Free Hospital EMR and EHR Newsletter Want to receive the latest news on EMR, Meaningful Use, ARRA and Healthcare IT sent straight to your email? Join thousands of healthcare pros who subscribe to Hospital EMR and EHR for FREE!

John Glaser to Stay on as Senior VP of Cerner Upon Close of Acquisition

Posted on November 19, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 15 blogs containing almost 6000 articles with John having written over 3000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 13 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit.

In case you’re living under a rock (or more affectionately, you’re too busy working to follow the inside baseball of EHR company acquisition), Cerner is set to acquire Siemens in late winter or early spring pending all the needed approvals for companies this size. Watching the merging of these two companies is going to be very interesting indeed.

Neil Versel just reported that John Glaser, current CEO of Siemens Health Services, has announced that upon close of acquisition he’ll be joining the Cerner team as a Senior VP. I also love that John Glaser made this announcement on the Cerner blog.

I think this is a big deal since I believe John Glaser is at the point in his career that he could do just about anything (or nothing) if that’s what he desired. The few times I’ve interacted with John Glaser, he was sincerely interested in moving healthcare forward through the use of advanced IT. I imagine that’s what’s motivating him to stay with Cerner. No doubt, Cerner is sitting on a huge opportunity.

In John Glaser’s blog post, he provided an interesting insight into Neal Patterson’s comments at the Cerner user conference:

In his CHC keynote address, Cerner CEO Neal Patterson did a masterful job of conveying Cerner’s commitment to patient-centered care. Before he spoke, a patient and her nurse were introduced with explanation that the woman’s life was saved by a Cerner sepsis alerting system. Neal then shared the incredible challenges he and his wife have faced in her battle with cancer because of limited interoperability.

Neal’s keynote was very personal – about how we can make a loved one’s care journey easier by ensuring that all records – every detail – are available electronically and accurately wherever the patient receives care. It was the case for interoperability but also the case for making a patient’s life easier and the care better.

It’s hard for me to say how much of this was theatrics, but I’m glad they are at least talking the right talk. I really do hope that Neal’s personal experience will drive interoperability forward. Neil Versel suggested that interoperability would be John Glaser’s focus at Cerner. I hope he’s successful.

While at CHIME, I talked with Judy Faulkner, CEO of Epic, and we talked briefly about interoperability. At one point in our conversation I asked Judy, “Do you know the opportunity that you have available to you?” She looked at me with a bit of a blank stare (admittedly we were both getting our lunch). I then said, “You are big enough and have enough clout that you (Epic) could set the standard for interoperability and the masses would follow.” I’m not sure she’s processed this opportunity, but it’s a huge one that they have yet to capitalize on for the benefit of healthcare as we know it.

The same opportunity is available for Cerner as well. I really hope that both companies embrace open data, open APIs, and interoperability in a big way. Both have stated their interest in these areas, but I’d like to see a little less talk…a lot more action. They’re both well positioned to be able to make interoperability a reality. They just need to understand what that really means and go to work on it.

I’m hopeful that both companies are making progress on this. Having John Glaser focused on it should help that as well. The key will be that both companies have to realize that interoperability is what’s best for healthcare in general and in the end that will be what’s best for their customers as well.

Do Hospitals Want Interoperability?

Posted on November 17, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 15 blogs containing almost 6000 articles with John having written over 3000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 13 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit.

I’ve had this discussion come up over and over again today in a series of discussions that I’ve had at the NYeC’s Digital Health Conference in NYC. Many people are blaming the EHR vendors for not being interoperable. Other people are blaming standards. Some like to blame HIPAA (which is ironic since it was passed to make health data portable). There are many more reasons that people give for why healthcare isn’t exchanging data and that interoperability isn’t a reality.

Although, in all of these discussions, I keep going back to the core question of whether hospitals and healthcare organizations really want that healthcare data to be interoperable. As I look back on the past, I can think of some doctors who’ve wanted it for a while, but I think the healthcare industry as a whole didn’t really want interoperability to happen. They would never admit this in public, because we all know on face that there are benefits to the healthcare system and the patient for interoperability. However, interoperability would have been a bad thing financially for many healthcare organizations.

