Study: System Functionality, Cost and Reporting Requirements Top Reasons for Switching EHRs | Healthcare Informatics Magazine | Health IT | Information Technology Skip to content Skip to navigation

Study: System Functionality, Cost and Reporting Requirements Top Reasons for Switching EHRs

April 27, 2018
by Heather Landi
| Reprints

System functionality and cost are the two largest deciding factors in healthcare providers’ decision to switch electronic health record (EHR) vendors, despite the significant cost associated with a new EHR purchase and implementation, according to a study published in the journal Perspectives in Health Information Management.

Researchers, led by Alberto Coustasse, DrPH, M.D., a professor in the Healthcare Administration Program at Marshall University in South Charleston, West Virginia, sought to examine reasons why healthcare providers are switching EHRs vendors, assess user satisfaction with replacement systems, and evaluate the cost and implications of transitioning to a new system. For the study, the researchers conducted a systematic literature review of studies related to physicians and health systems that switched EHR vendors, including their reasons for replacing their current system and the barriers to doing so. The researchers evaluated a total of 26 research articles in their literature review.

The researchers note that providers are choosing to switch EHRs for many reasons, including inefficient workflows, lack of reporting capabilities, mergers and acquisitions with larger health systems requiring more complex systems with greater interoperability, and the need to interface with other systems. Shifting regulatory standards require new functionality to fulfill quality reporting measures, including MU (Meaningful Use) requirements and the Physician Quality Reporting System. And, despite the costs associated with switching EHR vendors, many physicians and health systems have decided to switch to receive additional functionality, improve reporting capabilities, and increase platform benefits, the study authors state.

The study authors note that most providers began using EHRs to fulfill government mandates and receive the financial incentives offered for utilizing the software. By 2013, the EHR adoption rate was 78 percent in ambulatory settings and 59 percent in acute care settings in the United States. A 2010 survey by the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) found that only 41 percent of EHR vendors reported that their systems had the functionality requirements to allow providers to fulfill Meaningful Use (MU) criteria. Many vendors have remedied these gaps by providing add-ons and new modules to enhance their systems, however, these add-ons and new modules has led to problems in interfacing with other health information systems, according to the study.

Additionally, mergers and acquisitions have resulted in software vendors phasing out older products and replacing them with more complex systems, and this has led to health systems replacing the systems originally purchased with more advanced software. According to the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Analytics Database, 305 hospitals switched EHR vendors and 62 hospitals changed their EHR systems in 2013.

The study authors conclude that switching can result in positive and negative outcomes, with cost being the most obvious negative outcome and a significant barrier to adoption related to switching. “The cost of switching systems can seem excessive, often in the millions, when the cost of the new system is coupled with the cost of its implementation; however, health systems must remember that the benefit to the patient is the main priority. Some practices have found that the functionality of the new system increases the level of care the patients receive by speeding up communication. Others have seen benefits for the hospital in terms of a reduction, often by half, in rejected claims,” the study authors wrote.

The study authors also contend that the cost involved with health systems switching from legacy systems to new EHR systems has significant implications for the U.S. healthcare system. “Switching costs include not only software and hardware upgrades, but also repeat training for staff and initial loss of productivity due to unfamiliarity with the system. The incentive monies are not high enough to cover the expense, and as a result the cost of care may rise. In order to meet the data-sharing requirements and other requirements still being defined by CMS (The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services), provisions of $44,000 per eligible health provider, paid out in stages, were established and may be paid out upon successfully meeting the requirements of the legislation. These costs could lead to higher copayments and higher premiums for patients and may make it more difficult to receive care,” the study authors wrote.

Despite the costs involved with switching EHR vendors, the study authors contend that there is one practical, beneficial implication of healthcare provider organizations switching from legacy systems to new EHR systems—the better likelihood of interoperability. “With more health systems switching to some of the more widely utilized EHRs, the interoperability issues of the past may be easier to overcome with more interfaces being built and potentially with the new FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources) standards being implemented by the vendors,” the study authors wrote.

“Switching has proven to be a costly endeavor, but in view of the lack of value provided by their former EHR systems, many healthcare systems have chosen to move forward with switching vendors despite the possibility of not receiving an immediate return on the investment,” the study authors concluded.

The Health IT Summits gather 250+ healthcare leaders in cities across the U.S. to present important new insights, collaborate on ideas, and to have a little fun - Find a Summit Near You!


/news-item/ehr/study-system-functionality-cost-and-reporting-requirements-top-reasons-switching-ehrs
/blogs/david-raths/ehr/gazing-crystal-ball-lrvhealth-s-keith-figlioli

Gazing Into the Crystal Ball with LRVHealth’s Keith Figlioli

| Reprints
2019 Predictions on Value-Based Care, Digital Startups, EHR Trends

Here’s a confession: I am much better at writing end-of-year review stories than I am at looking into the crystal ball for preview pieces at the beginning of the year. I might be able to make educated guesses about which issues we will be writing about in the coming year, but I prefer leave predictions about what is actually going to happen to others.

Luckily, people braver and more knowledgeable than I am are willing to weigh in. For instance, Dave Levin, M.D., chief medical officer of Sansoro Health recently shared his predictions for 2019 with Healthcare Informatics. One of his predictions is that “the excitement around new health IT players like Apple and Amazon will fade in late 2019. We need fresh ideas, but in the short-term, expect disappointments and missteps. Health IT (and healthcare in general) is much harder than it looks and the winners in the long-run will master the mash-up of the best of old and new. Health IT history is littered with companies like these that underestimate this challenge.” Good point!

Dave’s company, Sansoro Health, provides a set of APIs that read and write to EHRs. One of its investors is Boston-based LRVHealth, and one of LRVHealth’s general partners is Keith Figlioli, who served as senior vice president of healthcare informatics at Premier Inc. for nearly a decade. In December I spoke with Keith about some of his predictions for 2019.

One is that capital will be less abundant for digital health startups in 2019. I asked him why he thought that would be the case. “There already is a tremendous amount of capital in this space, including capital coming from other industries. The threat is that capital could be less abundant,” Figlioli said. “We are starting to see earlier stage companies have a little harder time raising capital. What that signals to us is that the greater market is pushing capital to later stages. Because capital can be harder to get in earlier rounds, valuations tend to float down a bit. The other thing is that the greater macro economy does feel like things are shifting a bit and that will also have an effect. I think 2019 may be a peaking year for valuations. I don’t think we are going to go much higher than we are right now.”

While Dave Levin had predicted that the enthusiasm about outside disruption from Big Tech might fade by the end of 2019, Figlioli predicted that these emerging entrants will start showing their cards. “Some of these guys are fairly secretive in their moves, but Apple has been hiring in healthcare and Amazon acquired PillPack. My sense is that we are going to know more about the ones that have been secretive,” he said. Now that the CVS/Aetna deal is done they will start to reveal more, he added. “We are going to see more announcements from these players over the course of 2019. People will be able to start deciphering what their plans are, at least out of the gate.” With its leadership in place, the Amazon/Berkshire Hathaway/JP Morgan entity will reveal an initiative, he predicted.

He also noted that Walgreens made some strategic announcements in 2018. “I call them the sleeping giant now, because CVS and Aetna made all the noise with their purchase deal. But Walgreens is making some very calculated moves with the incumbent players.”

Figlioli predicts that in 2019 the pace will pick up again on value-based care activity. “At LRVHealth, we have a saying that value-based care is inevitable but it is gradual,” he said. “I think we are finally going to get back up on the hamster wheel with things that really matter, because it feels like we have basically been at a dead stop since Trump took office.” He expects to see a handful of new mandatory and voluntary programs across cancer, cardiac and new bundled payment models. “When [HHS Secretary] Azar came in, it revved the engine back up and he is talking very publicly about ramping up mandatory programs. I think another signal is him talking more about CMMI [the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation] and what may come out of it in terms of social determinants of health. I think we will see one or two CMMI pilots in 2019 dedicated to social determinants.”

In a related prediction, he said we should expect to see community programs such as local food banks become more closely affiliated with healthcare providers and payers. And just as there have been startups in the transportation area of social determinants, expect to see a few food-as-medicine related startups emerge in 2019, he added.

Figlioli’s final prediction touches on something I have written about a few times, the new “app store” approach to EHR add-ons. With open APIs gradually becoming the norm, he said, more CIOs who will become comfortable layering best-of-breed applications on top.

“There has been this lure in the CIO suite to say that the EHR vendor is going to do everything.  But because of what Cerner and Epic are doing and what athena has done all along, we are finally getting to a place where the average CIO is going to going to be OK going back to more of a hybrid model.” He stressed that the core EHR is not going anywhere. “You can think about them the same way you do about ERP systems. Over the last five years there has been a proliferation of overlays on top of them. And I feel like we are finally going to get to that with the EHR. It is not going to be clean or easy. There are going to be issues. It is going to be a pretty messy situation depending on how FHIR gets implemented. But it will become more of a cultural norm that Epic and Cerner don’t have to do everything. CIOs will say, ‘we are OK with them being our core workflow tool, but now we are allowing an overlay to take place.’”

 

 

 

More From Healthcare Informatics

/news-item/ehr/research-physician-burnout-public-health-crisis-improving-ehr-usability-critical

Research: Physician Burnout is a Public Health Crisis; Improving EHR Usability is Critical

January 18, 2019
by Heather Landi, Associate Editor
| Reprints
Click To View Gallery

Physician burnout is a public health crisis and addressing the problem requires improving electronic health record (EHR) standards with a strong focus on usability and open application programming interfaces (APIs), according to a new report from leading healthcare researchers.

The report is a “call to action,” the researchers wrote, “to begin to turn the tide before the consequences grow still more severe.” The researchers also recommend “systemic and institutional reforms” that are critical to mitigating the prevalence of burnout.

The result of collaboration between researchers with the Massachusetts Medical Society, the Massachusetts Health and Hospital Association, the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, and the Harvard Global Health Institute, the report's aim is to inform and enable physicians and health care leaders to assess the magnitude of the challenge presented by physician burnout in their work and organizations, and to take appropriate measures to address the challenge, the researchers say.

The report also offers recommended actions for healthcare leaders to take, which the researchers acknowledge are not exhaustive, but “represent short-, medium-, and long-term interventions with the potential for significant impact as standalone interventions.”

The authors of the report include Ashish K. Jha, M.D., the K.T. Li Professor of International Health at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, and director of the Harvard Global Health Institute; Andrew Iliff, lead writer and program manager, Harvard Global Health Institute; Alain Chaoui, M.D., president of the Massachusetts Medical Society; Steven Defossez, M.D., vice president, clinical integration, Massachusetts Health and Hospital Association; Maryanne Bombaugh, M.D., president-elect, Massachusetts Medical Society; and Yael Miller, director, practice solutions and medical economics, Massachusetts Medical Society.

In a 2018 survey conducted by Merritt-Hawkins, 78 percent of physicians surveyed said they experience some symptoms of professional burnout. Burnout is a syndrome involving one or more of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and diminished sense of personal accomplishment. Physicians experiencing burnout are more likely than their peers to reduce their work hours or exit their profession, according to the report.

By 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services predicts that there will be a nationwide shortage of nearly 90,000 physicians, many driven away from medicine or out of practice because of the effects of burnout.  Further complicating matters is the cost an employer must incur to recruit and replace a physician, estimated at between $500,000-$1,000.000. 

“The growth in poorly designed digital health records and quality metrics has required that physicians spend more and more time on tasks that don’t directly benefit patients, contributing to a growing epidemic of physician burnout,” Dr. Jha, a VA physician and Harvard faculty member, said in a statement in a press release accompanying the report. “There is simply no way to achieve the goal of improving healthcare while those on the front lines – our physicians – are experiencing an epidemic of burnout due to the conflicting demands of their work. We need to identify and share innovative best practices to support doctors in fulfilling their mission to care for patients.”

The beginning of the physician burnout crisis can be traced back to several events, according to the researchers, including the “meaningful use” of electronic health records, “which transformed the practice of many physicians, and was mandated as part of the 2009 American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.” Going back further, the 1999 publication of the Institute of Medicine’s “To Err is Human” highlighted the prevalence of medical errors, brought new attention to quality improvement and the value of physician reporting and accountability, the report states.

The researchers note that the primary impact of burnout is on physicians’ mental health, “but it is clear that one can’t have a high performing health care system if physicians working within it are not well. Therefore, the true impact of burnout is the impact it will have on the health and well-being of the American public,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers note, “If we do not immediately take effective steps to reduce burnout, not only will physicians’ work experience continue to worsen, but also the negative consequences for health care provision across the board will be severe.”

And, while individual physicians can take steps to better cope with work stress and hold at bay the symptoms of burnout, “meaningful steps to address the crisis and its root causes must be taken at a systemic and institutional level,” the researchers wrote.

According to the researchers, the primary drivers of physician burnout are structural features of current medical practice. “Only structural solutions — those that better align the work of physicians with their mission — will have significant and durable impact,” the researchers wrote in the report.

To that end, the researchers’ immediate recommendation is for healthcare institutions to improve access to and expand health services for physicians, including mental health services.

In the medium term, technology can play a large role. Addressing physician burnout will require “significant” changes to the usability of EHRs, the researchers wrote, including reform of certification standards by the federal government; improved interoperability; the use of application programming interfaces (APIs) by vendors; dramatically increased physician engagement in the design, implementation and customization of EHRs; and an ongoing commitment to reducing the burden of documentation and measurement placed on physicians by payers and health care organizations.

New EHR standards from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) that address the usability and workflow concerns of physicians are long overdue, the researchers state. One promising solution would be to permit software developers to develop a range of apps that can operate with most, if not all, certified EHR systems, according to the report. The 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 mandates the use of open APIs, which standardize programming interactions, allowing third parties to develop apps that can work with any EHR with “no special effort.” There already have been efforts on this front, such as Epic’s “App Orchard,” the researchers note, but more work remains to be done.

To expedite this critical process of improvement, the report recommends physicians, practices, and larger health care delivery organizations, when seeking to purchase or renew contracts for health IT, adopt common RFP language specifying and requiring inclusion of a uniform health care API.

The researchers also say that artificial intelligence (AI) can play a promising role as AI technologies can support clinical documentation and quality measurement activities.

Long term, healthcare institutions need to appoint executive-level chief wellness officers who will be tasked with studying and assessing physician burnout. Chief wellness officers also can consult physicians to design, implement and continually improve interventions to reduce burnout, the researchers wrote.

“The fundamental challenge issued in this report is to health care institutions of all sizes to take action on physician burnout. The three recommendations advanced here should all be implemented as a matter of urgency and will yield benefits in the short, medium, and long term,” Jha and the research team wrote.

 

Related Insights For: EHR

/news-item/ehr/gao-report-patient-matching-efforts-can-be-significantly-improved

GAO Report: Patient Matching Efforts Can Be Significantly Improved

January 17, 2019
by Rajiv Leventhal, Managing Editor
| Reprints
The report did conclude that no single effort would solve the challenge of patient record matching

There is a lot that can be done—such as implementing common standards for recording demographic data—to improve patient matching, according to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that closely examined the issue.

The 21st Century Cures Act included a provision for GAO to study patient record matching, and in this report, GAO describes (1) stakeholders' patient record matching approaches and related challenges; and (2) efforts to improve patient record matching identified by stakeholders.

The 37 stakeholders that GAO interviewed, including representatives from physician practices and hospitals, described their approaches for matching patients' records—comparing patient information in different health records to determine if the records refer to the same patient.

The respondents explained that when exchanging health information with other providers, they match patients' medical records using demographic information, such as the patient's name, date of birth, or sex. This record matching can be done manually or automatically. For example, several provider representatives said that they rely on software that automatically matches records based on the records' demographic information when receiving medical records electronically.

Stakeholders further said that software can also identify potential matches, which staff then manually review to determine whether the records correspond to the same patient. They said that inaccurate, incomplete, or inconsistently formatted demographic information in patients' records can pose challenges to accurate matching. For example, records don't always contain correct information (e.g., a patient may provide a nickname rather than a legal name) and that health IT systems and providers use different formats for key information such as names that contain hyphens.

Those who GAO interviewed identified recent or ongoing efforts to improve the data and methods used in patient record matching, such as the following:

  • ·         Several stakeholders told GAO they worked to improve the consistency with which they format demographic data in their electronic health records (EHR). In 2017, 23 providers in Texas implemented standards for how staff record patients' names, addresses, and other data. Representatives from three hospitals said this increased their ability to match patients' medical records automatically. For example, one hospital's representatives said they had seen a significant decrease in the need to manually review records that do not match automatically.
  • ·         Stakeholders also described efforts to assess and improve the effectiveness of methods used to match patient records. For example, in 2017 the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) hosted a competition for participants to create an algorithm that most accurately matched patient records. ONC selected six winning submissions and plans to report on their analysis of the competition's data.

Those who were interviewed said more could be done to improve patient record matching, and identified several efforts that could improve matching. For example, some said that implementing common standards for recording demographic data; sharing best practices and other resources; and developing a public-private collaboration effort could each improve matching.

Stakeholders' views varied on the roles ONC and others should play in these efforts and the extent to which the efforts would improve matching. For example, some said that ONC could require demographic data standards as part of its responsibility for certifying EHR systems, while other stakeholders said that ONC could facilitate the voluntary adoption of such standards. Multiple stakeholders emphasized that no single effort would solve the challenge of patient record matching.

To this end, a recent report from the Pew Charitable Trusts outlined several key themes related to patient matching, while also suggesting recommendations to improve matching and the infrastructure needed for more robust progress in the medium and long term.

See more on EHR

agario agario---betebet sohbet hattı betebet bahis siteleringsbahis