healthcarereimagined

Envisioning healthcare for the 21st century

  • About
  • Economics

Why the US isn’t the world leader in speedy internet access

Posted by timmreardon on 01/03/2014
Posted in: Global Standards, Health Care Costs, Health Care Economics, Health Outcomes, Helathcare Delivery, Integrated Electronic Health Records. Leave a comment
SIZE MATTERS

By Tim Fernholz @timfernholz December 30, 2013

Just a series of tubes. AP Photo/Mark Lennihan

If you’ve heard about the backward state of US internet infrastructure, you’ve probably read the anecdotes about Riga, the Latvian capital has faster-than-fast internet speeds, or Estonia, with its post-Soviet technology obsession has become an internet leader.

Still, both countries lag behind the US on the World Economic Forum’s ranking (pdf) of internet bandwidth available per user. The US, which ranked 35th in 2012, offers the average citizen 62.3 kB per second, while the top performer, Luxembourg, offers its citizens connectivity at the thrilling speed of 4 MB per second. The top 10 providers of high average bandwidth have something in common: They are small, rich countries—Hong Kong, Malta, Singapore, and Iceland round out the top five. While the US has high-speed internet access in some cities that out-strips other countries, slow speeds in rural areas drag down the average.

But a similar phenomenon plays out when it comes to broadband penetration: The US is ranked 14th in the OECD, a group of wealthy economies, with only 28.8% of the population—90 million people—accessing a fixed broadband subscription, which is three times as many as Japan, the country with the second-most subscribers, and 30 times more than Switzerland, the country with the highest penetration.

Perhaps the biggest difference between the US and other countries is subsidies. South Korea, another economy whose internet infrastructure and wired populationoften bests the US, has made lowering the cost of internet access a national priority; for example, some of the cost of internet for the low-income population is covered. That would be a hard sell in the US where the idea of subsidizing health care for the poor is controversial.

So the turning point is how much broadband internet can be considered a utility—a public good provided by the private sector. While telecoms are heavily regulated, there’s not the same sense in America that internet access is a necessity in the same way that power, water, and even telephone land-lines are. That view would be a sea-change for policy—while the Obama administration invested in broadband in the 2009 stimulus plan, it still falls behind many other countries that already consider it a public good.

The national broadband goal announced by the president (pdf) is connecting 99% of the nation’s schools by 2018, something South Korea has already done. China, meanwhile, announced this year it would spend $323 billion to put its entire population online by 2020.

http://qz.com/162250/why-the-us-isnt-the-world-leader-in-speedy-internet-access/

Busting 4 Myths About Healthcare Reform – Cleveland Clinic

Posted by timmreardon on 12/30/2013
Posted in: Global Standards, Health Care Costs, Health Care Economics, Health Outcomes, Helathcare Delivery, Integrated Electronic Health Records. Tagged: ACA, Affordable Care Act, Health insurance, Independent Payment Advisory Board, Insurance, IPAB, Medicare, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Leave a comment

Article link:

The national discussion about healthcare reform continues, especially as the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance marketplace coverage is set to take effect in January.

Healthcare reform is a heated topic, and there is plenty of confusion about what is fact and what is fiction. As we all talk about the future of healthcare, our discussion should be informed by facts.

With that in mind, here are four common myths — and the facts behind them.

Myth 1: The government is taking over health insurance

“As we all talk about the future of healthcare, our discussion should be informed by facts.”

David Longworth, MD

Chairman, Medicine Institute

Fact: Established private insurance companies sell plans on the new state and federal health insurance exchanges.

The rollout of Healthcare.gov does not represent a government takeover of insurance plans. The government provides the platform, but private insurers — including some of the biggest names in the industry — sell plans competitively through that platform. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) does increase government regulation of the insurance industry.

If you are selecting a plan on the health exchanges, be sure that your physician and hospital are included.

Myth 2: The government is seizing control of the care of patients

Fact: The healthcare system will still rely on a competitive market for delivery.

Will there be more government involvement in healthcare now, particularly in terms of quality measures? Yes. However, care is still provided at private hospitals, clinics and physician practices. Critics often compare the ACA to socialized systems such as England’s. Keep in mind that England’s medical professionals are employees of the government. That’s simply not the case in America, where private competition will remain the norm.

Myth 3: The government will ration care

Fact: By law, government bodies can’t recommend policies that ration care.

Critics often tie the idea of rationing care to the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). The IPAB is a group that makes recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services for reducing Medicare costs. However, by law, the IPAB does not write policy. It can only make recommendations — and Congress has the power to override those recommendations.

On top of that, the law’s language literally forbids the IPAB from making any recommendations that ration care, raise Medicare beneficiary premiums or restrict Medicare benefits.

Myth 4: The ACA provides free coverage to undocumented immigrants

Fact: Illegal immigrants can’t purchase health insurance marketplace plans. They also can’t enroll in Medicaid.

Permanent legal residents can apply for subsidies on the health insurance marketplaces, just like American citizens can. But as with insurance plans, these subsidies are not available for illegal immigrants.

Resources for Health Insurance Marketplaces

<!–

–>

Tags: Affordable Care Act, Future of Healthcare, healthcare reform, myths

avatar David Longworth, MDDavid Longworth, MD, is Chairman of Cleveland Clinic’s Medicine Institute, Medical Director of Health Hub from Cleveland Clinic and a respected expert in infectious diseases.

From virtual doctor visits to online diagnoses, 5 high-tech fixes for patients – Wall St. Journal

Posted by timmreardon on 12/27/2013
Posted in: Health Care Costs, Helathcare Delivery. Tagged: Banner Health, Catholic Health Partners, Hospital, Intensive-care unit, Mehmet Oz, Patient, St. Rita's Medical Center, Tel Aviv. Leave a comment
Dec. 23, 2013 7:24 p.m. ET
Article link: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303773704579270450565101982?mod=e2tw

Informed Patient columnist Laura Landro joins Lunch Break with five innovations in medical care that are percolating and are ones to watch in 2014. Photo: The Christ Hospital Health Network, Cincinnati.

From virtual doctor visits to online diagnoses, information technology is rapidly changing the way patients interact with the health system. Here are some innovations that are catching on more broadly and could improve care in 2014:

Monitor Long-Distance

An electronic intensive-care unit, or eICU, lets critical-care doctors and nurses check on patients in several hospitals from a remote command center with a bank of monitors displaying patients’ vital signs. They can alert bedside staff if they see a subtle change in a patient that could signal a worsening condition. Remote monitoring by specialists is also catching on for emergency rooms and surgical units to help evaluate patients with stroke, seizures and other conditions.

Patients in a hospital with an eICU program were 26% more likely to survive their stay and were discharged 20% faster than those receiving usual ICU care, according to a study published earlier in December in the journal CHEST. The study analyzed some 120,000 patients in 56 ICUs over five years.

Video cameras can be activated if the remote team needs to visually check the patient, and can be used to check regularly on patients who might be at risk for falls, according to Brian Rosenfeld, an inventor of the eICU technology and chief medical officer for telehealth at Philips Healthcare, a unit of Dutch technology giant Royal Philips that purchased his company in 2008. As more evidence of its benefits has emerged, resistance among some critical-care doctors to having a remote doctor looking over their shoulder has dissipated, he says, but some “still think they are delivering perfect care and no one can help them.”

The eICU helps especially in rural areas where there can be a shortage of specialists. Phoenix-based hospital-and-health system Banner Health currently monitors and supports more than 450 ICU beds across several Western states from command centers in Mesa, Ariz., and Greeley, Colo., and even uses some doctors in a Tel Aviv, Israel, center to cover shifts.

