Health Business Blog

Physicians and hospitals that implement electronic health records (EHR) are sometimes disappointed with the results. In many cases, EHRs are used largely to convert paper information into electronic form, which is a costly and cumbersome process. But when advanced clinical decision support is added, significant improvements are attainable.

Fortunately the federal government recognizes the importance of clinical decision support. The definition of “meaningful use” under the HITECH Act is likely to include a reasonably strong emphasis on clinical decision support. EHR (and computerized physician order entry) vendors are preparing to upgrade their decision support offerings to meet the demand. Meanwhile dedicated decision support companies are ready to help them.

Zynx Health is one such company. In this podcast interview, Dr. Scott Weingarten discusses advanced clinical decision support and the connection with meaningful use.

Share

Zynx CEO discusses clinical decision support and meaningful use Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

I’m in Montreal today and enjoying the opportunity to catch up on Canadian news. Today’s Montreal Gazette has a story that’s tailor made for a visiting American health care blogger: Most Canadians satisfied with health-care system; But only 1-in-4 Quebecers happy.

According to the [telephonic]…  survey of 1,750 adults, 44 per cent rate the state of health care in Canada as good or excellent – an increase of seven percentage points since 2007 and 20 points higher than in 2004.

About the same number rate the state of health care as fair. Just one in nine say it’s poor or very poor, half as many as in 2004. As well, eight in 10 Canadians who have used the health-care system in the past year say they were satisfied with the care they received.

Ontarians are most satisfied, it found, with 57 per cent rating the health-care system as good or excellent. But that could soon change; the new Ontario budget limits funding increases to hospitals to 1.5 per cent next year. Quebecers are the least content. Just one in four say the state of health care is good or excellent.

The results echo what I usually tell people about the Canadian health care system: people are reasonably happy with the system, but results vary significantly by province. The province-by-province differences are not surprising, because health care is mainly administered and financed at the provincial level.

I’ve heard a fair amount of grousing from Canadians about health care: from doctors unhappy that their pay is constrained and from patients and families (at least in Quebec) worried about the impact cost control attempts have on their own access to care. What I don’t hear is fear about losing coverage, rising premiums and co-pays, or battles with insurance companies.

I also haven’t heard anyone pining for conversion to a US-style system.

There’s no way the US will convert to a Canadian-style system. And if somehow it happened you wouldn’t find Americans expressing as much satisfaction about such a system as Canadians do. Part of that may be national temperament: Americans the rugged individualists, Canadians more in the soft Western European mold.

And yet a lot of the opinion comes down to concerns about change. People are deeply uncomfortable with change, but once it occurs they get used to the new way of doing things and wouldn’t want to go back to what was there before. It’s one reason some Republicans are so eager to reverse the newly passed health care bill right away. They realize if they don’t get it done soon there will be growing grass roots opposition to changing things back along with the institutional inertia that builds up with the creation of new programs.

Don’t be surprised if within a few years –and maybe sooner– Republicans will be defending ObamaCare (though without using that term) just the way they attempt to defend Medicare today.

Share

The unanimous rejection of health reform by GOP Senators and Representatives, the “repeal and replace” rallying cry, and the venom and violence directed against some health reform supporters make it seem that the new law is a radical, left-wing overreach that will soon be repudiated by the electorate. And yet the law is modeled on the plans of Republican Governors Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Arnold Schwarzenegger of  California.

When the dust starts to settle it will be hard for opponents to develop a realistic, mainstream alternative that they can rally the country around.

Leif Wellington Haase makes this argument on the New American Foundation’s New Health Dialogue blog (HEALTH REFORM: A Modest Revolution). He adds some good points:

• The law is more modest and gradual than the Clinton plan, “which envisioned regional health alliances, premium caps, and the eventual eclipse of employer-sponsored care”
• The law’s individual mandate is a Republican-inspired idea, compared with alternatives such as single-payer and employer mandates
• Cost control will be a challenge, but the law is likely to have a greater impact in this arena than most give it credit for. These include:
  • An excise tax on high-cost plans
  • An independent Medicare advisory board
  • The Medicare and Medicaid innovation center
  • Tests of bundled payments, accountable care organizations, and non-payment for errors and avoidable readmissions

In Haase’s view –and mind– the key is to get the private sector to believe that cost control is the wave of the future. Once that’s in place, private innovation will accelerate the cost control process beyond what the government is capable of.

