Strategy

EHR: When you are in a hole, stop digging

Posted by

2

 March 21, 2011 07:05

I was thinking about the time I was teaching rappelling in the Rockies during the summer between my two years of graduate school.  The camp was for high school students of varying backgrounds and their counselors.  On more than one occasion, the person on the other end of my rope would freeze and I would have to talk them down safely.

Late one day, a thunderstorm broke quickly over the mountain, causing the counselor on my rope to panic.  No amount of talking was going to get her to move either up or down, so it was up to me to rescue her.  My total amount of rappelling experience was probably only a few more hours than hers.  Nonetheless, I went off belay, and within seconds, I was shoulder to shoulder with her on the face of the cliff.

The sky blackened, and the wind howled, raining bits of rock on us.  I remember that only after I locked her harness to mine did she begin to relax.  She needed to know that she didn’t have to go this alone, and she took comfort knowing someone was willing to help her.

That episode reminds me of a story about a man who fell in a hole.  The man continues to struggle but can’t find a way out.  A CFO walks by.  When the man pleads for help, the CFO writes a check and drops it in the hole.  A while later an EHR vendor walks by—I know this isn’t the real story, but since I am the one writing I’ll tell it the way I want.  Where were we?  The vendor.  The man in the hole pleads for help and the vendor pulls out the contract, reads it, circles some obscure item in the fine print, tosses it in the hole, and walks on.

I walk by and see the man in the hole.  “What are you doing down there?”  I asked.

“I fell in this hole and don’t know how to get out.”

I felt sorry for the man—I’m naturally empathetic—so I hopped into the hole.  “Why did you do that?”  He asked.  “Now we’re both stuck.”

“I’ve been down here before” I said, “And I know the way out.”

I know that’s a little sappy and self-serving.  However, before you decide it’s more comfortable to stay in the hole and hope nobody notices, why not see if there’s someone who knows the way out?

Drafting someone to sort out your EHR problems doesn’t do anything other than add another name to the org chart.  Work plans and org charts are very similar in one key respect—they both have a lot of blank space between the all of the boxes.  And, that is where a lot of the problems arise—in the blank spaces, spaces that have to do with planning, process improvement, and change management.

Everyone is implementing an EHR, but not everyone is doing it correctly.  There is a very special set of IT skills needed to meet the challenges of a failed or failing project.  People with those skills are disaster recovery specialists.  They are the people who jump in the hole with you because they have been in the hole before and they know the way out.

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.

What is IT’s role in Accountable Care Organizations?

Posted by

0

I published this article today in healthsystemcio.com (http://ow.ly/4ecmg), and thought you might find it interesting. Please feel free to comment.

 

 

 

When was the last time you looked at a hospital bill, or one sent directly from your physician? The reason I ask is I have been spending some time trying to develop a clear enough picture of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) to describe them easily. After all, ACOs are not something you can touch and see. You cannot just walk up to the third floor of Our Lady of Perpetual Billing and be shown an ACO.

 

I think it is extremely important to understand what an ACO is before trying to build one. Much of the difficulty in building an ACO has to do with the fact that something, in fact a great many somethings, will have to change for an ACO to function. The question then becomes, change from what to what?

Back to the hospital bill. Scan through the list of charges, and then press the F5 key to let me know when you are ready. Now, highlight all the line items that charge you for the care you received … I found the same thing; there are not any. Volume versus value. Caring for you versus doing stuff to you. The bill of charges under today’s business model is a blow-by-blow description of what was done to you; x-rays, medicines given, IVs, etc.

Hospital billing is not unlike a hotel bill; it is just longer and you do not earn frequent illness points. Embedded in your hospital bill are charges for food and cable television, just like you had been staying at the Four Seasons.

So, as we move from volume to value, how will that impact healthcare information technology, assuming anyone remains standing after Meaningful Use and ICD-10? I keep preaching about how the hospital’s business model must change in order to understand what will be required of IT. To do so, let us compare two very different business models and their operations, both of which are in the same industry.

Hyundai and Bentley. Volume to value. Just-in-time manufacturing versus don’t-rush-me manufacturing. Nobody would argue with the fact that the information systems and business processes needed to run Hyundai’s business are very different from those of Bentley.

