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!

On the 2nd Day of #HITChristmas … Monica Stout from MedicaSoft

Posted on December 14, 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.

Note: In case you missed the other 12 Days of #HITChristmas, you can start with the first day here along with the story behind #HITChristmas or read all 12 days here as they are published.

On the 2nd Day of #HITChristmas we’re excited to feature, Monica Stout from MedicaSoft.

Tell us about yourself and MedicaSoft.

I’m Monica Stout and I’m the Michigander Marketing Director at MedicaSoft. I have a 2.5-year old who keeps me on my toes and have traded my (breakable) vintage glass collections for LEGOs, monster trucks, and board books. I came to MedicaSoft 3.5 years ago from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) where I was a consultant at the US Department of Veterans Affairs for many years. MedicaSoft is a healthcare IT software company specializing in an HL7 FHIR-based product offering spanning an open API platform, personal health record, electronic health record and reporting & analytics. We are also an accredited HISP. MedicaSoft took a look at some of the vexing problems in healthcare and designed software to solve those problems with open, modern, interoperable, and user-friendly software.

You were recently named as a partner on the VA EHR Project with Cerner.  Tell us about your involvement in that project.

Yes, we are really excited to work with Cerner and the VA on this important initiative. At MedicaSoft, we have long expertise with VA health IT systems and expertise in industry health information exchange and data interoperability. We are looking forward to participating as a Cerner team member as they roll out their EHR in an environment where exchanging health information between VA and community care providers is increasingly important. Expect to hear more about the Cerner/VA project in 2019 as the project gets underway!

What’s a patient story that epitomizes the impact of the work that MedicaSoft is doing?  

There’s a common thread we hear from patients, especially patients dealing with complex medical diagnoses and conditions, that they have so much information and no single source of truth or place to put all of their health information that can be easily accessed and shared with their care team. Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon to hear of hundreds upon hundreds of pages of health data that patients are forced to carry back and forth to appointments. This is an area where MedicaSoft provides tangible benefits to patients. All of a patient’s health data can be loaded into MedicaSoft’s PHR, HealthCenter, and it’s there to share (electronically) and provide a complete medical history to whomever the patient chooses.

You also provide the PHR for the Delaware Health Information Network.  Tell us about that and what services you offer them.

The Delaware Health Information Network (or DHIN) is a health information exchange that serves all acute care hospitals, major laboratories and radiology facilities, skilled nursing facilities, and medical providers in Delaware and several surrounding areas such as Maryland and Washington, D.C. DHIN utilizes our PHR/patient portal, HealthCenter, which is branded “Health Check Connect” for DHIN provider practices. DHIN also uses our open NXT Platform to manage all of its clinical and claims data.

Is interoperability real or is it talk?  Can you share any numbers that help us get an idea of how much interoperability is happening?

Interoperability is real. It’s hard to put numbers on it, but healthcare providers and payers are moving beyond the talk to real applications that require the secure exchange of reliable, usable clinical and claims information. Putting those applications into play is why we all talk about interoperability. At MedicaSoft, we “walk the walk” by providing a platform that harmonizes data and makes it available in an open, standards-based way. That means that using our platform lets you integrate applications from any vendor, or build them yourself, with the assurance that they all access high quality data. The open platform approach is the way of the future!

Some recent numbers in ONC in October showed that the industry as a whole has a long way to go when it comes to interoperability, but this is a good start –

41% of hospitals reported they were able to engage in all four functions of interoperability (electronically finding, sending, receiving, and integrating data from outside their own organizations) in 2017. Numbers are increasing each year:

2014: 23%

2015: 26%

2016: 29%

2017: 41%

What can the healthcare IT community do for you and MedicaSoft?

The healthcare IT community has already done so much for me in providing such great collegial relationships and friendships over the past couple of years. #HITMC, #HITsm & #HCDLR are phenomenal Twitter communities comprised of smart, thoughtful, motivated individuals really striving to improve healthcare. As far as helping MedicaSoft, continuing to connect us to folks who need our products or services is always super helpful as is helping us get out the word about the great (new) work we’re doing at our company.

