Innovative Provider Models Reveal Glimpse into Future of Care Delivery

A new topic we’ve been monitoring in the debate over healthcare spending has been the alarming shift from traditional cost centers such as inpatient care, pharmaceuticals and administration to outpatient care.

While outpatient settings appear on the surface as  more cost-effective alternatives, the limitations of the healthcare system  to establish incentives limiting utilization negates any potential for cost savings. Arguments in support of and against the shift have merit and must be considered as outpatient care is among largest and fastest growing healthcare spending categories.

In an attempt to limit the cost drivers of overutilization and overuse, various initiatives to balance care costs, quality and efficiency have been introduced. The most likely transition that will occur over the next few years will be the continued build-out of a provider capitation system designed to limit cost and utilization yet maintain quality. As the outpatient market braces for this shift, all eyes are on a few of the more progressive models where cost savings and outcome improvement under a provider capitation model are being demonstrated.

Over the past ten years, CareMorehas established itself as among the most vertically integrated Medicare Advantage plans in the country. Through its network of employed physicians and outpatient primary clinic care centers,  they are essentially “at risk” and therefore incentivized to efficiently deliver care – thus shifting the risk from health plans as in  traditional network models. Through a system of care coordination spearheaded by individual care managers who monitor primary and follow up care, Caremore has been able to generate outcomes far superior and more profitable than traditional Medicare Advantage plans.  CareMore has validated that the provider capitation model has potential to generate cost savings if operated effectively.

Perhaps the most comprehensive example of a system that has implemented a provider capitation model is the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health system through its network of Community-Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs). Over the past 20 years, the VA system has transitioned away from a pure hospital-based system to an ambulatory and primary care based model. In doing so, the VA has established CBOCs in order to improve care access and control spending by minimizing instances where non-acute conditions are treated in an ambulatory setting. Over the course of this transition, the VA has begun a process of soliciting outside groups to provide primary care to veterans in non-VA facilities on an individual capitated basis through the CBOC program. Valor Healthcare (Valor) has established itself as the leader in the contract CBOC market, both in terms of market share and clinical excellence.  Much like CareMore, key to the success of Valor has been their provider incentive system. Valor employs a robust pay-for-performance system for its physicians based on evidence-based guidelines and clinical performance. This program has driven clinical outcomes that exceed the benchmarks established by the VA. In addition to performance incentives, Valor’s use of several innovative care approaches to increase patient engagement and adoption contributed to consistent utilization levels.

With cost continuing to be a key issue across the healthcare system, it is likely that payers will continue to experiment with new incentive models aimed to improve the distribution of care yet maintain quality. As this occurs, innovative care models like CareMore and Valor will serve as building blocks as we continue to refine our delivery approaches to more effectively balance care quality, efficiency, safety, and cost.

Let us know what you think.

Joe Long

Joe Long is a Senior Analyst at TripleTree covering the healthcare industry, covering payer-focused healthcare software and service providers. You can email him at jlong@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

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 »

Linking ICD-10 and the future of HCIT

With only 18 months left until the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) ICD-10 implementation deadline, pressure to comply is mounting for a vast array of healthcare constituents.  ICD-10, or International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10^th Revision, is a medical code set used to standardize both diagnoses (ICD-10-CM) and procedures (ICD-10-PCS).  Mandated to replace the existing ICD-9 standards on October 1, 2013, its been well documented that ICD-10 will provide a level of clinical granularity far exceeding that of its predecessor; and as shown below a vast increase in the sheer number of codes.

The implementation deadline has spurred some debate.  James Madard, Executive Vice President and CEO of the American Medical Association (AMA), recently wrote a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius asking her to halt the ICD-10 implementation process.  “The timing of the ICD-10 transition…,” Madard wrote, “… could not be worse as many physicians are currently spending significant time and resources implementing electronic health records into their practices.”

Madard alludes to an issue that is central to both payers and providers which are that multiple Healthcare IT guidelines (ICD-10, HITECH, etc.) will need to be smoothly and quickly implemented to ensure proper reimbursement and avoid heavy government penalties.  The ICD-10 concerns for providers are becoming a boon to vendors, as solutions ranging from data analytics and terminology management to consumer focused solutions are enjoying strong demand.

In our view, vendors need not worry that an extended deadline will curb this demand.  As the healthcare universe shifts from fee-for-service to capitation and bundled-care reimbursement models, innovative technology will be a chief driver in achieving cost reduction.  In addition, we’re recommending that vendors align their business strategy and product offerings around three initiatives:

1. Effectively working with Channel partners to provide bundled “end-to-end” solutions that satisfy reporting requirements for multiple federal mandates
2. Creating flexible product platforms that can be easily integrated into legacy systems (and updated as necessary)
3. Stay out ahead of government regulation and build organizational agility that can meet changing client demands

Let us know what you think.

Jeff Farnell

Jeff Farnell is an Analyst at TripleTree covering the healthcare industry, with a specialization in revenue cycle management, compliance and tech-enabled business solutions. You can email him at jfarnell@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

Utilization Sits at the Forefront of Recent and Future MCO Performance

As a host of leading managed care organizations (MCOs) roll out their most recent earnings reports, it is important to analyze some of the key drivers of plan performance. A key driver of success for MCOs recently has been low utilization, which has driven earnings that exceed market expectations.

Utilization: As indicated, utilization has been a primary driver of recent MCO performance upside; in addition to the important role it plays in setting future pricing, capitation rates and earnings expectations. So what exactly drives utilization among managed care plans? In short, utilization refers to the use of services by members or the patterns of rates of use of certain services such as hospital care, physician visits and prescription drugs. Utilization has long been viewed to be driven primarily by the economy, which has benefited MCOs in the near-term.  The current economic climate has been beneficial to many of the MCOs in terms of utilization in that people have deferred medical care. For example, given the current economic climate, it is likely that consumers are more than likely to wait it out a few days rather than going to a doctor and incurring a co-pay plus a prescription charge. As people have put off medical care, MCOs have benefited from lower than expected medical expenses. Lower medical expenses relative to premiums collected equal more profitability (all other things like MLR rebates aside).

One of the big questions right now surrounding MCOs has to do with what future utilization will look like.  MCOs have benefited greatly from the recent 3-year cycle of lowered utilization rates starting in 2009. Perhaps the biggest question is whether the broader implications of this trend should be accounted for in setting future plan pricing or earning expectations. Is the trend of lowered utilization correlated to the recession, unemployment and economic concerns or is there a fundamental change in how people look at medical care, especially related to consumer-directed health, higher deductible plans and the cost shift to the consumer?

Given the current economic impasse in the United States and abroad, one would expect that trend is expected to continue driving continued earnings upside among MCOs. However, this has not been the case in the guidance provided by many leading MCOs. Several MCOs are predicting higher utilization for 2012. This higher utilization will have a direct impact on the earnings performance among these plans and have been a key topic among analysts and industry commentators. These recent utilization suggestions have been supported by analyst estimates that utilization rates will increase by up to 50-150 basis points in the near-term. As analysts are just now updating their 2012 models to reflect increased utilization, it is likely that model updates will lead to lowered 2012 analyst earnings forecasts and related price downgrades in the MCO sector. The analyst community generally has taken a hard stance on MCO utilization and it is likely that we will witness several MCO downgrades in the near term as analyst work to assess the impact of increased 2012 utilization assumption.

Several counter viewpoints exist that utilization rates will not move increase as much as the carriers are suggesting. The prevailing viewpoint from this camp is that although there might be marginal utilization increases this year, the profit spread will remain as pricing increases will exceed the expected increases in medical cost spending as a result of increased utilization. This stance prevailed in 2011 as utilization last year was below expectations, leading to overall MCO sector public market performance that exceeded other healthcare sectors.

While low healthcare utilization is generally beneficial to MCOs, it generally has the opposite effect on other healthcare sectors, including hospitals and healthcare IT and services companies. These groups generally benefit from the consumption of services, which was the focus of the most recent HCA earnings release. During this release, HCA cited a rise in same-facility admissions to be a key driver of their earnings increase despite a decline in domestic surgery admissions and revenue-per-equivalent admission fell amid Medicaid reduction.

However, it is important to note that role that several other factors play in formulating earnings expectations and guidance. Almost equally important to some MCOs as utilization (particularly those with Medicare enrollment) are factors related to new member enrollment and Medicare Advantage conversion rates. In addition, several MCOs face huge earnings upside related to expansion of Medicare / Medicaid dual eligible enrollment as well.

It appears that the uncertainty that plagued MCOs following PPACA’s passage has been pushed to the back burner as most MCOs have generally benefitted from the legislation. While there is still some fine-tuning on the edges of reform that still present an overhang for MCOs (namely, MLR limitations, administrative cost constraints), that is a topic for another day as the current focus appears to be squarely on near-term medical cost expenses and new opportunity capture (courtesy of dual eligible expansion, state Medicaid RFPs and commercial market pricing pressure).

Let us know what you think.

Joe Long

Joe Long is a Senior Analyst at TripleTree covering the healthcare industry, covering payer-focused healthcare software and service providers. You can email him at jlong@triple-tree.com.

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 »

Wireless Health Innovators…“Where are they now?”

Nominations open next week for the 2012 TripleTree I Award, our annual recognition of innovations in wireless health.  Messaging from new market entrants to physicians, payers, and most notably consumers is fueling a strong venture capital appetite, and looking back at the I Award finalists since 2009, we thought it was useful to list a few notable accomplishments.

Public Markets

• Epocrates – The first mobile healthcare company to successfully go public in early 2011 raising $86m

Funding

• Airstrip Technologies – Received an undisclosed amount of funding from Sequoia Capital
• IntelliDOT – Raised $30m+ from leading investors including Psilos Group, TPG Growth, Camden Partners, Integral Capital Partners, J.F. Shea Ventures, Menlo Ventures and American River Ventures
• Proteus Biomedical – Raised $25m from Medtronic, Novartis, and ON Semiconductor Corp
• TelaDoc – Raised $18m from Cardinal Partners, HLM Venture Partners, Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers, New Capital Partners, and Trident Capital

FDA Approval

• Calgary Scientific – ResolutionMD^TM  after 23 months received 510(k) clearance from the FDA
• Telcare – Wireless blood glucose meter received 510(k) clearance from the FDA for its device, Telcare BGM

Acquisition

• CellTrak Technologies – Expanded into Canada through its acquisition of MedShare mobile technology for home health care
• Healthagen – Patient access software to providers acquired by Aetna

Since TripleTree’s I Award inception in 2009, one company has gone public, one has been acquired, numerous rounds of funding have been raised, multiple FDA approvals granted, and some businesses have scaled nicely.  As the market continues to mature and awareness and user adoption grow, questions loom…

• Is “connected health” on the verge of a breakout?
• Are wireless health solutions the answer for reduced healthcare costs and improved quality of care?
• Will innovation be driven by non-traditional healthcare vendors (ie device vendors and mobile service providers)?
• How are the ramifications of reform influencing innovation?

As we consider these questions, a few key indicators are influencing the market:

• Four out of five physicians use smartphones, computer tablets, and other mobile devices (Jackson & Coker industry report)
• More than $600m has been invested in the wireless health space since January 2010
• 89% of healthcare decision makers believe telehealth will transform healthcare in the next 10 years (Penn Schoen Berland Study)

Below is the honor roll of past I Award finalists.  Look for more information from TripleTree in the coming weeks as the nomination process commences and we plan for the WLSA Wireless Health Convergence Summit scheduled for May 22-24 in San Diego.

2011 Finalists
BodyMedia*	Wearable body monitoring device
Cambridge Temp Con*	Wireless physiological monitor for infertility
Cardiocom –	Clinical telehealth services
Cellnovo	Mobile diabetes management system
Healthagen	Patient access software to providers
Mobisante	Mobile ultrasound imaging system
Palomar Pomerado Health	Real-time mobile software patient electronic health information
Phreesia*	Touch-screen mobile tablet
TelaDoc	On-demand patient access solution to ERs and urgent care
Telcare	Wireless bloodglucose meter
Vitality	Mobile medication adherence
Wound Technology Network	Telehealth- based wound services
2010 Finalists
AirStrip Technologies	Mobile patient information
Calgary Scientific*	Medical imaging
CellTrak Technologies*	Homecare with GPS cell phones
Corticare	Critical care patient monitoring
Great Connection	Mobile imaging communications
Hopskipconnect	Motivational self management tools
InnerWireless	In-building wireless solutions
Ocutronics	Retinal camera
PerfectServe	Physician and patient care communication
PharmaSecure	Pharmacy brand protection solutions
Zeo, Inc.*	Sleep monitoring
ZMQ Software Systems	Sustainable development
2009 Finalists
BeWell Mobile	Disease management applications via text messaging on cell phone
CellTrak Technologies	Homecare automation with GPS cell phones
Diversinet	Health information transparency in partnership with AllOne Mobile
Epocrates	Rx Drug and formulary reference
GreatCall*	Jitterbug; simple cell phone with 24-hour live service
IntelliDOT*	Workflow manager connecting caregivers with information systems
MedApps	Mobile wireless health monitoring
MicroCHIPS	Continuous glucose management system
PhiloMetron	Passive weight management platform
Proteus Biomedical*	Electronically observed therapy platform
Tagnos	Patient flow management applications
Triage Wireless	Wireless telemetry/vital signs monitoring

*Denotes I Award Winner

 

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 »

ACO Update: A Third Horse Enters the Race

A few months ago, we noted that the release of regulations for ACOs would trigger an ACO services race across the healthcare landscape, where market participants would be sprinting to create service offerings that would help hospitals and physician practices become compliant with the CMS ACO regulations for sharing financial risk and the rewards.  So where do things stand six months later?

Just like earlier this year, the “Big Two” – Optum and Aetna – seem to be squarely in the lead of creating a turnkey ACO solution.  And in the last few weeks, we’ve seen a couple items of note from these two.  The first was an interview with Charles Kennedy, CEO of Aetna’s ACO division on HISTalk.  In the interview, Kennedy talks about how Aetna is pursuing the ACO opportunity via three go-to-market offerings:

• Clinical integration (basically an HIE via Medicity)
• A population-based approach with chronic disease management tools that typically rolls out to hospital employees as a way of deploying a light version of an ACO
• A full, private-label health plan, where a delivery system has their own health plan “powered by Aetna”

Last week, Optum announced that it has brought together its own ACO division with more than 700 people (!) focused on enabling “Sustainable Health Communities,” which is Optum’s version of the ACO concept.  Optum’s press release calls out its own five-part strategy:

• Patient and population health management
• Informatics, analytics, and technology
• Clinical integration, network development, and physician change management
• Payment model, contracting, and actuarial expertise
• Operating expertise

Interestingly, the press release also mentions that Optum is also bringing solutions to market targeted at commercial health plans and government payers – the other side of the ACO/shared risk/bundled payment equation.

The big question we have been trying to figure out here at TripleTree is who is going to follow “the Big Two” and their industry-leading ACO partnership announcements (specifically: Optum with Tuscon Medical Center and Aetna with Carilion Clinic)?  Where are the other healthcare companies that are going to pursue this mammoth opportunity?  Wellpoint’s acquisition of CareMore, McKesson’s acquisition of Portico, and Harris Corporation’s acquisition of Carefx certainly point to their interest in this market, as does Premier’s burgeoning alliance with IBM – but we have yet to see any of these or other players signal their interest in developing a broader set of provider-focused bundled payment service offerings.

This past week we think have finally seen another company unequivocally throwing its hat in the ring:  The Advisory Board Company announced the creation of a new company called Evolent Health, in partnership with the UPMC Health Plan.  Evolent intends to provide a platform for population and health plan management to leading health systems as they develop their value-based care strategies.  This follows ABCO’s earlier acquisitions of Crimson, Concuity, and Cielo MedSolutions – all earlier signals that the company was pursuing the hospital analytics, contracting, and registry marketplaces in a big way.

It makes perfect sense for The Advisory Board to do this – with nearly unparalled access to hospital c-suites across the country, it was only a matter of time before they launched a solution to address the many, many requests they must be getting to help with hospitals’ new risk-sharing strategies.  We see this as a welcome development in this space, and hope to see other HCIT players, undoubtedly facing their own questions from their healthcare clients, enter the fray as well.  Where are you, Accenture, Microsoft, and Elsevier?

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 »

Medicare Advantage…Here Today, Here Tomorrow…

CIGNA put a stake in the ground for the long term prospects of Medicare Advantage (M.A.) with its recent announcement that it would be acquiring HealthSpring for $3.8B (a 37% premium over its closing price prior to announcement).

HealthSpring primarily operates as a M.A. plan covering over 340K lives across 11 states (including over 800,000 Medicare Part D members).  CIGNA previously had a very limited presence in M.A. with ~44,000 lives entirely in Arizona.

CIGNA has been focused on diversifying its core US healthcare presence, so the move isn’t too much of a shocker, although many thought its approach would include international expansion versus a bold move into the government market.  It’s likely the HealthSpring business model was too alluring for CIGNA to pass on when you consider HealthSpring’s:

• Tight integration with network physicians including a high level of capitation and risk sharing;
• Strong leadership team lead by Herb Fritch whom possess the experience and know-how to operate a unique, physician-centric, coordinated care model; and
• Consumer brand presence within the senior market.

There is a large opportunity for CIGNA to leverage and replicate HealthSpring’s coordinated care model across their commercial book of business to drive efficiencies and deliver better care.  Additionally, CIGNA will benefit from its ability to cross-sell HealthSpring into new markets.

CIGNA is not the only health plan making moves in the M.A. market – recent M&A activity within the sector over the past 18 months include:

• Wellpoint – CareMore (2011)
• Aetna – Genworth’s Medicare Supplement (2011)
• Humana – MD Care (2011) and Arcadian Management Services (2011)
• HealthSpring – Bravo Health (2010)

HealthSpring was one of the few remaining M.A. plans with size and scale, and CIGNA’s move could prompt additional consolidation within the sector over the coming 12-18 months.  The list of targets with viable M.A. populations (100K+ lives) is becoming quite limited.  Some of these include Universal American and Wellcare, public M.A. plans with 100K+ lives; and XL Health, SCAN, Aveta and Universal Healthcare as examples of private M.A. plans with scale.

There have been recent headlines about increased pressure on reimbursement rates and minimum medical loss ratio (“MLR”) requirements posing a threat to the future of M.A.  My view, however, is that M.A. will not only survive, but thrive going forward and recent M&A activity would suggest the same.  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 »

A Big Week for ACOs

Given that this Friday is the deadline for applying for CMS ACO “Pioneer” status and is also the assumed release date for the final ACO regulations, this is sure to be a busy week for ACO news.

And as if we needed more proof that still no one knows how ACO adoption is going to shake out, we took note of the following last week:  on August 19^th, Forbes published a blog post titled “How ObamaCare is Destroying Accountable Care Organizations.”   (This was based on a post by noted healthcare policy analyst John Goodman: “Health Care Schizophrenia” )

As a key argument, the post cites how an innovative medical group in Texas called IntegraNet wouldn’t qualify for CMS ACO status, despite all the good work they are doing around measuring practicing evidence-based medicine and driving down costs because they rely on a Fee-for-Service model.

One week later, on August 26th, guess what happens?  IntegraNet became one of the first groups in the country to formally apply for ACO designation.  (To be completely fair to Goodman and to Forbes, IntegraNet clearly states that they are applying early in order to have some influence on the “burdensome rules” imposed in the regulation).

However this drama plays out, we here at TripleTree have been thinking a bit about the broader picture.  While most of the drama and headline news (and criticism!) is happening at the federal level of the CMS ACO program, there are a number of hospitals and physician groups that have quietly undertaken their own shared savings and bundled payments experiments.

In fact, Modern Healthcare published its first survey of accountable care organizations this week, identifying 13 ACOs respondents around the country (this despite the fact that CMS ACO program does not launch until 2012). To us, these experiments are the real market opportunity for ACOs, and one that has finally gotten some deserved attention on the back of the government’s healthcare reform legislation.

In fact, a great example can be seen here in our backyard with Fairview Health System’s developing relationship with the payer Medica.  A case study can be found here, but in short:  Fairview, a seven-hospital system with 49 clinics and 450 employed physicians, and Medica, with 1.6m members in the upper Midwest, decided that they could seek a more mutually beneficial relationship.  In 2009, they entered into a contract that pays Fairview based on the achievement of defined outcomes for quality and total risk-adjusted cost of care based on Fairview’s performance on certain diabetes and vascular care measures.  Essentially, if Medica members have better outcomes and lower costs than the community at large, Fairview shares in those savings.  Preliminary data is encouraging, though the relationship is requiring a “total cultural transformation” on the hospital system’s part, including a total redesign of workflow, compensation, and responsibilities. (Just think of what kind of transformation will be required to measure and achieve CMS’s 65 proposed quality measurements!)

While these quiet moves will never get the attention that Highmark’s acquisition of West Penn Alleghany that we profiled recently, this the real story of the ACO debate going on right now.  These experimental relationships between providers and payers are the ones that will prove if shared savings and bundled payments can truly bend the proverbial cost curve.