Crowdsource an Ailment

Patients can crowdsource their symptoms to find a diagnosis. As strange as it sounds, health experts say this may hold promise. On a new website, CrowdMed.com, patients who haven’t been able to get a firm diagnosis can post their symptoms online to crowdsource an answer.

Founded by technology entrepreneur Jared Heyman after his sister Carly went three years with an undiagnosed illness, CrowdMed lets users offer a cash reward that goes directly to the “medical detectives”—be they laypeople or physicians—who help solve their case. Medical detectives may suggest a diagnosis and bet points on others’ suggestions. Each diagnosis is treated as a stock with a share price that moves based on “demand” for the diagnosis. CrowdMed uses an algorithm to calculate the probability of each diagnosis being correct according to betting behavior, ranks the diagnoses from most to least likely, and presents the patient with the top 3 to 6. The average reward on the site is currently $200, the company says. Detectives split the rewards based on how many points they bet on the correct diagnosis.

Mr. Heyman says the idea isn’t to replace doctors, but to come up with a list of possibilities a doctor might not have considered. Before the site launched, doctors diagnosed his sister with a disorder that includes early menopause symptoms. CrowdMed used her case to test the system later and within three weeks it was diagnosed correctly.

Luke Hoelscher, 31, recently posted his case on CrowdMed.com, after what he describes as several frustrating years of going from doctor to doctor with undiagnosed symptoms that included blurry vision, severe light sensitivity, bodily pain, and fatigue. He is offering a $500 reward. A former software engineer who can no longer work due to his health issues, Mr. Hoelscher says he has yet to find an answer through the site, but is optimistic. “There have to be people out there who have dealt with what I am dealing with,” he says.

CrowdMed, along with increasingly sophisticated online “symptom checker” programs for consumers, allow patients to use some of the same strategies that doctors are already turning to for help with difficult cases. Some doctors participate in private, online social networks to seek input from other physicians and use Web-based programs that analyze reams of data to suggest possible diagnoses.

Consult Via Video

Hospitals, insurers and health systems are increasingly allowing patients to make an appointment online or consult a physician via video chat. Insurer Cigna, for example, recently teamed up with Sunrise, Fla.-based MDLive to allow some health-plan members to schedule a virtual consultation with a doctor for nonemergency situations such as allergies and sinus infections.

In a pilot program, Mercy Health in Cincinnati has offered patients at two of its medical practices electronic visits. Patients complete an online survey specific to certain conditions, such as sore throat or headache and a doctor responds within 24 hours determining next steps such as calling in a prescription, or recommending rest. Physicians can attend to the electronic visits in between seeing other patients in the office. A spokeswoman says Mercy requests a $35 copay for these visits and about 10% of health plans cover the visits. Patient surveys indicated that even if the payer didn’t cover the visit, she adds, patients would be willing to pay out of pocket for the service because of its convenience – such as no need to miss work, or arrange for childcare.

Sharecare, an online health-and-wellness site whose founders include celebrity doctor Mehmet Oz, recently launched AskMD, an app that collects information about symptoms, locates doctors, filters results by insurance, specialty and distance and directs users to the nearest emergency room if it looks like they need one. Hospital Corp. of America, a major hospital chain, is a sponsor of the launch, and some of its affiliated doctors and hospitals will be featured.

Text a Nurse

When Valerie Weichart, 56, was hospitalized recently for back surgery at St. Rita’s Medical Center in Lima, Ohio, she was provided with a tablet device. It allowed her to view her medical chart and lab-test results, read up on her medications, see bios and photos of the staff caring for her, and text a nurse for help. St. Rita’s parent, Catholic Health Partners, aims to roll out the system to its 23 hospitals after having completed a successful pilot. The system, called MyChartBedside, is linked to patients’ electronic medical records. Patients can also use the device to surf the Web and play games.

“I felt more comfortable knowing what my medications were, so I didn’t have to ask so many questions,” Ms. Weichart says.

NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital also has been testing arming patients with tablets. “We worried at first about how nurses would adjust to it, but they really like it,” says hospital chief executive Steven Corwin. The units are quieter without the ring of call buttons. The messaging system makes it easier for nurses to prioritize patient needs and requests. And patients are more fully engaged in their own care, Dr. Corwin says.

Calculate the Cost of Care

With the coming changes in insurance coverage, calculating copayments and other out-of-pocket costs could be daunting. Insurers and health plans are offering cost estimates online and through mobile apps that calculate how much patients will have to pay out of pocket, how much a plan will pay, and available in-network reduced rates. UnitedHealthcare’s myHealthcare Cost Estimator, launched last year, recently added inpatient hospital information including knee replacement, childbirth, and spinal surgery. The costs can vary widely. For example, the company says, childbirth, including prenatal and postnatal care can range from $9,699 to $29,076 in the New York City area. In a survey of its users, 67% said the calculator gave them the confidence to make better cost choices.

Write to Laura Landro at laura.landro@wsj.com

The global standard: International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement – ICHOM

Posted by timmreardon on 12/27/2013
Posted in: Global Standards, Health Outcomes, Integrated Electronic Health Records, Quality Measures. Tagged: Disease, Health, Health care, Health care provider, Health system, Nonprofit organization, Patient, United States. Leave a comment

From ICHOM: http://www.ichom.org/

“The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) is a non-profit organization founded by three esteemed institutions with the purpose to transform health care systems worldwide by measuring and reporting patient outcomes in a standardized way.”

“We believe outcomes are the ultimate measure of success in health care. When seeking treatment, patients want to know what their life will be like after treatment: will I return to work, will I be able to take care of myself, and will my symptoms improve? Helping patients answer these questions is why we formed ICHOM.”

“ICHOM organizes global teams of physician leaders, outcomes researchers and patient advocates to define Standard Sets of outcomes per medical condition, and then drives adoption to enable health care providers globally to compare, learn, and improve.”

HIMSS Foundation and National eHealth Collaborative Merge

Posted by timmreardon on 12/23/2013
Posted in: Health Care Costs, Health Care Economics, Integrated Electronic Health Records, Quality Measures. Tagged: Carla Smith, CHICAGO, EHealth, Health Information Exchange, Information technology, Mike Leavitt, United States, Vice president. Leave a comment
December 23, 2013

Article link: http://www.himss.org/News/NewsDetail.aspx?ItemNumber=26571

As of December 23, 2013, the two organizations become one to enhance and improve patient-centered healthcare with information technology

CHICAGO (December 23, 2013) – Focused on better health and greater value through information technology, the HIMSS Foundation and the National eHealth Collaborative announce a merger.  Both organizations embrace a similar mission to engage with all stakeholders to drive positive change in healthcare with IT and provide a single, mission-driven voice and focus; NeHC will fold into the HIMSS Foundation.

NeHC’s Board of Directors approved the merger in late November, and NeHC members approved the merger in mid-December. The HIMSS Foundation Board of Directors also approved the merger in mid-December.  The merger is effective on December 23, 2013.   NeHC’s CEO, Kate Berry, will play a leadership role to assist in ensuring a smooth transition of NeHC into HIMSS over the next few months.

NeHC was created five years ago by Mike Leavitt when he was Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.  Operating as an independent, non-profit organization, NeHC has worked closely with the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) as well as other public and private organizations to encourage effective use of health IT.  The original five-year cooperative agreement funding from ONC ended in 2013.

With the merger completed, by early spring new or expanded initiatives operating within the HIMSS Foundation include:

  • The creation of the HIMSS Center for Patient- and Family-Centered Care, aligning with HIMSS’s Connected Patient Committee and Community.
  • NeHC’s education programs will be integrated with a NeHC University and Resource Library on HIMSS’s website.
  • NeHC’s health information exchange programs will become part of the HIMSS HIE portfolio.

As part of the merger, NeHC members will become HIMSS members.  The NeHC Board of Directors will appoint a volunteer advisory committee to help shape the agenda of the new HIMSS Center for Patient- and Family-Centered Care, reinforcing the importance of and commitment to this transformation set of programs.

“NeHC leadership is excited to come together with the HIMSS Foundation and to be part of the recognized leader in the health IT field,” said Kate Berry, NeHC CEO.  “This is a wonderful opportunity to leverage and build on the capabilities and strengths of the two organizations and our many members to drive progress that will ultimately benefit patients.”

“The merger of the HIMSS Foundation and NeHC offers an opportunity to use the strengths of the two organizations to create a more patient- and family-centered healthcare system with better outcomes and greater value; to improve the quality, safety, cost-effectiveness, and access to care; and, to ensure the right information is available to the right person at the right time,” says Carla Smith, MA, CNM, FHIMSS, HIMSS Executive Vice President.  “As part of the HIMSS Foundation, we can intensify our efforts with the new HIMSS Center for Patient- and Family-Centered Care and our health information exchange programs.”

 

 About HIMSS

HIMSS is a global, cause-based, not-for-profit organization focused on better health through information technology (IT). HIMSS leads efforts to optimize health engagements and care outcomes using information technology.
HIMSS is a part of HIMSS WorldWide, a cause-based, global enterprise producing health IT thought leadership, education, events, market research and media services around the world. Founded in 1961, HIMSS WorldWide encompasses more than 52,000 individuals, of which more than two-thirds work in healthcare provider, governmental and not-for-profit organizations across the globe, plus over 600 corporations and 250 not-for-profit partner organizations, that share this cause.  HIMSS WorldWide, headquartered in Chicago, serves the global health IT community with additional offices in the United States, Europe, and Asia.  Visit www.himss.org for more information.

 

About NeHC                                                                                                                                                              

National eHealth Collaborative (NeHC) is a public-private partnership that accelerates effective use of health IT to create a more patient and family centered healthcare system with better outcomes and greater value. NeHC works closely with the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and is led by some of the nation’s most respected thought leaders in healthcare and health IT. NeHC’s primary focus is on encouraging health information exchange, providing tools to support engagement with consumers, and leveraging an education platform and health IT programs with broad stakeholder reach. NeHC brings value to the healthcare community by offering both pragmatic tools to support deployment of health IT and serving as a convener of stature to assist stakeholders in tackling common challenges and developing collaborative solutions.

In Tech Buying, U.S. Still Stuck in Last Century – NY Times

Posted by timmreardon on 12/23/2013
Posted in: Health Care Costs, Health Care Economics, Integrated Electronic Health Records, Quality Measures. Tagged: Barack Obama, Government procurement in the United States, HealthCare.gov, New York Times, Obama, Official, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, United States Congress. Leave a comment

Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

President Obama, at the White House last month, has often expressed interest in changing the government’s contracting system.

By  MICHAEL D. SHEAR and ANNIE LOWREY
Published: December 22, 2013    170 Comments
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Save
  • Email
  • Share
  • Print
  • Single Page
  • Reprints
<nyt_text><nyt_correction_top>WASHINGTON — Four years after President Obama vowed to “dramatically reform the way we do business on contracts,” the spectacular failure of the HealthCare.gov website has renewed calls for changes in how the government hires and manages private technology companies.

Readers’ Comments

Share your thoughts.

  • Post a Comment »
  • Read All Comments (169) »

But despite Mr. Obama’s promises in the last two months to “leap into the 21st century,” there is little evidence that the administration is moving quickly to pursue an overhaul of the current system in the coming year.

Outside experts, members of Congress, technology executives and former government officials say the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act’s website is the nearly inevitable result of a procurement process that stifles innovation and wastes taxpayer dollars. The Air Force last year scrapped a $1 billion supply management system. Officials abandoned a new F.B.I. system after spending $170 million on it. And a $438 million air traffic control systems update, a critical part of a $45 billion nationwide upgrade that is years behind schedule, is expected to go at least $270 million over budget.

Longstanding laws intended to prevent corruption and conflict of interest often saddle agencies with vendors selected by distant committees and contracts that stretch for years, even as technology changes rapidly. The rules frequently leave the government officials in charge of a project with little choice over their suppliers, little control over the project’s execution and almost no authority to terminate a contract that is failing.

“It may make sense if you are buying pencils or cleaning services,” said David Blumenthal, who during Mr. Obama’s first term led a federal office to promote the adoption of electronic health records. But it does not work “when you have these kinds of incredibly complex, data-driven, nationally important, performance-based procurements.”

The Standish Group, an information technology firm, deemed just 4.6 percent of large-scale government contracting projects executed in the past decade to be successful. More than half were “challenged,” and about 40 percent simply “failed.”

Multinational companies with large legal teams are often successful at winning years-long government contracts. But officials say technology innovation — particularly on web-based projects like the health care site — is often found in smaller firms, like many in Silicon Valley, that lack the size and the know-how to navigate the costly procurement maze.

“It’s a punishing and punitive environment to work in,” said Stan Z. Soloway, the chief executive of the Professional Services Council, a trade group, and a former Clinton administration official.

Officials said the administration was conducting a “review of options” for improving the government’s use of technology and was beginning to discuss the issue with stakeholders inside and outside government. But they declined to say whether Mr. Obama would call for changes in how Washington delivers technology projects during his State of the Union address early next year and whether the White House had any specific plan to make good on the president’s oft-stated interest in tackling the thorny, bureaucratic issue.

“This administration has made considerable progress in reforming federal I.T. management practices,” said Steven Posner, a spokesman for the White House budget office, citing new open-data and cloud-computing initiatives. “As the president made clear, significant challenges remain in the area of federal I.T., and we need to continue improving the way we deliver technology.”

In Mr. Obama’s first term, the administration pushed agencies to move away from expensive, dedicated hardware by adopting more flexible and cheaper Internet-based services when possible. Officials also began requiring agencies to replace proprietary data with modern open formats that can be easily understood by the public and the private sector.

But lawmakers and others said the Obama administration was doing too little to fix the fundamental problems, and they predicted that the issue would ultimately fall to Mr. Obama’s successor.

Representative Gerald E. Connolly, Democrat of Virginia, said the budget office, formally known as the Office of Management and Budget, refused to back bipartisan legislation that would consolidate responsibility for technology projects in a single person at each agency and increase the transparency of government spending on technology.

“O.M.B. takes the position, as it usually does, that we don’t need legislation to address these issues,” said Mr. Connolly, who represents a Washington suburb with hundreds of federal technology contractors. “O.M.B. was really our biggest stumbling block. It was maddening.”

Officials denied Mr. Connolly’s charge, saying the administration is open to legislation but has “some concerns” with the bill in the House because it does not apply to the Pentagon. A Senate version of Mr. Connolly’s legislation in the House was introduced last week by a Democrat and a Republican, but it also centers on the civilian agencies.

Aides pointed to the president’s recent comments about procurement as evidence that the administration is eager to confront the broader problem.

