meaningful use

“Our Lady of Perpetual Implementations”

Posted by

0

“There is no use trying,” said Alice;
“one can’t believe impossible things.”
“I dare say you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen.
“When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day.
Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as
six impossible things before breakfast.”

There are a number of people who would have you believe impossible things.  I dare say some already have.  Such as?

“My EHR is certifiable.”

“They told me it will pass meaningful use.”

“We’re not responsible for Interoperability; that happens at the Rhio.”

“It doesn’t matter what comes out of the reform effort, this EHR will handle it.”

“We don’t have to worry about our workflow, this system has its own.”

Sometimes it’s best not to follow the crowd—scores of like-thinking individuals following the EHR direction they’ve been given by vendors and Washington.  Why did you select that package—because somebody at The Hospital of Perpetual Implementations did?

There is merit in asking, is your organization guilty of drinking the Kool Aid?  Please don’t mistake my purpose in writing.  There are many benefits available to those who implement an EHR.  My point is is that there will be many more benefits to those who select the right system, to those who know what business problems they expect to address, to those who eliminate redundant business functions, and those who implement proper change management controls.

How should a provider approach Meaningful Use?

Posted by

0

Of cabbages—and kings— And how does all that focus on Meaningful Use affect ones’ ability to address ICD-10?

And why the sea is boiling hot—and whether pigs have wings. Lewis Carroll, Out of the Looking Glass. It is a nonsense story, one which cannot be argued.

As are Electronic Health Records (EHR) and Meaningful Use (MU)—at least to date. Measured against any reasonable set of standards, except on a one-off basis, the national rollouts of EHR and MU have failed. I expect it will be even more so next year.
You, the public, have the right to comment, and we have the right to tell you why your comments hold no water. I think it is the inverse of you have the right to remain silent, you just don’t have the ability. I am writing about the ONC and the bone they tossed calling for public comment. They are required to provide for public comment in order to remove the N and the P from the NPRM.

Who among us believes the rule making will markedly shift direction as a result of any of the public comments? That is unfortunate for if they were to shift direction they might find a direction. We don’t know where we are going, but we are making good time getting there. Figures suggest a failure rate of EHR implementations of somewhere between fifty and seventy percent. As healthcare IT resources become scarcer, I expect the failure rate to increase. As providers rush into EHR without a detailed strategy simply to grab the incentive money, there will be more expensive failures. More failed EHRs is not a way to measure progress.
The current cover of Government Health HIT magazine depicts a foot race to meet MU. There is no race if there are no entrants. There may be more people on the cover than will actually qualify for the race, even fewer who will reach the end.

We would be better served if the plan for national rollout of EHR were not written on an Etch-A-Sketch. We don’t know what will be included in Stages 2 and 3 of MU. When will fifty percent of providers have an EHR, not just the software, but one that actually boosts productivity? How about 70% or 80%? Ten years? I ask the same question of the Health Information Exchanges (HIEs). Without unilateral adoption there will be large gaps. Will the national network function with these gaps? To what extent? Will the records only make it part of the way from Patient A to Doctor X?

Having not solved the EHR program on their own, and having no viable plan, the government laid the burden of making EHR successful on the backs of the providers. The government tries to offset the burden by offering financial gratuities—and penalties—to the providers. Not exactly the second coming of the Three Wise Men. Trying to hit the ONC’s targets is a little like playing the confidence game, the shell game. Under which shell will providers find the rules, the plan?
What to do?

It is easy to criticize. Permit me to offer a few suggestions. To the hospitals, if you are not well along the EHR path, do not make a difficult effort more difficult by chasing Gossamer incentive dollars. Stick to your plan. You have multiple failure points which three years from now will make chasing those dollars look like a pipe dream. The failure points? Your plan, the implementation, meeting the MU requirements, passing the MU audit. It does not look very promising to me.

To those hospitals which haven’t started their EHR initiative, or are less than halfway through the passing the failure points, don’t cancel your summer vacation. You have a lot more time to get it right then you have to get it wrong. Pay no attention to the man—or woman; even I can have a moment—handing out the Monopoly money. You won’t be receiving any. From where I sit, that is good news. It will cost a lot more to perform disaster recovery on a poor implementation than the funds you would have received by meeting MU.

