• Tear Down the Walls and Liberate the Data

    (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    Yet many outdated ideas and mechanisms stand in the way of change; the most important of which are the now impractical walls that were erected and still exist around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.

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

    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. 

  • Message to Washington -- It's all about Outcomes

    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 has moved!

    The leadership for the new Microsoft/GE joint venture is getting firmly in place and as noted in my last post, I have now transitioned to be a consultant/contractor.

    I remain focused on the intersection of information technology and health to improve health around the world; if you want to follow my ramblings going forward – you can find me here:

    http://neupertonhealth.wordpress.com  

  • Better Care at Reduced Costs? A Real-Life Example!

    The results of a recent peer-reviewed study conducted by Humana Inc. and Wisconsin Health Information Exchange (WHIE), a long-time Amalga customer, are both exciting and important.

    They’re exciting because the results begin to prove what many people involved with health information exchanges have long theorized –  that providing a more complete view of a patient’s medical history at the point of care helps doctors make more informed decisions that can improve the quality of care while reducing waste. Humana and WHIE achieved an average cost savings of $29 per emergency department (ED) visit when doctors queried the WHIE for information about the patient’s medical history upon registration. Redundant testing represents a huge strain on the healthcare system, and as the study demonstrates, can be reduced when ED clinicians have the right information at their fingertips. This degree of savings, if extrapolated across all of the emergency encounters in the country (120 million per year), could potentially yield $3.5 billion in savings annually. You can learn more about how these savings were achieved by reading a blog from Ed Barthell, MD, director, Microsoft Health Solutions Group.

    The study results are important because they demonstrate the power of the public and private sector working together to drive greater efficiency and value in the healthcare system – by enabling an open, secure exchange of data. From the beginning, WHIE leaders recognized that the exchange needed to focus on the ends – rather than the means – of health information exchange: improved care of individual patients and data to support initiatives to provide better care across populations.  WHIE implemented Amalga to support a regional data aggregation strategy as a core component of the solution – in contrast to many other HIEs that concentrate only on point-to-point messaging.

    In addition, aligning innovation across health IT and business, WHIE and Humana were able to establish a symbiotic relationship that can serve as a model for state and community HIEs across the country – a model that benefits the payer, the provider, the patient, and the public. Specifically, WHIE and Humana have shown:

    • Health plans can reduce their costs by partnering with emergency departments to use health information exchange to access patient information at the point of care.  
    • Providers can reduce the cost of caring for uninsured patients – and might also share some of the savings. In addition, providers can benefit from unlocking data, aggregating it, sharing it and learning from it – to provide care based on more complete information.
    • Patients and their families can gain peace of mind knowing caregivers are coordinating care and making informed decisions – and not worry about piecing together their medical history in an emergency situation.

    And, although it wasn’t covered in this study, the WHIE also demonstrates how a community-based HIE can help protect populations by allowing the near real-time analysis of cohorts and the ability to identify trends and epidemics as they emerge.

    Perhaps most important, the Humana and WHIE study presents a model of sustainability for HIEs. If payers can realize a greater than 2:1 return incenting hospitals to use health information exchange, as Humana has, there’s reason to believe similar payer-provider partnerships can create sustainable HIEs across the country.  And, imagine how much progress we could make on ‘bending the cost curve’ if we liberated the data across the entire system?