Home » Interviews » Recent Articles:

An HIT Moment with … Michael O’Neil, Jr.

January 26, 2009 Interviews 3 Comments

An HIT Moment with ... is a quick interview with someone we find interesting. Michael O’Neil is founder and CEO of GetWellNetwork, Inc.

People may think of GetWellNetwork as an TV entertainment service for hospital patients. How do you describe your company?

GetWellNetwork was founded on the principal that patient engagement is a core strategy for performance improvement and a critical puzzle piece in the elusive search for service, quality and safety improvement in healthcare. GetWellNetwork provides technology, as well as process and skills training, to effectively actively engage patients in the care process. 

michaeloneil Today, we are leading this emerging HIS segment called Interactive Patient Care (IPC). Every day, we are humbled to work alongside leaders at the Adventist Health System, Catholic Health West, Children’s National Medical Center, Christiana Care, Henry Ford, Thomas Jefferson University, and Poudre Valley Health System, the 2008 Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Winner. Their commitment to patient-centered care energizes and inspires our work. It matters, and it works.

We developed a patent-pending workflow engine called Patient Pathways. Patient Pathways leverage existing clinical workflow and HL7 interfaces as triggers to directly engage patients in the care process via their in-room television.

For example, a physician entering a Coumadin order via CPOE triggers a Medication Teaching & Pain Assessment Pathway via GetWellNetwork. Consequently, the system prompts a patient while watching the Oprah Winfrey Show, provides critical education on this high-alert medication through an interactive video, and then tests the patient on comprehension through a series of on-screen questions. The Pathway concludes by documenting the education results back into the EMR and alerts clinicians in real-time if the patient fails to complete the education. In another example, a Discharge Pathway guides patients through a series of activities, including a patient checklist and the ability to order discharge medications from their bed.

In summary, GetWellNetwork is a patient care tool, automating and hard-wiring critical service and quality tasks for nurses and providing an exceptional, personalized care experience for patients and families.

And yes, GetWetNetwork patients can also watch movies, send instant messages, surf the Internet, and play video games until they break every record imaginable. So we do entertain patients as well. Entertainment can be quite a powerful healing tool for patients and families.

Hospitals are struggling with reduced utilization and lower payments. How can you help them?

Alongside our hospital partners, we are measuring the application’s impact on HCAPHS scores, Core Measures, and preventing "Never Events" such as falls and hospital-acquired infections via patient engagement. As the transparency of service and quality data increasing rapidly, pay-for-performance systems and value-based benefit design are gaining significant traction. Top performing hospitals will continue to attract the best physicians, best nurses, best staff, and best patients. 

Over the past 18 months in particular, our hospitals are seeing exciting movement in their HCAPHS and Core Measures where we have implemented a focused Patient Pathway. In addition, we are also seeing encouraging indications regarding patient engagement on reducing cost per case. In 2009, we are investing quite significantly in research regarding the efficacy of patient engagement on outcomes, with heavy participation from our client community. It’s an exciting time.

Early in-room applications had facilities challenges, such as replacement of TVs, concerns about suitability of keyboards or other peripherals, and the need to rewire patient rooms. What’s required to install your products?

As one of the first companies in the Interactive Patient Care market (since 1999), we were among those applications the facing  the facilities challenges you mention. Through significant blood, sweat, tears (READ: lots of mistakes, frustrated early clients, and significant R&D expense), our engineers and supplier partners have created proprietary and cost-effective ways to implement Interactive Patient Care. Today, we are relatively infrastructure (wiring) agnostic and can run the system in old buildings on coaxial cable alone and, of course, on Ethernet where available. In both cases, digital video streaming and full Internet browsing has been integrated into the application. 

As for peripherals, today we offer a pillow speaker device that interfaces with all major nurse call systems and a fully-sealed keyboard for under $40/unit. This year, we will be launching a next generation keyboard that will finally make Internet through a patient room television as elegant as being on your laptop or desktop at home or work.

You’re working with Florida Hospital on their "Hospital of the Future." What elements of that do you think are important?

Late in 2008, we were chosen by the Adventist Health System as the exclusive provider of Interactive Patient Care throughout their organization. Since then, several facilities have contracted for GetWellNetwork, with one of them being Florida Hospital, where projects including their new Ginsburg tower as well as the Disney Hospital for Children @ Florida Hospital. 

The top three elements of success with Interactive Patient Care are 1) executive sponsorship to provide strategic outcomes priorities; 2) integration with EMR (they use Cerner, which we successfully interfaced with at Christiana in ’08) to provide triggers for our Patient Pathways and a place to document patient activity for compliance automation; and 3) nursing engagement. 

When nursing leadership embraces Interactive Patient Care as a tool vs. a task, the impact is powerful on their service, quality and safety initiatives on the floors. Florida Hospital is highly engaged and committed to setting a new standard in patient-centered care. We of course are thrilled to contribute to their vision for patient care.

Are hospitals getting better at involving patients and family members in their care?

Yes, they are. But, it’s hard work, takes a genuine commitment and accountability, and does not happen without strong leadership. On November 17, 2008, the National Quality Forum published their National Health Priorities and the first one listed was patient and family engagement: ‘PRIORITY STATEMENT: ENGAGE PATIENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES IN MANAGING THEIR HEALTH AND MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR CARE.’ So, hospital leaders are listening and they are acting. 

Of course, this does not happen overnight, and the technology, applications and interfaces are perhaps the easy part of the equation. Interactive Patient Care is a commitment, and when hospital leaders make the commitment, their patients and families are winning. Hospitals are experiencing fairly spectacular improvements in satisfaction, quality, and operations measures that have been difficult to move the needle on in the past.

Lastly, keep up the great work on HIStalk … it’s simply terrific! Thanks for having me.

An HIT Moment with … Michael Christopher

January 21, 2009 Interviews Comments Off on An HIT Moment with … Michael Christopher

An HIT Moment with ... is a quick interview with someone we find interesting. Michael Christopher is CTO and senior development analyst with Healthcare IT Transition Group.

Healthcare Transition Group has an interesting mix of reference, educational, and consulting products. Give me a short summary of your offerings.

When we put together this new version of our company three and a half years ago (we had been set up as a straight consulting operation for about ten years before that), we had all this on-the-ground expertise in healthcare IT, software development, and capital development, but we wanted to start creating scalable products. Billable hours are about the least scalable business model on the planet, next to maybe cattle ranching.

michaelchristopherThe kinds of research and analysis we had been doing for clients seemed to fit nicely into packaged business intelligence products, comprised of documents, tools, and video of us splainin’. Consulting had always been mostly about learning and teaching, and now the videos teach what we’ve learned from all those gigs. And instead of paying us $20k over several months, our customers can order a package for a few hundred bucks and have it now. It’s way more scalable and frees us to go out and find fresh heroics to get up to. So far we’ve done "BI Packs" on real-time adjudication, getting ROI from HIT, funding, and various topics related to maximizing reimbursement, including one on the new Denial Engines.

To support that, we began to grow a media side. We had been doing the HIPAA Transition Blog since the birth of the HIPAA era, so we renamed it HIT Transition Weblog and developed some related channels. We started doing lots of Webinars and developed a complete media studio.

Then it was time to leverage our NPI and NPPES (National Plan and Provider Enumeration System) chops and all that new computing power to expand into data products. We had done NPI remediations, working with the official enumerator Fox Systems and others, so we knew some ropes that maybe hadn’t dawned on everybody yet. Like greasing your 837s to glide through adjudication and maximize reimbursements by updating your NPPES record with every legacy identifier you’ve ever used (taxonomy codes, UPINs, Medicare PINs, OSCARs, license numbers …) 

You’ve written extensively on funding for RHIOs and other IT projects. What are some creative ideas that most people haven’t figured out?

Taken together, our backgrounds are split between in-the-trenches HIT implementation, software development, and capital development. I owned a software company in the early ‘Naughties that built finance and constituent management applications for the human services sector, so then I got to do it all at once, develop the software, implement it, and the raise the money for the company (and for our customers, too). A large part of my finance side has been with nonprofit organizations, as executive director, director of development, or marketing VP, and as a consultant in fundraising. So RHIO made immediate sense to me and I started following it very early on. Marty Jensen, our COO, suggested the initial study. We did the first deep analysis on RHIO business models and funding sources based on the RHIOs’ own data, and updated it a little over a year later. We’re considering whether and when to revisit that research in light of changes in mission at the federal level.

What we found and reported was actually shocking. Nearly all RHIOs are constituted as nonprofit organizations under the IRS "charitable" rubric. Logical, since they are in the business of doing public good. But only two of the fifty RHIOs we studied had developed private foundation grants. All but one in our sample said they plan to be self-sustaining through earned revenues, but more than 80% said they expected to rely on grants into the foreseeable future.

Doh! Where do they expect the money to come from? One word: Government. No, three more words: And Big Hospitals. Private philanthropy is responsible for the vast majority of the money for public projects in this county, a 180 flip from Europe and elsewhere, where government has that task. So it made no sense to us: here was this nascent public good looking only to government and its members for its survival while leaving vast quantities of philanthropy untapped. RHIO leadership still seems frightened of the word "fundraising." That’s what drove us to create the Health IT Grant Resource Directory. As far as we know, it’s the one resource that will take you directly to the prospects for private involvement in health IT funding.

I recently sat on a panel with Jack Anthony of Beacon Partners and Cheryl Austein-Casnoff of HRSA to hopefully give the industry some guidance on health IT funding in light of the new Administration. They asked me to talk about strategies, so I picked two: the "Study/Meet/Case" method of capital development (don’t Google it, I made up the name) and vendor Grant Assistance Programs. The latter is where a vendor develops the fundraising/grant writing resources on behalf of its customers so they can buy their systems.

You are doing some interesting work to make actionable data available to providers for billing and for targeting service opportunities. What products have resulted and what ideas do you have for the future?

Two product lines here: NPIdentify Desktop Provider Directories and CarePrecise Data Services. NPIdentify is available as a free download and it looks like it’s starting to go viral. The idea was to put state-by-state NPPES data in a fast, cool application that would fit on your own computer and that your average non-technical office manager would find user-friendly. But since just anybody can download it, NPIdentify is being used across the industry in practice management, health plans, marketing, and even scientific research. You would not believe the customer list. We figured out that we can sell ads (hint, hint) for mad money.

The newest line, CarePrecise, is just now starting to roll out in tests. It will leverage our provider experience, software and data management, and research assets to offer not only provider data sliced and diced for various systems and applications, but also to pull business intelligence out of it. Let’s say you’re planning a clinic expansion. What specialties will thrive there, and which will shrivel? Where should you site a new group practice based on a given stable of specialties? Or if you want to reach a particular underserved population, we can map where they live. We’ll be rolling these out as standard products over the coming months. One product, CarePrecise Access is already available. It’s the complete, huge NPPES database in a form you can easily manipulate on a laptop in Microsoft Access. Way cool for people who want to develop their own products.

Give me some predictions on the healthcare IT industry for the next 1-3 years.

When the numbers start flooding in on IT-driven patient safety and more effective care that go hand-in-hand with cost reductions and revenue increases, we’ll see a rapid expansion in our industry like little else that’s gone before. I would be the first to agree that there’s plenty of evidence here already, but it has yet to begin steering the provider zeitgeist like it will in a year or two.

We need to make better arguments for health IT. Actually, we need to learn how to argue all over again. Health IT has never enjoyed the same focus as that new MRI, and now that could be changed. Sitting in the hospital basement all morose about how we’re being treated like the light bulbs never got us anywhere. We need to organize, bone up on regional strategic initiatives in healthcare, get to know all the players and make them know us, and hit the ground. I want to see a poster that says "HIT Workers Unite: Take It To The Suites!"

I think if I say the "I Word" one more time, I should have to wash my mouth out with soap. But the babble of interfaces and other short-sighted proprietary interests are still the huge barrier to adoption of HIT. Systems that can talk to one another fluently should be the simple, no-excuses objective. Cooperation, or coopetition, needs to be the deep green valley for all our roadmaps in this space. Everything we build needs to plug into what everybody else is building. Whether you are an open source fiend or not, I think that open sourcery, and especially FOSS, is drawing the maps right now, and you really have to look at them.

The NHIN seems to be stirring awake with the recently announced SSA application. RHIOs won’t look the same in a few years, but there will definitely be a network of essentially egalitarian, provider-agnostic information exchange that starts winning goals (i.e., reducing medical errors, containing costs resulting in expanded access to care, and boosting profits across the board) on a game-changing scale within three years. And there will also be rapid growth in proprietary exchanges — possibly faster than the community-based RHIOs — as we watch the technology fragmentation get sorted out. We might see those perceptions of maturity shift enough within a year to start looking for a few hockey sticks on a two- or three-year horizon. I’d like to promise more, but our most recent RHIO data suggest that the dollar size of the RHIO vendor space is still in pancakes.

What’s it like working for a small, agile company and what do you do for fun?

I never want to work anywhere else! … unless the money’s right. Seriously, at HITTG we can be basically autonomous, sprouting new stuff that we see as a need in the industry whenever we like. And when we get opinionated about something, we can just say it out loud; I don’t need to scream at anybody (although that can be fun!), I just make an animated cartoon when I need to vent about HealthVault and the patient privacy folks. Or I draw a comic. Now that we’re shifting to these really scalable products, I can also see a heavier consulting load, and maybe we, too, like our friends in the financial industry, can become as obscenely wealthy as we were truly meant to be.

Never been to the Googleplex, but we’ve decided that our corporate culture must be a lot like Google’s, only a little bit more compact for now.

FrankenbankerRitz

HIStalk Interviews Jonathan Bush, CEO, President and Chair of athenahealth

December 22, 2008 Interviews 14 Comments

You’ve been in front of the media a lot lately. Cynics might say that you’re looking for a piece of the action of what Obama wants to spend on healthcare IT or trying to keep your competitors from getting it. What’s the real story?

The truth of the matter is, I don’t want anyone to get the shiny brass toy. Shiny brass toys are bad. The reason for the sudden burst of exposure is less about trying to get our share of the shiny brass toy fund than it is to try to stop the shiny brass toy fund.

jbThe Bush Administration started with PQRI and pay-for-performance. The Obama Administration, in our opinion, should actually take the $50 billion and put it into pulling more quality data out the other end of the sausage maker, rather than mucking up the gears of the sausage maker by giving out specific EMRs.

I don’t want the Obama investment in healthcare to end up looking like the Congressional investment in General Motors, which is to say I don’t want really, really bad, dead things that ought to die sooner to be kept alive longer by a well-meaning federal government. I want software companies to die as quickly as is humane.

If the federal government gets in there and starts handing out free subsidies, then the providers of the world have to say, “Well, gee, I know it sucks, but if it’s free, does it suck that much, or maybe I should give it one more swing?” That’s what scares me to death. That’s why the interview with Wall Street Journal and with Fox and anybody else who will talk to me, including you. To make sure the Obama folks hear us saying, “Please don’t kill the emerging technologies by subsidizing the established and dying technologies in order to have something to do.”

Is the track record of doctors and hospitals who have already implemented the available technology good enough that we should be subsidizing more of the same?

The hyperbole is almost ringing as you ask. You’re the ultimate insider and I know that you know that the answer is no.

The folks who have installed this stuff are experiencing negative ROI. That’s why the RAND Institute came out with the study that showed that it’s 19% slower to have an EMR. There’s no pay-for-performance revenue to cover that 19% slowness. None of the supply chain is connected to EMRs, so all the laboratories and specialists and X-ray machines and PET scanners and mammogram machines aren’t connected to EMRs. There’s an incremental administrative cost in keeping the EMR current by typing results into the chart from these other sources of medical information.

Everybody knows in their heart of hearts that without a massive increase in pay-for-performance … it’s not really even performance at this point, it’s really pay-for-data … without a massive increase in pay-for-data in hopes that will prime the pump and we’ll figure out how the data maps to performance later. I’m sitting here looking at a row of plastic white yachts in Boca Raton and I’m thinking, “What is the definition of a yacht? A hole in the water into which one pours money.” I think of EMRs a lot like that … data yachts.

You mentioned the RAND study, which Cerner paid for at least part of. It seems they’re getting their money’s worth since Obama’s people are citing that big cost savings number like it’s gospel.

Wouldn’t it be tragic if the guys who went out early to buy this stuff got screwed? And the guys who follow along to buy the negative ROI stuff get a neutral ROI because the "I" is zero because the federal government showed up?

I don’t believe that the federal government should be involved in shiny brass object purchases. It’s like the difference between management and governance on boards of directors. The goal of the board of directors, or of the government, is to set the rules of the road for the CEO. In life and society, the goal of government is to set the rules of the road for companies. If the government intervenes and actually becomes a participant, there’s all kinds of adverse skewing that’s going to go on.

Certainly this is a world class case in point. If we end up with a Marshall Plan for EMRs, we will subsidize the approach to this that has not worked, that is certainly, among the readers of your site, clearly known to be a failed approach. We’ll keep those established players, those dominant buffoon gigundo companies, alive a little bit longer. It really feels like subsidizing General Motors. Who else would help save America from having access to cars that nobody wants?

I really feel that way about these big EMR, clinical, software-only business model companies. Nobody wants them. They’re being told that they should have them, but in their hearts, if you look at their Id, they don’t want them.

What’s nice about athena, and many other companies that are emerging, there’s a turn of companies that have actually triggered the Id. It’s good for society, and by the way, deep inside, I want it anyway. That’s what you want. That’s what the market does – it defines those things.

Should the government be in the business of pushing a specific, prescriptive technology rather than just saying, “Here are the quality and cost standards. You find the tools and methods that allow you meet them”?

You just said it. The fact that your question is phrased like the answer speaks of the irony of the mode we’re in. These are some of the most brilliant, well-meaning folks I’ve seen in the federal government in a long time. If they show up and put a fork in a lot of great innovation, it would be tragic. 

I don’t think they will, honestly. I don’t think that the folks that I’ve spoken to, who are close to Obama and close to Daschle, are going to go with a Marshall Plan, “Please buy expensive shiny brass objects so the economy will be bigger.” I haven’t heard that from the folks in healthcare.

It could go either way, so we’re still very nervous and trying to get people to hear us even though we’re so tiny.

People say healthcare is behind all these other industries, especially the financial industry, which was probably the heaviest technology-using sector before it fell. Is healthcare fundamentally sound enough that now’s the time to automate what it is today?

There’s another question, which is, "What’s the right business model when you do load up on automation?" Never mind the status of the technology. What about the business model that drives the innovation of the technology?

In the financial services space, for example, in banking, nobody buys software to manage their checking account. They go to a bank and the bank provides software as part of the whole bank account experience. It’s a service. The fact that they’re increasingly enabled by software is a pleasant side effect and not the point of the business. Similarly, the Depository Trust Corporation, which settles trades for equities … they don’t sell the software. They provide it for free to all the different traders and entities that settle stock transactions. There’s huge software there, but they don’t sell you the software and say, “Good luck coordinating with everybody else.” They provide you coordination and you use software to make it easier for them to provide you with that coordination.

You mentioned the financial services sector. Very few players in the financial services sector are buying software. Most of the consumers in financial services, all of us that experience financial services software, aren’t buying the software and setting it up. Someone else is doing that and we’re using it and paying for it with our use. That’s what healthcare needs to get to. Athena’s there, but the rest of the world isn’t, and the world will get there.

I don’t even care if athena doesn’t make it. I really don’t. I really care that the model gets to a place that’s scalable, that can map to results. I honestly think we will be part of it and so it’s easy to say such things, but I really think that, most important is that we get out of this very Soviet idea of everybody has to do things according to our national standard and all of the software products will do at least sitting with our national standards.

Let go of all of that and say instead, "What results get you the most money? OK, I will deliver those results and will be morphing myself left and right to get there."

What did you think of the HIMSS recommendations to the Obama administration?

I didn’t read them yet. I just got an e-mail from HIMSS and all it said was, “It’s not February, it’s April, be sure to be there,” so I don’t know what they are. Tell me what they are.

$25 billion for certified, interoperable EHRs to bring everybody to Stage 4 of the HIMSS Analytics model …

Crap is my answer. Crap. I want to go back to the … wasn’t it John Glaser who had the three tracks? Track 1 is a little bit of money for anybody who buys an EMR. Track 2 is more money for people who can provide data. Track 3 is a ton of money for people who can provide clinical results. It made me say, "Aha, they are getting out of the muck of which tools and toys people use and saying, you guys figure it out, this is what we’re going to pay for." That made a lot of sense to me.

The idea that HIMSS is saying, “Oh, we need you to help us get tools and toys” betrays the boat show nature of the HIMSS community. “Hey, we need these big, shiny boats and we need these engines and I really gotta have this really important radar array.” No you don’t – you just have to get to the dock on time. Stop thinking of it terms of the toys and tricks and tools that you need. They’re thinking about it in terms of the inputs rather than the outputs. When I hear people talk about toys rather than results, my cynical genes act up.

The government talks about quality and software as the answer, but much of the complexity and R&D for software has to go into meeting the government’s own arcane reimbursement requirements. Is there an irony that the government wants patient care systems, but by its own financial practices, ensures that few development dollars will be left to build them?

No question. That’s the ultimate irony. But, of course, the irony within the irony is if it were really good software, they’d figure out how to handle that documentation in the background so the doctor could get back to care.

I’m reminded, amazingly, of athenaClinicals, where the documentation experience has nothing to do with the codes. We handle the codes. The doctor does what they do and if the doctor’s documentation experience doesn’t map passively-aggressively through modules of clicky-click to the right level encounter, we say, “By the way, you’re at a Level 3, did you feel this was a Level 4?” and the doctor might say, “Yes, I did feel like it was a Level 4.” And then the system will say, “Does that mean you did these other things that you didn’t click on?” and the doctor could say, “Yes, I did.”

