meaningful use

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.

Expert: Providers must make IT investments on their own, have new implementation strategies

Posted by

0

Here is the link to an article in HealthcareITNews that quotes a few of the things we have been discussing on this site.

http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/expert-providers-must-make-it-investments-their-own-have-new-implementation-strategies

Should you meet Meaningful Use?

Posted by

0

Here are links to two presentations I wrote on the topic.  Please let me know what you think.

http://www.slideshare.net/paulroemer/should-you-meet-meaningful-use

http://www.slideshare.net/paulroemer/nyc-health-20

Best – Paul

My thoughts on “One EMR Vendor’s View of Meaningful Use”

Posted by

3

What if Meaningful Use turns out to be no more relevant to EHR than agriculture is to bull fighting?  Even worse, what if meeting Meaningful Use (MU) damages a provider’s business?

There is a world of difference between EHR and Meaningful Use.    It is a square and rectangle proposition.  All instances of MU require an EHR.  However, all EHRs do not require MU.

When I evaluate changing a business strategy, I like to do so under the following test:

  • Is it necessary?
  • Is it sufficient?

For the strategy to be beneficial to an organization it must be both necessary and sufficient.

Let us begin with whether MU is necessary.  Necessary for what—to make the provider’s caring for its patients better; to make their business better.  MU does neither.  Implementing an EHR, though it is optional, is important.  So is meeting MU.  The last time I checked, there were no long queues in Madison to grab an EHR, and no people camping outside of the CMS offices to be first in line for the ARRA money.  MU does not pass the test of necessity.

Does MU pass the test of sufficiency?  Is it adequate?  Again, for what?  The way to answer this question is to ask, “How would your organization implement EHR if MU did not exist”?  your answer to this question defines what is necessary.

Much of MU has to do with how EHR is implemented and adopted.  For all the attention vendors are paying to MU, it is a bit nonsensical.  Most of the onus on MU is tied to the provider.  The most the vendor can offer is that they will not do anything to encumber a provider’s chances of meeting MU.  Many of these vendors are the ones who will require you to implement an upgraded version of their product in order to meet certification.

In closing, will the MU money run out?  On the contrary, I think they will not be able to give it away.

The EHR Certification Myth

Posted by

0

EHR certification inspectors will be dropping in on hospitals like UN inspectors looking for WMDs, only they’ll be slightly less congenial–like Kojak without the warmth.

Why is this a part of the overall plan?  Is this planned failure?  Do they have reason to believe that a certain percentage of EHRs will fail the inspection?

Of course they do.

Let’s describe two failure types; certification and Full test.  The certification test, by definition, is necessary.  The Full test is both necessary and sufficient.  It is possible to pass certification without passing the Full test.  Therefore, the Full test is a stricter test.  Build out to pass the Full test, and by default, one should pass the Certification test.

What is the full test?  Same as always.  Fully functional, on time, within budget, and user accepted.  Functional, for purposes of this discussion includes updated workflows, change management, and interoperability, and a slew of other deliverables.

Here’s what can be concluded just based on the facts.

Fact:  One-third to two-thirds of EHRs are listed as having failed—this statistic will get smaller over time.

Opinion:  The reason the failure rate will get smaller is that the failure rate will be artificially diluted by a large number of successful small-sized implementations.  Large implementations, those have far-reaching footprints for their outpatient doctors, Rhios, and other interfaces requiring interoperability will continue to fail if their PMO is driving for certification.  (Feel free to add meaningful use to the narrative, it doesn’t change the result.)

Fact:  Most large, complex, expensive IT projects fail—they just do.  This statistic has remained constant for years, and it is higher than the percentage of EHR projects that have failed.  Even a fairly high percentage of those projects which set out to pass the Full test.

Opinion:  Failure rate for large EHR projects—let’s say those above $10,000,000 (if you don’t like that number, pick your own)—as measured by the Full test, will fail at or above the rate for non-EHR IT projects.)

Bleak?  You bet.  Insurmountable?  Doesn’t have to be.

What can you do to improve your chances of success?  Find, hire, invent a killer PMO executive out of whole cloth who knows the EHR Fail Safe Points.  EHR Fail Safe Points?  The points, which if crossed unsuccessfully, place serious doubt about the project’s ability to pass the Full test.  The points which will cause success factors to be redefined, and cause one or more big requirements—time, budget, functionality—to be sacrificed.

This person need not and perhaps should not be the CMIO, the CIO, or an MD.  They need not have a slew of EHR implementation merit badges.  The people who led the Skunk Works had had zero experience managing the types of planes and rockets they built.  They were leaders, they were idea people, they were people who knew how to choose among many alternatives and would not be trapped between two.

The person need not be extremely conversant in the technical or functional intricacies of EMR.  Those skills are needed—in spades—and you need to budget for them.  The person you are looking for must be able to look you in the eye and convince you that they can do this; that they can lead, that these projects are their raison d’etre.  They will ride heard over the requirements, the selection process, the vendors, the users, and the various teams that comprise the PMO.

What do you think?

saint Paul M. Roemer
Chief Imaginist, Healthcare IT Strategy

1475 Luna Drive, Downingtown, PA 19335
+1 (484) 885-6942
paulroemer@healthcareitstrategy.com

My profiles: LinkedInWordPressTwitterMeetupBlog RSS
Contact me: Google Talk/paulroemer Skype/paulroemer Google Wave/paulroemer

The EHR Certification Myth

Posted by

0

EHR certification inspectors will be dropping in on hospitals like UN inspectors looking for WMDs, only they’ll be slightly less congenial.

Why is this a part of the overall plan?  Is this planned failure?  Do they have reason to believe that a certain percentage of EHRs will fail the inspection?

Of course they do.

Let’s describe two failure types; certification and Full test.  The certification test, by definition, is necessary.  The Full test is both necessary and sufficient.  It is possible to pass certification without passing the Full test.  Therefore, the Full test is a stricter test.  Build out to pass the Full test, and by default, one should pass the Certification test.

What is the full test?  Same as always.  Fully functional, on time, within budget, and user accepted.  Functional, for purposes of this discussion includes updated workflows, change management, and interoperability, and a slew of other deliverables.

Here’s what can be concluded just based on the facts.

Fact:  One-third to two-thirds of EHRs are listed as having failed—this statistic will get smaller over time.

Opinion:  The reason the failure rate will get smaller is that the failure rate will be artificially diluted by a large number of successful small-sized implementations.  Large implementations, those have far-reaching footprints for their outpatient doctors, Rhios, and other interfaces requiring interoperability will continue to fail if their PMO is driving for certification.  (Feel free to add meaningful use to the narrative, it doesn’t change the result.)

Fact:  Most large, complex, expensive IT projects fail—they just do.  This statistic has remained constant for years, and it is higher than the percentage of EHR projects that have failed.  Even a fairly high percentage of those projects which set out to pass the Full test.

Opinion:  Failure rate for large EHR projects—let’s say those above $10,000,000 (if you don’t like that number, pick your own)—as measured by the Full test, will fail at or above the rate for non-EHR IT projects.)

Bleak?  You bet.  Insurmountable?  Doesn’t have to be.

What can you do to improve your chances of success?  Find, hire, invent a killer PMO executive out of whole cloth who knows the EHR Fail Safe Points.  EHR Fail Safe Points?  The points, which if crossed unsuccessfully, place serious doubt about the project’s ability to pass the Full test.  The points which will cause success factors to be redefined, and cause one or more big requirements—time, budget, functionality—to be sacrificed.

This person need not and perhaps should not be the CMIO, the CIO, or an MD.  They need not have a slew of EHR implementation merit badges.  The people who led the Skunk Works had had zero experience managing the types of planes and rockets they built.  They were leaders, they were idea people, they were people who knew how to choose among many alternatives and would not be trapped between two.

The person need not be extremely conversant in the technical or functional intricacies of EMR.  Those skills are needed—in spades—and you need to budget for them.  The person you are looking for must be able to look you in the eye and convince you that they can do this; that they can lead, that these projects are their raison d’etre.  They will ride heard over the requirements, the selection process, the vendors, the users, and the various teams that comprise the PMO.

saint Paul M. Roemer
Chief Imaginist, Healthcare IT Strategy

1475 Luna Drive, Downingtown, PA 19335
+1 (484) 885-6942
paulroemer@healthcareitstrategy.com

My profiles: LinkedInWordPressTwitterMeetupBlog RSS
Contact me: Google Talk/paulroemer Skype/paulroemer Google Wave/paulroemer

July is “take your EHR strategy to lunch month”

Posted by

0

Several have written suggesting I toss my hat into the ring to serve as the EHR Strategy wonk or czar.  I was in the process of thinking it through when I was awakened from my fuegue state by a loud noise–my ego crashing to the floor.

Some have suggested that a camel is a horse designed by a committee.  Their point in saying that has something to do with how committees function less well than individuals–the problem with “group thinking.”  Personally, I think the camel design seems rather functional.

Some have asked, what is it about the EHR universe that has you dehorting the EHR process as though you are some sort of savant–nobody really asked that, but I wanted a segue and that’s all I came up with.

It’s the committees.  I feel a little like Quasimodo repining about the bells.  Raise your hand if you are on an EHR committee.  See?  Now, if you think that not only has the committee not accomplished much, but believe that it may never accomplish much, lower your hand.  Now look around.  Not many hands still up.

Please take a look at this for a moment.  Don’t try to understand it–it will only make your teeth hurt.

