FRONT PAGE : | TECH | Op-Ed Page | About | Advertise | List
THCB UPDATE Get email updates of new posts and industry news.
facebook

January 06, 2009

Let's Reboot America's Health IT Conversation Part 2: Beyond EHRs

Yesterday we tried to put EHRs into perspective. They're important, and we can't effectively move health care forward without them. But they're only one of many important health IT functions. EHRs and health IT alone won't fix health care. So developing a comprehensive but effective national health IT plan is a huge undertaking that requires broad, non-ideological thinking.

As we've learned so painfully elsewhere in the economy, the danger we face now in developing health care solutions is throwing good money after bad. We don't merely need a readjustment of how health IT dollars are spent. We need to reboot the entire conversation about how health IT relates to health, health care, and health care reform. To get there, we need to take a deep breath and start from well-established and agreed-upon principles.

Most of us want a health system that, whenever possible, bases care on knowledge of what does and doesn't work - i.e., evidence. We want care that is coordinated, not fragmented, across the continuum of settings, visits and events. And we want care that is personal, affordable and increasingly convenient.

Most of us also agree that, so far, we have not achieved these ideals. In fact, health care continues to become costlier, quality is spotty, and the gap between the health care we believe possible and the current system is widening.

We believe that most health care professionals are acutely aware that more health IT alone cannot resolve these problems. Despite billions of dollars in health IT investments by health care professionals and organizations, the gap persists and is widening. Many physician practices have expanded their health IT functions, moving beyond electronic billing systems - a necessary asset to be paid by Medicare - toward EMRs and from paper to software systems.  About a quarter of US physicians use EHRs from commercial vendors. Hospitals and health plans - larger, corporate organizations with more dedicated capital resources - have implemented health IT more quickly. Even so, the tools implemented have typically been focused on record-keeping and transactional processing, not decision-support. Health care clinical and administrative decisions have not yet become more rational, less tolerant of waste and duplication, or more congruent with evidence.

We don't need simply more health health IT; instead, we need an array of specific health IT functions and capabilities that can facilitate better care at lower cost, and the adherence to evidence-based rules.

What would those empowering health IT products look like, and what would they do?

Focusing on Decision Support

Most important, new health IT would help patients, clinicians, managers and purchasers make the best possible clinical and administrative decisions. This includes identifying risks and following the best path to lowering them whenever possible. Health IT should help people stay healthy and avoid illness through active clinical decision support, and make sure that the system recognizes value. Which patients, according to past data, have acute or chronic conditions that need care? Which, do the data show, are the most effective (or high value) doctors, hospital services, treatments and interventions - so that the market can work to drive efficiency.  Given a particular set of signs or symptoms, lab test results, or genetic test, what is the best next step in care?

Technology and information engineering is readily available to do this. Car technologies now help drivers understand when a problem is occurring, or is likely to occur, monitoring and communicating fluid levels, tire pressure, maintenance appointments, and location in case of emergency. Banking technologies can flag suspicious credit card purchases and can instantly invalidate charge cards. Recently, Google trended flu searches to help estimate regional flu activity; their estimates have been consistent with the CDC's weekly provider surveillance network reports.

By comparison, most health IT is relatively unsophisticated. In general, the prevailing front line tools do not yet help clinicians identify individual- or population-level health risks. They do not yet provide guidance with evidence-based approaches that can best mitigate those risks, create alerts and reminders, or help monitor adherence to care plans, even though the data are now clear that most Americans die and we pay the most money due to easily preventable and managed conditions.

In short, we monitor our cars and bank accounts better than we do our health. We can change this.

Untethering Patients with Easily Accessible Personal Health Information
High value health IT would improve care by making summary personal health information available to providers and patients, increasingly independent of location and time. Most health records are still tied to a health care organization's data center, supporting an outdated business model in which the patient must come to a centralized, expensive location for even the most routine tasks, like history-taking or lab testing. Most current EHRs don't change this, in large part because they aren't connected to the Internet yet. Web-enabled patient information would untether the patient, and make increasingly standardized care more readily available anywhere. De-coupling health information from health care providers is the first step in the development of new business models that will offer team-based care services wherever one is located, saving money and increasing convenience.

Empowering Patients Through Online Linkages with Clinicians and Other Patients
High value health IT will link patients with clinicians, will match problems with the most appropriate solutions, and will use social networking to increase access to patient- and condition-specific information, knowledge, and guidance. This class of health IT applications and services will be particularly useful with chronic illness, shifting more of the condition's monitoring and management to the patient and his/her family and peers, with diminished reliance on the office-based physician and the single visit model of care. Bringing advances like these to fruition will require much broader implementation and access to broadband and mobile technologies, as well as standardized health record formats that use XML, like the Continuity of Care Record (CCR).

Supporting Participatory Medicine: Bridging the Medical Home and Web-Based Care
As Kibbe and Kvedar recently wrote, much of the health IT we're describing here bridges the divide between two powerful trends: Health 2.0 (or user-generated health care ), and "the medical home." It is now clear that, while most health care consumers want to be more actively engaged in their own care management - e.g., using Web-based search and joining patient communities - they also want to be connected to their physicians for questions and care when appropriate. The way forward here is Participatory Medicine that combines and remixes health information and knowledge - some from experts and some from the crowd - in the interest of helping us live healthier lives.  Here is a very good description from Neal Kaufman, MD, a practicing pediatrician and the CEO of DPS Health, about how this will work:

...organized medicine needs to provide the day-to-day support patients need to prevent disease and to self-manage their conditions if they are ill. In the connected era that means just in time delivery of the personalized and up-to-date data and information a person needs to have the knowledge to make wise choices. It means supporting patients to easily and accurately keep track of their performance. It means providing tailored messages and experience that speak to each person based on their unique characteristics, their performance on key behaviors and their needs at that moment in time. It means helping patients link directly to family and friends for critical support, and link to their many providers to help integrate medical care with everyday life.

Making Data and Accountability the Routine By-Product of the Use of Health IT
Health IT can help make all health care professionals and organizations - physicians, hospitals, other providers, health plans, drug firms, device firms - more accountable stewards for quality, safety and cost results, and for the engineering required for continuous improvement. We can learn from our current supply, care delivery and finance processes in the same ways that Toyota and Wal-Mart monitor their internal business processes. 

But we need to design data aggregation into the products from the start, not as an afterthought.
The problem is not just that we lack some important data elements to carry out these analyses now. More to the point, we have not committed nationally to aggregating, analyzing, and reporting the massive amounts of health data that we already have. Similarly, due to a lack of incentives and competing interests, most professional and organizational health care players have resisted using data to improve the quality, safety and cost of American care. 

Interoperabilitiy of various EHRs is absolutely critical to the ability to cost-effectively collect, manage, and report outcomes data.  All health IT products used in the care of diabetic patients, for example, ought to be required to export performance data relevant to care of diabetes in standardized formats.  All research of any kind depends on this capability.

Removing the Complexity and Cost Associated with Multi-Payer Claims Administration
Health IT ought to make claims payment, eligibility look-up, co-pay verification, and other administrative processes simpler, easier, and faster for providers, patients, and family members.  There is no good reason why we don't currently have an all-payer clearinghouse for patient administrative and financial information that is standards- and web-based. There also is no good reason why, in the era of PayPal, physicians and hospitals experience Days in Accounts Receivable of 36 and 55, respectively. As Rick Peters has written recently, it is time for us to build a scalable, XML, and cloud-based claims adjudication, public health, and quality reporting system to replace the entire archaic mainframe systems at CMS and their fiscal intermediaries. "Make the winning solution open source, implement it for Medicare and the CDC, and offer it free to every state Medicaid program and all the commercial payers," he says, and we agree it is time to use updated technology to resolve the inexcusable claims administration mess.

Closing the Collaboration Gap
Finally, a new generation of health IT platforms and services will close the "collaboration gap" that exists between the system's many sequestered players, who as a result perform so much less effectively and efficiently than they otherwise might. Clinicians, for example, diagnose disease and set up treatment plans but often are isolated from helping patients cope, manage, or adhere to these plans. Patients, once diagnosed, are motivated to manage their illnesses but often have few tools or methods to assist them. Purchasers and payers want to see clinicians use the most efficacious resources, but typically do not have a way to inform and reward evidence-based purchasing processes. In every case, health IT can facilitate a more collaborative experience that is tailored to the user's purpose, no matter what role that user plays in vast health care space.

Health IT presents enormous, unprecedented opportunities to improve the quality of care, to dramatically reduce the waste and cost inherent in our current approach, and to culturally transform physicians and patients so both become more actively engaged in improving health and health care. Bringing the fluidity of health information and knowledge that is just starting to fruition will allow us to leverage the true power of information engineering, and that can take many forms.  We think the name "clinical groupware" is more appropriate to this new class of health IT products and services than is the term "EHRs."  In any case,  the real health IT challenge to the Obama health care team is to step back, take stock of the kinds of applications that are emerging in the domain of health IT, including EHRs, and create an expansive, open policy structure that can leap beyond the status quo and really change the way American health care, in all its facets, works.

David C. Kibbe MD MBA is a Family Physician and Senior Advisor to the American Academy of Family Physicians who consults on health care professional and consumer technologies. Brian Klepper PhD is a health care market analyst and a Founding Principal of Health 2.0 Advisors, Inc.

January 6, 2009 in Brian Klepper, David Kibbe, Health 2.0, Technology, The Industry, Transparency, User Generated Content, Web/Tech | Permalink

Comments

This is all very interesting. But I have to wonder: do we really need a national health IT revolution? Or do we need a national health information revolution? I think it is the latter.

Thinking about the difference between IT and health information more generally, it's important to realize that the low-hanging fruit (the interventions that will yield the largest population health benefits for the least cost) may not involve electronic, computerized records at all. As some of us mentioned yesterday, creating clean, complete, and accurate summarized medical records is not an IT function. It is a human expert function. Similarly, when a patient of mine sees a specialist, a phone call to me during that visit (using 19th-century technology) is likely to be more beneficial for clarifying the reason for the referral and overall goals for the patient than an interoperable EHR.

A clarified system of communication rules, a few universal checklists, and a few tweaks in payment policy may trump billions spent on IT.

A more thoughtful approach to the exact benefits that IT--and only IT--can provide is needed. Here are the things I think are particular advantages to IT:
1. Legibility
2. Durability
3. Remote accessibility

Here are the particular disadvantages:
1. Information overload (low signal-to-noise ratio) [ironically, Dr. Halemka's piece on renewal highlights the fatal flaw of every EHR I've ever worked with]
2. Cost

If Drs. Kibbe and Klepper could provide their thoughts on exactly where electronic systems are necessary, this would be very helpful.

Posted by: docanon | Jan 6, 2009 6:09:44 AM

Dear Docanon: Having thoughtful physicians like yourself enter the debate and discussion is one of the primary reasons that Brian Klepper and I are doing these blogs on re-thinking health IT! Thanks for your input, which I think is brilliant. We need to start from scratch in thinking about how health IT relates to health, to health care, and to health care reform. Let's not forget the story of John Snow and the removal of the Broad Street pump handle, during the deadly cholera outbreak in London in 1854. While all the experts were debating the causes of the infection and what to do about it, Dr. Snow had the simplest and most direct answer of all: remove access to the offending source of the calamity.

Your suggestion approaches that kind of directness and simplicity: turn off the hype over health IT and get back to basics.

Your suggestion about re-thinking "exactly where electronic systems are necessary," and, by extension, where they are not, may well be the subject of our next blog post. DCK

Posted by: David C. Kibbe, MD MBA | Jan 6, 2009 6:47:38 AM

We need to revolutionize medical care using IT, not the other way around. IT is a aggregating and reporting tool, not a result.

Back in the days of Lotus Notes, I rode technical herd on a global project to "promote collaboration" among brokers. I learned a great deal then.

Thing is, brokers don't collaborate. They compete. No amount of IT was going to change that. The executive suite insisted this would change everything. It did. No one used the system, and no one trusted the IT department ever again, even though it wasn't their idea. Blame ensued. Millions of dollars wasted.

Same thing. Different decade, different century. Any endeavor is about people and their activities, not the IT analog. A great percentage of people will not submit to computer control and the attendant loss of autonomy. Period.

The resentment doesn't come from technology, it comes from cross-purpose motivations. Make money or be fired. Diagnose to a billing code. Avoid liability. Computers are seen as a calcification of that dissonance, rightfully so.

Fix medical care so it's about healing people. The money will follow where there's value. And maybe we can stop treating people like things.

Hey. I can dream.

Posted by: Rob | Jan 6, 2009 7:20:35 AM

The essence of complexity is simplicity...simply stated, if all of HIT tried to mimic what a master clinician does with her or his patients we would make major strides. Whenever in doubt about what should be done always go back to that simple rule.

Put another way…all we need is F*R*I*E*N*D*S*. I used this approach when deciding what I should do. I hope you find it helpful.

Friendships: Create positive relationships between individuals and between members of organizations.

Results: Distribute rewards based on results.

Information: Assure the free flow of timely and accurate data, information, knowledge, and wisdom.

Emergence: Encourage new and innovative ideas and practices through the creative energies of individuals.

Nurturing: Assure everyone is loved, nurtured, safe, and intellectually stimulated.

Dollars: Provide easy access to adequate resources for everyone.

Strong Communities: Strengthen every community and all families.

These simple rules, if practiced by everyone, would lead to healthier individuals, families and communities. If practiced by all healthcare providers supported by master-clinician mimicking HIT could lead to the transformation of healthcare we all need and deserve.

Posted by: Neal Kaufman MD | Jan 6, 2009 9:02:25 AM

Web Calls - Sign of the Times?

No man is an island, entire of itself.

John Donne

American Well, a Web service that puts patients face-to-face with doctors online will in introduced in Hawaii on January 15.

Claire Miller, New York Times, January 5

Face-face? Maybe click-to-click, byte-to-byte, or even island-to-island, or in the future, Skype-to-Skype, might be more descriptive.

In any event, the new Hawaii online service is a boldly innovative thing to do. The distant from your doctor and time away from your home or work, or even the cost of care, will no longer be barriers from your doctor.