That’s much less regulatory risk than the doctor is exposed to with a paper chart that no one can read. In fact, if the doctor is clicking on object-oriented data exclusively for the purpose of hiding from the OIG, that’s a crime. That’s a national waste of clinical resources. It’s athena’s job, and only athena’s job, which annoys me, to get that out of the way. We will handle the paperwork for the OIG and Medicare and Medicaid and we will make sure you are in the straight and narrow, that nothing in spirit or in documentation is inappropriate. We will keep you from doing something inappropriate. Among the inappropriate things we’ll keep you from doing is wasting your time away from patients being passive-aggressive with the federal government when you could be treating patients.

We have actually taken out malpractice insurance because we want to be in the same spot as the doctor.

You must feel pretty good about the Best in KLAS announcements.

I love KLAS when we’re at the top and I have questions about their methodology when we’re not (laughs). I get skittish when someone asks me to endorse KLAS when we’re at the top because I know that someday we won’t be and it won’t be for the right reasons. In the mean time, yes, I couldn’t be happier.

The majority of your implementations involve getting doctors paid. How would you explain that to someone who thinks the effort should be directly on patient care?

If I were more mature, I’d say, “Tell me more about this impacting patient care directly. Show me the regression analysis between your vision of what that means and healthcare quality.” Then I’d let them dangle because they don’t know. Documentation of standards for evaluation and management levels is driving much more of the quest for clinical quality than people admit. If I were really sophisticated, I’d be able to let somebody see that for themselves and have a major change of heart.

To me, where we actually are, as opposed to where EMRs tell us to be, and where various keynote speakers with all these things about access to care and total cost and total quality tell us to be … where we actually are, the practical, tactical details of where we are right now, is we don’t know what we ordered and we don’t know what happened to what we ordered. If we can answer those two questions, where every doctor in America knows exactly what they ordered and they know exactly what happened to those orders, the impact on real, genuine Institutes of Medicine-level clinical quality is tremendous. Tremendous. But that’s not even in the discussion right now.

At athenahealth, I’ve got 549 providers who are on athenaClinicals. For those providers, I know exactly what they ordered and I know exactly what of those orders never happened, never turned into a result. The number are devastating. It’s like over 50% of what a doctor orders never turns into a result for that doctor. Who cares that stuff the OIG wants to see if 50% of what a doctor ordered evaporates right after he orders it? That’s much more significant financially and clinically. No one talks about that because standalone EMR software can’t answer that question.

Revenue cycle management is suddenly the hottest thing in the industry, which is good for athena but also brings in new competition. Is that good or bad?

Obviously it would be great if there was no such thing as a free market and nobody decided to go build a competing solution to athenaClinicals and Collector, but that would keep us from running as hard as we are. I have the emotional maturity to acknowledge the benefit of the fact that there will be other competitors someday.

My sense is that the people at American Express are able to struggle through acceptance of the fact that there is also Discover, Mastercard, and Visa. I’m OK with the idea that there will be other revenue cycle management networks in the country someday. I’m ecstatic that they’re not out there today, but I’m accepting of the fact that it’s OK for the world that they be there someday.

I don’t want to be so arrogant as to say, “I want competitors.” To hell with that. I don’t. I wish everyone would suddenly get amnesia about how well we’re doing and not come in here. I accept that it’s good for the world that they won’t get amnesia and they will come in and they’ll push our price down and push our quality standards up. That’s OK.

Athena stock took a dip in the fall, but has rocketed back like there was no economic crisis. What’s different about athena that has let it avoid taking a price hit?

I don’t know. We did have an investor day and the timing of the recovery, back in the 30s of our stock, mapped very closely to that investor day. I’m assuming that by getting athena … we’re a very small company, relatively speaking, amongst public companies with a very small number of shares, again relatively speaking … so bringing 80 key investors in for the day and seeing who we really are and what the DNA of athenahealth is and what it promises, those 80 people could get hungry and really treat our stock with respect.

If we were bigger, it would be harder to get the whole wide world to treat our stock with the respect that it deserves, but luckily we’re small, so the elite of the investment community have said, of course, long term, Obama not Obama, Daschle not Daschle, in the end, regardless of the short signals, athena is a way to a good future and that’s got to pay off. I was ecstatic about the result and it really was a function of the 80 people who showed up at the door.

What will you do with the messaging company you bought?

We build another product that looks like Clinicals and Collector, which is to say we build an integrated, percentage-of-revenue priced, fiduciary principled, patient-compliant service. We’re not there yet. Meanwhile, we’re selling 17 cents a reminder calls. When we get it right, it’s going to be a full-on … for a small percentage of your revenue, we’ll answer 100% of your phone calls and treat every single patient you have like a Russian prince.

Is that a change in practice where you will actually take on some of the patient-facing work for doctors as a service provider?

I don’t see it as so much a change in practice. Our job is to be the best in the world at getting doctors paid. Athena’s mission statement is to be the most trusted business service for medical groups in the United States. If you want to do that, when you do research on what doctors want and what they trust, it’s people who get them paid for doing the right thing. They hate people who get them paid for doing something that they later regret they did and they hate people who don’t get them paid.

Our hedgehog, to use a business school term, is to be the best in the world at getting clinicians paid. If our strategy is to get these guys paid and connecting with patients is a key part of getting them paid, it’s no change in strategy. It’s a change in tactics.

You said early on that you hoped to preserve the company’s culture as the company grows. Have you been able to do that?

I started with an immature notion of preserving the culture. What I’ve learned is that I’ve preserved key elements of the culture, but if I was wiser, what I would have said is that I don’t want to preserve the culture, I want to keep the culture current with the journey.

For example, I’ve become much less of the class clown. Watch that Wall Street Journal interview. I didn’t even recognize myself because I was so struck with the weight of the questions and she was so thoughtful … it’s a different thing from a blonde guy jumping up and down “saying look at me, look at me" because I’m afraid no one will pay attention to me, to, “People really are paying attention, make sure you don’t mess up this answer.”

That’s my journey. There’s a similar arc to the character of our whole culture at athena, of our personality as a company. I do want to preserve what’s important about our culture, but I think what I mean to say is I want to preserve the notion of being true to our culture wherever it may be at each stage of development. Write that down and find out later whether that was the beginning of the slippery slope to evilness. I don’t think it is.

I need to be more mature, more subtle, less desperate for attention, more secure as a CEO than I did when no one had ever heard of us. We want to make sure that each iteration of our culture as we grow has the same level of integrity. I’ll die before I let go of the culture we have right now. Will our people and will our CEO lose their career, lose their reputation before letting go of the principles that are appropriate for the hour? That’s what’s consistent.

What’s appropriate for the hour will change year over year. I’ve seen that. I’m witnessing it right now. But the integrity of sticking to those principles of the hour or of the year or of the decade is the maker or breaker of whether we get to keep playing.

An HIT Moment with … Ralph Fargnoli

December 8, 2008 Interviews 2 Comments

An HIT Moment with ... is a quick interview with someone we find interesting. Ralph Fargnoli is president and CEO of Beacon Partners.

Many of the big consulting players have been acquired: FCG, Superior, Healthlink, JJWILD. The smaller ones seem to be hot properties now. What does that trend mean and what kind of consolidation is happening?

I look at the consolidation as an opportunity for an increase in market share. The larger firms were acquired by what I would call the mega-sized companies, i.e. CSC, IBM, and Perot, for their particular strengths that compliment or enhance existing service lines.

ralph With most of the large firms off the market, the mid-level and smaller firms are hot because they, too, have the people and service lines to help the mega-firms gain healthcare market share and enhance service line offerings. With the shortage of experienced healthcare IT, clinical, and operational professionals, demand has made all of us an acquisition target.

What I see as a potential conflict issue is that most of the mega-firms have products and services that provide solutions, i.e. software, hardware, offshoring, and data centers, that can be a solution or answer to a client’s challenges. So the question is: are the provider organizations getting unbiased, not self-serving, recommendations based on what else they have to sell?

How is the mix of consulting services that clients want changing?

Provider organizations want help from consulting firms that have proven success and results. With the economy in a recession and unemployment increasing, clients will want to see projects that can translate to savings and improved cash flow moved higher on the priority list.

While IT adoption can be key to these projects, IT remains a tool. Many organizations can improve their results just by reviewing their operational work flows and improving the efficiencies of patient care.

How do you see vendors and consulting firms changing their businesses to weather bad economic conditions?

Vendors will cut employees and will look to consulting firms to fill the gaps when the demands outstrip their internal resource supply. As demand for project assistance increases or slows, consulting firms will adjust their workforce size accordingly. Firms like Beacon Partners will look to have a balance of employee consultants with well-vetted contractors.

Many of those in the vendor and consulting industries affected by layoffs will end up working for provider organizations as full-time or contract employees. In addition, vendors and consulting firms will look very closely at expenditures and cut back areas that are not essential. The good companies will do everything possible to make cuts other than employees. That means conferences and all their related costs, travel, sponsorships, and charitable goodwill may be cut.  

I believe that good firms will also do a self-assessment to determine their business plan moving forward to be prepared for the turnaround and the new administration’s impact on the healthcare industry.

What healthcare changes do you think the Obama administration will make and what will healthcare and healthcare IT look like in 3-5 years?

I think that President-Elect Obama will start the discussions early in his administration for universal healthcare based on the Massachusetts model. Senator Kennedy, who is ill and is fighting for his healthcare legacy, has already set the stage for the healthcare reform debate.  

President-Elect Obama wants mandated coverage of all children, but not adults, which the Kennedy and Massachusetts model promote. So far in Massachusetts, there have been positive results with increased insurance coverage, but there are issues regarding access to primary care and the cost of the program.

Unfortunately for the Obama administration, the economy is the top priority and will need all the government funding and attention probably for most of 2009.

The President-elect does see the adoption of healthcare IT as a way to save billions of dollars and reduce medical errors. The question is does it carry enough weight and create enough jobs to be part of the stimulus package expected to be pushed through Congress in early January 2009?

In three to five years, I see universal healthcare for all, a modified payment system based on preventative measures, quality and results. I am still a cynic that Washington sees things at the 50,000 foot level and the real challenges to reducing costs and improving care are at the day-to-day operational level, of which I am not sure anyone in Washington has a grasp.

The issues that surround healthcare reform go way beyond technology adoption. Most are a huge cultural challenge, and one that cannot easily be forced to change.

What should vendor and providers be doing while they wait for economic conditions to improve?

Anyone in business who goes through these economic cycles knows that you need to survive for the turnaround. Diversity of services and products is important, and in the healthcare industry, there is still opportunity to grow and prosper.   

As with any company that has gone through an economic growth cycle, in tough times, a thorough review of internal programs and people is a must.

For the software vendors, the last thing I would do is cut my R&D. The market will return and the better prepared they are, the more they will prosper and gain market share.

On the provider side, refocus efforts on operational improvement projects that can help clients reduce costs and increase cash flow and patient access to care. If they have IT projects started or about to start, I would recommend that they keep moving forward with them because the expected benefit may not be realized until long after the go-live date, which may coincide with the economic recovery, making their organization more competitive.

An HIT Moment with … Denni McColm

December 1, 2008 Interviews Comments Off on An HIT Moment with … Denni McColm

An HIT Moment with ... is a quick interview with someone we find interesting. Denni McColm is CIO at 74-bed Citizens Memorial Healthcare of Bolivar, MO.

Citizens Memorial won the Davies Award and has reached Stage 6 of EMR adoption from HIMSS Analytics. Beyond the industry recognition, what IT-driven changes have you seen with regard to patient satisfaction, provider satisfaction, staff turnover, expense, and clinical outcomes?

Across our service lines, we have over 40 publicly reported quality measures (hospital, home care, and long term care). Before Project Infocare, we were above the national average on only 39%, or 15, of those measures. Today, we are above the national average on 80%, or 36, measures. We’ve been recognized for quality with state recognition for both home care and long term care.

On financial measures, since we’ve implemented Project Infocare we’ve seen an increase in net revenue of over 35%, while only increasing our staffing by 4%.

What projects are you working on?

We are doing more training with staff on effective use of the EMR within the context of a patient encounter. For some users this comes naturally, but for most physicians and nurses using the computer during the visit effectively takes practice. We failed to do this well as we implemented and we are refocusing on it now. The training method is called MUSE and is offered by The Robertson Group.

We are also implementing a patient portal, expanding our HR suite of products, utilizing automated infection and quality measure alerting, building ambulatory quality measures into the workflow during a typical ambulatory encounter, bringing more providers on with speech recognition, and interfacing portable vital signs monitors and glucometers throughout the organization.

In 2009, we’ll also be implementing an EMR for our affiliated cancer center and for our Miles for Smiles mobile dental unit.

What system capabilities or tools would you say have had the most significant impact on improving patient care in your hospital?

The EMR, just for providing access to the information providers need to care for patients. CPOE in that it gives us a more direct line of communication from the physician to the caregiver and automated quality measurement extracted from the EMR.

What impact will economic conditions have on your IT department and the hospital?

Secretly, we hope it will slow things down for us, but the more likely scenario is that IT will be more in demand as the organization seeks tools to help become more efficient. I also think that part of the national economic stimulus will be directed into health care. Obama is already uttering the phrase “electronic medical records.” And, whatever form healthcare reform takes, IT will be needed to help adapt.

What makes you happiest and most excited about working in IT in a tiny rural hospital?

The opportunity to put IT to use making a difference in the quality of care and service my friends, neighbors, and family receive. And, the ability to pursue the projects that will really make a difference for care providers and patients. OK, deep down, I also love it that we are so far ahead in terms of IT adoption compared to so many large hospital systems, including the ones here in southwest Missouri.

An HIT Moment with … Steve Aylward

November 24, 2008 Interviews 1 Comment

An HIT Moment with ... is a quick interview with someone we find interesting. Steve Aylward is General Manager, Health & Life Sciences, at Microsoft.

With Medstory, HealthVault, and Amalga, Microsoft is dabbling in some seemingly disconnected technology areas that have different audiences, but without hitting the home care area that Steve Ballmer focused on in his HIMSS 2007 address. What is the company’s healthcare strategy?

Let’s address the last question first: Microsoft is committed to improving health around the world through software innovation. Our goal is to advance a vision of unifying health information. We’re working in collaboration with a wide range of health and IT leaders across provider, health plans, and life sciences organizations in both the public and commercial sectors.

In order to improve care, health, and quality of life, it’s critical that people across the healthcare system have access to the right information at the right time. Microsoft is in a unique position to accelerate that transformation through our tremendous reach, with a platform that spans from the consumer to the enterprise, and the ability to develop cost-effective technologies that others can use as a platform for further innovation.

image HealthVault and Amalga are pivotal products in our efforts to unify health information and make it readily available to the people making decisions about health — whether a family health manager, chronic disease patient, emergency department physician, researcher, or anyone else in the health system. HealthVault enables individuals to collect, store and manage their personal health information and use it with a wide range of health and wellness applications or share it with physicians to better manage a condition. Industry leaders like Aetna, Cleveland Clinic, Kaiser, and Beth Israel Deaconness are turning to HealthVault with the goal of providing patients, employees, and health plan members with the tools to improve their interactions with clinicians and their overall health and wellness. These organizations share Microsoft’s belief that putting the individual in control of their health information, and enabling them to share it, opens up new and cost-effective opportunities for improving health.

Relative to what Steve Ballmer discussed at HIMSS, when you visit www.healthvault.com you’ll see a lot of partners who have connected their applications and medical devices — many of which are used in the home. HealthVault account users can automatically collect and store data from their glucometers, blood pressure cuffs, pedometers, weight scales, and more into their HealthVault accounts. The individual can then choose to share that data with their physician, family members, or as part of an inpatient admission. This hits toward the home care area that Steve touched on at HIMSS.

Amalga helps healthcare organizations address the challenge of continuously aggregating, managing and effectively utilizing a growing amount of data from disparate sources — regardless of how many different systems the data is stored in. This enables healthcare organizations to bring together their data in one single view. Once in that single view, they can make better, more informed decisions across their clinical, financial, and administrative areas.

The bottom line is that most healthcare organizations have a sleeping infrastructure that needs to be awakened (wish I’d thought of that line myself, but I have to credit a customer). Microsoft is a large part of that infrastructure, with everything from Microsoft Office to Microsoft BizTalk Server to Microsoft SQL Server to Windows. It may not be a model most would think of first when it comes to solving healthcare issues, but we’ve taken our role of adapting horizontal software to an incredibly complex market very seriously. There are plenty of examples we can share, but I recommend that your readers visit www.microsoft.com/health for a glimpse as to what we’re doing across Provider, Health Plans, Life Sciences, and Consumer Health sectors. The video that Steve showed at HIMSS is also posted in the lower left corner.

Bad economic conditions are sure to hit healthcare providers hard with more uncompensated care and tougher lending markets. When IT costs come under the microscope, how can technology, including that provided by Microsoft, prove that it’s paying its way?

Those tough economic conditions are already here. As an industry, we are approximately less than two months behind the tsunami that the financial services markets have already experienced. Many of our healthcare provider customers are turning to us to brainstorm how IT can help them navigate through this difficult time. Those customers are seeing their overhead costs skyrocket as a result of manual, paper-based processes and manual workflows, and it’s extremely difficult for physicians to avoid costly, acute situations without all of a patient’s information at their fingertips.

The bottom line is that our customers are looking for technology solutions that drive top-line revenue, reduce costs, as well as enhance patient safety and the overall patient experience. Each of our solution areas are being defined in one of these main categories. Look at Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center. They came to us wanting to reduce ER wait time and improve the overall experience for cardiac patients in the emergency department. They implemented Microsoft Visio (along with a solution from the Orlando Software Group) and were able to lower patient abandonment by three percent, reduce the average length of an ER visit by 22 percent, and lower the time to be seen for minor emergences into the 70 percent range.

What Microsoft products or services should hospitals and other providers know about but probably don’t?

I can’t even begin to count the number of healthcare organizations who’ve deployed products that aren’t being used to their full advantage. Microsoft Office is a great example of this. Many real-world processes already are documented in Microsoft Office. The interface is familiar and what many healthcare providers use at home. So, we’ve turned Microsoft Office into an application development platform that brings the ease and familiarity of Office to more complex enterprise solutions, helping to drive adoption and acceptance. This is what we call an Office Business Application.

There are so many examples of innovative things being done with Office Business Applications or Microsoft Office, and I wish I could share them all. But here are three that might be of most interest to your readers:

The Patient Safety Screening Tool (PSST) is an Office Business Application developed by Accent on Integration (our partner) and Microsoft, and piloted at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) to reduce the rate of sepsis, an in-hospital acquired infection that is deadly if not caught early. The capability is designed around the Office tools (primarily Microsoft Office InfoPath, Microsoft SQL Server, and Microsoft Office SharePoint Server). For significantly less than they would have spent on professional services, VUMC has been able to prevent the deaths of several patients — in a matter of weeks rather than months or years. This tool has enormous potential to be used with other in-hospital acquired infections, such as those on Medicare’s “never events” list.

Secondly, we’ve worked to improve the patient experience by integrating Xbox and Windows Media Center with a clinical information system (CIS). This has enabled patients to use Xbox for the “fun stuff” like e-mail, IM, and gaming, but the CIS integration is key. It can enable the patient to understand more about their care team and what to expect during their stay. I know many of your readers have been skeptical of such technology uses in the past, but I think they were hung up on the inpatient e-mail capability (meaning “acute care patients, seniors, and the Luddites will never use it”). The real value of this is to better inform and educate the patient as to what to expect during their stay. It can also be of great value to family members who visit the patient and who confer with the care team.

The third example is something that we recently shared with the Microsoft Healthcare User Group involving Operational Excellence. One of the most prominent children’s hospitals in the U.S. (together with USC Consulting) has used our tools to improve the turnaround time on their lab results by 50 percent.

It’s important to note that with these applications, we’re doing similar work with Health Plans and Life Sciences organizations and moreover, we’re really taking a close look at how they connect with the entire healthcare ecosystem, including providers and patients.

Bill Gates scorned IBM back in the 90s, saying its demise was imminent because of IBM’s reliance on old, cash-cow products and outdated business methods. IBM pulled back from the brink and thrived. Now Microsoft is "the establishment" and gets that same kind of criticism from the next generation of upstarts such as Google, Apple, and open source vendors. Is there a sense of urgency to change the status quo, and if so, how?

I wasn’t at Microsoft in the 90s so it’s difficult for me to comment, but I will say this. We’ve grown now to more than 900 professionals who wake up every day focused on the need to improve healthcare around the world. That 900 includes physicians, researchers, scientists, developers, and sales and marketing professionals. We’ve put an incredible amount of energy into working with our partners and the community to create specific vertical applications on our platform for healthcare, as well as point solutions such as HealthVault and Amalga.

In my professional career, I’ve never been around people who carried such a sense of urgency to change the status quo. Probably Microsoft’s biggest strength that I’ve seen in my nearly three years here is our ability to be self-critical. We have the opportunity to take a step back and look at industry challenges, whether it’s patient safety, moving from paper to electronic records, or cutting costs that stem from inefficient processes. And we have the opportunity to really think about how our products can be used to solve these challenges. How can we work with partners to build an entirely new solution, such as the Patient Safety Screening Tool, on the Microsoft platform?

We try to be as hard on ourselves as many of your readers are. We’ll keep going after a problem or an issue until it’s solved. We want to be strategic partners to our customers. We understand their needs and we’ve brought people on board, such as physicians and researchers, who can work with us to provide even deeper insight.

Can consumerism in healthcare take hold in a down economy, and if so, how will Microsoft support it?

