Electronic Medical Records Are Not a Cure-All

We regularly work with clients that have developed innovative solutions to vexing, long-term problems confronting healthcare.  Some examples include:  enabling hospitals to quantify patient satisfaction, managing the release of patient chart information from the hospital, and providing meaningful drug and disease content to physicians in the course of their daily work.

In discussions with potential buyers and investors for these types of businesses, we regularly hear the following:  “Won’t widespread EMR adoption make this business obsolete?”   In the minds of many thinking about the HCIT industry:

Increased EMR Use = Fully Electronic Records = Integrated Data Whizzing Back and Forth

This is a welcome goal – and it’s theoretically possible that we could live in this world one day – but there are so many barriers to this future state that it’s very likely that none of us will be around to see it.

Consider the following:

• EMRs were first created in the 1960s and 1970s, but as recently as 2011, only about 1 in 3 of office-based physicians reported use of an EMR with basic functionality in place (i.e., medical history, electronic ordering, drug interactions, etc.)  Just over half of the respondents were using any EMR at all (to record basic patient demographics, for example).
• On the inpatient side, with more than $3.1B in Meaningful Use incentives paid out as of 2011, only 35% of U.S. hospitals have now adopted EMRs.
• CMS has been paying incentives for e-prescribing for the past two years.  In the framework of potential healthcare data described above, this is one of the most basic electronic transactions possible:  passing an error-free prescription from a provider’s EMR to a pharmacy.   As of the end of 2010, CMS reports that e-prescribing has grown tremendously – to where fewer than 12% of the nearly 700,000 eligible providers are now receiving incentive payments.

This is progress to be sure, and adoption is up significantly in the past few years.  However, EMR vendors still face a long road to achieving widespread adoption for basic functionality before they dive into the other challenges like data interoperability, clinical analytics, and payer-provider convergence.

In our view, new value-based reimbursement models via prospective population health management and coordination at the point of care simply have to run through the clinical data living in the EMR.   So, as stimulus dollars trail off in the coming years, we expect the more forward-thinking EMR vendors to start looking for tangential acquisitions outside of their core business that will help them make progress toward accelerating these reimbursement initiatives.

In other words, we expect that leading EMR vendors, in an effort to create differentiation in a still-crowded marketplace, will increasingly look to absorb – rather than displace – these innovative businesses that we see every day.  What is still an open question is whether the EMR vendors will be the buyers best positioned to reap the biggest benefits of owning these companies, or if other HCIT participants will put together the pieces that move us toward that future state where healthcare data moves around effortlessly.  In either case, we don’t see much evidence yet that EMRs are the standalone panacea that some seem to think they can be.

Let us know what you think.

Conor Green

Conor Green is a Vice President at TripleTree covering the healthcare industry, and specializing in revenue cycle management and tech-enabled business services. You can email Conor at cgreen@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

What About Patient Accountability?

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 »

Focus, Economics and Patient Satisfaction…three keys to understanding Ambulatory Surgery Centers

Historically, surgical procedures were performed within the four walls of a hospital.  However, the past decade has seen a dramatic rise in surgery volume being performed in an outpatient setting—largely ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs).  As seen below, the number of U.S. ASCs is approaching 6,000, and overall procedure volume has shifted dramatically from inpatient to an outpatient setting.

Source: VMG Intellimarker 2011 and 2010

ASCs are outpatient facilities at which surgical procedures are performed on patients who do not require an overnight stay.  ASCs were originally established in 1970 and most commonly perform elective procedures with short anesthesia and operating times.  Typical procedures include eye, orthopedic, hand, plastic surgery, pain management, podiatry, ear-nose-and-throat, endoscopy, and laparoscopy at facilities usually ‘free-standing’ (not part of a hospital campus).  ASCs operate within a highly regulated industry with each facility being required to comply with rigorous oversight and certification.  Many of the same standards, constraints and requirements as inpatient hospital operating rooms apply to ASCs.