The Hawaii Medical Service Association, the BCBS licensee, will make the online service available to everybody on the island, all 1.275 million of them, not just 700,000 BCBS members.

The idea is to make access easy for the uninsured and insured alike, and for those who have to travel long distances, which don’t have a personal doctor, who simply want a prescription refilled, or who need a convenient post-surgery follow-up.

Patients can use the service by logging into health plan websites. The cost for members is $10 for a 10 minute online appointment (more for visits over 10 minutes) and $45 for the uninsured for a 10 minute gig. You can get your prescription refilled, your problem diagnosed and treated, and your anxiety relieved.

The system just might be the ticket in Hawaii, where travel between islands is slow, distants are great, and rural doctors are rare. Besides Hawaii is a healthy place with great demographics. Cigarette and alcohol consumption rank low (48th in the U.S.), the obesity rate is also low (47th), the number of uninsured is the U.S. best (9%), the unemployment rate of 3.2%, rising but still great, and it is has a low population ranking among states (it has 1.275 citizens, 42nd among all states).

Online care has its critics. Online care is impersonal. Doctors might miss visual cues, signs, and symptoms; you can't test for everything online, e.g. strept throat; there’s always the danger of unwittingly supplying drugs to addicts; and the uninsured might not have broad band access (though 2/3s of the uninsured do, according to the California Healthcare Foundation). And in the future the lack of visual contact could be overcome with a Skype connection.

Conclusion?

The technology surf is higher in Hawaii than on the mainland. The Skype’s the limit.

Posted by: Richard L. Reece, MD, medinnovationblog.blogspot.com | Jan 6, 2009 1:52:01 PM

It is great that you are bringing attention to this topic. I also have written some recent articles and blog entries on advanced health IT beyond EHRs. I hope that others will join the effort in bringing awareness to the benefits of these technologies in the health care environment.

As a previous blogger noted, more IT in and of itself is not the solution -- but using it as a tool to facilitate evidence-based practices can not only improve patient care, but also reduce costs and minimize risks from the individual level to the federal government level.

Let's hope that HHS catches on...

Posted by: Mika Lofton, Dynamic Computer Corp., MI | Jan 7, 2009 5:36:56 AM

One area of focus for patient centered HIT is in chronic disease management. Beyond the basic PHR concept (accessing lab results and requesting prescriptions) is an interactive tool that clinicans can have patients with chronic diseases or on self administered drug regimens use to monitor their behaviors between visits. These can include diet, blood sugar, BP, exercise and drug regimen adherence. This diary concept supercharges the patient's participation in their care, making every patient part of an ongoing (although uncontrolled) real world trial. Making greater use of medical devices that seamlessly interface with the patient record and PHR will allow patients to more factually assess their adherence to protocols and allow clinicians greater insight into patient behaviors that significantly impact outcomes.

Posted by: Larry Glass | Jan 7, 2009 8:38:17 AM

As I talk to doctors, they confirm what you have said in the past: IT vendors are selling clinicians systems that are needlessly complex--and expensive.

This is yet another example of money (and the desire to make money) driving decisions in our healthcare system.

As one doctor told me: my practice spent $1.2 million on our EMR system--and I'd like to throw it out the window. I offers 17 ways to capture charges. We don't need 17 ways. We need the best way." And, he says, the system they have is generally considerd the best of the 3 best-known oncology specific systems.

Posted by: Maggie Mahar | Jan 7, 2009 11:00:57 AM

David Kibbe says:

> While all the experts were debating the causes of the
> infection and what to do about it, Dr. Snow had the
> simplest and most direct answer of all: remove access
> to the offending source of the calamity.

Well, he's hinting at this, but according to a terrific book I've read about the episode, http://www.theghostmap.com>The Ghost Map, the consensus was that the offending source of the calamity was the foul air of London, not the perfectly clear, good-tasting water that made the Broad Street well popular. Dr. Snow's removal of the pump handle was an inexpensive experiment.

About the 17 ways to capture charges: there is no "best way" and that's the point of the system providing several. If the owners of this practice can tell the implementation team how they want to capture charges, and they're willing to preclude the possibility of doing it another way, then he could have it his one single way, presumably "best" for him. Of he could ask an experienced consultant about the pros and cons of two or three approaches, pick one and then train his staff (including all the practice partners) to do it that way. Either approach will increase the cost of implementation somewhat: maybe the EHR with the "best way" to do billing implemented would cost $1.4M instead of $1.2M. There is no such thing as turn-key business process automation software. Sorry.

And back `round to the top: there is no agreement about what the basics of an EHR are, and evaluators buy "features" not "quality". Therefore EHRs offer lots of features of dubious quality or utility.

t

Posted by: Tom Leith | Jan 8, 2009 8:40:16 AM

Post a comment