KuraitisDavid Tao Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Vince Kuraitis

David, I can also agree with most of what your wrote…mostly differences in nuance. My perception (admittedly anecdotal, but persistent) is that there have been two points of view among some groups of stakeholders (especially EHR vendors and HIEs — the noun): * Direct is complementary to their interests * Direct is competitive to their interests. So yes, your citing the efforts of supportive EMR vendors is very appropriate, but some have seen Direct as competitive (or at least distracting to their development schedules) and to my understanding have not been supporting connectivity of their EMRs to Direct. Similarly, the… Read more »

David Tao

Thanks Vince. I agree with most of what you wrote here. Direct Project is an incremental step forward using existing standards and is widely accepted as a “HIT hit.” But I wouldn’t conclude that it was “under the radar” and invoked “little response from incumbents” (unless you meant little opposition) A look at the Direct Project Wiki pages reveals a high degree of participation (response) from “incumbent” EHR vendors such as AllScripts, Cerner, Epic, GE, Greenway, NextGen, Siemens, and others. Their people did lots of hard work — specifying, coding, testing, documenting, adding to products, and implementing — on behalf… Read more »