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!

Do We Need Another Interoperability Group?

Posted on September 20, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Over the last few years, industry groups dedicated to interoperability have been popping up like mushrooms after a hard rain. All seem to be dedicated to solving the same set of intractable data sharing problems.

The latest interoperability initiative on my radar, known as the Da Vinci Project, is focused on supporting value-based care.

The Da Vinci Project, which brings together more than 20 healthcare companies, is using HL7 FHIR to foster VBC (Value Based Care). Members include technology vendors, providers, and payers, including Allscripts, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Cerner, Epic, Rush University Medical Center, Surescripts, UnitedHealthcare, Humana and Optum. The initiative is hosted by HL7 International.

Da Vinci project members plan to develop a common set of standards for data exchange that can be used nationally. The idea is to help partner organizations avoid spending money on one-off data sharing development projects.

The members are already at work on two test cases, one addressing 30-day medication reconciliation and the other coverage requirements discovery. Next, members will begin work on test cases for document templates and coverage rules, along with eHealth record exchange in support of HEDIS/STARS and clinician exchange.

Of course, these goals sound good in theory. Making it simpler for health plans, vendors and providers to create data sharing standards in common is probably smart.

The question is, is this effort really different from others fronted by Epic, Cerner and the like? Or perhaps more importantly, does its approach suffer from limitations that seem to have crippled other attempts at fostering interoperability?

As my colleague John Lynn notes, it’s probably not wise to be too ambitious when it comes to solving interoperability problems. “One of the major failures of most interoperability efforts is that they’re too ambitious,” he wrote earlier this year. “They try to do everything and since that’s not achievable, they end up doing nothing.”

John’s belief – which I share — is that it makes more sense to address “slices of interoperability” rather than attempt to share everything with everyone.

It’s possible that the Da Vinci Project may actually be taking such a practical approach. Enabling partners to create point-to-point data sharing solutions easily sounds very worthwhile, and could conceivably save money and improve care quality. That’s what we’re all after, right?

Still, the fact that they’re packaging this as a VBC initiative gives me pause. Hey, I know that fee-for-service reimbursement is on its way out and that it will take new technology to support new payment models, but is this really what happening here? I have to wonder.

Bottom line, if the giants involved are still slapping buzzwords on the project, I’m not sure they know what they’re doing yet. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see where they go with it.

Rate Of Healthcare Ransomware Attacks Falls In First Half of 2018

Posted on July 12, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Most research I’ve read lately suggests that the rate of healthcare cyberattacks is at an all-time high, and that ransomware is leading the parade.

But is that really true? Maybe not. A new security report has concluded that the rate of ransomware attacks on healthcare organizations actually fell during the first half of this year, and what’s more, that such attacks trended lower during the same period.

The study, which comes from security firm CryptoniteNXT, notes that cybercriminals target healthcare because they can fetch great prices for the data by reselling it on the dark web. Also, given the complexity of healthcare networks and the high number of vulnerabilities in those networks, thieves see providers as a fat and easy target.

However, when it comes to ransomware, the landscape may be changing. CryptoniteNXT found that the number of ransomware attacks impacting over 500 patient records dropped from 19 major data breaches in the first half of 2017 to 8 major breaches in the first half of 2018. That’s an impressive 57% decrease.

The biggest reported records IT/hacker-driven breach hit LifeBridge Health, affecting 538,127 individuals. Other organizations targeted included academic medical centers, medical practices, ambulatory surgical centers, health plans and government agencies.

Meanwhile, the rate of ransomware attacks as a percentage of IT/hacking events has fallen substantially, from 30.16% during the first half of 2017 to 13.6% during the first half of this year.

On the other hand, the volume of patients affected has climbed. Roughly 1.9 million patient records were breached in the first half of this year, compared with 1.7 million records the first half of 2017 and 1.8 million records the second half of that year, it concludes.

Also, the report notes that ransomware attackers are far from done with the industry. The authors say that ransomware will still pose a “formidable threat” to healthcare organizations and that new variants such as AI-based malware will pose a major threat to healthcare organizations for the next couple of years.

To fend off hacking attacks, CryptoniteNXT recommends adopting new best practices such as moving target cyber defense and network micro-segmentation, which can address the inherent weakness of TCP/IP networks.

Mobile App Streamlines Physician Query Process

Posted on June 28, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Most physicians would tell you that they already spend too much time on documentation and coding. Adding insult to injury, after the coding job is done we often have to explain their decisions to medical coders, a process which can take as long as 20 minutes, according to vendor Artifact Health.

