Neupert On Health : health IT

New delivery models will solve the cost crisis

pnblog — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:03:00 GMT

This week's question for the Washington Post Health Care Rx blog was:

Has Congress done enough to constrain long-term, health care spending growth? What cost containment strategies would you advocate pursuing?

My response, New delivery models will solve the cost crisis, below:

I was again reminded at last week's Partner's Connected Health Conference about how much potential there is for innovation in health - for industry transformation. The session titles speak for themselves:

Wireless Tech and Patient Self-Management: Opportunities, Applications, and Barriers
Get Your House Smart: Aging in Place, At Home, Aided by Technology
The Emerging Use of Videogames for Health: Innovations, Impacts, and Issues
Mobile Health: Leapfrog technology for the developing world?
And the list goes on...

What this showed me is that there are many innovations starting to happen with promising implications for tomorrow's health care system. To get there, we need less focus on the costs of today's system, and more on enabling a new delivery model for the future. We, as consumers, manage the rest of our lives from our phones or our PCs - our finances, our travel, our shopping. When we want to make any purchase or investment, we have all kinds of services we can leverage to get informed and act. Every industry that touches our lives has been transformed - complex, expensive products and services once only available to few are now accessible and affordable to the masses and provided by those (people or even software) with far less training.

In health, if we continue to 'do it' the way we always have, costs will continue to skyrocket. Not to mention that our current delivery model simply won't be able to keep up with the advances in medicine - think about a world of personalized medicine (we're on the cusp of some amazing things). Today's delivery model just isn't set up to handle the amount of personalized data, decisions and so on.

We can see pointers to the future -- virtual care from American Well, new delivery channels such as Minute Clinic, patient self-serve at Kaiser-Permanente, personal health management platforms like HealthVault and Google Health. We're seeing an influx of investment into health start-ups focused on making treatments or healthcare information more cost-effective and accessible to patients. But we haven't yet seen widespread change or adoption.

Why? Congress has carved into stone our current system, but this traditional 'fee-for-service' model just isn't flexible and won't enable the kind of innovation required.

We need Congress to create a new framework that drives value, rewards experimentation and enables innovation. This is what will transform health and ultimately drive costs down.

Learning from Singapore and Switzerland

pnblog — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:59:00 GMT

So this week’s question from the Washington Post RX Blog was:

Which country has the best health-care system and why? Can the U.S. follow its model?

My response -- Learning from Singapore, Switzerland -- is below.

To realize the goals of providing increased access while maintaining fiscal responsibility, we have to dramatically change how we 'do health' today -- whether we're doctors, hospitals, or consumers.

Health is complicated no matter where you go in the world, and there are different challenges in every country. There is no 'best' system anywhere, but there are best practices from around the world worth exploring. Two immediately come to mind:

Singapore's system has characteristics that reflect what we'd expect to see in our own system - personal responsibility, competition and choice. Working people are obliged to put money into a personal savings account for out-of-pocket expenses. The money remains completely in each person's control; each decides how to spend it. And there's choice -- at the Raffles Hospital, one can choose a $1,438 luxury suite with a 24-hour nurse and other amenities OR a $99 a night dormitory room with the six other beds. Procedures cost the same, and are transparent (Publication of the cost of hospital procedures is mandatory, turning the purchase of a hip replacement into something similar to buying a pair of shoes), but there's choice. Contrast this to our system where it's difficult to even get a price in advance, let alone make choices.

Switzerland's system also offers interesting models for consideration -- universal access, individual choice from an array of private insurance options, and a higher level of personal accountability (shared costs by individuals). All citizens are required to buy health insurance and private insurers are required to offer coverage to everyone - regardless of age or any previous medical conditions. Insurers offer a basic package on a not-for-profit basis, and supplemental packages on a for-profit basis that consumers can choose for things like home care, alternative medicine, and so on. Competition is basically about price and service. For those who can't afford the basic package, the government offers direct cash subsidies. In addition, the system provides incentives for consumers to avoid unnecessary treatments by requiring them to share some costs at a higher level than in the U.S. It's not perfect, but it is customer-driven.

In a democratic nation where capitalism flourishes, personal accountability and choice ought to be at the heart of the system.

Please feel free to comment with your own thoughts – I’d like to hear from you.

Reflecting on the healthcare system while waiting at the hospital for a loved one

pnblog — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 03:12:00 GMT

Often when we talk about healthcare reform, it can be a rather abstract discussion -- you watch some tv show with ‘experts’ reflecting on some 20 page bill or hashing through the merits of a public insurance option. Last week, however, all the intellectual and abstract ideas were brought into something very personal for me and my family.

My wife had a Hysterectomy, and I spent three days at Swedish hospital in Seattle caring for her. With all the waiting time, it was hard not to reflect on the experience and think about it in the context of health reform. I’m happy to say that my wife is now recovering on schedule, and she’s given me permission to share the story and my insights.

Once she had decided surgery was her best option, we became even more avid information seekers; we shopped for the procedure with the best outcomes and then the surgeon with the most experience and best quality results for this procedure. The best available counsel we found was for a Robot-Assisted Hysterectomy because there was less risk, less pain and faster recovery times vs. the alternatives. We didn’t have to shop for ‘price’ (thanks to Microsoft’s benefit plan, but that is a different future post)…but even if that were the case, we probably would have chosen a more ‘expensive’ option if it meant less risk and more productive days -- getting back to normal life as quickly as possible.

