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!

The Best Thing For Epic Might Be to NOT Win the DoD Contract

Posted on June 2, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 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 and LinkedIn.

For those not familiar with the Department of Defence (DoD) EHR contract that’s being bid on right now, check out our post about the $11 billion EHR contract. Yes, you’re reading that right. That’s $11 billion with a B. I believe that would be the largest single EHR contract ever (I believe Kaiser was $4 billion to start).

Needless to say, this is an enormous contract that will make some outside companies very rich. I can’t even imagine what $11 billion of EHR consultants and software would look like. That’s a lot of EHR jobs to go around, but I digress.

Most people in the industry seem to believe that Epic is the front runner in the race. Considering the number of large deals that Epic has won, Epic winning the DoD EHR contract would be a safe bet. Although, I wonder if the best thing for Epic would be for them to not win the DoD contract.

Sure, Epic would take a short term PR hit if someone else like Cerner wins the DoD contract. You can already predict the press headlines talking about the fall from power as Epic loses to Cerner (similar to when Cerner won the Intermountain deal over Epic). That would have some damage to Epic’s reputation, but not really. It’s not like any other hospital in the US thinks that their contract would be anything like the DoD EHR contract. In fact, many of the hospitals purchasing Epic EHR will be grateful that Epic resources aren’t being tied up on a new $11 billion contract while their “small” $100 million EHR project languishes.

Indeed, the best thing for Epic might be for it to NOT win the DoD EHR contract. Let’s remember that Epic has a really good history of successful EHR implementations. Sure, there are a few examples where the Epic implementation hasn’t gone so well. However, I think the general view of the industry is that Epic implementations generally go well. In fact, there are stories of Epic contracts so stringent that when an Epic implementation starts to go bad, Epic comes in and takes over to make sure that the implementation goes well.

Long story short, Epic has the best reputation of any hospital EHR vendor when it comes to successful EHR implementations (especially large ones). Epic winning the DoD EHR contract could do a lot to tarnish that reputation.

One might argue that if Epic’s successful with the $11 billion DoD EHR contract, that it will be a boon to their current reputation. That’s fair, but the DoD EHR implementation would be unlike most other EHR implementations. First, the DoD doesn’t have a sterling reputation for successful healthcare software projects. That will likely become an issue for anyone who wins the contract. Second, we’re talking about a government entity with layers of red tape and bureaucracy. A small company like Epic (small in government contractor terms) isn’t going to carry the same weight as they usually do in their other hospital EHR implementations. Epic, the control company, won’t be able to control the DoD EHR project the same way they usually do.

One could use the same argument I used above about why even if Epic gets the DoD contract and fails, it won’t tarnish their reputation since hospitals realize that the DoD is unique. However, the difference between losing a bid and a failed $11 billion project is very different. The failed DoD EHR bid will be covered once and then generally forgotten. A failed $11 billion contract can carry on for years as timelines are delayed, budget overruns are reported, discontent leaks out, he said-she said occurs, and the media churns and speculates on what’s happening with the DoD EHR project.

We all think that winning an $11 billion contract would be great. Indeed, that’s a lot of money and would be an enormous win worth celebrating. The only question is how long will the celebration continue? If I’m Epic, I wouldn’t be too sad if I didn’t win the contract. In the long term, it might be for the best.

Meditech – The Never Talked About EHR Power

Posted on May 15, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 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 and LinkedIn.

I was cruising through Twitter today and saw the following tweet about Meditech EHR.

Don’t you love Twitter? Meditech can buy this kind of marketing. Hopefully for Meditech’s sake, Dr. Parker is right and that Meditech’s latest version is heading in the right direction.

The hospital EHR market is so interesting. Everyone looks at it as a two horse race with Epic and Cerner. Both of those EHR companies have done phenomenally well and so they should get a lot of coverage. However, people always seem to forget about Meditech. It’s odd to me because they still have a really large footprint in healthcare. You’d think they’d get more coverage, even if the coverage was pointing out the wrong steps they’re taking. Instead, I’ve seen very little coverage of them at all.

I took a quick look at Meditech jobs on the Healthcare IT Central job board. There are still a lot of them listed. That’s usually a good sign for a company.

Why doesn’t Meditech get any coverage lately? Are they a sleeping giant that could finally wake up? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Interesting KLAS Graphic of EMR Wins

Posted on May 8, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 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 and LinkedIn.

Everyone generally knows my feelings about KLAS, but it is a data point that many in healthcare IT still use (likely because there’s nothing better). With that usually disclaimer, I was intrigued by this EMR Market Share graphic that Intersystems shared. I particularly liked that it looked at the Global EMR market share. I’d seen a lot more action from Epic globally, but I’d wondered how they’d been doing. Seems like they’re still at the beginning with Intersystems and Siemens leading the way globally.

