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!

Avoiding Financial Losses After EMR Implementation

Posted on April 3, 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.

While hospitals buy EMRs to improve their operations – both clinically and financially – too often they take a hit before they work out the kinks in their installation.  In fact, healthcare institutions often end up losing up to 5 percent of their gross revenue after EMRs are implemented, according to consultant Erick McKesson.

One typical story comes from Maine Medical Center, which found that patient charges weren’t appearing after its $150 million Epic installation in 2012. These billing errors were one of the reasons the medical center posted a $13.4 million loss in the first six months after the installation, hospital executives reported.

But according to McKesson, managing consultant with Navigant, it’s possible to overcome these problems. In an article for Becker’s Hospital Review, he tells the story of a group of health systems which worked together to avoid such losses. The group worked together to identify the most valuable software features that flagged mischarges or reporting errors. They then identified the five charge program “edits” which had the largest financial impact.

Areas the cooperating health systems considered the most important included:

* Administrative codes

The health systems noted that incorrect administrative codes lead to lagging revenue. That’s particularly the case when there are different codes for the same procedure. Hospitals need to be sure that clinicians use the higher code if appropriate, which can be helped by the right technological fixes.

* Anesthesia

It’s important to monitor your charges when there are two distinct aspects of a single procedure that are charged separately, particularly with anesthesia services. If your audit system flags the absence of the added codes, it can recapture a substantial level of missing revenue.

* CT

Seeing to it that radiology charges are automatically reviewed can ensure that appropriate levels of revenue are generated. For example, in the case of CT exams, it’s important to see that charges are assessed for both the exam and if needed, the use of a contrast agent.

* Emergency Department

It’s not unusual for ED physicians to undercode high-acuity patients. But it’s important to address this issue, as undercoding can result in significant financial consequences.  Not only that, in addition to generating financial losses, undercoding can create problems with performance-based reimbursement contracts. If patients are depicted as less acute than they actually are, payors may expect better outcomes than the patients are likely to have. And that can lead to lower revenue or even significant financial penalties.

* Infusions

Auditing infusion charges can be very helpful in capturing added revenues, given that they are one of the most frequent charges in healthcare. Infusion codes are very complex, including the need to track start and stop times, difficult rules regarding what charges are appropriate during infusions and issues related to “carve out periods.” Auditing systems can help clinicians comply with requirements, including simple-to-create functions which automatically flag missing stop times.

As readers will doubtless know, getting competing health systems to engage in “coopetition” can be tough, even if it helps them improve their operations. But given the need to combat post-EMR lags in revenue, maybe more of them will risk it in the future.

ACOs Not Scaling Well, But Health IT Helps

Posted on March 13, 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.

ACOs were billed as the next big thing in healthcare, a model which would create economies of scale and tame rising costs of care. In theory, unifying hospitals and doctors into an overarching entity – and creating shared clinical and financial goals – should improve care and boost efficiency.

Of course, creating them doesn’t come cheap. In fact, creating even a modest ACO typically calls for between $1 million and $3 million in capital investment, according to Michael Deegan, MD, who recently developed a course on ACOs for the University of Texas at Dallas. It also takes 18 to 24 months to launch an ACO, Deegan told an interviewer at UT.

But once all of the Ts have been crossed and the Is dotted, ACOs can meet their stated goals, right? Actually, not so much, though health IT can help things along, according to Indranil Bardham, a colleague of Deegan’s at UT Dallas who serves as professor of information systems.

According to an article in HealthcareITNews, Bardhan recently completed a study on ACO performance which concluded that health IT had a measurable impact on their efficiency. The study, which drew on 2013-2015 data from CMS, reviewed the performance of 400 ACOs.

Among the key takeways Bardhan took from his research was that the larger an ACO was, the more likely it was to be inefficient. This flies in the face of conventional wisdom, which would suggest that bigger is better when it comes to improving efficiency.

On the other hand, health IT use had the effect its champions might hope for, though modest in scope. The study concluded that a 1 percent increase in HIT usage was associated with an 0.5 percent increase in ACO efficiency.