Even in a down economy, consumers are still demanding better care, a better patient experience, and more personal communication with their doctors. The “millenials” (those under 30) are changing the game very, very quickly. They’re coming out of school expecting technology to be there. Those same people are now entering the workforce and taking care of their parents’ health. They demand solutions that support IM, social networks, gaming, and instant access to information — from anywhere.

To stay competitive among peers, healthcare organizations need to meet these consumer demands. Microsoft is certainly playing a large role here with Windows Mobile, MSN and Messenger as examples. What we’re doing with HealthVault, for instance, is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of connecting consumers to their healthcare information. It’s the consumers’ data, and as an industry, we need to break down the barriers that have prevented them from accessing it. Everyone from vendors to providers, physicians, and payers need to come together and empower consumers to manage their data, engage with their health plans and physicians, and truly take control of their health.

An HIT Moment with … Liddy West

November 17, 2008 Interviews 1 Comment

An HIT Moment with ... is a quick interview with someone we find interesting. Liddy West is a principal with West Consulting and is working on the VUHID project.

What is GPII, who’s involved, and why is it a non-profit?

liddy Global Patient Identifiers Inc. is the company started by Dr. Barry Hieb and myself to manage the Voluntary Health Identifier (VUHID) project. Barry, who left Gartner’s healthcare consulting group in August to work on VUHID full-time, has been focused on this effort part-time for a number of years, beginning with the work he led on two ASTM International standards that describe how to achieve unambiguous patient identification and improved privacy of clinical information.

As a medical doctor and a computer scientist, and through his wide network of industry leaders, Barry has thoroughly vetted the VUHID concepts and design from both practical and technical perspectives.

And, to your question as to why we’re a non-profit, one of our basic beliefs is that a universal patient identifier can neither be mandatory nor managed by any government. Nor can it be commercial in that neither patients nor providers can be asked to pay for it. That is, we believe that such an initiative should take costs out of the system, not add costs.

Citizens push back hard every time someone brings up the idea of a government-sponsored healthcare ID number, yet a RAND study advocates spending billions to create such a system. What are the benefits of an ID number and why does it have to cost so much?

We wholeheartedly agree with many of the objections to creating a massive, expensive, government-controlled national identification system. And based on our estimates, it simply doesn’t have to cost so much! That’s the beauty of the VUHID approach: cheap to develop and operate, no big software engine or data base of identifiable patient information, and no government agency to oversee it (lots more details at www.vuhid.org).

So, not only vastly cheaper to implement, but essential to making the healthcare delivery system more efficient. The RAND report (warning: PDF) estimates that savings running to tens of billions of dollars annually can be achieved if effective electronic clinical information exchange is implemented. Errors in current patient identification techniques estimated to be 8% or higher represent a major barrier to achieving these economies. And the benefits?

  • The ability to accurately link patient records among participating providers for a dramatic reduction in duplicate registrations and more convenience for patients and staff.
  • Reduced costs and medical errors. Fewer duplicate or unnecessary tests because patients are identified correctly and providers have access to clinical information from encounters across an HIE.
  • Enhanced privacy protection. With VUHID, patients can elect to protect certain aspects of their clinical information based on data type and provider type.
  • VUHID also reduces the risk of medical identity theft since no patient information is associated with the VUHID identifier.

He’ll blush to see himself referred to as the leading authority on the topic, but you’ll note that Barry’s work is cited no less than a dozen times in the RAND white paper.

We’ve only recently worked through the ROI model for VUHID and believe it will be vastly cheaper than the RAND estimates — by a factor of 500! In fact, one of our advisors who is involved with an emerging HIE project has reviewed our model and agrees that proposed VUHID pricing represents a “no brainer” decision for HIE executives based on savings and benefits described above.

How do you get around the inherent layperson fear of a government-controlled health ID number?

Again, it’s our intention to keep government out of it. We’re working with HIEs and EMPI vendors, taking a ground-up approach vs. a top-down, government-driven approach.

Now, if the government, state or federal, would like to sanction what we’re doing, we’d be happy to talk! Barry has presented VUHID to Rob Kolodner at ONC who is very supportive, but as you know, Congress specifically prohibited spending federal money on this effort several years ago.

We’ll continue to work with organizations such as HIMSS, NAHIT, IEEE, AMIA, JCAHO, Liberty Alliance, and the RAND Corporation, all of which have public statements supporting the need for more accurate patient identification methods. VUHID has good visibility with these organizations, as well as physicians’ groups, patient advocacy groups, and HIEs. We’re working to gain more traction as initial deployments are accomplished and real-world experience with the system is gained.

Some high-powered and well-funded groups surely have a strong opinion about the health ID concept. GPII is a tiny nonprofit. How will you get your message out and convince people that there’s no hidden agenda?

Well, as I mention above, we’ve been heavily involved in outreach efforts for some time. But, there’s a lot to do. This is really our biggest challenge, as we’re trying to raise funding to complete development and testing of the VUHID Web server, develop outreach and education programs, and build momentum with HIEs and EMPI vendors. Right now, it’s missionary work, with a little funding for technical work, getting the company set up and bare necessities (thanks again, Judy, for the grant from Epic).

As to hidden agendas, no one has ever come away from a discussion with Barry on this topic with any such suspicions. His dedication and our business model leave little room for doubt that we sincerely believe that this is the right thing to do and a necessary part of the infrastructure of a reformed US healthcare system.

Now that you’re out on your own as a consultant, what are the most interesting trends you’re seeing?

I’m seeing renewed interest in revenue cycle … or maybe that trend just comes back around every 10 years or so. But if you look at the age of the applications that are running the business side of most healthcare organizations, and the kludge of interfaces and bolt-ons that have been added over the years to keep them going … well, I’ve always thought there’s opportunity in this area. The current economic environment might just be the incentive for these organizations to finally take the risk on newer technology.

Also, I’m one of those people who believe that RHIOs or HIEs — whatever the acronym evolves to — are quietly taking hold, will persist and expand … with or without government mandate or funding. Maybe more successfully without government intervention! So, I believe systems integrators with infrastructure, tools, and the ability to “herd the cats” are companies to watch.

And relative to government, I do believe they’re here to stay when it comes to HIT. Many of the people I’ve talked to in Washington and here in Arizona who make or influence policy really do understand the benefits and challenges. The work of ONC has been important and hopefully will be continued under the new administration.

An HIT Moment with … Arnaud Houette

November 10, 2008 Interviews Comments Off on An HIT Moment with … Arnaud Houette

An HIT Moment with ... is a quick interview with someone we find interesting. Arnaud Houette is CEO of Capsule.

The future seems to involve having large numbers of pieces of medical equipment sending a nearly constant stream of telemetry data to whatever systems can receive it. What patient care improvement opportunities does that create?

You are correct that the numbers of devices, including telemetry, and the quantity of data from those devices has been increasing in recent years. We see this trend continuing for the foreseeable future. However, we believe there are other changes in the care environment that will actually impact patient care and the need for device connectivity more than the quantity of devices and the data they send. These include:

  • More applications and systems that can take advantage of data that is collected and integrated, such as alarm notification systems and the integration of both data and alarms to ventilator management systems;
  • Requirements for direct device to device interoperability; and
  • Mobility. Perhaps the biggest technology trend we see that will impact patient care is with wireless devices and mobility. Mobility is actually forcing vendors to assess how patient context needs to be handled. When patients and their devices move, the data from the medical device can no longer be reliably tagged to a bed or room location. In our opinion, this leads to the need for positive patient ID and association of the medical device to a confirmed patient.

All of these changes will directly impact the clinician and the patient care process if not implemented properly. At Capsule, we are working on a solution that addresses such issues and will improve clinical workflow. We believe that patient care improvements will come from point of care solutions that properly associate patients to devices rather than devices to location. And we believe that access to all real-time data and alarms across the enterprise will result in improved real-time and retrospective clinical analysis, improved treatments and length of stay, and overall improved patient safety.

Are EMRs vendors ready to automatically accept electronic output from machines to save nurse time in documenting it?

imageGood question. Here I see a difference between the European market and the US markets. In Europe, a number of EMR applications automatically accept electronic device data without human intervention. The primary driver is efficiency of staff. In the US, however, most EMR implementations require a nurse to validate all data that has been automatically collected from the devices connected to a patient as part of the documentation process. Here the driver seems to be medical-legal requirements. I can see both sides.

There is, however, a class of data parameters from medical devices that could arguably not be subject to clinical interpretation. This class includes measurements of the device’s operation, such as respiratory rate, tidal volume, or infused volume; as opposed to physiologic measurements from the patient. These data are information from the device of what it has done, for which there is no clinical requirement for analysis or validation in order to ensure accuracy of the documented value. So one of the key questions here is not only can or will EMR vendors support this automated documentation (many of them can already), but will clinical users?

How important will home monitoring of patients become and what technology advances will be required to support it?

This is a very important market for device connectivity. Monitoring chronically ill patients in their home has both significant economic impact on the health system (keeping patients out of the hospital) but also wonderful health benefits for the patient themselves. The need and the health benefits are clear. What is not so clear is the business drivers. Telehealth has struggled with a well defined reimbursement model that will foster broad adoption. There have been some interesting “carve out” strategies by some healthcare organizations for specific illnesses, but nothing universal.

On the technology front, we are watching with great interest the Continua Health Alliance and the IEEE 11073 standard efforts. As in the hospital, we believe that adoption of these technologies will depend greatly on the fit with the clinical workflow and the usability of software. This is an area Capsule is investing heavily in right now.

Which hospital areas do you expect to have the highest demand for new data capture solutions?

The highest demand for data collection from medical devices is currently in the areas of the hospital with the highest acuity patients, such as the ICU, PACU, and OR. We expect these areas to continue to have high demand. However, we see increasing interest from lower acuity environments, such as med-surg or even ambulatory clinics.

One interesting way to analyze the need for automated data collection is to go beyond the current model, which tends to focus on the number of devices or complexity associated with each patient. Rather, we see the need to look at the number of devices or complexity associated with each individual nurse. Though the nurses in the med-surg environment are dealing with lower acuity patients with fewer devices, they are dealing with more patients, so they actually have a similar number of devices to manage and interact with.

It is easy to see how these areas would benefit from the adoption of technology that supports automated capture of medical device data. This is an area which we are actively pursuing — not only how to manage the data capture in these lower acuity environments with different work flows, but how to assist the nurse in managing all the devices and their associations with the right patients in all environments.

Surely a company like yours has had acquisition interest from some of the mega-companies whose products you integrate. What is the long-term plan for the company?

Tim, you know if we were having any discussions (which we are not), I couldn’t talk about them anyway. I admire you for trying; you are very good at your job …

As for Capsule’s long-term plans, we are focused on creating value by innovating on behalf of our customers and partners. We are in a unique position in the market from which to innovate. We have perhaps five times more installed, happy customers than all our competitors combined.  Our driver library is unmatched in numbers of devices we support (350+) as well as the quality processes we use to build them.  (We better have good processes as we have been doing this for more than ten years!) And, our product is a medical device. We are classified by the FDA in the same status as a cardiac monitor (510k Class two).  Oh, and let me not forget our vendor-neutral position in the market. It is from this unique business foundation that we will spring board to the next generation of products.

We have a number of products in development that are aligned with our EMR and device partners’ road maps to continue our market leadership in connectivity while also enhancing our partners’ product offering to the health care provider. We are also working closely with a number of thought leaders in the industry to develop new innovative solutions for positive patient ID and wireless device connectivity. I look forward to discussing these in greater detail as we get closer to launch.

Another opportunity in front of Capsule is geographic expansion. We are a truly international company. We literally have employees from nearly every region of the world — from Senegal to Australia, China to Ireland, to the US and France. It has been our mission to build an international company from the start and we see an exciting market opening beyond Europe and the US. The Middle East and Asia are two markets that hold great potential in the near future.

Marriage may come someday, but for the time being, Capsule is all focused on creating value for our customers by working with our partners to deliver the right products to improve workflow and make their lives easier.

HIStalk Interviews Susanne Madden, President and CEO, The Verden Group

November 5, 2008 Interviews 10 Comments

Tell me a little bit about your background and about The Verden Group.

susanne Primarily I come from the provider side of things. I’ve worked for hospitals and small group practices from surgeons to pediatrics. I spent a long time there. Then I went out as a kind of independent consultant in a lot of process improvement stuff for physician practices. I ended up at United Healthcare for a couple of years, focusing on managing the provider side of things, looking after the network and tracking of physicians, being somewhat of a physician advocate from within.

About two years ago, I left United Healthcare and established The Verden Group. The idea behind The Verden Group was twofold. One was to continue the consultant services that I had started a few years before that. The other was to try and bring together information in such a way that it would be usable for physician practices.

It seemed to me, from the United Healthcare side, that there really was a disconnect between what insurance companies were communicating and how they were communicating, and what physician practices, hospitals and obviously the providers of care were actually doing in terms of being able to see that information, understand that information, and act upon that information.

The Verden Group was born as a way to take information flows and make them usable by what should be the receiving party. What makes that so difficult is that most insurance companies simply post changes on their Web site. Those changes take the form of everything from updating medical policies to updating payments and administrative policies. Some of these just post a notification on their Web site and some of these Web sites are a thousand pages deep, so it’s very difficult for providers of care to really keep themselves updated with all of the different things that are changing but can’t find it on the site.

Even when they do look at, say, a newly posted policy, it’s very difficult for them to interpret what it actually means, how it actually breaks down in terms of how they are supposed to bill, how are they supposed to code things, and what they are supposed to be doing in terms of providing care.

What we do at The Verden Group is something called the Verden Alert system. Providers of care subscribe to this service. They give us their e-mail address, their specialty, and the insurance companies they participate with. From there, we match them up with all the changes for these insurance companies.

We track 186 insurance companies nationally, 75,000 Web pages that we’re actively monitoring every 24 hours to pick up any of these changes. We break them down into what specialties they actually belong to. The insurance company themselves don’t break down by specialty. It’d be really nice for me to go to an insurance Web site and look under cardiology and see everything that applies to me. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way because a lot of medical policies apply to multiple specialties.

So we take this information, massage it a little bit, break it out into the individual specialities, and then further break it out into categories: administrative change, clinical change, formulary change. Then obviously our subscribers only receive the information that’s relevant to them. So if you’re a pediatrician participating in Oxford, Cigna, Aetna, and United, you’re only going to get information relevant to pediatrics for those four insurance companies.

It’s really not much incentive for insurance companies to be too user friendly because if practitioners don’t take the time to look up these obscure changes, they’re probably going to have their claims rejected.

You got it.

Insurance companies could do this if they wanted to.

That’s exactly right. There’s two schools of thought on this. If you talk to anybody at the insurance company, they’ll say, “No, no, we’re committed to transparency and getting this information across.” And you look at it and say, “Well, if that was the premise that you were coming from, then why haven’t you figured out a better way to do it,” you know? 

We’re seeing pieces here and there. The insurance companies are doing things like rapid updates, where you can sign up to get e-mail alerts every time they publish their newsletter. Unfortunately, a newsletter may have data that’s three months old, letting you know that three months prior, in the previous quarter, they implemented a whole bunch of policy changes that are now showing up in your inbox in the form of denials on your explanation of medical benefits.

That’s really how insurance companies make money. If they don’t have to pass through the premium dollars, then they get to hold onto much more of it. There are some that say, “No, no, we’re working for transparency. We really want this to work better.” But at the same time, they have not organized themselves well enough to actually prove that is the case.

They’ll say things like, “We’re trying to keep costs down by posting it up on our Web site. It means we don’t have to mail things and that keeps the cost of healthcare down. It’s an efficiency tool as opposed to anything more sinister than that.” You look at that and say, “That may be true in one regard, but it also works to their advantage.” So it really is a double-edged sword.

When we launched the Verden Alert, we had some mixed responses. There were some insurance companies that called up to make sure to make sure we were tracking them. They wanted to make sure that they were part of the Verden Alert because, “We want to know more about your services and we want to be part of this.” There were others that really were very suspect and wanted information about what we were doing and why; how we were managing the policy information, that sort of thing. They really wanted to protect their own interests a little bit.

Every quarter, we rank insurance companies. We grade them in terms of transparency. What is their clarity of communication? What is the notification period? Are they making changes 30 days before they implement them, before the effective date? What’s the cost to the provider? Things like adding prior authorizations onto medical policies. That’s obviously adding costs for physicians. Moving around criteria, making it more complicated to actually get paid for services. We pick them up on points for that.

We started ranking insurance companies and, very quickly, we were seeing which insurance companies wanted to engage and say, “OK, how do we actually move the dial on our rankings? How do we do better because we want to be perceived as a company that’s good to business with?” And others that simply wanted us to go away.

It’s a little ironic that some of the insurance companies have invested a lot in information technology, but in the form of keeping things more secure than making it easier for people to use.

How similar, or not similar, is what you do to what athenahealth does?

Athena does it a little different. What they are tracking are claims. They are looking at lines of data with claim sets, what they pay, how quickly they pay, what percentage is disappearing down the rabbit hole, and the percentage you’re getting denied.

They’re really looking at it from the claims perspective only, which is very reactive in a way. Everything comes back to them after physicians and primary care have actually billed out those claims. They can modify their engines based on what comes back so they’re capturing the edits that way, but their ranking system is really based on this reactive data.

What we’re doing is getting a jump on the insurance companies and being proactive, in terms of saying, “OK, we are now looking at your policy decision-making, your strategic decision-making really, and we’re tracking how that’s playing out.” So in addition to our rankings and really being able to quantify what they are doing, we are also able to have a bird’s eye view in terms of how these strategies are playing out.

We see various insurance companies pick on specialties. We see which specialty is going to be targeted on or dragged in on for cost saving quarter-to-quarter. Last quarter, the ophthalmologists seem to get hard hit by a number of insurance companies that applied a bunch of medical policies and put in a lot of prior authorization stuff. The quarter before that, we were seeing a lot of stuff in oncology and cardiology, so they are very often the hardest hit anyway. There’s an awful lot of activity around those specialties.

We’re almost able to gauge what will happen the next quarter based on how they’ve done financially. You see the profits begin to tank in one quarter, so you think OK, next quarter we’re going to see a whole round of prior authorizations, notifications, referrals. All of these administrative burdens go into play because that means it will be more difficult for providers of care to utilize those services and actually have those members take advantage of those services and for them to get paid for it.

All of a sudden an insurance company institutes a referral process or a prior notification on that. You’ll find the person will get their treatment, but the person who rendered the care is not able to get reimbursed on that. They realize that there’s been a policy or procedure change and then they adjust themselves. But it means that the insurance company had that 30-45 day window of these services that they don’t have to pay for because they can point to the policy changes and say, “Sorry, that was effective on September 1st. You should have checked the Web site or known magically that there was some kind of change here.”

If you like, it gives you the opportunity to do something about it, such as actually engage with medical directors at these insurance companies to say, “This is a bad policy. We don’t want this to go on your site.” For example, the American Academy of Pediatrics is very active, but some of their users are Verden subscribers and they really love the fact that they can get this information ahead of time, give them the jump on things, so that they can go to these insurance companies and say, “Wait a second. What do you mean you’ve decided that developmental a screening is part of the E&M code and not separately reimbursable?”

So do you think insurance companies are basically fighting and winning a war with providers by out investing them on the technology side?

I think it’s a very unlevel playing field. I think physicians really haven’t invested in the technology that they need. They haven’t even invested in the processes that they need to keep up with the technology. So you have very well-capitalized, well-funded insurance companies that are able to take advantage of all sorts of Web technology and put a whole bunch of stuff on the Internet.

The typical practice has maybe four physicians in it. You have somebody at the front desk who has a high school education, who really isn’t terribly savvy about accessing information and being able to utilize things like online eligibility and verification or claims adjudication. There’s a real disparity between the educational level of the folks that are working in physician offices compared to other folks that are in these insurance companies.

With that nice capitalization obviously comes the best and the brightest. With physicians, its kind of like, “OK, we’re paying $10 an hour,” depending where you are in the country, for folks to meet and greet the patients and take care of some of these things. So you have a real disparity there.

I think insurance companies really use that to their advantage instead of them dealing with physicians and saying, “Look, we’re bringing out all this neat stuff. Let us come into your office and show your staff how to use it, or let us put forward unified platforms across insurance companies where there’s one way of doing certain things.”

It’s simply not there. Each company has built out their own ways of doing things and than expects physicians to comply. If you’re an insurance company doing what you’re doing, I guess you get real fluent at that. If you’re a physician and you’re participating with 10 or 15 different insurance companies and you need to do the same things 10 or 15 different ways, you begin to see how very complex it becomes. Even though there is a lot of fairly easy to use technology there, it really becomes very cumbersome on behalf on the providers of care trying to actually utilize and access those information systems.

So is there any hope for a small practice that has minimal staff, other than just not accepting insurance?

Ha. Well, that’s certainly one way to go, to just say, “We’re not gonna deal with this.” I think that there are more and more smaller practices that are really having to go down that road.

There are a couple of things happening. They are either becoming cash-only businesses and limiting the number of patients that they have; they are merging because they need to stay alive somehow; or they are really hitting the wall. We hear, particularly in primary care, that they can’t cut it between the reimbursement rates being as low as they are and then the high costs involved with managing all of these different plans. They really are isn’t any margin left for these physicians. That why we’re obviously seeing fewer and fewer doctors going into primary care more and more into specialties.

I think the hope, though, is being able to move the educational dial, so to speak, on physician practices. Finding ways of getting education in front of them so they can understand the world of managed care. That’s really where that huge canyon stretches. The doctor’s focused on providing medical care. The staff and the office are focused on meeting and greeting patients, getting patients in and out of the rooms. If you’re in the billing department, that’s about the only touch point that you have with the insurance company. So being able to get information in front of them in such a way that they can understand what’s going on.

Unfortunately, sometimes I’ll have conversations with physicians that’ll say, “Why do I need to know about medical policies? How does that affect me?” The single biggest thing that’s going to affect your reimbursement are these policy changes. They’re really unaware even of that.

