The Health Care Blog – Page 347 – Everything you always wanted to know about the Health Care system. But were afraid to ask.

Above the Fold

For Healthcare Cybersecurity the Whole is Weaker Than the Sum of the Parts

Sep 23, 2016• 3

By JESSE WALKER and ROSS KOPPEL

flying cadeucii Before addressing the special attractions and vulnerabilities of healthcare data and software, a little background on cybersecurity of complex systems may be helpful: The single most important lesson from our experiences with conventional networked systems is that all of them can be hacked, and all will eventually be hacked. There’s a simple equation for hackers: their investments are related to the value of the data. Alas, because electronic health records (EHRs) have a relatively high value to criminals, we should expect hackers to make significant efforts to penetrate EHRs. (More on this later.) Our experience also teaches us that erecting protections to mitigate hacking is never by itself an adequate defense. Instead, it is always necessary for health IT leaders to make significant efforts monitoring the EHR system for unanticipated behavior. Equally critical, it’s always necessary to plan how to respond to detected attacks.

Two mistakes: One of the biggest mistakes organizations make is failing to understand the threat; organizations typically are uninformed about the sophistication and resources of attackers, on one hand, and so underestimate their opponents, while on the other, they assume their systems are much less vulnerable than they actually are.

A Fail For Activity Trackers: The I Told You So’s vs Need More Datas

Sep 22, 2016• 3

By DAVID SHAYWITZ, MD

screen-shot-2016-09-22-at-6-44-27-am

Perhaps the normally measured physician-economist Aaron Carroll best captured the reaction and sentiments of the healthcare community in response to a recent JAMA article demonstrating that subjects in a weight reduction study using activity trackers lost significantly less weight than those in the control group:

“I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!” (Emphasis in original.)

These results were cheered for several key reasons.

First, many in healthcare are irritated by the idea of simplistic technical fixes for complex medical (and social) (and cultural) (and economic) problems–like obesity.

Second, as Carroll has pointed out, exercise is healthy for many reasons, but weight loss is probably not one of them; changing your diet seems to matter a lot more.

However, it’s important to critically evaluate research even (especially) when it seems to produce an ego-syntonic conclusion–a conclusion with which we so strongly agree.

My initial reaction to the result was that perhaps it reflects an example of the concept of “moral licensing” that Malcolm Gladwell discusses so thoughtfully on his Revisionist History podcast–i.e., when you deliberately act morally in one context, you may be more likely to act less morally in another context, having already demonstrated to yourself your moral bona fides.

So, Do Transparency Tools Actually Work?

Sep 21, 2016• 1

By DEVON HERRICK

flying cadeucii A new report by economist Jon Gabel and his colleagues at NORC, a research center affiliated with the University of Chicago, looked at the use of transparency tools in an employer health plan. The analysis found the use of price transparency tools to be spotty. For instance, 75 percent of households either did not log into the transparency tool or did so only one time in the 18-month period of study. Fifteen percent did so twice; but only 1 percent logged in 6 times or more. The authors concluded:

It could very well be that we are asking too much of a single tool, no matter how well-designed. Consumer information for other goods and services on price and quality are seldom dependent upon information gained mainly, if not solely, through a digital tool. Rather, information on relative value is spread far and wide through advertising and other kinds of promotion using conventional, digital, and social media communication channels.

An earlier Harvard study on transparency tools, published in JAMA, found patients do not tend to use the tools to comparison shop for lower prices (in fact, spending rose slightly). An NBER study concluded that when transparency tools do lower spending, it is because consumers used to tools to identify prices and use the information to decide whether they can afford the service and skip it if they cannot.

The transparency tool in the current study also emailed “Ways to Save” suggestions on how consumers could reduce medical spending. The authors made an important observation:

It is also possible that the message on the “Ways to Save” e-mail turned off many households. While the emails did highlight opportunities to save a specific amount of money, a vast majority of the savings were for the employer and a much smaller amount of savings applied to the employee. It is possible that many employees viewed the transparency initiative as simply a means for the employer to save money.

The Nordics at Health 2.0

Sep 21, 2016

By now you all know that the 10th Annual Health 2.0 Fall Conference is next week. What you may not know is that it’s a great place to meet delegates from across the world. In particular both tech companies and providers & government officials from from Scandinavia will be there next week. Below are Ase Bailey (TINC in Silicon Valley/Innovation Norway) & Anne Lidgard (VINNOVA/Innovation Sweden) talking about the Nordic group’s visit to Health 2.0. By the way, for those in the Bay Area, there’s a reception with the Nordic delegation at the Nordic House in Palo Alto on Thursday night — Matthew Holt

Statin Wars: Less-is-More versus Unlimited Medicine

Sep 20, 2016• 8

By SAURABH JHA, MD

flying cadeucii It is the beauty of evidence-based medicine (EBM) that a scientist can at once be a Pope and a Galileo. His transmutation is as effortless as it is discretionary. If you think you’ve met Galileo – a rebel, a free thinker, a rocker of the establishment – the following week he is a Pope, castigating detractors, censoring critics, and celebrating uniformity. He changes by a roll of the dice. His change is decided by a quirk in hypothesis-testing known as statistical significance. If the p value is 0.051 he is Galileo, if the p value is 0.049 he becomes the cardinal. He is one day a raging skeptic and another day a true believer.

The latest fight between orthodoxy and free inquiry is about the benefits and harms of statins for primary prevention. A review, and an editorial, in the Lancet said the benefits of statins are real, the harms are exaggerated, and skepticism of benefits of statins should be censored because doubt can harm the public who may not take their statins and thus die prematurely. Stated differently, skepticism kills. The lead author of the review once asked the BMJ to retract a study which he felt overplayed the harms and denied the benefits of statins. The editor compared the fear about statins to fear about vaccination. Statin skeptics, like vaccine deniers, are now medicine’s truthers.

