Q&A with Health Payment Systems CEO Jay Fulkerson

April 30th, 2013 by David E. Williams of the Health business blog

Health Payment Systems (HPS) helps consumers understand and pay their bills. In this interview, HPS CEO Jay Fulkerson answered my questions about the origins of the company and what they are trying to achieve.

What challenges are you trying to address?

As a technology company, we look for ways to close existing gaps or delays by streamlining the healthcare payment and billing process and connecting its various components. The current payment system is convoluted, confusing and wasteful. We need to rethink it from the ground up if we’re serious about doing the very best for healthcare consumers. We hope to bring an increased understanding of the process and simplification for the patients and providers, as well as empowerment for consumers.  Data shows patient satisfaction with their provider decreases 10 percent from the time of discharge to after receipt of the bill. We’d like to see that turn around—where the payment process is another opportunity to affirm the strength of that provider’s brand and mission

What is the Super EoB and why was it developed?

The Super EOB was developed after one of HPS’ founders, James Brindley, underwent treatment for cancer and saw the bills begin to mount.  After a full recovery, Jim gathered his stack of paperwork, met with his neighbor who was in the healthcare field and said, “There’s got to be a better way to make sense of all of this.” After two years of research and planning, they incorporated Health Payment Systems. Sometimes patients need to simply focus on getting well, and the overwhelming medical bills and EOBs do not help.

The Super EOB benefits three entities:

  • Providers receive a single electronic payment from HPS for both the benefit plan and patient portions of a bill
  • Employers save money because HPS passes along savings it secures from providers
  • Families receive one monthly statement, the Super EOB, which includes healthcare services from all HPS providers, for all family members.

It’s really a win-win-win for all involved.

What kind of feedback are you getting from patients?

We know that patients can easily understand what they owe, where to submit payment and by what due date. A process like this saves time, trees and money, plus patients understand it better and don’t have as many questions for employers.

In a recent focus group, we asked employees of a local county government what they thought about the advances in claims technology and the ability to receive something like a Super EOB. Participants liked that information for all family members was on the same page, and that they could make one payment for everything on the statement

Who are your customers? What is your business model?

Our customers range from small employers to large, self-funded companies.  We have a large portion of municipalities and school districts, as well as healthcare providers. As a healthcare technology company, our business model is aimed at taking waste out of the claims administration process, while making the healthcare payment experience easier for consumers to understand. Our provider network includes more than 6,500 healthcare practitioners in Wisconsin. We enroll more than 75,000 patient members and have 40 employees.

What impact is ACA implementation having?

The ACA was created to provide affordable healthcare to everyone. In order to do so, steps need to be taken to make healthcare more affordable.  Removing waste from the payment of health care services is our primary business, and is one factor that will help make healthcare more affordable.  There is no better time for employers to embrace the single payment technology offered by HPS.

Why did you develop the YouTube video? What do people think of it?

To tell our story better, we put together a short, animated YouTube video that demonstrates just how much paper the average family receives related to healthcare billing.

It’s a fun, easy-to-understand explanation of the current state of healthcare paperwork from the patient’s perspective. HPS actually has a stack of EOBs and bills that we counted to get to the numbers mentioned in the video. We have some pretty fascinating data that I’m not sure anyone else on the claims or provider side has researched before.

The response to the video has been positive.  It has helped HPS tell our story, as well as allowed our employees to share with their family and friends to help them understand what they do at work.

What’s next?  How else are you hoping to improve patient experience?

We have been out starting the conversation—meeting with providers and employers to see what their changing needs are and how we can help address them.  We need to shift our idea of competition in order to work together toward better value for patients and communities. That said, we would love to partner with a local provider about launching a Payment Value Stream. It would allow us to examine each step in the current process to see where we can remove waste and create value. From a lean perspective, this is an area of care not many people have looked at, and we think it’ll give us great insights. We continue to work at incorporating the voice of the customer and transparent performance data into our approach.  Finally, we are working on a consolidated billing product, will soon be rolling out a more robust patient portal and are looking at additional ways to empower consumers.

—-

Bio: Jay Fulkerson joined Health Payment Systems (HPS) in 2011 and serves as the president and CEO of HPS. Previous to his role at HPS, Fulkerson served as chief executive officer of Touchpoint Health Plan in northeast Wisconsin. Following the acquisition of Touchpoint by United Healthcare, he served as chief executive officer for Wisconsin and then as regional chief executive officer for United Healthcare’s Midwest Region.

Interview conducted by David E. Williams of the Health Business Group.

