healthcarereimagined

Envisioning healthcare for the 21st century

  • About
  • Economics

Further Reasons Why DoD/VA Should Lead the Nation on Health Care

Posted by timmreardon on 11/13/2013
Posted in: Uncategorized. Tagged: Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, Medicine, Military Health System, Military medicine, United States, United States Armed Forces, United States Department of Defense, World War II. Leave a comment

Woodson Outlines New Day for Military Medicine   

Health.mil

November 08, 2013

The military’s top doctor this week outlined the future of military medicine, saying that the lessons learned from twelve years of joint medical operations in the combat theater are helping to guide how military medicine will increase the integration of health care delivery back in the United States.

Dr. Jonathan Woodson, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, spoke Nov. 4 at the opening day of the annual meeting of the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States, or AMSUS, held in Seattle.

The work and sacrifice of U.S. and coalition forces during the past 12 years of war has “advanced the practice of medicine for generations to follow,” Woodson said.

“Our outcomes didn’t happen by luck or divine intervention … but by discipline and doggedness, and a relentless search for what was working and what was not working on the battlefield,” he said. “Our trauma surgeons, neurologists, preventive medicine specialists, mental health specialists and every type of medical professional all craved data and lessons-learned, and together they changed how we practice medicine.”

Multi-Service and coalition teams helped accelerate these advancements, Woodson said. “We shared information rapidly and changed our practices in theater faster than ever before. And we became more interoperable. Air Force medical units would deploy to replace Army medical teams in combat hospitals; Navy units would replace Air Force units; Guard, reserve, and individual service members from all services would augment Army, Navy and Air Force teams.”

As combat operations come to a close in Afghanistan in 2014, the active duty force will be smaller, and the overall defense budget will come down Woodson said, and military health professionals must ask: how do we sustain our system and keep our service members and medical staffs ready? How do we maintain wartime skills in the absence of war?

“We need to hold fast to the idea that we control our own destiny,” he said. “As we look ahead, we need to remember that although budget reductions and sequestration issues present significant challenges, we cannot be paralyzed by these external factors.  Only we can drive change in how we deliver, coordinate, and improve our health delivery system.”

The military health system is unique in that it “owns” almost every element of its system – from its hundreds of clinics and hospitals to education and training to health insurance to research and development, Woodson said.

It’s that unique structure that makes military medicine one of the most joint operations in the department, Woodson said. “While many organizations only experience jointness at the headquarters level, military medicine is integrated at the tactical, operational and strategic levels, and has been for decades,” he said. “The Military Health System is the DOD leader in joint operations, we live it every day.”

Now the Military Health System is building on that foundation of jointness with the new Defense Health Agency, which was activated Oct. 1, Woodson said. The agency is staying true to the system’s overarching strategy, or the “quadruple aim” of sustaining readiness, improving health, improving care and lowering costs.

The key to the new agency, Woodson said, is improving the agility and cost-effectiveness in supporting health professionals who provide care and services. We are going to manage operational functions – services such as medical logistics, health information technology, pharmacy operations, to name just a few — in a more unified, streamlined way. The agency is accountable to the services, combatant commander and the Joint Chiefs, he added. Within large military communities, where more than one service maintains a hospital or clinic, we are also going integrate care delivery, Woodson said.

“We cannot proceed in our independent silos and sustain this system of care that we have today,” he said. “It is inefficient, it is insensitive to the people who we serve, and it ill-serves our readiness mission.

“Our leadership – both military and civilian, both line and medical – understands this,” he added. “Our congressional stakeholders understand this.  And now, we are implementing some of the most wide-ranging changes ever in how we lead, and manage our health system since World War II.”

Woodson added that the success of the new agency will require input from across the military medical community, and encouraged local commanders and staff to become engaged in the changes underway.

“This is not a top-down driven reform, but a once-in-a-generation collaborative effort among those in the field and those in headquarters,” he said. “For those working hard in our military treatment facilities to improve care and improve services, you need to ask yourselves: Is our local approach working?  Is it working better than others, and do I know how to scale it across an enterprise? If the answer is yes, we need to learn from you and share those practices more quickly and more effectively.”

Saving Academic Medicine from Obsolescence – HBR

Posted by timmreardon on 11/13/2013
Posted in: Uncategorized. Tagged: Federally Qualified Health Center, Hurricane Katrina, IBM, Mary Cummings, Medical school, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Tulane University School of Medicine, United States. Leave a comment
by Benjamin P. Sachs, Ralph Maurer, Steven A. Wartman  and Marc J. Kahn  |   10:00 AM November 8, 2013

The United States spent 17.9% of the GDP on healthcare in 2012. Academic medicine, which makes up, approximately, 20% of these costs ($540 billion), is under profound threat. Teaching hospitals and medical schools are faced with declining clinical revenue, dwindling research dollars and increasing tuition costs. To meet these challenges, we believe academic medicine must embrace disruptive innovation in its core missions: educating the next generation of health professionals, offering comprehensive cutting-edge patient care, and leading biomedical and clinical research.  Medical schools and academic health centers will need to significantly adapt in each of these areas in order to ensure the long-term health of the medical profession. The following are a few examples of disruptive innovations Tulane School of Medicine has embraced.         

Medical information doubles roughly every five years, making it impossible for physicians to stay current. Computing power has also increased to the point that machines like IBM’s Watson, first programed to play chess and Jeopardy, are now used to diagnose and recommend treatment for patients.  Mary Cummings, one of the first women aviators to land a plane on an aircraft carrier, faced a similar situation when she left the navy; a computer was replacing many of the skills she had acquired in order to fly.  Today, as the Director of the Human and Automation Lab at MIT, she poses an important and related question: “Are we in Medicine teaching the next generation of physicians skills or are we teaching them expertise?”  If we are teaching the former, then academic medicine faces obsolescence. However, if we emphasize the latter, our mission is durable. Skills equip people to respond to specific well-understood circumstances; expertise provides the capability to respond to highly complex, dynamic and uncertain environments.

At Tulane University School of Medicine, we believe that the focus of medical education should be on how we teach; because what we teach will be largely out of date by the time students finish their training. The expertise required for the next generation of physicians is to be lifelong learners, team players, educators and problem solvers. We teach expertise through an “inverted” learning model. Students are expected to have reviewed the subject material before class. During class-time the students work in small groups to solve problems and explain to their colleagues issues they did not understand. Master teachers are still needed to facilitate students’ synthesis of material in a collaborative discussion-oriented environment, but this structure has the advantage of allowing investment in the areas where hands-on teaching adds value while providing cost savings in the areas where it does not. The organization that is likely to play a major role in providing on-line medical education is the Kahn Academy under Dr. Rishi Desai. A newly established three and a half year program for medical students with PhDs in the biomedical sciences leverages these adult learning principles. This program shortens the time to get a degree and so reduces the cost of tuition.

Business models for patient care, a key source of revenue for medical schools, are also undergoing enormous change. Driven by the need to lower costs, and aided by new technologies, patient care is moving from the hospital to the outpatient setting and ultimately to wherever the patient happens to be located.  For example, when the ACA (Affordable Care Act) is fully implemented in 2014 with a substantial increase in Medicaid recipients, the need for more primary care, as experienced in Massachusetts, will overwhelm the available capacity to provide such care.

One solution to this problem is moving the majority of primary and secondary healthcare delivery into the community.  After Hurricane Katrina, Tulane partnered with a network of Federally Qualified Health Centers in order to provide services to low and middle-income patients in community-based clinics designated as medical homes. These not only provide less expensive care, but also provide the kind of experiential learning necessary to teach expertise to trainees.  Expansion into telemedicine, which has been shown to reduce the cost of Medicaid in California and has had a dramatic impact in the United Kingdom on patients with diabetes, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, will further reduce costs while improving the quality of care.

Yet another driver of disruption in academic medicine is the changing nature of how research is performed.  It has been estimated that for every research grant dollar received by an academic health center, the institution must spend an additional 25 to 40 cents to support that research.  Given declining clinical revenues and the relative flattening of the NIH budget, the ability to garner research funding is increasingly competitive and difficult to sustain. For most medical schools, this makes traditional research models inefficient and some institutions that have traditionally been primarily research focused will have to change their emphases.

An additional disruptive technology in research is using “big data,” large data sets that can be analyzed in distributed and cloud computing environments. In 2011, the 3-dimensional structure of a retrovirus protease was finally determined after eluding scientists for over a decade.  The configuration was not discovered by a computer, by a single scientist or even by a group of scientists working in a laboratory.  Rather, the structure was determined by a group of gamers working in the cloud with a program called Foldit that was developed by computer scientists at the University of Washington in only three weeks. The ability to collaborate without physical interaction using a variety of skill sets challenges the definition and funding models of research (not to mention who gets credit), but has vastly superior economies of scale.

Disruptive technologies threaten every mission of the academic health center.  Examples from business have taught us that companies that survive disruption do so by being agile, experimental, problem driven and solution agnostic. Only through embracing coming and inevitable changes head-on rather than remaining entrenched in traditional structures, culture and processes, can academic health centers maintain their pre-eminence and viability.  Building on inherent strengths while morphing to embrace change, disruptors can help ensure relevance and maintain competitive advantages.

Follow the Leading Health Care Innovation insight center on Twitter @HBRhealth. E-mail us at healtheditors@hbr.org, and sign up to receive updates here.

Leading Health Care Innovation From the Editors of Harvard Business Review and the New England Journal of Medicine
  • Constraints on Health Care Budgets Can Drive Quality
  • A Role for Specialists in Resuscitating Accountable Care Organizations
  • Make Physicians Full Partners in Accountable Care Organizations
  • Employee Engagement Drives Health Care Quality and Financial Returns

More blog posts by  Benjamin P. Sachs, Ralph Maurer, Steven A. Wartman  and Marc J. Kahn
More on: Disruptive innovation, Health, Innovation

80-Ben-Sachs

Benjamin P. Sachs

Benjamin P. Sachs, MB, BS, DPH, is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and SVP and Dean emeritus at Tulane University School of Medicine

80-Ralph-Maurer

Ralph Maurer

Ralph Maurer, PhD, is the Executive Director of the Levy-Rosenblum Institute, Freeman School of Business, Tulane University.

80-Steve-Wartman

Steven A. Wartman

Steven A. Wartman, MD, PhD, MACP is President and CEO of the Association of Academic Health Centers, Washington, DC.

80-Marc-J-Kahn

HIE interoperability ‘a great hurdle with little relief in sight’ – Government Health IT

Posted by timmreardon on 11/08/2013
Posted in: Uncategorized. Tagged: EHealth, Electronic health record, Health care reform, Health Information Exchange, Interoperability, Patient, Patient portal, Washington. Leave a comment

Interoperability is still the largest challenge for most health information exchanges.

“Despite the incorporation of new meaningful use policies, it is clear that interoperability issues are still stifling organizations’ ability to connect,” the Washington-based eHealth Initiative wrote in its 10th annual HIE survey. “The survey results reveal that interoperability remains a great hurdle with little relief in sight.”

The survey of 199 health information exchanges around the country also revealed that HIEs do have large opportunities to support health reform, and many already are, but to do that they have to support patient portals and self-service — an area HIEs and hospitals too are lagging in.

The eHealth Initiative called the report the “challenge to connect.” Of the 199 HIEs, 68 have had to connect to more than 10 different systems. Seventy five of the 199 HIEs listed hard-to-build interfaces as a key challenge, and 73 listed difficulty encouraging area organizations to share information.

More than half of the HIEs said they would like to see standardized integrated products and pricing from vendors. Many also indicted that they’d like to see more “plug-and-play” platform options, and others said they would like to see a greater use of consensus-based data standards.

Despite the obstacles, many HIEs are already connected to EHRs. More than 100 told the eHealth survey that they offer connectivity to EHRs, with continuity of care summaries, a master patient index and results delivery, 65 HIEs are supporting ACOs, and 90 are offering Direct Messaging.

HIEs are still lagging in patient portals, a communications option that the federal government is hoping will spur more engaged patients and shared decision making. Only 37 HIEs let patients view their records online and only 31 HIEs offer patients access to their information; 24 HIEs support patient self-scheduling and 17 let patients report data directly to the HIE.

“As health data exchange initiatives evolve in 2013 and beyond, it will be critical for community stakeholders, healthcare organizations, and policymakers to address emerging challenges — particularly in light of the growing complexity of the landscape and the expected changes that will occur as a result of federal funding and support winding down,” the organization wrote. “This year’s results illustrate that many challenges still need to be addressed.”

Article link: http://www.govhealthit.com/news/hies-not-meeting-interoperability-reform-expectations

ONC workgroup walks tightrope of standards principles – HIE Watch

Posted by timmreardon on 11/08/2013
Posted in: Uncategorized. Tagged: Boone, Clinical decision support system, Electronic health record, GE Healthcare, Health information technology, Inova Health System, Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine, Virginia. Leave a comment

Health IT stakeholders are digging in for the task of aligning standards clinical quality measurement and clinical decision support, but they’re still laying the groundwork.

Broadly, the ONC’s Health IT Standards Committee charged the Clinical Quality Workgroup with “commenting on the appropriateness of certain standards and the alignment of standards” for Meaningful Use clinical quality measurement and clinical decision support, said workgroup co-chair Daniel Rosenthal, MD, director of healthcare intelligence at Inova Health System in Virginia.

Perhaps that’s too broad, Rosenthal said at a meeting of the clinical quality workgroup; indeed, he’s working to get “as explicit as possible clarity from chairs of HIT Standards Committee on questions they need answered.”

But the overarching goal remains to help streamline standards, and before the workgroup can align standards for clinical quality measurement and clinical decision support, they’re crafting a framework of principles.

“We can’t do either of those tasks unless we have some guiding principles,” said Keith Boone, GE Healthcare’s “standards geek,” a member of the workgroup who’s trying to lead the creation of those principles.

Drawing on a number of standards frameworks from different industries and government agencies, Boone highlighted a few ideas that he thinks should guide the workgroup’s approach to clinical quality measures and clinical decision support — the first being to envision meaningful HIT use as an architecture.

“It’s important that your standard be able to work, not just with itself, but with other standards,” Boone said, estimating that an online web conference relies on about 20 different standards. “The idea is that there’s actually an architecture; there’s a plan for how all of these pieces will work together.”

Second, standards “should be aligned around a common data model” — ideally, that is. If systems have to go from one standard to the other, using SNOMED and ICD-10, the translation “should be obvious and non-ambiguous,” he said.

Another principle Boone and others discussed is understandability. “Is it something that I can explain to a developer who can implement it directly?” Boone asked, as a rough way to evaluate a standard.

Boone also queried members of the workgroup and leaders from health IT standards bodies HL7 and IHE, asking for their top concerns in aligning standards, and several common themes were cited:

•Ease of implementation •Ease of use and understandability •Explainable to MDs •Over the wire sparcity •Graceful extensibility •Use of existing technologies •Stop reinventing the wheel •Support reusability •Don’t adopt untested •Pilot tested in live environment

“One of things I heard quite a bit was the phrase ‘stop reinventing the wheel,’” Boone said. “This goes back to the concern that for many, the standards we have are good enough.”

Article link:http://www.hiewatch.com/news/onc-workgroup-walks-tightrope-standards-principles-0

New ‘Roadmap’ Seeks Better Tools for PTSD, TBI, Suicide Research – U.S. Medicine

Posted by timmreardon on 11/07/2013
Posted in: Uncategorized. Tagged: Barack Obama, Concussion, Posttraumatic stress disorder, TBI, Terry Rauch, Traumatic brain injury, United States Army, United States Department of Defense. Leave a comment

By Sandra Basu

FORT LAUDERDALE, FL — The newly released National Research Action Plan has created a “common roadmap” for federal agencies to tackle mental health research to include PTSD, TBI and suicide, DoD and VA officials said recently.

“It is a higher level of coordination from what we have been doing up to this point,” Col. Dallas Hack, MD, Combat Casualty Care Research Program director, explained during a teleconference held in conjunction with this year’s Military Health System Research Symposium.

The plan directs DoD, VA, HHS and the U.S. Department of Education to share resources and set common goals on managing PTSD, TBI and suicide. The plan, announced in August by President Barack Obama, resulted from an executive order he signed last year that addressed access to mental health services for veterans, troops and military families.

Terry Rauch, PhD, DoD health affairs director of medical research, explained that the plan sets “immediate milestones” the agencies need to accomplish in the next 12 months, as well as milestones to reach during the next two to five years and goals the agencies will work toward over the next five to 10 years.

“It’s a living document. It is not cast in concrete. I think we all expect it to be revised as we move our research agenda forward in this area, and we determine the results we are getting and the results we are not getting,” Rauch said.

Army Col. Dallas Hack, director of the U.S. Army’s Combat Casualty Care Research Program, right, and Dr. Terry Rauch, health affairs director of medical research, left, discuss veterans’ mental health and traumatic brain injury research and care issues during the Military Health System Research Symposium in Fort Lauderdale, FL. U.S. Army photo by Melissa Miller

Setting the Agenda

Specifically, the plan sets several priorities for the next 12 months, including to “increase the inventory of scarce research resources (e.g., tissue samples, blood and cerebrospinal fluid), facilitating access for scientific purposes.”

“To accomplish this, the agencies will leverage existing pathology archives to initiate development of a virtual tissue (brain) repository for PTSD, TBI and suicide research,” according to the plan.

Another priority is to adapt existing research initiatives “to maximize their impact.” The plan notes that a five-year study, Army Study To Assess Risk and Resilience in Servicemembers (Army STARRS), already is in process. While the study is due to run through 2014, the agencies “will explore the feasibility of a longitudinal follow-up of Army STARRS to find actionable factors that can be used to improve early detection and effective prevention and treatment of suicide, PTSD, TBI and comorbidities.”

“The follow-up study will include the ability to consent for the donation of postmortem brains and begin to establish necessary procedures for timely collection and preservation of tissue,” the plan explained.

Another priority is to “utilize tools for agencies to coordinate and share the research they support.”

“The agencies will identify a common database and explore the feasibility of utilizing it to share the research they support with other federal agencies and with researchers outside of the federal government, where appropriate,” according to the plan.

The development of two consortiums also is a major initiative, Hack pointed out. One of the consortiums will focus on biomarker discovery and development with the goal of identifying biomarkers for subacute and chronic PTSD. The other consortium will examine factors that influence the chronic effects of mTBI and common comorbidities in order to improve diagnostic and treatment options.

“This is probably the most complex scientific endeavor possible. Understanding the human brain and its response to psychological and physical trauma is more complicated than a wound shot,” Hack said.

Needed Research

Robert Ursano, MD

Robert Ursano, MD, director of the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine’s Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress, explained that the relationships among TBI, PTSD and suicidality “are complex.”

“It is the first time in history that the three have been grouped together so prominently as a target for investigation and care. That is a milestone itself,” he said. 

For her part, Katherine Helmick, MS, CRNP, CNRN, deputy director of the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, pointed to the importance of ongoing TBI research, given that these injuries are likely to continue to occur even when troops are not deployed.

According to Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center data, 273,859 servicemembers had TBI diagnoses from 2000 through the first quarter of 2013, with the majority being mild TBIs.

Helmick said more than 80% of the total number of TBI injuries in the military occur in nondeployment settings.

“This is a very important statistic because it tells us that, even as deployments decrease, TBI will still be a health concern for our service members in times when we are not in conflict,” she said.

Article link: http://www.usmedicine.com/articles/new-roadmap-seeks-better-tools-for-ptsd-tbi-suicide-research.html#.UnvmTod3u01

CommonWell’s top 3 HIE challenges – HIE Watch

Posted by timmreardon on 11/07/2013
Posted in: Uncategorized. Tagged: American Health Information Management Association, Cerner, CommonWell, Electronic health record, Health Information Exchange, HIE, Patient, Vice president. Leave a comment

As it nears the launch of its interoperability pilot project, officials from the CommonWell Health Alliance used AHIMA’s annual conference to outline some of the toughest health information exchange challenges facing vendors and providers today.

“If you want to share information with 5 organizations, you need 10 contracts,” Dan Schipfer, senior vice president at Cerner said Monday morning, explaining that regional HIE is happening, but thus far it is limited to local exchange.

“We EHR vendors have not made it easy for you to interoperate,” within the nomenclature and the organization, he said. “It’s a big deal, it’s something you believe in, we believe in, but there are challenges.”

Joining Schipfer on stage, Patrice Wolfe, senior vice president of McKesson’s RelayHealth unit, outlined what she see as the top 3 challenges.

  1. Patient matching. Simply put, there is no single way to match patients, which is among CommonWell’s chief goals.
  2. Data access. Health information today lives in silos, and even among integrated delivery networks, doctors don’t always get the entire picture of a patient’s record.
  3. Cost. This one cannot be underestimated, Wolfe said; after CommonWell launched at HIMSS13 “hospitals were begging to be part of the pilot,” Wolfe said.

Considering the pilot as infrastructure that would enable HIE, Wolfe said that we as a nation have to be able to pull data nationally, not just regionally.

That’s why CommonWell is creating a database of consenting patients, which Wolfe was careful to explain is not a central repository of clinical information, to address business deterrents that Schipfer rattled off, including cost, competition, complexity, and consent.

Wolfe added that CommonWell is working to deliver a handful of tasks such as registering organizations, enrolling people, matching patients, and querying documents.

“We think we have a better mousetrap,” Wolfe said. “Let’s let the basic plumbing get done once and share it across the vendors.”

Article link:http://www.hiewatch.com/news/commonwells-top-3-hie-challenges

Additional Reasons Why DOD/VA Should Lead the Nation on Integrated Electronic Health Records

Posted by timmreardon on 11/05/2013
Posted in: Uncategorized. Tagged: Clinical decision support system, Electronic health record, GE Healthcare, Health information technology, Inova Health System, Integrated electronic health record, Medicine, United States Department of Defense, United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Leave a comment

ONC workgroup walks tightrope of standards principles

Government HealthIT

October 31, 2013 | Anthony Brino, Associate Editor
Health IT stakeholders are digging in for the task of aligning standards clinical quality measurement and clinical decision support, but they’re still laying the groundwork.

Broadly, the ONC’s Health IT Standards Committee charged the Clinical Quality Workgroup with “commenting on the appropriateness of certain standards and the alignment of standards” for Meaningful Use clinical quality measurement and clinical decision support, said workgroup co-chair Daniel Rosenthal, MD, director of healthcare intelligence at Inova Health System in Virginia.

Perhaps that’s too broad, Rosenthal said at a meeting of the clinical quality workgroup; indeed, he’s working to get “as explicit as possible clarity from chairs of HIT Standards Committee on questions they need answered.”

But the overarching goal remains to help streamline standards, and before the workgroup can align standards for clinical quality measurement and clinical decision support, they’re crafting a framework of principles.

“We can’t do either of those tasks unless we have some guiding principles,” said Keith Boone, GE Healthcare’s “standards geek,” a member of the workgroup who’s trying to lead the creation of those principles.

Guiding principles for standards — or standards for standards?

Boone acknowledged the pitfalls of over-complicating standards and pointed to a cartoon that aptly summarizes the dilemma.

Drawing on a number of standards frameworks from different industries and government agencies, Boone highlighted a few ideas that he thinks should guide the workgroup’s approach to clinical quality measures and clinical decision support — the first being to envision meaningful HIT use as an architecture.

“It’s important that your standard be able to work, not just with itself, but with other standards,” Boone said, estimating that an online web conference relies on about 20 different standards. “The idea is that there’s actually an architecture; there’s a plan for how all of these pieces will work together.”

Second, standards “should be aligned around a common data model” — ideally, that is. If systems have to go from one standard to the other, using SNOMED and ICD-10, the translation “should be obvious and non-ambiguous,” he said.

Another principle Boone and others discussed is understandability. “Is it something that I can explain to a developer who can implement it directly?” Boone asked, as a rough way to evaluate a standard.

Boone also queried members of the workgroup and leaders from health IT standards bodies HL7 and IHE, asking for their top concerns in aligning standards, and several common themes were cited:

•Ease of implementation •Ease of use and understandability •Explainable to MDs •Over the wire sparcity •Graceful extensibility •Use of existing technologies •Stop reinventing the wheel •Support reusability •Don’t adopt untested •Pilot tested in live environment

“One of things I heard quite a bit was the phrase ‘stop reinventing the wheel,’” Boone said. “This goes back to the concern that for many, the standards we have are good enough.”

Indeed, a large part of the challenge for the workgroup when they reconvene November 7 (and likely beyond) will be figuring out how to extract the best of the best while consolidating or aligning standards.

Related:

AHIMA 2013 ICD-10 takeaway: Readiness remains surprisingly broad spectrum

Here’s who GAO appointed to HITPOL

Fridsma wants to create standards for the future

 

Related Resources

  • HIE Interoperability case study: Health-e-cITi-NJ
  • Best Practices to Deploy ECM Technologies: Ensure Decisions are Made Based on all the Information, not a Portion of it
  • Palomar Health Choses EXTENSION’s Alert Management Software Solution
  • New World Order: Effectively Securing Healthcare Data Through Secure Information Exchanges
  • A Reference Architecture for Healthcare Benefit Exchange 

Johnson and Johnson to pay $2.2B in U.S. health care fraud settlement

Posted by timmreardon on 11/04/2013
Posted in: Uncategorized. Tagged: Eric Holder, Food and Drug Administration, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson, Justice Department, Nesiritide, Omnicare, United States Department of Justice. Leave a comment

CBS/AP/  November 4, 2013, 12:05 PM

This file photo shows Attorney General Eric Holder, who announced the $2.2 billion settlement with Johnson & Johnson Monday, Nov. 4 in Washington, D.C.

This file photo shows Attorney General Eric Holder, who announced the $2.2 billion settlement with Johnson & Johnson Monday, Nov. 4 in Washington, D.C. / CBSNews

WASHINGTON Health care giant Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries have agreed to pay over $2.2 billion to resolve criminal and civil allegations of promoting three prescription drugs for off-label uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Justice announced on Monday.

“The conduct at issue in this case jeopardized the health and safety of patients and damaged the public trust,” Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement. “This multibillion-dollar resolution demonstrates the Justice Department’s firm commitment to preventing and combating all forms of health care fraud. And it proves our determination to hold accountable any corporation that breaks the law and enriches its bottom line at the expense of the American people.”

The allegations include paying kickbacks to physicians and pharmacies to recommend and prescribe Risperdal and Invega, both antipsychotic drugs, and Natrecor, which is used to treat heart failure.

The figure — one of the largest health care fraud settlements in U.S. history — includes $1.72 billion in civil settlements with federal and state governments as well as $485 million in criminal fines and forfeited profits.

The government’s criminal complaint over Risperdal charged that from 2002 to 2003, sales representatives of J&J subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals promoted the antipsychotic to physicians and other prescribers who treated elderly dementia patients by urging them to use the drug to treat symptoms such as anxiety, agitation, depression, hostility and confusion despite the drug only being approved to treat schizophrenia at that time. Sales reps were allegedly offered incentives for off-label promotion of the drug.

The complaint also alleged that Janssen knew patients taking Risperdal had an increased risk of developing diabetes, but still promoted the drug as “uncompromised by safety concerns.”

For Invega, the government alleged J&J and Janssen marketed the antipsychotic for off-label unapproved indications from 2006 to 2009,  and made false and misleading statements about its safety and efficacy.

The settlement with Janssen also resolved allegations that the companies paid kickbacks to Omnicare Inc., the nation’s largest pharmacy specializing in dispensing drugs to nursing home patients, to further efforts to target elderly people with dementia.

The Natrecor settlement with J&J subsidiary Scios Inc. resolves allegations that the company in 2009 aggressively marketed the heart failure drug for unapproved uses with “no sound scientific evidence supporting the medical necessity.”

The agreement is the third-largest U.S. settlement involving a drugmaker, and the latest in a string of legal actions against drug companies allegedly putting profits ahead of patients. In recent years, the government has cracked down on the industry’s aggressive marketing tactics, which include pushing medicines for unapproved uses. While doctors are allowed to prescribe medicines for any use, drugmakers cannot promote them in any way that is not approved by FDA.

Last year British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline paid a record-setting $3 billion in fines to settle criminal and civil violations involving 10 of its drugs including for misbranding popular antidepressant drugs Paxil and Wellbutrin.

© 2013 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Managing Unsolicited Health Information in the Electronic Health Record – AHIMA

Posted by timmreardon on 11/02/2013
Posted in: Uncategorized. Tagged: EHR, Electronic health record, Health care provider, Health informatics, Health Information Exchange, Medical record, Medicine, Personal health record. 1 Comment
 

Managing Unsolicited Health Information in the Electronic Health Record

Patient engagement is developing as a key focus area in US healthcare, and patients are increasingly able—and willing—to report additional health information to their providers. Historically, healthcare providers have received unsolicited patient health information, including health data volunteered by the patient or other providers responsible for patient care. In its most simple form, unrequested information is data received by a healthcare provider who has taken no active steps to ask for or collect that information. In some instances, this information is provided in the absence of an existing patient-physician relationship. For example, consider a patient who has recently moved to a new location. Though the individual may have already picked a primary care physian for insurance puposes, if they are seen in an emergency room prior to established contact they may still wish to send the information from their visit to the primary provider.

Today, unsolicited health information may come from many sources, such as health information exchanges (HIEs), personal health records (PHRs), or patient-generated health information from mobile devices. This unsolicited data can arrive in a variety of formats from paper to electronic media. As a result, healthcare providers are receiving more unsolicited information than ever before, the influx of which necessitates new methods to handle and process the data in an effective manner.

Some specialty physicians believe they have an obligation to send the patient’s primary care providers copies of the documentation for all encounters and treatment notes. The assumption is that all healthcare providers who treat the patient later will benefit from these records of historical care, even if the treatment does not relate to the current medical condition. Likewise, the patient may believe the information collected through a mobile health application is valuable and want the information included in the health record.

In the past, unsolicited health information that corresponded to existing patients was often filed in the paper record under a generic “correspondence” tab. Likewise, information that was received but that did not correspond to an existing patient was often placed in a file that would then be periodically reviewed to determine if the patient had followed up to establish a relationship with the provider. After a time period predetermined by the provider’s retention policy, if the patient does not present for care then the health information is destroyed.

When unsolicited health information is received, providers will need to address the receipt of the information, workflow challenges, and liability issues to ensure the information is handled effectively. This practice brief addresses the primary challenges in receiving unsolicited health information, followed by key recommendations to help manage it.

Unsolicited Records’ Primary Challenges

The information contained in a patient’s health record is used for a multitude of purposes, such as:

  • Treatment
  • Quality of care outcomes
  • Research
  • Fiscal responsibility
  • Risk management
  • Legal compliance

With electronic health records (EHRs) and other technological advances, the healthcare industry is moving toward achieving the goal of recording the entire continuum of patient care for treatment of the patient. Receiving health records that were not requested, however, brings up several challenges that providers must address, such as how to use, store, and determine the value of unsolicited health information.

Receiving Unsolicited Information

Integrating unsolicited information with a provider’s health record poses potential challenges for easily locating the information at a later date. Without notifying the receiving healthcare provider in advance, patients may request that all of their health information—including information that may not be relevant to their current care—be forwarded to an additional provider also involved in the patient’s care.

Patients may choose to do this in an effort to help the provider understand their unique medical circumstances, without being aware that the provider is unlikely to review all of the additional information received. Some of the content, including reports and test results, may be exact duplicates of information already available to the provider. Pertinent information helpful to the provider may arrive mixed in with volumes of non-essential information. Review of the variety and volume of the unsolicited information can be both a time consuming and costly process for the provider.

Managing the Media

The technological advances in EHRs, HIEs, e-mail, and mobile devices combined with the patient’s awareness and involvement in their healthcare all contribute to the myriad of media types in which providers receive unsolicited health information. Patients may e-mail health information or transmit electronic monitoring and test results to hospitals, physicians, and other providers. Patients also may store their personal health records on flash drives, compact discs, mobile applications, or paper files and want their providers to review all of this information during an office visit. Information received from multiple senders may contain duplicate, conflicting, or contradictory information. All of these challenges could result in errors in the record.

Health records on electronic media present additional challenges in a practice where the EHR system is not configured to receive or read from external devices. The patient may prefer their records be copied from the electronic media and have the device returned—a process that requires additional work and time. When interfacing with external devices, there is also a chance that the electronic media provided by the patient has a virus or other harmful program that will affect the provider’s system.

Workflow Challenges

Historically documents were routed to a specified location or individual in the provider’s office when unsolicited information arrived via paper charts. It was the responsibility of this individual, such as a file clerk or medical assistant, to match the information with a scheduled patient, categorize the incoming documents, and direct them to the provider for review. Once the appropriate provider(s) reviewed and/or notated the document, it was filed in the correct location in the patient chart. For example, there may be separate tabs for laboratory reports, imaging reports, and other correspondence or miscellaneous items. In addition, paper charts typically required a sign-out sheet so that all staff would know the location of the health record. Some providers had quality reviews routinely performed to ensure that all documents were in the correct patient chart and filed in the appropriate location.

The EHR can now allow records to be filed prior to the patient visit. Processes must be established to ensure the health records are filed to the correct patient and that the provider is notified that new information is available.

Confirming Provider-Patient Relationship

Providers face a significant challenge when it comes to a full review and analysis of all the unsolicited information they are likely to receive, particularly when there is not a prior established relationship with the patient. Providers might receive health information from patients who have been referred for specialty care but have not yet confirmed an appointment with the medical specialist. Specialists receive volumes of unsolicited information from primary care providers that may be non-essential for the specialist to make a treatment determination.

Regardless of the source or method of transfer, the provider should first determine the status of the provider’s relationship with the patient and whether there is an existing record. Using the identifiers contained in the information received, the provider should attempt to match the information with an existing patient record. If the patient does have an established relationship and record with the provider, processing can proceed to the next step.

In some cases, however, the patient may not have a record. For example, the patient may be planning to move to the area and is forwarding information to an office in which they plan to establish care. Or the patient has selected a provider within their health plan, but has not yet presented to the provider for evaluation.

When health information is received for a patient with no prior relationship or record with the provider, the provider must first determine if there is a policy in place that permits the retention of such information. If the provider policy permits retention of unsolicited information received with no prior record of relationship with the patient, regular intervals should be established to review the information and determine if the patient has followed up on establishing care with the provider. If the individual does present, then the information that is used for patient care should be included in the record. If the patient has not established a care relationship with the provider within the retention time period allowed in the provider’s policy, the information should be destroyed or returned to the sender.

Determining Pertinent Information

Once the patient relationship is confirmed, the next step is to determine if the unsolicited records will be incorporated, in whole or in part, into the provider’s official record of care. The patient may have requested that their entire record be forwarded, but the receiving healthcare organization may not need all the information to treat the patient. Some of the data received will require a certain level of medical knowledge to determine the value to the provider and subsequent care for the patient. For example, laboratory results from different laboratories may have different normal ranges, which can impact trending and comparing laboratory results in an EHR.

Some documents have succinct summaries of relevant information that supports the longitudinal record and clinical decisions. For example, if the unsolicited records contain a discharge summary, that document might be retained. Conversely, months of inpatient progress notes might not hold the same long-term clinical value. As a rule of thumb, always include any record that is used to make a decision about the diagnosis or treatment of the patient. Information that is not used to treat the patient should be destroyed or returned to the source of the information.

Integrating Health Information

Once health information has been identified as relevant and the decision made to retain it, the information must be integrated into the EHR. Protocols should be established to determine what will be included in the health record. The provider’s workflow should incorporate the review and processing of unsolicited records, and the protocol should include the provider’s approach to all types of media in order to ensure consistency when processing all unsolicited health information. The protocol should also include guidance on whether the unsolicited information will be entered into the record in chronological order or as a specific encounter. It’s important to incorporate unsolicited information in a way that ensures a clear differentiation between information received from external sources and similar types of information obtained internally. It may be necessary to revise the systems in order to make sure information can be both effectively integrated and subsequently retrieved.

Developing an Information Release Policy

If all unsolicited information is entered into the EHR, applicable law might create the presumption that the provider reviewed and utilized all of the information. Some state laws, for instance, might dictate this expectation. Unsolicited health information that is included in the legal health record may be disclosed pursuant to a patient request or external legal process. Providers should have a statement in the policy that unsolicited information included in the patient’s legal health record may be sent to other providers as authorized by the patient or for continuing care as determined by the provider. These policies should be communicated to patients when they provide unsolicited information.

Legal Considerations

Providers who receive unsolicited health information continue to wrestle possible clinical concerns. Any documents or information filed, maintained, or scanned into a patient’s health record—including external source documents—are part of the legal health record (see “Fundamentals of the Legal Health Record and Designated Record Set,” available in the HIM Body of Knowledge). These health records are subject to all applicable state and federal regulations concerning privacy, security, use, maintenance, and disclosure. Legal implications and liability issues must be considered when making retention decisions about unsolicited health information.

Retention Policies

Providers must determine if and how unsolicited health information will be retained and stored based on their definition of the legal health record. Each provider must identify what records are in their legal health record. Some data that arrives electronically may not be compatible with the provider’s EHR and could create inclusion, storage, and retrieval issues. If unsolicited health information is incorporated into the EHR, the provider will be responsible for knowing what it contains and its relevance to patient care. If the information is stored, providers must be sure it is indexed to the correct patient. This can be confusing and difficult if unique patient identifiers do not accompany the unsolicited information or if the individual has not yet been registered as a patient.

It is important to keep in mind throughout this process that providers have no obligation to accept unsolicited health records from outside sources. This does not mean that unsolicited health information is not desired or pertinent to patient care, only that the provider is not required to accept or retain it.

Liability Issues

Legal ramifications may occur if inadequate review of received unsolicited health information leads to ill-informed medical decisions or missed diagnoses. Providers that accept unsolicited information without completing a review may be held responsible for knowing the information is housed in their legal health record. In addition, there may not be legal precedents within that state to assist providers in establishing their policies and procedures regarding unsolicited health information. When developing a legal health record policy, providers should consult with healthcare regulatory counsel to address these liability concerns.

For example, the Texas Medical Association has adopted a practice guideline for providers to follow when individuals do not have an existing patient-provider relationship. The guideline states, “A physician might receive unsolicited medical test results on behalf of persons with whom they have not established a patient-physician relationship, who have [been] given the physician’s name in order to receive the medical screening test. In this event, physicians may return the results to the medical screening agency. In no event does receiving unsolicited medical screening test results alone establish a patient-physician relationship.”1 In accordance with this policy, the provider may be protected from liability if the unsolicited health information is returned to the agency that sent the result.

Recommendations and Best Practices

Identifying the challenges presented by unsolicited health information is easier than determining what actions should be taken with the information. Recommendations for managing unsolicited information include:

  • Develop policies with providers to determine:
    1. Which unsolicited information will be retained routinely based on protocol (threshold for volume, type of report, specialty, and other established variables) and forwarded to the provider for review
    2. The process for routing unsolicited information that falls outside of the protocol
    3. The disposition of information that will not be retained based on clinical decisions
  • Develop policies for the administrative aspects of receiving and processing unsolicited information
    1. Establish a definition of the legal health record
    2. Determine how to manage e-mails/articles concerning health issues received from patients
    3. Define guidelines for use of patients’ personal health records
    4. Determine how health information maintained in various media formats will be managed
  • Review information received to:
    1. Determine if a patient-provider relationship exists
    2. Verify if it is required for treatment or if it is redundant, outdated, or non-essential
  • Determine how unsolicited information received for a patient not associated with the provider will be processed
    1. Determine how the unsolicited information will be stored until a patient is identified or the information is destroyed
    2. Establish a method to monitor if the individual has made an appointment within a defined period of time (i.e., within 60 days from the receipt of the unsolicited information)
    3. Define time frames to destroy information that is not matched with an existing or scheduled patient
  • Create provider-defined protocols for processing unsolicited health information
    1. Develop protocols by specialty, clinical area, or document type for health information that may be accepted into the EHR and routed to the provider for review
    2. Determine who will ensure pertinent external health information is routed to and reviewed by the provider when the EHR does not provide the ability to incorporate the information prior to the first appointment
    3. Determine which healthcare provider will receive the health information that is outside of the established protocol and requires professional interpretation to determine what to retain
    4. Define timeframes for a provider to review the unsolicited information
  • Develop standardized indexing protocols for filing information in the EHR to allow ease of retrieval
  • Utilize a non-networked computer for viewing or printing, or enable software to assist in preventing harmful information from being uploaded since external electronic media may have viruses or have other harmful effects on the computer or system
  • Provide education to all providers and staff on the steps that should be taken when they receive unsolicited health records, since health information can come into a practice in multiple places

As electronic technology progresses, some of the challenges with unsolicited health information will be addressed through technological advances. As providers gain more experience with managing unsolicited health information in an electronic environment, best practices will surface that will be helpful to providers.

Note

  1. Texas Medical Association. “Unsolicited Medical Screening Test Results.” Board of Councilors Current Opinions. Modified February 2005. http://www.texmed.org/template.aspx?id=392#SCREENING.

Resources

AHIMA. “Fundamentals of the Legal Health Record and Designated Record Set.” Journal of AHIMA 82, no.2 (February 2011): expanded online version. http://library.ahima.org/xpedio/groups/public/documents/ahima/bok1_048604.hcsp?dDocName=bok1_048604.

Herrin, Barry. “Unsolicited Medical Information: Use It Or Lose It?” LegalHIMformation, May/June 2008. http://www.legalhimformation.com/articles/2008/20080605.asp.

Prepared by

Anita Archer     Barbara Bolser, JD, MS, RHIA     Jan Crocker, MSA, RHIA, CCS, CHP, FAHIMA     Mary Johnson, RHIT, CCS-P     Jennifer Miller, MHIS, RHIA     Cindy C. Parman, CPC, CPC-H, RCC     Diana Warner, MS, RHIA, CHPS, FAHIMA

Acknowledgements

Cecilia Backman, MBA, RHIA, CPHQ     Kathy Downing, MA, RHIA, CHPS, PMP     Barry S. Herrin, FACHE, Esq.     Jennifer Horner, MSHI, RHIA     Lesley Kadlec, MA, RHIA     Elisa Kogan, MS, MHA, CDIP, CCS-P     Deborah Kohn, MPH, RHIA, CPHIMS     Beth Liette, MS, RHIA     Diana Reed, RHIT, CCS-P     Jill Roberson, MBA, RHIA, CHPS, CCS     Angela Dinh Rose, MHA, RHIA, CHPS, FAHIMA     Sharon Slivochka, RHIA


The information contained in this practice brief reflects the consensus opinion of the professionals who developed it. It has not been validated through scientific research.


Article citation: AHIMA. “Managing Unsolicited Health Information in the Electronic Health Record.” Journal of AHIMA 84, no.10 (October 2013): 70-73.

Link to article


                Copyright ©2013 American Health Information Management Association. All rights reserved. All contents, including images and graphics, on this Web site are copyrighted by AHIMA unless otherwise noted. You must obtain permission to reproduce any information, graphics, or images from this site. You do not need to obtain permission to cite, reference, or briefly quote this material as long as proper citation of the source of the information is made. Please  contact Publications  to obtain permission. Please include the title and URL of the  content you wish to reprint in your request.            

It is time to move beyond the myth that U.S. health care is costly because it is of exceptional quality.

Posted by timmreardon on 11/02/2013
Posted in: Uncategorized. Tagged: Cardiac surgery, Dartmouth College, India, Lowering Cost of Healthcare, Northeastern University, Tom Toles, Tuck School of Business, United States, Vijay Govindarajan. 1 Comment

Indian hospitals could show U.S. hospitals how to save money without cutting quality

By Vijay Govindarajan and Ravi Ramamurti, Published: November 1

Vijay Govindarajan is a professor of international business at Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College. Ravi Ramamurti is a professor at Northeastern University and director of its Center for Emerging Markets. They are co-authors of the article “Delivering World-Class Healthcare Affordably,” in the current issue of  Harvard Business Review.

No matter how the fight over Obamacare shakes out, the biggest challenge facing U.S. health care will remain reducing costs while improving quality of care and access for patients. The experience of a few innovative Indian hospitals may point the way forward.

India’s health-care system as a whole has many problems, but our research has uncovered nine private hospitals that provide quality health care at a fraction of U.S. prices. Most of these hospitals are accredited by the U.S.-based Joint Commission International or its Indian equivalent, the National Accreditation Board for Hospitals & Healthcare Providers. At a hospital where the procedure is performed, a patient would pay $120 for cataract surgery, $250 for a caesarean-section delivery, $2,000 for a knee or hip replacement, $2,000 for an angioplasty, $2,900 for cancer radiation treatment and $3,200 for open-heart surgery — 5 percent to 10 percent of U.S. prices. These private hospitals deliver medical outcomes comparable to that of good U.S. hospitals, as measured by medical complication rates or post-treatment survival rates. Furthermore, they’re profitable.

Gallery

Tom Toles on health care: A collection of cartoons on the debate.

Even if Indian hospitals paid U.S.-level salaries for all health-care staff, which are as much as 20 times higher, their prices would be one-fifth of U.S. levels. That is because these nine hospitals are super-efficient at using resources — doctors, equipment and facilities — and because they work incessantly to improve every process. Their services have to be affordable because their  patients are poor and typically pay 60 percent of their medical costs out of pocket.How do the Indian hospitals do it? They have innovated in three areas, and for each of these, U.S. hospitals would do well to follow their example.

The first innovation is using a hub-and-spoke design, with hub hospitals located in major cities and spoke hospitals in rural areas. This strategy concentrates the best equipment and expertise within the hub, with telecommunication links that allow hub specialists to serve spoke patients remotely. Since these specialists perform a high number of specific procedures, they quickly develop skills that improve quality. By contrast, hospitals in the United States are uncoordinated, duplicating specialized care without enough volume in most of them to make procedures affordable. Even when hospitals consolidate, the motive is often to gain pricing power over insurance companies rather than to lower costs.

The second innovation is task shifting, or the transfer of responsibility for routine tasks to lower-skilled workers. This leaves doctors free to focus on complicated medical procedures. Several hospitals have created a tier of paramedic workers with two years of  training after high school to perform routine medical jobs. As a result, surgeons, for example, are able to perform two to three times as many surgeries as their U.S. counterparts. Compare that with the United States, where hospitals reduce costs by laying off support staff and shifting mundane tasks such as billing and transcription to doctors, who are overqualified for those duties.

Finally, the Indian hospitals save money through old-fashioned frugality. They shepherd resources by building hospitals at a fraction of the cost spent in the United States, replacing imported devices with local equivalents costing a fraction of the price or, for example, sterilizing and reusing clamps for open-heart surgery that are routinely discarded after one use in the United States. In contrast to the American fee-for-service model, they often pay their doctors a fixed salary. One hospital sends a daily message to all doctors with the previous day’s financial results, encouraging them to consider the cost-effectiveness of their medical choices. In contrast, U.S. hospitals often resemble luxury hotels, with much wasted space and underutilized equipment. Their doctors, and sometimes even their chief financial officers, are unaware of how much procedures cost.

How realistic is it that U.S. hospitals will adopt the Indian model? U.S. hospitals are constrained by regulations and norms unlike those in India. Nevertheless, some progressive U.S. hospitals are adopting some of the practices of our Indian exemplars, and more should follow their example.

It is time to move beyond the myth that U.S. health care is costly because it is of exceptional quality. Better outcomes at lower costs have been established in many other countries. The Indian experience shows that costs can be dramatically reduced and access can be expanded even as quality is improved. U.S. hospitals should prepare for this new world. And in so doing they should study and embrace innovations from all corners of the globe.

Posts navigation

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →
  • Search site

  • Follow healthcarereimagined on WordPress.com
  • Recent Posts

    • Why opinion on AI is so divided – MIT Technology Review 04/14/2026
    • 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
  • 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 (3)
    • 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...