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!

Revenue Cycle Trends To Watch This Year

Posted on July 13, 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.

Revenue cycle management is something of a moving target. Every time you think you’ve got your processes and workflow in line, something changes and you have to tweak them again. No better example of that was the proposed changes to E/M that came out yesterday. While we wait for that to play out, here’s one look at the trends influencing RCM strategies this year, according to Healthcare IT leaders revenue cycle lead Larry Todd, CPA.

Mergers

As healthcare organizations merge, many legacy systems begin to sunset. That drives them to roll out new systems that can support organizational growth. Health leaders need to figure out how to retire old systems and embrace new ones during a revenue cycle implementation. “Without proper integrations, many organizations will be challenged to manage their reimbursement processes,” Todd says.

Claims denial challenges

Providers are having a hard time addressing claims denials and documentation to support appeals. RCM leaders need to find ways to tighten up these processes and reduce denial rates. They can do so either by adopting third-party systems or working within their own infrastructure, he notes.

CFO engagement

Any technology implementation will have an impact on revenue, so CFOs should stay engaged in the rollout process, he says. “These are highly technical projects, so there’s a tendency to hand over the reins to IT or the software vendor,” notes Todd, a former CFO. “But financial executives need to stay engaged throughout the project, including weekly implementation status updates.”

Providers should form a revenue cycle action team which includes all the stakeholders to the table, including the CFO and clinicians, he says. If the CFO is involved in this process, he or she can offer critical executive oversight of decisions made that impact A/R and cash.

User training and adoption

During the transition from a legacy system to a new platform, healthcare leaders need to make sure their staff are trained to use it. If they aren’t comfortable with the new system, it can mean trouble. Bear in mind that some employees may have used the legacy system for many years and need support as they make the transition. Otherwise, they may balk and productivity could fall.

Outside expertise

Given the complexity of rolling out new systems, it can help to hire experts who understand the technical and operational aspects of the software, along with organizational processes involved in the transition. “It’s very valuable to work with a consulting firm that employs real consultants – people who have worked in operations for years,” Todd concludes.

The Challenge of Medical Records Requests in the Healthcare Business Office – HIM Scene

Posted on July 10, 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.

While at the HFMA Annual Conference (Formerly known as ANI), Healthcare Scene was able to sit down with Kim Charland, BA, RHIT, CCS, Director of Revenue Cycle Services at MRO, to talk about some unique issues with Release of Information (ROI) coming out of the healthcare business office.

This was an issue I hadn’t thought much about previously, but it makes a lot of sense that medical billing professionals probably aren’t the best people to be handling release of information to insurance companies. Billing professionals’ goal is to get paid, not ensure that they’re doing a proper release of information to payers. Plus, most of them have billing expertise, not ROI expertise. It makes a lot of sense for the business office to involve HIM professionals with release of information expertise into the process.

To learn more about this topic and what MRO is doing to help healthcare organizations address this compliance issue, watch the video interview below with Kim Charland:

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

“You’re Already Your Own Doctor”

Posted on July 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.

The always thoughtful Rasu Shrestha, MD, shared this image and tweet on Twitter:

I really appreciate Rasu pointing out how much of our health is influenced outside of the doctor’s office. Also, I love that Rasu is asking for participatory medicine and for patients to demand to be participants in their care. However, I wonder if the quote he shared from Tom Ferguson, MD is a bit too far: “You’re Already Your Own Doctor.” Of course, what’s amazing is that Dr. Ferguson was saying this in 1985. That’s surprising, but I wonder if the statement actually discourages doctors from having patients involved in their care.

I get the idea that many patients have been treated poorly in the past. However, how future patients respond will often determine how doctors will respond to them in the future. It doesn’t take many bad experiences for doctors to not want to have patients involved in their care. So, patients should demand participation in their care, but they should do so with respect.

What’s ironic is that those same patients who want doctors to respect them and respect their input as patients, treat their doctors with disrespect. I understand that many patients get burnt out. However, it’s amazing how care providers turn off when they’re disrespected. If the goal is to create more patient involvement in their care, we have to be careful not to burn bridges for other patients. I think calling the patient a doctor is going to far. Once again, it’s about participation in your care and not the patient becoming the doctor.

Mobile Policy Enforcement Issues Could Expose Hospitals To Security Problems

Posted on June 15, 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 several years, mobile device management has become a critical issue for hospital IT departments. As mobile use by both clinicians and patients has soared, hospitals have been scrambling to keep up. Now, a new study suggests that the policies hospitals develop to manage mobile devices are enforced inconsistently, a finding which should concern hospital leaders.

