Consumer Directed Health to Social Media…’Consumerism’ Has Become the Undeniable Force in Healthcare

Healthcare can no longer deny nor ignore the importance of social media.  As a communication platform, it’s being used to educate, engage and empower consumers about topics ranging from legislation, hospital rankings, and ER wait times, to patient satisfaction, chronic illness management and health improvement.  Collaborative applications around seeking, sorting, assessing and ranking health information and experience have become part of our connected culture.

As “consumerism” increasingly impacts the healthcare landscape – payers, providers and other healthcare stakeholders are investing in technologies ranging from collaboration and contact center tools, to next generation video and self service platforms.  Consumerism is forcing these organizations to change their cultural barriers to how customer interactions need to be supported, and the pace of legislative mandates is exposing the healthcare information systems that can’t nimbly react to creating new products, or support online conversations.

Blogger Ed Bennet tracks 1,188 hospitals which are proving their seriousness about social media usage as they update:

• 548 YouTube Channels
• 1018 Facebook pages
• 788 Twitter Accounts
• 458 LinkedIn Accounts
• 913 Foursquare
• 137 Blogs

The impact of social media in healthcare goes beyond just an inexpensive channel that targets consumers.  Social media is fundamentally changing how payers, providers, and healthcare stakeholders manage their brand and influence purchasing decisions.

• For payers its managing customer service touch points through insurance exchanges, one of the few ways for them to maintain loyalty.

• For providers its connecting care providers with patients and is no longer about a gadget or app, but for measurable opportunities to share knowledge, build loyalty and improve processes that can influence how they manage care and patient relationships.

• For other healthcare stakeholders it’s supporting their brand and customer interactions with thoughtful, engaged support allowing for the ability to listen in on conversations already occurring about the industry, products, news, issues, etc.

Social media is a powerful source of information for consumers, and an equally powerful communication channel for providers of health information and support services.  For payers, providers and other healthcare stakeholders, TripleTree considers social media the lowest cost enabler of consumerism with a technical heritage linking it to cloud-based CRM and collaboration platforms.  In addition, social media is a cornerstone for marketing and branding initiatives in many industries.   With social media in healthcare, the old models for marketing, sales and service have been transformed.

Let us know what you think.

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 »

HHS Reform Timelines…Wiggle Room In Sight?

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 »

The Clock is Ticking for Public Health Insurance Exchanges

The success of Obamacare relies entirely on every state having a health insurance exchange as mandated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) up and running no later January 1, 2014.

By early 2013, the federal government (via Health and Human Services (HHS)) will make a determination as to each state’s readiness to bring their health insurance exchange online. Lack of readiness by the January 1, 2014 deadline means HHS will take over the implementation and operation of each exchange.

The clock is ticking…

We are following closely the progress that is being made by the states are convinced that only a handful will be ready by the deadline.   Moreover, we question whether HHS will be able to step in and offer their working version of an exchange either, or if that federal exchange will even be legally able to offer subsidized policies.

While we are not prepared to unilaterally conclude that ACA’s exchange deadline won’t be met by any state, a former HHS secretary is equally skeptical.

We want exchanges to succeed and believe they ultimately will (in some form).  Our reviews of the exchange initiatives have included studying the Early Innovator grants and interviewing state policy administrators and vendors selling into the exchange concept.  The amount of work that will need to be done in order to get the public exchanges stood up by 2014 is daunting.

TripleTree’s recent report on exchanges, HIX: An assessment of the complexities and opportunities emanating from the ACA’s public health insurance exchange concept introduces these challenges and some innovative solutions that could emerge as part of the solutions.  Since then however, the planning, procurement and testing are in the early innings; and operational integration is far from reality.   Unfortunately very few states have a demonstrated ability to pull off the kind of implementation prowess needed to come online, on time.

Putting politics and policy aside, there are at least three major challenges that each state will need to overcome (quickly) if the public exchanges have any chance of meeting the 2014 deadline:

1. States need more clarity on what they are building even though many states have RFPs out for technology and have drafted high level architectures.  There is universal uncertainty and lack of guidance from HHS on major issues such as to exactly how payments and subsidies will be processed  or how the carriers will integrate their workflow into the exchanges
2. States lack successful architectural models and commercially proven technical capabilities because there is no working model of an exchange. Those charged with building the models – the Early Innovator grantees – are far from ready, or have dropped out of the program and/or returned their remaining funds.  The often cited Massachusetts and Utah models fall short of the ACA requirements (as do the Medicare exchanges).   And no vendor has a turnkey solution.
3. States need more time – Given the massive scale and complexity of the exchanges and the integration that needs to be done with existing state and federal systems, it will be next to impossible to build an automated exchange as envisioned by the ACA in the next 16 months.

