Showing posts with label Health Information Technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health Information Technology. Show all posts

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Disease Management, ie Population Health Management Organizations (PHMOs): Plan B to Support the Creation of the Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH)

As the Disease Management Care Blog has previously pointed out, there is is a lot that the disease management industry has to offer the Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH). That's why it agrees with this webinar summary that appeared in the latest issue of Population Health Management.

In it, Darren Schulte MD of Alere points out that expectations for the PCMH are very high. Its value proposition includes reversing the decay of primary care, meeting the consumerist needs of an aging population, increasing quality and securing additional practice income. A growing body of evidence suggests that the more successful PMCHs have 1) a dedicated non-physician patient coordinator, 2) expanded in-person and virtual patient access, 3) health information technology that includes a functioning registry and point-of-care decision support and 4) increased practice income. Without these key ingredients, PCMHs have an uphill battle managing a population of patients, building a team-based culture and marshaling resources to change patient behavior.

Enter disease management vendors, although Dr. Schulte prefers to use the politically correct term "population health management organizations" (PHMOs) They have decades of experience in patient education, monitoring, self management, treatment adherence and care coordination. Despite physician skepticism and a cultural bias that favors "build" over "buy," he argues that PCMHs may find PHMOs attractive not only because they're speaking the same language, but because their services are "plug n' play" and highly adaptable across a wide variety of small to large settings. All that needs to be worked is out how PHMO support will be paid for so that the PCMH succeeds.

Enter Dr. Greg Sharp of Ideal Family Healthcare in Woodland Park, CO. He notes that health insurers have a key role to play because they're not only providing the additional monthly payments for the PCMH, but they're being called on to support health information technology solutions and provide work-flow consultation services. Since insurers are very involved anyway, he implies that it's not a great leap form them to also facilitate the sponsorship of PHMOs in the PCMH network. Once that happens, he sees few barriers standing in the way of PCMH team members virtually working with remote or in-person PHMO health coaches, accessing the PHMO's registries and relying on PHMO decision support tools.

The acronym addled DCMB likes this description of how insurer sponsored PHMOs can help PCMHs. For a fiduciary and risk-bearing health insurer, the DMCB agrees that the road to patient behavior change, prevention and savings in medical homes may run through disease management. The DMCB suspects many primary care practices won't necessarily want to create (training the non-physicians in behavior change and coaching?) or be able to afford (buying the hardware and programming expertise to create a fully functioning registry?) all the features of a fully transformed PCMH. Calling it "PHMO" instead of using the scorned term "disease management" will also increase its acceptability.

Smart health insurers will recognize that there will be primary care sites that want to go their own way in establishing PCMHs. That's fine. For those primary care sites that may not have the resources or the inclination to build a fully functioning PCMH, bringing in a "population health management organization" vendor is a good Plan B. That disease management Plan B is a rose that by any other name still smells as sweet in the science of increasing quality and optimizing costs.

Monday, May 31, 2010

Healthcare Ver 1.0 vs. Healthcare Ver. 2.0

Happily, the Disease Management Care Blog is not going to give up its day jobs for cartooning. It's too hard!


Sunday, December 6, 2009

2009 a Year of Surprises and Change for the EHR Technology Market

2009 a Year of Surprises and Change for the EHR Technology Marketby DAVID C. KIBBE and BRIAN KLEPPER"Oft expectation fails, and most oft thereWhere most it promises; and oft it hitsWhere hope is coldest, and despair most fits." All's Well That Ends Well (II, i, 145-147)2009 began with a bang for legacy Electronic Health Record (EHR) vendors, promising strong sales and windfall profits

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Machine Learning and Clinical Outcomes in Health Information Technology

The Disease Management Care Blog is guilty of not paying that much attention to the flow of news about information internet techie killer ap stuff. It’s hard to keep it all straight, much of it seems either impermanent or futuristic, plus the 2.0 jargon is opaque. But when the New York Times Business Section and the Wall Street Journal Health Blog both mention a new healthcare computer thingy, the DMCB perks up.

Welcome to Keas (pronounced KEE’_ahs). As the DMCB understands it, this is a web site (or to the cognoscenti, an ‘application’) in which you can record your medical and family history and input other medical information, including labs from Quest. The site’s ‘machine learning’ (MLing) can apparently fashion a health profile, interpret (‘red,’ ‘yellow,’ or ‘green’) lab test results, generate a personalized care plan (based on input from Healthwise or anyone of a number of high powered academics), issue prompts or offer specific suggestions (and even quizzes) that help the user-patient improve their health or manage conditions such as diabetes, high blood cholesterol or being overweight.

The DMCB views ‘MLing’ as a learning opportunity, so it dove right in. Keas’ co-founder Adam Bosworth is of Google-engineer pedigree and he specifically mentioned the concept in his blog. Assuming that’s what makes up Keas’ insides, MLing is computers that deploy algorithms to search for and ‘learn’ known and unknown patterns and make associations. Presumably this technology can tap into what is known about patient data and various diseases, much like credit card companies can spot unusual transactions and issue fraud alerts or Amazon can prompt customers with purchase recommendations.

What luster hm? This is part cool, part patient empowerment, part information tech, part meaningful EHR use and part venture capital.

Then the DMCB dug a little deeper. While a response from Keas to an email inquiry and a phone call is still pending at the time of this posting, the DMCB did what it always does when its curiosity is piqued. It took a look at some of the pertinent medical literature, favoring randomized prospective trials from reputable peer review journals. From a clinical standpoint that was curiously missing in the New York Times, two well done studies may lend some insight as to what Keas can, and cannot, do:

Check out this Annals of Internal Medicine study on self management in asthma in which the authors compared the outcomes of a group of patients randomly assigned to an ‘internet-based self management program’ with monitoring, advice, education and web-based communication versus usual care. Instead of MLing, a questionnaire was used to discern how patients were doing and, if things got bad, a live nurse intervened. At twelve months, the internet group had modestly better improvement in their quality of life and measures of lung function but there were not differences in severe asthma attacks.

Or how about this Archives of Internal Medicine study on the use of a ‘practice linked online personal health record’ for patients with diabetes. Once again, patients were randomly assigned to usual care versus a web application that listed medications, asked questions about the diabetes and other labs and then generated a care plan. At the end of one year, the intervention group had experienced greater changes in their medications, but there were no meaningful differences in blood sugar control, blood pressure and blood cholesterol levels.

Based on this information, the DMCB suspects that organizations that may consider paying for this service on behalf of their enrollees may be skeptical about the ability of Keas to lower claims expense enough to justify the investment. However, as pointed out before, Keas-like applications' greatest potential is when it's combined with other population based care interventions that synergistically add up to more than the sum of their parts.

Since the literature above may prompt some skepticism, Keas’ may wish to conduct some of its own studies to better define what it can and cannot do and how it best fits with the patient centered medical home, disease management, benefit-based insurance incentives, physician patient reform, accountable care organizations, registries and traditional electronic records.

Addendum: In looking around the web site, the DMCB also found these terms of service (bolding from the DMCB) that speak for themselves:

'The Content and Services may link you to other web sites or information, software, data, or other contents on or off the Internet, including linked click-through or other advertising, or through featured or sponsored sites. We have not reviewed the contents that may be reached by such links and we are not responsible for such content. Your linking to any other pages on other sites is at your own risk. The information, software, data, or other contents (including opinions, claims, comments) contained in linked references are those of the companies responsible for such sites and should not be attributed to us. We have not attempted to verify the truth or accuracy of any such opinion, claim, or comment, nor do we endorse or support them. We do not warrant, nor are we in any way responsible for, information, software, data, privacy policies, or other content that is outside of our control.'

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Finally, A Reasonable Plan for Certification of EHR Technologies

by DAVID C. KIBBE and BRIAN KLEPPERA caution to readers: This post is about methods for certifying Electronic Health Record (EHR) technologies used by physicians, medical practices, and hospitals who hope to qualify for federal incentive payments under the so-called HITECH portion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). It may not be as critical as the larger health care reform

Sunday, May 24, 2009

An Open Letter to the New National Coordinator for Health IT: Part 4 -- Bringing Patients into the Conversation About "Meaningful Use" of Health IT

by DAVID C. KIBBE and BRIAN KLEPPERThe Obama health team at HHS and ONC are gradually establishing the rules that will determine how approximately $34 billion in ARRA/HITECH funds are spent on health IT over the next several years. But there is a "missing link" in these deliberations that, so far, has not been addressed by Congress or the Administration: how the patient's voice can be "

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

"An Open Letter to the New National Coordinator for Health IT: Part 3 -- Certification As The Elephant in Health IT's Living Room"

by DAVID C. KIBBE and BRIAN KLEPPERIn the first and second parts of this series we talked about how and why there is no universal definition for the term "EHR." Instead there is a legitimate, growing debate about the features and functions that "EHR technologies" should offer physicians seeking to qualify for HITECH incentive payments. We explored the layers of network technology, suggesting that

Thursday, April 16, 2009

"An Open Letter to the New National Coordinator for Health IT - Untying HITECH's Gordian Knot: Part 1"

An Open Letter to the New National Coordinator for Health IT - Untying HITECH's Gordian Knot: Part 1by DAVID C. KIBBE and BRIAN KLEPPERCongratulations to David Blumenthal on being named National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONCHIT). Dr. Blumenthal will be the person most responsible for the rules and distribution of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act's (ARRA) nearly $20

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

"Five Recommendations for ONC Head Who Understands Health IT Innovation"

The team of David Kibbe and Brian Klepper are at it again with some advice on who best understands the health IT challenge in America:Five Recommendations for ONC Head Who Understands Health IT Innovationby DAVID KIBBE and BRIAN KLEPPERNow that the legislative language of the HITECH Act -- the $20 billion health IT allocation within the economic stimulus package -- has been set, it's time to

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Health Care Reform--The Stimulus PreGame

"Drug Makers Fight Stimulus Provision""Lobbying War Ensues Over Digital Data"The first was a recent Wall Street Journal headline and the second headline comes from the Washington Post. Both refer to what were supposed to be two already agreed on health care reform ideas--comparative research about which treatments work best and the creation of a nationwide system of medical records. The lesson

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Five "Shovel-Ready" Health Care Reforms

Five "Shovel-Ready" Health Care ReformsBy Brian Klepper & David C. KibbeMicrosoft Health Vault's leader Peter Neupert has a wonderful blog post that makes two important points really well. One message is that health care reform is about the outcomes, not the technology. We should think expansively about which technologies to invest in, based on the results we want to get.The other message is the

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Let's Reboot America's HIT Conversation--Part 2: HIT Beyond EHRs

Let's Reboot America's HIT ConversationPart 2: HIT Beyond EHRsby DAVID C. KIBBE AND BRIAN KLEPPERYesterday we tried to put EHRs into perspective. They're important, and we can't effectively move health care forward without them. But they're one of many very important HIT functions, and EHRs and HIT alone won't fix health care. So developing a comprehensive but effective national HIT plan is a

Sunday, January 4, 2009

"Let's Reboot America's HIT Conversation---Part 1: Putting EHRs in Context"

Last Month David Kibbe and Brian Klepper asked me to post an open letter to the Obama Health Team with their thoughts on how to spend the coming federal health IT money. That letter ended up as the centerpiece of a Boston Globe story with the lead line, "some specialists are warning against investing too heavily in existing electronic recordkeeping systems."Encouraged by the response to that

Sunday, December 14, 2008

The Best Way to Spend the Coming Federal Health IT Money: An Open Letter to the Obama Health Team

An Open Letter to the Obama Health TeamBy David C. Kibbe & Brian KlepperIt seems likely that the Obama administration and Congress will spend a significant amount on health IT by attaching it as a first-order priority to the fiscal stimulus package. We take the President-elect at his word when he recently said:“...we must also ensure that our hospitals are connected to each other through the

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Comments About the On-Line Chantix Study, the **Shocking** CBO HIT Report and More Insight on Why the Chicken....

From the front page of today’s USA Today: a report that varenicline (Chantix) is associated with mental status changes and that the Federal Aviation Administration no longer considers it safe for use by active-duty commercial pilots. But what’s interesting to the Disease Management Care Blog was that, according to USA Today, the study was posted on-line because…

‘co-author Curt Furberrg, a Wake Forest University medical epidemiologist said he and his co-authors felt ‘this was too important’ to submit first to a medical journal, which could take six months or more to publish [italics mine].’

Surprised by the changing relationship of medical science and print or web-based media? Don’t be. After all, you read the Disease Management Care Blog.

And the Congressional Budget Office continues its reputation as a parade raining, party-pooping sourpuss by releasing a report that sheds doubt on the financial assumptions of the habitués of the Health Information Technology cool-aid. The DMCB is shocked, shocked.

Last but not least, many readers of the Disease Management Care Blog have probably gotten the Ver. 2 updated ‘why did the chicken cross the road’ joke email from family or friends. It starts out:

BARACK OBAMA:
The chicken crossed the road because it was time for a CHANGE! The chicken wanted CHANGE!

JOHN MC CAIN:
My friends, that chicken crossed the road because he recognized the need to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chickens on the other side of the road.

HILLARY CLINTON:
When I was First Lady, I personally helped that little chicken to cross the road. This experience makes me uniquely qualified to ensure -- right from Day One! -- that every chicken in this country gets the chance it deserves to cross the road. But then, this really isn't about me.......

The DMCB thought it would expand on the theme:

HEALTHWAYS:

Numerous peer review studies have conclusively demonstrated that when chickens are ready to change, they can be coached by Healthways colleagues to cross the road with maximum outcomes. At baseline, the chicken was on one side of the road. At follow-up, it was on the other side of the road. We obviously caused that to happen with an ROI of 2 to 1.

HEALTH DIALOG

Our proven predictive modeling and patient engagement strategies help chickens decide how and when to cross the road. After we commenced our personalized intervention, road-crossing behavior measurably, consistently increased. The ROI was 2 to 1.

MEDICARE

Unless more chickens cross the road at lower cost budget neutrality compared to other chickens that didn’t cross the road, you can forget about Phase 2 in Medicare Health Support.

DMAA

It’s not chickens. We announced at our last annual meeting that they are barnyard feathered fowl.

PHYSICIANS

Stay away from our chickens.

ACTUARIES

The vector observed that describes chicken road crossing is typically associated with food seeking behavior, avoiding automobiles, avoiding predators, attraction to roosters, stupidity and random behavior. We can say with 64% confidence that it was one or more of these causes.

ALERE

Because a remote monitoring device ascertained the chicken should seek out the other side of the road. The recent acquisition of Matria brings even more value to that chicken, the road and our shareholders.

ECAREMANAGEMENT BLOG

Because only chickens would be dumb enough to do that for the .35 relative value units (RVUs) that the American Medical Association/Specialty Society RVS Update Committee thinks is enough for a Medical Home.

CATO INSTITUTE BLOG

To escape from the inane health policy recommendations of the Commonwealth Fund

DISEASE MANAGEMENT CARE BLOG

To avoid having to take the spouse to any movie starring Sarah Jessica Parker.

Thursday, May 8, 2008

How Can Health Information Technology Be Improved in Support of Chronic Illness Care?

It’s not every day that someone from the Department of Health and Human Services emails the author of the Disease Management Care Blog for recommendations, but that’s what happened. The DMCB was asked about enhancements to Health Information Technology (HIT) in the coordination of care for persons with chronic illness.

In this context, the DCMB thinks of HIT as a computerized health record (EMR, EHR or PHR etc) with a registry and decision support. With that simplistic generalization, it is happy to immodestly blog in with a bulleted summary of the recommendations below.

HIT is necessary but not sufficient. Even if near-term fixes in a) interoperability and b) competitors’ willingness to share data succeeds, there still isn’t a plethora of good evidence that upcoming versions of HIT will truly reduce costs or increase quality. Rather, HIT’s greatest potential lays in its support for other quality initiatives, including P4P, the Medical Home, CDHPs and Disease Management. It is the means to an end, not the end. Bottom line: ‘Cornerstone’ it’s not. Think mortar.

One reason why small physician groups have been reluctant to buy into HIT is because they bring their ‘front-line’ skepticism (some may say cynicism) in looking at its true value for their patients with chronic illness. Maybe they know something. CMS can always force the issue by regulatory fiat, but that won’t answer that nagging question: ‘where’s the beef?’ Bottom line: use your fiat power to also ask the HIT community to demonstrate it can deliver a tangible impact on outcomes in small group settings.

Limited (e.g., medication prescribing), cheap (not tens of thousands of dollars), modular (order entry this year, billing next year) and easy (plug and play) is more attractive than single solution, pricy, soup to nuts and complicated. Note that disease management vendors, in their eternal quest to achieve physician buy-in, are betting on the luster of turn-key web-based EMR solutions for their patients with chronic illness. Bottom line: accommodate the KISS concept in HIT.

[Sigh] RHIOs didn’t quite work out. The lesson is that parts of HIT may fail because there is still a market, albeit an imperfect one, that can separate the sustainable from the unsustainable. At a recent conference, the Secretary was heard to mention the interest of the Medicare program in “personal health records.” Uh oh. Bottom line: Keep in mind that the adage ‘don’t just stand there, do nothing’ can also apply to the world’s largest health insurer.

The notion of ‘medical records’ is changing. It’s no longer just provider-encounter and insurer-claims data, but the information being held by employers (e.g., sick days) and wellness (e.g., health risk assessments) and disease management vendors (e.g., the remote telephonic coaches record everything). The solution may be ‘personal health records’ but maybe not. Assuming they don’t achieve 100% penetration or 100% information capture, they’ll probably make things even more complicated. Bottom line: Update the existing HIT policies, requirements and protections to include these other emerging and disparate data bases.

Last but not least, the DMCB returns to the concept of ‘open data.’ Useful parts of beneficiaries’ patient clinical, pharmacy and financial data bases could be placed in the public domain for access by professional and amateur researchers. While this may be a radical concept, desk-top technology and the growing sophistication of researchers outside the traditional mainstream can generate insights on behalf of the public good. This is not an insurmountable concept if a) access is limited, b) if the right kind of patient protections are put into place and c) patients agree to it. Bottom line: join the open data movement.

LinkWithin