It’s one of the dirty little secrets of healthcare. Sure, the EHR vendors never provided the interoperability functionality, but that’s largely because the healthcare providers never asked for it and largely didn’t want that functionality. They were all a little complicit in hiding the dirty little secret that healthcare organizations were benefiting from the inefficiency of the system.

I’m extremely hopeful that we’re starting to see a shift away from the above approach. I think the wheels are turning where hospitals are starting to see why their organization is going to need to be interoperable or their reimbursement will be affected. ACOs are leading this charge as the hospitals are going to need the data from other providers in order to improve the care they provide and lower costs.

Now, I think the biggest barrier to interoperability for most hospitals is figuring out the right way to approach it. Will their EHR vendor handle it? Do they need to create their own solution? Are CCD’s enough? Should they use Direct? Should they use a local HIE? Should they do a private HIE? Of course, this doesn’t even talk about the complexities of the hospital system and outside providers. Plus, there’s no one catch all answer.

I hope that we’re entering a new era of healthcare interoperability. I certainly think we’re heading in that direction. What are you seeing in your organizations?

More Epic Interoperability Discussion

Posted on October 7, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 15 blogs containing almost 6000 articles with John having written over 3000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 13 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit.

Looks like Epic is starting to open up and join the conversation about healthcare interoperability. The latest is an article in the New York Times which includes a few comments from Judy Faulkner, CEO of Epic. Here’s the main comments from Judy:

In 2005, when it became clear to her [Judy] that the government was not prepared to create a set of rules around interoperability, Ms. Faulkner said, her team began writing the code for Care Everywhere. Initially seen as a health information exchange for its own customers, Care Everywhere today connects hospitals all over the country as well as to various public health agencies and registries.

“Let’s say a patient is coming from U.C.L.A. and going to the University of Chicago, an Epic-to-Epic hospital. Boom. That’s easy,” Ms. Faulkner said. “These are hospitals that have agreed to the Rules of the Road, a legal contract, that says the other organization is going to take good care of the data.”

This is a really interesting approach. Blame the government for not applying a standard. Talk about how you’ve had to do it yourself and that’s why you built Care Everywhere. I wish that Judy would come out with the heart of the matter. Epic’s customers never asked for it and so they never did it. I believe that’s the simple reality. Remember that interoperability might be a big negative for many healthcare systems. If they’re interoperable, that could be a hit to revenue. Hopefully ACOs and other value based reimbursement will change this.

The key to coming clean like this though, is to come out with a deep set of initiatives that show that while it wasn’t something you worked on in the past, you’re going all in on interoperability now. We’re a very forgiving people, and if Epic (or any other large EHR vendor for that matter) came out with a plan to be interoperable, many would jump on board and forgive them for past transgressions (wherever the blame may lie).

Unfortunately, we don’t yet see this. I’d love to catch up with Judy Faulkner at CHIME and talk to her about it. The key will be to have a full spectrum interoperability plan and not just Care Everywhere that doesn’t work everywhere. Remember that Epic has charts for about 50% of the US patient population, but that’s still only 50%. Plus, of the 50% of patients they do have, a very very small percentage of them are all stored in the same Epic system. My guess would be that 99+% of patients who have a record in Epic have their medical records in other places as well. This means that Epic will need data from other non-Epic systems.

As I’ve said before, Epic wouldn’t need to wait for the government to do this. They are more than large enough to set the standard for the industry. In fact, doing so puts them in a real position of power. Plus, it’s the right thing to do for the US healthcare system.

Will the interoperability be perefect? No. It will take years and years to get everything right, but that’s ok. Progress will be better than what we have now. I love this quote from the NY Times article linked above:

“We’ve spent half a million dollars on an electronic health record system about three years ago, and I’m faxing all day long. I can’t send anything electronically over it,” said Dr. William L. Rich III, a member of a nine-person ophthalmology practice in Northern Virginia and medical director of health policy for the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

I hope that Epic continues down the path to interoperability and becomes even more aggressive. I think the climate’s right for them to make it happen. They’re in a really unique position to be able to really change the way we think and talk about interoperability. I’m interested to see if they seize the opportunity or just talk about it.

