Tag: EHR

Google Health sharing–simple but potentially important

Mar 4, 2009• 11

By Matthew Holt

Today late afternoon PST Google flipped the switch on an important change/add to Google Health.

Recently they’ve been adding more and more little features, such as printing & graphing, and in the last month getting CVS retail pharmacies on the network (to join Walgreens), and sucking up device data. But this new one may be the most interesting, as Google Health has added the ability for users to invite others to see their records.

Anyone who’s used Google Docs (and that includes all of us working at Health 2.0) immediately gets addicted to sharing those spreadsheets and text documents with a wider team. It’s so easy, you just invite them to it, and then one day you wake up and you’re sharing hundreds of documents with everyone you work with and cannot imagine how you did it before.

Frances Dare explains HITECH, really well

Mar 4, 2009

By Matthew Holt

Frances Dare from Cisco is a buddy of mine who has more and more been their student of what's going on in Washington. Given that we just saw the biggest piece of health care IT legislation ever pass, I thought I'd check in with her. Frances, has really done her homework about exactly what's in that $19.2 billion pot and more (yes there's more than that) and how it's going to be spent.

This is a long(ish) and detailed interview, but if you care about IT in health care, I highly suggest you listen!

Getting “the CCHIT question” wrong

Feb 24, 2009• 8

By Matthew Holt

Matthew Holt

There’s been a lot of blather from one commenter (who may or may not be a front for a group of malcontents) on the WSJ Health Blog and lots of other blogs about CCHIT and whether it was doing business without a license in Chicago, and/or was a front organization for HIMSS or EHRA. All summarized on Neil Versel’s blog. Indeed I did get a call from one well known blogger telling me that HIMSS’ lawyers had asked for him to take those comments down—not too bright a piece of PR on HIMSS’ part IMHO.

MrHISTalk thankfully did what I certainly could not be bothered to and actually looked into the “CCHIT is not a licensed corporation” situation and figured out that it’s basically being run legitimately. I myself cracked the joke privately that if CCHIT/HIMSS/EHVRA/Leavitt et al had only managed to get $2m (or $7m for that matter) out of the Bush Administration, they needed to go to the Haliburton school of “how to stick it to the taxpayer properly.”

The other wisecrack I’ve heard is that the way to determine the list of functions an EMR needs to have to get CCHIT certified was to copy the feature set of Allscripts TouchWorks. (Of course you can insert the name of any of the other big EMR vendors here too).

OK, so we’re kidding around here, but underneath this discussion are some serious points. And those serious points have got little to do with what has indeed been a pretty close relationship between the powers that be at HIMSS,EH(V)RA, CCHIT & HITSP.

In any case I assure you that the back room dealings and conflicts of interest are nothing compared to how the rest of the Federal government has colluded with industries it regulates for the last 8 years. The money given from ONC to CCHIT wouldn’t even be a rounding error on what’s been completely lost in Iraq in cash in suitcases. let alone what Blackwater, Halliburton et al have stolen, And there’s no evidence that the Feds didn’t get what they/we paid for from CCHIT, which is a certification process.

So if this is a non-story, what are the actual issues?

1) Part of the justification for a certification process is that there is a great deal of fear and trepidation among physicians who have heard the horror stories about EMR implementations, and are now being bribed (and later to be threatened) by the Federal government into installing EMRs. Given the plethora of vendors out there, and the fact that these providers are more or less Federal contractors who tend not to understand IT, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that the Federal government (or someone) gives authoritative guidance as to what’s a robust system that has the right features and functions. Remember that the nation’s biggest and richest integrated provider organization trashed not one, but two national investments in EMRs before getting it right at try three. Having recalled that it becomes reasonable to agree that most providers need some help. And of course there is some slight protection for the taxpayer if the providers who are about to get their $40K have to do more than just claim that they bought an EMR from Sonny on the corner.

2) Of course once you say that the Federal government will pay out only to those purchasing certified products you then run into two other problems. First, the certification process is going to get somewhat politicized. Despite all the yakking about “volunteers” on all these committees, what we’re talking about is the people with a deep interest in EMRs et al being those “volunteers” and of course they are mostly from the vendor side or users who know the vendors well. I don’t see a way around that unless we really want to develop a civil service that has expertise in health care IT and also is prepared to stay in the job for 30 years like they do in Japan. Second, by its very nature the certification process is likely to run behind the development of technology, which means that vendors building for the certification process are like teachers prepping students for tests, not creating innovations. Again that may not be a terrible thing, but it’s not how innovation works in most other industries. (John Moors at Chilmark has a rather blunter, bleaker assessment of how this might work out)

3) And of course, the reason that you don’t see Federal certification of, say, MP3 players or automobiles is that there’s a somewhat effective market there that means that innovation and user experience gets rewarded. Make a confusing MP3 player, you don’t move the needle much. Figure out how to make it easy and elegant and you’re called Steve Jobs and you sell a gazillion iPods a year. Health care doesn’t have such a market, or even rationally managed incentives from its Federal paymaster.

