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!

We Can’t Afford To Be Vague About Population Health Challenges

Posted on June 19, 2017 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.

Today, I looked over a recent press release from Black Book Research touting its conclusions on the role of EMR vendors in the population health technology market. Buried in the release were some observations by Alan Hutchison, vice president of Connect & Population Health at Epic.

As part of the text, the release observes that “the shift from quantity-based healthcare to quality-based patient-centric care is clearly the impetus” for population health technology demand. This sets up some thoughts from Hutchison.

The Epic exec’s quote rambles a bit, but in summary, he argues that existing systems are geared to tracking units of care under fee-for-service reimbursement schemes, which makes them dinosaurs.

And what’s the solution to this problem? Why, health systems need to invest in new (Epic) technology geared to tracking patients across their path of care. “Single-solution systems and systems built through acquisition [are] less able to effectively understand the total cost of care and where the greatest opportunities are to reduce variation, improve outcomes and lower costs,” Hutchison says.

Yes, I know that press releases generally summarize things in broad terms, but these words are particularly self-serving and empty, mashing together hot air and jargon into an unappetizing patty. Not only that, I see a little bit too much of stating as fact things which are clearly up for grabs.

Let’s break some of these issues down, shall we?

  • First, I call shenanigans on the notion that the shift to “value-based care” means that providers will deliver quality care over quantity. If nothing else, the shifts in our system can’t be described so easily. Yeah, I know, don’t expect much from a press release, but words matter.
  • Second, though I’m not surprised Hutchison made the argument, I challenge the notion that you must invest in entirely new systems to manage population health.
  • Also, nobody is mentioning that while buying a new system to manage pop health data may be cleaner in some respects, it could make it more difficult to integrate existing data. Having to do that undercuts the value of the new system, and may even overshadow those benefits.

I don’t know about you, but I’m pretty tired of reading low-calorie vendor quotes about the misty future of population health technology, particularly when a vendor rep claims to have The Answer.  And I’m done with seeing clichéd generalizations about value-based care pass for insight.

Actually, I get a lot more out of analyses that break down what we *don’t* know about the future of population health management.

I want to know what hasn’t worked in transitioning to value-based reimbursement. I hope to see stories describing how health systems identified their care management weaknesses. And I definitely want to find out what worries senior executives about supporting necessary changes to their care delivery models.

It’s time to admit that we don’t yet know how this population health management thing is going to work and abandon the use of terminally vague generalizations. After all, once we do, we can focus on the answering our toughest questions — and that’s when we’ll begin to make real progress.

VA (Veteran’s Administration) Chooses Cerner EHR

Posted on June 5, 2017 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.

Some really big news just dropped from the VA Secretary, Dr. David J. Shulkin, that the VA has selected Cerner as their EHR replacement to VistA. You can see the full press release at the bottom of this email which outlines the VA Secretary’s reasoning for going with Cerner and the expedited process.

Without getting too much into the details of government procurement, the VA secretary has decided to use a “Determination and Findings” or “D&F” that allows him to avoid the government requirement for a full and open EHR selection and instead be able to solicit the EHR from Cerner directly. I’m pretty sure this will have many of the VistA and even the Epic people up in arms. We may even see some lawsuits out of it, but I don’t expect they’ll go anywhere. Of course, I think most of the VistA people knew this was coming ever since the VA secretary said they’d be pursuing a commercial EHR.

I think most people in the industry thought that the VA would and should go with Cerner for their EHR once the DoD chose Cerner and has since started implementing the Cerner Millennium EHR in what is now known as MHS GENESIS. The only naysayers suggested that the VA might choose Epic over Cerner just because they wanted to be different. That always seemed like a bit of a stretch to me, but it is government and so you can never know what to expect.

You can read the full press release below, but the reasons for choosing Cerner are pretty clear. The release does say that the VA will have its own instance of Cerner. So, they’ll still have to build interoperability between the DoD implementation of Cerner and the VA implementation of Cerner. This isn’t really a surprise when you think about their unique needs and the size of their implementations. Watch for the Cerner interoperability chart to go through the roof once they start sharing records between the DoD and VA.