We all know that surgery can be pretty scary. Throughout the experience, everyone from the doctor’s office to the staff at Swedish helped to make the experience a positive one, allaying any fears and making us feel comfortable and confident. We often forget that healthcare is truly a people business. In just three days – the number of different people we dealt with was amazing -- five docs, seven nurses plus the ancillary folks (lab techs, transport and other helpers). They all took time to connect with our emotions while doing their jobs.

Swedish is leveraging technology to improve their systems. You see it throughout the organization, starting in the lobby, with signs advertising the hospital’s new EMR system. During the course of our stay, when there was time I asked various staff members about their experience with the new EMR, and they were positive about the system because they had all the information in one place. While a common complaint was that the data entry took them more time, they felt overall it made them more productive and effective.

This highlights that we need to remember that technology is a means to an end. It is NOT the introduction of technology that will make a difference, but rather how leadership leverages the right technology to make a difference…in both quality results and economic outcomes.

I also saw a real focus on patient safety, starting with the pre-op processes. Each member of the care team carefully checked her arm band, her chart and asked several specific questions to be sure she was getting the right action. For us, the repetition became frustrating, but if this process were to improve patient safety, then it would be worth it. Despite the technology investments, the core safety process was in the human factors.

After the surgery was completed, she spent two days recovering in the hospital. This was a day longer than originally planned due to very low blood pressure and a declining hematocrit. While I used the guest Wi-Fi for work and email, it was even more critical for answering key questions about her condition, the trade-offs, the next steps – which helped me to get some context and understanding to a) engage more thoughtfully with the care team about questions/choices and b) assure my wife about what was going on during the long time periods when neither doctor or nurse was around. I think hospitals should consider leveraging their video and wireless infrastructure more effectively for patient specific education and connecting with their care teams. This is potentially a big opportunity for improved patient compliance and care team coordination.

Because the low blood pressure persisted, I called her primary care physician to get her baseline BP. If we had stored this information in HealthVault, I wouldn’t have had to make the call – I would have just been able to look it up. Furthermore, I would have preferred to have gotten her discharge information automatically transferred to HealthVault. We were given paper copies. This should be easier.

So, what’s the moral of this story?

· We can’t lose sight of innovation and there’s a risk that could happen if the government were to become the primary funder of health.

· Technology is a means to an end, but we have a long way to go to figure out how to use it smartly.

· We can’t lose sight of how important the personal aspect of healthcare is. The emotional support and human caring delivered by the care team was the critical component of our overall satisfaction.

This experience reinforced for me that a ‘healthy’ health ecosystem requires consumer choice -- it is a critical component to the effective functioning of markets and innovation. We made the decision to ‘save time/hassle’ vs. saving dollars as we do in other aspects of our lives. This really drove home for me that the debate about ‘rising health care costs’ doesn’t really account for improved patient outcomes in terms of fewer lost days of work/productive living. I am all for comparative effectiveness of various options and knowing what things cost, but it needs to include patient values -- like less pain and getting back to normal faster -- or it may lead to bad unintended consequences. I am more concerned than ever that increased government financing of health will ultimately lead to fewer consumer choices and will stifle future innovation with tangible economic benefits.

I haven’t received the multiple confusing bills and outrageous line items of detail from the hospital stay yet. Nonetheless, when it comes to getting a quality outcome from an advanced surgical procedure, I prefer the current U.S. health system with all its flaws to the alternative future of less consumer choice and innovation.

The willingness to succeed is only exceeded by the willingness to prepare

pnblog — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 06:24:00 GMT

After many long months of discussion and debate, the first draft of Meaningful Use has come out. I’m optimistic about what I see -- what’s been laid out seems to focus on driving real outcomes improvement in the health care system.

It’s important that we keep this in mind -- that we’re not just trying to implement technology. We’re trying to improve the performance of the health system. And our willingness to succeed should only be exceeded by our willingness to prepare, and as part of that preparation, we must ensure that flexibility, scalability, and interoperability are inherent traits in the system. Why? Because, health is fundamentally data-driven. Nobody -- physicians, consumers, hospitals, insurance companies, governments -- can make good decisions without good data.

So driving data liquidity -- that is the ability for data to flow throughout the system -- has to be the critical focus. For years, we’ve been building systems in a “top-down” way to reach information, but what we need to do is build from the information up. One thing Carol Diamond said at a Health Affairs event that I attended with her really struck me -- the idea of bringing the question to the data -- leaving the data where it is and bringing the question/problem/issue to it. For a long time, what we did as an industry was use expensive research grants and complex tools to cull and compile data that was intended to answer one specific question, and by the time we’d sorted through the data enough to answer that question, it was either out of date or ten other, more pressing questions had popped up in the meantime. What we need is a system that unlocks all of the data that exists already in the health care sphere, and allows it to flow between silos so that when questions arise, we can bring those questions to the data for quick, evidence based answers -- rather than the other way around.

Given this, as discussions/refinements continue around meaningful use, I believe it’s critical for the following to be a part of the final definition:

· We can’t just capture data, it must be available in “real-time” in order make the right decisions and improve outcomes -- whether we’re talking about patients or populations.

· We have to enable data to become liquid -- specifically, doing this by separating data from applications. This is one of the recommendations from a study by the National Research Council of the National Academies that takes a look at what types of computational technology and investments are best for improving health outcomes. Let the excuse not be that the data is trapped in systems that we built, that we have to wait for standards.