Validated EHR Winsfrom KLAS Report

A Meaningful EHR Certification

Posted on April 16, 2014 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 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 and LinkedIn.

In many ways this post could be considered a continuation of my previous post on data liberation. I’ve really loved the idea of a creating a meaningful EHR Certification and that could include data liberation. Let’s be honest for a minute. Do any of you find value in the current EHR certification?

You know that a certification is screwed up when it requires certain interoperability standards and then when you go to actually implement the sharing of data between two systems you find out that the two systems are working on two different standards. They are close standards, but close doesn’t count with standards. Many have asked the question, “What did the EHR certification do if it couldn’t test the standard?” I have no answer to that question.

Now imagine we created an EHR certification that actually did require a standard for interoperability. Not a flavor of a standard, or something that closely resembles a standard. I’m talking about a standard. Would hospitals find this useful? I think so.

Another example of a meaningful EHR certification could be certifying that an EHR vendor will not hold your EHR data hostage. Think about how beneficial that would be to the industry. Instead of EHR vendors trying to trap your data in their system, they could focus on providing the end user what they need so the end user never wants to leave that EHR. What a beautiful shift that would be for our industry.

There could be many more things that could be meaningfully certified. However, this would be a simple and good place to start. I have no doubt that some would be resistant to this certification. That’s why those who do become meaningfully certified need to get the proper boost in PR that a meaningful certification should deserve. No EHR vendor wants to be caste as the EHR vendor who can’t figure out the standard and that holds its customers hostage. Yet, that’s what they’re able to get away with today.

What do you think of this idea?

Cerner Agrees To Pay $106M Over Allegedly Defective Software

Posted on March 12, 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.

After years of back and forth, Cerner has settled a dispute with a North Dakota hospital claiming that Cerner’s financial software was defective and didn’t deliver expected business benefits.

Back in April 2012, Trinity Health told the vendor that it was transitioning away from Cerner’s patient accounting software solution and certain IT services provided by Cerner. At the time, it alleged that the patient accounting solution didn’t work right.  Of course, Cerner disputed the allegations, according to its 10-K yearly report.

The two players began arbitration in December 2013, a move which allowed Cerner to collect some payments due from the hospital.  At the outset, Cerner was predicting liability you of up to $4 million, while Trinity anticipated damages totaling $240 million.

Ultimately, the two agreed upon a settlement under which Cerner would pay Trinity $106 million. Interestingly, Trinity is continuing as a client of Cerner for its clinical solutions, something you might not expect under the circumstances.

This is a particularly unusual outcome for a vendor/hospital dispute, because most vendor contracts contain clauses to eliminate “consequential damages,” which limit hospital’s ability to take legal action, notes Trinity attorney Michael Dagley. That being said, there are areas under state and common law provisions of consumer fraud statutes, under which manufacturers cannot misrepresent product capabilities and benefits.

Knowing how hard it is for a hospital to sue a vendor of IT services, it makes you wonder whether the growing number of hospitals dumping their current EMR are doing so because they’re not getting what they want but can’t sue to get their money back.  While it may be heinously expensive, buying a new EMR and installing it is certainly faster than going through years of court proceedings and then having to buy another EMR nonetheless.

2013 Hospital EHR and Health IT Trends

Posted on December 31, 2013 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 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 and LinkedIn.

There are a number of amazing milestones and trends happening with EHR and Healthcare IT. I think as we look back on 2013, we’ll remember it for a number of important changes that impact us for many years to come. Here are a few of the top trends and milestones that I’ll remember in 2013.

Epic and Cerner Separate Themselves – This has certainly been happening for a couple of years, but 2013 is the year I’ll remember that everyone agreed that for big hospitals it’s a two horse race between Cerner and Epic. There’s still an amazing battle brewing for the small hospital with no clear winner yet. However, in the large hospital race the battle between Cerner and Epic is on. Epic had been winning most of the deals, but Cerner just gave them a big left hook when Intermountain chose Cerner.

I expect we’re living in an Epic and Cerner world until at least a few years post meaningful use. The job listings on Healthcare IT Central illustrate Cerner and Epic dominance as well.

Near Universal EHR Adoption in Hospitals – I can’t find the latest EHR adoption (meaningful use) numbers from ONC, but the last ones I saw were in the high 80’s. That basically leaves a number of small rural hospitals that likely don’t have much tech infrastructure at all, let alone an EHR. Every major hospital institution now has an EHR. I guess we can now stop talking about hospital EHR adoption and start talking about hospital EHR use?

The Cracks in the Healthcare Interoperability Damn Appear – Interoperability has always been a hard nut to crack in healthcare. Everyone knew it was the right thing to do, but there were some real systemic reasons organizations didn’t go that direction. Not to mention, there was little financial motivation to do it (and often financial disincentive to do it).