To perform the study, which was backed by mobile communications firm Spok, researchers collected responses from roughly 300 healthcare professionals from across the U.S. The survey reached not only IT leaders but also clinicians, who made up 44% of respondents. Another 40% included a wide range of professions, including pharmacists, medical technicians, business analysts, social workers and lab managers. IT respondents made up just 10% of those surveyed.

One of the results of the survey was that hospitals vary widely in the maturity of their mobile management strategies and their ability to execute them.

Certainly, the mobile management concerns have become a bigger deal over the last several years. Back in 2012, when Spok first asked survey participants about their mobile approach, only a third said that they had a formal strategy in place. By 2017, though, the number of respondents reporting that they had a mobile strategy had climbed to 65%. (That number actually fell to 57% in 2018, for reasons that are unclear.)

That being said, these strategies are relatively new. Forty-six percent of respondents said their organization had a mobile strategy in place for one to three years, and another 12% reported having a formal mobile management strategy for just one year.

The most common mobile strategy was focused on mobile management and security (56%), followed by mobile device selection, integration with the EMR (48%), infrastructure assessment (45%), clinical workflow evaluation (43%), device ownership strategy e.g. BYOD (34%), mobile app strategy (29%), mobile app catalog (16%), mobile strategy governance (14%) and business intelligence and reporting (12%).

Hospital leaders are continuing to rebuild their strategies as needed. Many hospitals have upgraded their mobile strategy over time, for reasons that included better meeting the needs of end users (39%), changes in clinical workflows (28%)  and addressing security and compliance requirements (25%).

Despite all of this effort, however, there seems to be a gap between mobile strategy development and the extent to which mobile strategies are enforced and understood by hospital staff. While 43% of hospitals have security teams, telecommunications teams or clinical informatics teams enforce mobile policies, many hospitals are struggling to give these rules some teeth.

True, 39% of respondents said that their hospital enforced mobile policies extremely well, and on a consistent basis, and another 33% said they were enforced well most of the time, and another 24% said they were not sure. This suggests that those institutions aren’t educating employees and clinicians about these issues, nor are they getting tough about enforcement. And of course, if hospital clinicians and staff don’t even know whether a strategy is in place, they’re probably not following it.

Hospitals Still Grappling With RCM Tech Infrastructure

Posted on May 18, 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.

While revenue cycle management isn’t the sexiest topic on the block, hospitals need to get it right or they won’t be able to pay their bills. One key element needed to accomplish this goal is a robust tech infrastructure that helps RCM specialists get their job done.

However, it seems that many hospitals are struggling to manage RCM data and pick out the right vendors to support their efforts, according to a report published by Dimensional Insight in collaboration with HIMSS Analytics. To conduct the research, the two organizations reached out to 117 senior-level decision-makers in hospitals and health systems.

According to the survey, more than two-thirds of health systems use more than one vendor for RCM. But that might be a bad idea. The research also found that organizations using more than one RCM vendor seem to face bigger issues with denials than those using only one RCM solution. Regardless, the execs said that denials were the biggest RCM challenge for health systems today.

Pulling together RCM data is a struggle too, respondents said. More than 95% of health systems reported that the way data is collected is a challenge. Also, nearly all respondents said that collecting RCM data from disparate sources is also difficult.

One reason why it’s tough for hospitals to put effective RCM technology in place may be that health information management directors and managers aren’t at the top of the influencer list when it comes to making these decisions.

When asked who the key stakeholders were in RCM. 91.5% said that the CFO was the most important, followed by the head of revenue cycle, who was ranked as important by 62.4% of respondents. Meanwhile, only 48.7% of respondents saw the health IT leaders as key stakeholders in the RCM environment. In other words, it looks like tech leaders aren’t given much clout.

When it came to technical infrastructure for RCM, respondents were all over the map. For example, 34.5% were working with an EMR and 3+ vendors. Another 12.1% used in EMR with one vendor, followed by 11.2% with 3+ vendor solutions, 6.9% using an EMR plus two vendors and 4.3% using two to vendor solutions. Clearly, there’s no single best practice for managing RCM technology in hospitals.

