Buying into Healthcare’s Blockchain Hype | Rajiv Leventhal | Healthcare Blogs Skip to content Skip to navigation

Buying into Healthcare’s Blockchain Hype

April 4, 2017
| Reprints
Could blockchain be the fabric that ties existing data siloes together?

One of the reasons I like reporting on Healthcare Informatics’ Top Ten Tech Trends every year is that as a health IT journalist, I learn so much about tech innovations that are just coming onto the healthcare scene. A case in point this year was blockchain—an up-and-coming technology that many in our industry are fawning over, despite applications of it in healthcare still in very immature stages. Admittedly, I was a tad hesitant to take this story on as one of our Top Tech Trends this year, thinking that most healthcare experts in this area wouldn’t be able to say much about blockchain—best known for its use in the financial sector. Boy, was I wrong!

After interviewing several industry leaders about blockchain’s potential in healthcare, and after attending a few sessions at HIMSS’ all-day blockchain event in Orlando in February, I must say that it’s very difficult not to buy into the hype. At its core, blockchain would offer the potential of a shared platform that decentralizes health data without compromising the security of protected health information. This alone could make real headway in solving two of healthcare’s biggest challenges—interoperability and data security.

Healthcare Informatics’ blockchain coverage essentially started last summer when Senior Contributing Editor David Raths penned an excellent article in which he interviewed Micah Winkelspecht, founder and CEO of Gem, a Venice, Calif.-based startup developing blockchain application platforms. You all should read the piece yourself, but this is what Winkelspecht said about how blockchain could work for a patient who had recently seen a few doctors: “Blockchain would point me to a universal patient case file, with a universal identifier for me as the patient. So no matter which doctor is interfacing with the system, they are recording information against the same universal patient identifier, which is recorded on the blockchain,” he said.

In more recent months, the blockchain “buzz” has only continued to grow. Wired ran a terrific piece in February in which the author, Megan Molteni, mainly spoke with John Halamka, M.D., CIO at Boston-based Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Here’s what Dr. Halamka said, giving a specific example of how blockchain would work with prescriptions. “Say that one medical record shows a patient takes aspirin. In another it says they’re taking Tylenol. Maybe another says they’re on Motrin and Lipitor. The problem today is that each EHR [electronic health record] is only a snapshot; it doesn’t necessarily tell the doctor what the patient is taking right now. But with blockchain, each prescription is like a deposit, and when doctor discontinues a medication, they take a withdrawal. Looking at a blockchain, a doctor wouldn’t have to comb through all the deposits and withdrawals—they would just see the balance.”

When you hear experts such as Winkelspecht and Halamka discuss how blockchain could be used in healthcare, it’s easy to see why many are so bullish. It’s hard to compare it to anything we have seen in healthcare in the past, though the closest match could be health information exchanges (HIEs).

For my story, a few sources brought up the blockchain/HIE comparison, noting that one key difference is that HIEs hold the electronic patient data all in place, whereas with blockchain, separate entities each hold a “token” on the chain. Put in other words, if you as a patient go to four different hospitals, that data is being held separately; no single place is containing all of your information. And, no single entity has a complete view of your information unless you initiate a request and all parties agree to it. On the other hand, with an HIE, various different agencies are submitting data to that centralized exchange, meaning a hack of that information could have catastrophic impacts.

Adding to this thought, Vince Vickers, KPMG’s healthcare technology leader, said, “Blockchain effectively takes out the middle man; conceptually you would not have these health information exchanges that have struggled to get to mainstream. There have been a lot of good efforts in certain states, and some HIEs have done well, but in relative terms, [compared] to the financial services industry—where I can go to an ATM, no matter where I am in the world, and get my money—patient data obviously is very limited in that way. And the HIEs are very slow moving. So blockchain is a really interesting disruptor. When you put it in those terms, that it could potentially, not necessarily eliminate HIEs, but at least change them structurally and provide a new value proposition.”




The problem has never really been technology to exchange health information, there is simply no meaningful incentive to do so. We're barely using the data we already have within healthcare organizations, which is a shame--I think it makes sense to imagine what a hypothetical data-driven, value-based healthcare ecosystem would look like where active sharing of data had true value to patient care.

You're right. The business incentives need to change, on both sides. Thanks for your comment!