International Travelogue

pnblog — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 00:50:00 GMT

After my visit to Washington D.C. and the U.S. Senate, I thought it might be instructive to visit other parts of the world to gain additional perspective on the challenges the global economic crisis is posing to health systems. For the last five days, I have been in Western Europe visiting four different countries and interacting with health system CEOs and CIOs, ministers of health, leading social service bureaucrats and members of the Microsoft health ecosystem.

Here are some observations worth sharing:

Everywhere there is a deep interest in personally controlled health records - more than I anticipated, and despite the fact that some early projects in the category have performed poorly and have low adoption. Stakeholders recognize that citizens/consumers need to be actively engaged in their health in order to improve the results and economics of the health system. They view personally controlled health records as an important tool to motivate and engage them. They don't see other options that can accomplish this goal.
Privacy is a major issue surrounding the sharing of health data -- either in the professional arena (insurance, provider to provider, provider to pharma) or in the case of professional to consumer. Many have concluded (as we have in the design of HealthVault) that personally controlled health records are the best solution (but not the only one).
Health systems and their funders are looking for ways to connect the health delivery system across institutional boundaries -- from GP systems to hospitals and specialists. No one is doing it well yet. They see it as critical to delivering better outcomes and containing costs, and they acknowledge that seamless data sharing is critical to enable new work flows. Unfortunately there remain many barriers to this seamless data sharing -- some technical, but mostly economic fear of existing stakeholders around loss of revenue or the implications of transparency on business practice/quality of delivery.
The payment systems inhibit innovation in many cases or drive it in others. In some markets, governments are pinning their hopes on private insurance as a vehicle for innovation and focus on wellness/prevention while in other markets the government is directly trying to tinker with the payment schemes to encourage new behaviors by the provider organizations. From an economics perspective -- what strikes me as the real problem and challenge with these approaches is that the feedback loops are long and indirect, and consequently the cycle time of improvement will be incredibly slow. This is why price mechanisms in the capitalist system are so important - real time feedback mechanisms with the ability to self adjust.
The people with whom I met had an informed interest in what was going on in the U.S., particularly around the stimulus bill for health IT and about the prospects for health reform. They are watching to see the impact. What surprised me was the low esteem in which most regarded the U.S. health system...based on the statistics around health spend as a % of total GDP spend and reported health outcomes. I acknowledge that the U.S. system has many flaws, is broken in many ways, and has lots of waste that should be eliminated. But I have always been a bit of a skeptic that the statistics on outcomes really tell the full and complete story around quality of care delivered across different societies. I am not sure that the perception of others really matters in this case in terms of the U.S. needing to fix the problems regardless -- but it bothered me enough to flag it and put in my "think about it later" list.

Some I visited are surprised to learn that Microsoft is investing in health specific software and services solutions. Others are challenging us to do even more to bring ease of use, effective application integration and user interface innovation to the health worker desktop today! Most are hopeful that the next round of technology and software investments really help improve the working environment on the front lines of health delivery and health outcomes.

Next stop -- Asia Pacific. Given our ambitious goals, I often tell my team that time is our enemy when it comes to success. Ironically, I have turned the motivational saying into a concrete reality as my itinerary has three of the next six nights aboard planes. whoops

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.

Neupert On Health : privacy

International Travelogue

Message to Washington -- It's all about Outcomes