Of course, we’ve focused this article talking about Epic. That’s what happens when you’re the A list celebrity on the red carpet. People want to talk about you. The NY Times article pretty aptly points out that the other EHR vendors aren’t much more or less interoperable than Epic. Feel free to replace Epic with another large EHR vendor’s name and the story will likely read the same.

My hope is that EHR vendors won’t wait for customers to demand interoperability, but will instead make interoperability so easy that their customers will love taking part. Watch for a future series of posts on Healthcare Intoperability and why this is much easier said than done.

EMR Change Cuts Cardiac Telemetry Use Substantially

Posted on September 25, 2014 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Changing styles of medical practice can be really tough, even if major trade organization sticks its oar in to encourage new behavior from docs.

Such is the situation with cardiac telemetry, which is listed by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation as either unnecessary or overused in most cases. But a recent piece of research demonstrated that configuring an EMR to help doctors comply with the guideline can help hospitals lower needless cardiac monitoring substantially.

Often, it takes a very long time to get doctors to embrace new guidelines like these, despite pressure from payers, employers and even peers. (Physicians may turn on a dime and try out a new drug when the right pharmaceutical rep shows up, but that’s another story.) Doctors say they stick to their habits because of patient, institutional or personal preferences, as well as fear of lawsuits.

But according to a recent study appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, reprogramming its Centricity EMR did the trick for Wilmington, Del.-based Christiana Care Health System.

To curb the use of cardiac telemetry that was unnecessary, Christiana Care removed the standard option for doctors to order cardiac monitoring outside of AHA guidelines, and required them to take an extra step to order this type of test.

Meanwhile, when the cardiac monitoring order did fall within AHA guidelines, Christiana Care added an AHA-recommended time frame for the monitoring. After that time passed, the EMR notified nurses to stop the monitoring or ask physicians if they believed it would be unsafe to stop.

The results were striking. After implementing the changes in the EMR, the health systems average daily not intensive care unit patients with cardiac monitoring fell by 70%. What’s more, Christiana Care’s average daily cost of administering  non-ICU cardiac monitoring held by 70%, from $18,971 to $5,772.

Christiana Care’s health IT presence is already well ahead of many hospitals — it’s reached Stage 6 of the HIMSS EMRAM scale — so it’s not surprising to see it leading the way in shaping physician behavior.

The question now is how the system builds on what it’s learned. Having survived a politically-sensitive transition without creating a revolution in its ranks, I’d argue the time is now to jump in and work on compliance with other clinical guidelines. With pressure mounting to deliver efficient care, it’d be smart to keep the ball rolling.

Epic Wants to Be Known for Interoperability – Are They Interoperable?

Posted on September 19, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 15 blogs containing almost 6000 articles with John having written over 3000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 13 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit.

Epic has been fighting the stigma of being a closed system for a while now. It seems that Epic isn’t happy about this characterization and they’re coming out guns blazing to try and show how Epic is interoperable. They’re so interested in changing this perception that Epic recently hired a lobbyist to change how they’re viewed by the people in DC.

A recent tweet highlighted a slide from the Epic user conference (Epic UGM) that shows how many Epic patient records they’re exchanging per month. Here’s the tweet and graph below:

Farzad Mostashari asks a very good question, “Does that graph help?” I find Farzad’s tweet also interesting because just over a year ago Farzad tweeted another Epic interoperability chart when he was still National Coordinator at ONC. I’ll embed the previous chart below so you can easily compare the two graphs side by side:
Epic Data Sharing Chart

I think Farzad is right to be skeptical about Epic’s claims to interoperability. First, it seems Epic is finally making some progress with Epic to Epic interoperability, but Epic to Non-Epic systems is still far behind. Second, Epic loves to claim how they have charts for some huge percentage of the US population (currently about 314 million people). I bet if we looked at the percentage of total Epic charts that have been exchanged, it would be an extremely small number. I also wonder if the charts above count a full patient chart or something simple like a lab result or prescription.

