Market Report: Telehealth Vendors Need to Improve Integration with EMRs | Healthcare Informatics Magazine | Health IT | Information Technology Skip to content Skip to navigation

Market Report: Telehealth Vendors Need to Improve Integration with EMRs

October 11, 2017
by Heather Landi
| Reprints

Within the telehealth vendor market, American Well and Avizia are currently the most widely adopted, yet very few virtual care vendors have delivered on their promises of integration, according to a new market report from Orem, Utah-based KLAS Research.

KLAS’s market report, “Telehealth Virtual Care Platforms 2017,” examines which vendors are supporting healthcare organizations’ abilities to expand virtual care.

With regard to how healthcare organizations are using telehealth platforms, KLAS identified three primary visit types—scheduled/patient-focused visits, on-demand/consumer-focused visits and tele-specialty consultations.

Healthcare organizations have found that virtual care platforms (VCPs) reduce delivery costs, increase access to new patients, and allow organizations to deliver better care. While these platforms are just one aspect of the rapidly evolving telehealth market, a number of vendors now offer virtual care platforms supporting diverse visit types and use cases. Some have only a handful of live organizations today, but all are growing, according to the KLAS report.

Working with the College of Healthcare Information Management Executives (CHIME), KLAS reached out to healthcare organizations facilitating live video visits on virtual care platforms to provide an early look at who is helping organizations expand telehealth services today.

Currently, American Well and Avizia are the most widely adopted virtual care platforms. To date, American Well, Avizia, and VSee are the only vendors KLAS has validated as being used for all three key visit types mentioned above.

The KLAS report notes that most telehealth vendors originally built their solution for one specific visit type, rather than as an all-encompassing platform, and few are capable of supporting the expansion organizations are looking for. “InTouch Health, swyMed, and Avizia began with hardware to support the secure, reliable communication needed for provider-to-provider consultations; American Well and Carena offer provider network services to support on-demand/consumer-focused visits,” the KLAS researchers wrote in the report.

It was announced this week that Avizia acquired virtual care provider Carena.

KLAS researchers also note that for many organizations, telehealth is a new endeavor with an uncertain return on investment. “Those hoping for leadership and strategic guidance from their VCP vendor often find that guidance is limited to implementing existing product functionality. Vendors are generally supportive when called upon, but customers want a more proactive approach,” the KLAS researchers wrote, based on their interviews with healthcare organizations. “This is especially problematic when vendors support complex telehealth programs, as is the case with American Well, Avizia, and VSee.”

What’s more, the KLAS report states that Epic customers describe a “one-size-fits-all approach that leaves strategy largely up to customers.” Vendors with the highest ratings for guidance, such as InTouch Health, TruClinic, and Zipnosis, tend to offer less complex solutions for which provider expectations for guidance are typically tied to operational support, the KLAS report states.

In a survey of healthcare organizations conducted by KLAS and CHIME, which Healthcare Informatics covered here, the survey findings indicated that healthcare organizations cite integration as an ongoing concern when using telehealth platforms. Apart from Epic, vendors have not delivered on promises of integration, the KLAS report states. “Provider organizations want to be able to access electronic medical record (EMR) data from within their VCP, but interfaces are missing, and many organizations are frustrated with what it costs to achieve any sort of integration. A large number feel that integration costs are too high and that most vendors are missing standard interfaces,” the KLAS researchers wrote.

What’s more, unidirectional EMR integration is possible for some, but organizations say it is generally insufficient to meet their workflow needs. “A single respondent from American Well and two from Avizia have achieved bidirectional integration; however, these customers say this was achieved through extensive effort by their own organizations,” the KLAS report states.

KLAS also notes that several EMR vendors have developed or are developing telehealth capabilities, but only Epic had enough live organizations to meet the minimum sample threshold for inclusion in the report. As the market continues to grow, it is expected that many other EMR vendors' solutions will be represented in future KLAS reports.

Looking at KLAS overall scores for telehealth vendors, American Well, “a large and earlier developer of telehealth and virtual care platforms, with a comprehensive offering,” scored 79.8. “Customers praise their platform as functional and easy to use. American Well has grown rapidly, and a few customers feel they do not get the support they expect,” the report states.

InTouch Health, which is used solely for tele-specialty consultations and is praised for telestroke expertise, scored 89.8.  “Their reliability and strong customer support drive high satisfaction. The vendor is expanding to support other visit types,” according to the report.

The additional seven vendors KLAS included in the report had less than 15 unique respondents, which the organization refers to as “Below Konfidence.”

Avizia scored 88.3; Epic, the only EMR vendor in the report, scored 84.2; swyMed scored 87.7; TruClinic, a newer entrant to the telehealth space, scored 91.7 and Zipnosis scored 89.6. Carena and VSee had insufficient data, according to the report.

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/telemedicine/market-report-telehealth-vendors-need-improve-integration-emrs
/blogs/david-raths/telehealth/key-questions-partnering-telehealth-specialty-providers

Key Questions Before Partnering With Telehealth Specialty Providers

| Reprints
Click To View Gallery

For primary care clinics, especially those in rural areas, establishing solid relationships with organizations that provide specialty telehealth services can vastly improve the number of services they can offer their patients. But building and maintaining those relationships so that they make sense financially and in terms of quality and patient satisfaction takes a lot of work.

I hadn’t realized how complex that relationship-building could be until yesterday, when I got a chance to hear an online presentation by the California Telehealth Resource Center (CTRC) detailing 20 questions clinics should ask specialty telehealth providers when vetting different offerings. The speaker was Kathy Chorba, CTRC’s executive director, who has 20 years of telehealth program development experience, beginning with establishing and growing the UC Davis Telemedicine program, incorporating 80 sites and 35 specialties, and directing the Telemedicine Learning Center. 

Chorba began by noting that the work of assessing these partnerships should begin only after you have done a needs assessment, identified the kinds of specialties you want to engage (dermatology, psychiatry, etc.), and the volume you expect to generate. You should also have established physician buy-in and identified your telehealth team. Once you have done these things, then you are ready to start establishing partner relationships, she said.

I won’t go through all the questions Chorba suggested clinics ask of specialty provider groups, but just the following sampling of them might help those of us who are not in the telehealth trenches everyday better understand some of the logistical issues involved.

• What specialties are available through this provider group? Chorba noted that some specialty provider groups offer one specialty only (such as behavioral health) while others offer a wide variety of specialties.  She added that some clinics prefer the “one-stop shop” for all their specialty needs, because it simplifies the contracting, credentialing, referral process and workflow, while other clinics prefer to shop around and find the best price for each specialty.

• Does the provider group contract with your payer(s), bill you by the hour or block of time or patient seen? Specialty provider groups use different payment mechanisms, and you have to find one that is mutually beneficial. Chorba added that before you negotiate, you should know how many referrals you think you will have for each specialty and how soon you will be able start. “This will help determine the financial model that fits your program,” she said.  The speciality provider will know if they have capacity.”

• What are the rates for live video and store and forward and are they the same for adult and pediatric? Rates will vary depending on the specialty services needed, as well as volume and modality. Rates for store-and-forward specialties such as dermatology will typically be lower than live video specialties, and new patient appointments may be more expensive than follow-up appointments, Chorba said. Also, rates may vary according to the volume of patient referrals you anticipate sending to the specialty group. Each specialty also tends to have a different timeframe for visits. Dermatology visits may take 20 minutes, while psychiatric visits take an hour. “One rule of thumb is 40 minutes for new visits and 20 minutes for followup visits,” she said. Clinics have to structure their appointment strategy to afford the specialists’ time. “When does a $250-per-hour specialist cost less than a $200-per-hour specialist? When the $250 specialist can fit more patient visits into that hour,” she said.

CTRC offers clinics a sustainability worksheet to help them understand all their costs involved in purchasing blocks of time from telehealth specialists. Initially they may expect to lose some money because all the patients are new and the visits are longer, but as you move into the growth phase, and the specialists are seeing more follow-up patients, you can fit more patients into an 8-hour day. “The bottom line is you are not losing money anymore,” Chorba said. About seven months into the program, you should hit the maintenance phase, where you are keeping your patient no-show rate down and overall costs down.  

• Does the specialty provider group have referral guidelines for each specialty? Besides specifying the time required for new and follow-up patients, these guidelines also state what information or tests are needed prior to the consult (labs, chart notes, etc.). Chorba added that the tests required could be unavailable or too expensive for your patients or not covered by their health plan. “Just knowing the referral guidelines and tests rquired prior to a consult,” she said, “may help you decide that is a provider you don’t want to work with.”

• What level of technical support will the specialty provider group provide? While most primary-care clinic sites have some technical support staff available, few clinics have staff that are able to troubleshoot telemedicine video and peripheral equipment and/or broadband connectivity issues. Some specialty provider groups provide a basic level of technical support or troubleshooting assistance in order to make sure services are provided as scheduled. Chorba said clinics should make clear what type of support it can provide.

This is just a subset of all the questions Chorba raised with webinar attendees. It helps explain why Federally Qualified Health Centers and other small clinics need consulting help to get their telehealth programs up and running. In closing she mentioned that the CTRC is now working on its next set of guidance on how to keep that relationship with specialty providers healthy once you have chosen a group to work with. With so much emphasis on the potential for telehealth these days, it is important for all of us to remember that the transition to telehealth and the hand-offs between providers involves a lot of complexity!

 

 

 

More From Healthcare Informatics

/news-item/telehealth/amia-supports-nist-efforts-secure-telehealth-rpm-ecosystem

AMIA Supports NIST Efforts to Secure Telehealth RPM Ecosystem

January 9, 2019
by Heather Landi, Associate Editor
| Reprints

Back in November, the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence at NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, issued a draft paper outlining a project it plans to undertake to provide a reference architecture addressing the security and privacy risks for healthcare delivery organizations leveraging telehealth capabilities, such as remote patient monitoring.

Traditionally, patient monitoring systems have been deployed in healthcare facilities, in controlled environments. Remote patient monitoring (RPM), however, is different in that monitoring equipment is deployed in the patient’s home, according to NIST’s NCCoE. NIST is housed within the Department of Commerce.

These new capabilities, which can involve third-party platform providers utilizing videoconferencing capabilities, and leveraging cloud and internet technologies coupled with RPM devices, are used to treat numerous conditions, such as patients battling chronic illness or requiring post-operative monitoring. As the use of these capabilities continues to grow, it is important to ensure the infrastructure supporting them can maintain the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of patient data, as well as ensure the safety of patients, according to NCCoE.

To address these security, privacy and safety concerns, NCCoE aims to provide a practical solution for securing the telehealth RPM ecosystem. The NCCoE project team will perform a risk assessment on a representative RPM ecosystem in the laboratory environment, apply the NIST Cybersecurity Framework and guidance based on medical device standards, and collaborate with industry and public partners. The project team will also create a reference design and a detailed description of the practical steps needed to implement a secure solution based on standards and best practices, according to the organization.

This project will result in a publicly available National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Practice Guide, a detailed implementation guide of the practical steps needed to implement a cybersecurity reference design that addresses this challenge.

The NCCoE sought public feedback on the project, which was detailed in a draft released in November called “Securing Telehealth Remote Patient Monitoring Ecosystem.”

The American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) is one industry organization that has voiced support for the NCCoE project to develop guidance around security and privacy risks associated with remote patient monitoring.

In written comments about the project, AMIA president and CEO Doug Fridsma says he “foresees a future of care delivery and disease management that will rely heavily on RPM,” due to a “confluence of shifting and/or diminished reimbursement, aging and chronically ill population growth, and continued depopulation of rural areas.”

Securing these systems and ensuring trust in the data generated by these systems is an utmost priority, and is at the heart of consumers’ ability to obtain care and manage their health, Fridsma noted in the written comments.

Among its recommendations, AMIA advises the NCCoE to leverage existing mobile infrastructure and health IT standards.

“The ultimate spread, scale, and usage of these RPM tools will likely depend more on the commercial marketplace than the short-and long-term plans of healthcare institutions. Further, patients/consumers will use the tools that they are familiar and fits best into their individual ‘workflows.’ Securing the existing mobile infrastructure where individuals perform most of their day-to-day living will improve the likelihood that healthcare specific tasks will succeed,” Fridsma noted.

Fridsma also noted that AMIA recommends NIST focus on data security and integrity that provides data provenance and supports consistent semantic meaning of the data across RPM manufacturers.

 

Related Insights For: Telehealth

/news-item/telehealth/michigan-becomes-25th-state-join-interstate-medical-licensure-compact

Michigan Becomes 25th State to Join Interstate Medical Licensure Compact

January 9, 2019
by Rajiv Leventhal, Managing Editor
| Reprints

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder signed two bills into law on the last day of December, making Michigan the 25th state to enact the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact (IMLC), an initiative that offers an expedited pathway to licensure for physicians wishing to practice in multiple states.

In 2017, the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact officially began accepting applications from qualified physicians who wished to obtain multiple licenses from participating states. The Compact has been expected to expand access to healthcare, especially to those in rural and underserved areas of the country, and facilitate the use of telemedicine technologies in the delivery of healthcare.

Licensing providers across state lines has long been a challenge, as clinicians who want to treat patients in another state have historically had to apply for and pay for licenses in those states—a costly and time-consuming process. Some state boards have also sought to prevent or limit the expansion of telehealth, citing patient safety concerns.

But under this agreement, licensed physicians can qualify to practice medicine across state lines within the Compact if they meet the agreed upon eligibility requirements. As of December 31, 4,511 medical licenses have been issued and 2,400 applications processed through the IMLC.

The Compact legislation was supported in Michigan by Ascension Michigan, Trinity Health, Michigan Health & Hospital Association, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, and AARP Michigan, among others.

“Ascension Michigan applauds the passage of legislation providing for the state of Michigan to join the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact,” Sean Gehle, chief advocacy officer, Ascension Michigan, said in a statement. “We believe that not only will the Compact facilitate increased access to healthcare for patients in underserved areas of our state, allowing them to more easily connect to medical experts through the use of telemedicine, but also provide for a more streamlined and expeditious process for recruitment of physicians to these same underserved areas.”

Michigan joins 24 states, Guam and the District of Columbia in enacting legislation to join the Compact. These states include Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

The initiative remains under consideration in Kentucky, New Mexico and South Carolina.

See more on Telehealth

agario agario---betebet sohbet hattı betebet bahis siteleringsbahis