ASCs receive less of their total payments from Medicare/Medicaid than an average hospital – 37% for ASCs vs 61% for an average hospital which reduces some of the reimbursement pressure.  This makes sense as most of the procedures performed in this setting are elective in nature, which tend to come from the population not utilizing government health benefits.  We’ve assessed three key advantages offered by with the ASC approach to care:

• Compelling economics:  ASCs are able to provide lower-priced procedures because they have a lower cost structure than a traditional hospital setting along with a “focused factory” approach which creates efficiencies.
  • By shifting just half of all eligible outpatient surgeries to the ASC setting, Medicare could save an additional $2.3 billion annually (Ambulatory Surgery Center Advocacy Committee, 2010)
• Consumer appeal:  ASCs are generally free standing and located in the suburbs, which provide patients with better access.  Also, ASC schedules are better maintained because there is no possibility of emergency surgeries preempting a scheduled procedure.
• Focus, specialization and quality:  It’s difficult to track the quality of care provided in ASCs compared to hospitals because ASCs are not yet required to report comparable outcomes data – which will likely change in the near future.  We do know, however, that ASCs focus on a select number of procedures at a high volume, which allows doctors to perfect their craft and deliver high quality results to patients.

The advantages are not only for patients, but also for payers and providers.  Payers are able to negotiate more favorable rates for procedures performed in the ASC which lowers their overall costs of care.  Providers which are part of the ASCs have seen large economic gains as they’re able to take economic stakes in the operations.  Overall, ASCs have grown to become an important part of the care delivery landscape and as the three advantages listed above might dictate, this an area we predict will have an increasing relevance in the healthcare landscape.

Let me 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.

Read Full Post »

Would a Simplified Doctors Bill Reduce Patient Confusion?

With increasing frequency, the trend toward healthcare provider “transparency” is in the news.

One vocal and prominent proponent of the concept is Dr. C. Martin Harris of the Cleveland Clinic, whose goal is improved transparency and patient access across our health care system.  Conceptually it sounds great, but would a better patient understanding of the financial aspects of their care (i.e. bills) influence their behaviors when selecting a care provider?

Dr. Harris is pushing for the development and utilization of patient-centric financial management tools that will expose the true costs associated with patient care.  Such tools could allow patients (consumers) to analyze their “actual” medical costs as well as their insurance coverage to help them better understand, in real-time what is owed for a given treatment.

Dr. Harris is shining a light on the patient confusion surrounding what to pay, who to pay and when to pay it. His view calls for a simplified system of transparent billing (the financial side of healthcare transactions) which “would clearly optimize the value of care to patients.”

Approaches such as specialized cards that initiate any healthcare-related transaction and then connect to online portals might be a starting point; and could even include connections to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) via its Consumer Assessment of Health Providers and Systems (CAHPS®).   But will that be enough to entice consumers (patients) to gravitate toward a specific healthcare provider if they could deliver:

• Better value (i.e., the same or better medical care for cheaper)
• Enhanced customer service (i.e., overall patient experience), or
• Improved medical outcomes?

These three post reform drivers seem to be reasonable predictors of consumer preference – however its less clear whether a consumer would compare two or more healthcare providers based on billing statement transparency (clarity) alone.

Provider billing transparency is for now likely a “nice-to-have” rather than “must have” component of patient experience – and without the urging of consumers or employers the solutions envisioned by Dr. Harris won’t likely emerge.   Rather, patient experience trends, improved outcomes and calculating value for healthcare dollars spent, will likely persist as the near term focus of vendors serving the healthcare provider market.

Let us know what you think.

Jamie Lockhart

Jamie Lockhart is a Vice President with TripleTree covering healthcare software and service providers with a focus on consumer directed healthcare.  You can contact him at jlockhart@triple-tree.com

Read Full Post »

The Divide in the ACO Debate – Beltway Rhetoric versus Marketplace Cynicism

Amid the broader – and oftentimes highly opinionated and heated – ACO conversation occurring across Washington and the private sector, The Wall Street Journal published an interesting piece last week highlighting the specific views of three individuals:

• Don Berwick is the former administrator for CMS who just stepped down last December.  Don oversaw the creation of the ACO framework under the Medicare Shared Savings Program.
• Tom Scully is currently a General Partner at the New York-based private equity firm Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe.  Tom formerly served as the CMS administrator from 2001 to 2004 and CEO of the Federation of American Hospitals.
• Jeff Goldsmith is a president of Health Futures, a healthcare consulting firm out of Charlottesville, VA and an associate professor of public health sciences at the University of Virginia.

What becomes immediately apparent in the three-way dialogue (done via email) is the lens through which various participants view the industry’s efforts to improve healthcare’s fundamental problem of shifting from the traditional fee for service to a value-based approach.  There aren’t any quick, silver bullet answers to the debate, but what is evident is the divide among those that represent Washington’s political rhetoric (Don) and those that must figure out ways to make the new framework work within a dynamic, private care delivery system (Tom and Jeff).