They don’t read their insurance contracts. They just sign on the bottom line and say, “OK, I just have to take this plan. I’ll just sign the contract but I don’t understand it anyway. What’s the point in reading it?”

I think if there are great efforts made to really educate physicians about the business of medicine, then I think we can have a real groundswell that will help turn the tides. For the last 10-15 years, it’s been about how much the insurance companies could take out of the system. That’s really what it’s come down to. Being the middlemen that they are, they’re the ones that make all the profits of this deal.

Certainly there are some physicians and some specialties that are doing just fine, but if you look at healthcare across the board in the United States, obviously you don’t need to be a brain surgeon to understand how much trouble we’re in. The expenses that are attached to healthcare, predominantly, is attached to the profit that the insurance companies are making out of the deal. The premiums that people are paying aren’t being passed through to the providers of care.

So you have these providers of care that aren’t able to understand the business of medicine. They aren’t able to engage on a level that says, “Wait a sec. This doesn’t work. This is not what we want to see happen here.” And consumers aren’t able to engage on that level either. I mean, even if you just read your own benefits package, do you know what it’s telling you? Can you understand what is actually covered and what isn’t? Of course not, because it really is made as convoluted as it can be and, of course, the insurance companies retain the right to change these at any time, which is why there are all these policy changes.

We’re processing anything from 600 to 1,000 policy changes a month. Some months it’s double that, depending on whether it’s close to the end of the quarter or not. It’s a very dynamic environment where the insurance companies are constantly moving the goal posts. Consumers and physicians really can’t keep up, so the only hope is that can come in there is in the form of transparency and better education.

When we talk about things like consumer-directed health plans … as well as being adopted, it’s failing miserably. It’s being adopted so the employers can get their costs lower, but in terms of the people that are on the receiving end of those plans, they don’t realize they have $3,000 deductible before their benefits are going to kick in. They don’t have the $3,000 to meet those deductibles, so they are simply not acquiring care.

They’re not able to shop around because there isn’t pricing transparency with the insurance companies. One of their single biggest proprietary pieces of information is their fee schedule. So you can’t say, “If I go to the Dr. Smith down the street, it’s going to cost $200. If I go to Dr. Jones in town, it’s going to cost $100. Therefore, I’m getting something worthwhile by keeping that $100 in my pocket.” There just isn’t the transparency there between the physicians and the insurance companies and the consumers.

It doesn’t operate like anything else. There’s nothing else in any other industry to compare this to, this complete opaqueness that has occurred with the insurance companies. There’s no transparency in pricing; no transparency in contracting; no transparency in rules.

It’s really pretty under-regulated. It depends obviously on which state you go to, but here in New York State, they’re really not regulated in terms of being able to change their premiums and pricing any time they want.

There’s a bunch of things that need to happen for there to be some hope that the healthcare system can survive in its current form, but it has to come in the form of transparency. The only way it can be more transparent is by getting better information and better education out of the insurance companies.

Employees think they have healthcare, but what they’ve actually got is health insurance that pays less and less of the cost. If there was a total restructuring of the system where the insurance companies were left out of the picture or made less profit, could people afford healthcare even then?

I think we’ve seen the tipping point. We have finally seen the insurance companies kind of fall off a cliff, where they have gotten so overzealous with their pricing that their market has really shrunk.

Earlier this year, we heard Angela Braly, the CEO of Wellpoint, the biggest insurance company in the country, saying that they will not sacrifice coverage for profit. Basically meaning, “We will continue to price as high as we need to make good profits and we don’t care if fewer and fewer people are covered,” which really goes against the central philosophy of why the insurance companies are there in the first place. They are there to be able to cover people, so it really just shows you where the large, publicly traded insurance companies are at in terms of their culture.

But their membership has been shrinking and shrinking. United healthcare alone in 2008 has lost 750,000 members. That’s a huge number of premium-paying customers. And so it looks like the market is shrinking very severely for them, so they are coming out with a lot of these products that are really bare-bones products. The employers are saying, “Now I can still offer a plan to my employees, but at less cost to me and with greater costs sharing for them and higher deductibles, but I’m still able to offer that plan.”

People are really beginning to catch on that what they are now cost-sharing for, what they are now kicking in part of the premium on, and what they’re now having to pay these massive deductibles on, really gets them nothing for their money. So you have a real call in the consumer arena beginning to come in the form of, “We want options. We want the ability to purchase our own health insurance because it gives us greater control in terms of what we select for ourselves and what we’re willing to pay for.”

That said, there are so many people that can’t afford healthcare. The typical premium for an average family of four is close to $13,000 a year. If you have even just two parents working at $35-40,000 a year, that’s a tremendous amount of their income that’s going on just healthcare insurance alone. So I think the restructuring has to come in the form of paring it back to insurance. It’s no longer an insurance vehicle.

What we’re doing right now is paying insurance companies for the privilege of holding onto as much of our money as possible. What we need to be doing is saying, “This is an instrument that should operate like any other insurance.” You pay a modest premium for the unlikely event that you my end up catastrophically ill. If you want to pay additional, so you have things like well care covered, your annual visits, those sorts of things, you should be able to add that to the policy of that’s what you seek.

Certain states mandate that certain things have to be included in insurance companies that you may or may not use but you’re paying for. Insurance companies that are basically pointing to an underwriting cycle saying, “Yeah, we might be making massive profits this year, last year, and next year. But in five years, we might not be, and therefore, we need to really stock up on our reserves to make sure we can manage that.”

We need to start looking at: what is the purpose of insurance? What actually needs to be covered? How can people actually go about purchasing insurance for themselves that actually works for them? What are the products that need to be available and out there, and how can we understand what those products are?

Let’s keep it simple. Let’s not talk about benefits that have 10 tiers to them, where you have drugs that have four different tier levels. If your doctor prescribes you this, it will cost you $5, or if he prescribes you this, it’ll cost you $50. There’s just far too much complexity in it. It’s time to simplify it once again and bring it back to being a insurance instrument rather than the financial world that it’s become.

On that note too, a lot of insurance companies now are looking to becoming banks. Wellpoint has investigated having part of its company actually listed as a financial institution. They wanted to get into banking and the reason they want to get into banking is for HSAs, health savings accounts, because they realize if they control the money that is in those accounts and they can make a percentage on that, they can also charge for the management of those accounts. And then they’re also in charge of what they are actually going to pay the providers of care. So it means they lock up every single dollar potentially that is available in that healthcare pool coming from consumers to insurance companies.

You mentioned that few medical students are going into primary care. How can we fix the problem where doctors have to do more procedures to make more money?

I think that’s precisely what we’re seeing in primary care. It’s a thinking specialty. It’s not necessarily a doing specialty. Specifically, pediatricians. They’re having to see more and more patients faster and faster, just to keep the volume up to be able to meet the bills. But what they really are doing is this encounter base as opposed to performing procedures, being more procedure-based.

We really are seeing the death now of preventative medicine in the United States. Part of the shift has been because insurance companies found it a lot easier to be able to cut reimbursement to pediatricians, to family practitioners. They’ve really taken a lot of money out of that system. They’re not paying for those sorts of things. And so these doctors have a low incentive to go into these specialties in the first place. They have a much higher incentive to go into things like anesthesiology or cosmetic dentistry, those sorts of things you get paid for and you get paid handsomely.

At the same time, you have insurance companies putting dollars into things like disease management programs and pay-for-performance and quality measures. You look at that and say, it’s fine that you are quantifying and measuring these things, but unless you’re going to put money into those things, ultimately what you are doing is paying for catastrophic care. You’re paying for illness to be treated as opposed to preventing illness in the first place.

Some insurance companies seem to be waking up a little bit to that, but are still focused on the high-dollar specialties. They erode the preventative medicine as close to the bone as they could. It wasn’t just cutting the fat, it was actually cutting to the bone in terms of primary care while they pursued other initiatives in the specialty care.

They’re looking at oncology drugs and formularies and all of those sorts of things. It’s almost like they took their eye off the ball and didn’t realize that they really are game-changers in terms of how care is going to be delivered in the United States. If you’re not paying for certain things, then the delivery of that stops. If you’re not investing in preventative medicine, then the delivery of preventative care goes away. And that’s where we’re at.

Even if the insurance companies turned things around tomorrow, just looking at any of the data coming out of our medical schools in terms of physicians going into primary care, you’ve got this huge gap. It’s going to take at least a generation to fix. If we had folks going into medical school today that had decided they were going into primary care, they’d still have to go through the four years of college, internship, and all those sorts of things before they’re coming out into the world of owning our own practices and delivering that care back to society.

So there’s a real time lag that we should all be very rightly concerned about that the insurance companies have by dint of their policy-making and their strategic decision-making have actually created this situation for us. Part of the mission of The Verden Group is being able to track that strategy and see how its playing out and being able to get that information in front of medical societies and regulators and various other entities that we work with, to basically say, “Hey, you’re going down the wrong route on this strategy. If you’re going to throw million of dollars into measuring diabetes care but you’re not going to pay primary care physicians to actually spend the time educating the diabetic and following up on the treatment of that care, you’re going in two different directions at once and wasting a lot of money with that.”

That’s the neat thing with being able to work with these medical policies and these administrative policies. We’re getting a jump on the way things are going to play out in the next quarter, the quarter after that, and the next year, for example, based what we’re seeing in terms of where the revenue is flowing and how difficult it is for physicians to be able to provide care and get these services to people that need them.

So to answer your question, where do we go from here and can insurance companies really turn this thing around? I don’t think that they can. I don’t think that they should any longer be trusted to do that. They have driven the market. They have driven care in this country to a very precarious place.

It’s really time to take back that responsibility to stop continuing to pay hand over fist. For what? For payment of services? We can figure out a better way to pay providers of care. It doesn’t have to go through an insurance company that really has a vested interest in holding onto that money and making decisions that are going to be very contrary and the health of society at large.

What do you think the motivation of insurance companies is when they offer to subsidize electronic medical records or they offer personal health records and patient portals?

In many ways, they have to do that, in terms of being seen as progressive, to engage the consumer, to really show that they want to partner with the people that are in the business.

But electronic medical records are a really difficult thing for physician practices and providers of care to really implement well. Just having an electronic record doesn’t do much for you. It’s only the implementation and how it’s used. So unless you have the level of sophistication with the folks that are actually going to use the system, the systems themselves are relatively useless.

It comes down to: what’s the purpose of it? How is it going to be used? How easy is it to be used? Can it actually be fit into delivering care to the patients, or is it simply that something that the insurance company built that looks good, that gets them some kudos to show that they are being good responsible citizens, being part of this IT wave to make these things more accessible?

I think there obviously a lot of benefits to electronic records. Just being able to have your own personal history depending whichever physician you need to go to. There is a real value component there to being able to manage care more comprehensively. That’s certainly goes without saying.

But having an insurance company offer to implement and make available those electronic medical records raises a couple of questions. Part of it, too, is that physicians are very reluctant to want to participate in programs such as that, because what happens if you want to drop that insurance plan? The more insurance plans tie you up in their network, the less able you are to extract yourself from that, so you may end up making very large concessions such as lower and lower rates because now your medical record system in your office is tied to this insurance company. How do you break away from that?

You also then have a responsibility to abide by the insurance company’s demands in terms of how that information is used. What are you signing up for and what are you trading off in order to actually have that medical record in your office? So I don’t think insurance companies are the right people to be offering those sorts of things. I think they do it because there is a certain amount of goodwill that may occur with it.

But also, they need access to data. Right now they rely on claims data. That’s how they are getting their data. It’s very expensive for them to audit paper records. And so, when they are doing these pay-for-performance programs and looking at various things that way, they are really relying on the quality of the claims data that’s coming through.

We see that is really a problem too, because if you’re a doctor and you don’t know much about the business of managed care, and you’re just checking the box on a code but you don’t really know what that code represents, and you’re not keeping yourself up to date with coding and changes and how your CPT and ICD-9 code combinations should go along, pretty soon the information that you’re submitting to the insurance company that you’re getting paid on really isn’t representative of what you’re doing.

Further, you may not be billing for certain things because you know they are not paid for, rather than having to write them off every time. You just stop billing for them, such as developmental screening or visual activity screening, these sorts of things, so they don’t get captured. And so the insurance companies are grading you based on the quality of your claims data as opposed to the quality of your actual charting.

If they have access to that medical charting, they can link these physicians in, it gives them another source of data to pull from to really see what is actually being provided to patients. So that could be another angle to it in terms of what they’re doing and why they’re doing it. It doesn’t look like there’s too many insurance companies that are offering to make medical records available to physician practices anyway at this point.

What about the ICD-10 coding system?

I think the ICD-10 coding system is great in terms of getting to a greater level of granularity in terms of being able to really accurately pinpoint what those disease classifications are. It’s been around for a decade or more. I think England adopted it in ’99 or ’95 or something. It’s been around for a long time, but again, it comes down to education. I don’t think there’s been enough education around this so that offices are really going to able to accurately code and use them.

You’re going to find, I think, that folks are going to end up with a lot of denied claims, so it obviously benefits insurance companies, but a real problem for the physicians until they figure out why something is denied. If you call an insurance company and say, “Why was my claim denied? I need you to explain this to me,” all they will tell you is you billed with the wrong code. They won’t tell you what the right code to bill with.

From their perspective, they are saying, “If we tell you the right code that gets you paid, who’s to say that’s the actual code that you needed to use because that may run contrary to what the diagnosis was from that person?” So I understand the hesitation, but there isn’t a transparency there to basically state, “For CPT codes XYZ, these are the applicable diagnosis codes that go along with that.” That piece is missing. So how are these doctors officers really supposed to digest, absorb, and then use the ICD-10 coding?

If you have a good practice management system, you’re in luck, because a good practice management system used with technology can help you code better. If you punch in three digits instead of five, or five instead of seven, you know that there may be other options there and you can search through and pull up the right code. But again, there’s going to be this steep learning curve for physicians to do this.

Ultimately, though, I think it goes a long way to being able to capture with more specificity what exactly the diseases are, what exactly we’re seeing in healthcare and being able to record that more accurately. I think it’s necessary just for societal programs, being able to really pinpoint how chronic disease like diabetes or ADHD, these sorts of things.

We think we’ve got some good data, but again, it’s relying on what physicians have coded to date, so how detailed is it? How robust is that data? Adding ICD-10 to the mix doesn’t add anything by dint of just adding it. It’s really how is it going to be used? And if we don’t spend a lot of time and energy in educating physicians on how that should be used, then once again, we’re only getting halfway there. We’re not actually able to take advantage of what something like ICD-10 can do for us.

What technology should practices use that they typically don’t?

There’s a lot of tools out there that insurance companies make available, such as verifying eligibility. There are plenty of tools available where someone at the front desk can key in your number, pull it up, see what your benefits are. In a perfect world, that person would have a conversation with that patient about what their benefits are, what their deductible may be for the day, and really be able to utilize the information that they’re seeing.

We’re not seeing doctors’ offices take advantage of that, and part of the reasoning is they don’t participate with just one plan. If it was just one plan, it would be fine. But if you’re participating in 15-20 different insurance plans, you’re not going to learn 15-20 different systems. There are a few aggregators like NaviNet that have 10 or 15 different insurance companies. It may be a lot more by now, I’m not sure. But you have some aggregators where you can key in and it will pull it down from different insurance company Web sites.

I think if there were a much better job done in terms of having a consistent platform that all these insurance companies had to conform, rather than having one physician office having to conform to 15 different ways of doing something. I think we would see the adoption of technology uptaken an awful lot faster at these doctors’ offices.

We’re all human, right? You learn something once and you stick with what you know. You’re not going to take the time to actually learn how to do different, over and over, the same sort of thing done differently over and over again. And then to keep up with how all these things are changing – it’s really an enormous task, I think, for a lot of these doctors and their staff.

The technology is available, it’s just not in a way … again, it comes down to information, but also how this stuff is put together. It’s available, but it’s very difficult to actually adopt even in the simplest case of eligibility, because of the fact that there is just such variation across the spectrum of insurance companies you might participate with.

If you look ahead 5-10 years, what changes do you think will happen with regard to reimbursement in practices and what could change in healthcare that will have a technology impact?

Well, I’m hoping that, in five years, we’re going to take the insurance companies down and reshape the landscape. I think at this time we don’t have any other choices.

From a technological perspective, I would hope that within five years we would have these consistent platforms. We don’t even have a practice management system. There are 200 different types of EMRs out there. There are 500 different insurance companies in the United States. The variation and the degrees of variation are enormous. So I would say that in five years, anything could be improved.

From a technological perspective, we would have insurance companies and practice management software companies all being able to work off of the same platform so that these different pieces of these different applications can actually talk to one another and there’s a consistent way of being able to use it. Everyone knows Internet Explorer. You understand what you’re going to get. You know where the URL goes. You know how to get to a site. The same sort of thing. If there is that consistency across all the insurance companies, just being able to do the one repeatable exercise over and over and get the same consistent output, that would really go a long way to being able to remedy a lot of expense that’s in healthcare today.

Personally though, I would like to see things changing in a much more radical way. We talked a little bit about insurance companies actually being insurance companies again. Why have networks? Why is there a need for physician networks? There’s no benefit to that except the insurance companies are really figuring out who they are going to pay, what, and when, depending on your specialty, depending on the size of your practice, depending on the area of the country you are in. There’s an awful lot to manage for an insurance company and it adds a lot of expense. From their perspective, they are able to control the dollars a lot better.

Instead, get rid of the networks. Move more towards consistent platforms where consumers can have access via IT, via Web sites, to be able to see what are the fees that a doctor is going to be paid if you were in charge of your own healthcare spending; if those dollars are yours to spend.

For example, instead of an employer putting all this money into the insurance company, if it goes into HSA accounts and you get to spend that on your healthcare and you have an insurance plan that rides that. If you’re able to use technology to compare what insurance company is going to pay for, say, an office visit, a new patient visit to a dermatologist – you can see, using technology, what any dermatologist in your area is going to charge you for those services, then you can decide, “Am I go to the dermatologist that’s going to accept a $100 payment that my insurance company is going to pay, or I want to guy to the guy that came highly recommended but he’s going to charge $150 and I’ll pay $150 out of my pocket?”

To me, that’s where technology can really help us here. We do it with everything else. We go comparison shopping for everything from computers to even grocery items at this point. We can buy cars online. We’re able to compare all these things to see what the real costs that are involved in it, what people are charging, what you need to pay out to acquire certain products and services.

If there could be a better use of technology five years from now, I’d love to see something like that. Get the transparency in place with the insurance companies. Stop with the complexity of IT that’s being used to really keep costs high and keep physicians and consumers in the dark and really open it up so the health system can be more of a commodity than a luxury that it is for so many people today. It’s probably the most expensive service that they can possibly utilize.

Is there anything else you would like to mention?

As you can tell, I tend to have a somewhat diverse way of looking at the market. I think information technology is so important to so many things, but we’ve really cracked the code in terms of how that’s supposed to work. How it’s supposed to work with purchasing transactions over the Internet, those sorts of things.

Where we seem to not be applying ourselves very well is having consistency in our systems to costs in the healthcare industry. If we focused on that and, through it, forced a lot more transparency with the insurance companies, than I think we’ll really start seeing some tremendous changes in the healthcare industry. The costs don’t have to be what they are. They are what they are by nature of the complexity that we’ve built into the system. Information technology is a great leveler and a great simplifier of complexity in all other industries, so cracking the code in terms of healthcare and how to apply it to healthcare and make things a lot more transparent.

This is what we at The Verden Group are trying to do through our policy tracking and ability to actually get that information out to the different entities. Right now, we work with everyone from brokers to politicians to providers of care, to really highlight and show how the insurance companies are operating, what their policies are looking like. Start asking those questions, “Why?” as opposed to things that have happened after the fact and you take it on the chin and move on.

This is forcing much greater dialog at all levels of society. It’s not just between the insurance companies and the physicians. It’s not just between regulators, the insurance commissioners in different states trying to keep up with regulations. Now it’s putting all these things together and saying, insurance companies have invested a lot of time, money, and energy in making this as opaque as possible in order to reap as much profit as possible. So we can deploy IT for purposes of transparency and I think we’ll win the war on this one.

An HIT Moment With … Dan Nigrin

November 3, 2008 Interviews Comments Off on An HIT Moment With … Dan Nigrin

An HIT Moment with ... is a quick interview with someone we find interesting. Dan Nigrin, MD, MS is senior VP for information services & CIO, Division of Endocrinology & Informatics Program, Children’s Hospital Boston; assistant professor of pediatrics, Harvard Medical School; and affiliated faculty, Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology.

Mainstream applications always struggle with peds-specific logic. Does pediatrics really need to be that much different and are vendors doing enough to support it?

dan_n Yeah, pediatrics definitely requires specific functionality that, in the past especially, didn’t come "out of the box" for many systems on the market. Good examples include growth chart support, weight-based dosing, gestational-age based dosing, and for some centers like ours at Children’s Boston, being able to document interventions performed on fetuses while they’re still in utero!  

Overall, I think that vendors have made strides in many of these areas. For example, our Cerner system now includes good functionality for weight and gestational age-based dosing and decision support to go along with them, and the growth chart functionality allows for custom, disease-specific growth charts to be loaded by the client.

But we’ve still got a way to go. Case in point: in 1997 I wrote a Web-based application called GrowthCalc to allow specialists at our institution to calculate various anthropometric values on their patients. Today, over 10 years later, it’s still used on a daily basis at institutions around the world because nothing better is out there. It’s not that my work was that fancy or special; it’s just that it fills a niche that hasn’t yet been included in the EMR systems on the market.

What are the five most promising systems or technologies being used or considered right now at Children’s?

