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!

Epic Hires DC Lobbying Firm To Fight Closed-System Reputation

Posted on September 15, 2014 I Written By

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

For quite some time, everybody’s favorite EMR giant has a “no marketing, no government relations” policy. (In fact, Epic staffers really seem to hate journalists, but maybe they just don’t like me — who knows?)

Anyway, a few weeks ago, reports the ever-watchful HISTalk, it came out that Epic has broken its rule, hiring on DC lobbying firm Card & Associates. While you might think Epic would hire a billion-dollar behemoth, Card is a smallish firm with seven modest accounts and only one healthcare client. It must help, however, that Card is run by the brother of the former White House Chief of Staff under Pres. George W. Bush.

So what made Epic change its standard operating procedure and begin lobbying The Hill? In its federal lobbying disclosure, the EMR firm says that it’s begun lobbying to “educate members of Congress on the interoperability of Epic’s healthcare information technology.”

The timing of the outreach effort isn’t a coincidence, Modern Healthcare astutely notes. As you read this, a team made up of Epic, IBM and a handful of other technology giants are fighting other equally ferocious IT firms to win the roughly $11 billion contract to update the Department of Defense’s clinical systems.

While none of its contract competitors have a strong reputation for interoperability, Epic is seen as much worse, with a RAND Corp. study released in July calling Epic’s systems “closed records.” That had to hurt.

Unless Epic plans to hold health IT classes for Congress over the next several years, I doubt they’ll be able to make their point with largely Luddite Senators and Representatives in Washington on a technical basis. That is, Epic’s lobbyists won’t be able to convince legislators that Epic is interoperable on the merits.

But lobbyists may very well be able to break the ice on The Hill, and sell the idea that those mean, bad old health IT competitors haven’t been telling the truth about Epic. The pitch can include the somewhat matronly CEO, Judith Faulkner, who doesn’t look like the most powerful woman in healthcare or a competitor that would gladly bite your head off and spit it down your neck. Then they can roll out Epic’s pitch that its systems actually are interoperable (between other Epic installs at least). If it sticks even a little bit, whatever the $1.7 billion company spent will have been worth it.

Frankly, I find the idea of portraying Epic as an underdog in any way as downright laughable, and I bet you do too. But I simply can’t imagine another pitch that would work.

Will Hospitals Be Penalized If Their EHR Vendor Isn’t 2014 EHR Certified?

Posted on August 30, 2013 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

Let me state the obvious. An EHR implementation in a hospital is a time consuming and expensive effort. While the idea of switching EMR software is a palpable discussion in the ambulatory space, it is a much more difficult discussion in the hospital EMR space. I heard one hospital CIO whose hospital decided to switch EHR software say it took them 2 years to make this decision. The idea of switching EMR software is not even a discussion point for many hospital CIOs.

With this in mind, I was intrigued by today’s #HITsm chat where we talked about meaningful use stage 2. More than a few people suggested that many EHR vendors are going to fail to meet the meaningful use stage 2 requirements and be 2014 EHR certified. I’ve personally suggested that I don’t think this will be the case. EHR vendors have far too much to lose to not be certified. However, more than a few people disagree with me on this subject, so I started to consider what this would mean for an organization.

For those of you who also read EMR and HIPAA, you might remember my post earlier this year called EHR Penalties after Meaningful Use Failure. In it I discuss how damaging it would be for a hospital that makes a sincere commitment to EHR and meaningful use to then fails to get the EHR incentive money because they fall short of meaningful use or fail an MU audit.

A similar situation could occur if a hospital’s EHR vendor isn’t able to meet the meaningful use stage 2 EHR certification requirements. What does the hospital do in this case? Will they miss out on the EHR incentive money and also suffer the EHR penalties because their EHR vendor wasn’t ready for meaningful use stage 2?

Like I said, I’ll still be surprised (especially in the hospital EHR space) if all the hospital EHR vendors don’t become 2014 EHR certified. However, if they don’t, a lot of hospitals will be put in a precarious position.

My guess is that if this happens, ONC will make an exception in the penalties for not being a meaningful user. I can’t imagine them penalizing a hospital who’s trying to be a meaningful user of an EHR and can’t because of their EHR vendor’s inability to perform. Although this would start a slippery slope of exceptions.

Either way, I want to dig into this topic more. How many EHR vendors won’t have their EHR certified for meaningful use stage 2? What are the timelines for them to complete this certification and then for hospitals to implement everything for MU stage 2?