Several disagreements bubble to the surface related to:

The role providers will play

• Berwick: “The ACO premise is different. Beneficiaries don’t join an ACO; providers of care do.”
• Scully: “The biggest flaw with ACOs is that they are driving more power to hospitals—not to doctors. Very scary, and I am a hospital guy.” … “If the doctors had the capital to organize comprehensive ACOs to control their own fate and drive us to more efficient care, I would be bullish on ACOs. But doctors are again along for the ride, not driving the bus.”
• Goldsmith: “In practice, however, the ACO is more like asking the hungry horse to guard the granary. The major savings for Medicare are to be found by keeping people out of the hospital, and reducing the incomes of the specialists who dominate hospital politics. To get those savings, hospitals and their specialists have to turn their backs on five decades of making more by doing more.”

Emphasis on the patient

• Berwick: “…the formula for ACO success is clear: keep quality high, save money by improving—not by restricting—care, and remain attractive to beneficiaries, who could go anywhere for care.”
• Scully: “The best models for ACOs are doctor groups like Monarch HealthCare in Los Angeles or JSA HealthCare in Tampa. Give doctors lots of patient data, pay them to see patients more often, follow their drug use and health status more closely to keep them out of hospitals—and give them control of the cash!”
• Goldsmith: “The biggest problem with the ACO, however, isn’t the faulty business proposition, but the patient’s role.” … “In the ACO, providers are accountable to Medicare. Patients won’t get a dime of the savings, and no choice whether to participate or not.” “Despite all the rhetoric about ACOs being patient-centered, it is a paternalistic, “we’ll decide what you need” kind of model.”

Prospects for care improvements and financial success of ACOs

• Berwick: “Knowing full well the results of the PGP demonstration, the CMS office of the actuary estimated base-case Medicare savings of over $400 million in the first three years of the ACO program.”  … The “32 physician groups and health-care systems selected for the pioneer program, covering 860,000 Medicare beneficiaries, [are] projected to save $1.1 billion in health-care costs over the first five years.”
• Scully: “In the system we have, ACOs are conceptually right, in that the concept inches toward differential pricing for quality, and Don should be congratulated. But we need to step back out of the trees, look at the forest and question the financing system we have created.”
• Goldsmith: “Having each community, large or small, set up its own ACO is like setting up a backyard steel mill.” … “It is the incredibly heterogeneous 5% of the population that generates 47% of all costs that you need to focus on, and if you don’t have enough of them in your “attributed” population, you cannot concentrate the resources to change their care and lives.”

Startup costs of an ACO

• Scully: “The start-up cost of a real ACO is probably $30 million and up in a midsize market.”
• Berwick: “The actual barriers to entry appear a lot lower than the $30 million cost that Tom Scully mentions; CMS estimates are only a fraction of that.” “… the CMS Innovation Center has proposed a program of advance payment to provide front-end capital and extra operating funds for care coordination, information systems and the like.”
• Goldsmith: “A more credible estimate of setup costs for a provider system with no prior managed-care experience to participate in the shared savings program: $10 million to $15 million per health system (consulting, IT systems conversions, new staff, etc.).”

 Prospects for success

• Berwick: “Smart entrants, focused on seamless care, outcomes and beneficiary satisfaction, will both reduce Medicare’s expenditures and reap financial rewards for themselves.” … “I hope and expect that ACOs will honor the trust they have been given by doing the job—lower cost through care improvements. If they violate that trust, the costs to them and to the future of seamless, coordinated care in America will be high indeed.”
• Scully: “Don’s vision is great, and who can’t like what he has tried to do with ACOs… Except that the incentives are very small, the change will be slow, and we are just nibbling at real system reform.”
• Goldsmith: “There were a lot of good ideas in the Affordable Care Act for saving money and improving quality. Unfortunately, the ACO wasn’t one of them.” … “By pushing this edgy idea from the policy world and ignoring the real-world evidence of its own trials, CMS picked the wrong horse.”

In a final from Jeff Goldsmith: “One of the most serious problems with the health-care world just now is the gap between the policy world and the real world. The ACO is Exhibit A in this yawning disconnect.”  Jeff is right to point out that there’s a divide between the public and private domains, yet progress, however small, has arguably been made.