The thing is, these measures represent just a couple of ways to evaluate ACO performance, making it hard to tell just what is working, Bardhan told HIN. “Healthcare, with respect to ACOs, is fascinating because there is not just one single output measure that you are using to compare performance,” he told the magazine’s Bill Siwicki. “…It is difficult to measure the performance of organizations against each other when you have multiple outputs that cannot easily be transformed into a single dollar number.”

This squares with commentary by other ACO researchers, who seem to agree that the whole ACO evaluation process is a bit mysterious. As health policy analyst David Introcaso notes, in a review of ACO-based Medicare Shared Savings Program, CMS isn’t helping either. “While CMS details financial and quality performance results, the agency does not explain, at least publicly, how results, favorable or unfavorable, were achieved.”

Without knowing more about what we should measure, and why – much less what steps helped in achieving their results – it’s too soon to tell what type of health IT should be deployed in ACOs. But looked at more optimistically, once we have a better idea of what ACO success factors are, it seems likely that health IT tools will help execs address them. (For a look at one completely health IT-based ACO concept, see this piece on the Virtual ACO.)

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?

ACO-Affiliated Hospitals May Be Ahead On Strategic Health IT Use

Posted on December 26, 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.

Over the past several years I’ve been struck by how seldom ACOs seem to achieve the objectives they’re built to meet – particularly cost savings and quality improvement goals – even when the organizations involved are pretty sophisticated.

For example, the results generated the Medicare Shared Savings Program and  Pioneer ACO Model have been inconsistent at best, with just 31% of participants getting a savings bonus for 2015, despite the fact that the “Pioneers” were chosen for their savvy and willingness to take on risk.

Some observers suggested this would change as hospitals and ACOs found better health IT solutions, but I’ve always been somewhat skeptical about this. I’m not a fan of the results we got when capitation was the rage, and to me current models have always looked like tarted-up capitation, the fundamental flaws of which can’t be fixed by technology.

All that being said, a new journal article suggests that I may be wrong about the hopelessness of trying to engineer a workable value-based solution with health IT. The study, which was published in the American Journal of Managed Care, has concluded that if nothing else, ACO incentives are pushing hospitals to make more strategic HIT investments than they may have before.

To conduct the study, which compared health IT adoption in hospitals participating in ACOs with hospitals that weren’t ACO-affiliated, the authors gathered data from 2013 and 2014 surveys by the American Hospital Association. They focused on hospitals’ adherence to Stage 1 and Stage 2 Meaningful Use criteria, patient engagement-oriented health IT use and HIE participation.

When they compared 393 ACO hospitals and 810 non-ACO hospitals, the researchers found that a larger percentage of ACO hospitals were capable of meeting MU Stage 1 and Stage 2. They also noted that nearly 40% of ACO hospitals had patient engagement tech in place, as compared with 15.2% of non-ACO hospitals. Meanwhile, 49% of ACO hospitals were involved with HIEs, compared with 30.1% of non-ACO hospitals.

Bottom line, the authors concluded that ACO-based incentives are proving to be more effective than Meaningful Use at getting hospitals adopt new and arguably more effective technologies. Fancy that! (Finding and implementing those solutions is still a huge challenge for ACOs, but that’s a story for another day.)

Of course, the authors seem to take it as a given that patient engagement tech and HIEs are strategic for more or less any hospital, an assumption they don’t do much to justify. Also, they don’t address how hospitals in and out of ACOs are pursuing population health or big data strategies, which seems like a big omission. This weakens their argument somewhat in my view. But the data is worth a look nonetheless.

I’m quite happy to see some evidence that ACO models can push hospitals to make good health IT investment decisions. After all, it’d be a bummer if hospitals had spent all of that time and money building them out for nothing.

Longitudinal Patient Record Needed To Advance Care?

Posted on November 23, 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.

In most day to day settings, a clinician only needs a small (if precisely focused) amount of data to make clinical decisions. Both in ambulatory and acute settings, they rely on immediate and near-term information, some collected during the visit, and a handful of historical factors likely to influence or even govern what plan of care is appropriate.