Five?  OK, you asked for it – I’ll move from the micro level, the patient, outwards to the hospital level, and then to the macro level, the region.

  • Our MyChildren’s patient portal, which we are now rolling out to all of our patients. In addition to the usual stuff found in tethered patient portals (e.g. appointment requests, billing inquiries and online payment, demographic updates, secure clinician messaging), we’ve also seamlessly built in Indivo functionality to allow our patients to have a secure, portable, personally controlled health record (PCHR) that is automatically fed by our Children’s clinical systems. We’ve had discussions with eClinicalWorks, whose systems we are putting into our affiliated pediatric practice network offices, to likewise automatically feed those patient’s Indivo records with their primary care information. Most importantly, with the patient’s consent, clinicians within Children’s will have single-click access to the patient’s Indivo record from within our EMR environment so that, unlike most personal health records out there now, our clinicians will have ready access to the information that our patients are maintaining.
  • Discern Pages. It was called Discern Desktop and new rumor is that it will be renamed again to Millennium Pages. This is a new Cerner technology and API that allows for custom HTML development to be done within the Cerner application environment. This includes support for Javascript, including Ajax, all while operating within a patient context, so you can easily query for patient data and generate your own interactive and rich UIs. We’ve already created several very promising proofs-of-concept, including one where we display our Philips bedside monitor information right from within PowerChart.
  • iAware. Another new Cerner offering, this is an always-on system intended to be displayed at the patient’s bedside, likely in a critical care environment. Our intensive care unit clinicians had found it difficult to get a good overview of the patient when they had to click through various parts of the chart to find the bits of data they needed to synthesize the patient’s status. This new approach aggregates the key data elements, including vital signs, labs, meds, and inputs/outputs, and shows them in a very intuitive and graphically rich way. From a technology point of view, there’s nothing to it – we deployed it live in three weeks in our intermediate care unit – but from a clinician’s point of view, it’s priceless. It actually takes the data that we work so hard to collect electronically and presents it to clinicians in a useful way (what a novel idea!).
  • MA-SHARE. Building on the success of the New England Healthcare EDI Network (NEHEN), which allowed New England payers and providers to exchange administrative transactions in a secure way, MA-SHARE (Simplifying Healthcare Among Regional Entities) is allowing organizations in the New England area to exchange clinical data. Our primary focuses right now are on exchange of CCD documents between organizations as well as the facilitation of ePrescribing in our region. This is a RHIO done right – a sustainable, beneficial model.
  • Catalyst / i2b2 / SHRINE. Harvard University was recently awarded one of the NIH CTSA grants to further clinical and translational science across the country. A major focus of our proposal (now called Catalyst) centered on IT and its ability to tie together the various people and projects Harvard-wide. Using i2b2 querying tools developed at Harvard and now deployed at four major Harvard teaching hospitals (Beth Israel, Brigham & Women’s, Children’s, and Mass General), we also are working on SHRINE, which will allow us to execute clinical queries across these institutions. So investigators will soon be able (with IRB approval) to ask questions like, "How many patients are seen at each institution with disorder X who also have lab value Y and who are on medication Z?"  Powerful stuff …

Children’s has a notable informatics training program. What influence does their scientific work have on the practical side of the healthcare IT market?

The Children’s Hospital Informatics Program or CHIP is a biomedical informatics multidisciplinary applied research and education program that’s been in place at Children’s since the mid 90s. Although its roots were definitely in clinical informatics, it is now also a leader in functional genomics, public health informatics, and personalized medicine. What’s more, its members understand that all of these things are interrelated and that their true benefit comes when they’re not looked at in isolation. For example, the genotype is worthless without phenotype information to go with it.

Examples of ways in which CHIP’s work has had influence on mainstream healthcare IT include:

  • Distributed querying. Some of the earliest work from CHIP included a system called W3-EMRS, which allowed queries for a patient’s data to be distributed across multiple organizations. It was implemented first as a pilot and then successfully used at Caregroup, when it was first formed to virtually integrate the disparate EMR’s that each institution brought to the table. Similar models are now used in several RHIO efforts. In addition, this distributed query approach is now the basis for SPIN, the shared pathology information network; and SHRINE, described above.
  • Secondary re-use and mining of clinical data. We realized long ago that the treasure trove of clinical data being acquired by EMR systems was largely underutilized. In the late 90s, I developed the Goldminer system at Children’s, which allowed for much easier investigation of the data stored in our systems for clinical research. This was soon followed by work at Partners in the Research Patient Data Registry (RPDR), and which in turn led to the development of i2b2. i2b2 is now implemented in many institutions nationwide, and although open source, there are commercial vendors out there who specialize in its implementation.
  • Public health informatics. We’ve done quite a bit of work using existing data sources for public health related functions. Aegis performs automated, real-time surveillance for bioterrorism and naturally occurring outbreaks. It is the syndromic surveillance system for the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, enabling real-time population health monitoring. HealthMap is another CHIP project that was funded by Google.org to gather and display information from news sources around the world about infectious diseases.
  • Genomics. CHIP members pioneered the use of relevance networks in the analysis of both genetic and clinical information, and they literally wrote the book on using microarrays. They continue to lead the field.
  • Personally Controlled Health Records. Indivo.

How did Indivo come about and what impact will it have on healthcare?

About a decade ago, researchers in CHIP developed the open source Indivo. It was actually called PING back then. It was, essentially, the world’s first PCHR. It enables patients to own complete, secure copies of their medical records. A good analogy is that it’s like a Quicken for healthcare.  

It is amazing to think how far Indivo, and the idea of putting patients in control of their health information, has come in that time. It still seems futuristic to some, but we expect PCHRs to be universally available and used in the very near future. There’s been a lot of buzz around PCHRs since Microsoft and Google announced theirs; what people may not know is that both companies’ deployments are fundamentally based on the Indivo model. There’s even a rumor out there that MS’s HealthVault actually contains some Indivo code under its hood. Both companies were present at our two Personally Controlled Health Record Infrastructure conferences we hosted at Harvard in 2006 and 2007.

As many people know, Dossia has also adopted the Indivo infrastructure, and in fact Wal-Mart just went live, offering our Indivo-based PCHR to 1.4 million employees and their dependents.

Indivo and PCHRs in general will have a major impact on healthcare. With PCHRs, patients will be able to aggregate and share almost all of the information in their medical records such as lab tests, medications, and clinical notes, which in the past has been largely inaccessible to them. We see this leading to improved communications and continuity of care with clinicians, and the ability to provide more complete and accurate information to health care providers than the current system allows.

We also see this as exciting for the biomedical research enterprise. With PCHRs, researchers may be able to recruit with patient consent hundreds, thousands, possibly millions of patients from all over the world for their studies, potentially speeding up the time it takes to bring research to the bedside.

While this is all very exciting, there is a lot of work to be done if PCHRs are to reach the full extent of their potential. In a recent New England Journal of Medicine article, my colleagues Ken Mandl and Zak Kohane call for attention and regulation as various PCHRs are developed and adopted. Without it, it’s possible that the tremendous benefits of PCHRs could be overshadowed by problems arising from the unethical and uncontrolled use of valuable medical information.

Which title have you found to be the best for impressing strangers: doctor, CIO, Harvard professor, or the guy behind the Defective Records electronic music label? How do you find the time to do all that stuff and which ones require wearing a tie?

The last, by far – the first three things are a dime a dozen! Seriously though, my music creation and record label stuff, and more recently software synthesizer development, are all great hobbies that I wish I had more time for. How do I do them all? Jack of all trades, master of none?? Oh, and about the tie – if you believe my friend and across-the-street colleague John Halamka, you don’t need a tie for any of ’em, just a black mock turtleneck!

An HIT Moment With … Tee Green

October 27, 2008 Interviews 2 Comments

An HIT Moment with ... is a quick interview with someone we find interesting. Wyche T. "Tee" Green III is president of Greenway Medical Technologies of Carrollton, GA, which provides market-leading physician practice software and services.

Greenway just announced PrimeResearch. What kinds of practices will use it and what’s the benefit?

teegreenWe believe that, in time, most practices will participate in active strategies that improve population health, such as conducting clinical trials and enrolling patients into electronic disease registries that enable researchers to drastically increase the speed at which new drugs or treatments are introduced, essentially saving time, money and lives.

Through our PrimeResearch network, physician practices that use Greenway solutions will have access to a vast network of clinical research, quality/safety initiatives, and composite clinical and financial analytics, all of which can increase revenue for the practices and foster the physician’s ability to improve the quality of care for patients.

How do you think economic conditions are changing the physician systems market and who will win and lose?

That’s a tough question as we aren’t quite sure at this point how it will affect the market. The good news for companies like Greenway is that we provide solutions that enable physicians to remove inefficiencies in their practice and increase the quality of service and care they provide their patients. Companies that assist practices in providing better care and increase their revenue by doing so should do well in this environment.

While the economy is slowing down, our company continues to grow. During the last quarter, PrimeSuite 2008 became a fully CCHIT Certified 08 ambulatory EHR, including certification for cardiovascular medicine and child health. In September 2008, we finished our largest month in company history with nearly $7 million in new sales.

Is interest growing in revenue cycle products and services for physician practices?

Yes. We see physicians not only interested in revenue cycle improvements, but in clinical and administrative improvements as well. A general trend we have noticed is that companies that deliver services that integrate and streamline the clinical, financial, and administrative processes of the practice are growing. Physicians want to be able to work fluidly on a single-database solution and are seeking products that allow them to do so.

What is your reaction when you see big hospital systems vendors buying into the physician practice market?

Smart move for them, I would think. I imagine hospital CIOs are pushing their HIS vendor to roll out usable solutions for their connected, and hopefully interoperable, ambulatory market. 

About a year ago, we launched PrimeEnterprise, which enables healthcare organizations such as hospitals, RHIOs, and IPAs to effectively manage today’s complex healthcare enterprise by streamlining the business process and improving the physician’s ability to make the most informed decisions. Whether these organizations are looking to centralize such tasks as clinical population management, streamline the sharing of clinical information or better manage accounts receivable amongst the many providers in their network, a community-based solution will enable them to better manage their workflow. Furthermore, recent Stark Law changes provide benefits for hospitals and other community health organizations that invest in healthcare IT like PrimeEnterprise.

A recent rumor speculated that the company has attracted interest from larger firms that could result in a sale. Does that match with your vision of where the company wants to go?

Certainly not. That rumor seems to pop up every other year or so. I can only speculate from where it comes. To be very clear, we are not talking with anyone about an acquisition of Greenway. Our investors are excited about our long-term plans, so we will continue to grow as a profitable private company. We should add our 1,000th practice in the coming months, and we currently have more than 20,000 users in 30 specialties and subspecialties in 48 states.

We started out in the small- to medium-sized practice market but during the last couple of years we have seen tremendous traction in the larger practice segment of the market. Our business plan is built on a long term relationship with our customers and we are very excited about our future at Greenway.

An HIT Moment With … Justen Deal

October 20, 2008 Interviews 3 Comments

An HIT Moment with ... is a quick interview with someone we find interesting. Justen Deal was the Kaiser Permanente employee made famous when his November 2006 internal e-mail criticizing the organization’s HealthConnect EMR project was leaked out to the press. The CIO left, the CEO was publicly and somewhat arrogantly defensive, and HIStalk’s readers voted Justen Deal Industry Figure of the Year in the HISsies that year.

What has your post-Kaiser Permanente life been like?

image In one word, interesting. Challenging at times, as well. It helps to have the perspective afforded by two years, though. Challenging in that the first few days, weeks, and months took a lot of patience, quite a bit of deliberation, a fair amount of persistence, and a ton of coffee.

Interesting in that I came to see healthcare information technology from a different angle. I saw the provider side, the needs, the costs. I saw the vendor side, the challenges, the risks. If you got past the headlines, I always defended Kaiser Permanente and the importance of the HealthConnect project, and on more than one occasion, I pointed out the strengths and advantages of Epic.

I eventually began working on Vieue, which has given me the opportunity to put some of that perspective to use. I know that no one company or person can solve every healthcare information technology problem, but there are a few we’re working on.

What good and bad effects resulted from your famous e-mail?

We’re just shy of about two years out, so, as I said, the time allows a bit more perspective.

The negative was that I ended up leaving Kaiser Permanente, which is an organization I believed in and still very much care about.

On the positive side, speaking about healthcare in general, I think there has been a small, but real shift in how electronic health record projects are assessed, in terms of their costs and successes. I think there still is a lack of thorough, public, critical analysis of the efficiency and effectiveness of electronic health record projects, but it has definitely improved, and I hope my e-mail played some small part in that.

HealthConnect is getting good press about improving patient outcomes. Are you buying it?

I think we all agree that smart, interconnected electronic health record systems can have an enormously positive impact on patient outcomes. The recent report that Kaiser Permanente is leading the nation in terms of breast cancer screening rates is great news, and it comes after more than a decade of work at KP specifically geared towards increasing detection. For 2005, the Southern California region achieved a mammography screening rate of 84%, which, as you’ve mentioned, has reached 87% according to the most recent data. By comparison, the current national average is 72%. 

Other regions have seen success, as well. In 1996, the Georgia region had a screening rate of 74%. In 1997, they implemented their Breast Health and Cancer Detection Program, and by 1999, they had significantly increased their rate to over 84%. The combination of building smart reminders into healthcare information systems and relevant patient workflows can obviously go a long way to improving patient outcomes.

Broadening your question just a little bit, I think the question for healthcare has to be whether we’re actually taking meaningful steps towards taking breast cancer screening rates up nationally, towards catching the hundreds of thousands of deaths every year caused by preventable medical errors, towards tracking and ensuring better compliance and follow-up on chronic conditions. I just don’t think we’re seeing the sizable shift we should be seeing there across the country, and I think that’s because the software isn’t as "smart" as it needs to be to catch, track, and prevent.

The other issue, I think, is cost. Across healthcare, we’re spending tens of billions of dollars on healthcare information technology, and the return on investment just isn’t there yet, until we are indeed meaningfully and quantifiably improving outcomes and reducing the cost of care. I worry about whether we’re wearing out our welcome with providers and insurers alike when we over promise, under deliver, over budget.

Lots of folks said you were highly analytical and well spoken in your HIStalk interview, but said they would never hire you because of the risk of a similar situation down the road. Has that been the case?

I decided fairly early on that I wanted to focus on Vieue, so I was thankfully spared any awkward interview moments. For any companies that might care about my particular perspective, though, I will say that I think it is critical to have a thorough, sincere, and independent compliance process, which can go a long way towards catching and addressing concerns proactively. I think it is a mistake to view compliance as a public relations apparatus, but the reality is a competent compliance process can often help prevent internal problems from becoming public problems, not through suppression but through correction.

Kaiser chairman George Halvorson is speaking at the HIMSS conference in Chicago next year.  If you were in the audience, what questions would you ask him?

I honestly can’t think of a single question.

An HIT Moment With … Leah Binder

October 13, 2008 Interviews 3 Comments

An HIT Moment with ... is a quick interview with someone we find interesting. Leah Binder is CEO of The Leapfrog Group of Washington DC.

Healthcare IT insiders and clinicians often criticize Leapfrog’s choice of CPOE as a technology that benefits patients, given that most medication errors that cause serious patient harm involve drug preparation or administration, not ordering, as in the recent Corpus Christi example with heparin. What overwhelming evidence makes CPOE so compelling to Leapfrog that those critics aren’t seeing?

Our fidelity is not to CPOE per se, but to any and all evidence-based best practices for reducing medication errors and improving patient safety. It happens that CPOE emerges as a clear winner in the evidence. We offer a bibliography on our website.

imageAmong the studies: a study led by David Bates, MD, Chief of General Medicine at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital, demonstrated that CPOE reduced error rates by 55% — from 10.7 to 4.9 per 1000 patient-days. Rates of serious medication errors fell by 88% in a subsequent study by the same group. Another study conducted by LDS Hospital in Salt Lake City by David Classen, MD, demonstrated a 70% reduction in antibiotic-related ADEs after implementation of decision support for those drugs.

Recently there were two small studies suggesting CPOE might not be effective, but our expert panel discounts those studies because they took place in hospitals that deployed CPOE in six days — a ridiculously short time period for implementing any kind of complex system change.

Our experts read the peer-reviewed research. If there are better ways to reduce medication errors we welcome the opportunity to consider it.

Would you say that Leapfrog has had the influence on outcomes and healthcare purchasing that were expected when it was formed in 2000?

Leapfrog’s influence has been nothing short of astonishing in light of its short history. The central tenets of Leapfrog’s mission — transparency, good measures of quality, and rewarding good performance — have literally transformed mainstream health policy in the United States. Leapfrog led the way in innovations and policy priorities, among them:

  • Leapfrog was the first to issue a never events policy, in 2006; now CMS has begun issuing regulations that Medicare will no longer pay for certain hospital acquired conditions, and all national health plans, and more than 60% of Leapfrog-reporting hospitals have followed suit with never events policies of their own.
  • Leapfrog’s focus on paying for value and performance is now a mainstream philosophy. There are over 200 pay for performance programs in the country, including Leapfrog’s own Hospital Rewards Program, which at least one health plan intends to roll out nationally.
  • Leapfrog’s commitment to transparency of quality information was one of its most controversial elements in 2000; today there are a plethora of report cards and other public information purporting to reveal comparative information among hospitals. Nonetheless, Leapfrog’s report on hospital performance remains by far the best and most useful: up to date information, evidence-based, and reported in a way that offers a meaningful comparison among institutions.
  • Drawing on members’ experience, Leapfrog has influenced the design of CMS’ value-based purchasing initiative as well as HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt’s Executive Order incorporating four “Cornerstones of Value-Driven Health Care.”
  • Leapfrog has significant influence in the National Quality Forum, including most recently approval of Leapfrog-sponsored measures on hospital efficiency.

Leapfrog has also seen progress in hospital quality among hundreds of reporting hospitals and raised the bar on patient safety. A recent peer reviewed study from Harvard School of Public Health, consistent with others that have been published on Leapfrog, concluded that hospitals reporting adequate performance on the Leapfrog Hospital Survey have better outcomes than other hospitals in the United States . 

We have not finished our work by any means. Next steps: support and incentivize providers in achieving higher performance, and engage even more employers. Some of our plans: develop best practices for implementing new IT infrastructure that ties to safety, deploy one nationally standardized pay for performance program based on the Leapfrog Survey, support hospitals more in achieving higher Leapfrog standards, and reach out to consumers and employees in new ways to support them in making decisions about providers. 

We are also going to formalize our partnerships with more of the employers now using Leapfrog (the vast majority are not formally members), issue more detailed guidance on implementation of never events, continue our robust partnership with policymakers and like-minded advocates to advance value-driven purchasing, advance a more streamlined and outcome-oriented set of performance measures, and ultimately, of course, improve the quality and safety of care.

All the evidence to date suggests we are on the right track and that we will be very busy in the years to come.

Where does Leapfrog’s mission fit in tough economic times?

There are many questions about who will be in the White House and what will happen to our economy, but one thing can be predicted with near certainty: the Leapfrog vision for health care reform will be a centerpiece. It has to be. Employers and other purchasers of health care will continue to reduce and in some cases eliminate employee health benefits as their profits erode and health costs escalate. In turn, employees will become more price conscious, and shop for the best value. Shopping for value in health care is what Leapfrog is all about.

With all the groups who want to oversee or audit provider performance, why should hospitals participate in Leapfrog’s programs?

Four reasons to start:

  1. Because employers and purchasers of health care want them to. Purchasers pay for more than the care of their employees; they also subsidize the care of other patients when reimbursement for their care is inadequate, such as the uninsured.  Over 4,000 employers and counting participate with and use Leapfrog, and there is no other source of hospital data that employers point to as “their” exclusive survey. The least hospitals can do is devote 40-80 hours of staff time to giving employers the information they ask for, and in the process build trust and good relationships with their regional employers and employees.
  2. Because it is useful. There is no survey tool that offers a better compendium of the best practices in patient safety, and some of the survey content is like getting high-priced consulting for free. For instance, our evaluation tool for CPOE is unique in the nation and offers invaluable information about the performance of IT systems.
  3. Because it is harmonized with others. The measures in the Leapfrog Survey are consistent with NQF-endorsed measures and safe practices, IHI’s 100,000 Lives Campaign, and the Joint Commission.
  4. Because you’re going to see market share and financial reimbursement changes tied to performance on Leapfrog. It is happening now. Many hospitals that perform well on Leapfrog feature that performance on their advertising, particularly in competitive markets. Some employers use Leapfrog scores to determine co-pay levels, and this has a very dramatic impact on patient flow. As changes in our economy and health system are emerging, we see these trends accelerating.

What were the surprises, good and bad, since you took the job?

The biggest “good” surprise is the influence of Leapfrog in Washington health policy circles and among hospitals. I was in Washington for one year about 14 years ago, and the change since then is incredible. 

For instance, at that time, the idea of report cards comparing providers was considered fairly radical and opposed by a wide variety of provider stakeholders. Today, everyone seems to agree it’s a good idea, and they just argue over the format (a very big issue, but still, the progress is substantial). Leapfrog is present at every significant stakeholder forum and regularly consulted by leaders in all branches of government. When Leapfrog summons people for a meeting on an issue, the who’s-who of leaders and experts show up. And among hospitals, where Leapfrog has its share of both passionate supporters and harsh critics, our influence is unquestioned. The visibility enables us to get things done in ways that would be impossible otherwise.

The second biggest “good” surprise: there are thousands more employers involved with Leapfrog than our membership roles would suggest.  That’s also the biggest “bad” surprise — we need them to be counted formally among Leapfrog’s membership, which helps assure we can sustain this remarkable visibility at the national level.

An HIT Moment with … Peter Pronovost

October 6, 2008 Interviews 1 Comment

An HIT Moment with ... is a quick interview with someone we find interesting. Peter J. Pronovost, MD, PhD is Professor, Departments of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Surgery, and Health Policy and Management; Medical Director Center for Innovations in Quality Patient Care; and Director, Quality and Safety Research Group, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.

On September 23, Peter was announced as a 2008 Fellow of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, recipient of a so-called "genius grant" that will pay him $500,000 over the next five years, no strings attached. The fellowships are awarded to "talented individuals who have shown extraordinary originality and dedication in their creative pursuits and a marked capacity for self-direction" to "encourage people of outstanding talent to pursue their own creative, intellectual, and professional inclinations."

image

What was it like hearing that you had been named a 2008 MacArthur Fellow? 

Amazing. I do not consider that I fit the bill of genius. What I do is try to make complex ideas simple and use them to improve patient outcomes.

What will you do with the grant?

I’m not sure. I have been toying with trying to make a checklist maker, an IT tool to tap the wisdom of crowds and make a more efficient knowledge market. I believe certain markets are so fundamental to society, like buying a home, healthcare, and retirement, that we need to guarantee that they are efficient.

What is the status of your "List" projects and have you had any interaction with IT vendors?

Still working on it and not working with vendors. I am trying to work out the "plumbing" first and see what product we can create.

What are your big projects going forward?

We are developing programs for MRSA and decubitus ulcers, evidence-based checklists and measures.

Are you a star back at Hopkins now?

I am not a star. I am very much a doc in the trenches doing patient care. That is what keeps me grounded and provides ideas of what we can fix.

I am delighted that patient safety was recognized. It has been very hard to get this field accepted as a legitimate science or as important in healthcare. Though we have a ways to go, we are making progress, and the MacArthur certainly helps.

An HIT Moment with … Matt Grob

September 29, 2008 Interviews Comments Off on An HIT Moment with … Matt Grob

An HIT Moment with ... is a quick interview with someone we find interesting. Matthew Grob is Director, Health Care Consulting with RSM McGladrey, Inc.

Of all the ways you could have gotten involved with HIMSS, why did you choose CPHIMS?

I had been an annual conference reviewer for a few years and then served for three years on the HIMSS Foundation Scholarship Committee. I was looking for something a little more involved and the CPHIMS program had always interested me.

I sat for the exam at its inaugural offering at HIMSS 2002 in Atlanta and truly saw the value in the credential – what it means to clients, colleagues and employers as well as the personal satisfaction in having it confirmed objectively that I actually know something about what I do for living.

In 2005, I applied and was accepted for a two-year term on the CPHIMS Technical Committee. At the end of that term I was asked to chair the committee for the next year. I must have done something right because they asked me to chair for a second year, which is where I am now.

It has been an exciting time because aside from having the opportunity to work with some really smart and dedicated people who really know their stuff, we recently revised the exam content to reflect both current practice as well as the fact that it is quickly becoming a global credential – I will be presenting on it at the World of Health IT in November in Copenhagen.

For next year, I will be on the ballot for the HIMSS Nominating Committee and urge all your ultra-hip and sophisticated readers to vote for me!

What hospital trends are you seeing in your consulting work?

My practice also deals a lot with the ambulatory and primary care side of the business. We are seeing a shift in hospital environments to tying the two sides of the house together.

There are so many good reasons to do so. The benefits on the clinical side are clear for safety and continuity of care, but we are also seeing it come together on the patient accounting/practice management side as well. Layering business intelligence tools on top of all of those systems are also on the uptick as organizations want a better way to monitor and manage the health of their patients, populations, and their organizations utilizing the wealth of data that is collected throughout the continuum of care and the organization.

How do you think the economy will impact IT budgets in hospitals?

Wow, what a timely question. I see it as a chicken-and-egg scenario. It is clear that the way to better manage the health of our population is through IT and that will, in turn, result in reduced healthcare costs. Payors already recognize that through pay-for-performance initiatives. But to get the benefits, it all takes investment and I suspect that access to capital will be that much harder as we enter this uncertain time in our country’s economic history.

Interestingly, here in the New York market where some of our clients are hiring for technical positions (i.e. those that do not require specific healthcare knowledge or expertise), the candidate pool just got a bit more sophisticated and bigger with jobs lost at Lehman Brothers and the like. I suspect that will be happening elsewhere as well.

You spent a lot of years as an analyst at NYU Medical Center. If you had to take a hospital job again, which one would you want to work for, what job would you want, and why?

I don’t see myself leaving New York in the near future. Given that, I would want to go back to NYU. They were the gold standard when I was there and continue to be leaders in the industry.

Paul Conocenti, the CIO, came from banking but managed to understand pretty quickly how to run IT in a large medical center that has a history of innovation and success. Pravene Nath, the CMIO, is also visionary and understands how to do things right the first time. I would want to use my leadership skills and abilities to improve workflow and operations using technology as an enabler, with a focus on clinical systems. I’ve worked on the revenue cycle side of the house, but my first and true passion is the clinical.

If I were to leave New York, I would love to work with John Glaser up at Partners, Edward Marx at Texas Health Resources, or Buddy Hickman at Albany Medical Center as they are all great leaders and thinkers and they just plain get it. When I started in consulting at Ernst & Young back in the mid-90s, Buddy was one of my team leaders. I often point out that we share not only that history, but a hairline (or lack thereof) as well.

What do you like about living in New York?

I think the question with the shorter answer would be what I do not like about living in New York.

My wife and I were both born and bred on the Upper West Side where we live now. We live a block and a half from Lincoln Center, steps from both Central Park and newly developed waterfront along the Hudson River, and walking distance to most museums. It’s about a 30-minute walk to my office, so I actually get to see my kids most nights when I’m in town rather than sitting in traffic or on a train or bus.

But I’m also spoiled. I am used to being able to find pretty much anything I want 24/7 and within walking distance. The city has a rhythm and vibe that is very hard to find elsewhere and diversity in all aspects is what keeps it interesting. Growing up in apartments, we never had a lot of space and the city and Central Park were our backyards so while yes, it would be nice to have some more room, we’re pretty well adjusted to the confines of a Manhattan apartment. I’m just happy we bought ours 11 years ago. We’d never be able to afford one today!

HIStalk Interviews Todd Park, athenahealth Co-Founder

September 15, 2008 Interviews 10 Comments

Todd Park-1 

I probably wouldn’t enjoy being Jonathan Bush’s athenahealth co-founder. JB is as magnetically drawn to a TV camera as a moth to a bug zapper and vice versa, so he’s always going to be seen as the company’s voice to outsiders. Todd Park doesn’t seem to mind too much, explaining that their original plan for the company called on them to use their respective strengths to build it successfully. They’re still best buds, it seems, sometimes wandering into man-crush territory with their unabashed admiration of each other after a bunch of years of being joined at the hip.

Eleven years after athenahealth’s founding but only a short time after its most noticeable success, Todd has retired from the company at 35, moving on to serve on its board, raise a family, and start other ventures.

I usually provide interview context by noting when the subject laughs, but it’s pointless here because Todd talks fast, laughs constantly, and seems to be having a ball. He’s putting the same energy into his latest startup: a son born last month (he ended his e-mail inviting me to call at any time with, "I’m generally up at night these days, feeding and burping the baby, so am available literally 24-7 :)"

I originally pictured him as Apple’s Steve Wozniak, the ultra-nerdy limelight-avoiding engineer who helped build the company, then left at 36 with mountains of cash and turned it over to the intense visionary Steve Jobs. I think Todd and JB are a lot more alike than the two Steves, though, and I expect that Todd’s business ideas will keep in a non-nerd limelight of his own.

Let’s start with a little background about yourself.

I co-founded athenahealth with Jonathan in 1997. Before that, he and I had met at a consultancy, Booz Allen Hamilton. We were the two entry level analysts in their new managed care strategy practice in New York, so we spent more time with each other than we spent with our significant others. We worked 24/7 traveling around the country together and fell deeply in love with each other. He’s my brother from another mother.

We decided to start a company together and started athena in 1997 as an obstetrics physician practice management company. We bought a couple of practices and got our butts handed to us by how hard it was. We discovered the root cause was that we didn’t know how to bill and get paid. Tried to find an answer to that problem. Couldn’t find one so, built our own. We were the first Web-based revenue cycle management service. Then we were told politely by the doctors that the solution to their problems was not to work for us, but for us to work for them by offering this Web-based “get them paid” solution. So we morphed athena into that, raised venture capital, and then took the company out from there.

I guess that’s my story. I’m so intertwined with athena, I don’t know how to tell my story without talking about athena.

I don’t know you personally, but I can’t imagine Jonathan working happily as a consultant. Still, it must have been a big jump.

Absolutely right. I loved Booz Allen. He did too. We loved being there. We loved learning tons about what was going on in healthcare, but, yeah, you’re absolutely right. Both of us were entrepreneurs at the core, and while we were very appreciative of the time we spent at Booz Allen and the people we met there, we really did want to start an actual business together.

We considered a bunch of different ideas, ranging from disease management to demand management. We briefly considered an air ambulance transport company and a healthcare venture capital company, but then, for a variety of emotional and business reasons, we focused on OB.

The emotional part was through Jonathan’s wife, Sarah. She was training to be a certified nurse midwife in the public health system in New York City. She would come home and tell us stories of what she had seen that were really frightening, actually, in terms of … shall we say, room for improvement … in how babies are delivered in America. From a business standpoint, being analytical geeks, we learned that America spends a lot more per pregnancy than any country in the world, but has outcomes that rank 23rd or 24th. We saw a big opportunity to be helpful there.

We started athena as a baby company. Yeah, we had run nothing but laps before in our entire life, so it was a crazy kamikaze move, but I think that every entrepreneur, at some point in their life, has to have some of that crazy kamikaze spirit to try to do something that hasn’t been done before.

We went to go talk to Bill Donaldson, who is one of the founders of Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette and later chairman of the SEC. We wanted him to give us money for our new business, so we gave him the business plan for the OB company. He read it and said, "I don’t understand this plan. It doesn’t make any sense to me. But listen, kids, I’m going to give you some advice. I’m going to give you a pearl. This is, generally speaking, probably not going to be the business plan that ultimately you follow. It’s an excuse to get close enough to the customer — the doctor — to understand what they really want. And once you understand what they really want; once that opportunity comes knocking on the door; for crying out loud, answer the door.”

At the time we said, “Oh, this is just a bunch of platitudinous advice.” We really wanted his money. But then, when we were in the middle of getting our butts handed to us as OB practice managers and realized that we’d stumbled across this opportunity to help doctors nationwide with medical billing, we suddenly had Bill Donaldson’s words come back to us. Actually, it took running a medical group to understand what was really going wrong with them and what the root cause of their issues are and to give us the kind of experience we needed to create the business that athena would ultimately ride to success.

So, I would say that the first company that Jonathan and I started failed: athenahealth Version 1.0, the OB practice management company. But like a phoenix from the ashes, the athenahealth Web-based business services company arose from that experience and would never have happened if we had not gone through the inferno of trying to run medical practices ourselves.

So the conclusion is that you might as well jump in, do something, and then react to what happens.

Exactly right. Put enough of an idea together to inspire a team of really good people to jump with you into a general zone like medical practices. Then, just learn as much as you possibly can and what you really can do to be helpful and then act against that opportunity. No question. There was a study I heard about recently that I’ve been trying to track down that looked at 150 companies from start-up to ultimate conclusion. They found that something like close to 100% that had actually survived had changed their fundamental business model at least once, but not more than once. So I think that again speaks to the truth of what Bill Donaldson was talking about.

All we knew is that we wanted to help doctors be the best they could be. In fact, the vision statement of the company hasn’t changed. It was and is, “To help make healthcare work the way it should.” We just thought that meant that we needed to go and run doctors’ offices. It turns out that there are a lot of people that know that really well, but they need help and the kind of help that athenahealth was ultimately able to develop.

Jonathan obviously comes from a privileged family with connections. Was your background similar?

No. My father emigrated to the United States from rural South Korea in the late 60s on a scholarship to the University of Utah. He got a PhD in chemical engineering and joined Dow Chemical. He worked there for the next 30 years. He actually has about 72 patents, more patents than anybody in Dow Chemical’s history except for Dr. Dow himself.

He raised me in a small town in Ohio. He sacrificed a lot to try to give me the best options he could. I went to Harvard for my undergrad education. I actually wanted to be in the Naval Academy and I really had my heart set on that, but then Dad and Mom sat me down one evening and said, “Son, no pressure, but we’ve wanted you to go to Harvard since before you were born.” The way they said, that I knew there was no hyperbole. I knew they were serious. I said, “Jeez, if you’re that serious about it, fine, I’ll go.” So I went.

In the matter of what I do in my life, nothing will ever compare to what my dad did: growing up in the Korean War, born dirt poor, emigrating to a brand new country, and becoming one of the most decorated chemical engineers in the world. My entire life is a quest to live up to half of what my dad actually did in some ways. That’s my background. We’re an immigrant family.

If you hung a label on Jonathan, he’s the Steve Jobs, the charismatic visionary. Are you his Steve Wozniak?

That’s actually an interesting question. Your Wozniak analogy is interesting. I actually don’t know enough about the history of Apple to know whether that’s a direct analogy or not.

What I would say is that he and I have been partners in building athenahealth from the ground up. He’s Yin to my Yang and we have collectively co-led and co-built athena from the very beginning.

One of the things that I insisted upon from the very beginning is that we not be co-CEOs because I didn’t believe in the idea. I believe in clear chains of command, so I said, “Look, you be the CEO. That that doesn’t mean I’m not going to be committed to building this thing together." And so we did, and I think that we’ve got really complementary experiences and skill sets and mindsets.

For example, he’s a terrific spokesmodel with the media and does that really, really well. I prefer to be on the quieter side of things. What’s interesting is that people who meet us say, “Wow, you and Jonathan are so different.” In fact, deep down, he and I are really, really similar. We both have the same world view, the same values. We both believe in doing well by doing good. We both are passionately committed to healthcare and trying to make a difference in a practical and tangible way in healthcare. So we’re bonded at a very deep level, even though we may physically and in other respects look very different from each other. We’ve been partners in building athena like I imagine Jobs and Wozniak were, and each being what the other needed us to be to lead the building of this company.

Have there been times you’ve wanted to put a muzzle on him?

No. Truthfully, yes, but that being said, it’s a package, right? So Jonathan’s great strength as a communicator is that he is a completely frank, completely open, completely honest guy. If you want him to be that way, and he’s incapable of being any other way, he’s going to do things and say things which come straight from the heart and straight from the top of his head. Sometimes the darndest things pop out there, but I’m sure that from time to time he says things he’s wishes he could reel back. But I’d say that 95% of the time, he says stuff that’s spot on. He says things that no one else wants to say that need to be said. I think that athena loves that.

I love that, and frankly, that’s my style as well in a lot of ways. I just don’t talk quite as much as he does. The industry needs people like that. The industry needs more people like you and Jonathan who bring frankness and pizzazz and a sense of humor to a space that badly needs that. I think that he and you have done this industry an enormous favor by doing that.

I worried that his style might be a problem for the CEO of a publicly traded company. Did you guys sit around before the IPO and say, “All right, here’s a list of things we can’t say any more?”

That point was raised to us by the people who were helping us to go public. What we said very explicitly was, “Look, we’ve always been a really open, really honest, really frank company. We’re not going to suddenly change our personality as a public company.”

Yes there are certain rules about what you can and can’t say by virtue of SEC regulation. That, of course, we’re abiding by very strictly. But in terms of being frank about our point of view about what we think is going on, we actually have explicitly said that we want to stay that way. Our early experience is that in a lot of ways, that’s actually potentially, ironically enough, been helpful to us as a public company because people are so used to being spun and getting half-truths that it’s different for them to actually to get a company that just talks in as straight a line as it possibly can all the time. That’s what we always have been and what we feel like we need to continue to be.

Frankly, we couldn’t be any other way if we tried. I think, in the long term, it will actually be an asset for us because it will build a level of trust with our constituencies that we wouldn’t have gained if we were much more carefully controlled and were spinning much more tightly than we do as a matter of course today.

Was it anti-climactic to actually be in operational management as opposed to the thrill of actually starting a company and taking it public?

No. I think that each phase of athena has been incredibly exciting. I would say that the phase that we’re in now is equally exciting, as exciting as each stage we’ve been in in the past. In fact, the IPO itself was a bit anti-climactic, in the sense that it was great and we got together to talk about and celebrate it and then everybody got back to work. The company didn’t think or act any differently to pre-IPO.

Jonathan and Todd 008

You got up on IPO day, got dressed, and then what?

I have to say it was one of the more surreal experiences. We got up and we knew that we had sold our blocks of stock to all the people that we had talked to on the road show. We went to the NASDAQ. Of course, there is no NASDAQ in the physical sense, but they have this little show site in Times Square, right, where they bring you? They’ve got these people on terminals just to make you feel comfortable, like there’s something that’s happening. I don’t know what those people are doing, but it’s like Disneyland, it’s cool.

I remember the first truly surreal moment being that there was this six-story spherical billboard planted on top of the NASDAQ Building in Times Square. They took us outside and they flashed a “Welcome athenahealth ATHN” sign with basically a picture of a baby and a doctor and stethoscope and our slogans and whatnot, six stories high on the NASDAQ. I said, “What is going on here?” I took a picture on my iPhone and e-mailed it to the company and everyone circulated it and was struck by it and said, “Wow, that’s really surreal.”

Then we went in to a little conference room and they had, like, a couple of crackers, which was nice, and there was this screen, and they said, “You’re going to start trading at 11 o’clock.” Great. So we counted down: five, four, three, two, one, and nothing happened. We said, “Uh, did we do something wrong? Is the NASDAQ broken? What’s happening?” And he said, “Oh, we’ll figure it out.” And we waited for what felt like forever. It was probably only a couple of minutes.

Keep in mind, we had gone out at $14 to $16 a share; been lucky enough to get oversubscribed, like 27 times at $18 a share. So we said, “OK, let’s see what happens. It’ll be interesting.” And the first number that flashes on the screen is 30. We said, “Wow, that’s pretty amazing.” Then it floated downward to like 26. Then it shot up again, something like 34, 35 … I don’t remember any more. I just remember just feeling crazy.

Then we flew back, met with the whole company, and explained what happened. We emphasized that the IPO itself isn’t the achievement. The achievement is that we’ve collectively built something that the world is beginning to embrace. Ten years of incredibly hard work to build something that is actually helpful to healthcare. It was beginning to find a broader audience, so everyone should be happy about that. And everyone was happy about that, and then everybody went back to work.

The thing I’m happiest about is that, actually the next day, you couldn’t tell the difference between that day and any day prior to the IPO. That was fantastic, because the thing I’d been most worried about was that the culture of the company would change; the openness would change, the frankness would change; the irreverence would change; focusing on the long-term would change. And none of that has changed, which is testament to the culture that everyone holds so dear here and also to the strength of our recurring revenue business model, which is just a great, predictable foundation upon which to build a business in a really rational, predictable way and be able to stay focused on the long term.

But somewhere in the back of your mind, you must have been thinking, "Holy crap, I’m now worth $25 million and I wasn’t yesterday.”

Of course, intellectually, I understood that, but it still hasn’t really hit me, to be honest with you. My wife resolutely refuses to believe that that money exists. My wife fell in love with me seven years ago when I wanted to be a writer, so she was not expecting to be worth whatever it is that we’re worth now.

Hang on to her.

Absolutely. In fact, she was the trigger event for my recent retirement. So I am hanging on to her and doing everything I can to make sure I hang on to her. From a personal standpoint, my burn rate hasn’t changed pre- versus post-IPO. I don’t plan for it to change.

Surely you bought something cool.

I gave half a million dollars to a charity called VisionSpring that’s mass producing eyeglasses in China for the global poor. That’s something I wouldn’t have been able to do pre-IPO, but that’s about the only thing I did, actually.

What kind of car do you drive?

I drive an Acura TL. I would have bought a Honda Accord because I’m a lifelong Honda Accord driver, but I wanted a GPS because I have bad sense of direction and Bluetooth because I’m menace enough to other drivers without talking on my cell phone. The Accord at the time didn’t have GPS and Bluetooth, so I had to buy this thing called a TL instead. It seemed pretty good value for money. I’m not kidding about being a menace to other drivers and having no direction sense. If we ever get together, Tim, don’t let me drive you anywhere. Actually, now I that have the TL I’m a bit safer, but still, don’t let me drive you anywhere.

It doesn’t seem like a really emotional purchase that you went with something with a GPS.

Ha. Actually, I specifically told the dealer I want to buy something that just blends in the road. I do not want to drive anything that calls attention to itself, so get me the most generic-looking car that you have that has GPS and Bluetooth. He said, “Well, I’ve got this thing called a TL.” I said, “Well, I’ll take a look at that.” I still don’t remember what it looks like, so it’s very forgettable. It’s great. It’s perfect for me.

I’m absolutely delighted that athena is a huge financial success, but the thing I’m actually prouder of is that we’ve collectively built an amazing company that is actually doing something to be helpful in healthcare. If you wanted to make a fortune in 1997, you probably wouldn’t have started a company to buy OB practices and run them and you probably wouldn’t have bought, as your first OB practice, one in San Diego that serves undocumented immigrants and Medic-Cal patients, which was the practice that we bought and the practice from which athena was born. If you wanted to make a killing, you would have started buypottedplantsonline.com. You wouldn’t have started with an indigent OB women’s health practice. But that’s what we did.

What’s wonderful to me is that there are a whole bunch of people that jumped in feet first with Jonathan and I to do that, including the doctors and midwives at that practice, who suddenly found themselves holding stock in the company worth over a billion dollars, which is crazy to them, but it couldn’t happen to a better group of people. That kind of financial reward to me is not the end goal, but is just a wonderful by-product of what is really wonderful, which is building an institution that actually helps, that is actually helpful in a concrete way. That’s what I’m proudest of and that’s what makes me happiest.

It’s hard to believe you’re retiring permanently. What led you to that decision?

The root of why I’ve retired as an employee is that I made a promise to my wife years back that, as soon as we’d gotten athena to be strong enough such that it could fly without me on a day-to-day basis, at that moment, I would take myself out of the day-to-day management, we’d move to California where Amy’s from, move next to her parents, and start a family. That’s what we’ve always wanted to do.

Being a first-time entrepreneur, I didn’t really have a good sense of the entrepreneurial space-time continuum, so I told Amy, “I’m positive this will take me no longer than 2004.” And it turns out it took a little longer than that, but by 2007, I was sure that we were there. Actually, it wasn’t the IPO that convinced me, it was the state that the company achieved in order to be ready to be public. So the IPO was more the functional fact that we’d achieved that state, as opposed to the actually certification of it.

I feel that athena is now strong enough to be an institution to withstand the loss of anyone day to day. So at this point, I really have to keep my promise to my incredible wife and do this thing. I retired from day-to-day management in January of 2008 and joined the board and then took on this Chief Athenista role. The title was not my idea, by the way. The root of the title, in case you want to know, which you probably don’t, but in case you do … remember our first practice when we were an OB company was in San Diego and we were serving a predominantly Latina population and our workforce was predominantly Latina. They started calling themselves Athenistas and to this day everyone at athena calls themselves an Athenista. So they gave me this title Chief Athenista.

Basically, the function was to be a long-term strategist. I’d spent so much time nose to the grindstone, nuts and bolts building athena, that I hadn’t actually in quite awhile taken a step back to take a look at what was going on in healthcare and to plot where I thought athena should ultimately go, in the next 10 years anyway. I spent the next six months interviewing over 150 leaders across healthcare and reading through about 50 major studies on the healthcare system and various aspects of it. I put together an assessment of state and direction of U.S. healthcare and a long-term, 10-year vision for athena.

What was interesting, when I initially started, people gave me all kinds of ideas: athena starting a data business, athena going international, athena doing all kinds of things, athena Intergalactic. The most interesting was that I’d traveled the furthest reaches of the healthcare system and was looking for the boat we had missed. The more I learned, the more I actually became convinced there was no additional boat to launch; that in fact, the sweetest spot in healthcare to be was the space that we were already in and that we had less than 1% market share.

So I came back and I said, “Look, I’ve walked the furthest reaches of American healthcare and what I’ve concluded is we need to double down and focus on executing the bejeebers out of what we’re doing right now in creating a national infrastructure to help doctors be the best they can possibly be and do that for more than 1% of American docs."

So that’s what I put into my long-term vision for athena. I profiled a bunch of different trends that you’re familiar with: consumer-directed healthcare, pay-for-performance, medical home, all of which are things that I think that athena, through our national platform, can do a lot to facilitate and to help doctors deal with and actually turn to their advantage and to the advantage of their patients in the next ten years. I said, “Look, let’s just double down on this national infrastructure play for docs, nurse practitioners, and midwives. Let’s do that play and not get distracted by delusions of grandeur.”

Once I’d presented that and once our board and management team had bought into that, I said, “There’s no athena Intergalactic for me to start, so what I should do at this point … thinking about our long-term strategy is not going be a full-time endeavor unless I’ve really gotten it terribly wrong, which I hope I haven’t, so let me hang up my cleats as an employee entirely, which I did at the end of August, and convert to a pure board member.”

One of the reasons I wanted to do that was because I wanted to become an independent board member so I could take a bigger leadership role on our board, eventually, in doing things that independent board members can do that non-independent board members can’t. I’m actually now functioning as a very active athena board member, functioning as a godfather/co-founder, visiting athena every other month. I’m writing an internal blog, inspired by HIStalk. I’d actually like to get some tips from you if you wouldn’t mind at some later point.

I’m thinking about long term strategy, networking across the industry, speaking on behalf of athena at conferences, hosting brown bag lunches with our employees, starting an athenahealth Foundation, which Jonathan and I are going to start funded by $1 million each of our own money, and just taking a godfather/co-founder role and a board role, and then moving to California.

I just had a son at the beginning of August. I’m trying to be the best father I can possibly be. Over time, what I anticipate doing is investing my time and money in a set of entrepreneurial ventures, both not-for-profit and for-profit, that can advance the ball in healthcare; that can advance the cause of healthcare in a variety of ways. athenahealth was obviously my first corporate child and I’ll continue to serve on athena’s board and be its godfather for as long as I draw breath. I have recently got involved in another venture which was mentioned in the Washington Times article, called Maria Health, which I’ve started with Giovanni Colella, who was CEO of RelayHealth and then Sapient before that. Our venture capitalist is Bryan Roberts of Venrock, who is one of the lead VCs behind athena.

It’s actually a consumer-oriented company. It’s super duper early so I can’t really get into specifics at this point, but generally speaking, it’s a company that’s seeking to take an athena-like approach to helping healthcare consumers navigate an increasingly complicated healthcare system. It’s got a great team, veterans of athenahealth and Yahoo who are part of it. It’s off to a great start. It’s too early to talk a lot about, but it’s been a ton of fun for me to learn more about the consumer space.

As you know, consumerism is a force of growing power in healthcare. I think a lot of what’s going to be happening in healthcare is going to be consumer-driven in the next ten years, so it’s exciting to be learning about that. I’m looking at a number of other both not-for-profit and for-profit ventures in which to invest time and money to help these entrepreneurs make the differences that I think they can make in healthcare for the better. So I think that’s what I’m going to do. First and foremost, be the best dad and husband I can possibly be going forward.

There’s one question that has come up in the past, maybe kind of a dweeby technical question. There’s been some speculation that I’m going to dump all of my shares in athenahealth. I just wanted to say that I’m not. I’ve actually exercised and sold a set of employee options that were “use them or lose them” as a function of my employee agreement. When I transitioned from employee to chair board member, I had to use or lose them, so I exercised and sold them.

But even after those transactions all go through, I still hold 900,000 shares of athena stock. I am very, very bullish on athena. I will hold a lot of stock athena for a really long time and continue to a very active board member and godfather to athena. Again, the proof is in the pudding. So people can watch and see if I dump my 900,000 shares or not, but I thought I might communicate more expeditiously and say that that was behind my recent sales and that’s what my plans are going forward with athena.

You’ve been attached by the hip to Jonathan for all these years, but now you’ve got a chance to do some things on your own. It must be satisfying to have feet in both courts.

I’m grateful that Jonathan is here to continue to lead athena, because if Jonathan weren’t here, I couldn’t retire and go on to the next phase of what I want to do. So, I’m grateful for that, but honestly, if I had a choice, I’d want to do the next set of things with him, actually.

I think that starting any business is incredibly difficult. Starting a business in healthcare is especially difficult, and if Jonathan and I didn’t have each other, then athenahealth wouldn’t be here now. Frankly, if Jonathan and I didn’t have a whole bunch of other people, athenahealth wouldn’t be here right now. There’s too long of a list.

I’m not a big believer in the epic hero theory of entrepreneurship that “One man, in a world filled with chaos and darkness, takes a stand.” That’s bullpucky. I think that it’s a small group of people that decide to take a stand and make something happen, each of whom couldn’t do it themselves, but collectively they render it possible to do something really unbelievable.

It’s one of my favorite quotes. I don’t remember who said it. but it’s a question and answer. Someone says, “Is it possible for a small group of people to change the world?” and the answer is, “Yes. In fact, it’s the only thing that ever has.” I think that athena is a great example of a change that’s helpful that couldn’t have been done by any one person, that was engineered by a group of really committed people.

One of the best parts of athena has been the privilege with that incredible group of people. The reason why I was so confident that athena would continue to rock the house even though I’m not there day to day is because that group of people is still here and bringing on wave after wave of new people who are incredible to perpetuate the beneficial change that we’ve gotten going in our corner of the world here.

How do you scale it up, though, and make sure that what made you special when you were small can still make you special when you’re huge?

That is a terrific question. I don’t think that we necessarily can come up with a definitive answer to that question even if there is one. But what I can say is that we’ve fought harder about that question than any other similar question.

I think the gist of our answer is culture, at the end of the day. We have a culture that’s extremely focused on dong well by doing good, a culture that’s focused on teaching and learning and playing for the team to win, and a culture that makes each of those things a living and breathing art of how we operate, how we recruit, how we pay, how we think, as opposed to just banners on a wall somewhere. It’s that culture that I think, more than anything, has attracted the people we have attracted.

It might be the fact that medical billing is so super sexy, but actually it’s probably the case that it’s less the sexiness of medical billing and more the fact that there’s a do good, do well team-oriented, continually teaching and learning focus culture at athena that attracts the best people in the world. Those best people recruit more of the same kind people. They come up with the best strategy, the best technology, the best operations, and execute the best. I think it’s that culture that’s our greatest asset.

It’s a culture Jonathan and I are no longer required to continually breathe into the company every second. We think that there are many people now that do that, in the sense that its part of the fabric of the place, as opposed to pumped into athena by a couple of people.

Some would say you’re in the billing business and others that you’re an advocate for physicians. What I heard you say is that there’s value in the network that you’ve built that makes the footprint valuable. What is the business going forward?

I think it’s all the above, but it’s in the proper sequence. I think that the business that we’re clearly in today is getting doctors paid. We’re growing really rapidly and have a lot of traction because we are really, really great at getting doctors paid. We do that through a combination of workflow and rules and back office operations on a single living, breathing, Web-based platform. The whole point of the platform is to get the doctors paid more faster with less hassle. That will continue to be the focus of our business, I think, for the next 10 years. We have less than 1% market share of that business, so it’s something we’ve got to keep executing on.

That being said, as that business grows, we are as a function of that business, building a national network for doctors on a single Web-based platform with a single Web-based rules engine and a single back office working on their behalf. Once that network gets to a certain size, there are a bunch of things you can do with that network. They go beyond just getting doctors paid more, paid faster with less hassle. I think the first thing we’ve got to do is just get big enough for this network plays to really be viable and our ticket to get big enough is to continue to be the best at getting doctors paid. So even stuff like EMR.

We recently launched athenaClinicals, which is our version of an EMR. We think of an EMR in the lens of getting doctors paid, and so we’re fusing our EMR with our practice management and billing service and using the EMR as an engine to make sure that our revenue codes are right, to make sure that charges flow smoothly, to help optimally manage the increasing array of pay-for-performance rules to help blow away paper in the back office. That is a function of and part of clinical paper and part of the whole billing process. We even view athenaClinicals as part and parcel of an overall engine, and overall service, that gets doctors paid more faster with less hassle. I think that right now, and for the foreseeable future, we’re in the “get doctors paid” business, but eventually that business will build itself into a network upon which athena can do more things that are really useful and are additional excellent lines of business as well.

How much of the company’s success is because of the work your brother Ed did technically?

A huge portion of it. There’s a long list of people that deserve to have their name in lights, not just me and Jonathan, a long list of people, without whom athena’s success would not be possible. One of the prime names is Ed Park.

Basically, he was superstar young Internet consultant at Silicon Valley Internet Partners in 1998. I was a practice manager of a failing OB practice in San Diego, California. We needed to get a handle on this billing problem and we needed to get a handle on our operations and build technology that could help with that. So I called Ed, rock star Internet consultant, and said, “Ed, I need your help.” And he quit his job that day and flew to San Diego and partnered with another guy named Bob Gatewood, who was our CTO at the time, to basically build athenanet. Without athenanet, athena wouldn’t be possible.

There’s a long list of names like Ed. One of the things that actually I have a private pet peeve about is entrepreneurs who portray themselves as God’s gift to humanity and as the epic warriors who single-handedly built their business from the ground up. Those entrepreneurs are either full of it or have faulty memory. Businesses like athena are built through collective effort. Not just by one or two people, but by a lot of people, so there a bunch of Ed Parks that we owe this company to and I’ll be forever grateful to them.

I saw that you have donated money to both the Obama and McCain campaigns.

Yes, I have. You really do your research!

Who do you want to win, or who do you think has the better story?

Obama. We talk a lot of politics here at athena. By the way, athena is 98% Democrat and 2% Republican, which is interesting, actually.

So, I was talking with one of my buddies and we were saying, “Wow, wouldn’t it be great if Obama and McCain were the nominees?” This was when it looked like Clinton and Romney were going to be the nominees. We said it would be great if it was an Obama-McCain contest because they seemed to be terrific guys and potential presidents, but that’s not going happen. So I gave money to both Obama and McCain in hopes that one of them would break through and, lo and behold, both of them got through by some strange twist of fate to be the nominees, which put me in a real quandary.

I think actually either one would make a really terrific president. I think The Economist cover was dead on with the “Best in America” over the American flag with McCain and Obama on it. I think they got it right on. But I’ve picked Obama for a bunch of different reasons, less anti-McCain and more pro-Obama. People keep calling me and I have to say, “Look, I really like your guy, but I’ve actually picked the other guy.” But I’m an Obama guy.

When you look at healthcare, both as a campaign issue and in general, do you think it’s broken, and if so, what will it take to fix it?

I think healthcare is incredibly broken. I can’t think of a word that does justice to how broken it is at so many levels. I think we all intellectually understand that, but it was really eye-opening for me in my walkabout when I talked to these 150 leaders, to understand just how broken it is looking at the underlying data in terms of cost and quality and access. So I think it is actually broken.

I think the silver lining is that everyone knows it’s broken. It’s hard to find people in any position of responsibility that believe it’s not. There was a Commonwealth Fund and Modern Healthcare that was done recently. It surveyed leaders specifically in healthcare and it found that 9 of the 10 leaders in healthcare say that not only is change required, but fundamental transformation of the healthcare system is required. And that is certainly what I learned about on my walkabout as well.

There’s also a pretty surprisingly broad consensus about why it’s so badly broken at the end of the day. The consensus that I heard on my walkabout is that it’s fundamentally the massive misalignment between payer, provider and consumer. A key to actually healing the healthcare system is to realign those incentives between payer, provider, and consumer such that savings from smarter care and better health are shared with provider and consumer so they are incented to move in that direction through a variety of different means. So that fundamental incentive alignment problem is at the root of the issue and we need to address it in order to heal the healthcare system.

Len Nichols, who is a great healthcare economist at the New America Foundation, has a great sound bite he uses to describe this. He says, “Fee-for-service payment for providers plus low cost-sharing by consumers plus a very small effective evidence base on what works and what’s cost effective equals number one in the world in healthcare spending and 37th in the world in outcomes behind Slovenia and Costa Rica." I think that was a great sound bite that kind of puts it in a nutshell.

Everyone in the system has a different theory about what to do about it. I actually think there is no silver bullet. I think it’s actually a collection of initiatives, public and private, that will be required to put the healthcare system on an even keel. I think a system that’s more consumer-directed. A system has better incentives for provider and provides better funding for providers to do population health management. An innovation on the delivery system side along the lines of retail clinics, medical homes, virtual care teams around care episodes, and the government doing something about the insurance coverage situation, helping to facilitate broader coverage.

Healthcare IT, not technology sitting there naked and expensive and not very effective and efficient at actually helping, but technology utilized to help re-architect the business and care processes in healthcare to make it more efficient and effective and to help consumer-directed healthcare and pay-for-performance move along more expeditiously. It’s not a situation where there’s going be a solution that’s sent from the heavens that will fix everything. I think its actually going be from the collective work of a lot of people, public and private, and a bunch of different ideas that mesh together into a much healthier healthcare system where there’s a better incentive alignment where we’re getting more bang for our buck.

A lot of folks are happy with it, including those that vote and legislate who have access to good healthcare and may make a lot of money from it. Politicians don’t like to take away the lollipop of entitlements, either. Who will come forward to say it’s not working?

I think the most encouraging thing I learned in my walkabout is that I talked to a fair number of people who were pretty influential and pretty powerful. Not just entrepreneurs at the margins throwing stones at the center, but people who were actually at the center.

It was very interesting and refreshing to me. They are very actively thinking about how the system needs to evolve. Now, no one things the system is going to evolve overnight, but they’re thinking of evolutionary innovative change at a level that is more intense than I could certainly remember.

It goes back to something that Winston Churchill said, which is, “America can always be counted on to do the right thing after it has exhausted every available alternative.” I think that healthcare is finally at the point where it really can’t continue in its status quo state. Healthcare consumed 9% of GDP in 1980. It’s up to 16% now. It’s going to be 20% by 2016. It’s going to be 30% by 2030. Simultaneously, we rank 37th in the world in outcomes, according to WHO, 42nd in infant mortality, 46th in life expectancy from birth. More and more Americans are underinsured and uninsured.

There’s a great survey done by the Center for Studying Healthcare System Change. They looked at access to care, measured by, “Were you able to access medical services when you needed to?” That figure of those who couldn’t jumped massively from ‘06 to ‘07 to an all-time high. Every metric you look at. We spend 2.5 times as much on healthcare per capita as the developed world average. Our outcomes are the worse than the developed world average. We spend 2-3 times as much on health benefits per worker as our competitors in the developed world, let alone the developing world. Healthcare premiums are rising at triple the cost of wages. Healthcare costs are rising at 2-3 times than the rate of growth and productivity of GDP.

These are all unsustainable trends. We can ignore them for awhile, but they’re getting to a point where we can’t ignore them any more. Everyone talks about Social Security being bankrupt. Social Security is something like 8-10 trillion dollars underfunded. Medicare is 30 trillion dollars underfunded, meaning that to cover the gap between benefits and revenue for existing Medicare beneficiaries, we have to put 30 trillion dollars today into an interest-bearing account to cover the difference.

It’s getting to the point where I think that healthcare reform on a political level is actually increasingly not going be the third rail. I think at a private sector level, even people in a positions of power are sensing they are going to have to do something, otherwise risk potentially near-catastrophic events. I’m not predicting any tsunami-like change in the industry. The industry is too big, too complicated, but I do see the winds of change starting to blow through in a really meaningful way.

When I interview people, most of the people I talked to didn’t just have ideas, they were actually in the process of doing things that were really interesting. So crossing the line from “say” to “do” is something that is happening more and more and that’s really encouraging. So I’m an optimist. Maybe that’s because I’m an entrepreneur, but I think that we are just in time as a country going to figure this out and get ourselves to the other side without getting too many bones broken in the process.

Fifty years from now when someone is looking at your picture on the wall at athenahealth Intergalactic, what do you think your legacy will be or what would you like it to be?

That’s a really great question. I haven’t really thought about that. I guess I would say someone who, in some small way, helped to show that you can actually make healthcare better in a meaningful way. Someone who helped inspire other people to in small ways, medium-sized ways, and big ways make positive changes to healthcare and demonstrate that change is, in fact, possible.

HIStalk Interviews Michael Nissenbaum, President and CEO, iMedica

July 7, 2008 Interviews 3 Comments

MikeNissenbaum 

Many folks probably heard of PM/EMR vendor iMedica when Misys announced that it had licensed iMedica’s product and would sell it under the Misys MyWay nameplate. That put the company on the map, but it seems go be gaining visibility on its own. CEO Michael Nissenbaum has the reputation for being able to deliver and for being a straight shooter, so when a reader suggested interviewing him, I asked and he agreed.


Let’s start with a little bit about yourself and about iMedica.

I’ve been in the industry for 10 years, going back to my days at Millbrook Corporation back in 1998. They had a great product, but it had been driven off the cliff financially. It took about three to six months to put it back together, and then we enjoyed five consecutive years of 85% compounded revenue growth, profitability, best-of-breed selection in the marketplace.

The end of that story was GE came in and offered my directors a price. They were interested in exiting. They made good money. It migrated the Millbrook team to GE. Most of us stayed there for a year, year and a half, and then started looking around. GE was not the entrepreneurial environment that we had at Millbrook. GE had a different culture than we had.

I was contacted by two investors who had a significant equity interest in the iMedica Corporation. iMedica, at that time in 2004, was already a six-year-old company. Charlie Koo, the founder, had, during his PhD dissertation, convinced 18 physicians at Stanford to, instead of building a template-driven EHR, to build a chief complaint-driven EHR. Those Stanford physicians compiled about 1,000 chief complaints and then associated 400,000 clinical terms with those complaints. That provided the unique speed into the application.

Charlie and his team built the product out for EHR. It was very fast. It had the replication features which are now the patient record to cache onto the tablet. Not only the single record, but you can determine every record for everyone I’ve seen in the last 90 days and will see in the next 30. You set the parameter. It gave the physician incredible mobility on the tablet PC.

Charlie’s target market, though, was the 50-doctor and larger groups. As you and I both know, two things are required to claim that market. The first is the capital to sustain yourself through the committees, the consultants, and the “we’re not sure if we want to do anything right now” decisions. The second is having another 50-doctor group so that you have a reference account.

Charlie was able to get one account up and running, a 62-doctor practice in California, but it was late in the game and he ran out of money as well. Good product, good technology – at least the investors saw that. They decided to look around for a different management team, which got to me.

I had some individuals take a look at it on my behalf. I’m not technologist; I’m a finance guy. They came back and said, “It’s Microsoft-based.” They thought it had a lot of potential. On June 13, 2004, I came over to iMedica and was followed over the ensuing months by some others who joined me from Millbrook and at GE: Neil Simon, Daniel Popp, Lonnie Cordell.

We were very fortunate that, in September 2004, literally on our doorstep, Sanofi Aventis wanted to get out of the practice management business. They had a team of developers right there in San Jose. We were in Mountain View, California at the time, which is just a stone’s throw away. They were willing to give us the code if we would just support their existing client base, which I think were eight practices. So it wasn’t any type of bonanza.

So, all of a sudden, we had an EHR team and a PM team and were able to begin the integration of those products into a single database application offering both PM and EHR in a .NET environment. As any other software development goes, the first 90% of the time, the last 10% took the other 90% of the time. We found ourselves about a year behind in getting the product to market from our original date.

We came to market and the company we took over, iMedica, had, I think, 12 clients. Today we have well over 300 practices ranging from single doc to over 62; from single sites to over 17 sites; multiple specialities. The only thing we really don’t do are oncology and ophthalmology, but everything else is in our portfolio. We’ve continue to grow over the last three years at over 100% per year.

So you joined iMedica and they had the existing EHR product?

They had an EHR engine. It was a great documentation engine, but there were other parts of the EHR product that weren’t in the product. It was an incomplete EHR, at least when you look backwards from today. At the time it was pretty complete, but as we are seeing with CCHIT and other requirements in the industry … things that we didn’t even think are required by the EHR and we now have in the application.

Why do you think Misys decided to license your product and how to you think that decision has worked out for them so far?

They represented to us that they decided to license our product because of the underlying technological architecture upon which our product is built. For Misys, they looked around in this marketplace and nobody had the structure that was as flexible and as strong as what our development team had built. They believed they could take that and continue to leverage it into their market. So, that was the differentiator up front.

Misys is many multiples the size of iMedica, so the obvious question would be why wouldn’t they build their own? Usually you buy someone else’s technology because the market won’t wait for you or you don’t have the capability.

Their EHR has some traction in the marketplace, but it’s not a single database application with either their Tiger or Vision application. So yes, they saw the time-to-market being a hurdle in front of them if they tried to build.

Second, they had purchased Amicore. They bought the remnants of that product, if I recall correctly, in 2005-6. They were supposed to come to market in late 2006 or 2007 with this single database application. They missed that date. Just anecdotally, from what I heard, it was going to take a significantly longer period that they anticipated to bring that product to market. Then they had the change of management and I’m sure the new management had different objectives and different strategies.

I  know there was some equity consideration as part of your licensing arrangement, but I think most people said, "Why didn’t Misys just buy the company outright?"

We weren’t for sale outright. We had no desire to sell the company at the time.

Everything is for sale at the right price and Misys certainly has the deep pockets.

They do. Again, we think our value will continue to accrete. Again, we’re growing at 100%+ per year. We will continue to grow 100%+ this year even without any Misys involvement. With the Misys involvement, the numbers go up considerably.

Why didn’t they buy us at the time? At Millbrook, we think we left money on the table by selling too early. And while we have no plans of selling presently, when the time is right, we want to make sure that we get full value for our investors. They’ve been very good to us.

Is there any agreement that gives them the right to purchase more of the company?

There’s absolutely no agreement which allows them to buy any more of the company in any preferred mode. If we went out to raise capital at any time, they would have the same rights as any other shareholder.

Is the version they sell under the MyWay nameplate the same product or did they fork it off?

It’s the same source code. The source code is ours. If you go to the About button on Misys MyWay, you’ll see iMedica.

Then what value is Misys adding, other than they’ve got a big footprint and a lot of sales people?

They claim they have 110,000 physicians. They claim 85% of those do not have an EMR. That’s a heck of a business right now, going back and getting your existing installed base captured with an EMR. I don’t think any of us in the business have 85,000 EHR sites and or EHR physicians today.

Wasn’t that the same argument for their hooking up with Allscripts? Now they’ve got products from two competitors confusing their own customer base. How do you think it will shake out?

I haven’t been privy to the conversations in Raleigh. They are having discussions between Misys and Allscripts. We’ve been talked to once or twice. The MyWay product has been exhibited at their analyst day in Raleigh and got a great reception. They continue to sell it aggressively and we think it’s part of the portfolio going forward.

How it plays into the Allscripts portfolio, I really don’t know. I heard that they were supposed to bring an application to market and that’s, anecdotally, in the fall on a single database. They still had their challenges with Version 11 on their TouchWorks, their HealthMatics product. It looks like a single database is really still two different products integrated together.

You’re fully competing with both companies and will continue to do so with the combined company?

Tooth and nail until somebody notifies me otherwise.

Why would prospects buy the product from Misys instead of the company that develops and supports it?

You’d probably have to ask the few that I know that have bought it from Misys. Usually it’s continuity. They have an existing Misys contract and maybe Misys is having special deals. When we go toe-to-toe with them, we’ve been very aggressive, they‘ve been very aggressive, and fortunately, knock on wood, we’ve prevailed and we plan to continue doing so, even in light of the Allscripts acquisition.

Surely Misys will have to make a bunch of sales to get back the millions of dollars they paid.

I think they are well on their way of reaching the numbers they need. From all reports we’ve seen and heard, they continue to do very well with Misys MyWay and the product in the marketplace. They had their fiscal year end. I read the press release. They talked nicely about the Misys traction which they received. I don’t have the figures or number of units and other distribution channels. It seems like they’re meeting their plans.

Were you the only company they approached, or are there others they would have struck a deal with?

We understand that they approached a great number prior to coming to see us. Whether they did as deep a dive as they did in our house, I’m not sure, but we had Misys people camped out for the better art of a week or week and a half.

I promise that’s the end of the Misys discussion. We had to get that out of the way.

It’s not an issue. I’m very comfortable speaking about it.

In the KLAS reports, the iMedica PRM product is not listed. Why is that and does it impact your marketing?

Sure, it impacts our marketing. Our PRM 2008 product went generally available in April. It’s the product we’ll come to KLAS with in December. We did not have it installed in enough locations in time to qualify for the June book. You need 14 sites for each different group in KLAS and we were just getting all those up and running and getting their interfaces tuned.

We wanted to have, not just 14 in each … I’d like to have enough in each that it gives us a representative sample, because you only get the first level of confidence at 14. By August 15, every one of our practices will be on the newest version. We’re migrating practices every night now.

It will be the first time since we took over that we’re going to have all practices singing off the same song sheet with regard to versions. That’s going to give us the ability to address issues more effectively; to bring featuring functions to market that will enhance their environments. Up until this point, there were practices still sitting on the PRM 2006, 2007, and 2008 release candidate. That was a really hard environment to bring to KLAS. So now we’re going to have one product in a universe that will be highly satisfied. We think we can be a very competitive in KLAS.

I meant to ask you about the number of employees.

We have just about 105 employees today. The bulk of them are in Carrollton, Texas, I would say 55 to 60. The rest are sales people and training personnel and they are scattered geographically around the United Sates. If anybody is looking to come to Carrollton, Texas in a support role or to become a trainer, we’re looking for them. That’s a plug. Can they send resumes to HIStalk?

Sure, why not? We’ll hook you up.

I think we actually found a trainer recently through you. You didn’t know you had that feature, did you?

I didn’t.

We continue to grow. We continue to be selective as to who we bring on board. Interestingly enough, about 40 ex-Millbrook people have joined us around the United States in development, implementation, and sales. Somebody actually said we’re putting the band back together, but this time we’re playing a different tune – EHR and PM.

This is slightly off topic but I can’t resist asking the question. You’re someone who was entrepreneurial and went to GE. Now you’re back out of that environment. For you and those 40 people who bailed, what made you not want to stick around?

You know, that has been raised to us a number of times. While GE is a phenomenal institution, many of us felt that we spent more time fighting internally than we did fighting our competitors. Whether it was resources, product direction, technologies, getting contracts done – the bars that were set internally by the different functions sometimes made it more difficult to do work internally than getting done internally than getting contracts done externally.

In an entrepreneurial environment, everybody is focused on “Let’s take this to the next level.” You have payroll to make; you have commitments. There’s just a nice, healthy tension in an entrepreneurial environment, whereas at GE, there would be people who could live in that house for an extremely long time not having to make a payroll; not having to make the commitments; and it made it very frustrating for those of us that came out of the entrepreneurial environment.

I always say that GE is the place where good products go to die. Would you say that, in general, your direction with the product would have been different from theirs?

You know, that’s five or six years of hindsight, so I really don’t know. We had been looking at a skunkworks on EHR. At the time that we sold Millbrook, we had over 50 partners and 18 of them were EHRs. It would have been very easy to reach out and embrace one of them to come to a point where we are today, but that’s speculative at best.

Even at GE, the product and the market continued to grow, so we had a very viable business. I think if you’re in a nice trajectory, don’t walk away from it. Again, it was more the board that did this than anyone on the management team.

So we’re enjoying it. The company comes to work each day with a passion of getting out a great product. We maintain our Millbrook mantras of never letting a physician office fail and hugging the physician — God knows they’re being beaten up by everybody else in the market — and to make sure at the end of the day they have an excellent experience.

I think everybody recognizes that the EHR part of iMedica is really strong. Would you say the practice management aspect of your system is equally competitive?

You know, that’s a question that’s been raised over the last 45 days. Up until our 2008 release, our 2007 product lagged, I would say, the same level performance of performance as our EHR. But with our 2008 product, we will go toe to toe with anybody in the industry on the PM side. In fact, we will bury most of them.

The product has a tremendous report portfolio. It has great claims processing. My PM is doing what the PM is supposed to you. It has front-end claims and demographic activity, scanner capability. There are a few features that we’re going to continue to add, but as we’ve always said about our product, it’s a work in progress. It’ll never be done. We will have an upgrade coming out during the third quarter of this year, a service pack, and we’re already working on the 2009 product as we speak, which will have additional features and functionality and meet the CCHIT 2008 requirements.

Who would you say your strongest competitors are?

I would say we probably are looking at three significant competitors out there, the first being the Allscripts portfolio. Mainly on the lower end, which I think is the HealthMatics product. We run into them regularly. We have eClinicalWorks, although over the last four months, we have not seen them quite as much as we had previously. And then we see e-MDs in certain geographies.

Sometimes I list competitors and ask for some adjectives. Would you be willing to do that?

I’m not going to sit here and diss someone, but I’ll be glad to give it my best shot.

One that you probably don’t run across too often – Epic.

We don’t run across Epic too often. We see them in some environments where physicians have been offered Epic by a hospital. The interesting thing is that they are perceived as being a bit kludgy for a small physician office — overkill. That’s not surprising, because when you try to bring a large practice application down to the small market, sometimes there’s too much in it and it’s very difficult to maneuver with that product.

One of the marketing initiatives we have going on right now is called “Take a Tablet.” It’s different from anything else in the market. When you take a demonstration of our product, we put a tablet in your hand for a week, load it with the application; load it with 200 patients in a demo database, and give you an hour and a half of training and say, “Go play and here’s a number you can call if you have questions.” The application is so intuitive and the physicians get it so fast that they can look at an Epic, which is rather cumbersome for them, and with the nimbleness and the ease of use of our application, they tend to migrate more to ours.

I want to ask you a question about that a little bit later. What about Sage?

I really haven’t worked against them. Sage is the old Medical Manager. They have a tremendous installed base. The one deal I remember losing against them was because the nurses like the colors on the vitals screen. I’m going to have a hard time fighting that, but I really don’t know too much about their features and functions and haven’t seen them go head to head against us.

This might be a tough one: GE.

GE, we don’t really see that much in the EHR any more. We have started to replace them on the PM. We’re thinking that there’s an opportunity there for us. I don’t think GE has taken care of their customers to the extent that we’re able to.

And next on my list was Misys, but let’s separate that out as the non-MyWay Misys.

Well, I’m not sure what the non-MyWay Misys is. I know they just announced a big deal where they had their EHR and their non-MyWay EHR accepted at a very large practice. But I haven’t seen anybody buying Vision and Tiger lately. They’re buying MyWay.

What about Allscripts?

Allscripts is tough. They have a nice portfolio of products and they do a great job of marketing it. We think, on a functional basis, we can compete with them, but they are tough in the sandbox.

e-MDs.

David Winn has done a great job of putting that company together over the last few years. They’re tough. They have a good product. I don’t think they have as big a footprint, although David is very imaginative and a good leader. We go toe-to-toe with them. Sometimes we win; sometimes we don’t.

What about eClinicalWorks?

They were tough early on. We’ve understood what they’re selling, how they’re selling it, to whom they’re selling it. They’re formidable, but I think when physicians drill down feature by feature; when they understand what they’re getting and what they’re going to be required to get, I think our total cost of ownership is equal to theirs and I think our product dynamic is better than theirs.

What about athenahealth?

We’ve only come up against athena once or twice. I’m an accountant by trade, a CPA. I find in a small practice with what they charge, it’s almost irrational to go with them. If you look at the total cost of ownership over five years, the physician could probably pay for his kids’ college education. If you look at the cost between our application and athena, obviously their business model is working well in some of the hospital environments, but I think long term, we will continue to grow our company and be able to go toe-to-toe with them.

NextGen.

We don’t see a whole lot of NextGen. We’re in the 1-to-10 market, primarily. NextGen, even though they play down there form time to time, really isn’t that big of a footprint and they’ve said that publicly. They do well in the larger practices and more sophisticated enterprise situations.

They’ve built a hell of a product and they’re a tough competitor. They are very expensive. If we can get to a practice to look at what we have versus what they’re looking at with NextGen, and you look at a total cost of ownership, the ability to modify our application on the fly versus requiring programming, help for templates and other items with the NextGens and the GEs of the world, I think we walk away looking very good.

Some of those that are very competitive on price. I’m thinking specifically of eClinicalWorks and e-MDs. Is it tough to compete with them on price?

I don’t think it’s tough. I mean, we’re all in the same ballpark. I can’t remember losing a deal because of price. You usually you lose a deal because of features and functions.

The market seems to be polarizing around two extremes, the doc buying a simple, functional system with his own money and hoping not to kill productivity, vs. the hospitals who will provide the systems, but who pick big, traditional applications. Will that continue?

I see a cycle that’s been in healthcare for years. Right now, it’s hospitals providing software to physicians under the Stark exemption. A year from now, when we have a new administration, God knows what the new rules are going to be. You and I both have seen it. We have seen centralization and de-centralization.

I think in our market, which is the 1-10 physician group, those physicians realize that owning their patient records, being able to touch that patient record on their server, is the biggest asset they have and that’s their livelihood. To stick it at or through a hospital is problematic. It could compromise their existence and, long term, bring their livelihood into jeopardy.

I think physicians are more independent than that. They’re seeing that. Hardware has come down so much and is so easy to use that you can stick a server in a closet, essentially. You don’t need an IT department when you’ve got five or six physicians. The only thing you probably need to do is change the tape once a day. So I don’t know whether that division continues, but I’d be surprised if we didn’t see something in the next 24 months to turn it around.

The New England Journal of Medicine article reinforced what everyone already knew, that physicians aren’t using EMRs. What will it take to get them to?

I can only attack this from two sides. Putting my CPA hat on, for a physician who wants it, it’s not an expense, it’s an investment. Yes, it’s disruptive. I like to tell physicians, “Go home tonight. Turn off the lights in your bathroom. Stand on one leg and brush your teeth with your left hand. That’s what it’s going to be like using EHR for the first 20 days. It’s doing something differently that you’ve done for the last 20 years, but you will come around to it.”

We have physicians older than 60 who have adopted and become the leaders in their practice on our applications. So it’s disruptive, but once you get through that disruption, it makes your life better. And there are really economic benefits to the practice, whether it’s PQRI or whether it’s higher average reimbursements because you’re getting higher E&M scores. At least in our system, we score out the E&M points. We do a recommendation of the level visit and all the physician has to do is concur and it’s supported. We’ve repeatedly seen throughout our installed base a significantly high single-digit increase in revenue per average visit.

You add PQRI to that, you add health and maintenance reminders that are established in the clinical environment, but then go to the front desk at the time of scheduling. If I’m calling in, I think I have a sore throat, and it comes up that I have not had my PSA in a year, it reminds me to schedule my PSA at the same time. That creates more revenue opportunities for the office.

You add those together, those are the hard dollars based on revenue streams. You suddenly aren’t looking for charts. I was at a practice in Baltimore who said 60 to 70% of one head count was utilized looking for charts in a five-doctor group. That’s insane. That goes away. So the economics very much are there.

People think of electronic medical records as something you just have or you don’t, but products obviously differ. What differentiates them today and what will that be five years from now?

This goes to the previous question: what is going to make life easier for a physician? It’s the ability to use an EHR to the extent they want. In that New England Journal article, it was interesting to see that some physician use it for documenting history; some use it for e-prescribing; some use it for orders.

One of the features we are bringing to market is, in fact, the ability to structure the EHR to the extent that the individual physician in a practice wants to use it. If I don’t want to do the histories or the physical exams on the EHRs but want to continue to do it by paper, I can do that, but I’ll do the labs, the health maintenance, the prescribing, the follow-up, all on the EHR system. I don’t think any of us to date have been terribly flexible to the requirements of the physician. I think we’re going to be taking a large step very shortly in that direction.

Could products could be improved to give physicians more information as opposed to capturing more information from them?

I think it’s very important. I don’t how familiar you are with our EHR, but it’s highly customizable, starting out with the one-page summary that the physician looks at before going into a room. There are many fields on it, but they set the hierarchy and they set what they want to see. It’s by physician, care team, or practice, depending on rights. That allows individual physicians to modify the entire knowledge base. It’s not template-driven.

This is what’s different. You can modify in four or five key strokes in about 8-10 seconds virtually anything in our system and therefore customize it to your needs. Up front, we put together common problem palettes. We have adaptive learning, so that once a physician sees a bronchitis patient; if they see them again it will say, “This is what you’ve done for bronchitis in the past.” The adaptive learning continues to grow and it becomes dynamic with the physicians’ use.

I think too many of the EHRs out there, as you said, are too rigidized in templates of, “This is what you have to do and this is how you have to do it.” And if a patient walks out the door and sticks there head back in and says, “By the way, I was playing softball this weekend I heard a pop in my elbow” after you’ve seen them for an upper respiratory infection, you suddenly have to scramble and start the examination all over again.

But when you’re chief complaint-driven, you just add the chief complaint and it will pull through all the pertinent items for a sore elbow. Again, we need to adapt the applications to the physician’s reality as opposed to expecting the physicians to stick themselves inside of the template. These guys are thinkers. They went to med school to become thinkers.

You emphasize in your marketing material that physicians don’t have to put a computer and monitor between themselves and the patient. What are your thoughts on that?

Our application was designed primarily for a tablet. There are no double clicks, there are no right clicks – it’s all tablet-driven. So our physicians do some of the work in the exam room and then, as any other physician, when it’s done, walk out and finish the note off to the side.

I know, from my personal experience, last time I saw my physician, she had three inches of paper sitting on her lap and while she’s talking to me. She’s leafing through 20 years’ of paper. How that is different from sitting down looking at a computer screen or a tablet? We may not like it because its not a personal and as warm as paper, but it’s the same thing.

That leads to an interesting question. Your physician doesn’t use electronic medical records, yet you still see that physician. How strongly should someone consider whether or not their own physician uses EMRs?

My physician’s practice purchased GE’s medical record before we had a product to show them. It has taken over three years for them to implement this application. When they implemented it, it lasted two weeks and then they were back on paper in her practice. So I didn’t have a chance to get into that one. I may have a chance, depending on GE’s future success or lack thereof.

Let’s talk about the Take a Tablet test drive program. What’s the response to that and how many folks make a decision based on that one-week trial?

It’s been phenomenal. It was predicated on the fact that we had about eight physicians in the last year that looked at us and said, ‘If I could try this, I could probably give you an answer.” Of the eight that tried it, seven of them bought it.

We were able to work a promotional deal with Fujitsu. Remember, our application is fully functional on a tablet because of the caching mechanism. This is not a partial; it’s not different application; it is the exact same application when you buy the program.

What we did is we put it out there with our demo database and we teach them how to chart. If they want to chart another 1,000 patients, we warn them not to do real patients because of HIPAA considerations. But if they just want to play and create patients, it can stand alone for the physician.

One of the beauties of that is our physicians are able to take their tablet with them — whether it’s to a nursing home, to the hospital, or anywhere else — and document the full patient encounter. Take a Tablet is nothing more than an extension of that. We’ve given them skeletal training, an hour and a half to two hours, and they get it in that time frame.

I’ve seen old physicians grab tablets out of our salespeople’s hands during demonstrations saying, “I can do this” and begin to document. It’s highly intuitive; it follows logic which they were taught in med school; it’s easily modifiable; and when they look at it and play with it, they adapt to it very quickly.

We have quite a few machines in the field. We have a waiting list for our machines and we expect it to continue to see success through this promotion.

What are your goals for the company for the next five years?

We just want to continue to grow this company and develop a world class product. We were able to do it at Millbrook with practice management. We were able to do it under the radar against 4,500 competitors. We continue to do it here. We have the resources. We’ve been able to attract great talent and we continue to attract talent. We think that we will evolve to be the market leader in the single database EMR space.

You go to work everyday, you do the best you can, and you hope somebody takes notice. We got some traction and as long as it keeps growing, I’m happy and so are my investors. They have a medical background. They’re not in this just for, “Let’s make a dollar.” I hate to use the words, but they don’t need it.

They’ve been very active since the 1970s in enhancing the quality of healthcare in the United States, so this is not something new for them. They see the ability to put a great EMR in the marketplace that enables the physician, empowers the physician, and allows then to practice better medicine. It’s their life’s work. It’s not just, “This is another investment we can make a dollar on.” Having that type of philosophy behind you allows you to do the right thing as opposed to the expedient thing.

Text Ads


RECENT COMMENTS

  1. Come join the Cool-Kid Club over on Bluesky! The healthcare expertise is still pretty thin over there and we are…

  2. If I'm not mistaken, Glens Falls was one of Epic's customers from WAY back, late 80s-early 90s. Cadence perhaps?

  3. I think they're referring to the practice of an EHR vendor using a single API endpoint for all of their…

Founding Sponsors


 

Platinum Sponsors


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gold Sponsors


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RSS Webinars

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