In our report, we also introduced the notion of private entities that may have the acumen and motivation to bring an insurance exchange online by the 2014 deadline.  We speculated that the private exchanges would start to roll-out in the second half of 2011 and even identified some of the likely players that would have compelling capabilities to drive the private exchange concept.

Our research asserted the real opportunities for the private sector to capitalize on the HIX mandate through a market-aligned solution that will have more impact to improve health insurance access than the federal mandates.  We are excited to see and will continue to watch the early launches of the private exchanges and believe the states and public HIX will benefit from modeling their efforts and approaches around the early successes from the private exchanges.

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

Read Full Post »

An Update on Electronic Payments & Healthcare Providers [Updated]

In today’s world of electronic connectivity and mobile payments (ePayments), the U.S. healthcare system lags not only other industries, but everyday consumers too.  Over the past ten years, nearly every component of the healthcare system has undertaken massive initiatives to transition from paper to electronic environments, but as shown below just 10% of provider payments are received electronically¹, in spite of the fact that 75% of claims are submitted electronically¹.

The laggard in the value chain prohibiting the transition is not the payers’ ability to submit ePayments, but the providers’ inability to accept them.  The benefits for providers getting on the ePayment bandwagon are real, and include:

• Improved working capital due to decreased time to post payments
• Reduced errors associated with manual, human processes
• Reduced costs associated with the additional paper, postage and manual activity (it is estimated that eliminating paper checks in healthcare could save $11 billion per year¹)

So why the slow adoption?  One reason could be that ePayments, also known as electronic funds transfer (“EFT”), add a layer of complexity due to a lack of standardization and lack of operating rules across payers and their EFT submissions.  Multiple payment submissions from multiple payers using different systems and submitting at different times all around a single claim makes reconciliation very difficult for the provider office.

When will we see change?  The Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 mandates that payers must make payments to providers by electronic funds transfer (EFT) and electronic remittance advice (ERA) by January 1, 2014 or face considerable federal penalties.

These potential financial ramifications will be a catalyst for change with providers.  However, success will hinge on new levels of standardization and operating rules for EFT which allow providers to uniformly accept ePayments from many different payers.  We’re predicting (and already seeing) a mad dash by the providers to implement systems that accept EFT before the 2014 deadline.

Vendors such as Payformance, Fidelity National Information Services (FIS), InstaMed, HERAE, Wausau Financial Systems and Emdeon seem well positioned to enable the shift and we’ll be watching this space closely.  Let us know what you think.

Judd Stevens

Judd Stevens is an associate at TripleTree covering the healthcare industry, specializing in the impacts and transformation of health plans in a post-reform world.  Follow Judd on Twitter or e-mail him at jstevens@triple-tree.com.

 

Update: Made adjustments to the chart.

Source:

1. U.S. Healthcare Efficiency Index©

Read Full Post »

HIX: Finding the pony hidden within the ACA’s “exchange concept”

Change is coming to the U.S. health insurance market and the road will be bumpy.  Nowhere is the change more apparent than the current debate surrounding the state-run public health insurance exchanges. Our research underscores that the Affordable Care Act of 2010 underestimated the cost and complexity of establishing public exchanges. In spite of these issues, new and unforeseen opportunities are emerging relative to health insurance distribution. The application of retail, product design and customer service expertise could be transformational relative to the health insurance market for individuals.

As the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marks its first anniversary, a number of key questions remain. One of the largest revolves around the costs and benefits for the federally mandated and state-run competitive marketplaces called Health Insurance Exchanges (HIX), where individuals will be able to shop for and purchase health insurance. The public (state-run) HIX is one of the cornerstones of the health reform legislation, and for individuals without healthcare coverage today – an estimated 34 million people – the public HIXs are the intended mechanism by which individuals will acquire health insurance.

Our latest research report assesses the ACA requirement that each state build and operate a multi-channel (i.e. online, phone, and paper-based) marketplace where any qualified individual can shop for and buy health insurance.  The legislation provides some specifics as to what types of “essential health benefits” must be provided within the exchange, dictates guidelines and mandates as to how the states must run the HIX, and defines specific features the exchanges must possess. These include:

• A choice of certified and approved health plans from different carriers.

• Simple plan comparison tools that allow consumers to research and select the best policy for their needs.

• Enrollment assistance for those purchasing private insurance, and eligibility information for those qualified to receive government subsidies or Medicaid enrollment.

• A process for recouping operational costs of the HIX through surcharges in order to make them self-sustaining.

For these exchange-based insurance policies, federal and state law will closely regulate the products and benefits offered and the prices insurance companies can charge for their products. To keep the HIXs viable, insurance companies are forbidden from undercutting prices of products sold on a public exchange with competing products in the open market. They will also be required to pool risks across exchange and non-exchange participants. Further, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will mandate a set of essential health benefits that must be provided under each policy, including coverage and deductible tiers for each plan offered.

While the public HIX concept seems simple and straight forward, our research predicts that their implementation will be fraught with costs, technical challenges, and sustainability issues that are neither recognized nor acknowledged, much less understood. Thus far, much of the debate about HIXs has focused on constitutional questions – and therefore political issues – related to the individual mandate which would compel citizens to purchase health insurance. As the states ramp their HIX implementation efforts in order to meet the 2014 deadline, we anticipate that several new challenges will come to the forefront. They will need to be addressed and will propel further change.

Healthcare reform and the resultant need for serving the individual market are propelling new approaches to capturing share in the insurance marketplace, and we expect that a range of new market entrants are just around the corner. Recognizing that it is still early in the progression of these alternative, free-market approaches, this report will review the concept of “private” insurance exchanges and reveal how they will likely serve a larger population than their public counterparts, and will provide more compelling insurance options and opportunities.

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 »

ACOs: Millions of Web Hits…Dozens of Theories…One Bottom Line

Nine million. That’s how many web hits are returned during a Google search for “Accountable Care Organization,” and reflects the countless articles, white papers and opinions that have been published regarding the potential successes and more likely pitfalls of the proposed ACO mandate. As highlighted in my colleague’s recent post, our team is continuously evaluating the business development opportunities being fueled by the demands and requirements of these new provider organizations.  Last week, the members of our Healthcare Executive Roundtable recently discussed and debated an element of the ACO equation that is not typically highlighted and could become a critical component of ACO success (or failure)…Trust.

In boardrooms around the country, health care executives are focusing on the technical requirements for their future ACO’s clinical and administrative systems. They are pouring over spreadsheets and attempting to understand the data and analytical tools that will be necessary for adequate financial and quality of care reporting. Getting these operational elements “right” is important; however, these business leaders should also focus on designing a culture – and the corresponding behaviors, communication, and incentives that will fuel strong and collaborative relationships between the ACO and its community of providers.

As Ed Brown, CEO of Iowa Clinic puts it, “People are unclear about what the value-based world looks like, and they’re unsettled on what clini­cal integration really means. And nobody has really made it work.”  This lack of clarity around the value-based model will make it challenging for providers to leave the financial security blanket of the traditional fee-for-service payment engine.  Moreover, influencing them to modify their approach to patient care for the benefit of the system and the promise of shared savings is a monumental effort. Success by any measure will largely depend on the trust established between providers and the ACO organization itself. ACO’s should prioritize establishing trust with providers in three key areas:

• ACO Operations and Management:  Providers need to trust that the ACO is well run. Understanding the organizational governance, expertise of the management team and core capabilities (strategic assets) will help generate confidence that the ACO is well-positioned to generate enough shared savings to make participation worthwhile. In addition, it is critical that the ACO measure and report management performance metrics that demonstrate its accountability to the providers.
• Compensation Incentives:  Providers need to trust that they are getting their fair distribution of shared savings. Clinical algorithms defining quality and outcomes must be evidence-based; and the financial tools and risk-adjustment methodologies used to distribute payment must be easy to understand. Above all, the organization’s compensation schemes must be highly transparent and accessible so that providers can validate that they are being treated as an equally valued business partner in the organization.
• Confidence in Provider Team:  Providers need to trust their ACO provider colleagues. If the right incentives are in place to bring members within the organization together, providers will need to trust that their peers will also be active participants working toward fully coordinated care within the ACO. Under an accountabilities and outcomes-based model, it will be important that providers view their care responsibilities as extending beyond the encounter. Active provider participants should be practicing first-class follow-up care, improving patient satisfaction, and reducing re-admission rates which will achieve collective rewards.

The inclusion of ACOs as a provision of the Patient Protection and Affordability Act is a strategy to realign delivery systems in the US so that they provide high quality, coordinated care.  The bottom line for achievement might simply boil down to whether providers can engage in meaningful and integrated relationships with the ACO and with each other. Since relationships are based on trust—predictability, integrity, and reciprocity–it is imperative that ACOs make trust a deliberate priority.  Our research and advisory agenda is 100% focused on the possibilities of ACOs, and moreover the innovations and business models which will be required to make them successful.

Let us know what you think!

Emma Daugherty & Archelle Georgiou

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.

Archelle is a Senior Advisor and Chair of TripleTree’s Healthcare Executive Roundtable, and focused on creating health through innovation.  You can follow Archelle on Twitter or email her at ageorgiou@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »