Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Compliance’

The debate between payers and providers over the responsibility and accountability of healthcare costs certainly didn’t begin with the drafting and eventual passage of the ACA, nor will it end. Like the Hatfields and McCoys, a war of words (and figures) has been waged between these primary stakeholders in the healthcare industry for decades. There is a fundamental distrust and disagreement regarding who is responsible for the unsustainable growth in healthcare costs – and who should ultimately be responsible and held accountable for the standard “healthcare system” objectives of increasing efficiency, decreasing costs, and improving outcomes.

To bend the cost curve, many of the recent conversations and reform efforts have been focused on population health management, care coordination, compliance, and engagement. New technologies and regulations are emerging daily with a promise to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of healthcare. New business and care delivery models (and old ones with new names) are being developed and deployed, such as ACOs and Medical Homes. And, most of these new ideas and solutions are being described as “consumer-driven,” “patient-centric,” and “integrated,” yet most are failing to produce the results that politicians, employers, and consumers are aggressively demanding.

Meanwhile, the heavily scrutinized leaders of health insurance companies and hospital systems continue to blame each other for the meteoric rise in health care costs – and they should be – but not as healthcare executives but rather as healthcare consumers… and consumers of cigarettes, alcohol, hamburgers, and home entertainment.

To clarify this point, I recall my experience at the 2010 World Health Care Congress in Washington DC (April 12-14). It was the first major industry conference shortly after the ACA passed (March 23). A morning panel of shell-shocked CEOs from leading payers and providers engaged in a “healthy” yet intense discussion about conflicts of interest, cost-shifting, risk-sharing, accountability, insurance exchanges, consumerism, fee-for-service vs. value-based, supply/demand imbalances, the aging population, end-of-life, fraud and abuse, technology integration and interoperability, industry consolidation, regulations, EHRs and meaningful use, and the economy, among other timely topics.

As soon as the session ended, the industry leaders charged with creating solutions for our national healthcare crisis flooded out of the auditorium into the hallways of the convention center. I observed in dismay as many shuffled outside for a smoke break in finger-numbing temperatures while the masses consumed sugar-loaded pastries, donuts, coffee drinks, juices and soft drinks from well-catered tables. Did I mention that we had all been sitting in chairs all morning?

If we really want to get serious about “bending the cost curve,” then we need to address our society’s apathy regarding unhealthy behaviors and environments. There is overwhelming evidence that prevalent yet preventative consumer behavior, such as smoking, alcohol abuse, poor nutrition, and lack of physical activity, are imposing enormous costs on our society. Chronic conditions that are caused or worsened by unhealthy lifestyles, such as heart disease, diabetes, asthma, obesity, and cancer, account for more than seventy-five percent of U.S. healthcare expenditures. To truly solve our healthcare crisis, patients and consumers of healthcare must assume more accountability.

Surely, that is one thing payers and providers should agree upon!

Together, these key stakeholders need to redesign our healthcare system with new solutions that will drive patient accountability and reward healthy behavior. Just as banks utilize credit ratings and the automobile insurance relies upon driving records to help manage their risks, the healthcare payers and providers need a standard means to help manage their risks. It’s quite simple in these other scenarios I referenced. If we are financially irresponsible, then it costs us more to borrow money. If we drive irresponsibly, then it costs us more to purchase car insurance.

There is overwhelming evidence that individuals with unhealthy habits pay only a fraction of the costs associated with their behaviors. Most of the expenses caused by their decisions and lifestyle are passed on to the rest of society in the form of higher insurance premiums, taxpayer-funded government expenditures for healthcare, and disability benefits.

Many payers, particularly self-insured employers, are already leading the charge to shift the risk and responsibility associated with healthcare directly to individuals. A recent survey by Hewitt Associates found that nearly half (47%) of employers either already use financial incentives or plan to use financial incentives during the next three to five years to penalize and/or reward the health-related behavior of their employees.

Section 2705 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a provision that holds significant potential. In 2014, employers may apply up to 30% of the total amount of employees’ health insurance premiums (50% at the discretion of the Secretary of Health and Human Services) to provide performance-based wellness incentives. This represents an attempt by the government to rein in healthcare costs associated with unhealthy behaviors. The clear objective of this ACA provision and the political rhetoric behind it is to improve health-related behavior and reduce the prevalence of chronic disease caused by unhealthy lifestyles.

These incentive programs have drawn criticism from those concerned that holding individuals responsible for their health, particularly through the use of penalties, violates individual liberties and discriminates against the unhealthy. And, as someone whose mother suffered from Multiple Sclerosis, a dreadful chronic disease without a known cause or cure, I can surely understand their argument but there must be a logical set of conditions under which a new incentive-based system can be developed and deployed in a responsible, ethical manner to contain healthcare costs and encourage healthy behavior. This issue was central in the historic Supreme Court hearings on the constitutionality of ACA’s mandate that just wrapped-up.

Read our blog next week for a proposed measurement system that will help drive patient accountability and promote healthy behavior.

John Montague

John Montague is a Vice President at TripleTree focused on innovative companies and solutions that are shaping the future of healthcare. E-mail John at jmontague@triple-tree.com

Read Full Post »

It’s hard to believe that HIMSS 2012 is just around the corner.  As we look ahead amid the consolidation and investment opportunities in healthcare, if you are at HIMSS this year and would like to exchange perspectives on the industry or bring us up to speed on your progress for the year, please let us know.

Here is what’s on our radar related to our research and advisor agenda for the year.

  • Why ‘consumerism’ is impacting healthcare delivery models at an unprecedented pace
  • How mobile applications are key tools for navigating a ‘B2C shift’ in healthcare
  • Where innovations are evolving quickly to meet the demographic shift of seniors
  • How productivity tied to health is a growing focus for employers
  • Why compliance-centric issues ranging from payment integrity to improved patient outcomes are dominating many health care cost debates
  • How the shift toward ACOs and Medical homes is radically altering care delivery models
  • The impacts of ‘life beyond the EMR’ as more granular clinical documentation will substantially increase risks associated with reimbursement, compliance, and productivity.
  • How healthcare is being driven by data and analytics to build a more complete picture of a patient
  • Where the pharma market is shifting away from paper-based systems and processes and calling for innovations that reduce cost across the clinical development landscape

Let us know what you’re thinking about…see you at HIMSS in a few weeks!

Chris Hoffmann

Chris Hoffmann is a Senior Director at TripleTree covering ‘consumerism’ and where legacy and edge technologies are impacting healthcare. Follow Chris on Twitter or e-mail him at choffmann@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

As government’s role in the provisioning of health care and welfare benefits continues to increase, the number of participants in state administered benefit programs and the burden of supporting those programs is also growing.   Anti-poverty spending as shown in the graph below, has reached 4% of GDP, of which healthcare entitlement programs represent more than 1.5% (and is speculated to be the largest risk of runaway spending). Given the demographics of the low-income population served by these programs, a high level of duplicative efforts are taking place on a state administrative level in order to manage and administer these benefits.

Below are a few more details –

What types of state funded programs potentially have significant overlap in addressable market?

  • Medicaid
  • Medicaid Transportation Payments
  • Low Income Energy Assistance Program Payments
  • SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program)
  • WIC (Women, Infant & Children Program)
  • TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families)
  • Child Care Time and Attendance
  • SCHIP – State Children’s Health Insurance Program

The tip of the iceberg

In most states, individuals qualifying for food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, etc., must separately apply to different state agencies for these programs.  An individual enrolling in multiple programs is just the beginning, as separate departmental processes, eligibility compliance checks and inevitable movement in and out of various programs compound the issue.

Finding an efficient path

As with any inefficient system, waste evokes opportunity. The ability to bundle benefits and combine or transfer the management of those benefits across state agencies will be extremely important in the lowering of administration costs and streamlining the benefits distribution across the states. As states realize the efficiencies gained from this exercise, they will likely invest in solutions that help manage multiple benefit plans and technology that is able to track eligibility and even auto-enroll the appropriate individuals to the appropriate programs. Unfortunately, this is much easier said than done.

Clearing hurdles

The main obstacle in this situation is the lack of administrative and payment capabilities to enable the states to provide the benefits to the eligible consumer (enroll and administer the programs), track usage/transactions, and appropriately distribute the funds. While this will not happen right away, once the public health insurance exchanges are established, it would make a lot of sense to use that exchange infrastructure to allow people to enroll in not only Medicaid, but other government benefits.