The real question is whether “the vision” put forth by Don Berwick will ultimately evolve into a pervasive performance-based delivery model in which quality, efficiency, and choice are the driving factors behind private sector reimbursement and profitability.  To those outside of Washington, there certainly seems to be a long way to go – let us know what you think.

Seth Kneller

Seth Kneller is a Vice President 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 »

5 MD’s, 4 CEO’s, a PhD and a CIO agree on “what”, they’re now focused on “how”

Last Friday, the TripleTree Health Executive Roundtable (HER) convened for their annual discussion and debate on this year’s theme…consumerism in health care in a post reform world.  In the spirit of giving you, our faithful reader, a glimpse into the upcoming research report from the HER, below I’ve summarized some of the opinions expressed during our day and a half gathering.

• Patients as consumers are emerging from being an afterthought to center stage…
  • “Getting consumers to understand price and its relationship to quality and value is important”
  • “In order to achieve customer loyalty, we must find a way to individualize care”
  • “Trust is key in driving change of consumers”
  • “Business focus is tough if the consumer isn’t at the center of decision making”

• Current health care models support (and create) dysfunction and call for innovation…
  • “Physicians are only paid through the tyranny of the office visit”
  • “Managed Care neither manages nor cares”
  • “Unfortunately, our current reimbursement model is inefficient, yet is at the center meaningful changes for patients to become consumers”

• For electronic health records (EHRs) and other technologies, start with the end in mind..
  • “EHRs must get the right info into the right hands, but there is no consensus on what that info is and that is where the question of purpose”
  • “It a stretch to think that technology alone will change practice, culture trumps strategy”
  • “Technology is ahead of the change curve and misaligned with reality”
  • “ICD-10 is akin to ‘academics gone wild’”

Needless to say, we witnessed a spirited and opinion filled day-and-a-half session!

While it’s not controversial to opine that innovation in health care is a fragmented pursuit, and as our roundtable focused on how best practices from financial services, retail and media can be applied to consumerism in health care; the often cited hurdles of reimbursement and physician-patient-payer connectedness remained as massive hurdles.

We will publish the collective viewpoints on consumerism in healthcare from our HER this quarter, including companion video interviews bringing each individual opinion to life.  We’ll host both on our web site, and would be happy to send you the link when published.  Let us know if you would like a copy of the report and have a great week!

Joanna Roth

Joanna Roth is a Senior Analyst at TripleTree covering the healthcare and technology industry, specializing in education solutions. Follow Joanna on Twitter or e-mail her at jroth@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 »

When Should ‘Blackberry’, ‘iPhone’ and ‘FDA’ Be Used in the Same Sentence?

The FDA classifies a medical device as “…an implementation, product, apparatus or other component or accessory, which is used in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, prevention of disease or effects any structure of the body–that could actually include some information technologies and performance technologies–but usually something that is performed on the patient, touches the patient or is performed between physician and patient.”

By this definition, an iPhone or Blackberry loaded with the proper apps or enabling a key medical service becomes a FDA-regulated device. That is an industry with over 5 billion previously unregulated potential medical devices waiting to be enabled by the 17,000 plus increasingly sophisticated wireless health applications in the market and thousands applications more in active development. Wireless and mobile health researchers at strategy consulting firm CSMG estimate industry revenues to top $4.6 billion by 2014, a stunning figure for an industry that didn’t exist just 5 years ago.

Recognizing the potential regulatory bombshell, the FDA and the FCC convened last July for a meeting on “Converged Communications and Healthcare Devices Impact on Regulation to address the current state of wireless health, innovator perspective, and investor perspective. The agencies’ stated motivation for the meeting was to “clarify and delineate the respective areas of expertise and jurisdiction between the agencies” given the increasing convergence of communications and wireless technologies and medical devices. Emerging from the meeting was a joint FDA-FCC memorandum of understanding to promote collaboration and eventually refine and improve the regulatory processes applicable to wireless-enabled medical devices (and conversely wireless devices with medical applications). While an admirable step towards normalizing government oversight over the mHealth market, neither agency has issued concrete guidance or a path to regulatory approval to date.

The FDA’s lack of clarity is causing uncertainty amongst entrepreneurs and investors. Just last month, the agency finally announced it would issue guidance on mobile medical applications later this year, settling an issue that has had many industry investors cautiously observing from the sidelines and developers nervously eying their own business plans.

Given the day’s current political environment of overregulation, it’s possible that the decision could have severe ramifications on growth in an industry in the midst of considerable upswing.