Be sure to follow all of the 12 Day of #HITChristmas.

What’s the Future of Open Source EHR, Vista?

Posted on November 19, 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 was going through some old draft posts (as I mentioned yesterday) and found a post that was started by Nate DiNiro which said “Will the VA and DoD help tip the scales on VistA adoption with OSEHRA?” Granted, this post was first started back in 2011. It’s amazing how much has changed since then.

We all know about the DoD’s selection of Cerner and Leidos to replace their EHR. In a more surprising move was the VA’s decision to sole-source their EHR selection of Cerner based on the idea that it was essential they go with Cerner after the DoD selected Cerner. Certainly a topic for another blog post.

We’ve certainly heard many complaints from those in the VA community that are going to have a really hard time giving up Vista which was basically tailored for many of their unique needs. However, there seems to be nothing stopping that ship now.

Given these events, it brings up an interesting question about the future of Vista as the VA replaces their version of Vista with Cerner. The good news for those healthcare organizations on Vista is that it’s now open source. So, the software can persist as long as there is a community of developers behind it. The core question is how much of Vista’s ongoing development came from the VA versus the community.

The two players I’ve seen using the open source Vista EHR platform are MedSphere and WorldVista. I’ll admit that I haven’t seen too much news from either of them lately, but they both seem to be humming along.

I took a look at the ONC’s latest Health IT Dashboard stats for hospitals. In 2017 (their latest data), it reported 11 “providers with certified technology” for Medsphere and 1 for WorldVistA. Of course, this is just those who have taken part in the meaningful use government program. It’s reasonable to assume that some open source EHR customers probably didn’t want to take part in meaningful use. Plus, these numbers don’t include international Vista installs which obviously can’t take part in meaningful use.

Given these numbers and the VA pulling Vista out, I have a feeling it’s going to be a hard road ahead for Vista.

I’ll never forget when it was first announced that the VA was open sourcing Vista and that anyone that wanted a free EHR could have it. What was amazing is that the HIM manager I was working with found an article talking about this announcement and brought it to me. She wondered why we were paying for an EHR if Vista was available for free. It gave me a chance to explain to her that “free software” doesn’t mean it’s free to implement and manage. Not to mention the fact that this was a small ambulatory clinic that was likely not a good fit for the hospital focused Vista software.

What have you heard or seen with Vista? Has more been happening with the open source versions of Vista that I just haven’t seen? As a big open source user myself (my blogs run on pretty much all open source software), I’d love to see an open source EHR succeed. Unfortunately, it just hasn’t seen near the adoption it needs to really create that momentum yet.

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.

Switch From Epic To Cerner Comes With Patient Safety Questions

Posted on July 25, 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.

Here’s a story in which no health system hopes to take a lead role — the tale of a Cerner installation that didn’t go well and the blowback the system faced afterward.

On October 1 of last year, Phoenix, Az.-based Banner Health switched its Tucson hospitals from Epic to a Cerner system, a move which reportedly cost the health system $45 million.

No doubt, the hospitals’ staff and physicians were trained up and prepared for a few bumps in the road, particularly given that the rest of its peers had already gone to the process. The Phoenix-based not-for-profit, which owns, leases or manages 28 acute-care hospitals in six states, had already put the Cerner system in place elsewhere, apparently without experiencing any major problems.

But this time it wasn’t so lucky, according to an article in the Arizona Daily Star. According to the news item, there were “numerous” reports of medical errors filed with the Arizona Department of Health Services after Tucson-area hospitals in the Banner chain were cut over to Cerner.

The complaints included claims that errors were creating patient safety and patient harm risks, according to one filing. “Many of the staff are in tears and frustrated because of the lack of support and empathy [for] the consequences [to] patient care,” one stated.

Not only did the conversion lead to patient safety accusations, it also seems to have lowered physician productivity and shrunk revenue as doctors learned to use the Cerner interface. While predictable, this has to have added insult to injury.

Meanwhile, according to the paper, the state seems to come down on the side of the complainants. While hospital leaders denied there were any incidents resulting in a negative outcome for patients, “the hospital’s occurrence log for October 2017 showed numerous incidents of medical errors reported to be a result of the conversion,” state investigators reportedly concluded.

While the state didn’t fine Banner or issue a citation, it did substantiate two allegations about the conversion, the Star reported. The allegations were related to computer/printer glitches impacting patient care and an inability to reliably deliver medications and order tests as part of care for critically ill patients.

The article says that Banner responded by pointing out that it has made more than 100 improvements to the Cerner system, resulting in better workflows and greater information access for physicians and staff. But the damage to its reputation seems to have been done.

No, perhaps Banner didn’t do anything particularly wrong when it installed the Cerner platform. However, if its leaders did, in fact, lie to the state about problems it actually had, it was not a smart move. On the other hand, one of the biggest problems you can have during an EHR implementation is users who don’t want to cooperate and make it a success. It’s not hard to see users who were happy with Epic dragging their feet as they shifted to Cerner. Either way, this is an important lesson as hospitals continue to consolidate and they consider switching the EHR of the acquired hospitals.

Merged Health Systems Face Major EHR Integration Issues

Posted on January 2, 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.

Pity the IT departments of Advocate Health Care and Aurora Health Care. When the two health systems complete their merger, IT leaders face a lengthy integration process cutting across systems from three different EHR vendors or a forklift upgrade of at least one.

It’s tough enough to integrate different instances of systems from the same vendor, which, despite the common origin are often configured in significantly different ways. In this case, the task is exponentially more difficult. According to Fierce Healthcare, when the two organizations come together, they’ll have to integrate Aurora’s Epic EHR with the Cerner and Allscripts systems used by Advocate.

As part of his research, the reporter asked an Aurora spokesperson whether health systems attempt to pull together three platforms into a single EHR. Of course, as we know, that is unlikely to ever happen. While full interoperability is obviously an elusive thing, getting some decent data flow between two affiliated organizations is probably far more realistic.

Instead, depending on what happens, the new CIO might or might not decide to migrate all three EHRs onto one from a single vendor. While this could turn out to be a hellish job, it certainly is the ideal situation if you can afford to get there. However, that doesn’t mean it’s always the best option. Especially as health system mergers and acquisitions get bigger and bigger.

To me, however, the big question around all of this is how much the two organizations would spend to bring the same platforms to everyone. As we know, acquiring and rolling out Epic for even one health system is fiendishly expensive, to the point where some have been forced to report losses or have had ratings on the bond reduced.

My guess is that the leaders of the two organizations are counting often-cited merger benefits such as organizational synergies, improved efficiency and staff attrition to meet the cost of health IT investments like these. If this academic studies prove this will work, please feel free to slap me with a dead fish, but as for now I doubt it will happen.

No, to me this offers an object lesson in how mergers in the health IT-centered world can be more costly, take longer to achieve, and possibly have a negative impact on patient care if things aren’t done right (which often seems to be the case).

Given the other pressures health systems face, I doubt these new expenses will hold them back from striking merger deals. Generally speaking, most health systems face little choice but to partner and merge as they can. But there’s no point minimizing how much complexity and expense EHRs bring to such agreements today.

When It Comes To Meaningful Use, Some Vendors May Have An Edge

Posted on December 1, 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.

A new article appearing in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association has concluded that while EHRs certified under the meaningful use program should perform more or less equally, they don’t.

After conducting an analysis, researchers found that there were significant associations between specific vendors and level of hospital performance for all six meaningful use criteria they were using as a yardstick. Epic came out on top by this measure, demonstrating significantly higher performance on five of the six criteria.

However, it’s also worth noting that EHR vendor choice by hospitals accounted for anywhere between 7% and 34% of performance variation across the six meaningful use criteria. In other words, researchers found that at least in some cases, EHR performance was influenced as much by the fit between platform and hospital as the platform itself.

To conduct the study, researchers used recent national data on certified EHR vendors hospitals and implemented, along with hospital performance on six meaningful use criteria. They sought to find out:

  • Whether certain vendors were found more frequently among the highest performing hospitals, as measured by performance on Stage 2 meaningful use criteria;
  • Whether the relationship between vendor and hospital performance was consistent across the meaningful use criteria, or whether vendors specialized in certain areas; and
  • What proportion of variation in performance across hospitals could be explained by the vendor characteristics

To measure the performance of various vendors, the researchers chose six core stage two meaningful use criteria, including 60% of medication orders entered using CPOE;  providing 50% of patients with the ability to view/download/transmit their health information; for 50% of patients received from another setting or care provider, medication reconciliation is performed; for 50% of patient transitions to another setting or care provider, a summary of care record is provided; and for 10% of patient transitions to another setting or care provider, a summary of care record is electronically transmitted.

After completing their analysis, researchers found that three hospitals were in the top performance quartile for all meaningful use criteria, and all used Epic. Of the 17 hospitals in the top performance quartile for five criteria, 15 used Epic, one used MEDITECH and one another smaller vendor. Among the 68 hospitals in the top quartile for four criteria, 64.7% used Epic, 11.8% used Cerner and 8.8% used MEDITECH.

When it came to hospitals that were not in the top quartile for any of the criteria, there was no overwhelming connection between vendor and results. For the 355 hospitals in this category, 28.7% used MEDITECH, 25.1% used McKesson, 20.3% used Cerner, 14.4% used MEDHOST and 6.8% used Epic.

All of this being said, the researchers noted that news the hospital characteristics nor the vendor choice explained were then a small amount of the performance variation they saw. This won’t surprise anybody who’s seen firsthand how much other issues, notably human factors, can change the outcome of processes like these.

It’s also worth noting that there might be other causes for these differences. For example, if you can afford the notably expensive Epic systems, then your hospital and health system could likely afford to invest in meaningful use compliance as well. This added investment could explain hospitals meaningful use performance as much as EHR choice.

Amazon May Soon Announce Major Cloud Deal With Cerner

Posted on November 27, 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.

As I’ve previously noted, Amazon is making increasingly aggressive moves into the healthcare space of late. While it hasn’t been terribly public with its plans—and why should it, honestly?— there been some talk of its going into the healthcare technology space. There’s also much talk about angles from which Amazon could attack healthcare sectors, including its well-publicized interest in the pharmacy business.

Though interesting, all of this has been vaguely defined it best. However, a new deal may be in the works which could have a very concrete effect. It could change not only the future of Amazon’s healthcare industry efforts but also, potentially, have an impact on the entire health IT world.

Think I’m exaggerating? Check this out. According to a story on the CNBC site, Amazon is about to announce a “huge” deal with Cerner under which the two will work together on building a major presence in enterprise health IT for Amazon Web Services. Put that way, this sounds a bit hyperbolic, but let me lay this out a bit further.

As things stand, the online retailer’s Amazon Web Services is already generating almost $20 billion a year, boasting clients across major industries such as technology, energy and financial services. Its only stumbling point to date is that it’s had trouble cracking the healthcare market.

Apparently, at the re:Invent conference in Las Vegas next week, AWS’s CEO will announce that Amazon is teaming up with Cerner to convince senior healthcare leaders to use AWS for key initiatives like population health management.

Sources who spoke to CNBC that the partnership will initially focus on Cerner’s HealtheIntent population health product, presumably as a door into convincing hospitals shift more of the cloud-based business to AWS.

Now why, you ask, is this deal bigger than the average bear?  is it one of those vaporware partnerships that fly a flag and promise a lot but don’t really go anywhere?

Yes, I admit that’s always possible, but in this case, I don’t think it’s going to turn out that way. The fit simply seems to work too well for this to be one of those much-ballyhooed deals that fade away quietly. (In fact, I could visualize a Cerner/Amazon merger in the future, as crazy as that might sound. It’s certainly less risky than the Whole Foods deal.)

For one thing, both Amazon and Cerner have significant benefits they can realize. For example, as the story notes, Amazon hasn’t gotten far in the healthcare market, and given its talent for doing the impossible, it must be really stuck at this point. Cerner, meanwhile, will never pull together the kind of cloud options AWS can offer, and I doubt Epic could either, which gives Cerner a boost in the always next-and-neck competition with its top rival.