I also found it interesting to note that the VA has a lot of community partners who are on other EHR platforms. We’ll see how interoperability goes for them. I expect they’ll likely use the standard interoperability options that are out there today.

The VA Secretary did note the concern of many VistA users when he said that “In many ways VA is well ahead of DoD in clinical IT innovations and we will not discard our past work. And our work will help DoD in turn.” I know many VistA fans who suggested that Cerner and Epic were way behing VistA in many areas and so moving to either commercial EHR would be a frustrating thing for many VA VistA users. We’ll see how well the VA Secretary can incorporate their current IT innovation into Cerner. I expect this will be an extremely hard challenge.

Not being an expert on government procurement, I’m interested to know how the VA will handle the rest of the procurement process. If you remember, the DoD’s massive EHR contract was really led by Leidos and not Cerner. Of the $9 billion contract, there were estimates that Cerner would only see $50-100 million per year of the $9 billion. The VA announcement only talks about a contract with Cerner for their EHR. Will they have to do an open bid process for all the services that Leidos and their rainbow of other partners are providing the Cerner DoD implementation?

Those are some initial high level views on this big announcement. What do you think of the announcement? Any other details I missed? Any other questions you have about it?

VA Press Release on Selection of Cerner EHR:

Today U.S. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Dr. David J. Shulkin announced his decision on the next-generation Electronic Health Record (EHR) system for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) at a news briefing at VA headquarters in Washington.

Secretary Shulkin’s full statement is below.

I am here today to announce my decision on the future of the VA’s Electronic Health Record system, otherwise known as EHR.

I wanted to say at the outset that from the day he selected me for this position, the President made clear that we’re going to do things differently for our Veterans, to include in the area of EHR.

I had said previously that I would be making a decision on our EHR by July 1st, and I am honoring that commitment today.

The health and safety of our Veterans is one of our highest national priorities.

Having a Veteran’s complete and accurate health record in a single common EHR system is critical to that care, and to improving patient safety.

Let me say at the outset that I am extremely proud of VA’s longstanding history in IT innovation and in leading the country in advancing the use of EHRs.

  • It was a group of courageous VA clinicians that began this groundbreaking work in the basements of VA’s in the 1970’s that led to the system that we have today, known as the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture, or VistA.
  • It has been this system that led to the incredible achievements made by VA clinicians and researchers and resulted in VA’s ability to perform as well or better than the private sector in patient safety and quality of care.

That said, our current VistA system is in need of major modernization to keep pace with the improvements in health information technology and cybersecurity, and software development is not a core competency of VA.

I said recently to Congress that I was committed to getting VA out of the software business, that I didn’t see remaining in that business as benefitting Veterans.  And, because of that, we’re making a decision to move towards a commercial off-the-shelf product.

I have not come to this decision on EHR lightly.

I have reviewed numerous studies, reports and commissions, on this topic, including the recent commission on care report.

  • I’ve spent time talking with clinicians, and I use our legacy VistA system myself as a current practicing VA physician.
  • We have consulted with Chief Information Officers from around the country, and I’ve met personally with CEO’s from leading health systems to get their own thoughts on the best next-generation EHR for VA.
  • We’ve studied reports from management consulting companies and from the GAO and the IG on VA’s IT systems.
  • I can count no fewer than 7 Blue Ribbon Commissions, and a large number of congressional hearings that have called for VA to modernize its approach to IT.

At VA, we know where almost all of our Veteran patients is going to come from — from the DoD, and for this reason, Congress has been urging the VA and DoD for at least 17 years — from all the way back in 2000 — to work more closely on EHR issues.

To date, VA and DoD have not adopted the same EHR system. Instead, VA and DoD have worked together for many years to advance EHR interoperability between their many separate applications — at the cost of several hundred millions of dollars — in an attempt to create a consistent and accurate view of individual medical record information.

While we have established interoperability between VA and DOD for key aspects of the health record, seamless care is fundamentally constrained by ever-changing information sharing standards, separate chains of command, complex governance, separate implementation schedules that must be coordinated to accommodate those changes from separate program offices that have separate funding appropriations, and a host of related complexities requiring constant lifecycle maintenance.

