Hurrah for us – the Welling Digital blog has now been certified as a top health technology blog by gaining a listing on HITSphere, “a network of premium weblogs that write content about the healthcare, medical, and clinical informatics and information technology (IT) industry.” Check out HITSphere for a wide listing of blogs in the health tech area.
16 December 2008
EMR penetration not as good as it looks
Ken Terry writes on BNET Healthcare: “The latest news on electronic medical record (EMR) penetration in physician practices can be interpreted in two different ways, depending on whether you see the glass as half empty or half full. According to a 2008 survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 38.4 percent of doctors reported they were using full or partial EMR systems, and 20.4 percent said they were using minimally functional EMRs, including e-prescribing, the ability to order tests and view lab results, and electronic notes. In a 2006 CDC survey, the corresponding figures were 29.2 percent and 12.4 percent, respectively. Optimists might cite these figures as showing that physicians are really starting to embrace EMRs.
“But not so fast. When the CDC asked about EMR systems that conform to interoperability standards and are known as electronic health records (EHRs), just 17 percent of physicians reported having basic EHRs (which do all that basic EMRs do, and can also connect with other systems in a standardized way), up from 11.2 percent in 2006. Only 4 percent of respondents said they had fully functional EHRs, compared with 3.1 percent two years earlier.
“Here’s why the answers to the EHR questions are significant: According to the Department of Health and Human Services, to which CDC belongs, an EHR is considered interoperable if it is certified by the private, nonprofit Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology (CCHIT). Vendors of most full-featured EHRs have had their products certified by CCHIT for competitive reasons. So physicians who report they have a “basic” EMR are probably using a low-cost or older, non-certified EMR that can’t exchange data with other systems. Even practices with “basic” EHRs may not have the tools they need to use their systems for quality improvement or care coordination.
“So if someone tells you that nearly 40 percent of doctors have EMRs, remember that only 4 percent have fully functional EHRs that can do all the good things that health reform advocates want them to do.”
11 December 2008
E-health waste a billion-dollar Australian industry
Released this week was a Booz and Co consultancy report commissioned by the Government’s health reform adviser, the National Health and Hospital Reform Commission, that has warned Australia was wasting money and falling behind in the digital health revolution.
The Australian called it “a new study [that] slammed scattergun spending of almost $1.3 billion on state-based e-health schemes.” It also reported on the same day that State health ministers have finally agreed on a national plan to share patients’ electronic records.
It reported, “they gave the tick to the strategy commissioned in April amid controversy over delays, cost blowouts and resignations in e-health projects and bodies across the country.
“Electronic records for patients are currently held separately, if at all, across GP surgeries, hospitals, government agencies and other health centres, allowing only patchy sharing of information.
“The gaps have resulted in duplicate consultations, tests and treatments and prescribing mistakes, with past studies calculating the net benefits of better electronic record-keeping at up to $8.7 billion over the first 10 years.
“The lack of common IT systems and fast broadband has also stalled moves towards more sophisticated innovations, such as remote robotic surgery and electronic monitoring of patients.”
4 December 2008
Australian GP’s digital path
In the latest edition of Australian Doctor, Sydney GP Raymond Seidler writes about his quest for a paperless practice, saying it “has been tireless and ongoing since 1996 when I began using medical software.
He writes that “Now the pressure is on to make my tiny practice seamless. I need access to my data outside my office and with a large number of nursing home patients in aged care facilities nearby, I need a virtual private network from a computer in these facilities to print prescriptions and add clinical information and generally keep up to date with patients at three off-site locations. This is not hard to do. For a relatively small amount this can be achieved easily.
“How to achieve this? I bought software to allow any doctor to access their patients’ information from any computer in the world securely and in encrypted form. I added a new version of voice recognition software because my typing is so bad and bought a large inexpensive LCD screen. Voice recognition software translates a patient’s history into my computer with a wireless headset and microphone. Many patients comment as they see their history appearing as if by magic on my large LCD screen that they can see. Inevitably, become more involved in the process. I ask them if there is anything I have left out….
“Perhaps the most effective communication with my patient base is via SMS to patients through a bulk purchase online using my billing program, which allows me to message patients with recall information at the press of a button. There is nothing like an SMS from their GP to increase a patient’s heart rate and get them to return a call immediately. This is particularly so for members of the X and Y generations, who spend their lives glued to their mobile phone screens.
“Do patients respond to SMS on their mobiles from their GPs? You bet they do. Rapid return phone calls come thick and fast. It is gratifying to find a sure-fire method of having patients contact you when you need them. Letters are laborious and slow. SMS is immediate and relatively inexpensive at 18c per message when purchased in bulk.”
Read the whole story here: http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/articles/D0/0C05C1D0.asp
2 December 2008
E-health funding ‘boost’ unwrapped
David More offers informed comment on last week’s e-health budget announcement in his Australian Health IT blog. While the media headlines trumpeted a big win for e-health spending (ie, funding for the National E-Health Transition Authority) out of the money allocated at the Council of Australian Governments meeting, David points out that the growth in funding is largely due to the states matching federal funding.
Importantly, he points out that “What this funding of NEHTA for the next few years has done has ensured that its leaders feel vindicated in the way they have behaved – they have essentially been ‘patted on the head’ – and any real stimulus for ‘root and branch’ change has been lost.
“There is also a bit of a problem in that without a co-ordinated national direction it is a little murky as to who will be able to get the full value out of the planned NEHTA spend.
“More importantly what has been lost is the opportunity to put in place the sort of national strategy and national governance of e-Health. This will lead, almost inevitably, to waste and inefficiency in how the new money is spent. Of course that waste and inefficiency will be dwarfed by what will flow from failing to properly automate the health sector.”
He concludes that “What has also been lost is an opportunity to commence planned co-ordinated investment in Health IT in a way that is designed to maximise benefit to all the actors within the health system.”
Read the entire post here.
20 November 2008
Hip-pocket appeal could drive PHRs
It’s a fact of life: no organisation, not even governments, likes to spend money on something unless they can see that it will make or save money. Well, here’s some evidence about the money-saving aspects of personal health records (PHRs) that should make governments, even in Australia, sit up and take notice. The AusHealthIT blog has uncovered a story about a US study that claims the implementation of PHRs across the American healthcare system will save more than US$21 billion a year, through things such as more efficient monitoring and sharing medication lists.
As AusHealthIT blogger David More writes, “If PHRs can deliver even half of these benefits I will take two, thanks!”
One important caveat – the study was funded by ‘unrestricted grants’ from companies including Microsoft and Google, which of course have a vested interest in the success of electronic PHRs…
19 November 2008
Specialist push for online claims
From today’s Australian IT: “Medicare Australia wants medical specialists who have largely resisted online connectivity to come on board with Eclipse, its e-claiming system for hospitals.
“The Electronic Claims Lodgement Information Processing Service Environment allows privately insured hospital patients to pay their doctors bill by lodging a single claim to both Medicare and their insurer. It also gives the patient warning of any out-of-pocket expenses.
“Only 40 per cent of medical specialists have computers and IT infrastructure to support online claiming, compared with over 90 per cent of GPs who use computers in their practices, and almost 100 per cent of pharmacists.
“As an incentive, medical specialists in metropolitan areas will receive a one-off $750 payment to cover start-up costs and $1000 for those in rural and remote areas. In addition, practices will receive an incentive payment of 18 cents every time a claim is sent electronically.”
Read the rest here.
13 November 2008
NEHTA and the budget, part II
In a follow-up to my earlier post about NEHTA’s budget spend, they’ve gone from being criticised for underspending their budget to criticised for over-spending on the wrong things. Australian IT reports that the authority has more than doubled its spend on administration – staff, consultants, etc. – over last year, 169 people costing nearly $30 million. My calculator tells me that works out at nearly $178,000 per head, so either they have the best-paid staff in the public service, or the consultants, who account for $13 million of the total, are raking it in. Hey, how do I get on the gravy train?
12 November 2008
Australians want e-health records
Australians support the introduction of an Individual Electronic Health Record (IEHR) and would agree to their medical records being included in the service.
This is according to a poll conducted on behalf of the National E-Health Transition Authority (NEHTA), which showed that 82% of respondents believe an IEHR would save lives and improve health services by having important medical information immediately assessable. 77% of the 2,700 people surveyed across Australia indicated they would want their records added to the service.
“This research confirms Australians endorse the use of electronic health records if they are introduced with all the necessary levels of privacy and security,” said NEHTA chief executive Peter Fleming.
The news was welcomed by AMA president Rosanna Capolingua, who reiterated the organisation’s long-time support of electronic health records, but also highlighted issues such as patient confidentiality and system access, as the issues delaying implementation. “Maybe not next year, but hopefully soon after we may see some movement,” she suggested.
Security and safety around the electronic storage of medical information was a key consideration, with 79% of those polled indicating it was important any future IEHR offers patients the ability to quarantine sensitive or very personal medical information. The poll also showed that Australians feel strongly about choice in relation to the IEHR. 78% of respondents said the IEHR service should be voluntary.
- From 6 minutes
