Over the past decade, I’ve seen a number of studies asking people whom they trust among various health care stakeholders. Nurses, pharmacists, and doctors always come out at the top. Beyond that:
- Trust of hospitals tends to be high (60–80%)
- Trust of health plans is at the bottom of the heap (10–20%)
Is this written in stone for the future? I don’t think so…and the dynamics for change are in motion. Please read on.
Here’s the emerging picture I’m seeing:
- Hospitals are dragging their feet in connecting you with your electronic health information.
- Health plans are highly motivated to connect you with your health information.
The September issue of Wired magazine and an article in last Sunday’s New York Times illustrate a central debate in technology circles. The debate is not new — it’s being going on for two decades — but it has newfound vibrancy. The essence of the debate is about competing tech/business models: walled gardens vs. the open world wide web (web).
The debate is highly controversial and nuanced. There are “experts” on both sides.
My point today is not to take sides (although I’ll admit my canine partiality to the open web), but rather:
- to point out that the debate is occurring
- to explain what the discussions are about
- to suggest that competition between walled gardens vs. the open web is creating healthy competition and providing consumers with great choices (e.g., Apple iPhone as a walled garden vs. Google Android OS as a more open approach)
- to point out that health care has not had much to say in this debate…until very recently.
A while back I started writing a series “Healthcare Crosses the Chasm to the Network Economy” . This essay continues that series.
How big a network will the Health Internet (aka National Health Information Network) be?
My BOTE (back-of-the-envelope) calculation is that this network could consist of about 301 million nodes. Here’s my math (pls. clarify or amplify):
- 300 million individuals in U.S.
- 700 K doctors
- 5 K hospitals
- 295 K — other B2B healthcare entities
Very rough…but I hope you get the point.
So let’s put into perspective press releases from Google or Microsoft announcing that they have developed new “partnerships” (i.e.nodes in the network) for Google Health or Microsoft HealthVault. As an example, today Google announced partnerships with APWU Health Plan and Harvard Pilgrim Health Plan.
By Vince Kuraitis and Steven Waldren MD, MS. Dr Waldren is Director of the Center for Health Information Technology at the American Academy of Family Practice (AAFP).
Two issues have rightfully surfaced front and center in the public’s understanding of HITECH Act implementation:
- ” definition of “Meaningful Use” of EHRs, and
- ” definition of “certification” process for EHRs
…and we applaud the progress of the workgroups and the HIT Policy Committee in addressing these issues constructively.
However…a THIRD issue lurks – “Data harmonization at the expense of data liquidity“, or put another way – “misplaced pursuit of one (and only one) language at the expense of practical communication.”
On August 20, the HIT Standards Committee approved recommendations to bring forward to the HIT Policy Committee meeting later this September.
In this post, we will:
- Summarize aspects of the HIT Standards Committee’s recommendations that are problematic
- Develop an analogy to illustrate how the recommendations will limit innovation and increase barriers to communication. Our analogy:
The Standards Committee recommendations are like mandating that everyone in the U.S. be required to speak Latin by 2013.
Dr. Blumenthal has wisely anticipated that there could be a situation where in his role as national coordinator that he should not follow a Committee’s advice:
“This committee does provide advice to the national coordinator, but it does not make policy,” Blumenthal said, with a noticeable emphasis on “not.” [iHealth Beat; August 18, 2009]
Dr. Blumenthal, this is exactly the situation you have anticipated.
This post is a foundational overview of characteristics of network industries. Much of the terminology will deserve deeper discussion, but we have to start somewhere.
In his book The Economics of Network Industries, Professor Oz Shy lists four characteristics of network industries.
The main characteristics of these markets which distinguish them from the market for grain, dairy products, apples, and treasury bonds are:
- Complementarity, compatibility and standards
- Consumption externalities [network effects]
- Switching costs and lock-in
- Significant economies of scale in production
In this essay, I’ll quote from Dr. Shy in explaining each of these characteristics. I’ll also offer a few thoughts as to how these characteristics apply to healthcare. More specifically, I’ll discuss physician adoption of EHRs (electronic health records) and patient adoption of PHRSs (personal health record systems).
Why a PHRS instead of a plain old PHR? Think of a PHRS as a PHR data repository platform bundled with multiple high-value applications. For a more detailed explanation, read here.
Let’s look at the characteristics of network industries one at a time.
“We need to make care linkages a core competency of American health care.”
George Halvorson, Chairman and CEO, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Kaiser Foundation Hospital
There’s a double meaning to the title of this new series: Healthcare Crosses the Chasm to the Network Economy
At the level of technology, it’s a reference to Geoffrey Moore’s bestselling business/technology book — “Crossing the Chasm”. The Chasm here is the huge gap between early adopters of technology and mainstream users. The book describes the process of bringing specific technologies into mainstream usage.
At the level of clinical care, its a reference to the landmark 2001 report by the Institute of Medicine — “Crossing the Chasm”. Here, the Chasm is a reference to the quality/safety gap existing in American healthcare, with major systemic recommendations for how to cross the chasm toward clinical improvement.
In this series, the “Crossing the Chasm” is a reference to both technology and clinical care — and to the interdependence between them. I believe we’re entering a new era in healthcare, marked by passage of the HITECH Act Federal stimulus legislation, but of which HITECH is only the beginning . While to a casual observer HITECH Act might seem focused on electronic health records (EHRs), it goes far beyond that.
Over the past several years, I’ve had the privilege to work with many leading-edge clients who understand that health IT interoperability, networks, and platform/application technologies and business models will reshape health care over the coming years. This has given me a chance to do a deep dive into understanding companies, business models and literature from outside health care, and then thinking through implications for health care companies (much blogging and book forthcoming).
This series will pull on concepts, terminology and lessons from two disciplines:
Google Health…please stick around….but please also get your stuff together.
Over the past few days, several of my respected colleagues have written excellent blog posts essentially asking “Does Google Health have life?”
I share their observations and sentiments. I see Microsoft HealthVault as a serious business strategy while Google Health is more like a hobby (one of probably hundreds at Google).
Are there reasons Google should stick around healthcare? Absolutely! Off the top of my head, I can think of five:
- Google brings unique competencies to health care information seeking.
- Google Health is doing a good job on a shoestring budget.
- Healthcare is ripe for disruptive innovation.
- Microsoft needs competition.
- Microsoft HealthVault and Google Health are more complementary than competitive.
Let’s take these one at a time.
Economists call it “The Penguin Problem” — No one moves unless everyone moves, so no one moves.
The role of user expectations is crucial in getting penguins to move off of ice floes and in the successful adoption of new network technologies. I’ll cover two main points in today’s essay:
- How “The Penguin Problem” Helps Explain Low EHR (electronic health record) Adoption To-Date
- How Recent Federal Actions Are Setting Higher Expectations for EHR Adoption
The Penguin Problem and Low EHR Adoption To-Date
While not the only factor, the role of user expectations is a crucial element in explaining the adoption of new network technologies. Harvard Business School Professor Tom Eisenmann explains:
by Vince Kuraitis JD, MBA and David C. Kibbe MD, MBA
The last article in this series — Time for EHRs to Become Plug-and-Play — used words to describe a major industry shift underway in health IT.
Sometimes pictures help to make a point. Here are several diagrams that you can also download as PowerPoint slides.
Computer Industry 1983 to 2002
Source: Venkatraman, N. Winning in a Network Centric Era, 2006
Blueprint for Health IT Shift
From EMR 1.0 — 2008…
…to Clinical Groupware/EHR 2.0 — 2012
by Vince Kuraitis and David C. Kibbe MD, MBA
Have you ever heard anyone tell a happy story of how easy it is to get a copy of their paper medical records?
Departing Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt is laying the groundwork for this same story to apply to access to YOUR electronic personal health information.
Here’s an overview to what evolved into a long posting:
- Analysis: The Leavitt Framework Uses the HIPAA Privacy Rule as a Baseline for Electronic Access to Personal Health Information
- Implication: Extending the HIPAA Privacy Rule Could Restrict Your Electronic Access to Your Personal Health Information
- A.The HIPAA Privacy Rule Should Not Be the Baseline for Governing Access to Your Personal Health Information
- B. Examples: Extending the HIPAA Privacy Rule Creates Barriers and Confusion
- Implication: Extending the HIPAA Privacy Rule Protects Incumbents at the Expense of Innovators Like Microsoft and Google
- Conclusion: The Leavitt Framework Creates Bad Public Policy