With that background, I think in 2013 we’ve started to see the cracks in the damn that was holding up interoperability. They are still just cracks, but once water starts seeping through the crack the whole structure of the damn will break and the water will start flowing freely. Watch for the same with interoperability. Some of this year’s cracks were started with the announcement of CommonWell. I think in response to being left out of CommonWell, Epic has chosen to start being more interoperable as well.

Skinny Data Happens – I was first introduced to the concept of skinny data vs big data at HIMSS 2013 by Encore Health Resources. While I’m not sure if the skinny data branding will stick, the concept of doing a data project with a slice of data that has meaningful (excuse the use of the word) outcomes is the trend in data analytics and it’s going to dominate the conversations going forward.

As I posted on EMR and EHR, Big Data is Like Teenage Sex, but skinny data is very different. Skinny data is about doing something valuable with the data. Sadly, not enough people are doing skinny data, but they all will in 2014.

Hospitals Ignore Consumer Health Devices – Consumer health devices are popping up everywhere in healthcare. We’re quickly reaching the point that consumers can monitor all of their vital information at near hospital grade quality using their smartphone and sometimes an external device. This is a real revolution in medical devices. Many are still making their way through FDA approval, but some have passed and are starting to work on traction.

With all of this innovation, hospitals seemed to have mostly ignored what’s happening. Sure, the larger ones have a few pilot projects going. However, most hospitals have no idea what’s about to hit them upside the head. Gone will be the days of patients going to the hospital to be “monitored.” I don’t think most hospitals are ready for this shift.

Kaiser Permanente Branch Joins Epic Network

Posted on December 26, 2013 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.

Though it apparently held out for a while, Kaiser Permanente Northern California has signed on to Epic Systems’ Care Everywhere, a network which allows Epic users to share various forms of clinical information, Modern Healthcare reports.

Care Everywhere allows participants to get a wide range of patient data, including real-time access to patient and family medical histories, medications, lab tests, physician notes and previous diagnoses. The Care Everywhere network debuted in California in 2008, and has since grown to a national roster of more than 200 Epic users.

Many of the state’s major healthcare players are involved, including Sutter Health, as well as prominent regional players such as Stanford Hospital and Clinics, USCF Medical Center and UC Davis Health System, according to Modern Healthcare. Kaiser Permanente Southern California also participates in the network.

According to Epic, the Care Everywhere system allows patients to take information with them between institutions whether or not both institutions use the Epic platform. Information can come from another Epic system, a non-Epic EMR that complies with industry standards, or directly from the patient.

But of course, the vendor likes to see Epic-to-Epic transmission best, as it notes on the corporate site: “When an Epic system is on both sides of the exchange, a richer data set is exchanged and additional conductivity options such as cross-organization referral management are available.”

Care Everywhere also comes with Lucy, a freestanding PHR not connected to any facility’s EMR system. According to Epic, Lucy follows patients wherever they receive care, and gathers data into a single source that’s readily accessible to clinicians and patients. Patients can enter health data directly into Lucy or upload Continuity of Care Documents from other facilities.

While connecting 200+ healthcare organizations together is a notable accomplishment, Care Everywhere is not going to end up as the default national HIE matter how hard Epic tries. As long as the vendor behind the HIE (Epic) has a strong incentive to favor one form of data exchange over another, it cuts down the likelihood that you’ll have true interoperability between these players. Still, I’ve got to admit it’s a pretty interesting development. Let’s see what healthcare organizations have to say that try to work with Care Everywhere without owning an Epic system.

P.S. It’ll also be interesting to see whether Epic is actually “best” for ACOs, as a KLAS study of a couple of years ago suggested. More recent data suggests that best-of-breed tools will be necessary to build an ACO, even if your organization has taken the massive Epic plunge.

Cerner Forced To Pay Out Large Settlement To Customer

Posted on December 17, 2013 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.

Cerner has struck a settlement agreement with one of its customers which will force the giant IT vendor to take significant charge against its fourth-quarter earnings.

The client, Trinity Medical Center of Minot, N.D., claimed last year that the patient accounting software sold by Cerner in 2008 was defective and didn’t deliver on the promised business benefits.

In the suit, the medical center asked for $240 million in damages, while Cerner only estimated damages of $4 million.  To settle the matter, the two parties agreed to go into arbitration, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal.

While the amount of the settlement was not disclosed in court filings, Cerner clearly got its clock cleaned. The vendor issued a statement saying that it “strongly disagreed” with the amount the hospital was awarded.