That may be changing, though, according to Cheryl McKay of Orion Health. In a recent blog item, McKay argues that as the industry shifts from fee-for-service payment models to value-based reimbursement, we’ll need new types of medical records to support this model. Today, the longitudinal patient record and community care plan are emerging as substitutes to old EMR models, McKay says. These new entities will be built from varied data sources including payer claims, provider EMRs, patient health devices and the patients themselves.

As these new forms of patient medical record emerge, effective population health management is becoming more feasible, she argues. Longitudinal patient records and community care plans are “essential as we steer away from FFS…The way records are delivered to healthcare providers– with an utter lack of visibility and a lot of noise from various data sources– creates unnecessary risks for everyone involved.”

She contends that putting these types of documentation in place, which summarize patient-based clinical experiences versus episodic clinical experiences, close big gaps in patient history which would otherwise generate mistakes. Longitudinal record-keeping also makes it easier for physicians to aggragate information, do predictive modeling and intervene proactively in patient care at both the patient and population level.

She also predicts that with both a longitudinal patient record and community care plan in place, getting from the providers of all stripes a “panoramic” look at patients, costs will fall as providers stop performing needless tests and procedures. Not only that, these new entities would ideally offer real-time information as well, including event notifications, keeping all the providers involved in sync in providing the patient’s care.

To be sure, this blog item is a pitch for Orion’s technology. While the notion of a community-care plan isn’t owned by anyone in particular, Orion is pitching a specific model which rides upon its population health technology. That being said, I’m betting most of us would agree that the idea (regardless of which vendor you work with) of establishing a community-wide care plan does make sense. And certainly, putting a rich longitudinal patient record in place could be valuable too.

However, given the sad state of interoperability today, I doubt it’s possible to build this model today unless you choose a single vendor-centric solution. At present think it’s more of a dream than a reality for most of us.

Should You Buy Pop Health Tools And EMRs From One Vendor?

Posted on October 17, 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.

According to a new story appearing in HealthITAnalytics, EMR vendors are increasingly moving into the population health management space. In fact, according to an IDC Research market report featured in the story, the lines between the EMR and population health management marketplaces are beginning to blur, with vendors offering products tackling both documentation and patient management.

While this is not news to anyone who’s attended a major industry tradeshow in the last few years, the extent of the transition might be. Apparently, half of the top population health management vendors featured by IDC – including athenahealth, eClinicalWorks and Allscripts — also offer EMR platforms. (According to HealthITAnalytics, other pop health vendors identified as leaders by IDC include Wellcentive, Medecision, Optum and IBM Phytel.)

Cynthia Burghard, Research Director with IDC Health Insights, says that providers want to integrate patient management and big data analytics to support their ACO deals and meet tregulatory requirements. In an IDC press release, she notes that providers need to manage both clinical and financial outcomes to survive under value-based reimbursement.

While all of this makes sense to me on paper, I’d like to raise a question here. Does buying both your EMR and your pop health tool from the same vendor have a meaningful downside? I’d argue that it might.

Yes, from a high level, buying an EMR and population health management engine from the same vendor is a good idea. In theory, the two are likely to work together more effectively than two platforms from two separate vendors, as there’s unlikely to be any conflict between the purposes of the EMR and the purposes of the population health tool.

But in practice, it’s worth bearing in mind that we haven’t yet evolved a standard feature set or business model for managing patients at the population level (though you might be interested in some of these emerging best practices). So this is a far bigger risk than buying, for example, a practice management tool and an EMR from the same vendor — after all, practice management software has been around long enough that it’s fairly standardized.

On the other hand, if you buy a population health tool and an EMR from, say, Allscripts, you’re buying not only technology but their view of how population health management should be done. And the two platforms are somewhat, for lack of a better word, inbred if they try to cover your entire scope of patient management. Whatever blind spots the EMR may have, the pop health management platform may have as well.

I guess what I’m trying to say here is that while it makes great business sense for the vendors to offer both EMR and pop health products, it’s not necessarily in the provider’s interests to pile both of those products onto their infrastructure. At this stage, I’d argue, it’s worth preserving your flexibility, even if you spend more or have to work harder to develop the business logic you need on the population health side.