And the bottom line is we still don’t have the ability to trade information seamlessly for our Veteran patients and seamlessly execute a share plan of acre with smooth handoffs.

Without improved and consistently implemented national interoperability standards, VA and DoD will continue to face significant challenges if the Departments remain on two different systems.

For these reasons, I have decided that VA will adopt the same EHR system as DoD, now known as MHS GENESIS, which at its core consists of Cerner Millennium.

VA’s adoption of the same EHR system as DoD will ultimately result in all patient data residing in one common system and enable seamless care between the Departments without the manual and electronic exchange and reconciliation of data between two separate systems.

It’s time to move forward, and as Secretary I was not willing to put this decision off any longer.  When DoD went through this acquisition process in 2014 it took far too long.  The entire EHR acquisition process, starting from requirements generation until contract award, took approximately 26 months.

We simply can’t afford to wait that long when it comes to the health of our Veterans.

Because of the urgency and the critical nature of this decision, I have decided that there is a public interest exception to the requirement for full and open competition in this technology acquisition.

Accordingly, under my authority as Secretary of Veterans Affairs, I have signed what is known as a “Determination and Findings,” or D&F, that is a special form of written approval by an authorized official that is required by statute or regulation as a prerequisite to taking certain contract actions.

The D&F notes that there is a public interest exception to the requirement for full and open competition, and determines that the VA may issue a solicitation directly to Cerner Corporation for the acquisition of the EHR system currently being deployed by DoD, for deployment and transition across the VA enterprise in a manner that meets VA needs, and which will enable seamless healthcare to Veterans and qualified beneficiaries.

Additionally we have looked at the need for VA to adopt significant cybersecurity enhancements, and we intend to leverage the architecture, tools and processes that have already been put in place to protect DoD data, to include both physical and virtual separation from commercial clients.

This D&F action is only done in particular circumstances when the public interest demands it, and that’s clearly the case here.  Once again, for the reasons of the health and protection of our Veterans, I have decided that we can’t wait years, as DoD did in its EHR acquisition process, to get our next generation EHR in place.

Let me say what lies ahead, as this is just the beginning of the process.

  • VA has unique needs and many of those are different from the DoD.
  • For this reason, VA will not simply be adopting the identical EHR that DoD uses, but we intend to be on a similar Cerner platform.
  • VA clinicians will be very involved in how this process moves forward and in the implementation of the system.
  • In many ways VA is well ahead of DoD in clinical IT innovations and we will not discard our past work.  And our work will help DoD in turn.
  • Furthermore VA must obtain interoperability with DoD but also with our academic affiliates and community partners, many of whom are on different IT platforms.
  • Therefore we are embarking on creating something that has not been done before — that is an integrated product that, while utilizing the DoD platform, will require a meaningful integration with other vendors to create a system that serves Veterans in the best possible way.
  • This is going to take the cooperation and involvement of many companies and thought leaders, and can serve as a model for the federal government and all of healthcare.

Once again, I want to thank the President for his incredible commitment to helping our Veterans and his support for our team here at the VA as we undertake this important work.

This is an exciting new phase for VA, DOD, and for the country.  Our mission is too important not to get this right and we will.

Database Linked With Hospital EMR To Encourage Drug Monitoring

Posted on March 31, 2017 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.

According to state officials, Colorado occupies the unenviable position of second worst in the US for prescription drug misuse, with more than 255,000 Coloradans misusing prescribed medications.

One way the state is fighting back is by running the Colorado Prescription Drug Monitoring Program which, like comparable efforts in other states, tracks prescriptions for controlled medications. Every regular business day, the state’s pharmacists upload prescription data for medications listed in Schedules II through V.

While this effort may have value, many physicians haven’t been using the database, largely because it can be difficult to access. In fact, historically physicians have been using the system only about 30 percent of the time when prescribing controlled substances, according to a story appearing in HealthLeaders Media.

As things stand, it can take physicians up to three minutes to access the data, given that they have to sign out of their EMR, visit the PDMP site, log in using separate credentials, click through to the right page, enter patient information and sort through possible matches before they got to the patient’s aggregated prescription history. Given the ugliness of this workflow, it’s no surprise that clinicians aren’t searching out PDMP data, especially if they don’t regard a patient as being at a high risk for drug abuse or diversion.