I don’t want to harp on this too much, because this is a step forward for Epic. Even if they’re not as interoperable as they could be and as we’d like them to be, I’m excited that they’re now at least open to the idea of interoperability.

With that said, I wish that Epic would spend more time and effort on actually being interoperable and not just trying to say that they’re interoperable. This includes committing the resources required to support connections outside of Epic. I’ve heard over and over from health IT vendor after health IT vendor about how hard it is to get Epic to work with them in any form or fashion. There’s a way that Epic could scale their effort to hundreds of other health IT vendors, but they haven’t made the commitment to do so.

Think about the opportunity that Epic has available to them. They have enough scale, reach and clout that they could by force of size establish a standard for interoperability. Many health IT vendors would bend over backwards to meet whatever standard Epic chose. That’s a powerful position to be in if they would just embrace it. I imagine the reason they haven’t done so yet is because the market’s never demanded it. Sometimes companies like Epic need to embrace something even if it doesn’t drive short term sales. I think this is one of those choices Epic should make.

I’m sure that lobbyists can be an effective solution to change perceptions in Washington. However, a far more effective strategy would be to actually fully embrace interoperability at every level. If they did so, you can be sure that every news outlet would be more than excited to write about the change.

The Path to Interoperability

Posted on August 28, 2014 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Dave Boerner, Solutions Consultant at Orion Health.

Since the inception of electronic medical records (EMR), interoperability has been a recurrent topic of discussion in our industry, as it is critical to the needs of quality care delivery. With all of the disparate technology systems that healthcare organizations use, it can be hard to assemble all of the information needed to understand a patient’s health profile and coordinate their care. It’s clear that we’re all working hard at achieving this goal, but with new systems, business models and technology developments, the perennial problem of interoperability is significantly heightened.  With the industry transition from fee-for-service to a value-oriented model, the lack of interoperability is a stumbling block for such initiatives as Patient Center Medical Home (PCMH) and Accountable Care Organization (ACO), which rely heavily on accurate, comprehensive data being readily accessible to disparate parties and systems.

In a PCMH, the team of providers that are collaborating need to share timely and accurate information in order to achieve the best care possible for their patient. Enhanced interoperability allows them access to real-time data that is consistently reliable, helping them make more informed clinical decisions. In the same vein, in an ACO, a patient’s different levels of care – from their primary care physician, to surgeon to pharmacist, all need to be bundled together to understand the cost of a treatment. A reliable method is needed to connect these networks and provide a comprehensive view of a patient’s interaction with the system. It’s clear that interoperability is essential in making value-based care a reality.

Of course, interoperability can take many forms and there are many possible paths to the desired outcome of distributed access to comprehensive and accurate patient information.  Standards efforts over the years have taken on the challenge of improving interoperability, and while achievements such as HL7, HIPAA and C-CDA have been fundamental to recent progress, standards alone fall far short of the goal.  After all, even with good intentions all around, standard-making is a fraught process, especially for vendors coming to the table with such a diversity of development cycles, foundational technologies and development priorities.  Not to mention the perverse incentives to limit interoperability and portability to retain market share.  So, despite the historic progress we have made and current initiatives such as the Office of the National Coordinator’s JASON task force, standards initiatives are likely to provide useful foundational support for interoperability, but individual organizations and larger systems will at least for the time being continue to require significant additional technology and effort dedicated to interoperability to meet their needs.

So what is a responsible health system to do? To achieve robust, real-time data exchange amongst its critical systems, organizations need something stronger than just standards. More and more healthcare executives are realizing that direct integration is the more successful approach to taking on their need for interoperability amongst systems. For simpler IT infrastructures, one to one integration of systems can work well. However, given the complexity of larger health systems and networks, the challenge of developing and managing an escalating number interfaces is untenable. This applies not only to instances of connecting systems within an organization, but also connecting systems and organizations throughout a state and region. For these more complex scenarios, utilizing an integration engine is the best practice. Rather than multiple point-to-point connections, which requires costly development, management and maintenance, the integration engine acts as a central hub, allowing all of the healthcare organization’s systems from clinical to claims to radiology to speak to each other in one universal language, no matter the vendor or the version of the technology.  Integration engines provide comprehensive support for an extensive range of communication protocols and message formats, and help interface analysts and hospital IT administrators reduce their workload while meeting complex technical challenges. Organizations can track and document patient interactions in real-time, and can proactively identify at-risk patients and deliver comprehensive intervention and ongoing care. This is the next level of care that organizations are working to achieve.