But I’m willing to change my mind. Readers, what do you think?

Meaningful Use Has Done Its Job

Posted on September 19, 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.

While Meaningful Use has been challenging at times, the vast majority of hospitals seem to have stayed on top of things. In its new report on the IPPS negative payment adjustments for fiscal 2017, CMS said that 98% of eligible hospitals and critical access hospitals managed to avoid Medicare payment dialbacks for next year, because they successfully attested to stage 1 or stage 2 Meaningful Use compliance, according to EHR Intelligence.

CMS began making Medicare payment adjustments on October 1, 2014 for eligible hospitals, of which there are more than 4,800 in the United States. The current adjustment will fall into place on October 1, 2016, as a reduction in the percentage increase to the Inpatient Perspective Payment System.

The negative payment adjustments to the IPPS now stand at 75%, up from 25% for the 2013 reporting period. Eligible hospitals had a chance to apply for hardship exceptions to the payment adjustments, though if they haven’t done so already it’s too late, as the window for seeking those exceptions for 2017 closed in April of this year. But as noted, few hospitals will be affected.

At this point, it’s worth taking time to stop and admire how this took place. Even when you consider that the feds handed lot a lot of money in incentives, this has all happened relatively quickly as IT investments go. Everyone likes to talk about how successful the banking industry was at rolling out interoperability with ATMs, but I doubt the backroom negotiations went any faster than the cascade of Meaningful Use attestations. In other words, Meaningful Use did its job.

After all, very few programs achieve close to 100% compliance under any circumstances. Even if providers face large government fines, no initiative is going to get 100% of the industry on board. So bringing 98% of eligible hospitals on board within a few scant years is an impressive achievement, particularly considering the healthcare industry’s record of foot dragging when it comes to new technologies.

Of course, the industry has clearly gone well beyond the need for Meaningful Use’s rather mechanical reporting requirements, valuable though they may have been as a training ground. So if we assume that Meaningful Use isn’t that, well, meaningful anymore, what’s next?

The answer is….drumroll…quality. Most hospitals will be focusing on the larger and more complex quality measurement demands imposed by the next generation of incentive payments proposed by CMS.

As many readers know, the Medicare Meaningful Use program for ambulatory is being rolled into the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), along with the Physician Quality Reporting System and Value-Based Modifier programs. beginning with the 2017 performance year.

Meaningful Use now has a new name in ambulatory care, Advancing Care Information, and strong performance on this measure can contribute up to 25% of the MIPS score a provider receives – or in other words, smart health IT deployment still counts. But that’s dwarfed by the 50% of the score contributed by strong quality performance.

This shift away from IT-specific performance measures is necessary and valuable. But as federal authorities lay out their new incentive programs, it’s worth giving good ol’ Meaningful Use a send-off. A job needed to be done, and however unsubtly, MU did it. We’ll see how quickly the MIPS program rolls over to replace MU in hospitals.

Value Based Reimbursement: Another Challenge for HIM Professionals

Posted on August 3, 2016 I Written By

Erin Head is the Director of Health Information Management (HIM) and Quality for an acute care hospital in Titusville, FL. She is a renowned speaker on a variety of healthcare and social media topics and currently serves as CCHIIM Commissioner for AHIMA. She is heavily involved in many HIM and HIT initiatives such as information governance, health data analytics, and ICD-10 advocacy. She is active on social media on Twitter @ErinHead_HIM and LinkedIn. Subscribe to Erin's latest HIM Scene posts here.

How many times have you heard something along these lines: “HIM professionals must stay relevant and current with the continuous healthcare changes.” I must sound like a broken record to my team but it is absolutely true! HIM professionals provide the bridge between clinical data and reimbursement methodologies through CDI, coding, documentation integrity, and health data analytics to name a few. It has been proven time and time again that these HIM skills are vital to healthcare organizations but these skills must also be adapted and be put to good use each time a new guideline or rule is introduced.