So I don’t have the answer, but I do have the question. And it’s the same one being posed by the Dogs, in response to the Cats. Can we realistically expect CMS and the rest of the big payers to start rewarding providers for producing the correct outcomes. If we paid for outcomes, providers would change their organizational structure, and their processes, and the technology they use. The ones that worked would succeed and the others would go away. That’s how a market works. And that would create lots of interesting technological innovation of the type that is already happening in the consumer health arena in Health 2.0.

But (beware: run-on sentence coming up so take a deep breath) if we realistically can’t get to some massively enhanced version of pay for performance very soon, and instead are going to insist that providers use EMRs or something like them and the Feds will pay them for it, and we are happy to declare that that solution is as good as we’re going to get while we work on wider health system reform later, then I don’t think that we can complain about the CCHIT process too much. We have to accept that the Feds are going to put a stake in the ground somewhere as to what is an acceptable technology to reward. And those rewards are not going to be market or outcomes-based yet.

So the ultimate question, is what’s the time-scale for junking our stupid current health care incentives and finance system? And the answer is, not in the next 2–3 years.

Which means that if we’re paying directly for technology (which we are as the law is now passed), a certification process is a necessary evil to help providers and to make sure that the tax payer isn’t being defrauded (see we’re back to Iraq again!).

Of course, this doesn’t mean that the certifiers shouldn’t be made to appear to be (as we;; as actually be) completely above board and be watched like hawks to make sure that they’re not putting too many restrictions on smaller companies or discriminating against them. And maybe that kind of oversight demands that we see greater separation between the HIMSS/EHRA/CCHIT/HITSP/ AHIMA players, which would fit in with Obama’s “no lobbyists in the Administration” line.

But I can’t see that this is an issue for anyone to go to the barricades about. And in the end if CCHIT helps providers get better tools than they have now, it’s probably a net positive—even if it may prevent greater innovation happening faster.

Betsy McCraker misses the point, again

Feb 23, 2009

By Matthew Holt

Not content with being the catalyst for the unleashing of a torrent of vitriol in the direction of those Milquetoast individuals who are in favor of better information systems in health care, in the mild expectation that it might improve care delivery, Betsy McCracker is back at it again. This time the NY Times prints her letter. And in it she says:

These changes will affect all of us, at the least by requiring that our treatments be recorded in a federally mandated electronic database and guiding the choices our doctors make. Yet no hearings were held, no expert witnesses called, no opinions gathered from patient advocates, doctors’ groups, the elderly or other stakeholders.

Apart from the fact that there’s no evidence of one “electronic database”, she’s missed a couple of things.

First, hearings, witnesses, etc, etc, have been held for on this topic for years, and witnesses were called in the weeks before the stimulus bill—Microsoft’s Peter Neupert among them. Peter may not be an expert in Betsy’s eyes, but I think most of us would concede that he knows something about the topic (even though much of his advice was ignored).

Secondly, Betsy McCracker seems to be missing a minor point. The Obama campaign was not shy about telling anyone who listened that they were going to spend up to $50 billion on health IT in the next five years. It was on their website, and talked about by their health care advisers non-stop, as the WaPo noticed in early December.

Why are we supposed to be surprised that they did what they said they were going to do? Isn’t that the point of democracy? So Betsy, who won the election?

Certification versus Meaningful Use

Feb 10, 2009• 4

By JOHN HALAMKA, MD

Halamka

Recently, clinicians have asked me “why should I implement my organization’s preferred EHR when I’ve found a less expensive vendor that promises meaningful use?”

This illustrates a basic misunderstanding of the difference between Certification and Meaningful Use.

The certification process will be codified in a December 2009 Notice of Proposed Rulekmaking (NPRM) and will define the process for certifying electronic health records including modular and open source approaches. (The Standards for data exchange will be codified in a December 2009 Interim Final Rule and become law immediately.) We know that ONC will specify certification criteria and that NIST will oversee certification conformance testing which will be performed by multiple organizations. However, we will not have the final certification criteria or the defined process until Spring after a period of comment on the NPRM.Continue reading…

A Question For You Privacy Wonks Out There

Feb 3, 2009• 5

By Matthew Holt

When I read a headline like Privacy advocates hail stimulus bills I immediately wonder which privacy advocates. If it’s Deborah Peel I shudder, as her aim appears to be to shut down any system of electronic health data exchange. But if it’s Deven McGraw, from the Center for Democracy and Technology, I’m pretty encouraged as she (and her organization) seem to be taking the militant moderate path on privacy—putting patients in control of their data but encouraging the benefits of electronic records.

So I’m a little puzzled that they both like the privacy aspects of the stimulus package. Can someone who’s read the bill let us know what’s in there, and why they both like it while providers, payers and pharmacy chains hate it?

CODA: Of course who cares about the patients? Most importantly physicians’ privacy will now be safeguarded—even though it’s only their privacy about what we the taxpayer are giving them as contractors that Consumers Checkbook wanted to violate. I can just see Haliburton’s lawyers ready to cite this one.