Top 10 Hospital EHR Vendors By Installed Systems

Posted on December 21, 2012 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

I came across this list of Top 10 Hospital EHR vendors by installed systems on Dark Daily (a great resource, particularly if you’re into Labs). The data is a little dated, but I thought it would be interesting to consider the numbers in 2011 and how they might look different today. Here’s the list:

Vendor Name Total Installations Percent of Installations
• Meditech 1212 25.50%
• Cerner 606 12.80%
• McKesson 573 12.10%
• Epic Systems 413 8.70%
• Siemens Healthcare 397 8.40%
• CPSI 392 8.30%
• Healthcare Management Systems 347 7.30%
• Self-developed 273 5.80%
• Healthland 223 4.70%
• Eclipsys (Bought by Allscripts) 185 3.90%

This list was taken from the HIMSS Analytics database. I wish I had access so I could compare these numbers for 2012. The interesting thing is that I’m not sure the Hospital EHR vendor numbers would be all that much different. Epic is the media darling, but its focus is squarely on the large hospital systems so they often lag behind when it comes to total installations.

Contest Offers Prizes For CCD Redesign

Posted on November 19, 2012 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.

When EMRs are the gossip of the week at TechCrunch (a popular tech startup website), you know our little EMR thang has gone mainstream. And TechCrunch is indeed one of a series of sites trumpeting the news of a design challenge intended to make the Continuity of Care Document more usable.

The White House’s Health Design Challenge, working with a community of philanthropic angels and mentors known as Designer Fund, asks designers to transform the CCD (and by extension the Blue Button output) from a consumer-hostile mess into something easily used by the following groups:

  • An underserved inner-city parent with lower health literacy
  • A senior citizen that has a hard time reading
  • A young adult who is engaged with technology and mobile devices
  • An adult whose first language is not English
  • A patient with breast cancer receiving care from multiple providers
  • A busy mom managing her kids’ health and helping her aging parents

The ONC and VA, which seem to be spearheading the effort, are providing for twelve winners. First place for best overall design gets $16K, second place $6K and third place $4K. They’re also distributing $8K per category across winners for best medical/problem history section, best medication section and best lab summaries.

The design is expected to not only improve the visual layout of the record, it’s also supposed to make it easier for a patient to manage their health, enable medical professionals to digest information more efficiently and help caregivers support patients. Tall order for a messed-up text file?  Well, we’ll see what design superbrains can do.

In part because the VA hopes to use the new designs to support its Blue Button initiative and its MyHealtheVet patient portal, all entries have to be submitted under a Creative Commons license.   Curators will select a final design — which may include elements from various winning entries — and open source the code on code-sharing commuity Github.

What HIMSS Told Congress

Posted on November 16, 2012 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.

This week, a House subcommittee held a hearing entitled “Is ‘Meaningful Use’ Delivering Meaningful Results?: An Examination of Health  Information Technology Standards and Interoperability.”  The hearing follows a recent furor over Meaningful Use’s benefits, in which HHS head Kathleen Sebelius was written a stinging letter by a quartet of Congressman arguing that the program might not be pulling its weight.

Lots of interesting discussion took place at the hearing — see a report from the indefatigable HIT blogger and expert Brian Ahier for more background — but for the purposes of this item, I’m focusing on what HIMSS had to say.

HIMSS, which obviously has a massive stake in the topic discussed, is a big Meaningful Use fan. The trade group argues that “Meaningful Use and the Stage 2 regulations allow the healthcare community to continue the necessary steps to ensure health information technology will support the transformation of healthcare delivery in the United States.”

Not surprisingly, HIMSS showed up in full color at the hearing, ready to defend MU and the progress of health IT generally. HIMSS offered Congress seven recommendations as to how to keep the MU train moving, Ahier reports. Here’s my favorites:

  1. Direct the administration to initiate an appropriate study of a nationwide patient data matching strategy with a report back to Congress.
  2. Support harmonization of federal and state privacy laws and regulations to encourage the exchange of health information across health systems, payers, and vendor systems.
  3. Continue to support and sponsor pilot programs addressing the collection, analysis and management of clinical data for quality reporting purposes to assist providers and provider organizations make informed decisions for public health, patient care and business purposes.
  4. Preclude any additional delay in the nationwide implementation of ICD-10, International Classification of Diseases beyond the current October 1, 2014 deadline.