But perhaps taking some needless steps out of the process can make a difference, a theory which one of the state’s hospitals is testing. Colorado officials are hoping a new pilot program linking the PDMP database to an EMR will foster higher use of the data by physicians. The pilot, funded by a federal grant through the Bureau of Justice Assistance, connects the drug database directly to the University of Colorado Hospital’s Epic EMR.

The project began with a year-long building out phase, during which IT leaders created a gateway connecting the PDMP database and the Epic installation. Several months ago, the team followed up with a launch at the school of medicine’s emergency medicine department. Eventually, the PDMP database will be available in five EDs which have a combined total of 270,000 visits per year, HealthLeaders notes.

Under the pilot program, physicians can access the drug database with a single click, directly from within the Epic EMR system. Once the PDMP database was made available, the pilot brought physicians on board gradually, moving from evaluating their baseline use, giving clinicians raw data, giving them data using a risk-stratification tool and eventually requiring that they use the tool.

Researchers guiding the pilot are evaluating whether providers use the PDMP more and whether it has an impact on high-risk patients. Researchers will also analyze what happened to patients a year before, during and a year after their ED visits, using de-identified patient data.

It’s worth pointing out that people outside of Colorado are well aware of the PDMP access issue. In fact, the ONC has been paying fairly close attention to the problem of making PDMP data more accessible. That being said, the agency notes that integrating PDMPs with other health IT systems won’t come easily, given that no uniform standards exist for linking prescription drug data with health IT systems. ONC staffers have apparently been working to develop a standard approach for delivering PDMP data to EMRs, pharmacy systems and health information exchanges.

However, at present it looks like custom integration will be necessary. Perhaps pilots like this one will lead by example.

Cleveland Clinic Works To Eliminate Tech Redundancies

Posted on March 1, 2017 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.

The Cleveland Clinic has relied on its EMR for quite some time. In fact, it adopted Epic in the 1990s, long before most healthcare organizations were ready to make a bet on EMRs. Today, decades later, the Epic EMR is the “central data hub” for the medical center and is central to both its clinical and operational efforts, according to William Morris, MD, the Clinic’s associate chief information officer.

But Morris, who spoke about the Clinic’s health IT with Health Data Management, also knows its limitations. In an interview with the magazine’s Greg Slabodkin, he notes that while the EMR may be necessary, it isn’t sufficient. The Epic EMR is “just a digital repository,” he told Slabodkin. “Ultimately, it’s what you do with the technology in your ecosystem.”

These days, IT leaders at the Clinic are working to streamline the layers of additional technology which have accreted on top of the EMR over the years. “As an early adopter of Epic, we have accumulated quite a bit of what I’ll call technical debt,” said Doug Smith, interim chief information officer. “What I mean by that is multiple enhancements, bolt-ons, or revisions to the core application. We have to unburden ourselves of that.”

It’s not that Clinic leaders are unhappy with their EMR. In fact, they’re finding ways to tap its power to improve care. For example, to better leverage its EMR data, the Cleveland Clinic has developed data-driven “risk scores” designed to let doctors know if patients need intervention. The models, developed by the Clinic’s Quantitative Health Sciences group, offer outcome risk calculators for several conditions, including cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

(By the way, if predictive analytics interest you, you might want to check out our coverage of such efforts at New York’s Mount Sinai Hospital, which is developing a platform to predict which patients might develop congestive heart failure and care for patients already diagnosed with the condition more effectively. I’ve also taken a look at a related product being developed by Google’s DeepMind, an app named Streams which will ping clinicians if a patient needs extra attention.)

Ultimately, though, the organization hopes to simplify its larger health IT infrastructure substantially, to the point where 85% of the HIT functionality comes from the core Epic system. This includes keeping a wary eye on Epic upgrades, and implementing new features selectively. “When you take an upgrade in Epic, they are always turning on more features and functions,” Smith notes. “Most are optional.”

Not only will such improvements streamline IT operations, they will make clinicians more efficient, Smith says. “They are adopting standard workflows that also exist in many other organizations—and, we’re more efficient in supporting it because we don’t take as long to validate or support an upgrade.”

As an aside, I’m interested to read that Epic is tossing more features at Cleveland Clinic than it cares to adopt. I wonder if those are what engineers think customers want, or what they’re demanding today?

Health IT Preserves Idaho Hospital’s Independence

Posted on February 1, 2017 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.

Most of the time, when I write about hospital IT adoption, I end up explaining why a well-capitalized organization is going into the red to implement its EMR. But I recently found a story in RevCycle Intelligence in which a struggling hospital actually seems to have benefitted financially from investing in IT infrastructure. According to the story, a 14-bed critical access hospital in Idaho recently managed to stave off a forced merger or even closure by rolling out an updated EMR and current revenue cycle management technology.

Only a few years ago, Arco, Idaho-based Lost Rivers Medical Center was facing serious financial hurdles, and its technology was very outdated. In particular, it was using an EMR from 1993, which was proving so inflexible that the claims stayed in accounts receivable for an average of 108 days. “We didn’t have wifi,” CEO Brad Huerta told the site. “We didn’t have fiber. We literally had copper wires for our phone system…we had an EMR in a technical sense, but nobody was using it. It was a proverbial paperweight.”

Not only was the cost of paying for upgrades daunting, the hospital’s location was as well. Arco is a “frontier” location, making it hard to recruit IT staffers to implement and maintain infrastructure, staff and servers, the story notes. Though “fiercely independent,” as Huerta put it, it was getting hard for Lost Rivers to succeed without merging with a larger organization.

That being said, Huerta and his team decided to stick it out. They feared diluting their impact, or losing the ability to offer services like trauma care and tele-pharmacy, if they were to merge with a bigger organization.

Instead of conceding defeat, Huerta decided to focus on improving the hospital’s revenue cycle performance, which would call for installing an up-to-date EMR and more advanced medical billing tools. After the hospital finished putting in fiber in its area, Lost Rivers invested in athenahealth’s cloud-based EMR and medical billing tools.

Once the hospital put its new systems in place, it was able to turn things around on the revenue cycle front. Total cash flow climbed rapidly, and days in accounts receivable fell from 108 to 52 days.

According to Huerta, part of the reason the hospital was able to make such significant improvements was that the new systems improved workflow. In the past, he told RevCycle Intelligence, providers and staff often failed to code services correctly or bill patients appropriately, which led to financial losses.

Now, doctors chart on laptops, tablets or even phones while at the patients’ bedside. Not only did this improve coding accuracy, it cut down on the amount of time doctors spend in administrative work, giving them time to generate revenue by seeing additional patients.

What’s more, the new system has given Lost Rivers access to some of the advantages of merging with other facilities without having to actually do so. According to the story, the system now connects the critical access hospital with larger health systems, as the athenahealth system captures rule changes made by the other organization and effectively shares the improvements with Lost Rivers. This means the coding proposed by the system gradually gets more accurate, without forcing Lost Rivers to spend big bucks on coding training, Huertas said.

While the story doesn’t say so specifically, I’m sure that Lost Rivers is spending a lot on its spiffy new EMR and billing tech, which must have been painful at least at first. But it’s always good to see the gamble pay off.

Do Health IT Certificate Of Need Requirements Make Sense?

Posted on January 23, 2017 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.

The other day, I read an interesting piece about the University of Vermont Medical Center’s plans to create an integrated EMR connecting its four network hospitals. The article noted that unlike its peers in some other states, UVMC was required to file a Certificate of Need (CON) application with the state before it proceeds with the work.  And that struck me as deserving some analysis.

According to a story appearing in Healthcare Informatics,  UVMC plans to invest an initial $112.4 million in the project, which includes an upgrade to informatics, billing and scheduling systems used by UVMC and network facilities Central Vermont Medical Center, Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital and Elizabethtown Community Hospital. The total costs of implementing and operating the integrated system should hit $151.6 million over the first six years. (For all of you vendor-watchers, UVMC is an Epic shop.)