Value-Based Reimbursement is an area that continues to grow with the push for quality patient outcomes and healthcare savings with potential penalties for excessive costs and poor quality of care. Reimbursement incentives that are tied to quality of care make perfect sense and HIM professionals need to take the plunge into these initiatives. By marrying departments and cross-functioning teams, we are able to generate proactive data and improve performance.

At my facility, I oversee the HIM department as well as the Quality department because we work closely together and will continue to have an even closer relationship throughout healthcare reform. This is becoming very common in the industry.

In this roundtable article for the Journal of AHIMA, we each outlined how we are bringing HIM to the table for Value Based Reimbursement initiatives and maximizing the tried and true skills of HIM professionals.

I have said it before and I will continue to say it: Always keep your finger on the pulse of healthcare and stay relevant by taking on these new challenges!

If you’d like to receive future HIM posts by Erin in your inbox, you can subscribe to future HIM Scene posts here.

Population Health Tech Will Lag Until Standards Emerge

Posted on June 22, 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.

There’s little doubt that healthcare organizations will continue to partner up with peers and acquire physician practices. The forces that drive healthcare network development are only intensifying as time goes by, particularly as the drive toward value-based payment moves ahead. But there’s a lot more to making such deals work than a handshake and a check. To make these deals work, it’s critical that networks become experts at population health management — and unfortunately, that’s going to be tough.

While merging health systems into ACOs or acquiring referring physicians has merit, this strategy won’t grow the steadily dropping pace of hospital admissions, notes William Faber, M.D., senior vice president of the GE Healthcare Camden Group. “Though clinically integrated networks do enlarge the patient base, one of their aims is also to reduce the percentage of admissions from that base,” making it unlikely that the networks will grow admissions, he points out.

To make a clinically integrated network successful, it certainly helps to take the initiative – to get to market more quickly than competitors – and to do a better job of controlling costs of care and demonstrating higher quality and service. Where things get stickier, however, is in managing that care across a large group. “The creation of a clinically integrated network must not be just a marketing or physician alignment strategy – it must truly enable effective population health management,” he writes.

And this, I’d argue, is where things get very tricky. Well, judge for yourself, but I’d argue that the HIT industry is ill-equipped to support these goals. Despite many years of paper-chart experimentation with population health, and several with population health technology, my sense is that the tech is far behind what it needs to be. Health IT vendors won’t get far until providers do a better job of defining what they need.

A different mindset

The truth is, this generation of EMRs is designed to track individual patients across an experience of care. While CIOs can add a layer of analytics technology to the mix, that is a far cry from creating tools that natively track population health trends. Looking at populations is simply a different mindset.

Admittedly, vendors will tell you that they’ve got the problem licked, but if they were completely candid many would have to admit that their products aren’t mature yet. Until someone creates an EMR or other basic tool which is designed, at its core, to track group health trends, I foresee more half-baked hacks than results.

What’s more, I doubt the health IT business will be able to help until it has at least an informal standard to which such products must adhere. Should such tools measure costs of care by diagnosis code? Compare such costs to national standards? Highlight patients in outpatient settings whose tests or exams suggest a crisis is about to happen? If so, which settings, and what cutoffs should be tracked for test scores? Does such a system need natural language processing to scour physician notes for trigger words, and if so which ones?

Without a doubt, medical and business executives leading integrated networks will come together and develop more answers to these questions. But until they do, health IT vendors won’t be able to help much with the population health challenge.

Hospitals’ Progress Towards Value Based Reimbursement

Posted on June 17, 2016 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.

After posting the value based reimbursement research results that were shared by McKesson Health Solutions in anticipation of the AHIP Institute, I came across this infographic from Health Catalyst about hospitals participation in value based reimbursement.

This infographic illustrates a slower adoption of value based reimbursement, but it does illustrate that pretty much every hospital is participating in value based reimbursement. The other thing that stood out to me in this infographic was how small hospitals are going to have a hard time accessing the capital they need to manage this shift. This should be troubling to those of us in healthcare. Those smaller hospitals play an important role in our healthcare system.

Hospitals Progress to Value Based Reimbursement