· We’ve got to give consumers access to their data -- not just in static form -- but empower them with an electronic copy so they can easily share it, use it, add to it–creating a lifelong health data asset.

· We should accelerate the objective of having PHR access to EHR data to the 2011 Objectives and Measures. There is no need to wait until 2015. These technologies are available today and will bring real, sustainable benefits, not just for consumers, but for the overall health care system.

· We must ensure that we do not have an overly-prescriptive certification regime that focuses on certifying features and functions every-other-year. This will produce the unintended consequence of stifling innovation. Software vendors will be forced to develop towards a certified feature list rather than look for new and better ways to improve clinical processes and health outcomes,

The foundation of success is based upon data liquidity, and so it must be central to our thinking as we prepare for the future.

Aligning policy, technology, and business innovation – perspectives from the Connected Health Conference…

pnblog — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:59:00 GMT

We’re just wrapping up our annual Connected Health Conference. I wanted to share some insights and observations from the past three days. We had 925 attendees representing 409 organizations -- attendance more than doubled from last year, which is pretty amazing given that conference attendance is down all over the US… At this year’s conference, our Amalga and HealthVault customers and partners all came together for the first time. The most frequent comment I heard from attendees was excitement about the breadth of work we are doing and the new opportunities they see as a result. The main issue that came up over and over again was the importance of driving and aligning innovation in health IT, health policy (e.g. reimbursement strategies), and business.

This topic first came up during our opening keynote panel on Thursday with Professor Uwe E. Reinhard, Dr. David Kibbe and former HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt. Secretary Leavitt introduced the notion that advancements in reimbursement reform are needed as much as stimulus for technology adoption. According to Leavitt, health IT will become ubiquitous when consumers demand it from their healthcare providers. While I agree with Levitt about informed, engaged consumers being key drivers of change, I also think that physicians, industry and other partners must demand a smarter approach to reimbursement from policymakers. One place to begin innovating and experimenting with a better reimbursement system is at the state level. During this morning’s keynote, Dr. Mark Smith of the California Health Care Foundation, made several insightful observations about factors affecting HIT adoption such as; better, simpler solutions for physicians, a stronger voice for government as purchaser in mandating effective standards and a reimbursement policy that rewards outcomes vs. volume. However, as David Harlow pointed out during a conversation today, our tough economic climate makes it difficult for states to take the lead.

Dr. Kibbe emphasized the need for web-based tools that could be assembled in a modular way to qualify for stimulus dollars. Both Kibbe and Smith made the strong point that physicians haven’t adopted existing technology solutions for a reason and that any stimulus/policy reform needs to be flexible enough to allow innovation in solutions vs. trying to “jam” solutions that don’t meet current needs or practical market requirements. In speaking with our Amalga partners, they too are interested in understanding how meaningful use and certification will be defined and applied. Our customers shared many examples with each other of liberating and unifying data which makes measuring quality and proving effectiveness easier and automatic. As much as health IT has the potential to help cut inefficiency and improve operational throughput, we still need the right policy solutions to bring greater transparency to what patients are purchasing from their providers and that quality of those services…as Leavitt demonstrated humorously with his story about colonoscopy pricing.

You can see some of the highlights of the panel discussion as well as Mark Smith's keynote below.

Our commitment to connecting technology, policy and business innovations is central to our vision of unifying a fragmented health ecosystem. In his remarks, Microsoft Chief Research & Strategy Officer Craig Mundie highlighted the major role health plays in economies around the world and the huge opportunity for software to improve peoples’ lives. Our Connected Health Conference this week brought together many different "perspectives" from across the fragmented health ecosystem -- what really struck me was everyone's energy and desire to let innovation reengineer the health system. I hope that the public and private sectors can work together to drive real change. We all know that that it's not going to be easy, but it will -- and must -- happen.

Signposts

pnblog — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:57:00 GMT

I don't normally blog about our products per se, but today marks an important milestone for Microsoft shipping solutions that are important signposts toward the future -- the transformation of healthcare.

The first is the launch of the Mayo Clinic Health Manager powered by HealthVault -- the focus of this solution is to enable the 'family health manager' to organize her information in one place and receive customized recommendations. The second is New York Presbyterian’s realization of a ‘connected health environment’ that brings together information on the clinic or hospital side using Amalga and extends it to patients through the introduction of mynyp.org via HealthVault. Each of these solutions concretely demonstrates how collaboratively we can move health systems forward today -- connecting users with their clinical information and providing interactive, personalized tools to empower them further.

The HiTech stimulus and health reform policy debates acknowledge the importance of information technology in transforming the health system...however questions remain about the how and shape of that transformation. Last week, I finished the Innovator's Prescription by Clay Christensen et al., which I strongly recommend to folks trying to understand the types of disruptive innovation that can and should occur in the health ecosystem to improve outcomes and change the cost dynamic. The books brings a new vocabulary that can help advance the discussion -- and highlights the importance of new business models in creating innovation. We need a different business model to deal with chronic care and prevention. I am confident that technology in general and the type of technology we are building and deploying with these innovative leaders in particular is critical to enabling these new business models.