Other than the ICD-10 recommendation, which will probably be battled down to the last millisecond by some groups, I’m betting most readers would consider these to be reasonable steps. But I could be wrong. And I don’t see a lot here on the nitty-gritty of interoperability, which was the focus of the Congressmen’s ire in the first  place.  Folks, what would you add to/subtract from this list?

UPMC Sinks $100MM Into Big Data

Posted on November 6, 2012 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 University of Pittsburgh Medical Center has announced plans to spend $100 million over five years to create a massive data warehouse, a move which puts it well at the forefront of hospital “big data” efforts.

According to Information Week, UPMC’s data warehouse will bring together clinical, financial, administrative, genomic  and other information. The health system has targeted more than 200 data sources across the Medical Center, UPMC Health Plan and other affiliates.

I’ll let Information Week describe the technical set-up:

To collect, store, manage, and analyze the information maintained in the data warehouse, UPMC will use the Oracle Exadata Database Machine, a high-performance database platform; IBM’s Cognos software for business intelligence and financial management; Informatica’s data integration platform; and dbMotion’s SOA-based interoperability platform that integrates patient records from healthcare organizations and health information exchanges. These tools will manage the 3.2 petabytes of data that flows across UPMC’s business divisions.

As to how UPMC plans to use these tools, they’re hoping to do all of the things you might imagine, including genomically-tailored prescribing, population analytics and sophisticated tracking of individual patient data to make predictions about possible risks.

As I see it, UPMC’s efforts highlight both the importance of big data efforts and the downside in making the investment.

On the one hand, you’ve got the benefits. For example, patients will clearly see better outcomes if doctors can use top-drawer analytical tools to predict how treatments will work or know well in advance if a patient’s condition is about to go south.  And hospitals will clearly run better if execs get insights into issues that cross clinical and administrative boundaries, such as ED or OR utilization.

On the other, you’ve got the reality that big data projects are prohibitively expensive for all but the best-funded of healthcare organizations, and probably won’t produce returns on investment for several years at best.  Average community hospitals won’t be consolidating and analyzing their data this way anytime soon.

HHS OIG Begins Digging Into EMR Overbilling Allegations

Posted on November 5, 2012 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.

Well, it had to happen: The furor over the possible EMR-related Medicare overbilling has moved to its next stage.  After enduring harangues by members of Congress and a widely-read New York Times article alleging that EMRs were upcoding machines, HHS has begun to look into the matter directly.

Fraud investigators within the HHS’s Office of the Inspector General have sent a 54-question survey to hospitals who got Meaningful Use incentive payments between January 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012. The survey looks into assertions that hospitals and physicians using EMRs have been inflating Medicare claims.

The logical next step for the OIG’s office is to issue a report to Congress spelling out whether it has reason to believe EMRs are linked to Medicare overbilling. The OIG will doubtless do some chart pulling and analysis to see whether it finds suspicious-looking patterns.

As I’ve said before — and will continue to say, doubtless — this whole effort concerns me. I’m not suggesting that HHS should ignore any evidence it has that hospitals or doctors are using EMRs to engineer a billing joyride. On the other hand, “overbilling” can be in the eye of the beholder, and conducting an inquisition into EMR user behavior seems premature to me.

I find myself wondering whether the feds have seriously considered hospitals’ response to these charges — that EMRs aren’t generating overbilling schemes, but instead are merely capturing and documenting services which weren’t always captured in the days of paper records.  It’s a credible argument and deserves a closer look.

So, let’s  hope HHS takes a breath and looks at the benign possibilities providers have outlined before it accuses hospitals and practices of wrongdoing. Otherwise, we’ll have a agency simultaneously pushing for EMR adoption and hanging the sword of Damocles over the heads of doctors and hospitals.

EMR Overbilling Investigations Sling Mud At Meaningful Use Program

Posted on October 31, 2012 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 the wake of an expose in The New York Times claiming that upcoding and overbilling was increasing with the use of EMRs, and members of Congress riding the claim, I guess ONC had no choice but to take the allegations seriously.  So fearless leader Farzad Mostashari, M.D. has asked the advisory HIT Policy Committee to study whether providers are using EMRs to upcode Medicare bills.

I suppose you can tell from how I put that that I’m far from convinced EMRs are generating massive amounts of illegitimate bills, but the idea is “out there” now and dangerous to the future of HITECH objectives. So I suppose it’s a good thing that ONC is investigating.

Dr. Mostashari wants to find out whether EMRs tend to foster the use of higher billing codes by encouraging doctors to cut and paste information from one patient encounter to another, according to an interview with the Center for Public Integrity. He’s also asking the policy committee to determine whether some EMR functions prompt physicians to overbill.

All of this leaves me sort of uneasy.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting that EMRs aren’t generating any upcoding issues at all. We all know that many physicians feel pressured to cut and paste text in an effort to get through their heavy workloads, particularly if they’re not otherwise comfortable with their system.

Also, I can’t deny that there are bad apples in every profession, including medicine, who could conceivably be taking advantage of the newness of the technology to reap a profit.

No, my concerns are more that countless providers will have one more thing to worry about as they use the new technology, and that policymakers will view EMRs with a level of suspicion they hadn’t before.  We’re at a tricky point in the overall EMR adoption curve, and bad vibes and publicity are the last thing we need. Meaningful Use compliance is tough enough as it is.

Healthcare Cloud Spending Slated For Major Growth

Posted on October 30, 2012 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.

Hospitals may still be ambivalent about using the cloud for clinical data transport, but attitudes are likely to undergo a major change over the next few years, according to research firm MarketsandMarkets. The firm projects that the healthcare cloud market will expand by about 20.5 percent per year over the next five years, hitting $5.4 billion by 2017.

Right now, healthcare cloud spending has hit roughly $1.8 billion, which represents penetration of four percent, MarketsandMarkets found.  That’s just a drop in the bucket, particularly given the big competitors who are aiming their guns at the healthcare cloud market today. (Other estimates put healthcare cloud penetration at 16.5 percent of the marketplace, still a small number though meaningfully larger than MarketsandMarkets’ number.)

As our sister site EMRandHIPAA.com previously noted, Verizon’s Enterprise Solutions division is offering five “healthcare-enabled” services, including colocation, managed hosting, enterprise cloud, an “enterprise cloud express edition” and enterprise cloud private edition. Verizon hopes to capture healthcare IT managers who are worried not only about HIPAA-secure clinical data transport, but also HIPAA-appropriate data protection on site, as it’s training hosting workers to be HIPAA-ready.

Another set of deep pocketed healthcare cloud vendors are AT&T and IBM, who are partnering to capture what they deem to be a $14 billion healthcare cloud market.  Under the terms of an agreement announced in early October, IBM will provide data storage facilities and services, while AT&T will provide the network.

What could possibly hold back the advance of such giants?  Well, a number of issues, MarketsandMarkets notes. While vendors large and small may promise to be compliant with healthcare regs, healthcare data is challenging to manage, given that it requires special security, confidentiality, availability to authorized users, traceability of access, reversibility of data and long-term preservation.

My guess is that hospitals will respond to the efforts of vendors to attract cloud business, but that the market for public cloud services in particular won’t shoot upward as MarketsandMarkets predicts, as there’s just too many things that worry CIOs.  How about you, readers?

Hospitals Behind On EMR ROI Measurements

Posted on October 26, 2012 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.

Buying an EMR is one of biggest investments a hospital IT department is likely to make. To date, however, few hospitals are planning for and implementing EMR ROI measures early in the game, according to a new study from Beacon Partners.

Beacon interviewed more than 300 healthcare leaders about the clinical system performance measures they used for their EMR, as well as the resulting ROI.  What researchers found out was that most respondents weren’t happy with their organization’s attempts to measure the ROI on their EMR spend — and that many hospitals aren’t directly measuring ROI at all.

According to healthcare leaders who spoke with Beacon, quality management and IT departments, rather than financial executives,  generally institute EMR performance measures. All told, 40 percent of respondents said that they were using performance measures, but only 36 percent were satisfied with the extent to which the data was being used to measure the value EMRs brought to their organization, Beacon reports.

The problem may spring from a lack of planning. According to Beacon’s respondents, less than half (48 percent) of performance measures are determined during planning.  In fact, 32 percent of providers said that performance measures were implemented in at least one patient care area post-EMR implementation.  Fifty-one percent of respondents said that they would have preferred to implement clinical system performance measures earlier than they had done so.

It’s hard to tell what would deter these healthcare execs —  mostly leaders with community hospitals — from demanding more results from their EMR investment. My best guess, though, is that adhering to Meaningful Use guidelines has taken up all of their bandwidth, and that CFOs have been mollified by the promise of incentive payments from the feds.

As the Beacon study suggests, though, healthcare leaders aren’t satisfied with this state of affairs. Vendors, expect to get more searching questions about ROI measurement over the next year or two.