Artifact hopes to take the pain out of the burdensome physician query process. It offers a mobile app allowing doctors to answer coding queries which it says allow them to resolve problems within just three clicks. Physicians can also access the platform on the desktop.

Its approach bears some relationship to a new product from vendor Change Healthcare, which has just launched RCM technology which helps doctors address claims documentation requests. Change’s Assurance Assist Module, which is part of its Assurance Reimbursement Management suite, can anticipate the documentation needs of eight payers, the company said.

I am interested in both of these approaches because I know that physicians are already struggling to manage medical coding within their own practices. Hospital queries are a challenging part of that mix and feels like a major chore for providers. In fact, if Artifact’s research is correct and each traditional query takes 20 minutes to resolve, physicians could conceivably end up a little time to do anything else.

So far, Artifact seems to be rolling along impressively. The vendor says that more than 50 hospitals have come on board with its technology, including five institutions from Johns Hopkins Medicine. According to the vendor, these hospitals solve physician response rate of almost 100% and average response time within 48 hours for all periods.

Meanwhile, the hospitals found that the time it took for claims to get paid (days in Accounts Receivable) fell substantially, Artifact reports.

Lest it sound like I’m an Artifact investor, let me raise the questions I ask every time I get a look at a new health IT startup:

  • What does the software cost?
  • How long does it usually take to go live with the platform?
  • How much man- or woman power will it take to install and maintain the software?

At the moment I don’t know. As we all know, not only the initial investment, but also implementation and maintenance can catch hospitals by surprise.

The truth is, it’s likely any vendor addressing aspects of hospital RCM will be somewhat expensive and somewhat complex to install. I wish there were workable benchmarks giving hospital leaders a preliminary sense of their potential investment.

Regardless, this is a worthwhile area for RCM vendors to attack. Even if all this technology did was give doctors some relief, it might reach ROI over time. When you consider that tools like these can help coders get clean claims out of the door, it’s even better.

Small Financial Innovations that Make A Big Difference for Patients and Hospitals

Posted on May 3, 2018 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.

More and more these days I’m fascinated by the practical innovations that can impact healthcare much more than the moonshot ideas which are great ideas but never actually impact healthcare. I’ve quickly come to believe that the way to transform healthcare his through hundreds of little innovations that will allow us to reach a transformative future.

I saw an example of this when I talked with PatientMatters. They work in a section of healthcare that many don’t consider sexy: revenue cycle management. However, I often say, the financial side of healthcare isn’t sexy, unless you care about money. Given how healthcare is getting pressed from every angle, every hospital I know is interested in the financial side of the equation.

PatientMatters is doing a number of things that are interesting when it comes to a patient’s financial experience in a hospital. They offer a great mix of tools, training, process design, automation and coaching to reframe a patient’s financial experience. This is a trend I’m seeing in more and more healthcare IT companies. It takes much more than technology to really change the experience.

That said, I was most intrigued by how PatientMatters offers unique payment plans to patients based on a wide variety of factors including current credit information, payment history for current financial obligations, and their residual income. From this information PatientMatters does an assessment of a patient’s ability to pay based on these five categories:

  1. Guarantors that generate this designation are the most likely to pay their full obligation. This population predictably pays their full balance more than 94% of the time. Recognizing these guarantors provides key savings to the hospital:
    • Because these guarantors are most likely to meet their obligation, conversations with the registration staff regarding payment are brief and concise.
    • Recognizing the high likelihood of guarantor payment performance, many hospitals elect to keep these accounts in-house and not refer to their early out vendors. This generates vendor savings for the hospital.
  1. These guarantors also have a high collections success rate, but they may need more time and slightly reduced payment plans to meet their obligation. Using data analytics to understand the guarantor allows the hospital to structure a custom payment plan with a high likelihood of performance.
  1. Guarantors in this category require a higher degree of attention from the registration team. This group struggles to meet their financial responsibilities. A hospital that spends the extra time working with the guarantor on a highly structured payment plan will see collection improvements with this population.
  1. These guarantors fall into two categories; a) a low likelihood of meeting their financial commitment or b) guarantor may meet hospital charity program, based on their FPL status. Scripting will help the registration assess the guarantor and identify the best solution.
  1. These guarantors will likely be unable to meet their hospital obligation. Many times these individuals will qualify for the hospital charity, Medicaid, County Indigent or other assistance programs.

It’s not hard to see how this more personalized approach to a patient’s financial experience makes a big difference when it comes to collections, patient satisfaction, etc. However, what I loved most about this approach was how simple it was to understand and process. It’s worth remembering that a hospital’s registration staff are generally one of the lowest paid, highest turnover positions in any hospital. So, simplicity is key.

I love seeing practical, innovative solutions like the one PatientMatters offers hospitals. They make a big difference on a hospital’s bottom line. However, they also create a much better experience for the patients who mostly want to get through the billing process and on to their care. How are you customizing the financial experience for your patients?

Are We Going About Population Health The Wrong Way?

Posted on March 29, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

For most of us, the essence population health management is focusing on patients who have already experienced serious adverse health events. But what if that doesn’t work? At least one writer suggests that though it may seem counterintuitive, the best way to reduce needless admissions and other costly problems is to focus on patients identified by predictive health data rather than “gut feelings” or chasing frequent flyers.

Shantanu Phatakwala, managing director of research and development for Evolent Health, argues that focusing on particularly sick patients won’t reduce costs nearly as much as hospital leaders expect, as their assumptions don’t withstand statistical scrutiny.

Today, physicians and care management teams typically target patients with a standard set of characteristics, including recent acute events, signs of health and stability such as recent inpatient admissions and chronic conditions such as diabetes, COPD and heart disease. These metrics come from a treatment mindset rather than a predictive one, according to Phatakwala.

This approach may make sense intellectually, but in reality, it may not have the desired effect. “The reality is that patients who have already had major acute events tend to stabilize, and their future utilization is not as high,” he writes. Meanwhile, health leaders are missing the chance to prevent serious illness in an almost completely different cohort of patients.

To illustrate his point, he tells the story of a commercial entity managing 19,000 lives which began a population health management project. In the beginning, health leaders worked with the data science team, which identified 353 people whose behavior suggested that they were headed for trouble.

The entity then focused its efforts on 253 of the targeted cohort for short-term personal attention, including both personal goals (such as walking their daughter down the aisle at her wedding later that year) and health goals (such as losing 25 pounds). Care managers and nurses helped them develop plans to achieve these goals through self-management.

Meanwhile, the care team overrode data analytics recommendations regarding the remaining 100 patients and did not offer them specialized care interventions during the six-month program.  Lo and behold, care for the patients who didn’t get enrolled in health management programs cost 75% more than for patients who were targeted, at a total cost of $1.4 million. Whew!

None of this is to suggest that intuition is useless. However, this case illustrates the need for trusting data over intuition in some situations. As Phatakwala notes, this can call for a leap of faith, as on the surface it makes more sense to focus on patients who are already sick. But until clinicians feel comfortable working with predictive analytics data, health systems may never achieve the population health management results they seek, he contends. And he seems to have a good point.

Hospitals Excited By Telehealth, Consumers Not So Much

Posted on December 29, 2017 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

When telehealth first emerged as a major commercial phenomenon, consumers were the main market targeted by providers, especially direct-to-consumer models like Teladoc and American Well. But if a new research report is right, the dynamics of the telehealth market have changed substantially, with hospitals and health systems investing heavily in telehealth and consumers hanging back.

The study, which was conducted by telehealth solutions provider Avizia, found that while hospitals and health systems are making increasingly large bets on telehealth, including infrastructure, training and process re-engineering, patients aren’t matching their enthusiasm.

Consumers who do access telehealth seem happy by what they find. When Avizia asked them to rate their telehealth experiences on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 rating it as a “great experience,” nearly two-thirds ranked their experiences between 8 and 10. Also, consumers who were using telehealth said that they like the time savings and convenience it could offer (59%), cost savings due to a lack of travel expenses and lower wait times to see clinicians (55%).

That being said, many consumers haven’t gotten on board yet. In fact, roughly eight out of 10 consumers told Avizia that they weren’t well versed in accessing telehealth, nor did they know whether their insurer would pay for it.

Providers, for their part, have ambitious plans for telehealth use. According to the study, the top one was the ability to reach or expand access to patients (72% of respondents). However, they face several obstacles, the study notes, including problems with getting reimbursed by health plans (41%), program expenses (40%) and resistance from clinicians (22%).

The Avizia results suggest that hospitals are still wrestling with many of the problems they’ve faced over the past few years in implementing telemedicine.

For example, a study by KPMG released in mid-2016 noted that about 25% of the 120 providers it studied had implemented telehealth and telemedicine programs which have achieved financial stability and improved efficiency. Thirty-five percent of KPMG respondents said that they didn’t have a virtual care program in place, though 40% had said they had just implemented a program.

Another study, released earlier this year by Reach Health, notes that 50% of hospitals and health systems are beginning to shift department-based telehealth programs to enterprise-based programs, which suggests that they no longer see virtual care as an experimental technology. They still aren’t rolling out these larger programs yet.

Still, the fact that hospitals are continuing to push ahead with telemedicine, and even make meaningful investments, makes it clear that they’re not going to be put off by current telemedicine obstacles. When the reimbursement tide floods the gates, I’m betting that hospital telemedicine programs will go from “not unusual” to “omnipresent.”

Hospital M&A Getting Tough (But Misguided) Scrutiny From Lawmakers

Posted on November 7, 2011 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

As us in “the biz” know, the pace of hospital M&A isn’t going to slow down anytime soon. Hospitals are huddling together to scale up for countless reasons.

The reasons for hospital consolidation are just about unstoppable, of course, as they include  a) well-founded fears regarding reform, b) trouble carrying the capital capital costs involved in scaling up health IT infrastructure, c) long-term trends squeezing hospital margins and d) the need to participate effectively  in ACOs, HIEs and other alphabet soup organizations.

Unless the government takes over the entire healthcare system and spends these factors away, they’ll push execs into the arms of their peers regardless of what federal policies roll out.  Yes, the FTC can put mergers on hold, and notably, has gone medieval on a few mergers just to prove it can, but let’s not pretend it has the resources to slow hospital consolidation dealflow much either.

So, I must say I was sort of amused to learn that members of the  House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health took a  stern look at hospital dealmaking and consolidation last month.  You know, to me it’s like standing in a flooded basement in a rainstorm and focusing on a few cracks in the wall — but I digress.

At the hearing, an economics and health policy professor named Martin Gaynor testified that consolidation was picking up speed. He also asserted that studies show hospital prices going up meaningfully whenever hospital markets consolidate.

Geez, Professor Gaynor, you say that like it’s a bad thing! Doesn’t classical economics allow for the supply side folks to work together too, without breaking the system? Whoops, I digress again.

The hearing, which took place in September, also included data from a Rand Corp. study noting that health plans were consolidating dramatically, and that these mergers were giving health plans too much power.  (Wow, imagine that — health plans having too much power?)

Oh, Lord, why does all of this seem beside the point?  Well, probably because it’s not going to help anyone.  Sure, knowing  what impact hospital M&A is having is part of a well-informed Health Subcommittee’s job description.  And I appreciate that the Subcommittee is trying to look at the bigger picture, one which includes both health insurers and hospitals.

But hearings like this, which assume that pricing indicators are the best way to decide whether the public good is being served, strike me as painfully uninformed. While I’m no economist, I have seen a few deals come and go, and some ill-considered attempts to control dealflow too. After following the health market for decades, I’m convinced that playing Whack-A-Mole and slapping down those “bad guys” who are overcharging/underpaying gets us nowhere.

 

FTC: This Merger Looks So Good, It Has To Be Illegal

Posted on August 29, 2011 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

If you’re as cynical as I am, it’s not hard to take a certain amusement in the goings-on in Toledo over the merger between an aggressive for-profit hospital chain and a suburban not-for-profit.

Over the past few months, the Federal Trade Commission seems to have developed a passionate interest in the merger between a formerly Lutheran-owned non-profit, St. Luke’s Hospital of Maumee, OH and ProMedica Health System of Toledo. ProMedica, which owns 11 hospitals in Ohio and Michigan — including four in the Toledo metro — is a swaggering giant with $1.7 billion in annual revenue.

What a sweet deal it was for ProMedica. According to Moody’s, the facility had very little debt ($8.3 million) and 412 percent cash-to-debt coverage as of November 30, 2009 (recently enough to matter).

Sure, as of early 2010 St. Luke’s had an operating cash flow deficiency of -2.0 percent and -9.8 percent operating margin, and at least according to Moody’s, had cut some cut-rate contracts with payors accounting for 22 percent of its operating revenues.

On the other hand, its miserably weak competitive market position which, as Moody’s noted in its downgrade report, included clashes with ProMedica, went away with the stroke of a pen when the two consummated their agreement. ProMedica sweeps in with its Aa3-rated borrowing capacity, invests a relatively slim $35 million and picks up the 10 percent market share SLH held at the time. I don’t know what 10 percent of the market is worth, but that has to be a fire sale.

Dig this if you can, cats and kittens:  According to the FTC,  the deal increases ProMedica’s market share in Toledo to 58 percent of inpatient services and (get this) 80 percent of high-margin inpatient OB services. Wow… Small wonder the FTC smells a rat.

Of course, in the sort of excess of confidence you always see in these deals, ProMedica’s executives are pretending the deal was good for the public and stuff.  I don’t know about you, but I find the following comment (made by ProMedica CEO Randy Oostra to the New York Times) to be preposterous:

“We could coordinate care,” Mr. Oostra said. “We could improve quality at St. Luke’s by adopting electronic health records and using clinical protocols to standardize the delivery of care. But the F.T.C. has stopped us in our tracks.” 

OK, let me get this straight, Mr. Oostra. You could only connect with St. Luke’s by buying it and forcing your EHR down its throat (after all, we know you’re not going to put St. Luke’s on Cerner if you use Epic)? You’re buying a hospital with tremendous upside largely because you think you can standardize care — because that will, of course, increase effectiveness and lower prices?  Oh, and as far as sharing data and coordinating care: have you ever heard of a health information network? Or an Accountable Care Organization?

Really, sir, if you want to impress the FTC with the public benefits of your transaction, you’re going to have to try a little harder. If you’re already phoning it in, to the Times no less, you’re not just arrogant, you’re stupid.

The great sucking sound: For-profit buyouts a drain on communities

Posted on December 14, 2010 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

Few have spent more time than I calling out non-profit hospitals on their inadequate charity care levels.  But when it comes down to

This picture shows a panorama of Boston (USA).

Boston, there's a new predator in town

it, I’d prefer a non-profit whose chain can be yanked over a for-profit with no public service requirements at all.

I was reminded of my concerns this week when I heard about the two hospitals Cerberus Capital Management agreed to acquire this week.  It’s picking the hospitals up from Essent Healthcare, another for-profit.  Cerberus, a New York-based private equity firm, just spent $900 million for the six-hospital non-profit chain Caritas Christi. That gave them a nice foothold in Boston, an incredibly competitive but opportunity-rich environment.

Really, both of deals the two-headed guardian of the afterlife has chosen seem to be good ones — for them.  While I’m not privy to much financial information on any of the eight hospitals, we do know that Caritas Christi was in big trouble financially.

I’d wager that the other two hospitals, which lie in the Boston suburbs, are in bad need of a capital infusion to prop them up during these bad times.  This situation allows the firm to swoop in, buy equipment, get things shipshape and get their money many times over.  Oh, and probably do a nice job of squeezing the health plans, now that they’re getting critical mass. Again, good for them.

The thing is, I strongly doubt that any private equity firm is going to have the interests of the community in mind.  One way or another, in most of the private equity buyouts I’ve followed, all of the extra money generated by improvements ends up in the bulging bank account of the PE guys.  They’re not in ANY investment for the long term; that’s just not what they do.  They’re there to pillage, however, legally, and get the hell out.

Far too often, PE players get into a deal, drag the hospitals down financially and then more or less shrug their shoulders when the facility plunges into the red.

The PE firm doesn’t give a rat’s patoot — they’ve made their money. The often-struggling community is left with, well, not a whole lot.

I’d argue that this is a travesty.  We need, as professionals and healthcare consumers, to keep hospitals as community asset with a strong bank account and a long-term view.

So, my question to you is this. Is it inevitable, during this period of transition to full-out reform, that community hospitals get decimated?

Possible Kaiser data, tomorrow, straight from the whistleblower’s mouth

Posted on August 19, 2010 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare branding and communications expert with more than 25 years of industry experience. and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also worked extensively healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

OK, guys, if you know anything I don’t about the machinations around the $3 billion (or $5 billion, name your number) installation of Kaiser’s Epic EMR, now’s the time to share. 

I say that because tomorrow, I’m going to pull together what an anonymous source sent me from the early days of the Epic installation.  We’ll go over it, reader and editor, and see if there’s any news left.  Hope you’ll join me.

If you have anything to add, please do feel free to toss another log onto the fire.

Admittedly, even if genuine — and I have no way of proving that it is — it’s at least four years old. Still, I’m pretty intrigued by it and I hope you will be too.  (By the way, the e-mailer says he’s not the (in)famous Justen Deal, the young man who e-mailed 180,000 Kaiser employees with his EMR concerns. I’d tend to believe Mr. X, since I’ve met the actual Justen and he’s not the anonymous type.)

I’ll catch up with y’all tomorrow.