In an interview on MSNBC last month, Mr. Obama bemoaned systemic problems in big technology projects, saying that “our I.T. systems, how we purchase technology in the federal government, is cumbersome, complicated and outdated.”

He reiterated that thought in a news conference on Friday, and he has pledged to “refocus” on the issue during the rest of his term.

Last Tuesday, Mr. Obama met with 15 executives from some of the nation’s largest technology companies, including Tim Cook of Apple and Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook. Administration officials said the meeting was a first step in confronting the broader issue highlighted by the health care website debacle.

Technology experts across the political spectrum agree there are many problems to fix, from the White House down to the civil servants who administer the half-trillion dollars the government spends a year on procurement contracts, about 15 percent of its total budget.

“It’s not just the contracting rules,” Mr. Soloway said. “It’s the human capital, the way the government buys services, the way the government determines its own requirements, the lack of collaboration within government, the lack of collaboration between the government and the private sector, the outdated systems within government.”

Jim Johnson, the chairman of the Standish Group, said the government often required sweeping, singular contracts for projects that private businesses would complete for in pieces.

“It’s an iterative style,” Mr. Johnson said. “That’s how Google does it. That’s how eBay does it.” Mr. Johnson said the government’s successes tended to come from small, focused projects, which might attract more competitive bids. The success rate for small-scale government contracting projects in the past decade, according to his firm’s analysis, is nearly 55 percent.

The red tape also makes it difficult, if not impossible, for federal agencies to get the technology they need fast enough. “Agency leadership’s need for speed and agility has far outstripped the procurement and finance models,” Richard Spires, a former chief information officer of the Department of Homeland Security, told a congressional panel this year.

In addition, strict rules prevent the government from working closely with contractors once it has hired them. Dr. Blumenthal, the former Obama administration official, said the government system of managing technology projects was broken.

“I think there has to be some middle ground between the current straitjacket and the perfect process that allows any kind of vetting you might want to have,” said Dr. Blumenthal, who was responsible for distributing $30 billion in federal money to doctors and hospitals.

“I didn’t realize how much of a constraint or how disabling it was until I went to the private sector,” added Dr. Blumenthal, now the president of a foundation engaged in research on health and social policy issues.

Administration officials said they agreed with critics that the government needed to move away from an old-fashioned method of technology development that relies on a single, large vendor to develop technology in years-long contracts.

Experts said the HealthCare.gov debacle might ignite movement toward common-sense changes. “There’s certainly momentum,” said Mike Hettinger of the Software and Information Industry Association, a trade group.

But Mr. Connolly, the Virginia lawmaker, said he saw little evidence of a new push by the administration, even as he expressed hope Mr. Obama would make the issue more of a priority.

“The president gets it,” Mr. Connolly said. “Now we need to make sure the people who work for him get it.”

Navy to VA: We Printed Out Health Records and Mailed Them – Nextgov

Posted by timmreardon on 12/20/2013
Posted in: Health Care Costs, Health Care Economics, Integrated Electronic Health Records, Quality Measures. Tagged: Composite Health Care System, Defense Department, Marine, Navy, Nextgov, San Diego, United States Department of Defense, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Leave a comment

By Bob Brewin

December 19, 2013

Decades after the Pentagon and Veterans Affairs Department developed separate electronic health records for military personnel and veterans, here’s how the Navy transfers potentially millions of pages of sailors’ and Marines’ medical files to VA: It prints them out on paper and mails them via the U.S. Postal Service, Nextgov has learned.

At the same time, VA has launched a massive bulk scanning operation to copy 70 million pages a month of the department’s own paper files, including service treatment records, into electronic format as PDF files.

VA and the Defense Department reached an agreement in February for Defense to bulk scan all such treatment records as of Dec. 31 for electronic transfer to the VA, but that process still includes printing and mailing paper records.

Karen Roberts, a Defense spokeswoman, said Defense sends millions of fields of data to the VA daily for both healthcare and benefit adjudication purposes. She did not answer a question from Nextgov about whether the Army and Air Force also print out and mail copies of electronic health records to the VA.

The labor intensive and costly efforts to transfer electronic health records between the two departments contributes to the lengthy backlog of disability claims at VA and illustrates the longstanding need for the departments to integrate their health records systems, critics say.

A service treatment record contains all medical information on an active duty service member, from his or her first physical examination upon entering service through their final physical before they are discharged from service, along with clinical notes on all consultations and treatments received in the interim. Depending on a service member’s time in uniform and medical conditions documented, a single STR can run to thousands of pages. With the Defense Department discharging 300,000 people a year, that means officials must transfer tens of millions of pages of medical records to the VA, an industry source familiar with the process said. VA needs complete treatment records to evaluate disability claims. Currently it takes the department 125 days to retrieve STRs from Defense, considerably extending the time required to process a claim.

Defense began developing its electronic health record in 1988 at a cost of billions of dollars. Its current system, the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application, contains records for 9.7 million active duty and retired personnel and their beneficiaries. An industry source said the practice of printing and mailing files from electronic records in 2013 is “ludicrous.”

But that’s exactly the approach the Navy and Marines are taking, according to an internal Nov. 13 Marine Corps message:

“THE BUREAU OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY (BUMED) HAS ESTABLISHED THE NAVY MEDICINE RECORDS ACTIVITY (NMRA) AS THE CENTRAL SITE FOR COLLECTION OF ALL STRS.  THE PURPOSE OF NMRA IS TO PERFORM A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW ON ALL STRS TO ENSURE COMPLETENESS PRIOR TO FORWARDING THE STR TO THE VA.

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY AND UNTIL 31 DECEMBER 2013, ALL STRS WILL BE MAILED TO NMRA AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: NAVY MEDICINE RECORDS ACTIVITY (NMRA), BUMED DETACHMENT ST LOUIS, 4300 GOODFELLOW DRIVE BLDG 103, ST. LOUIS, MO 63120.

The address is the location of VA’s national records management center.

The message directed that the STR package mailed to St. Louis include information printed from AHLTA and the Composite Health Care System, which contains pharmacy and lab information.

Another industry source with extensive military background said it makes no sense to send paper rather than electronic files. The fact that the military is doing so illustrates the need for a single electronic health record for both Defense and VA. As a minimum, the Navy should be able to convert the AHLTA files to a PDF, easily read by any computer system, he said.

Longstanding Claims Backlog

VA, which processed more than 1 million disability claims last year,  is awash with paper files, and set up a bulk scanning system in September 2012 to convert 165 million pages of veterans’ records into tagged and searchable digital files between then and July 2013.

Defense agreed with VA on Feb. 22 to send complete — and certified — STRs in searchable PDF files by Dec. 31, using the Healthcare Artifact and Image Management Solution, which was originally developed to store, manage and provide access to medical imagery.

An amendment to the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act, expected to pass the Senate this week, gives Defense another six months to deploy HAIMS, an indication the system is not yet ready to handle electronic transfer of service treatment records to the VA.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, in a June 24 letter that “We expedited the deployment of the Healthcare Artifact and Image Management Solution, which will digitize paper-based medical information on all separating service members. This will be in place by December 2013.”

The Marine message indicates that the Navy will still print and mail portions of the STR to its central office co-located with the VA records center. The message said notes in AHLTA will be transmitted electronically “PRIOR TO MAILING A PAPER STR.”

An internal document obtained by Nextgov shows Defense plans to install  hardware chosen from a list of 11 manufacturers at the 59 military hospitals and 364 clinics that will handle the bulk scanning of STRs sent to the VA.