 


Posted in e-health, Entrepreneurs, Patients | No Comments »

Medical device connectivity: Interview with Capsule’s Stuart Long

April 19th, 2013 by David E. Williams of the Health business blog

Hospitals have many devices collecting data on patients, but until recently information from those devices has not been routinely integrated nor stored in electronic medical records. In this interview, Stuart Long, Chief Marketing and Sales Officer of Capsule explains the benefits of medical device integration and how it works in a hospital.

Why is medical device connectivity important, and what benefits does it bring to the patient?

Rapidly becoming a priority for many hospitals, biomedical device connectivity to the hospital network—or medical device integration (MDI)– enables medical devices to transfer patient data from the point-of-care over the network into an electronic medical record (EMR) system or other charting systems. Device integration delivers patient data to clinicians in near real time so that information supporting patient care decisions is delivered timely and accurately.  Without MDI, patient data, particularly vital signs, is transcribed on paper charts and the recording is duplicated by manually having to key the data into the patient’s electronic record. MDI helps assure data accuracy by eliminating manual transcription errors while relieving caregivers from burdensome manual tasks, enabling more quality time with patients.  The bottom line is increased patient safety and care.

 

Why is it important to automate the collection of patient data (i.e. vital signs) and how does this improve the quality of data entering the EMR?

End-to-end automation of patient data collection ensures accuracy and precision.  Full automation removes potential error points along the way as device information is sent to the EMR or other systems.  For example, as I mentioned before that many caregivers read data from a device, manually record it and then input it into the electronic system.  From an administrative standpoint, the need for absolute accuracy of data is greater than ever before.  In addition, having data in electronic format is essential to ensure the full realization of a complete electronic record, which enables data exchange with other hospital IT systems and access to this information hospital-wide. Again, from a regulatory and reimbursement standpoint, the importance of this electronic format is increasing as Meaningful Use (MU) guidelines become more defined.

 

What happens to patient data as it moves throughout the hospital? How is that data being used?

As patient data is collected through electronic means, it is aggregated from software or hardware, analyzed by the connectivity software, and translated into a format appropriate for the hospital IT system receiving the information.  Various hospital departments—whether the ED, OR, ICU or med-surg–may output device data in disparate formats, often completely proprietary formats.  That data then must be translated into a standard format for the EMR and perhaps reinterpreted once again for compatibility with specialized departmental IT systems.  As each new department inputs information, the data is normalized as required and translated for the needs of specific hospital IT systems.  In that way, device information can follow the patient through the hospital, wherever it is needed.

 

What are some of the differences across care units in the hospital? How does that impact the technology being used?

Workflow varies greatly among various care units—the ED, OR, med-surg and step-down, for example, and also varies by hospital.  Med-surg units often have many beds with a limited number of devices shared among them on mobile carts.  Intensive Care, by contrast, may rely on a greater number of devices, which are fixed in location and associated with a particular bed. A quality MDI system seeks to reduce the complexity of its technology by supporting the existing workflow already in place in a particular setting.  Capsule has different hardware and software solutions to support various settings and workflow requirements. Some are wall-mounted units that accept fixed-position devices and are already associated with a specific bed for continuous data collection. Another solution would be a mobile device interface for equipment with no fixed location, which must be associated with the individual patient for periodic data collection.  Data must be validated, and in some settings, a nurse requires flexibility about the timeframe care patients may require immediate attention before caregivers have time to accept data.

—-

Interview conducted by David E. Williams of the Health Business Group.


Posted in Devices, e-health, Hospitals | No Comments »

Solving the patient payment problem: Interview with Simplee

April 16th, 2013 by David E. Williams of the Health business blog

Patients are often confused by the medical bills they receive from providers and have difficulty matching them up with the so-called Explanation of Benefits (EOB) forms they get from health plans. The result: frustration, wasted time and bills that don’t get paid. This problem befuddles not just to the ignorant or feeble-minded; I freely confess that it afflicts me as well.

In this podcast interview, Simplee co-founder and CEO Tomer Shoval explains how his company’s medical wallet and self-service payment platform help patients understand and pay their bills and help providers collect payments faster and at a lower cost.  Shoval has a background in e-commerce (he’s ex-eBay) and that experience shows through in Simplee’s approach.

By David E. Williams of the Health Business Group.


