Category: Uncategorized

HIT Trends Summary for July 2011

Aug 18, 2011• 1

By MICHAEL LAKE

This is a summary of the HIT Trends report for July 2011. You can get the current issue or subscribe here.

Specialty EMRs. There is a market for EMRs that specialize by practice type. This month, the ophthalmologists tell us what’s required to help them. They have specialized vital signs, testing and measurement devices. It is likely all specialties would benefit if EMRs get more specialty-specific. Some specialty EMR solutions have found a successful niche markets in cardiology, oncology and other segments. This could be another.

Medscape reports that AAFP’s smaller practice members like EMRs that focus on them. This report is focused on user satisfaction. The combination of easy-to-use software and physician involvement is leading to high satisfaction with products from vendors focused on small practices. And yet, we have also heard from prior KLAS reports that many practices (30%) are abandoning current vendors for market leaders.

A national study also reports that smaller practices are interested in new care models, but may lag implementation because they tend to underutilize needed technology. The study included 1,344 practices with fewer than 20 physicians each. The EMR is central to success of emerging collaborative and more accountable care models. Using registries to help manage patient populations is a core element as is medication management through e-prescribing. This study confirms that it will take a while for smaller practices to get the utilization required to be effective in the new model.

WhiteGlove Health’s Growth Fueled by Technology

Aug 18, 2011• 2

By DAVE CHASE

Bob Fabbio is a tech industry veteran most known for founding systems management company Tivoli which went public in 1995 and a year later sold to IBM for $743 million. He’s been a part of other successful exits such as selling Dazel Corp., which was acquired by HP in 1999. His latest venture is WhiteGlove Health’s which now has 500,000 members primarily in its home state of Texas.

An enterprise software veteran isn’t the obvious person to lead a healthcare provider. However, as outlined in Healthcare Disruption: Healthcare Providers Repeating Newspaper Industry Mistakes, it’s frequently not the obvious competitors that create the greatest disruption in the marketplace.

The legacy healthcare payment model for primary care is a Gordian Knot designed by Rube Goldberg. Consider the legacy model versus WhiteGlove’s model in the tables below.

(Some) Illinois Hospitals Losing Tax-exempt Status

Aug 17, 2011• 4

By HAROLD POLLACK

From the Chicago Tribune and AP.

The decisions were announced to the hospitals Tuesday morning, Revenue Department officials told The Associated Press. They follow last year’s Illinois Supreme Court ruling that found a central Illinois hospital wasn’t doing enough free or discounted treatment of the poor to qualify for an exemption, costing it $1.2 million in local property tax payments per year.

In addition to Prentice Women’s Hospital [a Northwestern facility] in Chicago’s Gold Coast neighborhood, the revenue department now has decided that Edward Hospital in Naperville and Decatur Memorial Hospital in Decatur don’t quality for property tax exemptions. The hospitals have 60 days to ask an administrative law judge to review the decisions. In Illinois, property taxes are collected by county governments, and the Department of Revenue decides which institutions are eligible for tax exemptions.

In a written statement, Illinois Hospital Association President Maryjane A. Wurth said she was disappointed and “deeply concerned” by the Revenue Department’s preliminary rulings, and worries that the hospitals will be forced to reduce services and increase costs for patients and employers.

It’s neither surprising nor inappropriate that state policymakers are holding hospitals to account.

Individual Mandate: Can PPACA Survive Without It?

Aug 17, 2011• 6

By DAVID E. WILLIAMS

Ever since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was passed, opponents have looked for ways to overturn it in the court of law and the court of public opinion. They’ve had reasonable success in both arenas, using opposition to the individual mandate to buy health insurance as Exhibit A. Ironically, President Obama wasn’t a big fan of the individual mandate at the outset. In the primary election, Hillary Clinton favored an individual mandate while Obama opposed it. But somehow the mandate –at its core a Republican concept of personal responsibility– has become synonymous with so-called Obamacare.

With the recent court decision, it seems reasonably likely we will end up in a situation where the individual mandate is overturned but the rest of the law is upheld. Observers have some thoughts on what would happen:

Insurance companies will be unhappy. PPACA puts many restrictions on health plans, e.g., minimum medical loss ratio, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions but the upside is the mandate: lots of new customers, and a reduction in adverse selection, because everyone has to buy insurance and you can’t wait till your sick
Many fewer people will be enrolled in insurance. Jonathan Gruber’s objectivity may be suspect, but he persuasively argues that repeal of the mandate would lead to many fewer people in coverage and higher premiums due to adverse selection. And the cost of the law wouldn’t drop by much despite the lower impact
Some opponents think/hope that eliminating the mandate will cause the whole law to collapse. I really doubt it.

Attacks on IPAB Gather Strength—And Waste Energy?

Aug 16, 2011• 3

By ROGER COLLIER

The Washington Post reports that the Affordable Care Act’s Independent Payment Advisory Board, intended to constrain Medicare spending increases, is under increasing pressure from Republicans, health care lobbyists—and a significant number of Democrats.

As specified by the ACA, the IPAB will consist of fifteen health care “experts” to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, with authority to make cuts to Medicare if spending exceeds specified targets, starting in 2015. Congress could overrule the panel, but only by mustering a super-majority in the Senate or by creating an alternate plan to save the same amount.

The ACA imposes narrow limits on the IPAB. By law it cannot ration care, cut benefits, change eligibility rules, or raise revenue by increasing beneficiary premiums or cost-sharing, nor can it—until 2020—reduce payments to hospitals. This means that the brunt of any IPAB-proposed savings will fall on physicians and drug and medical device companies.

mHealth – Potentially Valuable, But Not Ready For Primetime

Aug 15, 2011• 11

By TED DRISCOLL

mHealth – otherwise known as mobile healthcare – sounds like just what the doctor ordered to help make healthcare delivery cheaper and more effective. And since the Internet today essentially resides in everybody’s pocket, it would seem as though it’s ready to be implemented. But we have what amounts to a “last-three-feet” problem. So I’m not sure mHealth is ready for primetime, mostly because I don’t think our conventional healthcare system is ready or capable of embracing it.

The goal is to have patients wirelessly send appropriate clinical information to their healthcare providers in a timely manner. This would save time-consuming trips to the doctor on their part and, for doctors, ultimately make it easier to retrieve key patient clinical data. Such a system could detect events just before they happen and allow early critical intervention. The problem is that at this point this is just a goal, not reality.

I have looked at a half dozen startups in this space but haven’t made a commitment to fund any of them. In many cases, their technology looks promising, but it isn’t clear how the company would actually generate consistent revenue. Would the healthcare system reimburse mHealth? Would the doctor know how to interpret the flood of real-time data? Would our system drown under a deluge of alerts, many of which resolve naturally? There is a wealth of questions around these issues.Continue reading…

Why the 11th Circuit’s Opinion on Health Care Reform Self-Destructs

Aug 14, 2011• 85

By MARK HALL

Like a tragic literary figure, the 11^th Circuit’s opinion declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional is doomed to failure by its own internal contradictions. What follows is a series of quotes directly from the opinion, paired to show how desperately the majority twisted logic in order to find its path to a unsupportable conclusion:

1. On the key necessary and proper argument, the court obfuscated as follows:

The government’s argument derives from a Commerce Clause doctrine of recent [1995] vintage: . . . the “essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity” language in Lopez. . . . Raich [is the] the only instance in which a statute has been sustained by the larger regulatory scheme doctrine.

HOWEVER, the court was well aware that

The Supreme Court’s most definitive statement of the Necessary and Proper Clause’s function remains Chief Justice Marshall’s articulation in McCulloch v.Maryland: 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 421 (1819).

In Obamacare Case, Constitution Is Victor

Aug 14, 2011• 12

By ILYA SHAPIRO

Today is a great day for liberty. By striking down the individual mandate, the Eleventh Circuit has reaffirmed that the Constitution places limits on the federal government’s power. Congress can do a great many things under modern constitutional jurisprudence, but, as the court concludes, “what Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die.” Indeed, just because Congress can regulate the health insurance industry does not mean it can also require people to buy that industry’s products.

One of the striking things about today’s ruling is that, for the first time in one of these cases, a Democrat-appointed judge, Frank Hull, has ruled against the government. Just as the Sixth Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton made waves by being the first Republican appointee to rule in the government’s favor, today’s 300-page ruling shows that the constitutional issues raised by the healthcare reform—and especially the individual mandate—are complex, serious, and non-ideological.

Supporters of limited constitutional government need to temper their celebrations—just as they wisely tempered their sorrows after the last ruling—because we must all now realize that this will not end until the Supreme Court rules. Nevertheless, today’s decision gives hope to those who believe that there are some things beyond the government’s reach and that the judiciary cannot abdicate its duty to hold Congress’s feet to the constitutional fire.

Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.

This post first appeared at Cato@Liberty – Cato Institute Blog.

Healthcare is Different

Aug 14, 2011• 79

By JOHN HALAMKA, MD

I’m often asked why healthcare has been slow to automate its processes compared to other industries such as the airlines, shipping/logistics, or the financial services industry.

Many clinicians say that healthcare is different.

I’m going to be a bit controversial in this post and agree that healthcare has unique challenges that make it more difficult to automate than other industries.

Here’s an inventory of the issues

1. Flow of funds – Hospitals and professionals are seldom paid by their customer. Payment usually comes from an intermediary such as the government or insurance payer. Thus, healthcare IT resources are focused on back office systems that facilitate communications between providers and payers rather than innovative retail workflows such as those found at the Apple Store.

The July Effect

Aug 13, 2011• 1

By BOB WACHTER, MD

“Don’t get sick in July!” We’ve all heard patients and family members say this – part declaration, part wishful thinking – in reference to the perceived summertime risks of teaching hospitals. When I hear it, I usually respond with comforting bromides like “robust supervision” and “cream of the crop.” But deep down, if I had the choice of entering a teaching hospital in July and April, I’d choose the latter.

This preference comes partly from my recollections of my own training experience. The day before I began my residency at UCSF, my entire intern class gathered to meet our new bosses. We were on pins and needles – laughing at jokes that weren’t really funny, suspiciously eyeing our colleagues, whose admission to the program (unlike our own) could not be explained by clerical error. The chief of service, Greg Fitz, a brilliant gastroenterologist with a disarming “aw shucks” manner and a Southern drawl (he’s now Dean at UT Southwestern), stood to address us.

“I know you’re all nervous,” he said, catching our collective mental drift. “But don’t worry. If we can turn bread mold into penicillin, we can turn you guys into doctors.”

I was only partly reassured.

The next day, I began my internship on the wards at San Francisco General Hospital. I picked up the service from a graduating intern. His sign out to me was pithy. “Sucker!” he shouted gleefully, as he jammed his beeper into my abdomen like a football. Panicked, I managed to survive my first few weeks on the wards without killing any patients.