Interoperability allows for enhanced care coordination, which ultimately helps improve care quality and patient outcomes. At Orion Health, we understand that an open integration engine platform with an all access API is critical for success. Vendors, public health agencies and other health IT stakeholders are all out there fighting the good fight – working together to make complete interoperability among systems a reality. That said, past experience proves that it’s the users that will truly drive this change. Hospital and health system CIOs need to demand solutions that help enhance interoperability, and it will happen. Only with this sustained effort will complete coordination and collaboration across the continuum of care will become a reality.

About David Boerner
David Boerner works as a Solutions Consultant (pre-sales) for Orion Health where he provides technical consultation and specializes in the design and integration of EHR/HIE solutions involving Rhapsody Integration Engine.

AHA urges agencies to speed up EMR choice expansion

Posted on June 23, 2014 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

In a move that shouldn’t surprise anybody, the American Hospital Association is urging CMS and the ONC to hurry up and finalize new rules which would expand choice for certified EMRs.

The AHA letter argues that its members are on the verge of walking away from Meaningful Use. But if CMS and the ONC speed ahead with with the new proposed rules — which would offer more choice in specific meaningful use requirements they must meet this year — hospitals will be much better equipped to proceed.

Why the rush? Well, for one thing, the letter argues, time is of the essence for hospitals, which have to decide their meaningful use strategy for fiscal 2014. If they must make choices before the new rule is finalized, it could cause them “significant financial and operational harm,” the AHA contends.

Meanwhile, if the agencies don’t push these rules through quickly, “many providers are likely to conclude that they cannot meet meaningful use this year and abandon the program,” wrote Linda Fishman, AHA senior vice president of public policy analysis and development, in a letter to CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner and National Coordinator Karen DeSalvo, MD.

The letter also takes on other issues. It asks that CMS and ONC clarify the rules implementation, offer more flexibility in the reporting of clinical quality measures, shorten the MU reporting period for 2015 in analyze lessons learned from Stage 2 before finalizing Stage 3’s start date, according to HealthcareITNews.

The AHA’s letter comes at a challenging time for the meaningful use program generally, which has of late attracted broader attention than it has in the past.

Not only are industry groups pressuring ONC, legislators are too. For example, at a recent health IT conference, U.S. Rep Tom Price, MD, R-GA, argued that meaningful use is “maybe not even doing what needs to be done as it relates to patients and physicians.”

In his remarks, Price argued that meaningful use could be improved by keeping the patient front and center, making sure patients know they own their health data and establishing an interoperability standard.  But he suggests that because the MU program roadmap was laid out in the HITECH Act, it’s not as fluid as it should be and doesn’t accommodate such concerns.

The reality, however, is that there is no simple way to get interoperability; right now, we’re lucky if individual EMRs meet providers’ needs.  Despite the demands from other stakeholders, health IT vendors still have a lot more to gain by creating islands rather than interoperable products.

Can We Learn Collecting System Data from How We Collect Medical Device Data?

Posted on April 21, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 15 blogs containing almost 6000 articles with John having written over 3000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 13 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit.

We’ve been aggregating and sharing medical device data for a really long time in healthcare. Entire corporations are built around collecting and sharing medical device data with another healthcare IT system. If we’ve been able to share this data for so long, could we possibly learn from that experience and apply it to data collection and sharing in other health IT systems?

This is an open question which I hope you’ll join in answering in the comments of the blog. Many readers of this blog are more expert on this topic than I am. So, please chime in and add your thoughts. I think there is a real opportunity for us to learn from the past.

Here are a few of my thoughts:

Motivation – This is the biggest reason that medical device data collection and sharing happened. Organizations saw the value in having this data. I think we’re starting to see a shift in motivation when it comes to collecting system data in a healthcare organization as well. As I wrote about previously, we need data sharing as part of the Health IT procurement process. This will be a slow but important shift for many healthcare organizations. Otherwise you have lethal contracts that put huge financial barriers in the way of sharing data. ACOs and value based reimbursement will continue to motivate organizations to finally want to collect and share system data.

Standards – One of the benefits that device integration had was that there was more of a standard format for sharing the data. This is a lesson for other data system collection. We need a standard. Not a bunch of different flavors of standards, but a standard.

Multiple Standards – Some in the device space might argue that they had their own issues with standards. Every device company had their own standard and you had to integrate with each different device company. This depends on the device, but let’s just assume for a minute that this is indeed the case. How then were these organizations able to collect the medical device data? They just built up interfaces that understood each device’s standard. The key is that each company established a standard for their clinical device and stuck to that standard.

The challenge with other healthcare systems like EHR is that we have so many systems. Plus, even instances of the same EHR don’t follow the same standard. I’m not sure how to remedy this in the current EHR market, but it might be the key to us ever really collecting EHR data. I guess some would argue that market consolidation will help as well.

Connected Tech – One of the biggest challenges in the medical device space was having the technology in the medical device that allowed outside connectivity. Most new medical devices come with connectivity, but in the past you’d have to buy the connectivity separately and store it in a black box under the bed. This is a huge advantage for other healthcare IT software. The data is already connected to the internet.

Those are a few of my thoughts on what we can learn. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Data Liberation Is The First Step Towards True Collaboration

Posted on April 15, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 15 blogs containing almost 6000 articles with John having written over 3000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 13 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit.

I generally agree with this idea. It’s really hard to collaborate with someone if you’re not sharing the data about a patient. So, data liberation can be a true enabler for collaboration.

While I think most hospital CIOs will agree with this, I wonder how many act like data liberation is an important strategy for them. Is data liberation really a core value of their hospital organization? My guess is that for most of them it is not.

One major place they can start to make this part of the culture is in the procurement and contracting process. Software vendors are going to happily keep the data as closed as possible unless you require it of them in the contract stage. Once hospital systems make data liberation part of the IT systems procurement process, then we’ll finally be able to see the benefits of data liberation.

The problem we have today is that data liberation and sharing wasn’t part of the previous procurement and contracting process. My guess is that most assumed that being able to share data would be allowed, but few people looked at the fine print and realized what it would mean to them when it came to data sharing. Thus, we’re in a situation where many organizations have contractual issues which make data sharing expensive.

It will take a cycle of new contracts for this to be fixed, but even then it won’t be fixed if you’re organization doesn’t add this to their agenda. Software vendors happily provide the customer what they demand. We need more hospital organizations demanding data liberation.

ED Alerts Help Health Plans Cut Costs

Posted on February 4, 2014 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

As readers of this publication know, many hospitals are interested in participating in HIEs, but are buried in projects already and not so sure the investment will pay off.  But here’s an instance where a very modest HIE application helped a health plan save real money in just six months without having to do an expensive buildout.

According to iHealthBeat, a new study by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has found that simply sending near real-time alerts to health plans when a member is admitted to the hospital ED could help the health plan save money and get patients into primary care.

To do the study, Indiana Health Information Exchange programmers developed an application which sent daily alerts about health plan members who visited EDs at nine Central Indiana hospitals. As part of the pilot, the alerts were sent to the participating health plan within 24 hours. The health plan then used this data to replace non-urgent ED visits with primary care visits, iHealthBeat reports.

During the six-month pilot, the health plan was able to reduce nonemergency ED visits at participating hospitals by 53 percent; the same time primary care visits among plan members jumped to 68 percent during the pilot period.

The bottom line in all of this was that after using the daily updates to guide patient behavior, the health plan was able to save $2 million to $4 million over six months. While I could be wrong, I don’t believe there are many test cases out there that can demonstrate the effectiveness of hospital to plan communication and brag of this much success.  While this isn’t exactly an argument for all hospitals to have HIEs, this does suggest that shared, timely information on important patient behaviors can be extremely valuable.