It is exciting to go from ideas -- to plans -- to prototypes -- to actually shipping solutions that tear down the walls of data silos and begin the journey of using liberated data to deliver new solutions for consumers/patients. We are still early in this journey, and I look forward to getting feedback from users -- consumers, clinical users and IT professionals -- on how to improve the capability and usefulness of our solutions.

Tear Down the Walls and Liberate the Data

pnblog — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 01:13:00 GMT

(cross-posted on Microsoft on the Issues)

In 1987, President Ronald Reagan gave one of his most well remembered speeches. Few of us could forget his words to Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall”—proving to be prophetic when the German Democratic Republic announced the re-opening of the border in 1989, and the subsequent destruction of the Berlin Wall. What followed? A new flow of people, ideas, commerce, and capital—creating the groundwork for unification and a better way of life in Germany and Eastern Europe, benefiting all of us economically and politically in unanticipated ways.

A similar type of disruptive change needs to happen in the health ecosystem today. Just as the free flow of ideas and capital were the foundation for dramatic improvements in society, so should the free flow of health data be the foundation for realizing a future of secure, personalized, data driven medicine in health.

Yet many outdated ideas and mechanisms stand in the way of change; the most important of which are the now impractical walls that were erected and still exist around patient-data. And all of us—IT vendors, providers, payers, pharmacy benefit managers, policy makers and others in the health ecosystem have enabled the walls to exist in spite of the obvious benefits to patient safety and the overall health economy.

Real-time, accessible, meaningful and comprehensive data is fundamental to health care as a whole–to make a diagnosis, provide quality care, pay the right bill, discover new therapies, and so on. What’s of paramount importance is liberating the data and making it available for re-use in different contexts. This is critical for improving outcomes, paying for value, creating a learning healthcare system, enabling discoveries and fundamentally changing the dynamics of the ecosystem. We should be treating health data as a vital asset—health enterprises and consumers—to drive an efficient, high-quality, value-based, evidence-focused future for medicine.

So why isn’t there data liquidity or the appropriate flow of data in the ecosystem? There are two major walls preventing the liberation of data and each is starting to have some cracks.

First, there is the “it’s-my-data” wall put up by hospitals, insurance plans, pharmacy benefit managers, and others. They believe there is some competitive advantage by keeping the data inside their walls. And there are lots of excuses supporting their position–patients don’t want it, they can’t understand it, it might do them harm blah, blah, blah. This wall is starting to crack. Many institutions recognize that the consumer has a right to a copy of their data and are making the appropriate connections to personally controlled health data repositories like HealthVault or Google Health. Many others are writing about it too—John Moore asserted in a recent post, “Personal health data belongs to the consumer and the consumer should decide how it is shared. This is a very radical concept that still has most providers, payers and other data holders shaking in their boots.”

The second wall is the “waiting-for-the-right-standards-set-by-government” wall. There are multiple excuses buttressing this wall; the core of which come down to technology, standards or policy excuses. Without debating each point–one inexcusable barrier is the IT enterprise system vendors who make it difficult or expensive to get access to the data, to separate it from the application. They believe that proprietary “lock-in” provides them with a strategic advantage. We’re all in business and need to create strategic value for our products, but let’s do it in the application layer—rules, workflow, user experience, price, or services—not by trapping patient data in a proprietary database structure.

Our customers and partners and their customers need to be able to re-use their health data, and in ways they haven’t always thought of or anticipated. They have to be able to build cross-vendor systems to improve care. If information can be made liquid—flowing from where it is generated to where it is needed, and combining it with other bits of information to provide a comprehensive view—it can be tremendously powerful.

We, in the IT industry, can step up and be a driving force in enabling data to become liquid—specifically, doing this by separating data from applications. This is one of the recommendations from a study by the National Research Council of the National Academies that takes a look at what types of computational technology and investments are best for improving health outcomes. Let the excuse not be that the data is trapped in systems that we built, that we have to wait for standards.

We need to enable this, and we can start to do it today. Just look at the Health Information Exchange in Wisconsin and CVS MinuteClinic. In the former, value is being added immediately to users in the ED, without requiring all the participating EDs to change their systems or to be standards compliant (or CCHIT certified). At MinuteClinics, summary after-visit health data are made available to customers online using the Continuity of Care Record standard.

There’s a proven model for extracting and transforming data in many ways—HL7 feeds, non-HL7 feeds, web services, database replication, XML and XSLT, and more—and along the way we can create value by interpreting the data and adding metadata. At Microsoft, we’re doing it today both in the enterprise with Amalga and across enterprises to the consumer with HealthVault. We hope other vendors follow this lead to drive better outcomes for patients, and we expect buyers of IT systems to demand vendors to meet this standard (excuse the pun). Where standards are available, we should leverage them, and where standards do not yet exist, we should output the information in a consistent consumable format for the install base.

I understand that there are many, many complicated aspects of this problem, including the need to reform our payment system. But we don’t have to work out everything first to begin building a better, more data enabled, data rich and accessible health delivery system now. David Kibbe did a nice job simplifying and laying out some core recommendations in his post, Five Shovel-Ready Health Care Reforms.

I have argued previously that HiTech should focus on investments which leverage existing digital data sources and drive better health outcomes. With the dollars that are being allocated to EMRs, it’s critical that the data is liquid and that the consumer is connected to the data in a meaningful way

I understand that this kind of disruptive change can be uncomfortable because the forces unleashed can lead to unpredictable results for specific stakeholders. But like the fall of the Berlin Wall, it is clear that the most important stakeholder—the citizen or patient—will be better off, and the other key stakeholders—providers, payers, policy makers, etc.—will participate in a healthier ecosystem. There will be profound, new opportunities for everyone in this future.

The time for excuses is over. Let’s tear down the walls and get the data flowing. We can do it now.

Connect Consumers with “Meaningful Use”

pnblog — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 01:41:00 GMT

The current hot, behind-the-scenes, debate in HIT is around how “meaningful use” of HIT will be defined for purposes of the incentive payments provided in the HiTech portion of ARRA. Since there is a lot of money at stake and a lot of interested stakeholders, I am sure it will be an energetic debate.

Hopefully the definition of “meaningful use” will include some concept of improved health outcomes (Message to Washington - Its all about the Outcomes ). I know this presents many challenges, and I don’t pretend to have the complete answer on how to best define “meaningful use”.

As Zeke Emanuel remarked at our IOM meeting this week, specific suggestions are much more effective than general principles in rule-making – so I’m taking to heart his recommendation.

My simple, concrete, critically important and specific suggestion for incorporation into the definition of “meaningful use”? Make sharing data and actionable information with consumers a required condition of “meaningful use.” Specific and simple. I can add lots of characteristics to it – near real time, two-way sharing, portable, and so on – but the essential point is that consumer access to their own data has to be DEFINED as part of “meaningful use.” Consumers are the ones ultimately accountable for their health. If we don’t include them, we will miss this historic opportunity to create a new ‘platform’ for transforming care in innovative ways.

We need to think bigger. Folks in Washington talk about HiTech portion of ARRA as being a down payment on the future of health delivery. I am not sure what that means myself. But if it means we are building a platform for transforming care or creating a learning health care system – I know it must include connecting the last mile, which means incorporating the consumer and the home into the platform – by design.

The formal definition of meaningful is: full of meaning, significance, purpose, or value.

The key word for me in this definition is value. Unless the definition of meaningful use is extended to include the consumer, real value in way of improved health outcomes or return on this huge investment will never be realized.

Health Affairs event and special issue on Health IT

pnblog — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 07:20:00 GMT

Today I spoke at a very well attended Health Affairs event in Washington DC -- originally designed (months ago in a different time warp in HIT light years) to discuss lessons learned by folks leveraging HIT in effective ways, along with the usual challenges, issues and opportunities. Naturally the discussion was hijacked by the implications, potential consequences and opportunities raised by the ARRA stimulus act and the HITech portion of it in particular.

There is much to report from the event -- because there were a lot of smart and thoughtful panelists -- and because the issues are at the same time complicated, familiar and not super well understood. I don't have time to cover them all in this post.

There is a strong consensus (it showed up in comments from many panelists) around the theme I care most about -- which is we must focus on the outcomes one wants to achieve (better health outcomes at the same or lower cost) and then encourage innovation between providers and technology suppliers to deliver those outcomes. Said another way -- technology is a tool (a means) and not an end in itself. This is why health reform and the health stimulus have to be intertwined and self-reinforcing. Just spending money on HIT is not going to lead to the 'down payment' (i.e. future savings) that Obama believes it is.

Mark Smith brought this to life most effectively in his remarks -- that by adding a computer to Kramer's bookstore you don't end up turning it into Amazon.com. Kaiser reported in the article summarizing the experience in Hawaii with KP Healthconnect (EMR) -- that family practice office visits went down by 25+%. For Kaiser, an integrated delivery network and health plan -- that is a benefit to their bottom line. (I should note patient satisfaction went up in this period because needs were met by phone/email -- a totally win/win situation for Kaiser and consumer alike). For a more typical, small office family physician -- that is a disaster...because revenues are tied to visits. To succeed, we have to change the paradigm of healthcare away from the tyranny of the visit based payment system (Kramer's bookstore) and reward longitudinal care systems (future amazon.com). If we spend a bunch of money automating existing systems of care -- and not enabling new platforms -- we have missed the huge opportunity to make a difference.

Carol Diamond made the subtle, but I think hugely important point that has not fully sunk in to the folks waiting at the starting line of the HIT land rush -- that the public is going to expect accountability for improved outcomes with the stimulus spend. Health touches everyone -- and if the country spends $30+Billion dollars on 'investment' and the average citizen experience with the health delivery network is no different and costs continue to rise -- there is going to be accountability for where did the money go. She is rightly trying to focus the minds of the folks with the wagons -- better pick your spots wisely -- just getting a homestead isn't good enough -- it had better be productive land.

My biggest ah-ha moment came a few hours after the event in a conversation with the CEO of a large player in the healthcare supply chain. I realized that a significant portion of the Health Affairs event, the broader conversation about overall HIT investments and the specific conversation I was having ALL ACKNOWLEDGED and CONCLUDED that individuals (people, patients, consumers, whatever label we want to use) have a right to a personally controlled health record and that the personally controlled health data management platform is a critical component (perhaps a necessary component) of ANY FUTURE HEALTH IT SYSTEM and probably any payment reform system.

The ah-ha point is -- Microsoft has made a difference -- a huge difference -- by taking the leadership role it did 3 years ago by investing in building, defining, evangelizing, shipping and refining a personally controlled health data management system, HealthVault. We have a long way to go to make it easy, ubiquitous and fully connected -- and to deliver the value I know it will to consumers/patients in their everyday health lives. But I know it is a good and innovative idea and one that has changed and framed the debate in a positive way. While I have always believed that -- to see the effect and reality of the impact -- made my day.