Roberts said the services have elected to do the majority of the bulk medical record scanning at central locations and are installing high volume scanners and other supporting hardware. Some larger military treatment facilities may also do bulk scanning onsite.

Defense has developed an image repository and placed additional servers in operational areas to improve the response time and synchronize data with the central repository.

The internal document Nextgov obtained assumes these hospitals and clinics will have network connections ranging in speed from 100 megabits per second to one gigabit per second to handle the fat STR PDF files. An industry source said only two military hospitals have one gigabit connections — Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., and the Naval Medical Center in San Diego, Calif.

An industry source said the numerous configuration requirements for 11 types of bulk scanners imposes a burden on the small IT staffs of military hospitals and clinics, not to mention the personnel needed to manually feed paper into the scanners.

Asked how data will be transferred from HAIMS to the VA paperless Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS), Roberts answered in the future tense. She said that when a veteran files a disability claim, VBMS will automatically query another VA system, which in turn will query the HAIMS data repository for the certified complete service treatment record. If it is available, the VA system will retrieve and store the treatment record, to be viewed later by a claims adjudicator using VBMS.

Meagan Lutz, a VA spokeswoman, said the interface with HAIMS was integrated into VBMS on Monday, Dec. 16. She said it will be activated after end-to-end system integration testing is completed, which VA estimates will be finalized later this month.

(Image via Melpomene/Shutterstock.com)


By Bob Brewin

December 19, 2013

http://www.nextgov.com/health/2013/12/navy-va-we-printed-out-health-records-and-mailed-them/75803/

One hospital charges $8,000 — another, $38,000 – Washington Post

Posted by timmreardon on 12/18/2013
Posted in: Health Care Costs, Health Care Economics, Integrated Electronic Health Records, Quality Measures. Tagged: American Hospital Association, Dan Keating, George Washington University, Hospital, Medicare, Sibley Memorial Hospital, University of Maryland Medical Center, Washington Post. Leave a comment

Posted by Sarah Kliff and Dan Keating on May 8, 2013 at 12:01 am

Article link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/08/one-hospital-charges-8000-another-38000/

Consumers on Wednesday will finally get some answers about one of modern life’s most persistent mysteries: how much medical care actually costs.

miami-hospitals2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the first time, the federal government will release the prices that hospitals charge for the 100 most common inpatient procedures. Until now, these charges have been closely held by facilities that see a competitive advantage in shielding their fees from competitors. What the numbers reveal is a health-care system with tremendous, seemingly random variation in the costs of services.

In the District, George Washington University’s average bill for a patient on a ventilator was $115,000, while Providence Hospital’s average charge for the same service was just under $53,000. For a lower joint replacement, George Washington University charged almost $69,000 compared with Sibley Memorial Hospital’s average of just under $30,000.

Virginia’s highest average rate for a lower limb replacement was at CJW Medical Center in Richmond, more than $117,000, compared with Winchester Medical Center charging $25,600 per procedure. CJW charged more than $38,000 for esophagitis and gastrointestinal conditions, while Carilion Tazewell Community Hospital averaged $8,100 in those cases.

Maryland has a unique system for hospital rate charges, so differences were smaller, and its average rate was lower than that of any other state in the most common procedures reviewed by The Washington Post. The highest average charge for a lower joint replacement was $36,000 by University of Maryland Medical Center in Baltimore, much lower than the highest rates in other states.

Elsewhere, Las Colinas Medical Center just outside Dallas billed Medicare, on average, $160,832 for lower joint replacements.

Five miles away and on the same street, Baylor Medical Center in Irving, Tex., billed the government an average fee of $42,632.

In downtown New York City, two hospitals 63 blocks apart varied by 321 percent in the prices they charged to treat complicated cases of asthma or bronchitis. One charged an average of $34,310; the other billed, on average, $8,159.

Experts attribute the disparities to a health system that can set prices with impunity because consumers rarely see them — and rarely shop for discounts. Although the government has collected this information for years, it was housed in a bulky database that researchers had to pay to access.

The hospital charges being released Wednesday — all from 2011 — show the hospitals’ average list prices. Adding another layer of opacity, Medicare and private insurance companies typically negotiate lower charges with hospitals. But the data shed light on fees that the uninsured could pay.

READ: The government’s data on hospital charges

“It’s true that Medicare and a lot of private insurers never pay the full charge,” said Renee Hsia, an assistant professor at the University of California at San Francisco Medical School whose research focuses on price variation. “But you have a lot of private insurance companies where the consumer pays a portion of the charge. For uninsured patients, they face the full bill. In that sense, the price matters.”

Hospitals contend that these prices, which come from a master list known as a “chargemaster,” are rarely relevant to consumers. Hospitals often provide assistance to uninsured patients in paying their bills.

“The chargemaster can be confusing because it’s highly variable and generally not what a consumer would pay,” said Carol Steinberg, vice president at the American Hospital Association. “Even an uninsured person isn’t always paying the chargemaster rate.”

The public release of the data is part of an effort by Medicare to increase transparency in the health system. The agency will announce Wednesday new funding for data centers that can analyze and publish research on health-care prices.

“Historically, the mission of our agency has been to pay claims,” said Deputy Medicare Administrator Jonathan Blum. “We’ll continue to pay claims, but our mission has also shifted to be a trusted source in the marketplace for information. We want to provide more clarity and transparency on charge data.”

Hospitals nationwide showed a large variation for many common procedures.

For joint replacements, which are the most common hospital procedure for Medicare patients, prices ranged from a low of $5,304 in Ada, Okla., to $223,373 in Monterey Park, Calif. The average charge across the 427,207 Medicare patients’ joint replacements was $52,063.

Similar variation showed up for hospitals that treated particularly complicated cases of heart failure. At the high end, a hospital in Newark charged Medicare $173,250. At the low end, a hospital in western Tennessee submitted a bill for $7,304.

Treating a simple case of pneumonia, with no complications, cost $124,051 in Philadelphia and $5,093 in Water Valley, Miss., with an average charge of $24,549.

“There’s tremendous variation between hospitals,” Blum said. “Geography doesn’t seem to explain it.”

A Washington Post analysis of the 10 most common medical procedures showed certain patterns by state. Hospitals in six states — California, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Texas — routinely had higher prices than the rest of the country.

Hospitals in more northern states, such as Idaho, Montana and North Dakota, tended to have the lowest prices.

Even within a small geographic area, though, prices can vary dramatically. Los Angeles tended to have the highest variation in costs. The average price there for treating a breathing problem that required a ventilator (for less than four days) ranged from $78,000 to $273,000.

For-profit hospitals tended to bill Medicare at a 29 percent higher rate, on average, than nonprofit or government-owned hospitals.

The bills that hospitals submit to Medicare have little relationship with the amount that the government paid the provider. In many cases, hospitals that submitted higher bills ultimately received lower payments than competitors.

Las Colinas, the Texas hospital that billed more than $160,000 for a joint replacement, was reimbursed, on average, $12,643. Nearby Baylor Medical Center submitted significantly lower charges but received a larger reimbursement: $14,202.

Medicare analysts said that teaching hospitals such as Baylor Medical Center receive a higher overhead in their payments to cover the costs of treating low-income patients and also to fund medical education.

Las Colinas spokesman Tyler Adams said that hospital’s charges do not reflect what patients pay, because the hospital negotiates discounts with insurers and subsidizes bills for uninsured patients.

How consumers might use the new data remains to be seen. Some advocates for greater transparency in health care worry about releasing costs without any information about quality.