Not only that, some hospitals aren’t doing much to analyze the RCM data they’ve got. According to the survey, 23.9% said that 51 to 75% of the RCM process was automated, which isn’t too bad. However, 36.8% of hospitals reported that less than 25% of the revenue cycle process was driven by analytics. Also, roughly a third of respondents said that collecting data from diverse sources was extremely challenging, which can cripple an analytics initiative.

Taken as a whole, the report data suggests that hospitals need to improve their RCM game dramatically, which includes getting a lot smarter about RCM technology. Unfortunately, it looks like it could be a long time before this happens.

Lessons Learned from the 2017 AHIMA Information Governance Survey – HIM Scene

Posted on May 16, 2018 I Written By

The following is a guest blog post by Stephanie Crabb, Co-Founder and Principal at Immersive as part of the HIM Scene series of blog posts.

The American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA) 2017 Information Governance (IG) survey follows previous surveys administered in 2014 and 2015 to identify trends and offer insights associated with the healthcare industry’s understanding and adoption of IG. The good news from the 2017 survey is that awareness of IG, at least among the 1500+ survey respondents, is high with 84.6 percent reporting that they are familiar with IG. The bad news from the survey is that 51.6 percent of those same respondents report that lack of awareness or misunderstanding of IG is a barrier (the most significant barrier reported) to IG adoption in their organizations.

Who participated?

While the 2017 survey garnered more participation from outside the health information management professional community than previous efforts, it is important to note that the majority of respondents identified themselves as health information managers (HIM-ers). AHIMA’s work to raise IG awareness and educate the healthcare industry since 2012 has been significant and is to be commended. The body of knowledge created and published and the work completed is extraordinary; it has certainly paid off with its own constituents. Perhaps the survey demonstrates that there is still work to be done with additional stakeholders or that we need to do more to demonstrate the knowledge and capabilities that HIM-ers possess to support IG efforts.

IG Adoption, Drivers and Benefits

Based on what we see, read and experience, in every sector of the industry information and the data from which it is created are at the center of nearly every strategic and tactical activity. So why the disconnect, or the slow pace of formal IG adoption? Why did only 14.8 percent of respondents report an “initiated” IG program as illustrated below? Further, why did percent of respondents report that IG is not considered a priority in their organizations?

A closer look at what respondents had to say about the barriers to IG adoption is useful. The survey offered respondents a list of commonly-cited barriers to IG adoption across all industries and asked them to select their top three, resulting in the following:

For many, the term “governance” implies bureaucracy, expense, complexity, misplaced power and control, among other negative connotations. This may offer some context for these survey results and explain, in part, the top responses.

IG is a complex discipline, no doubt. However, everyone can identify IG or IG-like work that is getting done in their organization every day; it is just not formalized, organized or recognized as such. Sadly, much of that work is buried or siloed, in part, because it is not connected to a strategic imperative where it might gain greater visibility and appreciation as an IG effort.

The data around low IG adoption are even more confusing when we look at what respondents had to say about what they think does or should drive IG efforts. The survey demonstrates that there is no shortage of compelling and meaningful drivers to spur action. While the survey did not provide respondents with the same response choice options for “drivers” and “benefits” there was a connection and association reflected in the responses to these two questions.


These responses reflect an impressive number of business units, departments and individuals–workforce and patients—that can truly be served by and through IG.

What’s Changed from 2014 to 2017?

In 2014, 43% of respondents reported that a formal IG program had been initiated compared to 14.8% of respondents in 2017. What contributes to this dramatic change? Does it reflect organization abandonment of previously initiated IG efforts? Does it reflect that respondents are more educated today so what they labeled as IG in 2014 was not really IG? This area may warrant further exploration in future survey efforts.

In 2014, respondents cited “strong agreement” with regulatory compliance (80 percent), improvement in patient care and safety (73 percent) and the need to manage and contain costs (61 percent) as the top three drivers for IG, followed by analytics and business intelligence (53 percent). Interestingly, trust and confidence in data was the lowest rated driver. In 2017, data quality and trust ranked second. Analytics and business intelligence tops the list of drivers, patient safety falls to the middle and regulatory compliance is at the very bottom of the list.

The most promising insight from the 2017 survey is that data governance (DG) is a growing priority and reality in healthcare. Thirty percent of respondents reported a “formal structure” for DG in their organization. There is still a bit of confusion between IG and DG as disciplines. DG is one of the competencies in AHIMA’s IG Adoption Model and often referenced as a sub-domain of IG in other reference models. Simply stated, data are the building blocks of information, so DG is requisite to IG. One takeaway from the survey is that healthcare organizations are progressing along a path that positions DG as a precursor to IG, rather than a component of IG.