Posted in e-health, Entrepreneurs, Patients | No Comments »

The still-early state of online doctor reviews

April 1st, 2013 by David E. Williams of the Health business blog

A front-page Boston Globe article on a neurosurgeon suing a caregiver for a harsh blog post  is exciting but unrepresentative of the overall state of online doctor reviews. However it caused me to take another look at online physician ratings from the perspective of someone trying to find a doctor. Conclusion: we are still in the early days and there is plenty of opportunity for better, more useful information. It’s still difficult to use the sites for real decision making.

First I tried searching HealthGrades, Yelp, Angie’s List and Massachusetts Health Quality Partners (MHQP) for information on something I really care about. I typed in the name of a medical specialist at a local academic medical center who is caring for a family member with a serious illness. This doctor has been in practice for 20 years but only one site I looked at (HealthGrades) had any reviews, and those two were not detailed. I then looked for other specialists and found that there are typically very few reviews available. It’s unusual to find more than five reviews for a given specialist on any one site, although I’m sure there are some exceptions. MHQP doesn’t include specialists.

Next I turned to primary care. The information is better –MHQP in particular stands out on data quality– but there is still a lot to be desired. I searched for my physician, Dr. Johanna Klein of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center’s Washington Square Group. Here’s what I found:

Healthgrades — a listing with a lot of publicly available information (address, phone, insurance, date of graduation) plus seven patient experience surveys showing that people generally like her

Angie’s List — which I paid $11 to join– has a confusing search function. I found Dr. Klein but no reviews for her. There were 16 reviews for the broader medical group, though, enough to get a general idea of the practice and some specific doctors within it. One of the reviews is harsh “I seriously question if she has actual medical training…” but most are pretty sober, boring and don’t sway me one way or the other. This site was the most disappointing overall and I don’t recommend subscribing.

Yelp –is the liveliest of the sites, at least in its reviews of this practice, and also incorporates some of the most innovative social media features. There are 7 reviews, 3 of which give 5 stars, 3 with 1 star and 1 with 2 stars. In addition to the rating most have a significant amount of text –quite a bit more than Angie’s List. Reviews are sorted by “Yelp Sort” as a default and can also be sorted by date, rating, Elites (a Yelp designation for evangelists) and Facebook friends. The Yelp sort takes into account various factors –like user votes and recency– to list the most helpful reviews first. Each reviewer has her or her first name, last initial, town and photo displayed, along with the number of Yelp friends, number of reviews posted and how many times they have “checked in” at the location. Clicking on the reviewer’s name provides a profile of the person, ratings of the usefulness of the person’s reviews, and a distribution of the person’s ratings. The distribution of ratings is interesting because it gets to a key concern physicians have about ratings: are they just posted by people with negative experiences?

The Yelp sort did an excellent job of ranking the ratings. The first review is by a person with multiple chronic illnesses who’s seen a specific doctor at the practice for 10 years and gave 5 stars. She had many specific things to report about her doctor and clearly had plenty of basis for her comments. Four people had rated the review helpful, and it showed that she had checked in twice on Yelp while at the practice (compared to none for the others).

The next two reviewers gave low ratings: 2 stars and 1 star. These reviewers have written more than 150 reviews each –awarding 4 or 5 stars in the vast majority of cases– so this is a helpful credibility builder for me.

The last 2 reviews –1 star each– are written by people with no Yelp friends and only a few reviews. The negative ratings are based on specific anecdotes and even though one has six “useful” votes it is still at the bottom, where I think it deserves to be.

Overall the reviews rung true to me based on my own experience.

MHQP is much more scientifically rigorous than the rest of the sites, and its data forms the basis for Consumer Reports’ recent report on physician quality in Massachusetts. Data on clinical quality comes from health plan data and patient experience is derived from a statewide survey. In patient experience there are 90 responses for the Washington Square Group. Results are also displayed as one to four stars, but here the stars have a statistical basis: e.g., 4 stars means an office did better than 85 percent of others in the survey, 1 star means it did worse than 85 percent of the offices. MHQP also enables a side-by-side comparison of different offices, which is a nifty feature.

Despite the harshness of some of the Yelp reviews of my practice the picture painted by the MHQP results are –if anything– worse. There are quite a few categories with 1 star (e.g., How well doctors give preventive care and advice) and few with 4. And yet 71 percent of the Washington Square Group’s respondents say they would “definitely” recommend their doctor and 19 percent say “probably.” Because of its statistical rigor the MHQP site is bereft of qualitative comments that could shed light on the findings, and results are reported at the level of the group rather than for individual physicians. And of course MHQP is only available in Massachusetts, although certain other states and regions have similar resources.

I looked at these websites when I picked my primary care physician. They didn’t have much influence on me then and wouldn’t today. In the end the number one issue was finding a specific physician I liked –and as mentioned there is essentially nothing documented on my doctor. Instead I relied on my previous doctor’s recommendation after eliminating a few other potential choices. Location was also important and I wanted someone within the Beth Israel system because I like the hospital and my records are on the PatientSite portal. I do have some concerns about the overall customer service of the practice and some of the low MHQP ratings, but figure if I watch out for myself that these things won’t affect me.

In an ideal world the rigor of MHQP ratings would be extended to the individual physician level –at least for certain measures– and to medical and surgical specialists. Physicians or practice manager would also have a way to reply to the ratings and reviews at least in a general way. If some of the Yelp approach could be applied to add texture to the data through user commentary then we’d really have something.

By David E. Williams of the Health Business Group.


Posted in e-health, Patients, Physicians | 4 Comments »

Transforming Health Care. Interview with Kaiser CIO Phil Fasano

March 22nd, 2013 by David E. Williams of the Health business blog

Earlier this month at the HIMSS conference in New Orleans I sat down with Phil Fasano, SVP and CIO of Kaiser Permanente to discuss his new book, Transforming Health Care: The Financial Impact of Technology, Electronic Tools and Data Mining.

We discussed how the health care industry can use information technology to make health care more affordable, convenient and accessible. Fasano believes health IT can help completely transform the relationship between patients and providers.

Fasano looks forward to an era where a patient’s medical record is available wherever he or she seeks care, where empowered consumers use mobile devices to access customized, personalized information that they can understand and use.

Fasano was encouraged at HIMSS to see a greater emphasis on connectivity than in the past.

Interviewed conducted by David E. Williams of the Health Business Group.

 

 


Posted in e-health, Podcast | No Comments »

Social media and doctors: Q&A with Doximity CEO Jeff Tangney

March 13th, 2013 by David E. Williams of the Health business blog

Online doctor/patient relationships is the new frontier in social media. A report earlier this year discussed how medical boards would respond to different sorts of potentially inappropriate activity on social media. I asked Jeff Tangney, CEO of a professional online network for physicians called Doximity, to discuss the topic with me and to describe how Doximity fits in.

How widespread of a social media challenge are medical boards dealing with? Are there a lot of instances of doctors using social media inappropriately or is it relatively rare? 

Every profession adheres to a code of ethical behavior, but medicine carries an extra responsibility of safeguarding sensitive content, protecting patients and following privacy laws. Thus, the spotlight is cast on patient privacy violations conducted over social media, such as here and here. These instances are rare though, and state medical boards are now sensitive to these scenarios so that they can more quickly intervene. The “challenge” for physicians and medical boards is identifiying when, how and where social media technologies should be used to improve care delivery. Social media’s asynchronous and far-reaching properties are great tools for communication, continuous education and engagement beyond the 15-minute clinical appointment or physician phone call, and there are many physicians out there who will say that it’s had a very positive impact on their own practices.

What kinds of problems are typical?

Most problems can be traced back to HIPAA violations, such as improper de-identification of patient information or non-secure communication mediums.

Once the inappropriate behavior is pointed out, do the Gen Y doctors agree that it’s actually a problem, or do they disagree?

Tech-savvy Generation Y rode the first waves of social media as it crashed ashore, and in our experience most agree that embracing new efficient technologies can be done in a way that enhances and upholds the profession. Many young physicians choose to keep a Facebook profile, but they use privacy settings and know not to let it cross into their clinical practice, instead using tools like Doximity for professional conduct.

How have the norms changed over time?

The shift from in-person to online has been a slower one for the medical industry as a whole, but both patients and providers have grown to realize the real-time benefits of the right online or mobile technologies in information acquisition and secure communication. The greatest change in norm is increased familiarity and thus increased embrace.

How do patients feel about doctors’ online social networking behavior?

As patients ourselves, knowing that our physicians can have access to a national network of clinical experts right from their smartphone with a tool like Doximity is a technology milestone that we’re certain they should embrace.

What are the alternatives to general social networking sites? What are the pros and cons of using them? 

General social networking sites, while offering a large userbase, and not tailored for a specific industry like medicine, making it difficulty to find the right people to share with. Additionally, they often allow anonymity, which does not build a prerequisite level of trust for health conversations. Doximity is designed exclusively for health professionals, and each user’s identity is verified, thereby enabling an unprecedented level of collaboration around patient care.

Some well known sites, like Sermo, have fizzled. Why? 

Social media is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Doximity is the first secure network designed as a productivity tool by doctors, for doctors. Thus, even physicians that are too busy or too wary of common social media still choose to save time using Doximity’s national provider directory, mobile fax and secure messaging features.

How do you expect social networks for physicians to evolve over the next 5 years? Do you envision a role for doctor/patient interaction as well?

In the US healthcare system, patients on average see 19 different doctors in their lifetime, in the context of an industry approaching 20% of US GDP. It is clear that an interoperable, secure medical internet is critical, and Doximity’s growing platform and partners can streamline workflow and communication across the many participants in the system.

—-

Interview conducted by David E. Williams of the Health Business Group.


Posted in e-health, Physicians, Policy and politics | No Comments »

Rerun: Doctor/patient email — Are we really still having this debate?

February 21st, 2013 by David E. Williams of the Health business blog

The Health Business Blog is on vacation this week. Here’s a rerun of a post that originally appeared a year ago.

The Wall Street Journal devotes its Journal Report section today to pro/con debates on six health care issues. Five are reasonable and either timely or timeless: Should everyone be required to have health insurance? Should healthy people take cholesterol drugs to prevent heart disease? Should every patient have a unique ID number for all medical records? Can accountable-care organizations raise quality while reducing costs? Should patents on pharmaceuticals be extended to encourage innovation?

But one –Should physicians use email to communicate with patients?– should have been settled more than 10 years ago. It’s almost a joke that it’s still being asked, and at first I thought the question was about whether doctors and patients should still be using email as opposed to whether they should be trying it for the first time. Dr. Joseph Kvedar of the Center for Connected Health trots out all the well-rehearsed arguments that have been used over the past 15 years to encourage patients to use electronic messaging with their patients. And I agree with it all:

  • Privacy concerns are overblown and not unique to electronic media
  • Not every interaction needs to be in-person
  • Doctors won’t be inundated with messages, despite their fears
  • Patients feel more connected to their physicians when they can reach them online
  • Electronic communications promotes efficiency
  • Liability issues are mino

Dr. Sam Bierstock, founder of a health care-IT consulting firm, takes the con side of the argument. He’s probably an intelligent guy and knowledgeable about health IT. I’m guessing he jumped at the chance to write a piece for the Journal (and even have his picture published) –even if it meant taking a silly, losing position. Kind of like the Washington Generals, who used to play against the Harlem Globetrotters.

Bierstock concedes that “email can be useful for certain very basic patient-doctor communications” but then lays out a bunch of arguments that aren’t terribly persuasive:

  • The non-verbal aspects are missed –(although of course they are often missed in a quick office visit, too)
  • Patients may panic in response to an email: running to the Internet for self-diagnosis, forwarding the email to friends who give bad advice, etc. –(as though a doctor is really going to give a serious diagnosis by email)
  • “Email is a treasure chest for malpractice attorneys” who are “willing to take on a case no matter how ludicrous a claim may be” –(doctors may believe this but it isn’t true; attorneys want to take cases they can win)
  • Secure emails are too tough for patients to deal with –(it’s also hard for some patients to get to the doctor’s office)
  • “The doctor’s office is where medicine should be practiced.” –(this is the one that made me think he wasn’t sincere in his view)

Anyway, we should be moving way beyond the question of doctor/patient email to considering broader forms of electronic interaction between patient and provider. These include enhanced versions of secure messaging including structured messages, video-conferencing, telemedicine, remote patient monitoring, clinician-moderated patient groups and more.


Posted in e-health | No Comments »

EHRs and improper billing: Should we worry?

February 14th, 2013 by David E. Williams of the Health business blog

Concerns are emerging that the adoption of electronic health records is leading to inappropriate increases in billings to payers, including Medicare, and that these higher billings could undermine or even overwhelm any cost savings generated by the digitization of providers. The concerns are legitimate but overall I’m not worried about this phenomenon, at least in the long term.

Here are the key issues:

  • It didn’t take long for some physicians to figure out that they could essentially use the EHR to cut and paste records from a patient’s past visit or even from another patient’s records. As a result the record is much more thorough than it would have been otherwise and may describe more billable services than were actually performed.  This practice has been termed “cloning.”
  • A second issue –as documented in the Center for Public Integrity’s Cracking the Codes– is that providers have been finding ways to bill Medicare more intensively for the same level of actual services. This has been going on for 10 years or more, but is apparently being accelerated by EHR adoption.

My take is as follows:

  • The first issue is a transient one. Sure, some doctors found a lazy, seemingly clever way to save time and maybe make more money. But this practice is bad medicine and a flat out abuse of the system. To me it’s not so different from a doctor who reuses a disposable needle. They should only need to be told once that this is unacceptable. With EHRs it might take a bit of time to work out the norms and protocols to avoid cloning, but it will have to happen. Risk managers will insist on it for one thing. For another, one of the good things about a computer is that it can generate an audit trail. The cutting and pasting can be detected and flagged electronically, if not by the current generation of EHRs then by the next generation of fraud detection software. And patients will be angry if they find out this is happening to their records, and will increasingly vote with their feet.
  • The second issue is only partly a function of the EHR. The bigger issue is the way billing is done. First, if providers can find a way to better document the work they are actually doing, then it’s reasonable for them to take advantage of that and bill for whatever’s allowable. Being able to fully bill acts an extra incentive for EHR adoption, above and beyond the Meaningful Use incentives. As long as the extra documentation for billing is the result of more robust clinical documentation (of work that is actually performed) then I’m all for it, because that clinical documentation could be useful for quality improvement. Of course, some of the billing is illegitimate, and again should be tracked down and disallowed.
  • Finally, this controversy sheds more light on the limitations of fee-for-service medicine, where doing more things to a patient results in higher pay. If concerns about billing games help accelerate the shift away from fee-for-service then I’m all for it.


Posted in e-health, Physicians, Policy and politics | 4 Comments »

Informedika automates diagnostic lab ordering and results reporting (podcast)

February 13th, 2013 by David E. Williams of the Health business blog

Physician offices that adopt electronic health records are often surprised and disappointed that they are still dealing with faxes and phone calls for lab orders and results even after investing tens of thousands of dollars to go “paperless.” A single physician office may use several labs and it can cost up to $10,000 per lab to connect electronically. Surescripts has tackled an analogous challenge in the world of electronic prescribing but lab orders remains unconquered territory.

Informedika has spent the last few years putting together an “e-requisition network” to enable physician offices to connect electronically with labs. The solution is catching on with physicians in the Bay Area and is starting to spread virally as physicians use the built-in referral feature to get others in their network onboard. I spoke today with Informedika’s CEO, Steve Yaskin who explained the system.

The core functionality and viral nature of this solution are interesting. Providers are also likely to be intrigued by the ability to use Informedika to document and get paid for post-discharge care such as reviewing lab results. According to Yaskin there are CPT codes associated with these activities, but few providers make use of them due to the difficulty of documenting the work with traditional EHRs and practice management systems.


Posted in e-health, Physicians, Podcast | 1 Comment »

athenahealth explains why it’s buying Epocrates (transcript)

January 30th, 2013 by David E. Williams of the Health business blog

In this transcript of our recent podcast interview, AthenaHealth’s Chief Marketing Officer explains the rationale behind its pending purchase of Epocrates.

David E. Williams:  This is David Williams, co-founder of MedPharma Partners and author of the Health Business Blog. I’m speaking today with Rob Cosinuke.  He is Senior Vice-President and Chief Marketing Officer at AthenaHealth.  Rob, how are you today?

 

Rob Cosinuke:  I’m well.  Thank you.

 

Williams:  Let’s talk about AthenaHealth’s purchase of Epocrates.  Why is Athenahealth purchasing the company?

 

Cosinuke: The rationale is a pretty exciting for us. Athena’s core mission, which we live and breathe everyday, is to be care givers’ most trusted service.

 

If you think about Epocrates, they already have achieved this mission in spades. Epocrates has nearly 100% awareness in the marketplace.  It’s actively used on a weekly or daily basis by half of working physicians in the United States.

 

Over 340,000 physicians use Epocrates and it’s incredibly well loved.  There is a measurement that is used across industries called a “net promoter score.” And Epocrates, among physicians, has a higher net promoter score than even Apple computer users.  So it’s highly trusted, highly used, well loved.

 

We are acquiring Epocrates because we share that same mission of being the most trusted service of health care providers, but also frankly to take advantage of that awareness and love halo that Epocrates has to help folks begin to understand Athena and our unique model of cloud-based services.

 

Williams: Epocrates is always used as the example of the one thing that doctors adopted en masse. It’s interesting that Athena is going after it now.

 

The folks that first latched on to that opportunity were the pharmaceutical companies. Epocrates has traditionally made most of its money from those pharmaceutical company sponsorships, whereas obviously,  AthenaHealth has a different business model. So I’m wondering how those two things go together.

 

Cosinuke:  You’re right.  Athena has historically made its money on a fee for service basis to providers, from physicians and practices all the way up to the nation’s largest hospital chains.  And we’ve not made a business model around attracting revenues from pharma.

 

But in this case, Epocrates represents the explosion of viral usage among physicians at the point of encounter, in the exam room. And that’s exactly where pharma wants to be.

 

Epocrates has the history of being able to educate physicians in a way that does shift and move prescribing habits.

 

And so yes, it grew virally with explosive growth and it’s very much used by pharma to take advantage of that point of encounter education experience.

 

We see that as an opportunity to maintain that trust. Over time we may also look at other types of order sets beyond drug prescription and drug lookup needs. These other order sets include imaging and other diagnostics for which we might provide the same level of lookup services. We could also possibly extend the sponsor bench.

 

So we don’t see as an issue that it’s a different business model, because ultimately it’s an incredibly well loved service that’s being provided.

Williams:  Analysts have described this deal in terms similar to what you’re describing although I’ve never heard anybody else use the term “love halo.” That’s a new one to me, but it’s a good one.

 

I generally understand the concept of adding a channel to expand the distribution to physicians. But can you explain specifically how things will be different for a physician using Epocrates post-Athena acquisition ? And in particular, how might this provide a physician with more exposure to the other Athena products that are available?

 

Cosinuke:  We’re going to take a page out of their own playbook. Epocrates has a truly rigorous separation of church and state. Their med/pharma team is a team of real professionals, largely physicians or other health care providers by background.

 

The content creators understand how to “epocratize” content to make it highly accessible through the mobile channel, through the iPhone, etc.

 

And they really do separate what they allow the sponsors to provide from that content and they also ensure that what the sponsors provide is of equal value.

 

So there is a very rigorous hurdle that a pharma sponsor needs to get over, to make sure that what’s provided is a deep information service to the physician.

 

Essentially, pharmas get to compete equally on the content front with the med/pharma team for it to be a viable alternative and keep that love halo strong.

 

Athena –with its model of one instance of software– is collecting data and insight about the highest performing medical practices in the country and the highest performing physicians in the country. This includes care outcomes as well as financial revenue and profit gains.

 

We see that there’s an opportunity to provide really high value content on the core application around the business of health care. For example, there’s already a little widget on Epocrates that helps physicians look up CPT codes and the value of a particular procedure.

 

We have, through our database, the ability to look that up by specialty and even down to the zip code level.  As the network expands that content becomes richer and even more available.

 

So there are several possibilities around Meaningful Use and around the evolving requirements for best practices. We’ve got rich content that flows out of our database of users and we can begin to work with the Epocrates content team to understand how to make it well loved by physicians as well.

 

We will be playing using the same standards that Epocrates has. We have to have high integrity content applications that we can provide physicians around the business of managing their practice.

 

Williams:  Are there plans in place or could you envision them to strengthen some of the core Epocrates clinical content? I’m wondering, for example, whether Epocrates could be positioned to compete against other products. For example UpToDate is also loved and unlike with Epocrates physicians also pay hundreds of dollars a year for it. Are there opportunities to compete head to head with them or with other decision support tools on the clinical side?

 

Cosinuke:. We have almost 40,000 providers on the core network, and about 10,000 of them are on our EMR products. And we’re just beginning to see the tip of the iceberg of the value that we can create there. For example, Epocrates can offer value around its diagnostics support.

 

For example, a physician who is looking at a particular diagnosis might be looking up the medications to go with that, but might also want to know what other pediatricians in Pennsylvania prescribe at this point.  We can identify, for example, the top three order sets that come out of this diagnosis from the Athena EMR.

 

It’s another type of content that we could pull out of our system and provide that enriches the clinical content within the core Epocrates application.

 

And what you’re also talking about is the difference between the less than a minute interaction with patients sitting adjacent to the physician and the more than five-minute interaction that the physician might go through either with the patient there or after work or between patients, which is more of a desktop and/or iPad type approach.

 

Epocrates is looking at and we will help them at competing. You talked about UpToDate, Medscape and others that have that integrated platform with a desktop application or the more than five-minute lookup.

 

So we’re going to look at that, but I will tell you that one of the things that Epocrates has done really well and one of the things that Athena has done really well is to stay truly focused on what it’s good at and its core mission.

 

So we will look at expanding and competing with UpToDate and the Medscape on the desktop, but only if it’s supremely compelling against that core mission.

 

Williams:  I’ve heard your CEO Jonathan Bush talked about the concept of a national health information backbone that Athena is building and that pre-dates this deal, but is also being talked about in conjunction with the proposed acquisition of Epocrates.

 

Can you explain a little bit more about what a national health information backbone looks like from Athena’s perspective?

 

Cosinuke: Sure.  It’s also our competitive strategy against big iron: the Epics and the Cerners and the big hospital systems.  If you think about where the large software players are driving health information technology, it is not towards the same direction that, for instance, where financial services drove software.

 

In other words, health care does not operate the way ATMs operate.  There’s really no reason why health care information can’t be delivered ubiquitously over the Internet using secure protocols.

 

So that’s what Athena is doing. It’s trying to say, “One patient, one record, in the cloud, open.”  And that just because you’re a part of this health care system and you work under this thunder dome and you’re buying up these physicians doesn’t mean that that system actually can communicate with anyone else in the outside real world –say for instance, the CVS Pharmacy that is delivering all the flu shots in my town as opposed to primary care physicians.  So we’re looking at the idea of open, of a highly interfaced, highly integrated network and we’re building up that capability.

 

The beauty of what Epocrates brings is immediate scale.  Our service called Coordinator allows for the transmittal of a clean piece of highly structured health care information and allows for the receiver to actually pay for that clean piece of information. (This is based on an opinion from the OIG that we received last year.)

 

You could imagine that service being offered up on Epocrates and having half the physicians in the country have that tool like linked in at their fingertips.  It gives us massive scale to truly springboard this open network concept on the health care provider community.

 

 

Williams:  Rob, I know that corporate deals are based on availability of companies and specific opportunities.  Obviously, you’re not thinking about Epocrates as sort of a quick hit and it’s not instantly going to be all merged in with the Athena product line.

 

How do you see this deal helping Athena evolve its strategy over time and what’s the vision of where it helps you get in five or ten years?

 

Cosinuke:  We are looking at the strategy in three phases.

 

Phase one is to try to sidle up to the Epocrates brand and take advantage of some of the high levels of usage and deep love for Epocrates in the form of awareness gains for Athena.  So phase one is sort of sneak up next to it, make ourselves known and be in that love halo.

 

Phase two is to invest in the core application of Epocrates.  They spent a couple of years going down the road of trying to build their own EMR.  And frankly, they were actually quite successful given the short period of time they worked at it.

 

I think the disconnect was the expectation that an EMR can be built in just a couple of years.  I think anyone who’s in the EMR space understands it takes longer. We’ve been in an eight-year product life cycle to get it to a point where physicians actually love using it.  And so on that front we’ll go back to the core application, its core benefit, its core functionality, the core use models.

 

And trust me, Epocrates folks have got a backlog of great ideas of how to enrich that application and add more value to physicians.  So we’ll spend a good part of our next year, or year and a half, just fulfilling those wishes and investing in the core application to make it much better.

 

We’ll also look at ways in which we can expand its utility.  This includes other types of lookups, other types of research that can be done and possibly adding the other ordering categories as well that provide value to its core reason for being used and loved.

 

And then finally, in phase three we’ll be beginning to look at integration. Epocrates is really the best used, best loved read-only application.  And we can take that service of information and integrate it deeply into all of the appropriate places within AthenaNet.

 

You can imagine it sitting right within AthenaClinicals, it can be sitting right within our Coordinator capability and others.

 

But the reverse is also true.  We like to think of Athena as being the industry’s best read and write application. We’ve got the power of deep stainless steel pipes, incredible interfacing capability, and world-class secure pipes that manage the transactions of health care.

 

So over time we will look at adding the transaction capability on to the Epocrates platform.  This means looking up an order, placing the order, maybe even going into the medical record as part of receiving an order from a colleague in the space.

 

There are a myriad of ways in which we could use Epocrates truly integrated into our Coordinator service. We can manage the life cycle of our referral by making a mobile app that’s a content heavy and actually manages transactions between members of the care continuum in a community.

 

So that’s our approach: in phase one try to get some halo effect from awareness for Athena; phase two, deeply invest in its core application and use model, make physicians love it even more and expand the user base. And phase three is to integrate it into our transaction capabilities on that backbone network.

 

Williams:  I’ve been speaking today with Rob Cosinuke.  He’s SVP and Chief Marketing Officer at AthenaHealth.  We’ve been talking about the proposed acquisition of Epocrates, what it will do for Athena in the near term and longer term.

 

Rob, thanks so much for your time today.

 

Cosinuke:  Thank you.  It’s a real pleasure.


Posted in e-health, Podcast | 1 Comment »

« Previous Entries