“I think a lot of politicians are thinking more about transparency as a principle than actually creating a strategy that would help consumers purchase health care,” said Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change.

Patients might assume, as they do in shopping for cars or houses, that the more expensive hospital will provide superior care.

“It’s not that irrational to say, ‘I want to go to the expensive provider because their quality might be better,’ ” Ginsburg said. “What if you go to the low-quality provider and things don’t go well? How will you explain that to yourself?”

Health Care Prices Move to Center Stage – NY Times

Posted by timmreardon on 12/17/2013
Posted in: Health Care Costs, Health Care Economics, Integrated Electronic Health Records, Quality Measures. Tagged: Health Care Price, Health insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, New York Times, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, United States, Uwe Reinhardt. Leave a comment
DESCRIPTION

Uwe E. Reinhardt is an economics professor at Princeton. He has some financial interests in the health care field.

Once again, on Dec. 3, Elizabeth Rosenthal made eyes pop with her front-page article “As Hospital Prices Soar, a Single Stitch Tops $500.” The article is part of her series in The New York Times on the high prices of health care in the United States (see, for example, “American Way of Birth, Costliest in the World”).

Today’s Economist

Perspectives from expert contributors.

As I noted in an earlier post, there were news reports more than a decade ago on the distress that high prices of health care can visit on Americans with either shallow health insurance or none. Furthermore, some colleagues and I in 2003 drew attention to the high prices of health care in the United States in “It’s the Prices, Stupid.” We pointed out that “higher health spending but lower use of health services adds up to much higher prices in the United States” than in any other member country of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

But a decade ago most Americans were still well insured by comprehensive coverage with low deductibles and coinsurance, so these stories affected only an easily overlooked minority of uninsured fellow citizens. For the most part, these stories on prices were ignored by the general public, by the rest of the news media and even by most health policy analysts and the sponsors funding them.

Things have changed and continue to change.

With ever higher deductibles, coinsurance and exclusions from coverage, employers have been shifting more and more of the cost of employment-based health insurance into the household budgets of their employees. The latest move is a shift toward “private health insurance exchanges.” Under that arrangement, employers simply make a defined contribution toward their employees’ health insurance, with which the latter purchase coverage on a privately organized health insurance exchange similar to those under the Affordable Care Act.

Lost in the rhetorical war over the rollout of that law has been the fact that even if it had gone smoothly and everyone seeking health insurance for the basic package of benefits specified in the law had obtained it by now, the silver option on which the federal subsidies are based still leaves the insured open to hefty cost-sharing that, on average, is 30 percent of the actuarial full cost of that option (in other words, the policy assumes that they will pay 30 percent of the expected medical services out of pocket, though some may pay more and some less).

So in either case, insurance coverage at the job or procured on the law’s insurance exchanges will leave Americans more exposed to out-of-pocket spending. That raises interest in greater transparency on the prices charged for health care and its quality.

Indeed, the appearance of Ms. Rosenthal’s article fell neatly into the middle of a three-day conference in Washington, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and a large number of other sponsors, under the theme “Health Care Price, Cost and Quality Transparency.” Slides of most of the many illuminating presentations featured at the conference are available to the public   (click on “faculty materials”).

This quest for greater transparency on health care prices is a distinctly American preoccupation. In most other developed countries, prospective patients do not need to know the prices charged by individual providers of health care, because these are predetermined by uniform fee schedules that apply to all providers. Furthermore, cost-sharing by patients at point of service in those systems tends to be negligible.

We have inconclusively debated the pros and cons of these more regulatory approaches to price setting in health care for more than half a century in this country, under the general theme of “regulation vs. market.” With the exception of Parts C (the Medicare Advantage option administered by private insurers) and D (prescription drugs, also administered by private entities), the Medicare and Medicaid programs have followed the regulatory route, although not without constant and vehement protest over government’s Soviet-style pricing policies. For Parts C and D of Medicare and the entire private health insurance market, however, we have slouched more heavily toward what some people may call a “market approach” to health care – which in reality is a grotesque caricature of how a genuinely price competitive market would operate.

In a truly competitive market, both the prices and the inherent qualities of the goods or services being traded are known to all parties ahead of any trade. By contrast, in the American health care market, both the price and the quality of health care have been kept studiously hidden from patients.

As I put it in a recent article in The Journal of the American Medical Association, imagine a department store whose customers are blindfolded before entering. A shopper might enter the store seeking to buy an affordable dress shirt and a tie, but exit it with a pair of boxer shorts and a scarf. Sometime later, he would receive an invoice, whose details would be incomprehensible to him, save for one item: a dollar amount in a framed box with the words: “Pay this amount.”

Broadly speaking, and with few exceptions, this is the kind of “market” that our “market approach” has bestowed on American health care consumers (formerly “patients”). Only the wedding-industrial complex, as Catherine Rampell calls it, comes even remotely close in the opacity it affords sellers.

Here is how Michael E. Porter and Elizabeth Olmsted Teisberg described in 2006 the price system begotten by this opacity in their book “Redefining Health Care”:

The current system has resulted in pervasive price discrimination, in which different patients pay widely different charges for the same treatment, with no economic justification in terms of cost.…The administrative complexities of dealing with multiple prices add costs with no value benefit. The dysfunctional competition that has been created by price discrimination far outweighs any short-term advantages that individual participants gain from it, even for those participants who currently enjoy the biggest discounts [off list prices called “charges”].

Payment actually made by an insurer to various providers varies by as much as a factor of 10 within a state (see Tables 6.3 and 6.5) or even smaller region. To my knowledge, no one has ever shown that these price variations are positively correlated with the quality of health care delivered.

As the many interesting presentations at that recent conference suggest,  the shroud of secrecy hitherto surrounding American health care may soon be a thing of the past. In recent years there have emerged a number of entrepreneurial start-ups and other entities, forcing more transparency on prices and quality onto the providers of health care. Their clients tend to be some employers who, of late, seek to see the veil of opacity lifted from health care, to help their employees economize on out-of-pocket spending. Some insurance companies seem poised to join that effort, although others seem worried that greater price transparency and new pricing policies might disrupt their relationship with the providers of health care.

Greater transparency of prices and quality in health care will not solve all of America’s problems in health care. Nor do they guarantee better cost control, if the supply side of the health care sector continues to consolidate at the pace it has in the last decade or even faster, under the convenient cover of accountable care organizations.

But if a market approach instead of a more regulatory approach – e.g., an all-payer system with uniform prices – is what the powers who shape health care in the United States want, then continued opacity on prices and quality is simply intolerable.

Fixing Healthcare Requires Netflix-Like Disruption – CIO

Posted by timmreardon on 12/17/2013
Posted in: Health Care Costs, Health Care Economics, Integrated Electronic Health Records, Quality Measures. Tagged: Brenner, Camden, Camden New Jersey, Health care industry, Health care reform, Jeffrey Brenner, Rushika Fernandopulle, United States. Leave a comment

From: www.cio.com   Article link:

http://www.cio.com/article/744399/Fixing_Healthcare_Requires_Netflix_Like_Disruption?source=CIONLE_nlt_insider_2013-12-10

Healthcare is broken. No one disputes that. No one lacks perspective on how to fix it, either. The challenge, though, is disrupting a system that makes more money treating sickness than it does preventing it. Technology and innovation can play a part, but so can flipping the entire care model on its head.

Fixing Healthcare Requires Netflix-Like Disruption

Brian Eastwood,    CIO

December 09, 2013

“I need to see a doctor.”

For centuries, that has been the lament of the sick, the wounded and the troubled. As advances in modern medicine help people live longer, surviving conditions that in the past would have killed them, more and more people say that every day.

To Fix Healthcare, Organizations Must Be Disruptive

Over time, this has placed tremendous strain on the healthcare industry. This is true in all parts of the world — but perhaps nowhere more so than the United States, where healthcare spending will approach $2.8 trillion in 2013 and reports that the yearly rate of increase is falling counts as “good” news.

There’s no shortage of ideas about how to fix what the Institute of Medicine deemed the quality chasm back in 2001. The federal government is encouraging providers to use electronic health records (and penalizing those who don’t), requiring a switch to the ICD-10 code set to identify diseases and treatments for billing purposes, establishing state-run health information exchanges to better share patient data, and implementing broad-based healthcare reform aimed at phasing out the lucrative fee-for-service payment model.

Analysis: Why Healthcare Providers Aren’t Happy With EHR Systems Also: Accountable Care Organizations Face Daunting IT Task, Deadlines

However well-intended, such initiatives, so far, aren’t yet working. More than one speaker at last week’s MIT Innovations in Healthcare Conference described healthcare in the United States as “embarrassing,” while another half-jokingly thanked the audience for letting its tax dollars fund the care of dual-eligible, frequent-flier patients in Camden, N.J. — one of whom made 113 emergency room visits in a single year.

The conference, a joint product of MIT’s Sloan School of Management and its Industrial Liaison Program, covered a wide range of topics, from entrepreneurship and academia’s role in innovation to patient engagement and data analytics. As the event progressed, though, a common theme did emerge — perhaps patients don’t need to see a doctor right away, or even at all, to solve many of their health problems.

Healthcare Facing ‘Blockbuster Video Moment’

Dr. Jeffrey Brenner, executive director and co-founder of the Camden Coalition of Healthcare Providers, says healthcare is at its “Blockbuster Video moment.” The industry faces a Netflix-like disruption. Healthcare can either point to patients who begrudgingly continue to visit the nation’s volume-based, fee-for-service hospitals and call them satisfied, much like customers wandering the aisles of a video store on a weekend night, or it can embrace change before the bubble bursts.

Brenner’s healthcare delivery organization aims to do nothing more than bend the cost curve in one of the nation’s poorest cities. (He’s the one who thanked taxpayers for their support.) A 9-year analysis of the city’s three hospitals ERs showed that most visits involved low-income mothers and their children in need of care but unable to get appointments with a physician. The hospitals happily oblige; treating head colds is more profitable and easier than addressing more complicated conditions, as there are no referrals or consultations to manage.

Healthcare’s bubble stems from an industry with too many hospital beds, too many machines doing too many unnecessary tests, and too many specialists earning too much money and enjoying too much influence, Brenner says. There’s isn’t a shortage of doctors, he continues, but, rather, too many.

As Brenner sees it, healthcare needs half as many doctors, twice as many nurses and three times as many health coaches. Rushika Fernandopulle, co-founder and CEO of Iora Health, agrees.

Iora Health, with practices in four states, emphasizes the importance of team-based care. Each day begins with a practice-wide huddle; a doctor may lead one day, the secretary the next. There are no offices or “reserved” parking spaces. Practices have up to four times as many health coaches as physicians. Empathy drives decisions; physicians, nurses and caregivers are essentially asked to treat each patient like their own mother, Fernandopulle says.

Why do we need a dramatically different approach to healthcare? As Fernandopulle put it, you don’t build an airplane by putting wings on a ship. You build an airplane.”

Empowered Healthcare Employees Make Better Decisions

Such an approach isn’t limited to small practices. Kaiser Permanente, an integrated delivery network that operates in nine states, has been regarded as an agent of change for 70 years, says John August, associate director of the Healthcare Transformation Project at Cornell University Institute of Labor Relations. (August previously served as Executive Director of the Coalition of Kaiser Permanente Unions.)

Such an approach isn’t limited to small practices. Kaiser Permanente, an integrated delivery network that operates in nine states, has been regarded as an agent of change for 70 years, says John August, associate director of the Healthcare Transformation Project at Cornell University Institute of Labor Relations. (August previously served as Executive Director of the Coalition of Kaiser Permanente Unions.)

Faced with the threat of strikes in the early 1990s, Kaiser responded by creating a labor-management partnership through which employees help determine performance-based outcomes. Such empowerment convinces employees that they are, in fact, part of the solution, August says. Once such solution: The proactive office encounter, in which a receptionist analyzes patients’ records while they wait for an appointment and schedules them for preventive screenings they would otherwise miss.

Related: 12 Ways to Improve the Healthcare User Experience

The process is admittedly one filled with fear and failure, August says — understandably, some receptionists were reluctant to tell unknowing patients they needed cancer screenings. That’s all the more reason to make sure everyone in the office goes through the disruptive process together.

Every Bill for Hospitalization ‘Cost of Missed Opportunity’ to Do Better

It is, indeed, a disruptive process. Healthcare today approaches each office visit with what Brenner calls a “one-size-fits-all hammer” — whether an office visit is an annual physical or a post-operation follow-up, it’s unlikely to last more than 15 minutes. Clearly, this doesn’t serve patient’s needs.

It costs a lot of money, too. Recurrent hospitalizations for predictable complications relate to chronic health bring aggregated costs to the system, says Dr. Robert J. Master, CEO of the Boston-based Commonwealth Care Alliance. Put another way, $11,000 for a hospitalization represents the “cost of a missed opportunity.”

Fixing this means transferring risk to a clinical body that’s help accountable for patient care, Master continues. This, in turn, means redesigning the healthcare delivery system into one with interdisciplinary clinical teams who provide care in multiple locations; individualized care plans that promote home and community care; an attitude that views “primary care” as a concept, not a facility, and 24-7 availability in all settings, at all times.

More From MIT: 6 Innovations That Will Change Healthcare

Yes, it’s hard — but since 2004, the Commonwealth Care Alliance’s senior care program, with 100 interdisciplinary teams working across 33 facilities, has seen half as many “expected hospitalizations” as similar fee-for-service organizations, Master says. “If it works right, the perception is more services, but costs are mitigated.”

‘Locked Knowledge Base’ Leave Costly Healthcare Routines in Place

In today’s environment, though, Kaiser and Commonwealth Care are the exception and not the rule. By providing greater incentives for treating sickness than not preventing it, and by doing so for so long, healthcare has made it increasingly difficult to challenge the cultural, political and financial forces that stifle innovation, says Dr. Heidi L. Behforouz, director of the Prevention and Access to Care and Treatment (PACT) Project at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital. “We have a lot of innovations,” she says. “The problem is finding the systems that accommodate them.”

Partners HealthCare is another such system, having rolled out an iPad app that asks patients a variety of health, wellness and quality of life questions. Patients see the data as a gauge, like a speedometer, highlighting their values or scores and comparing them to the norm. On the back end, the data is normalized, helping Partners quantify, trend, aggregate and compare data sets, says Dr. Gary L. Gottlieb, president and CEO of Partners HealthCare.

But most of modern medicine is defined by the “locked knowledge base,” with information of all kinds — training, educational, clinical and financial — kept in silos, says Lincoln C. Chen, president of the China Medical Board.

With no link between knowledge and the training cost associated with gaining it, restrictions on task shifting remain in place. That means receptionists can’t recommend a preventive screening, health coaches can’t call a patient at home and stitches cost more than $500 apiece.

Until this change happens, Chen says, patients will continue to say, “I need to see a doctor” — and the healthcare system will intuitively respond without acknowledging that each appointment only exacerbates the imbalances in the system.

Brian Eastwood is a senior editor for CIO.com. He primarily covers healthcare IT. You can reach him on Twitter @Brian_Eastwood or via email. Follow everything from CIO.com on Twitter @CIOonline, Facebook, Google + and LinkedIn.

Posts navigation

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →
  • Search site

  • Follow healthcarereimagined on WordPress.com
  • Recent Posts

    • The Global Healthcare System Is Broken. Japan Fixed It for $4,100 Per Person. 04/10/2026
    • When Not to Use AI – MIT Sloan 04/01/2026
    • There are more AI health tools than ever—but how well do they work? – MIT Technology Review 03/30/2026
    • Are AI Tools Ready to Answer Patients’ Questions About Their Medical Care? – JAMA 03/27/2026
    • How AI use in scholarly publishing threatens research integrity, lessens trust, and invites misinformation – Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 03/25/2026
    • VA Prepares April Relaunch of EHR Program – GovCIO 03/19/2026
    • Strong call for universal healthcare from Pope Leo today – FAN 03/18/2026
    • EHR fragmentation offers an opportunity to enhance care coordination and experience 03/16/2026
    • When AI Governance Fails 03/15/2026
    • Introduction: Disinformation as a multiplier of existential threat – Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 03/12/2026
  • Categories

    • Accountable Care Organizations
    • ACOs
    • AHRQ
    • American Board of Internal Medicine
    • Big Data
    • Blue Button
    • Board Certification
    • Cancer Treatment
    • Data Science
    • Digital Services Playbook
    • DoD
    • EHR Interoperability
    • EHR Usability
    • Emergency Medicine
    • FDA
    • FDASIA
    • GAO Reports
    • Genetic Data
    • Genetic Research
    • Genomic Data
    • Global Standards
    • Health Care Costs
    • Health Care Economics
    • Health IT adoption
    • Health Outcomes
    • Healthcare Delivery
    • Healthcare Informatics
    • Healthcare Outcomes
    • Healthcare Security
    • Helathcare Delivery
    • HHS
    • HIPAA
    • ICD-10
    • Innovation
    • Integrated Electronic Health Records
    • IT Acquisition
    • JASONS
    • Lab Report Access
    • Military Health System Reform
    • Mobile Health
    • Mobile Healthcare
    • National Health IT System
    • NSF
    • ONC Reports to Congress
    • Oncology
    • Open Data
    • Patient Centered Medical Home
    • Patient Portals
    • PCMH
    • Precision Medicine
    • Primary Care
    • Public Health
    • Quadruple Aim
    • Quality Measures
    • Rehab Medicine
    • TechFAR Handbook
    • Triple Aim
    • U.S. Air Force Medicine
    • U.S. Army
    • U.S. Army Medicine
    • U.S. Navy Medicine
    • U.S. Surgeon General
    • Uncategorized
    • Value-based Care
    • Veterans Affairs
    • Warrior Transistion Units
    • XPRIZE
  • Archives

    • April 2026 (2)
    • March 2026 (9)
    • February 2026 (6)
    • January 2026 (8)
    • December 2025 (11)
    • November 2025 (9)
    • October 2025 (10)
    • September 2025 (4)
    • August 2025 (7)
    • July 2025 (2)
    • June 2025 (9)
    • May 2025 (4)
    • April 2025 (11)
    • March 2025 (11)
    • February 2025 (10)
    • January 2025 (12)
    • December 2024 (12)
    • November 2024 (7)
    • October 2024 (5)
    • September 2024 (9)
    • August 2024 (10)
    • July 2024 (13)
    • June 2024 (18)
    • May 2024 (10)
    • April 2024 (19)
    • March 2024 (35)
    • February 2024 (23)
    • January 2024 (16)
    • December 2023 (22)
    • November 2023 (38)
    • October 2023 (24)
    • September 2023 (24)
    • August 2023 (34)
    • July 2023 (33)
    • June 2023 (30)
    • May 2023 (35)
    • April 2023 (30)
    • March 2023 (30)
    • February 2023 (15)
    • January 2023 (17)
    • December 2022 (10)
    • November 2022 (7)
    • October 2022 (22)
    • September 2022 (16)
    • August 2022 (33)
    • July 2022 (28)
    • June 2022 (42)
    • May 2022 (53)
    • April 2022 (35)
    • March 2022 (37)
    • February 2022 (21)
    • January 2022 (28)
    • December 2021 (23)
    • November 2021 (12)
    • October 2021 (10)
    • September 2021 (4)
    • August 2021 (4)
    • July 2021 (4)
    • May 2021 (3)
    • April 2021 (1)
    • March 2021 (2)
    • February 2021 (1)
    • January 2021 (4)
    • December 2020 (7)
    • November 2020 (2)
    • October 2020 (4)
    • September 2020 (7)
    • August 2020 (11)
    • July 2020 (3)
    • June 2020 (5)
    • April 2020 (3)
    • March 2020 (1)
    • February 2020 (1)
    • January 2020 (2)
    • December 2019 (2)
    • November 2019 (1)
    • September 2019 (4)
    • August 2019 (3)
    • July 2019 (5)
    • June 2019 (10)
    • May 2019 (8)
    • April 2019 (6)
    • March 2019 (7)
    • February 2019 (17)
    • January 2019 (14)
    • December 2018 (10)
    • November 2018 (20)
    • October 2018 (14)
    • September 2018 (27)
    • August 2018 (19)
    • July 2018 (16)
    • June 2018 (18)
    • May 2018 (28)
    • April 2018 (3)
    • March 2018 (11)
    • February 2018 (5)
    • January 2018 (10)
    • December 2017 (20)
    • November 2017 (30)
    • October 2017 (33)
    • September 2017 (11)
    • August 2017 (13)
    • July 2017 (9)
    • June 2017 (8)
    • May 2017 (9)
    • April 2017 (4)
    • March 2017 (12)
    • December 2016 (3)
    • September 2016 (4)
    • August 2016 (1)
    • July 2016 (7)
    • June 2016 (7)
    • April 2016 (4)
    • March 2016 (7)
    • February 2016 (1)
    • January 2016 (3)
    • November 2015 (3)
    • October 2015 (2)
    • September 2015 (9)
    • August 2015 (6)
    • June 2015 (5)
    • May 2015 (6)
    • April 2015 (3)
    • March 2015 (16)
    • February 2015 (10)
    • January 2015 (16)
    • December 2014 (9)
    • November 2014 (7)
    • October 2014 (21)
    • September 2014 (8)
    • August 2014 (9)
    • July 2014 (7)
    • June 2014 (5)
    • May 2014 (8)
    • April 2014 (19)
    • March 2014 (8)
    • February 2014 (9)
    • January 2014 (31)
    • December 2013 (23)
    • November 2013 (48)
    • October 2013 (25)
  • Tags

    Business Defense Department Department of Veterans Affairs EHealth EHR Electronic health record Food and Drug Administration Health Health informatics Health Information Exchange Health information technology Health system HIE Hospital IBM Mayo Clinic Medicare Medicine Military Health System Patient Patient portal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act United States United States Department of Defense United States Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Upcoming Events

Blog at WordPress.com.
healthcarereimagined
Blog at WordPress.com.
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • healthcarereimagined
    • Join 153 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • healthcarereimagined
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...