In its CON application, UVMC noted that some of the systems maintained by network hospitals are 20 years old and in dire need of replacement. It also asserted that if the four hospitals made upgrades independently rather than in concert, it would cost $200 million and still leave the facilities without a connection to each other.

Given the broad outline provided in the article, these numbers seem reasonable, perhaps even modest given what execs are trying to accomplish. And that would be all most hospital executives would need to win the approval of their board and steam ahead with the project, particularly if they were gunning for value-based contracts.

But clearly, this doesn’t necessarily mean that such investments aren’t risky, or don’t stand a chance of triggering a financial meltdown. For example, there’s countless examples of health systems which have faced major financial problems (like this and this),  operational problems (particularly in this case) or have been forced to make difficult tradeoffs (such as this). And their health IT decisions can have a major impact on the rest of the marketplace, which sometimes bears the indirect costs of any mistakes they make.

Given these concerns, I think there’s an argument to be made for requiring hospitals to get CONs for major health IT investments. If there’s any case to be made for CON programs make any sense, I can’t see why it doesn’t apply here. After all, the idea behind them is to look at the big picture rather than incremental successes of one organization. If investment in, say, MRIs can increase costs needlessly, the big bucks dropped on health IT systems certainly could.

Part of the reason I sympathize with these requirements is I believe that healthcare IS fundamentally different than any other industry, and that as a public good, should face oversight that other industries do not. Simply put, healthcare costs are everybody’s costs, and that’s unique.

What’s more, I’m all too familiar with the bubble in which hospital execs and board members often live. Because they are compelled to generate the maximum profit (or excess) they can, there’s little room for analyzing how such investments impact their communities over the long term. Yes, the trend toward ACOs and population health may mitigate this effect to some degree, but probably not enough.

Of course, there’s lots of arguments against CONs, and ultimately against government intervention in the marketplace generally. If nothing else, it’s obvious that CON board members aren’t necessarily impartial arbiters of truth. (I once knew a consultant who pushed CONs through for a healthcare chain, who said that whichever competitor presented the last – not the best — statistics to the room almost always won.)

Regardless, I’d be interested in studying the results of health IT CON requirements in five or ten years and see if they had any measurable impact on healthcare competition and costs.  We’d learn a lot about health IT market dynamics, don’t you think?

Health System Pays Docs To Use Cerner EHR

Posted on November 7, 2016 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.

Typically, we cover US-based stories in this blog, but the following is just too intriguing to miss. According to a Vancouver newspaper, an area hospital system agreed to pay physicians a daily fee to use its unpopular Cerner EHR, positioning the payments as compensation for unpaid overtime spent learning the system.

The Times Colonist is reporting that local hospital system Island Health has offered on-call physicians at its Nanaimo Regional General Hospital $260 a day, and emergency department physicians up to $780 a day, to use its unpopular Cerner system.

The newspaper cites a memo from hospital chief medical officer and executive vice president Dr. Jeremy Etherington, which says that the payment was in recognition of “the extra burden the new electronic health record has placed on many physicians during the rollout phase” of the new EHR.

In 2013, Island Health (which is based in British Columbia, Canada) signed a 10 year, $50 million deal with Cerner to implement its platform across its three hospitals. More recently, in March of this year, Island Health’s three facilities went live on the Cerner platform.

Within weeks, physicians at Nanaimo Regional Hospital were flooding executives with complaints about the new platform, which they claimed we randomly lost, buried or changed orders for drugs and diagnostic tests. Some physicians at the hospital reverted to using pen and paper to complete orders.

Not long after, physicians signed a petition asking the health system to stop further implementation, citing safety and workability concerns, but executives still moved forward with the rollout.

Neither the newspaper article nor other reports could identify how many physicians accepted the offer from Island Health. Also, the health systems management hasn’t shared how it picked doctors who were eligible for the payout, and what criteria it used to determine the size of the higher emergency department physician payouts. However, according to a Nanaimo physician and medical staff member quoted by Becker’s Health IT & CIO Review quotes, execs structured the payments to reflect the unpaid overtime doctors put in to learn the system.

As for the claims that the Cerner system was causing clinical problems and even perhaps endangering patients, that issue is still seemingly unresolved. In late July, British Columbia Minister of Health Terry Lake apparently ordered a review of the Cerner system, but results of that review do not appear to be available just yet.

It’s not clear whether the payments bought Island Health enough goodwill to mollify the bad feelings of doctors who didn’t receive one of these payments, nor whether those who are being paid will stay bought. And that’s the real question here. Call the payments a publicity stunt, an attempt at fairness or cynical political strategy, they may not be enough to get physicians onto the system if they are convinced it doesn’t work. I guess we’ll have to wait and see what happens.

Access To Electronic Health Data Saves Money In Emergency Department

Posted on October 24, 2016 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.

A new research study has found that emergency department patients benefit from having their electronic health records available when they’re being treated. Researchers found that when health information was available electronically, the patient’s care was speeded up, and that it also generated substantial cost savings.

Researchers with the University of Michigan School of Public Health reviewed the emergency department summaries from 4,451 adult and pediatric ED visits for about one year, examining how different forms of health data accessibility affected patients.

In 80% of the cases, the emergency department had to have all or part of the patient’s medical records faxed to the hospital where they were being treated. In the other 20% of the cases, however, where the ED staff had access to a patient’s complete electronic health record, they were seen much more quickly and treatment was often more efficient.

Specifically, the researchers found that when information requests from outside organizations were returned electronically instead of by fax, doctors saw that information an hour faster, which cut a patient’s time in the ED by almost 53 minutes.

This, in turn, seems to have reduced physicians’ use of MRIs, x-rays and CT scans by 1.6% to 2.5%, as well as lowering the likelihood of hospital admission by 2.4%. The researchers also found that average cost for care were $1,187 lower when information was delivered electronically.

An interesting side note to the study is that when information was made available electronically on patients, it was supplied through Epic’s Care Everywhere platform, which is reportedly used in about 20% of healthcare systems nationwide. Apparently, the University of Michigan Health System (which hosted the study) doesn’t belong to an HIE.

While I’m not saying that there’s anything untoward about this, I wasn’t surprised to find principal author Jordan Everson, a doctoral candidate in health services at the school, is a former Epic employee. He would know better than most how Epic’s health data sharing technology works.

From direct experience, I can state that Care Everywhere isn’t necessarily used or even understood by employees of some major health systems in my geographic location, and perhaps not configured right even when health systems attempt to use it. This continues to frustrate leaders at Epic, who emphasize time and again that this platform exists, and that is used quite actively by many of its customers.

But the implications of the study go well beyond the information sharing tools U-M Health System uses. The more important takeaway from the study is that this is quantitative evidence that having electronic data immediately available makes clinical and financial sense (at least from the patient perspective). If that premise was ever in question, this study does a lot to support it. Clearly, making it quick and easy for ED doctors to get up to speed makes a concrete difference in patient care.

Cerner Tops List Of Hospital Vendors For Medicare EHR Incentive Program

Posted on September 28, 2016 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.

Research from the ONC concludes that Cerner systems are in use by the most hospitals using certified technology to participate in the Medicare EHR Incentive Program. It’s interesting to note that this list includes players that rarely appear on overall lists of top hospital EHR vendors, though admittedly, there’s no one way to measure market dominance that produces consistent results every time.

According to ONC statistics, there were 175 vendors supplying certified health IT to 4,474 nonfederal acute-care hospitals participating in the Medicare EHR Incentive Program. Ninety-five percent of these vendors have 2014 certified technology.

The report notes that six of these vendors (Cerner, Meditech, Epic, Evident, Medhost and McKesson) provide 2014 certified technology 92% of hospitals using the technology. When you throw in athenahealth, Prognosis and QuadraMed, bringing the list to 10 vendors, you’ve got a group that supplies 2014 technology to 98% of eligible hospitals.

According to the data, the vendors at the top fall in as follows. Cerner tops the list of total hospitals using its certified health IT, with 1,029 hospitals;  Meditech was next with 953 hospitals; Epic came in third with 869 hospitals; CPSI’s Evident (formerly Healthland) was fourth with 637 hospitals; McKesson fifth with 462 hospitals; and Medhost sixth with 359 hospitals.

As is usually the case with any attempt to look at market share, the data comes with its own quirks. For example, when looking at ONC’s data as of July 2016 on ambulatory healthcare providers choice of certified technology, Epic was way ahead of the pack with 83,674 users. Allscripts came in at a distant second with 33,123 users. Cerner came in sixth with 15,100 ambulatory users. In other words, vendors one might class as “enterprise” focused are doing well among clinicians. (See more data along these lines in a Medscape survey I summarized previously.)

Then consider data from HIMSS Analytics, which concludes that Epic has 40% of the hospital health IT market, followed by Cerner at a distant second with 13%, Allscripts at 10%, Meditech at 7% and eClinicalWorks at 5% and NextGen with 4%. Why the big difference in numbers? It seems that HIMSS Analytics includes the size of the hospital in its calculations versus the ONC data above which talks about the number of hospitals.

No doubt the buying patterns vary when you look at the number of beds a hospital has. For example, according to research done last year by peer60, CPSI and eClinicalWorks held the biggest share of the market among facilities with less than 100 beds, MEDITECH, McKesson and Siemens dominated the mid-sized hospital categories, and as the number of beds rises from 250 to 1000+ plus, Cerner and Epic emerge as the top players.

The truth is, market share numbers are interesting, and not just to the vendors who hope to emerge on top. Everyone loves a good horse race, after all. But it’s good to take these numbers with a large dose of context, or they mean very little.

Study: Hospital EMR Rollouts Didn’t Cause Patient Harm

Posted on September 14, 2016 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.

Rolling out a hospital EMR can be very disruptive. The predictable problems that can arise – from the need to cut back on ambulatory patient visits to the staff learning curve to unplanned outages – are bad enough. And of course, when the implementation hits a major snag, things can get much worse.

Just to pull one name out of a hat, consider the experience of the Vancouver Island Health Authority in British Columbia, Canada. One of the hospitals managed by the Authority, which is embroiled in a $174 million Cerner implementation, had to move physicians in its emergency department back to pen and paper in July. Physicians had complained that the system was changing medication orders and physician instructions.

But fortunately, this experience is definitely the exception rather than the rule, according to a study appearing in The BMJ. In fact, such rollouts typically don’t cause adverse events or needless deaths, nor do they seem to boost hospital readmissions, according to the journal.

The study, which was led by a research team from Harvard, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Massachusetts General Hospital, looked at the association between EHR implementation and short-term inpatient mortality, adverse safety events or readmissions among Medicare enrollees getting care at 17 U.S. hospitals. The hospitals selected for the study had rolled out or replaced their EHRs in a “big bang”-style, single-day go-live in 2011 and 2012.

To get a sense of how selected hospitals performed, the team studied patients admitted to the studied facilities 90 days before and 90 days after EHR implementation. The researchers also gathered similar data from a control group of all admissions during the same period by hospitals in the same referral region. For selected hospitals, they analyzed data on 28,235 patients admitted 90 days before the implementation, and 26,453 admitted 90 days after the EHR cutover. (The control size was 284,632 admissions before and 276,513 after.)

Apparently, researchers were expecting to see patient care problems arise. Their assumption was that in the wake of the go-live, the hospitals would see a short increase in mortality, readmissions and adverse safety events. One of the reasons they expected to see this bump in problems is that some negative problems related to time and season, such as the “weekend effect” and the “July effect,” are well documented in existing research. Surely the big changes engendered by an EHR cutover would have an impact as well, they reasoned.

But that’s not what they found. In fact, the researchers wrote, “there was no evidence of a significant or consistent negative association between EHR implementation and short-term mortality, readmissions, or adverse events.”

I was as surprised as the researchers to learn that EHR rollouts studied didn’t cause patient harm or health instability. Considering the immense impact an EHR can have on clinical workflow, it seems strange to read that no new problems arose. That being said, hospitals in this group may have been doing upgrades – which have to be less challenging than going digital for the first time – and were adopting at a time when some best practices had emerged.

Regardless, given the immense challenges posed by hospital EHR rollouts, it’s good to read about a few that went well.  We all need some good news!