This area of compliance in health care is a focus for our team and is rife with opportunities – let us know what you think.

Have a great week.

Emma Daugherty

Emma Daugherty is a Senior Analyst at TripleTree covering the life sciences sector with a focus on provider technologies and patient safety.  You can contact her at edaugherty@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

Aggressive IT deadlines have left the healthcare industry scrambling to meet a host of regulatory mandates spanning HIT adoption, payment transaction methodologies, coding standards, and state-run health insurance exchanges.  Hundreds of new regulations have been implemented over the past couple of years, leaving the industry torn in how limited time and resources are utilized among care delivery, quality and cost reduction initiatives, process/infrastructure modernization, and increasingly stringent regulatory reporting requirements.

Hospitals and doctors have been especially overwhelmed with regulations and have been reprioritizing investments to support EMR implementation, Meaningful Use qualification, and what is expected to be a tidal wave of new entrants into the system once the 2014 health reform mandates become effective.

The American Medical Association (AMA) set newswires and the blogosphere abuzz last week when they publically voiced opposition to the transition to ICD-10 coding stating “the implementation of ICD-10 will create significant burdens on the practice of medicine with no direct benefit to individual patients’ care.”  Some dispute the AMA’s move as self-serving given their interests in maintaining the stature and importance of the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code set.  Nevertheless, whether the AMA’s move was defensive or not is irrelevant – the vast majority of providers and a meaningful cross-section of payers are ill-prepared to meet the ICD-10 transition deadlines that CMS currently has in place.

To the relief of payers, providers, vendors, and states, the department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have recently backed off from a few key deadlines.  While these announcements by no means cancel any existing mandates, at a minimum they buy the industry some time to comply with the overarching legislative intent of increasing coverage among the uninsured population, incentivizing IT adoption, and driving improved levels of care delivery.  Of note:

  1. HIPAA 5010– CMS announced that it would hold off enforcing the HIPAA 5010 transaction sets until March 31, 2012, a 90-day extension to the original enforcement date. While the compliance date will technically remain intact, relaxing the enforcement date “encourages all covered entities to continue working with their trading partners to become compliant with the new HIPAA standards and to determine their readiness to accept the new standards as of Jan. 1, 2012,” as stated in a release by CMS’ Office of E-Health Standards and Services (OESS).HIPAA 5010 is widely viewed as a precursor to the impending transition to ICD-10 in October 2013. The enormity of that effort will dwarf HIPAA 5010. This week’s announcement foreshadows further delays yet to come.
  2. Stage 2 Meaningful Use– HHS announced this week that it would delay its compliance date for Stage 2 Meaningful Use from 2013 to 2014. The extension specifically impacts eligible providers that qualified for Stage 1 Meaningful Use in 2011. Providers, vendors, and government work groups alike have noted the timing issues and inherent disincentive posed on early adopters attempting to adhere to criteria that have yet to be finalized. The Health IT Policy Committee, a federally-chartered advisory panel to HHS, recommended these changes earlier this year to the endorsement of Farzad Mostashari, M.D., ONC’s National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius acknowledged the progress to date, referring to the reported doubling of HIT adoption over the past two years. In its move to extend the Stage 2 deadline HHS has smartly protected its initial success by attentively listening and responding to the needs of an overwhelmed provider community.
  3. Health Insurance Exchanges – HHS (though the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight – CCIIO) has seemingly relaxed (or at least clarified) a critical deadline for the states to stand-up their Insurance Exchanges. This week, CCIIO extended a grant deadline by six months until June 2012 from December 2011. Also CCIIO has committed funding for the establishment exchanges beyond the previous January 1, 2014 deadline. Now states have until December 2014 to apply for grants for continued exchange development provided that at least a portion of the exchange is operational by January 1, 2014.

While it is not entirely clear why these significant changes coincided in timing – perhaps it had to do with the resignation of controversial CMS chief Don Berwick – these reprieves are no doubt welcomed within the industry. The extra time will give payers, providers, and states some extra time to meet their compliance mandates.

This extra time should not be squandered. Industry participants must continue to plan for and implement systems that support new EDI standards within 5010, the reporting requirements of Stage 2 Meaningful Use, and the complexities of insurance exchanges. Furthermore, the real value in any of these mandates is not meeting the minimum requirements of the mandate itself, but rather the powerful and compelling capabilities that each enables in terms of improved communication and workflow automation that will enable entirely new quality and cost initiatives.

We’re optimistic that the timeline flexibility of HHS regarding timelines will promote more thoughtful approaches, investments and implementations across all impacted organizations, let us know what you think.

Scott Donahue

Scott Donahue is a Vice President at TripleTree covering infrastructure and application technologies across numerous industries and specializes in assessing the “master brands” of IT and Healthcare. Follow Scott on Twitter or e-mail him at sdonahue@triple-tree.com

Seth Kneller

Seth Kneller is an Associate at TripleTree covering the healthcare industry, specializing in revenue cycle management, clinical software solutions, geriatric care and healthcare analytics. Follow Seth on Twitter or e-mail him at skneller@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

With the seating of the new Congress, much attention has been given to the Republican pledge to repeal Obamacare, or at least their desire to defund major parts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). High on the list of defunding targets are the state mandated health insurance exchanges (section 1311).

The state exchanges are designed to be a marketplace where people not covered through their employers would shop for and purchase health insurance, and if qualified, would receive subsidies.  The PPACA mandates that all states must establish insurance exchanges for individuals to purchase insurance by 2014, or the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will establish and run the exchange for the states who aren’t compliant.

The exchanges remain one of the most controversial aspects of the PPACA because of the large unfunded mandates they place on the states, in addition:

  • The exchanges are the vehicle for supporting the Individual Mandate (the portion of the Reform Act that requires all US citizens to be covered under health insurance), and because of the very ambiguous rules legislated in the establishment of the exchanges.
  • Half of the U.S. State Attorneys General are suing the federal government to block the mandate to implement insurance exchanges, claiming the rules are too ambiguous, that the unfunded mandate will bankrupt the states, and that the mandate is an overreach of federal powers.

The national debate on healthcare and popular sentiment to make health insurance more accessible and affordable has forced the health insurance companies to re-think how they market and sell their products.  As we have spoken about many times in the last year, the health insurance market is at the forefront of a fundamental shift to a retail business model from its legacy wholesale roots.

Despite the public scrutiny being paid to the insurance exchange mandate and congressional risks to rejigger the entire legislation, TripleTree is seeing a much more interesting dynamic forming in the healthcare insurance marketplace – early steps to establish alternative insurance exchange marketplaces by commercial entities.

A commercial healthcare exchange is a private venture between one or more insurance companies and a retailer (such as Walmart), bank, property and casualty insurance company.  It could in reality, include a range of consumer-oriented entity that unite to create a health insurance marketplace.

In the individual and small group market, consumers may find much higher value (and savings) in bundled insurance products (i.e. property, auto, life and health) than they would in singulary buying health insurance in the state dictated and controlled exchange.   Complicating things, this is especially true for consumers that would not qualify for the federal or state subsidies that can only be received if insurance is purchased in the public state exchange.

Today, most property and casualty holders get a discount for carrying multiple policies from the same carrier (e.g. homeowners and auto combined might yield a 15% discount on both policies).   Our research has led to many discussions with property and casualty insurers interested in bundling health insurance though a partnership (rather than direct underwriting).  Their goal?…aggregate and manage a larger share of consumer spend on insurance products.

Similarly, we are aware of large national retailers seeking to implement a proprietary insurance marketplace of as a way of extending a service mix to their customers, building brand loyalty and retaining customers within their own pharmacies.  While some retailers may form single entity partnerships, others see themselves as a marketplace for multiple carriers competing for business.  We anticipate seeing these commercial insurance exchange marketplaces begin rolling out sometime in 2011.

Though these commercial exchanges may not solve the adverse selection problem that the PPACA exchanges were designed to address, they should prove a successful partnership for the retailer and the insurance company that otherwise has difficulty marketing directly to consumers.  While states dither and politics hinder the roll-out of the public exchanges, many forward thinking commercial business recognize the market opportunity to provide a better insurance buying experience and are moving quickly to meet a market need – the way that free economies are supposed to work.

This is a thorny, emotional issue – and our research and sell-side mandates are paying close attention as technology-based solutions emerge.

Let us know what you think and have a great week!

Scott Donahue

Scott Donahue is a Vice President at TripleTree covering infrastructure and application technologies across numerous industries and specializes in assessing the “master brands” of IT and Healthcare. Follow Scott on Twitter or e-mail him at sdonahue@triple-tree.com

Read Full Post »

Our team of analysts and senior bankers are taking stock of the past few quarters as we look ahead to 2011.  As such, we thought it might be useful to quickly summarize of our most popular posts below:

TripleTree’s Top 10 Posts – 2010

  1. Humana’s Acquisition of Concentra Is A Multi-Pronged Move
  2. Tech Platform Innovations in Healthcare Will Rely on “hCloud”
  3. Understanding the Transition From ICD-9 to ICD-10
  4. An Acute Focus on the CFO is Feeding IBM’s Appetite for Analytics
  5. Risk Adjusted Payment Models for Medicare Advantage – New Markets and Business Opportunities
  6. Health Plans & Provider Networks Seek Optimized “Channel to the Chart”
  7. Prospective Payment Review: The MLR “Silver Bullet” for Health Plans
  8. Seven Considerations for the Impact of Open Source on Healthcare
  9. Is a Healthy Workforce a Competitive Advantage?
  10. Reading the Tea Leaves: The HITECH Act & Health Reform in the Wake of the Election

Our research agenda and current sell-side mandates have taken shape, and include assessments of where best in class businesses can take advantage of opportunities in the Senior’s market, the growth of consumerism, content management, decision analytics and compliance platforms.  As expected, we’ll stay laser focused on delivery models like cloud, outsourcing and mobile.

We look forward to reconnecting and wish you a prosperous New Year!

Chris Hoffmann

Chris Hoffmann is a Senior Director at TripleTree covering Cloud, SaaS and enterprise applications and specializes in CRM, loyalty and collaboration solutions across numerous industries. Follow Chris on Twitter or e-mail him at choffmann@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

Proactive preventive care is increasingly seen as a viable and in many cases necessary substitute to traditional reactive health care. Preventative offerings and wellness programs (including biometric screenings, care intervention, and health risk assessments) offer lower costs by addressing health issues prior to medical incidents, rather than after.

This psychological shift in our healthcare thinking has evolved around mounting healthcare costs and began entering consumer consciousness once it became apparent that we (the consumers) may soon be bearing more of our own healthcare costs.   Trends around wellness programs have shifted to a keen focus correlating healthy behavior and healthcare outcomes – all told, a broad societal “awareness shift” of the health effects of our individual behaviors.

Politicians and capital markets are taking note:

Much of this M&A activity has been driven by changing market regulations and broad government support. The Accountable Care Act of 2010 included many health and wellness provisions, including a potentially game changing provision altering prior HIPAA regulations. This provision raises the wellness incentives ceiling from 20% to 30% of the employee-only coverage portion of the plan (and includes the possibility of raising it to 50% pending review). The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ recently announced Healthy People 2020, a roadmap for public health and wellness that requires significant investment and utilization of wellness programs as a core component of national health goals.

This wave of public adoption is a key validation for “wellness,” a long-time healthcare “trend” that is now becoming a central theme in the broader healthcare dialogue.

Next steps? Continuing the momentum of wellness themes into effective wellness programs that capture meaningful participation from employees.

  • While many U.S. employers currently offer some type of incentives, (56% according to the latest wellness survey by Buck Consultants, driving measurable wellness results means offering substantial incentives that drive meaningful participation.  Without incentives, participation in wellness programs, regardless of offerings, typically falls in an anemic range of 20-30% that fails to include the most at-risk members who are responsible for driving the majority of healthcare costs.
  • Meaningful incentives drive participation increases of three to fourfold, bringing participation to 80-90% of those eligible, including engaging the top at-risk employee segment. This is a substantive increase and one that promises to shape the evolution of future wellness programs.

Our growing spate of advisory work and broadening research agenda underscore that preventative care and wellness programs are more relevant than ever. As we assess the landscape of wellness vendors, we’re most impressed by those firms pairing well-designed wellness platforms with go-to-market strategies that creatively leverage the incentives supported by health reform, and onboarding models that garner consumer/employee engagement.

Our research team is working on two reports that include “wellness” as a central theme; a Q1’11 publication focused on the Senior’s market, and a Q2’11 publication focused on healthcare informatics.  In addition, the 6th annual Wireless-Life Sciences Alliance Convergence Summit will explore compliance, chronic care and a host of other wellness related topics.

Let us know if you’re interested in learning more, and have a great week!

Marc Baudry

Marc Baudry is an analyst at TripleTree covering the healthcare industry specializing in population health management and healthcare informatics. Follow Marc on Twitter or email him at mbaudry@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

The FTC’s recently proposed “Do Not Track” initiative is example of a larger movement within the regulatory space. The increase in regulation – be it the recent push for a web privacy “Bill of Rights”, the FTC becoming every involved in net neutrality, the oversight of the FDA on new mHealth applications, or HIPAA’s increased relevance as we move to universal electronic medical records (EMRs) in the coming years – is being followed by a subsequent explosion in governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) activity.

There are two themes to take away from this:

  • The GRC and security sectors will become more popular amongst investors
  • The old adage, “knowledge is power” is even more true now that user-centric data is paramount to business analytics, business intelligence, and a key competitive advantage for firms

The effects of these themes are beginning to unfold in the market already, even before some of this potential regulation is signed into law.

User-centric data accumulates quickly and must be stored in large data warehouses. This leads to investors oftentimes branding companies like 3Par (with complex data storage programs) as “marketplace darlings”. Data storage is a building block for cloud computing and vendors offering these solutions will increasingly be seen as valued assets; consider the following:

  • Dell just acquired Compellent for $960m or 6.5x revenue, a move that again underscores strong valuations for storage software firms
  • A recent PCWorld articled noted that data center server capacity is more than doubling every 24 months

In addition, security is a top concern for user-centric data storage. Market growth and opportunity among security focused vendors is equally robust:

  • Intel’s purchase of McAfee for $6.8 billion or 3.4x revenue shows potentially high multiples for security companies
  • Social sites like Facebook are increasing security controls for user data in the wake of exposed data leaks
  • Because of WikiLeaks, the US Department of Defense banned users from possessing flash drives and CDs while on premise in secured network facilities

The growing emphasis by vendors on verticals solutions makes this an even bigger topic – a single failure point or overlooked compliance metric can lead to massive sector-centric data leaks, as the very recent attack against entertainment website Gawker shows (millions of users personal information was exposed to the web).

Our ongoing research and advisory work across the GRC and data storage spaces allows us to keep abreast of market movements and trends to provide thoughtful insight to our clients. If you’re interested in learning more, or have some perspectives to offer – we’d love to hear from you.

Have a great week.

Adam Link

Adam Link is an analyst at TripleTree covering healthcare delivery models, specializing in software and wireless health.  Follow Adam on Twitter at AdamJLink or email him at alink@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

Last week, IBM expanded upon its business analytics and optimization strategies by acquiring Clarity Systems, a Toronto-based software vendor principally focused on Corporate Performance Management (CPM) and regulatory compliance functions for the CFO’s office.

This acquisition in conjunction with IBM’s recently announced acquisition of OpenPages reaffirms several reoccurring trends by Big Blue and possibly sets in motion other market dynamics:

  • Since IBM’s announcement in May, the global technology company has been busily executing its plans to invest $20 billion by 2015 in an acquisition strategy that shift its focus into higher value segments.  The anticipated volume of acquisition activity would double the pace of the preceding five years.  Having utilized around $5 billion of acquisition capital to-date, IBM appears well on track to its 2015 goal.
  • IBM’s interest in business analytics & optimization, principally led by acquisitions made by IBM’s Software Group, will continue to be a primary driver.The acquisition of Clarity Systems marks IBM’s 24th related acquisition in the business analytics sector, including noteworthy acquisitions such as Cognos, Coremetrics, Netezza, SPSS, among others.  In fact, according to IBM, “in just four years, IBM has invested more than $14 billion in 24 analytics related acquisitions, dedicated 7,000 consultants and opened eight analytics Centers of Excellence around the world to help clients uncover hidden insights within their data.” We fully anticipate the battle ground for data management and business analytics will remain fierce as big systems vendors like EMC, HP, IBM, Oracle and others are all vying to help organizations deal with the ever-growing influx of (un)structured data and its relevancy to decision-making processes.
  • Business analytics and GRC/compliance functions will converge. Interestingly, it was the regulatory compliance and reporting capabilities, not CPM, that sparked IBM’s interest in Clarity Systems.  The acquisition of Clarity Systems extends IBM’s business analytics initiatives, but represents a new level of commitment to address financial governance and risk management challenges faced by financial departments and the CFO’s office.  In particular, its products help address financial governance and risk management faced by automating financial, statutory and regulatory reporting for the close-to-report cycle required the U.S. SEC.

As we assess the marketplace and continue an active briefing schedule with a range of global leaders and emerging innovators, the progression of functional compliance acquisitions into analytical settings is inevitable.

Let us know what you’re seeing the market place. Thanks and have a great week!

Brian Klemenhagen

Brian Klemenhagen is a Director at TripleTree covering enterprise application across numerous industries and specializes in Software as a Service. You can email Brian at bklemenhagen@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

There has been much written by TripleTree and others on the influence of cloud technologies on healthcare, but what about open source as a transformative technology?

No doubt open source technologies will make their way into and have an impact on healthcare in some way, but we’re of the mindset that it will take a long time to get here, and the size of the impact could be minimal. Here are seven considerations for healthcare CIOs and their technology partners:

  1. Commercial open source vendors are small and unsophisticated in the ways of healthcare IT. So with little investment and large barriers to entry (slow buying cycles, antiquated architectures, compliance, etc.), healthcare will be a hard sell. There will probably be some experiments, trial runs, and partnerships with early stage ISV’s looking to triangulate around the trend of SaaS/Cloud/Open Source; but in reality it will take a few years to get efforts ramped up into large commercially viable solutions.
  2. Virtualization will have a bigger impact on HCIT operational efficiency than simply open source. Sure, where virtualization and open source intersect (specifically at the Xen hypervisor), there may be some impact, but I think open source gets overshadowed by virtualization investments.
  3. The IT “master brands” vendors with expressed interest in healthcare (MSFT, IBM, HP, etc) are pushing their proprietary stacks.  Deeper pockets will prevail and the only new entrant that can make an impact is probably Google (and their HC commitment is questionable). Will they push ChromeOS into HC and make a meaningful impact?  Not likely as ChromeOS is too new and Google Health is too consumer (rather than system) focused. Plus with Oracle taking out Sun, another open source proponent will move to a proprietary stack (Fusion)
  4. Workflow and process integration in HC systems are mostly manual. Before open source has a meaningful impact on data integration a process automation evolution within healthcare is needed…and process automation in healthcare is nascent.
  5. Open source has had a good seven year run of enterprise acceptance. Given that healthcare is lagging about 10 years behind in IT innovation, we likely have two plus years before HC starts thinking about open source more widely. In smaller pockets, we could see early open source efforts where a few innovative vendors expose limited/departmental use cases or in public sector instances where states try to be innovative with alternative procurement (e.g.  HIE may see open source experimentation).
  6. The mainstreaming of SaaS and other alternate delivery/licensing/outsourcing models from groups like Athena provide a better value proposition.  This is relevant to the likely adopters – small and mid-size doctor’s offices – who want to avoid on-premise open source systems and related complexities of specialized IT knowledge and a willingness to go-it-alone with limited vendor support.  SaaS wasn’t mainstream when enterprises began to embrace open source; but now that SaaS (and cloud) is prevalent the same drivers of open source adoption don’t exist.
  7. Open source will probably have more of an impact in research/government/university settings where a healthcare focus and established open source culture (around longer running projects) can coexist.  Within healthcare, open source will emerge more readily with health plans where large data centers and processing make it an interesting operating system.

The list of technology issues confronting healthcare is considerable, and it’s unclear that open source would have impact given other innovative tools.  We’re watching the likes of Citrix and RedHat as vendors that could step forward and we’ll continue to update this blog with our latest thinking.

Thanks and have a great week!

Scott Donahue

Scott Donahue is a Vice President at TripleTree covering infrastructure and application technologies across numerous industries and specializes in assessing the “master brands” of IT and Healthcare. Follow Scott on Twitter or e-mail him at sdonahue@triple-tree.com

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »