Author Archives

lauramontini

Breaking News: Health Information Technology Sucks and it Costs too Much

Sep 7, 2012• 57

By Dave Chase

“Established technology is being given a federally funded new lease on life,” athenahealth CEO Jonathan Bush said. “Traditional health software now is on Medicare, being kept alive like grandma.” Bush dubs this program as the “cash for clunkers” program for health IT leaving no doubt what his opinion is regarding the legacy vendors’ solutions.

“I know of no industry where technology is as despised as it is in health care. It’s a statement that it took government money to incentivize healthcare providers to finally do what virtually every other industry has done .”

While one might dismiss Bush’s comments because they are coming from a company with a dog in the fight, the feeling is nearly universal amongst physicians who are the most important users. The best evidence of how abysmal legacy healthIT is, is that the market leader is having trouble getting medical practices to adopt their software even with huge subsidies from large health systems.

In the course of discussions with large health systems, they share their experiences of deployments of a mega Electronic Medical Record (EMR) and how they were offering subsidies to affiliated doctors to adopt the same system. When pressed about how broadly it was being adopted by non-employee physicians (i.e., MDs who have a choice), the penetration was staggeringly low — 0.2% was the average of those who shared figures. This was despite the fact that they were subsidizing 85% of the cost (the maximum allowed by Stark Law).

When I’ve spoken with doctors who have rejected the entreaties from their affiliated health systems, it’s more than the expense (even after a massive subsidy, it’s still several thousand dollars plus monthly costs). Rather, the complexity and lack of user friendliness is the bigger driver. A common statement one hears in healthIT conversations is that doctors hate technology or are afraid of it. Hogwash. They only hate bad technology. Consider the iPad. Doctors are the biggest buyers and it’s not just young doctors.

Flawed Reimbursement Model Leads to Flawed HealthIT

This begs the question, “why is healthIT so bad that massive government and health system subsidies are required to drive adoption?” And how can this possibly be good news? Let me address the issues and then I’ll conclude with the good news. While it may seem easy to bash legacy healthIT vendors, my experience has been that vendors reflect their customers. I would take this a step further. In the case of healthcare, customers reflect the reimbursement model. It’s a reimbursement model that is so broken Americans pay nearly twice as much as other countries to get inferior outcomes.

The Internet’s Downsides: Tell Us Your Stories

Sep 6, 2012• 10

By Susannah Fox

This is a request for help finding people who have had bad experiences with online health resources.

Let me first say that the internet is often a positive force in people’s lives.

My own organization’s research can paint a rather rosy picture: teens are mostly kind to each other online, technology users have more friends than those who stay offline, more people are online than ever before, etc.

But there is another side to the story.

Pew Internet has also documented the fact that, among other groups, people living with disability and those living with chronic health conditions are disproportionately offline. Some people have only dial-up or intermittent access, like at the library or a friend’s house, and therefore miss out on important conversations or information.

The internet can also transmit false or misleading information. A 2010 survey found that 3% of all U.S. adults said they or someone they know has been harmed by following medical advice or health information found online (1% minor, 1% moderate, and 1% serious harm). Thirty percent of adults reported being helped.

There are emotional pitfalls online, too. A 2006 Pew Internet survey found that 10% of people seeking health information online said they felt frightened by the serious or graphic nature of what they found online during their last search.

Are Hospital Business Models on a Burning Platform? Not Yet, But It’s Inevitable.

Sep 6, 2012• 8

By Vince Kuraitis

From reading recent headlines, one might easily get the impression that hospitals are resistant — or at least ambivalent — in their pursuit and adoption of accountable care initiatives.

Are Hospitals Dragging their Feet on Accountable Care?

Commonwealth Fund: “only 13 percent of hospital respondents reported participating in an ACO or planning to participate within a year”

KPMG Survey: “(only) 27 percent of [health system] respondents said current business models were either not very or not at all sustainable over the next five years”

Health Affairs: “Medicare’s New Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program Is Likely To Have Only A Small Impact On Hospital Payments”

The Bigger Picture

Do hospitals today perceive their current business model on the metaphorical “burning platform” — when the status quo is no longer an alternative?

The answer from the headlines above might suggest “no”, but I believe the correct answer is “not yet, but it’s inevitable”. Hospitals are feeling the heat, but it’s just not yet hot enough to jump off the platform and abandon existing business models.

North Carolina Medicaid’s Patient-Centered Medical Home: Lessons Learned

Sep 6, 2012• 15

By Al LEWIS

The ongoing saga of savings estimates for the Community Care of North Carolina (CCNC) patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is finally over. The verdict: no savings. Because the scale and visibility of the CCNC experiment are unparalleled in the Medicaid sector today, it is important that the right policy and delivery system lessons be learned from this dispositive conclusion.

Lesson 1: Enhancements in access do not necessarily create cost reductions, at least in Medicaid.

CCNC is by all accounts an excellent program from the patient’s perspective. Indeed, if I were a Medicaid recipient, I would want to live in North Carolina. The leadership of CCNC is passionate about the program and constantly strives to improve it. However, as was amply observed by J.D. Kleinke on this very blog last week, Medicaid recipients have many lifestyle and economic issues that even the best-intentioned and best-incentivized doctors will never be able to systematically address.

Lesson 2: Perhaps it is time to create an ER co-pay for Medicaid recipients that has more than one digit to the left of the decimal point.

Even as ER co-pays for commercial insurers have soared in the last decade, Medicaid ER co-pays remain virtually non-existent. CCNC created excellent reasons to use primary care but was not permitted to re-price the ER to economically encourage use of primary care. Many Medicaid recipients overuse the ER in part because it is basically free. For the CCNC experiment to truly have a chance to reduce ER visits now that they have created a worthy substitute with their PCMH, it’s only fair to them (and to taxpayers) to reconfigure the financial incentives so that people use their worthy substitute … and then re-measure savings.

Good Business Models and Bad Business Models.

Sep 6, 2012• 8

By J.D. Kleinke

You may have received a refund check in the past few months from your health insurer. This is not your individual reward for staying healthy; it is your insurer’s punishment for making too much money because you did.

Obamacare includes what the health care technocracy calls the “MLR rule” – minimum requirements for medical-loss ratios – or the percentage of premiums collected by health insurers that must be spent on medical care or refunded. The inverse of the MLR is the percentage spent on administration and marketing, and earned as profit. Obamacare sets minimum MLRs of 80 percent for individual and small group plans, and 85 percent for large groups.

Aside from its obvious populist appeal, this profit regulation mechanism signifies a belief, now enshrined in legislation, that health insurance markets do not work. Without such a rule, the architects of Obamacare believe, insurers can name their prices, however inflated, and we all just pay.

In the short term, that is true. Most health insurance plans price only once per year, are subject to long delays in cost trending information and multi-year underwriting cycles, and endure the meddling of a carnival midway’s worth of employee benefits tinkerers, agents, brokers, consultants, and other conflicted middlemen. But in the long term, over multiple annual cycles, premiums do rise and fall, and the health insurance industry’s fortunes with them.

Scaling is Hard. Case Study: athenahealth

Sep 6, 2012

By Jeff Bussgang

There are many companies that are competing to be the “operating system” for small businesses. The theory is that with the advent of the cloud in the digital age, small businesses can leverage a suite of services from a technology vendor to manage all aspects of their work – from payments to record-keeping to marketing to customer communications. Among those competing for this vision are PayPal/eBay, Square and Groupon, with each struggling to pull together pieces of the equation and, importantly, reach the small business in a cost-efficient manner at scale.

One company in Watertown, Massachusetts has been executing on this vision for over a decade with a winning approach for one vertical slice of the small business market: physicians. Although this is not typically how athenahealth is described, it is one way to describe what they are doing that mainstream members of the technology community might understand. I have found it pretty amazing that so few people in the tech community know their story or understand the scale and scope of what they have achieved. That is why I’ve chosen athenahealth for the third in my series on scaling (following Akamai and TripAdvisor).

Founding Story: A Pivot

Athenahealth version 1.0 was a complete failure. The company was originally founded in 1997 by Jonathan Bush (1st cousin of George W.) and Todd Park, a pair of Booz Allen consultants, as a physician practice management company for obstetrics.

What Business Can Learn From Cleveland Clinic: How To Report Quality To The Public

Sep 5, 2012

By David Whelan

This summer I spent some time exploring how big teaching hospitals publicly report clinical outcomes to the public. For a given set of patients, how many live or die? And with what complications?

Patients can rarely find this information before getting elective surgery, or when deciding to commit to a given institution for a long-term course of treatment.

The problem is that right now there are few short-term incentives for hospitals to be transparent to the public. Patients are used to finding care based on proximity, word-of-mouth, and referrals from trusted physicians. (None of these are bad methods, by the way.)

Meanwhile insurers and public programs rarely pay for better outcomes, so they do not build networks that steer patients to quality. Paternalism pervades the entire system, where insurers and providers alike do not trust patients to shop for the best care.

Thus it is only the most long-term focused institutions that decide to become radically transparent. And there’s one that stands out above the rest: Cleveland Clinic.

The Ohio institution is already known for excellent care, especially in cardiology, for being a “well-oiled machine”, and for being an economic bright spot in the otherwise dreary environs of Cuyahoga County. (Sorry, as Pittsburgher it’s hard for me to say nice things about the Mistake By The Lake.)

But something else Cleveland Clinic should be known for is its public outcomes reporting. Every year since at least 2005 Cleveland Clinic has published Outcomes Books on its Web site. For each clinical category it releases data on mortality, complication rates, and patient satisfaction. It also mails paper copies of these books to specialists around the country as a kind of transparency-marketing. No other hospital system comes close to reporting this level of detail about the quality of its care.

Building a Medical Practice: Does Government Help or Hinder?

Sep 4, 2012

By David M. Mokotoff, MD

Over 30 years ago, I began a cardiology group practice in St. Petersburg, Florida, Bay Area Heart Center. I invested $30,000––all of my savings at the time, and worked 90-110 hours per week for three years before I hired a partner. Since then the practice has grown to about 50 employees, including twelve physicians. I was taken aback by President Obama’s recent remark, “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Did I have help building this business? Yes. I have been graced with fine physician-partners, nurses, physician assistants, secretaries, medical assistants, and a remarkably efficient and dedicated administrative staff. But in all due respect, Mr. President, I must disagree with you. I did build my business, and nobody else made it happen. , along every step of the way, the federal government has been more of an impediment to the growth of my business than a facilitator.

From Medicare dictating to me how much I can charge a patient for my services, to OSHA requirements against using lip balm in “patient-care” areas; federal rules, regulations, and bureaucracies have heaped increasing administrative costs on my business without one iota of improvement in patient care. Now with the imminent implementation of “Obama Care” dangling over us, the outlook is even direr.

Demo: Healthline Launches BodyMaps for the iPad

Sep 4, 2012• 1

By Matthew Holt

[viddler id=c8d531c5&w=490&h=275]

Health information and education company Healthline Networks launched the BodyMaps iPad application today. BodyMaps, which displays rotatable high-resolution 3D illustrations of human anatomical structures, was created with GE Healthymagination in partnership with Visible Productions. Here you’ll see Senior Director of Product Management at Healthline John Emerson demo the app on his iPad, and CEO West Shell talks about his own recent experience using BodyMaps at his orthopedic surgeon’s office.

Refocusing Long-Term Care on People: The Three I’s

Sep 1, 2012

By Frank Spinelli

Both participants and caregivers in long-term care programs face a myriad of difficulties. Participants with long-term services and supports needs often have many health issues, meaning they are in constant transition between care environments and providers with their needs ever-evolving. As a result of visits to a number of doctors on a regular basis and the number of providers who support them, the participant’s information lives in multiple locations. This can lead to discrepancies between providers and the participant having to constantly provide the same information.

Caregivers, especially family members, are also facing great challenges. It’s a full-time job to care for someone in the home – it takes nearly 40 hours a week – and searching for a trusted service provider to take over can be another job in and of itself.

The root of the problem is that many long-term care programs are focused on the providers and not necessarily the people – those receiving the services and those providing them. Often, no one has the full picture of the participant’s health, which can lead to suboptimal care. An ideal situation is for everyone involved with the participant to be up-to-date and have a full-picture of their health and well-being at all times. When they are, services can be administered effectively with less risk for everyone involved.