Home » Dr. Jayne » Currently Reading:

Curbside Consult with Dr. Jayne 1/8/18

January 8, 2018 Dr. Jayne 1 Comment

I read with interest the news item last week about the Vermont Health Information Exchange. While that state’s exchange is under the microscope for issues with spending and data quality, there are plenty of other HIEs out there that are struggling with being useful at the point of care. Since my work spans multiple states, I’m able to see what is available to clinicians and how well it integrates with clinical workflows. There are variables whether the exchange is truly an exchange – namely whether data can be pushed or pulled or whether it’s little more than a view-only repository.

In the Vermont situation, 91 percent of interviewed stakeholders think that the state needs an HIE, but only 19 percent of interviewees feel that it is meeting their needs. One of the major barriers cited is Vermont’s opt-in policy, which limits the number of patients whose data is present for sharing. At this point, only about 20 percent of patients have opted in.

I had my own adventure with opt-in in my early days as a CMIO, when we created a private HIE to share data among physicians affiliated with our hospital. Although there wasn’t a specific state law that forced us to be opt-in, there were case law citations that prevented us from assuming all patients gave us permission to share data. We were able to maneuver through it over time by having all participating practices add language to their new patient consent forms that permitted sharing through the HIE. The practices also had to go back and have new consents executed for existing patients, and that took time.

Our vendor was subsidizing the interfaces because we were a beta client for their new HIE platform. Our hospital was picking up the rest of the tab, so there was no cost to the community physicians. My staff and I did countless road shows trying to convince physicians that this was a good thing to be part of, but at the same time, our CIO spent a lot of time trying to kill it simply because it wasn’t his idea and it was being executed by clinical leadership rather than IT leadership.

We ended up being live for quite a few years until our state HIE began to take shape. In all, it was an exciting time, but very different from the environment we’re in now, where interoperability is at least a little bit easier.

Despite having been live for several years, my own state HIE still struggles. It doesn’t communicate with our state immunization registry, which reduces its utility for primary care and urgent care physicians. All the immunizations sent to the HIE are strictly added as read-only data element, and there is no mechanism for resolution of duplicates or for reconciling with the immunization registry. A physician looking to validate immunizations on the HIE also has to go to the registry, and since the registry actually functions as a source of truth, why not just go there in the first place?

Our HIE doesn’t store any diagnostic imaging, only PDF report documents. Sometimes these are useful when an existing finding is well described and can help serve as a comparison, but there are entirely too many radiology reports out there with “clinical correlation recommended,” which means the reading radiologist isn’t going to stick his or her neck out by providing a specific diagnosis. When we find unusual things on an x-ray or CT, we’re hard-pressed to understand whether they’ve changed from previous. Instead of being able to provide the patient with immediate reassurance, we’re left giving him or her a copy of our films on a CD for them to take to their primary physician or the pertinent specialist to get it sorted.

The consultants evaluating the Vermont HIE recommended that it provide quality reports to support data-driven care. Our HIE doesn’t do any kind of reporting either, which to me seems a waste of a good population management tool. We’re in the midst of the worse influenza season we’ve seen in the last decade and yet can’t leverage that data for real-time reporting or surveillance. We have to wait for data to be reported to the state health department, then for it to be parsed and sent back to us in static form.

The Vermont HIE review also revealed concerns about patient matching and the function of its master patient index. We struggle with that in my state as well. Our state HIE’s program for identifying potential duplicate patients and merging them feels like it’s virtually non-existent. Since the matching algorithm appears to use address as one of its criteria, when I search for patients I find records that are clearly the same patient but are treated as unique individuals because they have different addresses, even if the rest of the demographics are the same.

We don’t tolerate that level of records duplication in my current practice, and in my former life at Big Health System, we had aggressive policies in place to identify, validate, and merge duplicate patients in our system on a regular basis. There’s no reason the HIE can’t do the same, especially with subpopulations that are known to be transient, such as college students, migrants, and homeless persons.

Another general concern around HIEs that plays out across the country is the sustainability of their funding models. Many are heavily subsidized with state funds and others are cobbled together with a variety of funding sources.

I worked with a practice recently whose HIE is struggling with funding. Practices are either required to do a full integration with the HIE at a cost of more than $40K and then pay a couple hundred dollars per provider per year to stay connected, or if they don’t want to do a full integration, they can pay a steep annual fee for providers to have web portal access. My client’s practice has a residency program with many rotating providers along with a number of locum tenens providers who fill in at their rural clinics. The fee for portal access is strictly per provider, with no regard to resident, full-time, or part-time status. For residents who are only in clinic for a couple of half days a week during a four- to six-month rotation, it’s too costly. For part-time physicians and those who are functioning in a job share situation, it’s not cost effective. We attempted to negotiate a break with the HIE, but were unsuccessful.

In my own practice, where I’m surrounded by Epic hospitals, I’m waiting for the advertised Share Everywhere functionality to start making an appearance. Although it was to be included in their November release for MyChart, I haven’t been inundated with patients whipping out their phones to give me access codes so I can see their records and send a note pack to their Epic-based care team. I’d be interested to hear from anyone who has seen it in the wild or used it to access patient information.

How satisfied are you with your HIE options? Email me.

Email Dr. Jayne.

View/Print Text Only View/Print Text Only


HIStalk Featured Sponsors

     

Currently there is "1 comment" on this Article:

  1. I rely on Epic too, but that’s because we have a big dominant hospital system here that’s on it. As a GI specialist, I don’t pretend to be a radiologist, but I look at a lot of X rays and CT’s–the trouble with reports isn’t that they’re missing stuff entirely (rare), it’s the varying assessments of severity from one radiologist to another when your’e talking about diverticulitis, pancreatitis, etc. And of course there’s the always relevant but rarely commented-on issue of how much stuff is backed up in that patient’s colon. So I need to look at the films. I’m never sure if the patient realizes that I’m probably the first person other than the radiologist who’s ever looked at them–people think that the piece of paper they bring in is the thing itself.







Subscribe to Updates

Search


Loading

Text Ads


Report News and Rumors

No title

Anonymous online form
E-mail
Rumor line: 801.HIT.NEWS

Tweets

Archives

Founding Sponsors


 

Platinum Sponsors


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gold Sponsors


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reader Comments

  • DrM: Found the person who knows nothing about user change management. (Did I do it right, is this how we play the game?) S...
  • Seargant Forbin: @ What's with the Fairview guy? I don't think this Apple comparison is helping your case any. I bet if you spoke with de...
  • Bobby: Great point Bob. Cerner and Epic are both organic companies that value a “one big honking system” approach to thin...
  • AynRandWasDumb: "The most recent Epic trick I heard is that, now that Epic is requiring every customer to move to quarterly updates inst...
  • Bob: Even though Apple could take IP directly from the Apple ecosystem developers, their usual model is to just buy the compa...
  • You might say I'm a dreamer...: Will this Cerner dust up with the DoD now give us a real granular discussion on a national level as to what Interoperabi...
  • Eddie T. Head: To claim that Apple is a hardware company and not a software company is quite odd. Without their software, Apple's hardw...
  • DrM: Epic's model does assert the ability to use any IP in App Orchard without compensation or limitation, it's why the few v...
  • Matt: VA CIO: Expect another 10 years of VistA in facilities during new EHR rollout This is clear indication of how the VA ...
  • Satan warming up the fiddle?: Coming in to an election season where healthcare will most certainly be part of the debate are we starting to see the fi...

RSS Industry Events

  • An error has occurred, which probably means the feed is down. Try again later.

Sponsor Quick Links