Message to Washington -- It's all about Outcomes

pnblog — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:35:00 GMT

Yesterday, I testified before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, otherwise known as HELP. You can see a video of my testimony here. Before getting to the substance, I need to highlight how I continue to be awe-inspired about how our government works -- in a positive way. Any body can walk into the halls of Congress and sit in and listen to a hearing. Folks from all walks of life have input via a variety of means -- and while I get it's not perfect and can be better -- I remain proud of our democratic system and feel honored to be able to contribute/participate in it.

My main message to the Senate was: We should really focus on the health outcomes we want to achieve, not just on the technology itself. What the health system needs is to adopt technology in ways to deliver better outcomes, better chronic care management, better hospital effectiveness. We really want to make sure that we have the leadership focused on encouraging the usage of technology to achieve certain goals, like better chronic care management.

We were the only technology company testifying, and I think people were surprised to hear us saying that technology isn’t the silver bullet. It's not that Microsoft doesn't want to see spending on health care technology. Far from it. We just want to see smart spending, on technology that will really have impact. When we decided to go to the moon, we didn't say let's build a great rocket...we said let's go to the moon...I feel a little bit of the conversation has been about let’s build a great rocket and hope we get to the moon.

The other witnesses included Health Leadership Council President Mary Grealy, National Quality Forum President Janet Corrigan, Permanente Federation Executive Director Jack Cochran and Valerie Melvin, Director of information technology for the Government Accounting Office. Their comments were unexpectedly aligned with mine -- namely take a holistic view; incenting the adoption of technology is not a silver bullet; and, we must have reform of the payment system too. So at a high level -- folks understand the challenges of creating the right kind of change in the complex health ecosystem. Where the differences lie -- is how to get started. Unfortunately as is often the case -- the stimulus bill (big incremental spend investing in health IT) is separate from the activities around health reform. Getting the spend without the right payment system reform -- could lead to the unintended consequences the panel was cautioning against.

The legislation is being drafted now -- that is why the hearing was held on a day when there was a lot of other activity going on in the Senate. There is a clear sense that something big will pass in 2-3 weeks - which is like moving at the speed of light. I am sympathetic to the challenges of the staffers trying to find the right language -- it is not easy to figure out how to guide the spend of $20billion over two years! The scale of spend is still hard to put into perspective for me -- in my last post I tried a per physician number, so this time let's try per day -- it is $27M/day! I am very confident there is lots of low hanging fruit to generate a return on investment in the health system (waste, overuse, misuse, error reduction) that technology can enable -- but still $27M/day!

Since I spend the bulk of my time building software -- decisions about features, hiring great people, how and where to sell -- the hardest question from the staffers to answer is - how do you recommend we spend the money?

My answer is in my closing remarks with the five key things that I think the government needs to focus on:

1. Encourage innovation in health IT by setting out objective goals and criteria, not by mandating specific technologies or development models.

2. Reward innovative doctors who make the Internet the foundation of the patient-physician connection.

3. Provide incentives for sharing data.

4. Focus on making data interoperable today, not waiting for standards tomorrow, and insist that vendors separate data from applications.

5. Enable the private sector to develop an information infrastructure that connects data, systems, and people.

These are really critical, so we don’t end up in the wrong place. They’re based on our learnings as we’ve delved into this complex world of health.

One final thought -- surely it is an exciting time to be in the health information technology business! I personally got passionate about trying to really contribute and make a difference in HIT from my time on the President's Information Technology Advisory Council (PITAC) in 2003-2005. As co-chair of the Health Subcommittee -- we published a report titled Revolutionizing Health Care Through Information Technology with key recommendations for the government to consider. While my depth of understanding has gone up dramatically, what I find is both fascinating and perhaps cautionary -- is the discussion is largely on the same key issues/recommendations. This time there is a lot of money at stake -- but it goes to show that change is hard and probably slow.

I had a great exchange with Fox News --- video embedded below.

You can also read more about Microsoft's general views on a number of topics here.

Before you finalize your Health IT shopping list

pnblog — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:23:18 GMT

The mad dash for health reform continues in earnest as stakeholders from all parts of the health ecosystem work to inform, engage and encourage the incoming Administration. The need for reform is obvious and the dialog is positive -- I continue to worry that 'soundbite solutions' will get in the way of a serious discussion of principles, desired outcomes and alternatives to achieve a good return on investment on 'change.'

As a business guy -- one that has worked on startup initiatives over most of my life -- I tried to put into context what it means to invest an 'incremental $50B' in health IT. It sounds like a lot of money -- something on the order of $83k per practicing physician -- we ought to be able to do something spectacular for that kind of money.

There is a new study out by the National Research Council of the National Academies that takes a look at what types of computational technology and investments are best for improving health outcomes. I recommend folks read it (full disclosure I was both interviewed and a reviewer). Many folks I talk with in the computer science industry recognize the huge benefits that will be gained in medicine and health outcomes with thoughtful investments in information technology. Many (myself included) are technology optimists and believe that information technology will ultimately disrupt and transform health delivery.