The Rest of the Story About the Economic Good News

Sep 19, 2016• 1

By PAUL KECKLEY

Legendary radio commentator Paul Harvey ended his daily report with a final story introduced by the tease “Now for the rest of the story.”

Last Tuesday, the U.S. Census Bureau announced that median household income increased 5.2% in 2015 to $56,516—the first increase in inflation adjusted income since the start of the downturn in 2007.

The Bureau also noted that the U.S. poverty rate decreased to 13.5% in 2015, down from 14.8% in 2014 and those lacking health insurance coverage shrank to 9.1% from a high of almost 16% in 2007. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, that’s the first time all three have improved in 20 years which it attributes to a lower unemployment rate (5.3% vs. 6.2% in 2014) representing an increase of 3.3 million in the workforce. That’s the story, but here’s the rest of the story.

Accessing & Using APIs from Major EMR Vendors–Some Data at Last!

Sep 19, 2016• 8

By MATTHEW HOLT

Today I’m happy to release some really unique data about a pressing problem–the ability of small tech vendors to access health data contained in the systems of the major EMR vendors. There’ll be much more discussion of this topic at the Health 2.0 Provider Symposium on Sunday, and much more in the Health 2.0 Fall Annual Conference as a whole.

Information blocking, Siloed data. No real inter-operability. Standards that aren’t standards. In the last few years, the clamor about the problems accessing personal health data has grown as the use of electronic medical records (EMRs) increased post the Federally-funded HITECH program. But at Health 2.0 where we focus on newer health tech startups using SMAC (Social/Sensor; Mobile OS; Cloud; Analytics) technologies, the common complaint we’ve heard has been that the legacy–usually client-server based–EMR vendors won’t let the newer vendors integrate with them.

With support from California Health Care Foundation, earlier this year (2016) Health 2.0 surveyed over 100 small health tech companies to ask their experiences integrating with specific EMR vendors.

The key message: The complaint is true: it’s hard for smaller health tech companies to integrate their solutions with big EMR vendors. Most EMR vendors don’t make it easy. But it’s a false picture to say that it’s all the EMR vendors’ fault, and it’s also true that there is great variety not only between the major EMR vendors but also in the experience of different smaller tech companies dealing with the same EMR vendor. All the data is in the embedded slide set below, with much more commentary below the fold.

Health 2.0 EMR API report
Continue reading…

Closer to a crisis

Sep 17, 2016• 4

By FRED TROTTER

Fred_Trotter How close to we need to get to cybersecurity crisis in healthcare before we, as an industry take deliberative action?
Should we approach cybersecurity in healthcare differently? What approaches will work best? What commonly repeated advice about cybersecurity is actually wrong in healthcare settings? What ideas that would be effective in healthcare cybersecurity are being ignored? What is being missed from discussions about healthcare cybersecurity? What are we too concerned about? What threats do not get enough attention?

These might sound like rhetorical questions, designed to engage the reader before the author knowingly reveals the “answer”. Sadly, these questions are no rhetorical device. No one has definitive answers, and we all desperately need them.

I sit on the Health Care Industry Cybersecurity Task Force and we are currently taking comments on these issues on this blog post. I cannot to presume speak for the Task Force as a whole, and the comments below represent only my personal perspective on the issues involved. Right now the only thing that the Task Force as a whole is comfortable saying is “we are asking for advice”, which is the purpose of the blog post. If you have a reaction to the personal opinions here, please comment on the blog post so that the whole Task Force can hear what you have to say.

Generally, there are two types of issues that we would like advice on:

“What are the best practices and correct strategies to defend healthcare technology from cybersecurity attacks?” and “What is the best way for US government agencies to coordinate with the healthcare industry to respond quickly and effectively to cybersecurity threats?”

Improving Diversity in Health Technology

Sep 16, 2016

By MATTHEW HOLT

I am thrilled that Health 2.0 is today announcing a new program aimed at improving diversity in the field of health technology. This will run all year (and hopefully beyond) and will start at the Health 2.0 10th Annual Fall Conference on Sept 25-8, where we will host a group drawn from populations that are underrepresented in the health technology field. There’ll also be a dedicated session on the topic on Sept 26 at 12.15pm that has been generously supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Matthew Holt

The Problem: There is a lack of diversity among health technology innovators and a shortage of technologies that meet the needs of minority audiences. Technology is a powerful tool that can help improve health outcomes and alleviate problems within our current health system. As our society grows increasingly diverse and gaps in health among different populations increase, there is an urgency to develop solutions for underserved communities and diversify the population of innovators who are creating these solutions.

The Conference Support Program: The Diversity in Health Technology Conference Support Program, supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, encourages individuals interested in diversifying the health technology field and who are interested in, or currently engaged with, health technology, to attend Health 2.0’s 10th Annual Fall Conference (Sept 25-8). Individuals from populations that are underrepresented in the health technology field are particular encouraged to apply. The conference support will include complimentary access to the annual conference. Conference support recipients will be required to attend the “Diversity in Health Technology” workshop. The workshop will serve as the formal kickoff to a year-long campaign focused on engaging more diverse voices in health technology. Conference support recipients must also attend and participate in two webinars hosted by Health 2.0 to further review the diversity in technology issue, submit a post-conference summary to Health 2.0 of the individual’s conference experience that Health 2.0 may use for a white paper on the diversity issue and a summary about specific activities the individual plans to do over the next year to address diversity in technology.

For more information and to apply to join the program, visit the Diversity in Health Technology site.