As a result of the arbitration settlement, Cerner will take a charge of $0.18 to $0.19 per share for the quarter ending Dec. 23, 2013. Clearly, Cerner came out on the wrong side of the deal, and then some. And it’s not used to losing. The vendor’s statement also noted that this settlement was “the only material judgment against Cerner in its 34-year history.”

While both Cerner and Wall Street will get over this matter, it’s still something of a landmark in the IT vendor business. Most of the time, IT vendor contracts have customers so tied up in knots that they can’t even speak about their experiences with the product, much less take the vendor to court for for poor product performance.

What Can Go Wrong With An Epic Implementation

Posted on December 9, 2013 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.

With Epic owning the lion’s share of new EMR implementations — it has as many in progress or planned as all other major vendors combined — it’s good to stop and look at just what can go wrong with an Epic implementation.

After all, while Epic installations are a fact of life, all of the news they generate isn’t good. In fact, a growing number of stories of botched Epic installs and institutional fallout are beginning to mount.

In an effort to do learn more about Epic’s strengths and weaknesses, researchers at The Advisory Board Company interviewed some of Epic’s most experienced U.S. hospital customers, as well as some of the busiest Epic implementation consultants, writes senior research director Doug Thompson.

As Thompson points out, the problems Advisory Board identified could impact any big EMR install, but with Epic in the lead, it doesn’t hurt to focus on its products specifically.  (By the way, according to the Advisory Board, there were 194 Epic installs in process or contracted for 2012 and 2013; the closest competitor, MEDITECH, had 59 and Cerner came in at 55.)

So what’s behind the stumbling? Thompson names several limitations to Epic’s own approach to implementation, including the following:

* Its young implementation staffers may be enthusiastic, but some lack operational experience in hospitals or medical practices, which means they rely heavily on Epic’s standard methods and tools –and that may not be adequate for some situations.

* Though Epic’s recommended implementation staffing numbers are higher than that of most other EMR vendors, their estimate nonetheless falls short often by 20 percent to 30 percent of the need.

*Epic’s “foundation” (model) installation plan limits customization or extensive configuration until after the EMR has gone live, which can lead to less physician buy-in and end-user cooperation.

To address these concerns, Thompson offers fourteen techniques to help hospitals get the value they want.  Some of my favorites include:

Begin with the end in mind: Make sure your facility has specific, measurable benefits they hope to achieve with your Epic implementation, and prepare to measure and manage progress in that direction.

Governance: Make sure you assign appropriate roles and responsibilities in managing your Epic rollout and ongoing use. While IT will serve as the linchpin of the project, of course, it’s critical to make sure the appropriate operations leaders have a clear sense of how Epic can and should affect their areas of responsibility.

Get outside input on project staffing: While Epic is upfront about the need for extensive staffing in its implementation, as noted its estimates still come in rather low. It’s a good idea to get in objective outside estimate as to how big the project staff really needs to be.

For more information, I highly recommend you read the full Advisory Board brief. But in short, as  the report concludes, it seems that relying too much on Epic’s approach, staff and tools can lead to problems. Surprised?

Can Big Data Do What Vendors Claim?

Posted on December 6, 2013 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.

There’s no doubt about it — the air is ringing with the sounds of vendors promising big things from big data, from population health to clinical support to management of bundled payments. But can they really offer these blessings?  According to enterprise health IT architect Michael Planchart (known to many as @theEHRGuy), there’s a lot of snake oil sales going on.

In his experience, many of the experts on what he calls Big Bad Data either weren’t in healthcare or have never touched healthcare IT until the big data trend hit the industry. And they’re pitching the big data concept to providers that aren’t ready, he says:

  • Most healthcare providers haven’t been collecting data in a consistent way with a sound data governance model.
  • Most hospitals have paper charts that collect data in unstructured and disorganized ways.
  • Most hospitals — he asserts — have spent millions or even billions of dollars on EMRs but have been unable to implement them properly. (And those that have succeeded have done so in “partial and mediocre ways,” he says.)

Given these obstacles,  where is big data going to come from today? Probably not the right place, he writes:

Well, some geniuses from major software vendors thought they could get this data from the HL7 transactions that had been moving back and forth between systems.  Yes, indeed.  They used some sort of “aggregation” software to extract this data out of HL7 v2.x messages.  What a disaster!  Who in their sane mind would think that transactional near real time data could be used as the source for aggregated data?

As Planchart sees it, institutions need quality, pertinent, relevant and accurate data, not coarsely aggregated data from any of the sources hospitals and providers have. Instead of rushing into big data deals, he suggests that CIOs start collecting discrete, relevant and pertinent data within their EMRs, a move which will pay off over the next several years.

In the mean time, my colleague John Lynn suggests, it’s probably best to focus on “skinny data” – a big challenge in itself given how hard it can be to filter out data “noise” — rather than aggregate a bunch of high volume data from all directions.