If this agreement goes through, the ripples could be felt throughout the healthcare industry, if for no other reason than the impact it will have on the enterprise EHR market. This one should be fun to watch. I’m pulling out the popcorn.

Surescripts Deal Connects EMR Vendors And PBMs To Improve Price Transparency

Posted on November 22, 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.

I’m no expert on the pharmacy business, but from where I sit as a consumer it’s always looked to me as though pharmaceutical pricing is something of a shell game. It makes predicting what your airline ticket will cost seem like child’s play.

Yes, in theory, the airlines engage in demand-oriented pricing, while pharma pricing is based on negotiated prices spread among multiple contracted parties, but in either case end-users such as myself have very little visibility into where these numbers are coming from.  And in my opinion, at least, that’s not good for anyone involved. You can say “blah blah blah skin in the game” all you want, but co-pays are a poor proxy for making informed decisions as a patient as to what benefits you’ll accrue and problems you face when buying a drug.

Apparently, Surescripts hopes to change the rules to some degree. It just announced that it has come together with two other interest groups within the pharmacy supply chain to offer patient-specific benefit and price information to providers at the point of care.

Its partners in the venture include a group of EMR companies, including Cerner, Epic, Practice Fusion and Aprima Medical Software, which it says represent 53% of the U.S. physician base. It’s also working with two pharmacy benefit managers (CVS Health and Express Scripts) which embrace almost two-thirds of US patients.

The new Surescripts effort actually has two parts, a Real-Time Prescription Benefit tool and an expanded version of its Prior Authorization solution.  Used together, and integrated with an EHR, these tools will clarify whether the patient’s health insurance will cover the drug suggested by the provider and offer therapeutic alternatives that might come at a lower price.

If you ask me, this is clever but fails to put pressure on the right parties. You don’t have to be a pharmaceutical industry expert to know that middlemen like PBMs and pharmacies use a number of less-than-visible stratagems jack up drug prices. Patients are forced to just cope with whatever deal these parties strike among themselves.

If you really want to build a network which helps consumers keep prices down, go for some real disclosure. Create a network which gathers and shares price information every time the drug changes hands, up to and including when the patient pays for that drug. This could have a massive effect on drug pricing overall.

Hey, look at what Amazon did just by making costs of shipping low and relatively transparent to end-users. They sucked a lot of the transaction costs out of the process of shipping products, then gave consumers tools allowing them to watch that benefit in action.

Give consumers even one-tenth of that visibility into their pharmacy supply chain, and prices would fall like a hot rock. Gee, I wonder why nobody’s ever tried that. Could it be that pharmaceutical manufacturers don’t want us to know the real costs of making and shipping their product?

Is Allscripts An Also-Ran In The Hospital EMR Business?

Posted on August 18, 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.

It all began with a question, as many classic tales do. Someone writing for the HIStalk.com website  – I think it was ever-anonymous, eponymous  leader Mr. HISTalk – asked readers to answer the question “Who will benefit most from the proposed acquisition of McKesson EIS by Allscripts?”

The survey results were themselves worth a read:

* Approximately 29% voted for “McKesson customers”
* About 27% voted for “Allscripts customers”
* 8.4% voted for “McKesson shareholders”
* Roughly 23% voted for “Allscripts shareholders”
* About 13% voted for “Allscripts competitors”

Two things about these responses interested me. One is that almost a third of respondents seem to think McKesson will make the bigger score after being acquired by Allscripts. The other is that a not-inconsiderable 13% of the site’s well-informed readers think the deal will help Allscripts’ competitors. If these readers are right, perhaps Allscripts should rethink the deal.

I was even more engaged by the analysis that followed, which the writer took a close look at the dynamics of the hospital EMR market and commented on how Allscripts fit in. The results weren’t surprising, but again, if I were running Allscripts I’d take the following discussion seriously.

