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!

Geisinger Partners With Pharmas To Improve Diabetes Outcomes

Posted on October 10, 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.

Geisinger has struck a deal with Boehringer Ingelheim to develop a risk-prediction model for three of the most common adverse outcomes from type 2 diabetes. The agreement is on behalf of Boehringer’s diabetes alliance with Eli Lilly and Company.

What makes this partnership interesting is that the players involved in this kind of pharma relationship are usually health plans. For example:

  • In May, UnitedHealth Group’s Optum struck a deal to model reimbursement models in which payment for prescription drugs is better structured to improve outcomes.
  • Earlier this year, Aetna cut a deal with Merck in which the two will use predictive analytics to identify target populations and offer them specialized health and wellness services. The program started by focusing on patients with diabetes and hypertension in the mid-Atlantic US.
  • Another example is the 2015 agreement between Harvard Pilgrim health plan and Amgen, in which the pharma would pay rebates if its cholesterol-control medication Repatha didn’t meet agreed-upon thresholds.

As the two organizations note in their joint press statement, cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death associated with diabetes, and diabetes is the top cause of kidney failure in the U.S. population. Cardiovascular complications alone cost the U.S. more than $23 billion per year, and roughly 68 percent of deaths in people with type 2 diabetes in the U.S. are caused by cardiovascular disease.

The two partners hope to improve the odds for diabetics by identifying their condition quickly and treating it effectively.

Under the Geisinger/Boehringer agreement, the partners will attempt to predict which adults with type 2 diabetes are most likely to develop kidney failure, undergo hospitalization for heart failure or die from cardiovascular causes.

To improve the health of diabetics, the partners will develop predictive risk models using de-identified EHR data from Geisinger. The goal is to develop more precise treatment pathways for people with type 2 diabetes, and see that the pathways align with quality guidelines.

Though this agreement itself doesn’t have a value-based component, it’s likely that health systems like Geisinger will take up health plans’ strategies for lowering spend on medications, as the systems will soon be on the hook for excess spending.

After all, according to a KPMG survey, value-based contracts are becoming a meaningful percentage of health system revenue. The survey found that while value-based agreements aren’t dominant, 36 percent of respondents generated some of their revenue from value-based payments and 14 percent said the majority of revenue is generated by value-based payments.

In the meantime, partnerships like this one may help to improve outcomes for expensive, prevalent conditions like diabetes, high blood pressure, arthritis and heart disease. Expect to see more health systems strike such agreements in the near future.

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?