But to achieve this transformation -- we have to acknowledge the reality of the institutions and systems currently in place; we have to invest in the new kinds of architectures and IT systems that will deliver real value over time. This report is bi-partisan and a timely reminder of key principles by experts -- one that I hope informs the health reform spending debate before folks finish their HIT shopping list and count too much on electronic health records as a simplistic cure-all.

The study acknowledges the need for comprehensive patient data, empowerment of consumers/families with personal health information and for flexibility in systems design to enable new advances in biology to be integrated effectively -- among many other principles.

Here are a few of the topline recommendations (pages S-9 and S-10) from the report I chose to highlight because they are so important and often get lost in the 'soundbite solutions' debate:

incentivize clinical performance gains rather than the acquisition of IT, per se
encourage initiatives to empower iterative process improvement and small-scale optimization
develop the necessary data infrastructure for health care improvement by aggregating data regarding people, processes, and outcomes from all sources.
insists that vendors supply IT that permits the separation of data from applications and facilitates data transfers to and from other non-vendor applications in sharable and generally useful formats

If the country is going to invest $50B in incremental health IT -- we all want it to be invested wisely. The question is; what will generate the most benefit and how can we accomplish it? We should be building an asset with this investment - and the asset is not an application per se -- but a health data asset that can be used to improve both individual outcomes and the performance of the institutions and the system overall. Individuals should be encouraged to create and manage their health data asset and to learn how to share it to achieve better outcomes and interactions with the health delivery system. Similarly - health enterprises should invest in building and sharing health data assets that enable them to have a culture of process improvement over time.

Rush to Reform

pnblog — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:50:53 GMT

I haven't posted for awhile -- mostly because I have been busy with customers, development projects, and the impact of the economic crisis -- but also because I’ve felt that there has been so much noise and anticipation around the priorities of the incoming Administration that reading seemed more valuable than posting.

It is clear that 'reforming the health system' is a priority -- and that’s positive. Daschle has promised lots of conversations in homes around the country on this important topic, which may be illuminating and instructive for all (or not). Certainly the industry stakeholders -- executives, pundits, vendors etc. -- are all lining up their policy principles, suggested areas of priorities, options for reform and the like. You can read them everywhere--in the news, at conferences, and in blogs.

In the current bailout climate, which I fear is corrupting the minds of many otherwise thoughtful people; the risk of well intentioned changes having negative unintended consequences (economic sink holes as well as lack of systemic improvement) is high.

Despite the risks, I remain encouraged that some positive things can happen. No matter what priorities and tactics within health reform are chosen, substantial health information technology will be a necessary ingredient. There is a growing consensus that increasing health data liquidity/exchange is the first order priority (see here and here for recent examples). This is the position we staked out three years ago, and the ongoing focus of our investments.

Refactoring the question of HIT and health reform from "subsiding EMR adoption" to "incenting the use of shared data and personal, connected tools to improve care" is real progress. There is lots of valuable electronic health data today. The first investment priority should be to get more value (reuse vs. re-create, physician/consumer access and use of data in decision making) out of what exists already, instead of funding more source systems..

My last thought for the morning on HIT and health reform isthat the technology question should also be refactored. Rather than focusing on infrastructure investments(more EMRs, more HIEs, build it and they will come dreams here-- this is input focused), the appropriate focus should be choosing an outcomes goal -- say reduce diabetes by 50% in 5 years. Let innovative people inside and outside the industry pull the right technology into adoption to meet an ambitious goal. Yes, changes in reimbursement need to happen for this to work, but this is true in all cases. The technology exists today. The real adoption challenge is not about incentives to buy it, but rather about rewarding those who use it well to achieve better outcomes -- for patients, for themselves and for payers.

Healthy Debate

pnblog — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 06:52:00 GMT

I love the fresh debate about standards and the evolution of Health IT raised by the three Health Affairs articles. I agree wholeheartedly with the perspectives of Carol and Clay - and frequently reinforce these comments to customers, policy makers and audiences alike.

It's about the patient - not about the standards. Value in the form of patient care and business results can be improved by moving/reusing the data already in the system! There is no need to wait for 'standards'. Ultimately we need to be focused on solutions that provide value to patients….better quality of care.
If it's about the patient, we need to empower consumers to be active and engaged participants in the system and they will demand 'connected' care and more health and wellness choices. They will increasingly make physician choices based on the ability and willingness of physicians to leverage communications/connected care to improve patient convenience and outcomes. In order to have more choice, consumers need to be able to access and leverage health IT solutions: the same ones that are being used by their physicians and other stakeholders across the spectrum of care.
Health IT is a great enabler for many things (outcomes, safety, results, employee productivity, employee satisfaction) but not an end in itself. System design matters a lot - metadata is the answer to enabling exchange of info today to evolve to standard exchange tomorrow. Health IT is only one piece of the puzzle, but we can't wait for all the pieces to be in place; We need to start improving outcomes today. These beliefs have informed the design principles of the software products we introduced in the marketplace - both HealthVault and Amalga.

In addition to consumers as a change agent, I remain hopeful that the buyers of large health IT systems will wake up and demand more from their vendors; Not in terms of custom features, but in terms of a real commitment to interoperability and to unlocking the data that exists in systems already. Health IT buyers are critical stakeholders/components of the ecosystem and need to demonstrate leadership in getting us to real solutions that extract the value from HIT - and not let themselves be positioned as victims controlled by the vendors. Unlocking the data that providers and patients need to make the right decisions should be the priority, with the goal of improving patient outcomes.

Russia Visit

pnblog — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 06:39:57 GMT

I haven't blogged recently, because I took my family to Moscow and St. Petersburg to learn and experience more about this fascinating country with a rich and proud history – a trip that I highly recommend.

While I was there -- I decided to learn a bit about their health system and its challenges. As is well known, Russia has substantial long-term challenges related to a projected decline in population and a relatively low mortality age. The country is using its new wealth to address health infrastructure needs -- but as in most countries, the health system is big; it sits under different sets of jurisdictions (fragmented); and is largely operated at the local level.

I had the opportunity to visit a leading oncology hospital outside Moscow (#62). It is set in a tranquil, park-like setting outside the suburbs and has multiple buildings on this relatively small campus. Its new surgery center (less than 3 years old) is outfitted with modern equipment and a local vendor-driven, HIS-like system of which they are very proud. Parts of the long-term bed facility were under construction.

The HIS system was built on Windows and uses Citrix terminal servers. They demoed it and its broad feature set to me for over an hour, putting up with my incessant questions about how things worked. They showed it to me in a small auditorium setting, which is used every morning by the head of surgery to go over the previous day’s results and today’s planned surgeries. The system was pretty complete -- managing the obvious things like patient registration and patient data, up to and including identification of which patients should be prepped for discharged that day or the next day. Reducing the length of a patient stay (the Russian average is much longer than in US) is one of the priorities of the administration, in order to reduce service wait times.

More interesting than the HIS system, was speaking with the deputy director of the hospital, who is still a practicing physician. We had a very engaging discussion, which made it clear that he was quite proud of his facility, of the improved results he had been able to accomplish over the last few years, and the fact that an executive from Microsoft was interested in learning from him. He opened a fresh bottle of a Russian brandy drink (it was late in the day) to share over our conversation. He was proud that their HIS implementation had enabled him to operate the facility more effectively: manage drug costs better (major expense), manage his resourcing better, be able to tell which docs were doing well and which ones weren't (to intervene), and to improve overall capacity…the key basic things he needed to improve results.

His main point was that he needed to get more done, (i.e. see more people, get wait lists down and so on), without any additional funding. It was about managing priorities and resources to get the most out of them. Now maybe that shouldn't be surprising -- but it was striking to me nearly 8000 miles away from home, in a dramatically different environment and economic/payment system -- that the needs were similar and that IT was being used effectively by pioneers to improve their results in meaningful ways.

Why blog on health and software?

pnblog — Mon, 26 May 2008 23:13:11 GMT

I am blogging to add my voice and perspective to the very important discussion of how to improve health around the world. I believe software and communications can make both incremental and transformational improvements to the delivery of health care -- in developed and emerging countries. To be sure, software is just one factor -- in many places, basic infrastructure improvements like clean water, proper waste disposal systems, basic supplies are way more important and high value than software, I get that. What I know is 'great software' and I can see how it, along with leadership in health organizations, can make a real difference.

The perspective I bring is that of a business person, entrepreneur and software guy -- one that has seen software and the Internet transform the way we work, the way we communicate, the way brands are built and the economics of many industries -- but not yet health delivery systems. There are lots of reasons why this is true -- which I hope to address when building products and solutions for the marketplace.

The public debate about health policy and the role of government in the U.S. over the next 18 months is going to be significant in defining priorities and the nation's options for the future. The questions are very complex -- and we all have opinions about what is most important or most broken about our health system -- but unfortunately the debate is generally not fully informed about the complex trade-offs involved in the dynamics of the health ecosystem. I certainly don't claim to have all the answers, but I do hope to contribute to the debate.

One example came up this past week when the CBO published a report about the value of information technology in the health delivery system. The headlines that the report generated focused on the fact that technology "by itself" was unlikely to generate substantial savings -- well like, duh! Technology "by itself" can't accomplish anything. The 'headline only' discussion misses many key points both in the report and left out of the report -- about the real, tangible benefits of the appropriate application of technology -- in terms of improved safety/quality and lower costs. Many examples of good results are documented in the report even.

There are legitimate questions about how to generate the benefits (better quality, lower costs) of HIT, about who recognizes the benefits (buyer of HIT or payer/user of the health system) and about the overall costs/challenges to implement complex HIT systems in hospitals. If anyone thinks we can improve health costs or quality by using only paper based systems -- I'd like to understand their argument. I don't believe it and don't suspect many others believe it. Consequently, the real question is not "whether HIT investments or not", but rather what investments generate the most value (what works) and what can be done to get more of what works. As I stated previously -- it is the combination of leadership and software - that leads to benefits in better health outcomes and lower costs -- see this article by John Glaser on this point.

The day this debate above about HIT value hit the headlines -- I was participating the Future in Review conference, hosted by Mark Anderson. The contrast could not have been more striking -- the participants were describing real and potential solutions to delivering value in health. William Haseltine described the great work he is doing in India -- to dramatically lower the cost of certain surgical procedures -- CABG and cataracts were examples. His examples of practice design, workflow specialization and component parts demonstrated huge cost savings and comparable or better quality results -- which he hopes over time to export to the U.S. Roy Schoenberg of American Well talked about making real time, on demand communications with physicians a reality in the next several months. This will make a difference.

The exciting thing is that there is innovation everywhere -- and motivated entrepreneurs and leaders that will figure out how to make stuff better.