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 »

Nintendo Wii and Microsoft Kinect in the Doctor Bag

Gaming is mainstream, but a new consumer for these technologies is evolving… healthcare professionals.  Most people think of games as entertainment, but health educators are learning games are also an effective training platform.

A classification of games known as “serious” games, describe video games that have been designed specifically for training and education.  Medical schools, hospitals, physician practices, and health systems are seeking more ways to engage their healthcare professionals and serious games and video simulation are earning their stripes:

• Duke University School of Medicine is teaming up with Virtual Heroes, a company that creates training products for healthcare, federal systems, and business
• Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, Department of the Navy’s Office of Naval Research, and BreakAway Ltd. developed Pulse!!, immersive virtual learning space with graphics that recreate a lifelike, interactive, virtual environment in which civilian and military heath care professionals practice clinical skills in order to better respond to injuries sustained during catastrophic incidents, such as combat or bioterrorism
• Banner Simulation Medical Center is a 55,000-square-foot “virtual hospital” undergoing a pilot study with specially adapted Nintendo Wii, the doctors who regularly played scored 48% higher on tool control and performance than those who didn’t use the game

The ability of a video game to reward success, engage healthcare professionals, encourage collaboration and interaction amongst colleagues is a new twist on standard learning models.  The real-time feedback games provide can motivate “gamers” to proceed to the next level in the game, akin to attaining the next level of patient care.

Studies on the effectiveness of “gamification” for healthcare professional training are evolving.  However multiple industries have proven “serious” games to be successful including:

• Flight simulation for pilots
• Military games for combat training, a tool used since the 1980s
• Computer network building for technicians of technology vendors like Cisco Systems

Gaming is a lower cost alternative.  A recent article in the Wall Street Journal allude to the fact that lawmakers are “considering reducing the Medicare reimbursement for doctor training, possibly in half, to cut about $4 billion from the federal budget.”   With this proposed cut affecting reimbursement for academic medical centers and teaching hospitals, utilizing serious games could help the training budget pressures soon to be felt across the country.

While traditional education will always continue, utilizing this new form of training is proving in its early stages to be effective and lower cost.

Let us know what you think!

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 »

If you Google ‘health’; you will no longer find Google Health

In a culmination of a yearlong rumor mill, Google finally came clean in its announcement  late last week that it would discontinue its personal health record (PHR) program, Google Health.

In many ways it’s a shame that Google has pulled out of evangelizing the PHR.  We have long been vocal that healthcare would benefit from non-traditional players entering the market with tech based solutions despite our skepticism on PHR adoption trends; that an outsider like Google tried to use its vast resources to innovate the healthcare market was inspiring.

Ideally, Google would have brought fresh ideas and tried-and-tested approaches from other industries (financial services, e-commerce) to tackle issues like collaboration, workflow integration, and data silos – all bugaboos for healthcare which other industries have solved.

Our top five reasons why Google Health failed:

• Lacked executive support within Google
• Lacked an elegant user interface
• Never deployed a scalable business/revenue model
• Failed to capture physician support
• Lacked Integration capabilities to healthcare information sources

Perhaps if Google Health was more Google-like (social, able to leverage advertising or other information monetization models, always connected to underlying information sources, and much more consumer friendly), adoption would have been better.

It’s likely however, that Google Health was doomed from the start.

Outside of tech geeks and fitness enthusiasts, PHRs simply have not seen wide market adoption as the most patients haven’t aligned around a paradigm of managing their health information 24×7.  Google created an engagement tool without a strategy to “engage the unengaged” and bet on the come that user adoption would materialize around the strength of Google’s brand.

Over the past several months we have increasingly talked and written about a healthcare market where consumers want to and in fact are becoming more engaged in their health. The problem is that consumers don’t know how to engage in their own health, and physicians don’t offer the necessary catalyst to make it happen.

Tools (like Google Health) are not enough.  Healthcare organizations need to put entire programs in place to engage a consumer with clearly articulated benefits (incentives, cost savings, better access to care, better care, etc.).  Once in place, more effective consumer targeting and engagement will follow.

In the coming weeks, we will be publishing research on consumer engagement platforms in healthcare and where innovative technologies will attempt to “engage the unengaged”.

Until then, 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 »