I watched a show on how Bentleys are built. A team of people is assigned to each car. Depending on the car’s options, some people roll off the team and others are added, but the team “owns” the car from start to finish, and each subsequent person inspects the work of the prior person.

At Hyundai, it is not apparent that anyone “owns” the car. People have line responsibility; they own a piece of a process. I could be the “left lug nut guy,” having absolutely no responsibility for the rest of the car.

I think this is the degree of change an ACO will require in order to be effective. We will have to change from being lug nut specialists to becoming care owners. This then brings us back to the question of what IT systems will be needed to charge for and manage care.

Unlike moving from ICD-9 to ICD-10, there is no mapping model to guide the change from today’s business model to an ACO model. Three IVs and one MRI do not translate well to 4.5 Accountable Care Units (ACUs) which are then billed at whatever happens to be the going rate.

Today’s systems calculate charges based on what was done to you — $86 million gazillion for the MRI. If requested, nobody in finance or information technology will be able to vivisect the bowels of SAP or Lawson and show you where the information is that records how much the MRI procedure costs. Few can explain how the business processes and information systems that support today’s lug-nut charging model can support and report how the hospital manages its business. Nobody even pretends to explain how effective those same processes and systems are at reporting the quality of care delivered.

The ACO model will require processes and systems that capture, allocate, and report costs. The ACO model will also require processes and systems that can aggregate people and procedures into ACUs and relate patient costs against those ACUs.

We do not have those systems. Since current hospital systems are incapable of really managing today’s business requirements, we should not adapt them to the ACO model.

 

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.

EHR: How do you define progress?

Posted by

0

If you and I agreed on everything, one of us wouldn’t be needed.

Of the many special things associated with growing up in America, one is held dearly by every American eight-year old male who owned an AM transistor radio with an earplug; baseball–I am dating myself which is something I promised my counselor I wouldn’t do.

On hot summer nights in the 1960’s, Baltimore’s adults sat on their cement stoops nursing bottles of Carling beer and waiting for their window air conditioners to suck out the heat.  Their male offspring lay in bed, a plastic earplug dangling from their ear as they turned the dial of their transistor radio to find the lone radio station covering the Baltimore Orioles. In spite of the constant static, they faithfully kept score on a hand-drawn score sheet in their black and white Composition notebook.

My scorecard was homemade; carefully drafted using a pencil and something relatively straight to draw the lines that separated each of the nine innings. Unlike today, when the concept of team has given way to the concept of players whose loyalty lies with the highest bidder—free agents, the lineup for the Orioles rarely changed by more than a player or two each year.

The Orioles team pennant hung on my bedroom wall, and on my dresser was their team photo along with my membership card to the Junior Orioles. Next to me as I kept score was my tattered shoe box containing my collection of baseball trading cards, sorted by team and held together by rubber bands.  A few hundred stale sticks of pink powdered bubble gum that came with each five-pack of cards was stacked neatly in one end of the box. The cards for the opposing team were spread before me so I could get the lineup and study their batting statistics.

What made me think of this was that the last of our snow had melted, and opening day is less than a month away.  Last year my son and I went to a minor league game. Although the grass was just as green, and the hot dogs smelled the same, nothing was the same. Still, it beat a stick in the eye. Things change. Baseball changed, and nobody conferred with me before changing it. At the game I didn’t see a single person keeping a scorecard, let alone a dad teaching his son or daughter how to keep the score. The only constant throughout the game was the commercialization.

That’s progress. Or maybe not. Some progress is good. Some progress doesn’t exist even though everybody around it believes that it does.

Implementing new technology doesn’t in and of itself infer progress, it simply means you bought more technology. Not convinced? How is the productivity of your EHR?  Add up all the money you’ve spent on EHR and technology and recalculate your RIO.  Was it worth it?

Ray, people will come Ray. They’ll come to Iowa for reasons they can’t even fathom. They’ll turn up your driveway not knowing for sure why they’re doing it. They’ll arrive at your door as innocent as children, longing for the past. Of course, we won’t mind if you look around, you’ll say. It’s only $20 per person. They’ll pass over the money without even thinking about it: for it is money they have and peace they lack. And they’ll walk out to the bleachers; sit in shirtsleeves on a perfect afternoon. They’ll find they have reserved seats somewhere along one of the baselines, where they sat when they were children and cheered their heroes. And they’ll watch the game and it’ll be as if they dipped themselves in magic waters. The memories will be so thick they’ll have to brush them away from their faces. People will come Ray. The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game: it’s a part of our past, Ray. It reminds of us of all that once was good and it could be again. Oh… people will come Ray. People will most definitely come.
-Terrance Mann in the movie, “Field of Dreams”

I tear up every time Ray asks, “Want to have a catch dad?”

 

Which EHR should you buy? Read & Learn

Posted by

1

Last week I attended the If It Walks, You Can Hunt It convention.  Hunters—no gatherers allowed—convened from across the globe.  People whose firms make things for hunters to use to kill things were scattered across five hundred thousand square feet of convention floor, offering everything from how to properly kit yourself in trendy camo prior to eviscerating the last Dodo bird using only a rudimentary can opener, to hunting deadly hamsters with Stinger missiles.

I was interested in learning about hunting deer, not because I like to hunt deer, but because I like to eat it, and until they start selling deer at my local convenience store, my options are limited.  Apparently there are numerous weapons one can use to hunt deer.  There is the eco-friendly method whereby the eco-mentalist warrior lies naked under a pile of compost and recycled Priuses—not sure if the plural should be Prii, and tries to lay waste to the poor beast by making it listen to an entire Celine Dion CD.  However, this degree of cruelty is banned in fifty-one states.

Of course, there are the more traditional methods using bullets and arrows, although not in combination as this would be redundant.

I did notice a large crowd of mono-eyebrowed men listening to a pitch in one corner of the hall.  I made my way in that direction and listened to a very enthusiastic salesman talking about how to hunt deer with a fly swatter.  “You will find,” he continued “more people will choose to hunt deer with a fly swatter than with any other device.  It is less cumbersome, it is inexpensive, and you do not have to feed it.”

I thought about his agreement as I watched hundreds of men line up to buy fly swatters.  “Has anyone ever killed a deer with a fly swatter?”  I asked.

“Of course not,” the salesman replied in hushed undertones.  “Just because more people buy it does not mean it does what they want it to do.

Segue.  Orlando.  HIMSS.  “We have more EHR customers than anyone else.”

“How is your productivity?”  Asked the cynic.

Do not listen to the man selling fly swatters.  It really does not matter which of the top five EHR products you buy.  What matters is how well you install it.

Bzzzzzz….This fly has been bugging me all day.

 

 

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.

 

EHR–where do you place the emphasis?

Posted by

4

You said I stole the money. Sometimes it all depends on what you emphasize. For example, say the sentence aloud to a friend, and each time place the emphasis on a new word. You said I stole the money. Yousaid I stole the money. You said I stole the money. You said I stole the money. You said I stole the money. The meaning changes as you change your emphasis. You said I stole the money? You can even change it so that it reads like a question.

The same is true with providers and the level of success a firm has working with EHR. Where is your emphasis? If you believe there is a correlation between emphasis and spending, I bet we can prove your firm’s is much more closely aligned to technology than it is to process. What does technology address? Let’s list how deploying technology makes your firm better, or does it?  Millions followed by millions more. Redesign the patient portal.  Add EHR. Mine the data—heck, strip mine it.  Show me the ROI. Isn’t that a lot of money to spend without a corresponding business justification?  Then add in the fact that the productivity at many hospitals after implementing EHR is twenty percent below what it was prior to EHR.  That does not not do much for the ROI.

The technology that is tossed at the problem reminds me of the scene from the “Wizard of Oz” when the Wizard instructs Dorothy and the others, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” When Toto pulls the curtain aside, we see a nibblet—I love that word—of a man standing in front of a technological marvel. What’s he doing? He’s trying to make an impression with smoke and mirrors, and he’s hoping nobody notices that the Great Oz is a phony, that his technology brings nothing to help them complete their mission.

From whose budget do these technology dollars usually come for EHR? IT. From the office of the CIO–the only department in the whole hospital which will not “use” the EHR. What did you get for those millions?  Just asking.
Part of the problem with doing something worth doing on the EHR front is that it requires something you can’t touch, there’s no brochure for it, and you can’t plug it in. It’s process. It requires soft skills and the courage to change your firm’s emphasis. They won’t like doing it, but they will love the results.

Blazing Saddles: the original HIE-NHIN model

Posted by

1

Several have inquired as to why I came down so hard in yesterday’s post regarding the CMS-ONC’s approach to link our physicians and hospitals through the development of HIEs and the N-HIN.  I think, as do others, the goal is worthwhile but, is the current strategy going to work?

I think the current plan is fatally flawed, and is racing ahead like a herd of turtles.  Just because everyone is working hard, and has good intentions, does not necessarily mean the outcome will deliver what is needed.  It seems over engineered to the point that it is like trying to put ten pounds of turnips into a five-pound bag.

Unfortunately, until the leadership of the CMS and the ONC come to that realization the CMS, the ONC, and healthcare providers will continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to support an infrastructure that:

  • Unnecessarily complex
  • Is not necessary nor sufficient
  • Cannot be built
  • Will not work

Call me Deep Throat.  The perspective that the HIE-NHIN plan will not work is only spoken of in the bowels of the Watergate Hotel’s parking garage in hushed voices late at night.  Many of you have shared with me that you are of the same opinion but, like vampires you shudder that your voice on this matter would see the light of day.  It would be less antagonistic to open a kosher deli in Tehran than to say the CMS-ONC needs to be rethunk but, sometimes a little antagonism is what is needed.

Do you recall the scene in Blazing Saddles when Harvey Korman’s horde of bad guys is racing through the desert on horseback to get to the town of Rock Ridge only to be halted in the middle of a wide open prairie by a lone toll gate?  Instead of being able to go directly to where they wanted to go they are forced to go through the toll gate, and their progress is stopped entirely because nobody has any spare change.

What makes it nonsensical, and quite funny, is their failure to realize that all they had to do was o ride around the toll gate.  Maybe it is just the way my mind works, but trying to get electronic health records to a national network via several hundred disparate HIEs reminds me of the toll gate.  Why not just go around it?

 

Nietzsche on HIT Strategy

Posted by

0

The problem with being a consultant is not everyone wants their responses packaged in the same manner I tend to deliver them.  I communicate best visually, pictorially.

Asked what I want for dinner, I respond with a 3-D bar graph.  Forty-five percent of me wants pasta, thirty percent wants roast beef—a year over year increase of seven percent, but not a statistically significant sample size—and one hundred and twelve percent of me wants whatever she is willing to cook—which means I do not have to cook.

There are two kinds of consultants and, I am the other kind.  ‘Nuff said.  On a side note, as I keep telling the police, I am not the person responsible for holding giraffe fights in the linen section of Neiman Marcus.  Nor am I the guy with the collection of taxidermist-stuffed German World War II soldiers in my basement.

When one reviews the value of a healthcare IT strategy—if your organization does not have one click (http://www.disney.com) and you will be taken to a site to make more valuable use of your time—in order for it to be worth more than graffiti on an overpass (plebian) the plan must have a plan.  It also helps if the strategy at least pretends to be strategic.

The stigmata of most strategic plans is they are neither strategic nor plans.

If there is one thing a strategy should be able to address it is to be able to answer why, to be able to answer what benefit the execution of said strategy will deliver.

More than fifty percent of hospitals will not have a written IT strategic plan.

More than half that do have strategic plans will not pass the value test.

Let us suppose for a moment a hospital has what they believe to be a real HIT strategic plan.  Does that document contain answers to the following questions?

  • Implement XYZ EHR.  Why?  Why XYZ?  What benefits will the hospital receive?  Few if any will formalize benefits ahead of time because they can be held accountable when those benefits are not delivered.  Is it safer to simply check the box for having “completed” the implementation?
  • Meet Meaningful Use.  Ditto.
  • Accountable Care Organization.  Ditto.
  • ICD-10.  Ditto.
  • Family Experience Management.  Ditto.

Maybe Nietzsche knew more about IT strategy than he has been credited.  “All things are subject to interpretation.  Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power, not truth.”