2011 requirements

  • For hospitals, 10% of all orders (medication, laboratory, procedure, diagnostic imaging, immunization, referral) directly entered by an authorizing physician must be made through a computerized physician order entry process. Individual physicians still must use CPOE for all orders, even if electronic interfaces with receiving entities are not available. The initial draft did not specify the required percentage for hospitals and did not address the electronic interface issue.
  • Physicians must be able to check insurance eligibility electronically from public and private payers, when possible, and submit claims electronically. This was not in the initial draft.
  • Patients must receive timely electronic access to their health information, including lab results, medication and problem lists, and allergies. The initial draft did not include the word “timely.”
  • Physicians must implement one clinical decision rule relevant to specialty or high clinical priority. This was not in the initial draft.
  • Physicians must record patient smoking status and advance directives. This was not in the initial draft.
  • Physicians must report ambulatory quality measures to CMS. This was not in the initial draft.
  • Physicians must maintain an up-to-date list of current and active diagnoses based on ICD-9 or SNOMED. The initial draft did not specify use of the two classification sets.

2013 requirements

  • Specialists must report to relevant external disease or device registries that are approved by CMS. This was not in the initial draft.
  • Hospitals must conduct closed-loop medication management, including computer-assisted administration. This was not in the initial draft.
  • All patients must have access to a personal health record populated in real time with health data. This was moved up from 2015 in the initial draft.

Additional provisions

  • Patients’ access to EHRs may be provided via a number of secure electronic methods, such as personal health records, patient portals, CDs or USB drives.
  • CMS will determine how submitting electronic data to immunization registries applies to Medicare and Medicaid meaningful-use requirements.
  • CMS may withhold federal stimulus payments from any entity that has a confirmed privacy or security violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, but it may reinstate payments once the breach has been resolved.

Source: Health IT Policy Committee

See?  Take a few minutes and work this into your EHR task time-line for processes, work flows, change management, training.  Need more time?  I’d need more time than I have, and when I finished I guarantee I couldn’t explain it to anyone.  This is what happens when people get into a room, have a charter, and try to do something helpful.  I am sure they are all nice people.  But be honest, does this make your day, or does it make you want to punish your neighbor’s cat–you may have to buy them a cat if they don’t already have one.

What to do?  Here’s my take on it.  Plan.  Evaluate the plan.  Test the plan.  Know before you start that the plan can handle anything any committee tosses your way.  Let people who know how to run large projects into the room.  Seek their counsel, depend on them for their leadership.  If the plan is solid, the result has a better chnace of surviving the next committee meeting

saint Paul M. Roemer
Chief Imaginist, Healthcare IT Strategy

1475 Luna Drive, Downingtown, PA 19335
+1 (484) 885-6942
paulroemer@healthcareitstrategy.com

My profiles: LinkedInWordPressTwitterMeetupBlog RSS
Contact me: Google Talk/paulroemer Skype/paulroemer Google Wave/paulroemer

What benefit is there to meeting Meaningful Use?

Posted by

3

Commercials bug me.  Big surprise.

You have probably seen the commercial for the Sleep Number Bed.  A bare mattress, a glass of wine on the mattress, a bowling ball is dropped on the mattress.  The glass of wine does not spill.  That makes some people rush out and buy the mattress.  Why?  For the security in knowing that just in case they leave a glass of wine on their mattress and then happen to drop a bowling ball on it, the wine will not spill.

That dog don’t hunt unless you happen to be opening a bowling alley/Motel 6.  The company is trying to entice you on the merits of doing something by asking you to make the leap of faith by equating the bowling ball falling on the bed to having your spouse get in or out of the bed without disturbing your sleep.

A feint.  A maneuver designed to distract or mislead you from the real purpose.  Meaningful Use.  Certification.  A feint.  Designed to distract or mislead you from the reason you need an EHR.  The terms of Meaningful Use, that is, what is meaningful to your organization should be set by your organization, not some national standard applicable to every hospital in the country.  Hospitals are not ubiquitous—the Meaningful Use standards are.  How can a single set of standards be in line with what you require?

What’s the feint?  Certification, cash incentives, Regional Extension Centers.  A full court press trying to get hospitals to do what the feds want it to do in order to meet their goal of a nationwide interconnected healthcare system.

What proof, other than a check, has anyone offered that you benefit from meeting Meaningful Use?

Should you try to meet Meaningful Use?  I think not.  There is no ROI, and the full set of standards have yet to be published.  What should you do?  Have a glass of wine, or better yet—go bowling.  Don’t forget to buy one of those snazzy bowling shirts.

saint Paul M. Roemer
Chief Imaginist, Healthcare IT Strategy

1475 Luna Drive, Downingtown, PA 19335
+1 (484) 885-6942
paulroemer@healthcareitstrategy.com

My profiles: LinkedInWordPressTwitterMeetupBlog RSS
Contact me: Google Talk/paulroemer Skype/paulroemer Google Wave/paulroemer

EHR Groundswell

Posted by

0

EHR, there’s a new groundswell against meaningful use. How do I know? I’m starting it now.

After lunch, if I’m in the right mood, I may start one against certification.

saint Paul M. Roemer
Chief Imaginist, Healthcare IT Strategy

1475 Luna Drive, Downingtown, PA 19335
+1 (484) 885-6942
paulroemer@healthcareitstrategy.com

My profiles: LinkedInWordPressTwitterMeetupBlog RSS
Contact me: Google Talk/paulroemer Skype/paulroemer Google Wave/paulroemer