How long does a hospital spend planning to build a new hospital wing? For large hospitals, the cost of your EHR will likely exceed the cost of the new wing. Plan accordingly. Invest six or nine months building a plan that might succeed.

For medium and small practices and solo providers you have nothing to lose by waiting a year months other than the resource problem. By then you will find very viable ASP and shrink-wrapped solutions.

Those who follow my blog, healthcareitstrategy.com, know I don’t write to garner favorable replies from those who think they’ve already got it figured out. I write for those who because of EHR have difficulty sleeping. Thanks for reading. As always, I appreciate your comments and disagreements.

Video Game Theory applied to Healthcare IT

Posted by

0

My twelve-year-old son overheard a conversation I was having about EHR, Meaningful Use, and ICD-10, and I watched his eyes glaze over.  So I tried to explain it to him in terms I thought he might understand.  Maybe this explanation is the one I should have used with my client.

John and Sally have a thousand dollars in the bank.  They pool some of their money and have a hundred dollars to spend on video games.  The game they really want, Project From Hell, costs sixty dollars.  About half the people who play Project From Hell never make it to the end, and never get the chance to claim their prize.  It takes two years to play, and one or both of them could be eliminated from the game for failing to play well.

The second game is a take-off on Faust, Sell Your Soul to the Devil.  To play this game, you must first beat Project From Hell.  Sell Your Soul costs thirty dollars.  However, the upside is that if you win, which is not very likely, you can earn two dollars.

The third game, Bet Your Savings, is the most intriguing.  All kids who have a computer must play Bet Your Savings, which costs thirty-five dollars.  The way Bet Your Savings works is that if you do not play, or if you play and lose, ten percent of the money in your bank account disappears.

I asked my son which games John and Sally should buy.  He said if they bought Project From Hell and Sell Your Soul, they would only have ten dollars left, and that the reward from Sell Your Soul, two dollars, was not worth much.  He also noted they do not have enough money to buy all three, and that since Bet Your Savings was mandatory, unless John and Sally wanted to automatically lose ten percent of their savings, they must choose Bet Your Savings.

He decided they should buy Project From Hell and Bet Your Savings.

By now you have figured out the Project from Hell is your EHR, Sell Your Soul is Meaningful Use, and Bet Your Savings is your ICD-10 initiative.

Resources are scarce.  Do you have enough money to do Meaningful Use and ICD-10 correctly?  Many hospitals do not, and yet they are charging full tilt at meeting Meaningful Use to possibly net a few dollars.  Many hospitals have not invested enough to meet ICD-10.

Where should you place your limited resources?  If you are still confused, feel free to ask my son.

Video Game Theory applied to Healthcare IT

Posted by

0

My twelve-year-old son overheard a conversation I was having about EHR, Meaningful Use, and ICD-10, and I watched his eyes glaze over.  So I tried to explain it to him in terms I thought he might understand.  Maybe this explanation is the one I should have used with my client.

John and Sally have a thousand dollars in the bank.  They pool some of their money and have a hundred dollars to spend on video games.  The game they really want, Project From Hell, costs sixty dollars.  About half the people who play Project From Hell never make it to the end, and never get the chance to claim their prize.  It takes two years to play, and one or both of them could be eliminated from the game for failing to play well.

The second game is a take-off on Faust, Sell Your Soul to the Devil.  To play this game, you must first beat Project From Hell.  Sell Your Soul costs thirty dollars.  However, the upside is that if you win, which is not very likely, you can earn two dollars.

The third game, Bet Your Savings, is the most intriguing.  All kids who have a computer must play Bet Your Savings, which costs thirty-five dollars.  The way Bet Your Savings works is that if you do not play, or if you play and lose, ten percent of the money in your bank account disappears.

I asked my son which games John and Sally should buy.  He said if they bought Project From Hell and Sell Your Soul, they would only have ten dollars left, and that the reward from Sell Your Soul, two dollars, was not worth much.  He also noted they do not have enough money to buy all three, and that since Bet Your Savings was mandatory, unless John and Sally wanted to automatically lose ten percent of their savings, they must choose Bet Your Savings.

He decided they should buy Project From Hell and Bet Your Savings.

By now you have figured out the Project from Hell is your EHR, Sell Your Soul is Meaningful Use, and Bet Your Savings is your ICD-10 initiative.

Resources are scarce.  Do you have enough money to do Meaningful Use and ICD-10 correctly?  Many hospitals do not, and yet they are charging full tilt at meeting Meaningful Use to possibly net a few dollars.  Many hospitals have not invested enough to meet ICD-10.

Where should you place your limited resources?  If you are still confused, feel free to ask my son.

 

HIT: The Change Keeps Changing

Posted by

0

Hello to those whom I’ve yet to meet.  This is rather long, so you may wish to grab a sandwich.

I write to share a few thoughts.  I reside in the small place where those who refuse to drink the Kool Aid reside. For those who haven’t been there, it’s where those who place principle over fees dare to tread.

Where to begin? How to build your provider executive team? (Those who wish to throw cabbages should move closer to their laptops so as not to be denied a decent launching point.)

I comment on behalf of those in the majority who have either not started or hopefully have not reached the EHR points of no return—those are points at which you realize that without a major infusion of dollars and additional time your project will not succeed. Those who have completed their implementation, I dare say for many no amount of team building will help. Without being intentionally Clintonian—well, maybe a little—I guess it depends on what your definition of completed is.

If I were staffing a healthcare organization, to be of the most value to the hospital, I’d staff to overcome whatever is lying in wait on the horizon, external influences—the implications of reform and Stages 2 and 3 of Meaningful Use, and a national roll out of EHR with no viable plan to get there.  Staffing only to execute today’s perceived demands will get people shot and will fail to meet the needs of hospital. To succeed we need to exercise an understanding of what is about to happen to healthcare and to build a staff to meet those implications.

Several CEOs have shared that they are at a total loss when it comes to understanding the healthcare implications of reform and IT.  They’ve also indicated—don’t yell at me for this—they don’t think their IT executives understand the business issues surrounding EHR and reform.  I somewhat disagree with that perspective.

Here’s a simplified version of the targets I think most of today’s hospital CIOs are trying to hit.

1. Certification
2. Meaningful use
3. Interoperability—perhaps
4. Budget
5. Timing
6. Vendor management
7. Training
8. User acceptance
9. Change management
10. Work flow improvement
11. Managing upwards

There are plenty of facts that could allow one to conclude that these targets have a Gossamer quality to them.  Here’s what I think. You don’t have to accept this, and you can argue this from a technology viewpoint—and you will win the argument. I recently started to raise the following ideas, and they seem to be finding purchase—I like that word, and since this is my piece, I used it.

Before we go there, may I share my reasoning? From a business perspective, many would say the business of healthcare must move from a 0.2 to a 2.0 business model. (This is not the same as the healthcare business—the clinical side.)  The carrot?  The ARRA incentives—an amount that for many providers will prove to be more of a rounding error than a substantive rebate.

Large healthcare providers are being asked to hit complex, undefined, and moving targets, and they are planning on adapting to reform and reforming their own business model while they implement systems which will change how everyone works.  Hospitals are making eight and nine figure purchase decisions based in part on solving business problems they have not articulated. If success is measured as being on-time, in-budget, and fully functional and accepted, for any project in excess of $10,000,000, the chances of failure are far greater than the chances of success.

Their overriding business driver seems to be that the government told them to do this. Providers are making purchasing decisions without defining their requirements. Some will spend more on an EHR system than they would to build a new hospital wing.  Many don’t know what the EHR should cost, yet they have a budget. Many don’t know if they need a blue one or a green one, if it comes in a box, or if they need to water it.

So, where would I staff to help ensure my success—this is sort of like Dr. Seuss’, “If I ran the Circus”—the one with Sneelock in the old vacant lot.  I’d staff with a heavy emphasis on the following subject matter experts:

• PMO
• Planning & Innovation
• Flexibility
• Change Management
• PR & Marketing

Contrary to popular belief, not all of these high-level people need to have great understanding of healthcare or IT. You probably already have enough medical and IT expertise to last a lifetime.

Here’s why I think this is important. Here’s what I believe will happen. Three to five years for now the government would like us to believe there will be a network of articulated EHRs with different standards, comprised of hundreds of vendor products, connected to hundred of RHIOs, and mapped to a N-HIN.  Under the proposed model, standardization will not occur if only for the fact that there is no monetary value to those vendors whose standards are not standard.

Interoperability, cost, and the lack of standardization will force a different solution—one which is portable.  I think the solution will have to be something along the lines of a single, national, open, browser-based EHR.  It will be driven by consumers.  Consumers will purchase the next generation of super-smart portable devices that offer a combination of iPad/iPhone functionality.

The Personal Health (PRH) will have evolved to become the EMR.  How is this possible?  What do smart devices do?  They do one thing, billions of times each day, and they do it perfectly—they send and receive ones and zeros.  That is what today’s EMR are—ones and zeroes.  Those next-gen devices will be EMR-capable.  Why?  Because there are more than a hundred million customers who will keep buying these devices.

The so-called N-HIN will be the new Super Internet—not some cobbled together network of RHIOs.

Firms like Apple, Google, and Microsoft will drive this change.  We already buy everything they offer, in fact, we line up at midnight to do so.  By then, those firms will care less about selling the devices than they will about transporting the ones and zeroes that comprise the data.  Their current PHRs are their way of introducing themselves to consumers as players in healthcare.

The point I am trying to drive home is that from being able to adapt to change and reform, lean towards staffing the unknown.  Staff with leaders, innovators, and people who can turn on a dime. Build your organization like turning on a dime is your number one requirement. Don’t waste time and money worrying about Certification or Meaningful Use. If anyone asks you why, you can blame me.

If you want a real reason, I have two. First, they won’t mean a thing five years from now. Second, if I am the person writing an incentive check, I want to know one and only one thing—will your system connect with the other system for which I am also writing a check?  That is the government’s home run.

 

Has Meaningful Use Optimisim Run Amuck?

Posted by

0

I make it a point to read every article Gienna Shaw writes for HealthLeadersMedia.com.  She consistently captures large amounts of information and packages it into a concise understanding of the material.  In the February issue of HealthLeaders http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/industry_survey/ she wrote a piece summarizing the results from their survey of organizations on their projected timeline for achieving Meaningful Use; Making Meaningful Progress.  I thought it might be helpful to offer readers a bit of a different perspective, something that may cause you to pause and wonder whether I am living on another planet, or whether it is the majority of those surveyed who migrated to Venus.

Were it only that the responses of those surveys were based in reality—the world would be a better place, the Cubs would win the World Series, and my son’s room would no longer resemble an obstacle course.

According to the survey findings, sixty-eight percent of those surveyed expect to achieve Meaningful Use by 2012, and that total climbs to seventy-seven percent by 2013—assuming the Mayan prediction of the world ending the year before prove false.  Things always look rosier when you have the luxury of ignoring other factors prior to answering the question of whether you will achieve Meaningful Use; like whether the EHR implementation will be successful and whether there is enough time to meet the dates they selected.

What else should one be considering when assessing the validity of this unbridled optimism?  Thanks for asking.  Here is my list:

  • EHR Failure Rate:  published data suggests EHR failures range between 30-70%.  If we use a conservative figure of 40% we can see that optimistic forecasts of 77% achieving Meaningful Use by 2013 is wrong by a factor of two.  If forty percent of implementations fail, and seventy-seven percent meet Meaningful Use, somebody needs to check the math.
  • Of those systems that have already failed, many of whom are very notable hospitals, they had the luxury of time.  They had as much time as they needed to fail.  Today we have less time to fail, which to me means failure percentages will increase.  For those who have yet to fail, if your goal is meeting Meaningful Use by 2013, watch out.  If you dash for the cash, plan for an EHR do-over.  Remember, there is a binary trap associated with meeting Meaningful Use—it is all or nothing.  There are no dollars awarded for having tried really hard.
  • When was the last time you tried to hire a very experienced EPIC or McKesson resource?  Recent figures suggest a Healthcare IT resource shortfall of fifty percent.  This shortfall will greatly reduce the number of organizations which have any chance of meeting Meaningful Use by the dates they themselves specified.
  • How’s that HIPAA 5010/ICD-10 project coming along?  A high percentage of organizations have not even started the HIPAA 5010 tasks that should have been completed in 2010.  More money will be lost through not meeting ICD-10 than will have been awarded in the EHR rebate lottery.
  • Once your EHR is implemented, what percentage of your IT resources will you need to allocate simply to meet Meaningful Use’s stage one requirements?  One outstanding hospital found that number to be eighty percent over three years.
  • At least with EHR there are people who have current EHR experience.  There is no pool of ICD-10 been-there done-that resources.  So, where do you allocate your scarce resources, EHR or ICD-10?  Either answer you give yields a bad outcome.

So, what is the best approach for the C-Suite?  Meeting Meaningful Use is not mandatory.  Time need not be your enemy.  Why not implement EHR correctly?  Why not adjust your plans so that instead of trying to squeeze every possible dollar out of Meaningful Use you simply try to make EHR work by 2015?  This way you avoid the penalty and give yourself a decent shot of success.

No ARRA money will be awarded for being optimistic.  However, once you tell the CFO to plan for a twenty million dollar ARRA windfall in 2011 or 2012 you better deliver it because you know darn well that he or she has already made plans to spend that money.

I think if we were to check the results of this survey two years from now we would find that less than forty percent of hospitals will have achieved Meaningful Use by the end 2013.

EHR: Is time your greatest enemy?

Posted by

0

The following is my response to an article in Health Data Management regarding an article which argued that time is the enemy of a good EHR implementation. (http://www.healthdatamanagement.com/blogs/Quammen_big_bang_EHR-42096-1.html#read)

I agree fully with the premise of a big bang rather than a phased in approach, but for the following reasons I respectfully disagree if the reason for going all out is because there is not enough time.

Many providers have already demonstrated that time is certainly the enemy.  They have had enough time to spend four hundred million dollars and get EHR wrong, and are in the process of doing the same thing with another vendor.  There is a notable shortage of CIOs wearing EHR 2.0 T-shirts—fail once and you are done.  The attitude seems to be that there is plenty of time to do it wrong and not enough time to do it correctly.

Poor EHR implementations are creating a brand new market for HIT consultants—disaster recovery. The New England Journal of Medicine noted that more than sixty percent of EHR implementations fail.  An even higher percentage will fail to meet Meaningful Use, which is why everyone is in such a rush to implement—the Dash for the Cash.

Providers are sacrificing their own business strategy to get a check for trying to meet a set of standards that have no meaning and no benefit other than to have them fit into a more nationalized healthcare model—something they would never have done on their own.

The first question a provider should ask is “do we want to meet Meaningful Use”.  If the answer is yes, the next question they should ask is “by when?”  Given the rash of failures, providers should figure out what they need to do to avoid being the next hundred million dollar failure.  Paying to do EHR twice or to recover from a failed implementation will far exceed any funds they will have received from the EHR Rebate program.

The problem many will find is that there is no “R” in the Meaningful Use ROI calculation.  The productivity of some of the best providers in the country is still down twenty percent two years after implementation.

If providers want an ROI, they would be much better served by taking their time and doing what they need to do to make EHR do what they need it to do, and to focus their attentions on ICD-10.  The amount of money they will lose from failing to meet ICD-10 will far exceed the EHR rebate.

Patient Experience Management as healthcare’s Watergate

Posted by

1

Below is the text of my article in Hospital Impact.

Patient Experience Management as healthcare’s Watergate

March 9th, 2011

by Paul Roemer

For the second straight year, HealthLeadersreports that Patient Experience Management (PEM) is one of the top three priorities for healthcare executives. A McKinsey study of 1,000 executives showed that for 90 percent of executives it ranked first or second.

Those results put my mind at ease on the issue about as much as Iran’s Amadinejad claiming its nuclear efforts are only targeted at improving the yield of their turnip harvest.

Recall the tagline of the McKinsey study–none of the executives knew who actually owned the patient experience, so little was planned for addressing this priority. However, several hospitals were expected to offer more heart-healthy alternatives in the basement cafeteria–I love strong leaders. Be on the lookout for the Amadinejad Turnip-Melt.

[More:]

Anyway, I digress.

Healthcare’s Watergate. Follow the money. Yet, there is no money to follow in two key areas, at least not an amount that suggests hospitals view either area with the same degree of import with which they speak to them. What are they?

  • Patient Experience Management (outflow)
  • Our old friend, Meaningful Use (inflow)

Missing is the planned expenditure that would come even close to making Patient Experience Management a priority. Don’t believe me? Print out a copy of your organization’s strategy, its budget, or its general ledger, and sort all of the planned expenditures from greatest to least. Stop reading when you reach the line item for Patient Experience Management.

Meanwhile, I am going for a run. If you find it before I return, wait for me, but you will not have found it by then.

You did not find the dollar amount budgeted for PEM did you?

Just to stay consistent, there is not much of a Meaningful Use windfall flowing out of CMS and into your neighborhood healthcare services provider either.

In general, money for what seem to be very high operational priorities is dribbling along so slowly so as to suggest these initiatives had prostate problems in the offing.

In addition to the fact there was no booth at HIMSS to showcase the most singularly spoken of topic, Meaningful Use, there was also no booth on Patient Experience Management. There was not a single PEM vendor. Why? Because the vendors know PEM, for now, is a unicorn-like ACOs–and nobody has ever seen a unicorn, so why bother trying to sell unicorn horn polish?

By the way, I need to borrow five chairs for a group photo I am taking of everyone eligible to receive Meaningful Use rebates.

Paul Roemer, MBA, is a healthcare strategist and Managing Partner of HealthcareITStrategy.com. Paul has more than thirty years of management consulting experience, starting with the Big 4 where he held national leadership positions, and the last fourteen years with his own international consulting firm. He has a passion for how we will live and function in the rapidly changing world of healthcare, and how information technology must provide for and help manage the change. He wrestles with how to turn the lack of information of what the business of healthcare will become, the lack of understanding of the issues, and the general lack of knowledge of the future into decisions we can make today to shape tomorrow. Paul has earned a presence on the national healthcare stage through his futuristic thought leadership, and is a recognized speaker and writer on a number of strategic healthcare issues.

What people at HIMSS were afraid to say

Posted by

7

One image of HIMSS that will not escape my mind is the movie Capricorn One—one of OJ’s non-slasher films.  For those who have not seen it, the movie centers on the first manned trip to Mars.  A NASA Mars mission won’t work, and its funding is endangered, so feds decide to fake it just this once. But then they have to keep the secret…

The astronauts are pulled off the ship just before launch by shadowy government types and whisked off to a film studio in the desert.  The space vehicle has a major defect which NASA just daren’t admit. At the studio, over a course of months, the astronauts are forced to act out the journey and the landing to trick the world into believing they have made the trip.

Upon the return trip to Earth, the empty spacecraft unexpectedly burns up due to a faulty heat shield during reentry. The captive astronauts realize that officials can never release them as it would expose the government’s elaborate hoax.

I think much of what I saw at the show was healthcare’s version of Capricorn One.  Nothing deliberately misleading, or meant as a cover-up or a hoax.  Rather more like highlighting a single grain of sand and trying to get others to believe the grain of sand in an entire beach.

The sets for interoperability and HIEs served as the Martian landscape, minus any red dust.  There was a wall behind the stage from where the presentation interoperability was shown.  I was tempted to sneak behind it to see if I could find the Wizard, the one pulling all the nobs and using the smoke and mirrors to such great effect.  It was an attempt to make believers, to make people believe the national healthcare network is coming together, to make us believe it is working today and that it is coming soon to a theater near you.

After all, it must be real; we saw it.  People wearing hats and shirts emblazoned with interoperability were telling us this was so, and they would not lie to you.

The big-wigs, and former big-wigs—kudos to Dr. B. for all his hard work—were at the show for everyone to see, and to add a smidgen of credibility to the message.  They would not say this was going to happen if it were not—Toto, say this ain’t true.

The public relations were perfect, a little too perfect if you asked me.  Everyone was on message.  If you live in Oz and go to bed tonight believing all is right with the world, stop reading now.  If what you wanted from HIMSS was a warm and fuzzy feeling that everything is under control and that someone really has a plan to make everything work you probably loved it.

Here is the truth as this reporter saw it.  This is not for the squeamish, and some of it may be offensive to children under thirteen or C-suiters over forty.  In the general sessions nobody dared speak to the fact that:

  • Most large EHR implementations are failing.
  • Meaningful Use isn’t, and most hospitals will fail to meet it.
  • Hospital productivity is falling faster than are the Cubs chances of winning a pennant.
  • Most hospitals changed their business model to chase the check
  • Most providers will not see a nickel of the ARRA money—the check is not in the mail and it may never be.

The future as they see it is not here, and may never be, at least until someone comes up with a viable plan.  Indeed, CMS and the ONC have altered the future, but it ain’t what it used to be.  People speak to the need to disrupt healthcare.  Disrupt it is exactly what they have done.  The question is what will it cost to undo the disruption once reason reenters the equation?  What then is the future for many hospitals?

  • Hospitals on the whole will lose more much more money due to failing to be ready for ICD-10 than they will ever have seen through the ARRA lottery.
  • It make take years to recover the productivity loses from EHR and the recoup those revenues.
  • Hospitals spending money to design their systems to tie them into the mythical HIE/N-HIN beast will spend millions redesigning them to adapt to the real interconnect solution.
  • The real interconnect solution will be built bottom-up, from patients and their primary care physicians.
  • Standardized EMRs will reside in the cloud and patients will use the next generation of smart devices.  And like it or not, the winners will be Apple, Google, and Microsoft, not the ONC and CMS.  Why?  Because that is who real people go to to buy technology and applications.  A doctor still does not know which EHR to buy or how to make it work.  Give that same doctor a chance to buy a solution on a device like an iPad and the line of customers will circle the block.

And when doctors are not seeing patients they can use the device to listen to Celine Dion.  This goes to show you there are flaws with every idea, even some of mine.

 

The Physics of EHR

Posted by

2

To read and complete this post you may use the following tools; graph paper, compass, protractor, slide ruler, a number two pencil, and a bag of Gummy Bears—from which to snack.  The following problem was on the final exam in my eleventh grade physics class.  Let us give this a shot and then see if we can tie it into anything relevant.

A Rhesus monkey is in the branch of a tree thirty-seven feet above the ground.  The monkey weights eight pounds.  You are hunting in Africa, and are three hundred and twenty yards from the monkey.  You have a bolt-action, reverse-bore (spins the shell counter-clockwise as it leaves the gun barrel) Huntington rifle capable of delivering a projectile at 644 feet per second.  The bullet weighs 45 grams.  The humidity is seventy percent, and the temperature in Scotland is twelve degrees Celsius.

At the exact moment the monkey hears the rifle fire it will jump off the branch and begin to fall.  Using this information, exactly where do you have to aim to make sure you hit the monkey?

I used every piece of information available to try to solve this.  I made graphs and ran calculations until there was no more data left to crunch, computing angles and developing new formulas.  I calculated the curvature of the earth, and the effect Pluto’s gravitational pull had on the bullet.

The one thing that never occurred to me was that since the monkey was falling to the ground, so was the bullet—gravity.  The bullet and the monkey both fall at the same rate because gravity acts on both the same way.  So, where to aim to hit the monkey?  Aim at the monkey.

All of the other information was irrelevant, extraneous.  The funny thing about extraneous information is that it causes us to look at it, to focus on it.  We think it must be important, and so we divert attention and resources to it, even when the right answer is staring us in the eye.

Attempting to implement EHR is a lot like hunting monkeys.  We know what we need to do and yet we are distracted by all of this extraneous information that will hamper our chances of being successful with the EHR.  Two of the most obvious distractions are Meaningful Use and Certification.  The overarching goal of EHR is EHR; one that does what you need it to do.  If the EHR does not do that, everything else has no meaning.