With the number of mobile subscribers worldwide passing the 5.3 billion mark at the end of the year, over 75% of the global population has a mobile device, and that number is expected to grow thanks to increasing penetration in developing countries and the growing presence of tablet computing.

We are optimistic that the FDA will adjust its need for regulation in harmony with the industry’s need for innovation, creating a set of guidelines that will attract investors and entrepreneurs while protecting the security of consumers and medical data.

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 »

Perpetuating the Increased Quality of Care Cycle through Value-Based Purchasing

With the majority of talk about healthcare reform centered on the individual / consumer mandate and universal coverage, many are missing another positive change proposed by CMS: value-based purchasing.

Value-based purchasing (VBP) has underlying implications on five themes:

• Measuring the patient experience
• Measuring clinical quality
• Market pricing, especially local market pricing
• Executive and clinician compensation
• The changing role of technology and technological requirements

The essence of VBP is that buyers of healthcare (including individuals and plans) should hold providers accountable for the quality of care provided.  Much like consumer satisfaction and pay-for-performance in other industries, healthcare providers are now being held accountable for not only providing the required care, but providing a quality product.  However, the question of rating the quality of care is a bit more difficult than showing compliance with a “Six Sigma” type of program.  By bringing together outcomes-based data with cost data, it is possible to show an improvement ratio such that increasingly positive outcomes are equated with reduced or targeted spending – below are a few considerations:

• Linking patient satisfaction and quality: Measuring the patient experience is trending toward monitoring key outcomes in 17 clinical measures (including patients’ views on communication with staff and doctors, cleanliness and quietness of the hospital and pain management) across five healthcare categories, including acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, healthcare associated infections and surgical care improvement.  Based on a hospital’s score across these measures and categories, this will impact diagnostics-related group (DRG) payments as soon as 2013.  By 2014, mortality outcome measures for additional health conditions and hospital-acquired conditions will be included.
• Clinical quality – another important VBP benchmark:   As providers are measured and compensated accordingly, top tier providers will begin to quickly separate from the pack.  However, critical access hospitals will need to remain accessible, regardless of their quality measurement.
• Market pricing and VBP:  With provider compensation schedules initially being implemented as a penalty rather than a bonus, areas with poor outcome metrics will see the cost of providing care rise. Additionally adding to the skewing of local market pricing, an incentives algorithm will be implemented, meaning high performing hospitals will continue to perform better than those being penalized, due to the financial incentives providing new resources for a high performing hospital.

The link between quality of care, the provider’s income statement, and executive and clinician compensation also becomes much more clear and real. As the provider receives additional incentives for increased quality of care, the employees of the provider will likely see performance compensation tied to the quality of care metrics for the hospital. A higher performing provider will attract higher paid experts with better backgrounds, perpetuating the increased quality of care cycle.

Underpinning all of this is the increasing role that technology will play in the healthcare system. In order to document the quality of care metrics, a clear link to data will need to be established at the point of care. This means that data warehousing and analytics will be paramount. Sophisticated pricing and measurements of quality and satisfaction will be derived from the data and technology in use.

Value-based purchasing has the potential to radically alter how both providers and patients view healthcare.  Our team is actively advising business leaders and investors with some thinking about how healthcare will cease to be an intangible product that is provided at any cost, focusing instead on how to plan the market dynamics or “rankings” and “customer service”.

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 »

Health2.0 Event Supports Conversation on Healthcare Consumerism

Last week, my colleague, Ryan Stewart participated as a keynote presenter for a regional Health 2.0 event.  As leading resources for innovative healthcare technology organizations, TripleTree and Health 2.0 are aligned in their belief that the growth of user-generated healthcare will foster a wave of consumerism across the industry. TripleTree has identified “consumerism” as critical for engaging consumers to take a greater degree of control in their own health and breaking down the traditional roadblocks that have caused a disconnect between payers, providers and consumers within our healthcare system.

TripleTree continues its active role in the mHealth (mobile and wireless health) arena and closely follows dozens of innovators who enable a free flow of healthcare information between various systems.  Ryan’s presentation outlines several macro-trends where mHealth is supporting this information flow and facilitating patient access to care information through greater patient participation in health-related decisions. You can view the presentation here.

Joe Long

Joe Long is an analyst at TripleTree covering the healthcare sector, with a focus on the approaches and technologies surrounding health insurance exchanges.  You can email him at jlong@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »