Behavioral Health and Information Sharing via HIE

April 11th, 2012

Behavioral Health has been largely left out of Meaningful Use incentives. This has to be addressed by ONC and CMS, the National Council is taking a stand on the issue. In the meanwhile, as Health Information Exchange (HIE) is picking up momentum. States are implementing HIEs to connect physicians, hospitals and patients. 

HIEs must include behavioral health agencies and data. A recent study by Colorado Regional Health Information Organization found strong support to share behavior health data. A few highlights:

  • Over 88% of participants (providers, patients  and others) agreed that behavior data must be shared along with the physical part.
  • Participants wanted data sharing under emergency and regular care conditions. 
  • Participants want data to be shared amongst their mental health providers, primary care, specialists and hospitals. This is the role of HIE.
  • Substance abuse data sharing was more acceptable to providers as compared to patients. Some responses wanted patient to control access.

Participants were also asked about any concerns. Biggest concern over the data sharing were

  • Privacy
  • Inappropriate use
  • Lack of control over sharing data
  • Accuracy 

These are the same concerns that HIE participants have outside of behavior health. HIEs and the regulators are putting in significant thought and effort into protecting patient data. As HIEs get more popular and mature, I believe these issues will be less concerning.

Though, different state regulation will cause some roadblocks. For example, North Carolina has opt-out. Patient data is automatically available on the HIE unless the patient explicitly opts-out. What happens if a North Carolina patient travels to state with opt-in policy. Will this patient's record be automatically visible to the providers in that state? 

These questions have to be worked through. Overall there is a strong agreement to share patient health care data, both physical and mental. 

 

Eliminating Tests and Educating Patients The Hard Way

April 4th, 2012

This new release from nine medical societies caught my attention. We are all for lowering health costs after all. These societies have also put together a short list of things "Five Things Physicians and Patients Should Question"

Finally, someone telling the patient what test is must, nice to do or does not yield results. 

For example, American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology says:

 

Don’t perform unproven diagnostic tests, such as immunoglobulin G (IgG) testing or an indiscriminate battery of immunoglobulin E (IgE) tests, in the evaluation of allergy.

Appropriate diagnosis and treatment of allergies requires specific IgE testing (either skin or blood tests) based on the patient’s clinical history. 
The use of other tests or methods to diagnose allergies is unproven and can lead to inappropriate diagnosis and treatment. Appropriate diagnosis 
and treatment is both cost effective and essential for optimal patient care.
Does an average patient know what IgG is? Why can't the academy explain what this means and what to ask the doctor?
 
Another one

Don’t order sinus computed tomography (CT) or indiscriminately prescribe antibiotics for uncomplicated acute rhinosinusitis.

 
Viral infections cause the majority of acute rhinosinusitis and only 0.5 percent to 2 percent progress to bacterial infections. Most acute 
rhinosinusitis resolves without treatment in two weeks. Uncomplicated acute rhinosinusitis is generally diagnosed clinically and does not require 
a sinus CT scan or other imaging. Antibiotics are not recommended for patients with uncomplicated acute rhinosinusitis who have mild illness 
and assurance of follow-up. If a decision is made to treat, amoxicillin should be first-line antibiotic treatment for most acute rhinosinsutis. 
huh?
My 5 1/2 year old son is prescribed antibiotics (usually starts off with Augmentin ) every 3-4 months. Sometimes more often, so this worries me. My medical literacy skills are at least intermediate by AMA's definition. I still don't understand what should I look out for, when antibiotics are an overkill? Maybe the pediatrician understands what this means. 
 
I think this is a better decision making chart about Uncomplicated acute rhinosinusitis from Washington State Department of Health. It succinctly states the symptoms to watch for and the action to take. It still has unusual terms like "purulent nasal discharge" and 39oC, but easier to understand. 
 
Since this is aimed at the patients, would be nice to have the text say something like this:
 
If the patient has following symptoms
1. Runny nose
2. Itchy eyes
3. No fever or fever less than 100
 
Avoid medications of type X, instead go with medication Y. 
 
Make it simple, so patients understand and care about this. In the spirit of patient engagement, I think these societies need to make this easy to understand and implement.
People can agree or disagree with the points, but at least they understand what it is and the reasoning behind it. 

 

Using RFID to access patient health information

March 17th, 2012

What do you think about this? 

You are riding on a bicycle and meet with a small accident. EMTs need to access your health information. A paramedic whips out her iPhone, scans a small square on your helmet. Voila! all your allergies and meds are visible to this paramedic. She knows you are have a severe reaction to penicillins and are diabetic. 

The square on the helmet is a QR code. iPhone application is connected to a central database that has all your medical records. 

Isn't this cool? Similar to the RFID tags, though requiring simpler technology. No special RFID receivers required. 

This is being implemented in France, by Code de'Urgence (from springwise.com). Patients, who subscribe to the service are provided with 10 QR code stickers. Responders are trained to lookup data using these stickers. 

Looks like a great idea. Does anyone know if this has been implemented anywhere in the US? How are they dealing with all the privacy issues?

 

 

 

Patient Engagement At Work: Improving Body Weight Control

March 13th, 2012

This is an example of patient engagement working to directly impact outcomes. Duke Obesity Program in association with others, conducted this study with a control group. A group of  high-risk, socio economically disadvantaged group of obese patients were part of the control group that received usual care and behavioral intervention. (Abstract of the study here)

The intervention included tailored behavior change goals, self-monitoring, and skills training, available via a website or interactive voice response; 18 telephone counseling calls; primary care provider endorsement; 12 optional group support sessions; and links with community resources. This high level of patient engagement yielded significant results. At the end of 24 months, the intervention group's weight loss was 1.03Kg and BMI reduction of 0.38 as compared to the other group. Medical News has more details here

The authors claim results can be generalized to a larger population. 

 

Patient Engagement: What is it?

March 4th, 2012

I have been a reading a lot about Patient Engagement, especially since HIMSS 2012 and MU announcements. Everyone and their dogs agree that patient engagement is important. So, I set out to find what is Patient Engagement and why is it any good? 

Here are a few definitions, descriptions available on the Internet. Some of them were presented at HIMSS 2012. 

  1. Patient engagement means putting the patient in the center. Forming a doctor-patient team to treat whatever is ailing the patient. NEJM Study
  2. Engaged patients are compliant, priortize self-help, proactive to maintain health, modest distrust of health professionals. Blog from Stephen Wilkins
  3. According to GallupThese patients are not just "satisfied" or "loyal," they are emotionally attached to the provider's brands or services. They are engaged.
  4. A Commonwealth Survey (from 11 countries) also discusses importance of Patient Engagement. Quote from this article 

Research has found that patients feel more engaged if they can pick up the telephone and call the doctor’s office for answers. 

There are several more definitions. In my opinion, the gist of patient engagement is

  1. Patient needs to be informed about what the assessment is and the detailed plan.
  2. Discuss this detailed plan and get an agreement from both the physician and the patient
  3. Patient needs to be proactive and ask questions
  4. Patient needs to follow the regimen that was agreed upon
  5. Any changes need to be followed up by both the patient and the physician.
  6. Physician or someone in the office should be available to discuss any question patient may have 

I think this paper by Center for Advancing Health nicely sums up an engagement pact between the patient and the provider. 

A number of surveys indicate patients want access to their health data. Most of them want it online. On the flip side, not many physicians want to supply this data to the patients. As one doctor told me, if I give them too much data, the patients will start calling me all the time and ask questions. They will want detailed answers over mundane issues. 

 

Paient portal surveys: http://www.ihealthbeat.org/perspectives/2011/the-two-way-street-of-patient-engagement-in-health-it.aspx

OpenNotes findings (published in the Annals of Internal Medicine) http://myopennotes.org/release.shtml

 

ICD10 – How bad is it?

March 2nd, 2012

How bad can it get? Every one is talking about ICD 10. Some oppose it's introduction in Oct 2013, some want it today. 

When Squawk Box on CNBC talks about it, you know this is crazy. Watch this video at 6:38, Joe Kernen, says ICD 10, you know what it is, ICD 9 has 18,000 rules. Under Obama care, ICD 10 will hve 140,000 rules. Then he goes on to give the usual weird ICD 10 example, 9 separate rules if you are injured by a parrot! He rants speaks about it for a few more seconds. Larry Bossidy (former CEO of GE) clearly has no idea what is the topic and quickly switches the conversation. That was hillarious :)  

Now ICD 10 is also being used as a political tool! This is ridiculous when the decision is data driven. There talks about how high the conversion costs are, but hardly anyone talks about how practices can get more reimbusrsement with proper coding. 

As far as I can tell, ICD-10 was being planned way before Obama took office. HHS submitted this final rule in Jan 2009

Regardless, MGMA is strongly opposed to introducing ICD-10 in Oct 2013. They either want it postponed or want a phased introduction. 

Healthcare CIOs think delaying ICD 10 is not such a good idea. This Edifecs survey (done at HIMSS 2012) claims delay would be catastrophic

With 18 months to go, if the industry cannot be ready to implement this change, I think we are in serious trouble. We at least need to start a gradual phase in, instead of complete postponement. 

Legacy EHR vendors have had over 4 years to get their software updated. 

As a cloud based EHR, Patagonia Health is ready to move to ICD-10 today. The Health IT industry seriously needs to get moving quickly on issues like these and focus on more important issues about patient outcomes and reducing health costs for the country. 

A quick FAQ on ICD-10

 

Patients care about wait times. Who cares about outcomes?

February 28th, 2012

This study from AMA (Physician rating website reveals formula for good reviews) made me laugh! Patients will rate the doctor visit satisfactory, if the wait time was less than 25 minutes (15 minutes outside, 10 minutes in the exam room).

There seems to be a but in this answer. Patients want small wait time, but if the doctor spends more time with the patient, then the longer wait time is forgiven. Longer doctor-patient engagement almost always results in higher satisfaction score. I suspect it also results in better outcomes. 

This was an interesting quote from Dr. Feldman

"I thought being a dermatologist meant making the right diagnosis and prescribing the right drug. And I got really good at that," he said. 
He said he got so good he could identify psoriasis from across the room and have a prescription written by the time he walked through the door of the exam room. "Then I get feedback from some patients who said, 'Yeah, he's good.' Then from others: 'I wouldn't send my dog to him. He's an uncaring jerk. He didn't do a thorough examination. He doesn't care about his patients.' "
Now, Dr. Feldman said he walks into each exam room reminding himself that although he will get the diagnosis correct, "Don't forget. Make sure this patient realizes how much you care about them."

So, even though the doctor can complete a visit faster, for the sake of patient satisfaction he/she needs to spend more time with the patient. Given the pressures on primary care physicians, this seems like a tall order. 

Did I hear someone mention evidence based medicine? Oh well, another post, another time. 

Could technologies like patient portals and online access to doctors perhaps help? Can the patients feel better cared for if they had access to their physician online? 

Are Personal Health Records useless?

February 24th, 2012

Paul Cerrato writes in this Information Week article, why he things PHRs have flopped. His main argument is the people don't care about their health. Dossia's survey says providers don't give enough information to the patients for making PHRs valuable. The demise of Google Health is pointed out as evidence that PHRs will likely not survive.

As a very early user of Google Health, I distinctly recall the excitement of me sharing my health data with the family. My insurance company linked with Microsoft HealthVault. The insurance portal allowed me to export my "clinical data" to MS HV. It was great… except the data the insurance company shared was billing data. Fairly meaningless if you are healthy person visiting the doctor for annual physicals. 

So, I asked and received a printed lab report from my doctor. I tried typing it into Google Health and found I could not. Terms in the lab report and Google health did not match. LDL-C in the lab report was something else in Google. That pretty much ended my experiment with Google. 

Later we integrated Patagonia Health EMR with MS HealthVault. It was somewhat convuluted with the authorization procedure, but we got it done. Then we found out, no one (practices) really wanted it. Patients were not asking for it. 

Perhaps the main reason PHRs are flop, because there is no valuable information there for most people. Similar to patient portals, the data presented is in a drab fashion. Tabular data for labs, meds and problems. 

In my opinion, we all do care about our own health. The level of care may vary. Provided with right information most people will at least consider or make an attempt to change. 

