Category: Uncategorized

The Impact of 9/11 on Healthcare IT

Dec 1, 2018

By JOHN HALAMKA, MD

On September 11, 2001, I was sitting in my Harvard Clinical Research Institute office (I was CIO there from 2001-2007 as part of my Harvard Medical School CIO duties). A staff member ran into my office and told me that a plane had crashed into a World Trade Center Tower. This sounded like a horrible accident. Then, the second tower was hit and we knew this disaster was planned. News of the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crashes trickled in. I gathered all the staff and told them to focus on their families and personal safety, to go home and stay in touch virtually as we learned more about the day’s events.

What impact has 9/11 had on my healthcare IT world since then?

9/11 had a profound impact on our culture, making us all understand our vulnerability.

The loss of life gave us an appreciation of the preciousness of each day we have on the planet, putting the problems of our work lives in perspective.

The loss of infrastructure, including many data centers, was a wake up call that redundancy goes beyond servers, networks, and storage. Whole buildings can disappear in an instant through natural or manmade disaster.

Huddle of One

Dec 1, 2018

By dinosaur, md

There’s nothing new under the sun, or in medicine. I’m not talking about monoclonal antibody targeted chemotherapy; I’m talking about taking care of patients, and specifically about running a medical practice. Not even the incursion advent of all our fancy new electronics has (or should have) a fundamental effect on how we take care of our patients. The latest thing to come down the pike is the so-called Patient Centered Medical Home, a collection of policies, procedures, and practice re-structuring (webinars, templates, guidelines, etc. all available at low, low prices, of course) that essentially makes large group practices function like a solo doc from the patient’s point of view.

Because the buzzword of this new model is “teamwork”, we’re all supposed to begin the day with a brilliant new concept called the “huddle“:

The team huddle is promoted by many clinicians and practice coaches as an innovative approach to support medical home transformation through visit pre-planning, team building and communication, and workflow redesign.

Radical!

One problem: how do I do that all by myself? I mean, here’s what I generally do every day:

Make sure to arrive at least 30-60 minutes before the first scheduled patient
Look over the schedule to get a sense of the day, who’s coming, who may need extra time, any new patients
Double-checking that rooms are re-stocked with key supplies (ie, three paps on the schedule; wasn’t the speculum drawer low the other day? Couple of well baby visits; enough needles for all their shots? Better top up the bin from the supply closet.)
Looking over the charts (now electronically; previously the paper ones — adding pages, seeing whose insurance info needs updating, etc.)
Go over all the above with staff whenever they arrive (usually after me)

I’ve always just called it “getting ready for the day,” an organizational strategy for business management that’s called “being prepared” in most other occupations. But now it has a new name: the Huddle. Complete with instructional videos, for chrissakes.

As far as “patient-centered-ness” goes, I’ve used a somewhat different set of concepts from Day One called “Customer Service”. Having people instead of machines answering the phone, same-day appointments, personally communicating test results; all Disney-level customer service, now re-named things like “Open Access”, have been integral to my practice from the git-go.

Why is it happening? One of the oldest reasons in the world, of course: money to be made. I’m sure there are too many doctors and medical practices out there who, sadly, need this kind of help. Sadder still, they have to be force-fed it under the guise of running a “more efficient” practice.

Whatever happened to good old common sense? Next thing you know they’ll be all over us making sure we wash our hands. (Joke intended.) Seriously, though. This whole thing about co-opting perfectly sensible things from other industries for medicine — checklists, for example — and carrying on as if having re-invented the wheel is getting old.

Bucking the Established

Dec 1, 2018

By DR. WES

“Out with the old, in with the new!”

Who’s your doctor? Do you have one?

If you have one, you aren’t that interesting to them any longer because you’re “established.” This is not the fault of your doctor, but because of government rules for paying doctors: “new patient” visits pay better than “established patient” visits. “New patients” have a much better chance of needing new procedures, so they are even more special. Add to that the fact that more and more patients are going to need to become part of the “system” soon, and “new patients” quickly achieve the health care value trifecta.

Sorry. Those are the rules.

The higher payments made by insurers and government agencies for new patients was meant to offset the longer amount of time and cognitive challenges of dealing with a new patient that enters the doctors office. There is no question that there is more work to do when a new patient enters a medical facility: entering demographic data on a computer, actually taking a set of vital signs, performing a careful history and physical. But thanks to the explosion of ancillary health care assistants, imaging studies, the availability of the internet, and a constant push to do more in less time, doctors work differently today than they once did. Much of the data gathering is accomplished before the patient enters the office, imaging studies and baseline testing often occurs before a patient is even seen (remember those tests “required” for “quality” care?). Furthermore, because limitations for the frequency of testing has been imposed by government regulators, health care systems leap at the opportunity to “direct” doctors to order tests the moment the test might be needed. As such, “new patients” become particularly valuable to health care systems compared to “established” ones.

Requiem for the CLASS Act

Dec 1, 2018

By Trudy Lieberman

On Friday, the stepchild of health reform died at the hands of the Obama administration, and the obits for the troubled long-term care program were mostly similar recitations of why the administration was not going forward to implement that portion of the Affordable Care Act, how it was part of Ted Kennedy’s legacy, and how gleeful Republicans were at its demise.

The media amply quoted Senators Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and John Thune of South Dakota. Thune’s quote in The New York Times, “the Obama administration ignored repeated warnings about the financial solvency of this massive new entitlement,” gives a flavor of what they said.

The CLASS Act, short for the Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act, was a voluntary program where people could join a government plan to pre-fund some of the long-term care they might need in the future. Under the plan they would pay premiums during their working years. If they later became disabled and needed assistance, they would be entitled to a daily cash benefit of say, $50, that they could use to buy services such as a personal care attendant, home improvements that would let them stay in their house, or even to help pay nursing home costs.

Supporters saw the CLASS Act as a first step toward a national long-term care insurance program like those in other countries. Whatever its technical flaws, supporters argued that it would begin to solve the dilemma millions of families face—how to pay for a loved one’s care. Many politicians and the insurance industry weren’t keen on that idea since it could also be a first step to a publicly-financed insurance program (anathema to insurance sellers) and might cut into the market for long-term insurance, a product that has never really become a big seller primarily because of its high cost. The CLASS Act barely made it into the final bill.

Must Waiting Be Inherent To Medical Care?

Dec 1, 2018

By LISA GUALTIERI

“By the time you see the doctor, you’re either dead or you’re better,” my mother-in-law told me. She had to have multiple tests, all with long waits to get the appointments and the results, before her health insurer would allow her to make an appointment with a specialist.

“Waiting is the bane of the medical system,” a former student, an R.N., concurred. Advances in medicine and technology have improved medical outcomes, but have often resulted in more waiting at a time when every other aspect of life is speeding up. Waiting is a systemic problem exacerbated by advances in medicine and by health care reform.

Some of the ways we wait:

Wait to see if the symptoms go away or get worse. We all struggle with these decisions: do we need to be seen about the fever, back pain, or rash? Sometimes we wait because of denial or hopelessness; sometimes because of the cost or availability of medical care. I make decisions about when I need to see the doctor by asking myself if, under the same circumstances, I would take one of my children to the doctor.
Wait to get an appointment scheduled. I’ve made appointments for a sick child by channeling an old friend who could be relentless: “That is not acceptable. I need an appointment today.” Obnoxious but it sometimes worked. The rest of the time, though, the period between making and having an appointment can feel very long.
Wait to get to the appointment. Doctors and hospitals are more abundant in Greater Boston, where I live, than in other places, although traffic and parking can be problematic. Melody Smith Jones described a man’s six hour commute to see a doctor.
Wait to be seen by the doctor. It isn’t called the waiting room for nothing.Dr. Atul Gawande wrote in The Checklist Manifesto about people in the waiting room getting irate when he was running two hours behind on a hectic day. Being irate – or anxious or bored – is unlikely to increase the quality of physician-patient communication.
Wait in the examining room. At least in a waiting room you are dressed. If it is cold and you are wearing a paper or cloth johnny, distractions don’t work as well and examining rooms have fewer than waiting rooms.
See the doctor. Nowadays, as my mother-in-law recounted, you have to wait for the doctor to review your records before even looking at you. I find it surprising that physician rating systems give equal weight to wait times as they do to “communicates” and “listens”, when the latter are so much more important.
Wait in the lab. The selection of magazines is skimpier. You may be reviewing what you were told not to eat or drink: will that cup of black coffee skew the results?
Wait for lab results. If there are any non-routine reasons for testing, this can be interminable. I leave a lab asking when results will be ready and then I call. A former student told me about using Harvard Vanguard’sMyHealth Online. She said, “I love getting the lab results immediately online but I can see how those without clinical training could be overwhelmed or confused by the data and how to interpret them.”
Wait for the doctor’s interpretation of lab results. Lab results can be hard to decipher without clinical training, as my student said above. Even when I know results are available and the doctor has seen them, it can take many phone calls to obtain the doctor’s message via the secretary. Asking the doctor follow-up questions takes even longer. These are waits with a cell phone never turned off so you don’t miss the call.
Loop. You think you’re done but you may need to see a specialist, get a second opinion, or have more tests. As my mother-in-law pointed out, this process can be controlled more by insurance companies than by doctors’ availability. Another type of waiting also takes place now: waiting to get better. A friend bemoaned how she “couldn’t wait” for her black eye resulting from a fall to clear up because she was tired of people staring at her.

A SOCIAL Approach to Health Reform

Dec 1, 2018

By Richard Reece, MD

Every Sunday, I read the Sunday NYT in search of ideas for a blog. Today is no exception. I found the idea in Thomas Friedman’s column, “The New IT Revolution,” in which he holds forth as follows,

“The latest phase in the IT revolution is being driven by the convergence of social media- Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Groupon, Zynga- with the proliferation of cheap wireless connectivity and Web-enabled smart phones and “the cloud” – those enormous server farms that hold and constantly update thousands of software applications, which are then downloaded (as if from a cloud) to make them into incredibly powerful devices that can perform myriad tasks.”

The SOCIAL Acronym

Friedman then goes on to quote Marc Benioff, founder of Salesforce.com, who describes this phase of the IT revolution with the acronym SOCIAL.

• S is for Speed – This means physicians and patients can find anything and everything about health care (and each other),

. O is for Open – This means physicians are out in the open and can no longer hide their results or reputation.

• C is for Collaboration – This means physicians must organize among themselves or affiliated hospitals or into loosely coupled teams to take on the new challenges posed by society in general and health reform in particular.

• I is for Individuals – This means anyone – physicians, patients, and entreprenuers – as individuals can reach around the globe to start something or collaborate or consolidate to improve care – faster, deeper, and cheaper – as individuals.

• A is for Alignment – physicians with each other or with supportive health organizations to make sure all your ships are sailing in the same direction.

• L is for Leadership – This means physician leaders are going to have to mixs top-down and bottom-up forces – from public and private sectors – to provide what is best for themselves, patients, and society.

The White Coat

Dec 1, 2018

By DINOSAUR MD

I have not worn a white coat since I opened my own practice more than twenty years ago.

Not that I had anything against white coats in principle. I wore my short white one in med school with pride, and the longer one in residency too; their pockets filled to bursting with the 4 x 6 inch six-ring binder emblazoned with my name in gold, courtesy of Burroughs-Wellcome, the long-defunct pharma giant, which had presented one to each medical student in the US for many years, as well as assorted pens, note cards, alcohol wipes, hemoccult cards, and so forth. I even had a tiny teddy bear pinned to my lapel, my own way of personalizing the impersonal.

When I went out on my own, though, I made the conscious decision not to wear one. I confess that all these years later, I don’t completely recall my thought processes on the subject. It seemed pretentious, especially since I was the only doctor in the office and therefore not easily confused with other staffers. Little kids were scared of them, held the common wisdom. I decided that I wanted to project a warmer, less formal tone now that I was out on my own and could do whatever I wanted. Don’t get me wrong: I took pains to remain quite professional. I wore skirts, hose, and heels (sensible low ones, of course) at all times.

Patients noticed, and often commented. My explanations were accepted. It was my style, and I’ve always been comfortable with it. Even when a broken foot 10 years agoled me to begin wearing slacks instead of skirts, I never even considered wearing a white coat.

The Meaningful Use Song (with Apologies to Gilbert & Sullivan)

Dec 1, 2018

By MARGARET POLANECZKY, MD

As billing compliance leader in my department, I’ve been charged with getting my colleagues on board with Electronic Medical Record Meaningful Use. (What does meaningful use have to do with billing? It’s complicated, but the codes up until now have been reported along with billing codes, so it sort of fell into my lap. Lucky me…)

Generally, meaningful use refers to using the EMR in a way that harnesses its immense power to store and retrieve data in a way that makes sense and potentially improves clincal outcomes- by checking for drug interactions in real time, for example, or to track blood sugars, blood pressure or other data, or to allow for electronic prescriptions and shared data between clinicians using common language.

Specifically, when we say “meaningful use” these days, we are referrring to the list of meaningful use standards developed by CMS – a very specific list of 25 objectives, along with defined quality measures (like percent of women getting mammograms) that will be used to report and track health outcomes in practices using EMRs.

CMS is offering financial incentives to medical practices to use their EMR in a meaningful manner this year. We will be reporting data starting in October 1 to CMS, and must meet 20 of the 25 meaningful use objectives and report outcomes on chosen quality measures to qualify for the incentive payment. In addition, we are reporting separately to the government on the use of electronic prescribing, and face possible penalties for docs who are still stuck on paper. In time, our outcomes on the quality measures will be reported to the public on the CMS website.

Does Meaningful Use Improve Clinical Outcomes?

That’s the 20 billion dollar (the amount 2009 Hi-Tech Act allocated to the meaningful use incentive program) question. We really don’t know as yet whether or not EMR use itself favorably impacts patient care. Some studies say EMR usedoes not improve health outcomes, but more recent studies of diabetes care and in low resource areas have suggested that EMR use may be beneficial.

We also have no idea if docs who attain meaningful use are better docs than those who don’t. Despite this, the CMS website will have clear implications as to the outcomes of doctor’s practices in terms of standard quality measures. It’s a bit worrisome to me, especially since so many of the outcomes are driven by patient compliance (a word I know a lot of my readers don’t like, but there it is…) Not to mention the thorny issue of using mammogram screening in women over 40 as an outcome measure when we just decided that it is no longer recommendedto routinely perform it in everyone. (Don’t get me started on that issue again…)

Overall, I think meaningful use is a step in the right direction

I do see meaningful use as an attempt to rein in the wild, wild west of EMR development to try to create some standardized functionality and communication. It’s also a way to begin to corral the freestyle and autonomous EMR use that has evolved among early EMR users, who did what they needed to do to get their work done during the evolution of the EMR around them, but who now need to step back and reassess how well (or not) they are using this powerful tool that has been foisted upon them.

But my god, this whole process has been painful.

And so damned complicated, I needed a song to keep it straight. Ergo that parody up there, which actually covers all 25 meaningful use requirements as defined by CMS. (or at least as I see them…)

Of course, I could have just learned the Meaningful Yoose Rap. But please… me singing rap?

Margaret Polaneczky, MD, is a board certified obstetrician-gynecologist and Associate Professor of Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology at Weill Medical College of Cornell University in New York City. Her blog, The Blog That Ate Manhattan, started out as a food blog and eventually evolved to cover food, medicine, her life and her opinions, and an occasional silly song. This post originally appeared at TBTAM.

Is the Era of Off-Label Promotion Over?

Dec 1, 2018

By MERRILL GOOZNER

The question arises in the wake of yesterday’s news that the government and GlaxoSmithKline settled a string of lawsuits charging the company with illegal promotion of prescription drugs for unapproved uses. The $3 billion settlement represented just a small fraction of the sales to patients for whom the off-label prescriptions either caused harm or did little or no good.

Glaxo’s chief executive Andrew Witty, in a prepared statement, assured the public that his company has “fundamentally changed our procedures for compliance, marketing and selling in the U.S. to ensure that we operate with high standards of integrity.”

Judging by the number of seminars and conferences over the past few years designed to help companies meet the legal requirements for promoting drugs, there would certainly appear to be a lot more attention being paid these days to staying within the law. There have been 165 settlements between the government and drug companies over the last two decades, and the more recent settlements — $2.3 billion from Pfizer and $1.4 billion from Eli Lilly — have achieved blockbuster status (a word usually reserved for drug sales above $1 billion). While that is affordable for the highly profitable industry, settlements of that size do tend to capture the attention of top company officials and begin to tip the risk-reward ratio for illegal activity toward better compliance with the letter of the law.