After working with data supplied by Blain Newton, EVP of HIMSS Analytics, the writer drew some firm conclusions. Here are some of the observations he shared:

  • While McKesson has twice as many hospitals as Allscripts, most of these hospitals have less than 150 beds, which means that the acquisition may offer less benefit, he suggests.
  • In addition to having only 3% of hospitals overall, Allscripts controls only 6% of the 250+ bed hospital market, which probably doesn’t position it for success. In contrast, he notes, Epic controls 20% of this market and Meditech 19%.
  • His sense is that while hospitals typically want a full suite of products when they work with Epic, Cerner or Meditech, Allscripts customers may be more prone to buying just a few key systems.
  • Ultimately, he argues, Cerner, Epic and Meditech have a commanding lead in this market, for reasons which include that the three are well ahead when it comes to the overall number of hospital served.
  • Given his premise, he believes that Epic is at the top of the pyramid, as it has almost double the number of hospitals with 500+ beds that Cerner does.

To cap off his analysis, Mr. HISTalk concludes that market forces make it unlikely that a dark horse will squeeze out one of the top hospital EMR vendors: “Everybody else is eating their dust and likely to lose business due to hospital consolidation and a shift toward the most successful vendors as much as all of us who – for our own reasons – wish that weren’t the case.”

It would take a separate analysis to predict whether the top three hospital EMR vendors are likely to win out over each other, but Epic seems to hold the most cards. Last year, I wrote a piece suggesting that Cerner was edging up on Epic, but I’m not sure whether or not my logic still holds. Epic may indeed be King of the (HIT) Universe for the foreseeable future.

Is It Time To Put FHIR-Based Development Front And Center?

Posted on August 9, 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.

I like to look at questions other people in the #HIT world wonder about, and see whether I have a different way of looking at the subject, or something to contribute to the discussion. This time I was provoked by one asked by Chad Johnson (@OchoTex), editor of HealthStandards.com and senior marketing manager with Corepoint Health.

In a recent HealthStandards.com article, Chad asks: “What do CIOs need to know about the future of data exchange?” I thought it was an interesting question; after all, everyone in HIT, including CIOs, would like to know the answer!

In his discussion, Chad argues that #FHIR could create significant change in healthcare infrastructure. He notes that if vendors like Cerner or Epic publish a capabilities-based API, providers’ technical, clinical and workflow teams will be able to develop custom solutions that connect to those systems.

As he rightfully points out, today IT departments have to invest a lot of time doing rework. Without an interface like FHIR in place, IT staffers need to develop workflows for one application at a time, rather than creating them once and moving on. That’s just nuts. It’s hard to argue that if FHIR APIs offer uniform data access, everyone wins.

Far be it from me to argue with a good man like @OchoTex. He makes a good point about FHIR, one which can’t be emphasized enough – that FHIR has the potential to make vendor-specific workflow rewrites a thing of the past. Without a doubt, healthcare CIOs need to keep that in mind.

As for me, I have a couple of responses to bring to the table, and some additional questions of my own.

Since I’m an HIT trend analyst rather than actual tech pro, I can’t say whether FHIR APIs can or can’t do what Chat is describing, though I have little doubt that Chad is right about their potential uses.

Still, I’d contend out that since none other than FHIR project director Grahame Grieve has cautioned us about its current limitations, we probably want to temper our enthusiasm a bit. (I know I’ve made this point a few times here, perhaps ad nauseum, but I still think it bears repeating.)

So, given that FHIR hasn’t reached its full potential, it may be that health IT leaders should invest added time on solving other important interoperability problems.

One example that leaps to mind immediately is solving patient matching problems. This is a big deal: After all, If you can’t match patient records accurately across providers, it’s likely to lead to wrong-patient related medical errors.

In fact, according to a study released by AHIMA last year, 72 percent of HIM professional who responded work on mitigating possible patient record duplicates every week. I have no reason to think things have gotten better. We must find an approach that will scale if we want interoperable data to be worth using.

And patient data matching is just one item on a long list of health data interoperability concerns. I’m sure you’re aware of other pressing problems which could undercut the value of sharing patient records. The question is, are we going to address those problems before we began full-scale health data exchange? Or does it make more sense to pave the road to data exchange and address bumps in the road later?