Share

Last year I tried a pair of Cooper Martin’s stylish “recovery wear” –a pair of khaki pants that look and feel similar to the ones from Brooks Brothers that I usually wear. They were made of a nice, organic cotton, had pleats, deep pockets in the front and back welt pockets. But the pants also had  what Cooper Martin calls “Active Recovery Technology,” which includes hidden zippers on the outside of both legs so that the whole pant leg can come open. There was velcro at the bottom of each leg, and a loop of PVC rubber at the end of each zipper to keep them from slipping. The waistband had velcro that covers the zippers along with a snap in the front that’s easy to fasten and unfasten but that is hidden from view. Other hidden zippers start near the crotch and zip down below the knee for easy access.

Now Cooper Martin is launching the Luxe Collection of stylish lounge pants, which have many of the same features as the khakis but are designed for lounging around, doing errands, and so forth. The lounge pants incorporate side seam zippers that aren’t hidden (unlike on the khakis) but look stylish rather than medical. The lounge pants are a nice step up from sweatpants and are likely to be embraced by women who need the added functionality. I won’t be trying on a pair of these any time soon, but I wish Cooper Martin the best!

Share

I had an interesting chat yesterday with Jose Maria Fernandez Sousa, chairman of Spanish biotech company Zeltia and president of the Spanish biotech association, ASEBIO. The parent company has been around since the 1930s, but in the late 1980s began a move into marine biology, searching the oceans for marine compounds that could form the basis for pharmaceuticals. Zeltia’s PharmaMar subsidiary launched Yondelis in Europe in 2007.

Fernandez explained the strategy to me:

“We decided it was not a good idea to compete directly with what the big pharmas were doing. So we decided to do things differently and take risks. The first thing we did was to look at the oceans for marine organisms. There was a rationale. Nature has provided us with excellent medicines including penicillin, salicylic acid, and many anti-cancer drugs. But all of these are from terrestrial sources: roots, leaves, soil bacteria, fungi. None are of marine origin. Even though 80 percent of the species from our planet are of marine origin, nobody had looked at them in  a systematic way. So we saw an opportunity.”

“There was a second thing we did to differentiate ourselves. As we were finding very potent new chemical entities we decided to bring into clinical trials only those that worked with a novel mechanism of action to kill cancer cells.”

“Today we can say our strategy has proven successful because we have a drug on the market, approved by the European Medicines Agency for soft tissue sarcoma and ovarian cancer. We have licensed it in the United States to Ortho Biotech –a part of J&J– while PharmaMar has reserved marketing rights in Europe.”

Zeltia has a number of interesting businesses besides PharmaMar:

• Noscira, a biotech company focusing on Alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative diseases
• Genomica, a molecular diagnostics company
• Sylentis, an RNAi company
• Zelnova and Xylazel, both of which are consumer chemical companies

Zeltia has high hopes that its PharmaMar subsidiary will enjoy rapid growth now that Yondelis is gaining entry into more large markets. The company has opened an office in New York City to act as its US beachhead. It’s headed by industry veteran Roberto Weinmann.

I’m impressed by Zeltia, especially its ability to go all the way from concept to market. That’s something one rarely sees in the pharmaceutical industry these days –in big pharma or biotech.  Zeltia’s success is a nice exception to the weak pipelines that characterize most of the industry. Welcome to America.

Share

President Obama and House Speaker Pelosi did a masterful job bringing the health care reform bill to fruition. A couple months ago after Scott Brown’s election here in Massachusetts it sure didn’t look likely a smiling Obama would be signing the measure today. And yet here we are. But it wouldn’t have been possible without help from the Republican party.

What am I talking about, you ask?

By and large the American people want to see bipartisanship. The Democrats bent over backwards to include Republicans in drafting the health reform bill. Sen. Max Baucus in particular worked hard to bring along Chuck Grassley and Olympia Snowe. As Noam Schreiber points out in The New Republic:

“In retrospect, it appears that Baucus’s Republican interlocutors… either were never really serious about cutting a deal or, more likely, came under so much pressure from their GOP colleagues that they couldn’t cut one even if they wanted to.”

And House Republicans were like sheep: not a single one was prepared to vote for reform.

Republicans have tried hard to make it look like they are the ones being done down, with continuous exhortations to “start over” and “work with us.” With hypocritical statements like this, it became fairly straightforward for Obama to orchestrate the so-called “bipartisan health care summit.” At that meeting it became clear to the average American that Obama was trying harder at bipartisanship than the Republicans. The icing on the cake was when Obama signaled his willingness to adopt some Republican suggestions coming out of the summit.

My biggest chuckles have been with Republicans complaining about Democrats using unfair processes and not accepting the will of the people. I might have taken that notion seriously 15 years ago but after two George W. Bush terms the Republicans have absolutely zero credibility in this regard. An even bigger laugher was the attempt to cast aspersions on the bill with references to its length.

At the end of the day, the American public as a whole is likely to conclude that the Democrats played fair and thought for themselves. After all, unlike Republicans, not all Democrats voted in lockstep.

I also think that Americans may look negatively at some of the recent behavior displayed by Republican members of the House, including Rep. Randy Neugebauer calling anti-abortion Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak a “baby killer,” and Republican Congressman cheering protesters in the gallery who broke the rules by shouting “Kill the bill.” All of this follows on Rep Joe Wilson’s heckling of the President with his famous, “You lie.”

Count me among those who would like to see bipartisanship. In particular I wish Congress could have worked together to craft a bill that did more to promote inter-generational equity. It was galling to me to see Republicans denouncing potential cuts to Medicare in order to score points with seniors by scaring them about health care reform. It’s totally unprincipled. And I’m upset that there is some closing of the doughnut hole for Medicare prescription drug benefits in this bill. If anything the hole should be widened or the doughnut (i.e., Medicare Part D) be taken away completely.

Don’t be shocked  when in a few years –once the excitement of the current moment passes and attempts at repeal fade away– to see Republicans defending Federal health care spending that’s part of the current bill.

You don’t really expect Republicans to run on a platform of restoring the ability of health insurers to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions, do you?

Share

Check out the latest edition of Grand Rounds at Suture for a Living. This week’s theme: women.

Share

This is a transcript of my recent podcast interview with Dr. Larry Garber of the Fallon Clinic.

David Williams: This is David E. Williams, co-founder of MedPharma Partners and author of the Health Business Blog.    I’m speaking today with Dr. Larry Garber.  He is medical director for Informatics at Fallon Clinic.  Dr. Garber, thanks for you time today.

Dr. Larry Garber: It’s my pleasure.

Williams: Dr. Garber, what is the Fallon Clinic and what’s your role there?

Garber: The Fallon Clinic is a multi-specialty group practice located in Central Massachusetts.  We have 250 physicians and another 80 advanced practitioners seeing over one million patients a year here.  We have physicians representing approximately 30 different specialties.

I’m Medical Director for Informatics and also a practicing internist. Part of my job is to help implement information technology throughout the organization.

Williams: What’s Fallon’s history with electronic medical records?

Garber: We’ve been using homegrown systems for many years.  Back in 1992 we wrote a homegrown system to store information. We stored lab results and radiology reports and medication histories and things like that. We realized around 2002 that a homegrown system would fall short on workflows and decision supports that are crucial to electronic medical records. We subsequently implemented Epic’s electronic health records throughout the organization; we completed implementation at the end of 2007.

Williams: I understand that a year or so after that that you launched a pilot with Dragon Medical.  Why?

Garber: When we first started to roll out Epic, we knew that we had to pay for it. There was no stimulus funding to help us and so we looked at what it was going to take to get a return on our investment.

Most of the savings were coming from two places.  One is the reduction of medical records staff, since we wouldn’t have to be shuffling paper throughout Central Massachusetts anymore. The other savings that we were looking for was a reduction in the transcription cost.  We were spending several million dollars a year with doctors dictating into recorders and having those sent overseas electronically to be typed at ten cents a line, so we budgeted a certain amount of savings.

Epic comes with tools to help physicians and staff create notes so that they don’t have to dictate. We were pretty sure at the beginning that those tools, while good, were probably not good enough to completely eliminate dictation.  So our goal had actually been to drop the lines of dictation and transcription by about 75%.

We knew about Dragon Naturally Speaking back at the very beginning of our implementation and gave it a try (they were on version 7 at the time) to see if we could use that to assist with creating the notes to avoid sending our transcriptions overseas. At that time (2005), the study showed that it wasn’t good enough for production use by physicians.  So we went ahead and rolled out Epic.

We found that we only dropped lines of transcription by about 35%, which wasn’t good enough.  So we came back in 2008 and took a look at Dragon again.  At that point they were up to version 9.5 and we had heard good things about it. We approached the folks at Nuance, the makers of Dragon and said that we would like to do a formal study to evaluate Dragon with EMR in place and to see if it really works.

Williams: What’s the scope of the study: how many physicians, what objectives or endpoints?

Garber: We wanted to do what we call a “real world” study, reproducible both within and outside of our organization.  We picked nine physicians and one physician assistant. We looked for varying computer skills, varying speech clarity, varying ages, varying specialties; we had a very good mix.  It ranged from people who used Epic for 100 percent of their documentation to those who used Epic for none of their documentation and were doing all dictation.  We had some people who could speak very clearly, some with a very strong Indian accent and one with an Israeli accent.  We had medical specialists, surgical specialist, internists, pediatricians.  We wanted to identify the time impact  to create notes, the quality of notes and the financial impact.

These were all doctors and a PA who had been using Epic for about a year. We did a baseline analysis for one week.  We watched their patterns in terms of how long it took them to create their notes and we made copies of all the notes that they were creating and we did analysis on productivity.

When we let them use Dragon we trained them for about an hour and a half and then had them use the medical version of Dragon for two months. After two months we came back and reanalyzed the practice and also surveyed them to see how they were doing. What we found, which I guess was a little surprise, was that the time it took for the notes to be finalized in our electronic health record dropped from an average of almost four days prior to Dragon down to 46 minutes after using Dragon.

It makes sense.  They were just doing the notes right then and there and they were done as opposed to dictating it, sending it overseas, having it come back, having to sign them.  Something that we didn’t really think about was the implications of this drop in turnaround time was.  It actually changed a lot of our workflows.

So for instance, it’s not unusual for us to see a patient in the office who needs to be seen by a specialist.  We would call over to the specialist and say, “You need to see this guy this afternoon.  He’s got an incredible rash, this is the history that I’ve taken, this is what I know,” and then we would send the patient. That was a doctor-to-doctor communication, which took up a lot of time.

Now we can dictate the note right into Epic, then arrange to have the patient see the secretary to get the appointment. Then when the patient goes over, the dermatologist just looks in Epic and sees the whole note with all of the history. Now we don’t have to pull doctors out of rooms to try to get two people on the phone at the same time.

Similarly, we found patients would sometimes call back in the afternoon and say, “I saw the doctor this morning and he said something and I don’t remember exactly what he wanted me to do.  Can you go ask him what he wanted?”

They’d have to hang up on the patient, go find the doctor, call the patient back and do the communication.  Now what happens is that the nurse who is on the phone actually just looks into the Epic electronic health record and sees the note right there. She can tell the patient immediately what it was that the doctor wanted done.  It’s really made us much more efficient and it’s been great in terms of quality of care that we’re giving.

There are a few other findings. We asked doctors how satisfied they were with creating notes prior to using Dragon. We used a five point scale, where 5 is high. The average was about three.  After we implemented Dragon and surveyed them again, the average was over four.  So there was a dramatic improvement in physician satisfaction with the note generation process.

We also looked at the notes and we blinded them. In other words we changed their formatting so that you couldn’t tell whether this was done with Dragon, without Dragon, with dictation or just using Epic tools. Then we reviewed those from before Dragon and  after Dragon.  We gave them to a few different people to analyze.  We gave them to a physician who reviewed the notes for how well the notes communicated medical information and how well they supported defensible medicine if we were ever to go to court. With Dragon there was a dramatic improvement in the quality, the medical/legal quality of the notes.

We also had our coding department take a look at the notes to see how well the notes supported the billing that we do.  One of the quirks with the current health care system is that you only get paid for what you write down in your note, regardless of what you actually did. We found that people could justify higher levels of billing when using Dragon.

This is kind of interesting, because if you think about it we’re taking some people who were dictating –they had a tape recorder and they could say anything they wanted– and now we’re giving them a microphone where they could say anything they wanted. And you ask how could dictating into one and changing it to another improve the quality of the notes and allow them to bill at higher levels?

It turns out when you’re dictating into a tape recorder, that’s it.  That’s your whole note.  You dictated the note and whatever you said, that’s it.  When you’re using speech recognition, you’re dictating directly into the electronic health record. That allows you to take a hybrid approach. There are some things that the electronic health record is very good at and very fast at such as speaking into your note what the med list is, the allergy list, the past medical history, the smoking status and things like that very quickly.  With a few clicks you can pull all of that into your notes and then you can dictate the things when you were talking about the history of how they slipped and fell on the banana peel and hurt themselves and what you’re thinking about the differential diagnosis; is it a break or a sprain or whatever.  Those kinds of things you would still dictate, but you would also use the EHR for what it’s powerful at so you would end up with a more robust note than you would have if you had just been using the EHR or if you had just been using the taped dictation.  So that’s why everybody won on that.

Williams: That’s very interesting.

Garber: What we did found out is that overall it took eight minutes per day per doctor longer to use Dragon. That was interesting because when doctors speak into a tape recorder they can speak at about 120 words per minute. We found that using Dragon they were speaking closer to 86 or 90 words a minute.  So as a result, if you look overall in the course of the day it took about eight minutes longer for each doctor to get their work done.

Williams: Does that have to do with the technical limitations of the software or is that just more a style of how they speak when they’re dictating to the computer?

Garber: I think it might be a little bit of both. I also used Dragon (not as part of the study), but I use it now and I can speak perfectly normally and clearly. I probably speak about the same that I would have if I was using the tape, but I know that some docs do speak faster on tape and slower on Dragon. Some of it is also that we’re still trying to get docs used to dictating to Dragon in the sense that you can’t watch it.

What we found was that if you’re dictating and watch the words coming up, you sit there a little bit in awe that it’s doing it and double checking. Then what happens is you actually don’t speak normally, whereas Dragon is much more efficient if you just sit there and concentrate on what you want to say and say it clearly. It does a remarkable job at getting it right and then afterwards you can go and take a look.  My accuracy rate is 99 percent.  It’s unbelievable how good it is. It’s just something you have to learn to do, which is just dictate and trust it.

Williams: The Fallon Clinic I’m sure has some particular characteristics to it.  What do you think about the applicability of the results of your study to other physician organizations?

Garber: I think that what we did is applicable to any physician’s office. The reality is, I can’t imagine any physician’s office not using speech recognition software like Dragon. I’m a fast typist and have been using computers for 30 years. In high school I had my typing course and I can type probably 80 words a minute, which for a physician is pretty good.

However I find that with Dragon will consistently type at a faster rate and more accurately than I can.  So even with the younger physicians coming out of school right now who love technology and can type at great speed, they really still can’t type as fast as you can when you’re using Dragon.

You have to use the medical version.  We had one doc experimenting with the regular version and it was not good for health care.  There were so many medical terms it didn’t know whereas Dragon Medical clearly picks all of those up and is highly productive.

Williams: If we look down the track a few years, what kind of EHR enhancements would you expect, whether those are speech recognition or just other technologies that will make a difference in that time frame?

Garber: Well, do you want me to be realistic or a dreamer?

Williams: You could be realistic but use a long time frame!

Garber: Okay, I’ll give you two scenarios.  One, which I think is happening already is we’re all getting smart phones. The problem with the smart phones is that the entry into them with keyboards is suboptimal.  I think that more and more we’re going to see higher quality applications that allow us –when I’m on call, sitting in a restaurant or at my kids sports games or whatever– if I need to look something up or create a note or whatever then I’ll be able to do that using my smart phone with medical vocabulary.

I think we’ll see more and more of that mobile computing with visiting nurses going into patients’ houses.  They’ll be able to use speech recognition with these very portable devices.

My ultimate dream is I go into an exam room, I talk to the patient, as I examine the patient I say, “It sounds like you have a one to two over six systolic murmur of the mid left border radiating to your maxilla,” and the whole conversation gets recorded and indexed and metadata is pulled out and I didn’t have to touch a keyboard through the entire history of the exam.

So that’s my dream.  Whether it will happen, who knows.

Williams: That sounds good.  I guess you could take it one step further and just have what you think recorded. That could be slightly dangerous, not for you personally but maybe for others.

I’ve been speaking today with Dr. Larry Garber.  He’s Medical Director for Informatics at Fallon Clinic.  Dr. Garber, thanks so much.

Garber: It’s my pleasure.  Thanks for having me.

Share

Design firm Priestmangoode has prepared a Health Manifesto to argue for a bigger role for design in health care. They have outlined some interesting principles, culminating in the Priestmangoode Recovery Lounge show in the photo above. Looks pretty good to me.

Here’s their list:

1. Nothing touches the floor –furniture floats above the floor for easy cleaning, like Motel 6
2. Privacy in every space, for every patient –like first class seats on Swiss
3. Cheap doesn’t mean poor quality –like modular, low-cost hotel rooms for ETAP
4. Speed –fast turnaround times like airplanes coming in and out of gates
5. Better information systems to reassure patients and families –like the way-finding system in the new Heathrow Terminal 5
6. Reduce the amount of work for people in the system –like the focus on making things easy for airline cabin crews
7. Smarter, more functional use of space –like hotel/airline central columns that contain electricity, water pipes, Internet/phone cables, desk, mirror, sink
8. At home in hospital –pay as you go entertainment (TV, music, computers)
9. Can’t they just be nicer to look at? –pay attention to aesthetics and good feelings will follow
10. The Priestmangoode Recovery Lounge –pulling all the concepts together into a new concept

Share

The latest edition of the Health Wonk Review is available on the Health Reform blog, hosted by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Share