So, what can PHRs do better? A few ideas

  1. Build better connectivity to apps to automatically upload data. For examples, lab results. I am not typing them in one by one.
  2. Display relevant data on the login screen. Current display is Allergies, conditions, procedures, CCD, CCR. Does an average patient understand what procedures are, much less CCD and CCR? Display this data in a fashion that is easy to consume and provide context. 
  3. For the data, provide appropriate education links. Yes, I can add apps on HealthVault to get that, but why not make it simple. Make sure the education is relevant and to the point. It cannot be reference and it cannot be an advertisement. 
  4. Display comparative and benchmarking data. Of course, anonymized and with right permissions. Show me how my "peers" are doing. 
  5. Explore better ways of integrating with existing devices. Make devices easier to integrate. Cellular network?

 

What do you all think? What is the future for PHRs and patient portals? 

Is grief an illness to be treated with medications?

February 18th, 2012

Authors of DSM-V seem to think bereavement or grief over a loss of loved one should be "treated". 

Time author Maia Szalavitz wrote this article explaining the background . 

Professor David J. Kupfer, who chairs the DSM-5 Task Force making the revisions, is reported to have told The New York Times that making grief into a disease would allow psychiatrists to treat people who were suffering so that they would get the treatment they need for being depressed. And that’s the rub really. Is grief something that we can or should no longer tolerate? Is this existential source of suffering like any dental or back pain unwanted and unneeded?

Click here to read the complete article

I am not sure grief should be eliminated with medications. Just give the person time to heal. 

What are your thoughts?

 



				

Retail Medical Clinics: An Objective Analysis

January 31st, 2012

 

Is there a consumer-driven market business trend offering a cost-effective and highly convenient means of receiving care for basic and routine conditions? Retail health clinics such as those found in CVS or Walmart might be the answer. The appeal of such clinics is increased access to care (generally open from 10-12 hours/day, on weekends). This set-up is ideal for busy working people and the care received complements that given by the patient’s primary care doctor. Furthermore, the total charges billed to the patient are shared up front. The patient demographics are pretty similar to those in those elsewhere, with 80 percent insured and 20 percent uninsured. Retail clinics will only treat minor problems and perform preventative care (immunizations, etc.) –the rest must be referred out.

A SWOT analysis provides a framework by looking at the advantages, disadvantages and opportunities for improvement regarding a particular business venture. As relates to retail health clinics, the SWOT results are below.

Strength:

• Reduces barriers to access to service (increased wait times in ER, doctor’s office)

• Cost transparency facilitates patient decision-making

Weakness:

• Not part of the local health care system and provider network, thereby, more difficult to track data for quality of care studies. Although this is the current state of affairs, it certainly leads to an opportunity of being part of an Accountable Care Organization going forward.

• Interrupts continuum of care established with primary care physician

Opportunities:

• Potential to improve low-income patients’ access to basic preventive and low-level acute services.

• Staffed primarily by nurse practitioners. This is important with the current shortage of primary care physicians, and even fewer physicians going into primary care, resulting in a shortage of as many as 44,000 physicians in the fields of general internal medicine and family medicine by the year 2025

Threats:

• In June 2007, the American Medical Association (AMA) asked state and federal officials for an official probe of retail health clinics. The AMA cited, among other objections, the potential conflicts of interest posed by joint ventures between store-based health clinics and pharmacy chains, since retail health clinic employees could write prescriptions to help pharmaceutical sales.

• May erode a patient’s “medical home” by fostering a dependence on the clinic rather than an ongoing relationship with one primary care physician.

Closing Comments

With health care reform, many of these clinics may not get patients since health coverage could become universal. However, on the other hand, many could be forced to enlist into high-deductible plans and so end up coming to these clinics which would make more sense (since costs are transparent to the patient).

In a healthcare system that is as complicated as the one here in the United States, there are always new ideas generated on how to optimize delivery of services. No one form of healthcare delivery is ideal but the important thing is to be adaptable to changes in the environment. Retail clinics, whether they are the new successful consumer-driven market trend or not, definitely have made their mark in American healthcare.

By Jitesh Chawla, MD

CMIO, Patagonia Health