Conclusion

While the drivers for IG seem to have shifted over the time that AHIMA has spent surveying the industry, there is a universality to the vision and expectation that healthcare wants and needs to put its data and information to work to accomplish its ambitious and complex mission. Much of AHIMA’s and its IG partners’ work to document the experiences of IG pioneers is available at IGIQ.org.

Have ideas about how we can better study the topic of IG and deliver meaningful insights to you? Please share your comments.

About Stephanie Crabb
Stephanie is Co-Founder and Principal at Immersive, a healthcare data lifecycle management company where she leads program and solution development, knowledge management and customer success. Stephanie brings 25 years of experience in the healthcare industry where she has served in program/solution development, client service and business development roles for leading firms including The Advisory Board Company, WebMD, CTG Health Solutions and CynergisTek. She has led a number of program and product launches with an emphasis on competitive differentiation, rapid adoption, client satisfaction, and strategic portfolio management.

Prior to her work at these firms Stephanie worked for a large Maternal and Child Health Bureau grantee working on the national Bright Futures and Healthy Start initiatives to develop and document best practices in the care continuum for pediatrics and infant mortality, and to inform federal and state health policy initiatives in these areas.

Stephanie holds her A.B. and A.M. from the University of Chicago. Stephanie serves as the Scholarship Chair of CNFLHIMSS, on AHIMA’s Data Analytics Practice Council and recently completed a two-year term on the Advisory Board of the Association for Executives in Healthcare Information Security (AEHIS) of CHIME.

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

Beth Israel Deaconess Launches Health Innovation Center

Posted on May 7, 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.

In yet another example of a health system bringing innovation home, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center has launched an in-house center combining the feel of a startup incubator and the vast reach of a globally-known provider.

It’s not clear yet whether this emerging model will be more powerful than plain old incubators, but there are a lot of resources at play here. (It’s worth pointing out that only one of the factors that distinguish it is that the center will be based at a Harvard teaching hospital.}

The Health Technology Exploration Center will be led by John Halamka, MD, MS, chief information officer of the Beth Israel Deaconess system. As the health systems press release rightly notes, Halamka already has his fingerprints on many important advances in health IT, including patient portals, unique web-based medical records, and advances in secure patient data exchange. It also notes that he has brought together collaborations with global HIT thought leaders such Google, Amazon, Apple and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (Did we mention that the man is non-stop?)

The HTEC’s first focus areas will come as no surprise. They include helping patients manage their own health using mobile application; improving patient education and care through natural language interfaces; optimizing medical decision-making with dashboards and analytics; and enhancing patient/clinician communication using new devices and programs.

Though the press release doesn’t make a big thing of it, the website makes it clear that a lot of what its leaders would like to do haven’t been paid for just yet. However, the health system has already laid out its plans for when it gets enough contributions to support the program.

If the HTEC is fully funded, the system would make investments in faculty, staff and infrastructure that would help it take on local national and international partnerships. HTEC would also generate research intended to usher in breakthrough healthcare technology options.

I’d like to take a minute and say that not only is this great, it should be more commonplace than it is. Yes, few healthcare organizations have the clout and resources that a system affiliated with Harvard has, and that’s unlikely to change. But that doesn’t mean smaller facilities are out of the running.

What I’d like to see for virtually every facility to capture more of the value it creates during the process of everyday patient care. Given the extent to which healthcare data is shareable, recordable and integrable, providers don’t have to stop what they’re doing to amass data and expertise that benefit everyone in the profession. I believe it’s not only possible but necessary.

“The Current Model for Healthcare is Not Sustainable?” – Why Not?

Posted on April 23, 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.

I’ve heard this phrase over and over:

The Current Model for Healthcare is Not Sustainable?

It’s especially prominent on social media and at conferences. Sometimes they change the word model to costs or some other related word. The message is clear. Healthcare is screwed up and people are pissed that it costs so much. On that I agree with them in many respects. However, I don’t agree that the current model isn’t sustainable. In fact, today I saw it and asked them why it wasn’t sustainable.

No one could give me a good answer.

However, to be clear I clarified that I wasn’t suggesting that we shouldn’t try to change the current model and that we shouldn’t try to stop the crazy healthcare cost curve. I also didn’t argue with the dire consequences that will happen if we don’t change healthcare from its current model. We should do all of those things.

It’s one thing to argue that we could or should do something and quite another to say that the current trajectory is unsustainable.

Healthcare has been surprisingly good at sustaining all of its bad characteristics. In fact, in many ways the bad things in healthcare are actually incredibly profitable.

In response to my question about why the current model is not sustainable I got the following story:

I was behind a lady at CVS who decided not to get her meds because she needed to pay her electrical bill. This cannot be sustainable.

A sad story and no doubt there are hundreds more like it. It’s heartbreaking to read and something we should work to fix. However, don’t wait for the healthcare organizations to fix it. This gets a little twisted, but think it through. If that lady chooses not to take her meds, what happens? Does the doctor get paid less? No. Does the hospital get paid less? No. In fact, if she doesn’t get her meds and gets really sick, the hospital is going to make a ton of money. (Yes, I know about value based care and hospital readmissions, but that’s a small percentage of overall revenue).

I’m not suggesting that any healthcare provider goes around saying that patients shouldn’t be compliant with their medications because it would be good for their hospital business. Even I’m not that cynical. However, if we were in any industry that’s what we’d want people to do. However, in other industries if you chose not to get your medications you’d have a bad experience (ie. you’d get sicker) and then you’d want to use me less. Healthcare is the opposite. If you get sicker you use me more.

The reality is that healthcare is not a true market. Go and read Dan Munro’s book Casino Healthcare to see what I mean. Healthcare is complex and it hides its issues behind that complexity.

I’m sure that some people reading this are going to offer up some pockets and small examples where this isn’t true in healthcare. Great. We need more of that and soon. We need it because healthcare is costing our nation too much money. We need it because healthcare is costing businesses too much money. We need it because many people aren’t getting the care they need because they can’t afford it. We need it for a lot of reasons.

However, we don’t need these changes because healthcare is going to collapse if we don’t change. In fact, to paraphrase Dan Munro, most in healthcare are profiting from its dysfunction. That’s why it’s so hard to change. Sadly, I don’t see anything that tells me we’ll stop paying either. The current model is surprisingly resilient and sustainable.

Of course, that’s not to say outside forces couldn’t change things. They can and they should. Patients are paying way too much for healthcare and we should be pissed and push for change. Businesses are paying too much for healthcare and we should be pissed and push for change. Government pays more for healthcare than anyone else and they’are paying too much for it. They should be pissed and push for change.

Just don’t expect providers or even payers to disrupt themselves. They’re all enjoying a shockingly sustainable business model. IT can only do so much when it comes to solving the business model issues.

Workers’ Comp ROI – Disclosures For Workers’ Compensation Purposes – HIM Scene

Posted on April 10, 2018 I Written By

The following is a HIM Scene guest blog post by Don Hardwick, Vice President, Client Relations and Account Management at MRO.

Even under the best of circumstances—excellent staff, streamlined workflows, the latest technology— Release of Information (ROI) is a precarious process. Specific rules apply to different categories of requests. One area of complexity and confusion is the disclosure of Protected Health Information (PHI) for workers’ compensation purposes. While the ROI process for workers’ comp requests is similar to the process for “regular” requests, the type of information allowable for disclosure is different unless the request is accompanied by a patient authorization.

According to HHS guidelines, “The HIPAA Privacy Rule does not apply to entities that are either workers’ compensation insurers, workers’ compensation administrative agencies, or employers, except to the extent they may otherwise be covered entities.” However, the rule recognizes the legitimate need of these entities involved in workers’ compensation cases to access PHI according to state or other laws. Due to variability among such laws, the Privacy Rule permits disclosures of PHI for workers’ compensation purposes in different ways.

Disclosures without individual/client authorization. In most cases, an employer or insurance carrier is permitted to request and receive information pertaining to the injury—on behalf of the company or on behalf of the client—without an authorization. So employers, insurance companies or their attorneys can obtain information on behalf of the insurance company or on behalf of the client. Typically an attorney would get an authorization from the client. However, the employer, the payer or an attorney representing the payer can generally request those records without individual authorization.

Disclosures with individual authorization. The Privacy Rule permits covered entities to disclose PHI to workers’ compensation insurers and others involved in workers’ compensation systems if the individual (patient/client) has provided an authorization for the Release of Information to the entity. The authorization must meet specific Privacy Rule requirements.

When considering a workers’ comp claim, we can only disclose PHI pertaining to the event that initiated that particular claim. For example, suppose a patient had five admissions in 2017, and was injured January 2018. The employer may want to determine if the patient had preexisting injuries or conditions where the most recent injury occurred. If the January 2018 injury was secondary to a problem that already existed with this patient, the requester generally cannot obtain prior information without a HIPAA valid authorization.

The main point is that rules and regulations pertaining to workers’ compensation claims differ depending on the type of request for information and the type of requester.

About Don Hardwick
As Vice President of Client Relations and Account Management, Hardwick oversees all client relations initiatives including implementation and account management. Prior to joining MRO, he was CEO and President of Record Enterprises Inc., a Health Information Management (HIM) company that provided hospitals with an outsourcing program for patient release of information, medical coding and medical/confidential record storage. Previously, he was CEO and president of MedRecs Law Inc., a record acquisition company. Additionally, he was a manager in the healthcare consulting division of Ernst & Young and worked as the Director of HIM at Saint Margaret Hospital in Montgomery, AL and Southampton Memorial Hospital in Franklin, VA. Hardwick is a past President of the Virginia Health Information Management Association (VHIMA) and the recipient of East Carolina’s Allied Health Sciences Distinguished Alumni Award. He holds a B.S. in Health Information Management.

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

An HIM Perspective of What Was Shared at #HIMSS18 – HIM Scene

Posted on March 9, 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.

Today is the final day of the HIMSS 2018 Annual Conference. While there are nearly 44k attendees at the conference and 1350 vendors, I didn’t meet a single HIM professional. I certainly didn’t meet all 44k attendees, but it’s safe to say that the HIM community wasn’t well represented at the HIMSS conference. It’s unfortunate because healthcare IT initiatives can really benefit from the HIM perspective.

Since many HIM professionals weren’t in attendance, I thought it would be beneficial to share some insights into trends I saw at HIMSS 2018 that could be beneficial to HIM professionals.

AI (Artificial Intelligence)
AI was the hottest topic at HIMSS 2018. It seemed like every vendor was saying that they were doing some sort of AI. Of course, many used the AI term very broadly. It included everything from simple analytics to advanced AI. In some ways, that’s corrupted the term AI, but what’s clear is that lots of companies are using data to provide insights and to automate a wide variety of healthcare work.

Another great insight I heard was that revenue cycle management and other financial areas are a great place to start with AI because they’re seen as less risky. When you’re applying AI to clinical use cases, you have to worry a lot more about being wrong. However, the consequences aren’t nearly as damaging when you’re talking about the financial side of healthcare.

Information Governance and Clean Data
At HIMSS 2018 I heard over and over the importance of having clean data. If AI was the hottest topic at HIMSS 2018, none of that AI will really matter or provide the value it should provide if the data is inaccurate and not trusted. This is why the work that HIM professionals do to ensure effective information governance is so important. It’s almost cliche to say bad data in leads to bad insights out. However, it’s cliche because it’s true. HIM needs to play an important role in making sure we have accurate data that can be trusted by AI applications and therefore the providers that receive those insights.

Texting Patients Is Not a HIPAA Violation
No doubt this will feel like news for many of you. It may even scare many HIM professionals. However, OCR Director Severino made it clear that Texting Patients is Ok. I won’t dive into the details here, but read the article by Mike Semel which outlines what was said at HIMSS 2018 in regards to texing patients.

Healthcare Chatbots
I didn’t see any healthcare chatbots that are solving HIM’s problems. However, when you look at the various healthcare chatbots out there, there’s no reason why a healthcare chatbot couldn’t do amazing things for HIM professionals. Here’s a framework for healthcare chatbots that companies should consider. What mundane tasks are well defined that could be automated by a healthcare chatbot? When you ask this question, you’ll see how chatbots are something HIM professionals should embrace. There’s a lot of mundane HIM work that could be done by a chatbot which frees them to work on the more challenging HIM issues.

Patient Access to Medical Records Is No Longer Controversial
While some specific individuals have fears related to access to medical records, it’s been proven across every type of healthcare organization that providing patients’ access to their medical records is right thing to do. The fears people have are unfounded and that patients find this extremely valuable. I heard one person say that they no longer will do visits with doctors who will not give them access to their records.

Those were some high level insights from a HIM perspective. Lots of exciting things when it comes to technology and HIM. What do you think of these changes, announcements, and trends? We’d love to hear your thoughts and perspectives in the comments.

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