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

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

Posted on November 19, 2014 I Written By

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patient Safety Benefits of EHR, EHR Design, and RIP CCHIT

Posted on November 7, 2014 I Written By

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

Here’s a quick look at some interesting tweets out their in the healthcare IT and EHR Twitterverse.


I’ve heard this argument from Epic before. There’s certainly an argument to make for improved patient safety on one system. However, that’s likely because our current systems aren’t interoperable. If they were interoperable, then having one massive system wouldn’t be better for patient safety. Considering, the EHR world is going to be a heterogeneous EHR environment, we need to make it so multiple systems isn’t a patient safety issue.


Ouch! I’ve described them as big billing engines, but I think a tool designed for insurance auditors might be more descriptive. Lately there has been a new layer added. EHR is now a tool for meaningful use auditors as well.


CCHIT being gone won’t likely have much impact on healthcare and EHR. They were basically gone for a number of years already. Although, I think their departure is a good thing for healthcare IT and EHR. I’d just still love to see EHR certification disappear as well. EHR certification is not meaningful.

More Epic Interoperability Discussion

Posted on October 7, 2014 I Written By

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on September 19, 2014 I Written By

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does the Stockholm Syndrome Apply to EMRs?

Posted on November 8, 2012 I Written By

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

Paul Levy wrote an interesting post comparing Stockholm Syndrome to EMR software. For those who aren’t familiar with it, here’s a description of Stockholm Syndrome:

Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.

Paul Levy makes the case for EMRs being similar to the Stockholm Syndrome based on Epic’s decisions to not integrate with other medical record systems and some of the controlling tactics that Epic uses with its customers. They are interesting and it’s amazing what a hospital CIO will put up with from an EMR company like Epic.

I’d take this idea one step further. I’ve recently heard a number of people ask the question, “Is Epic really that good or is it just the best of the worst?” Doesn’t this sound a lot like the Stockholm Syndrome? Basically defending something that really isn’t all that great, just because it was better that the bad treatment they got from other EMR vendors before.

Paul Levy describes the myth that he thinks is why we are where we are today:

It is a widely accepted myth that medicine requires complex, highly specialized information-technology (IT) systems. This myth continues to justify soaring IT costs, burdensome physician workloads, and stagnation in innovation — while doctors become increasingly bound to documentation and communication products that are functionally decades behind those they use in their “civilian” life.

We believe that EHR vendors propagate the myth that health IT is qualitatively different from industrial and consumer products in order to protect their prices and market share and block new entrants. In reality, diverse functionality needn’t reside within single EHR systems, and there’s a clear path toward better, safer, cheaper, and nimbler tools for managing health care’s complex tasks.

The two killer points for me are the “stagnation in innovation” and the “functionally decades behind” comments. Those who argue against these things usually use a few specific cases of advancement and innovation as opposed to the industry as a whole.

I’d suggest that one of the biggest impediments to innovation is the barriers to entry for a startup company. How many hospitals do you know that would buy software from a startup company? It’s pretty rare. Yet, this is where the very best innovation comes from in other industries.

I still think that there will be opportunities for some startup companies to come along and disrupt the current EHR providers. Epic did it to Meditech in many ways, and I’m sure we’ll see another come along and do the same. However, I think the number of people that can do this is limited to a very small group of people thanks to the way healthcare is organized and done in hospitals. This lack of access leads to a lack of innovation.