Cats & dogs: Can we find unity on health care IT change?

Jan 22, 2009• 7

By Matthew Holt

Those of you paying attention for the past few days might have noticed on the one hand a sense of optimism and unity as Barrack H. Obama, somewhat somberly, began his presidency.

Meanwhile, over the past few weeks the fur has been flying among the electrons on THCB while some very knowledgeable and opinionated health care wonks and geeks have been battling it out about what exactly we should be doing in terms of federal health care IT spending.

New NRC Report Finds “Health Care IT Chasm,” Seeks New Course Toward Quality Improvement and Cost Savings

Jan 12, 2009• 20

By DAVID C. KIBBE

Like the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) 2001 counterpart report, “Crossing the Quality Chasm,” a new report from the National Research Council of the National Academies is complex, full of new ideas assembled from multiple disciplines, and is likely to have seminal importance in framing public policy from now on. “Computational Technology for Effective Health Care: Immediate Steps and Strategic Directions” was released last Friday, January 9, 2009 in draft, but there is so much to comment on that I think it’s wise to begin with a quote from the committee that sums up the central conclusion:

In short, the nation faces a health care IT chasm that is analogous to the quality chasm highlighted by the IOM over the past decade. In the quality domain, various improvement efforts have failed to improve health care outcomes, and sometimes even done more harm than good. Similarly, based on an examination of the multiple sources of evidence described above and viewing them through the lens of the committee’s judgment, the committee believes that the nation faces the same risk with health care IT—that current efforts aimed at the nationwide deployment of health care IT will not be sufficient to achieve the vision of 21st century health care, and may even set back the cause if these efforts continue wholly without change from their present course. Success in this regard will require greater emphasis on the goal of improving health care by providing cognitive support for health care providers and even for patients and family caregivers on the part of computer science and health/biomedical informatics researchers. Vendors, health care organizations, and government, too, will also have to pay greater attention to cognitive support. This point is the central conclusion articulated in this report. (emphasis added)

It would be difficult to find a more sober indictment of US health care IT policy and implementation over the past decade than what is contained here.

“The Innovator’s Prescription”: Christensen’s Book Offers Insightful Dx, Unrealistic Rx

Jan 8, 2009• 9

By Vince Kuraitis and David C. Kibbe

Being big fans of Clay Christensen and his theory of disruptive innovation (DI), we have been awaiting his just-released book The Innovator’s Prescription: A Disruptive Solution for Healthcare . The book is co-authored by Dr. Jerome Grossman and Dr. Jason Hwang.

We have mixed reactions.

The book is mistitled. It should have been titled “The Innovator’s Diagnosis”. The book does a fantastic job at diagnosis (Dx) of problems in the U.S. health care system. It presents many new, innovative analytical frameworks and lenses through which to view the U.S. health system.

However, it’s weak on prescription (Rx): many of the proposed solutions are speculative, ungrounded, and/or defy political reality.

We understand that the very nature of disruptive innovation implies inevitable resistance from organizations that benefit economically from the status quo. But at some point a proposed solution becomes so disruptive that you have to suspend reality to believe that it could be adopted or implemented — and many proposed solutions in this book enter that realm.

The book applies Christensen’s general theory of DI specifically to the health care system. It addresses questions such as:

What is DI?
Why is it important to create an environment in health care where DI can flourish?
How can we create the right environment in health care for DI to flourish?

The introductory chapter of the book is available here at no charge (right column under Downloads). It’s a great overview.

The Connected Medical Home: Health 2.0 Says “Hello” to the Medical Home Model

Dec 22, 2008• 21

By David Kibbe & Joe Kvedar

The concept of participatory medicine is taking hold, fueled, at least in part, by what we see as two complementary forces, these being the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) and Health 2.0. Health 2.0 is very much a grass roots phenomenon, dominated by a small but significant group of patients who are testing the hypothesis that the wisdom of the crowd can rival the wisdom of physicians. The PCMH is a concept, not new, but gaining tremendous traction in the provider sector now as a best-try effort by some providers to be truly patient centric in their approach. The two should be complementary and mutually self-supporting. One might even suggest their respective champions should be collaborating right now, when the scent of health reform is in the air in our nation’s capital. But they are not. Lets examine why and explore ways in which to create a natural bridge between these two concepts and their champions.

The medical home concept was first introduced by the American Academy of Pediatrics in the 1960s. But several factors are now converging to update this original concept for today’s health care environment. The growth in chronic illness, the emergence of new reimbursement models designed to improve quality and control costs (e.g. pay for performance), and the greater availability of monitoring and messaging technologies have providers, payers and patients taking a fresh look. This is a good thing, in that it is an effort by organized medicine and large corporations to get into the reform conversation.

But the aspects of the medical home that are getting the most airtime are largely focused on rounding out office staff, adding new roles that take work away from the physician so that the physician can tend to more patients, and taking a population view of the patient panel. This vision is idyllic, but several challenges suggest that as conceived it will be tough to get it out of the womb.