Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘technology’

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 »

Each day, in the U.S. alone, over 4000 more people are diagnosed with cancer. In 2010, there were 13.8 million cancer survivors alive and some 18.1 million people in the U.S. are expected to be living with cancer by 2020 (Journal of the National Cancer Institute).

Of the nation’s 10 most expensive medical conditions, cancer is the highest per-person price medical condition.  Medicare data and other sources show that in 2010, care for the 16 most common types of cancers in U.S. women and 13 common types of cancers in U.S. men costs the healthcare system $124.6 billion.

Correlating Cost Increases and Survival Rates:

With the escalating cost of living with cancer and the increase in cancer survivors, technologies and services are evolving to help individuals live with cancer longer, happier, and cheaper.  Cancer is becoming an area of focus for payers to lower the cost of care and improve patient outcomes.

Health plans have begun pilot programs with Biological Management Companies (BMCs) to assist in oncology treatment.  The traditional oncology medication management approaches are evolving and payers are looking to reduce inappropriate drug utilizations and inefficiencies in distribution without impacting quality.

According to market research company HIRC, two-thirds of plans will have clinical pathways for high incidence cancer conditions by 2012.  There are numerous payers currently piloting with BMCs to help develop decision tools, medication management, and physician reimbursement schemes. A few recent pilots include:

  • Aetna with US Oncology and P4 Healthcare
  • BCBS of Florida and Coventry with iCore Healthcare
  • BCBS of NJ with Via Oncology / PathForward
  • CoreSource and Employee Benefit Management Corp with Biologics
  • Highmark and AmeriHealth with P4 Healthcare
  • Humana with New Century Health

Payers aren’t the only ones concerned about cancer costs.  Employers rated cancer as the number one specialty area of concern in a recent survey by HIRC.  Specialty Pharmacy Programs for the management of oncology medications continue to rise with 60% expecting to use them by 2015.  Specialty pharmacy providers (SPPs) have begun to offer oncology-specific services, including oversight of distribution and tighter management of supportive care products.

As payers and employers continue to form strategies and evolve payment methodologies for cancer, healthcare IT companies are making their bets on this high cost area:

The potential costs continue to escalate with direct cancer care expenditures expected to reach $158 billion in 2020.  We are continuing to watch this market as new players emerge and global healthcare services and technology vendors seek to lower cost and improve outcomes for cancer patients.

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 »

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

Below are a few more details –

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

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

The tip of the iceberg

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

Finding an efficient path

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

Clearing hurdles

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

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

Have a great week.

Emma Daugherty

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

Read Full Post »

Yesterday, Microsoft announced a new joint venture with GE where both organizations would transfer significant healthcare software technology into a new company led by GE health care executive Michael Simpson. This new company will be based in the Redmond area and have more than 700 employees dedicated to HCIT solutions.

A few months back, Microsoft sold its EMR (Amalga HIS) to Orion and via this announcement,  is transferring two of its three remaining healthcare assets – Amalga and Sentillion – into the JV.. Curiously, Microsoft is hanging onto HealthVault, its personal health record (PHR) suite.

It is hard to grasp why Microsoft would jettison its “crown jewel” HCIT and clinical solutions into the JV and say goodbye to most of its healthcare team (including top exec Peter Neupert (retiring)), while apparently remaining content to simply sell its horizontal platform and servers into health care settings.  (We understand that many Microsoft employees will be transferred into the JV). Moreover, what will become of other HC initiatives underway at Microsoft such as their announced work in the insurance exchange marketplace?

A straight up comparison of Google’s complete retreat from health care to this move by Microsoft is a bit unfair, but yet another juggernaut exiting from an industry desperately in need of new ideas is puzzling.

Is this JV the type of new idea needed by the healthcare sector?  Nat McLemore, GM for Microsoft Health Solutions Group describes the GE / Microsoft JV as follows:

“… Microsoft and GE Healthcare have just announced an exciting new initiative aimed at improving healthcare quality and the patient experience. The two companies are creating a joint venture that will combine Microsoft’s deep expertise in building platforms and ecosystems with GE Healthcare’s experience in clinical and administrative workflow solutions. The new venture, which is pending regulatory approval and has yet to be named, will develop and market an open, interoperable technology platform and next-generation clinical applications that will help enable better population health management.

The joint venture’s foundational offering of an open technological platform will also enable application developers to build customized, differentiated solutions that interact to meet customers’ specific needs. By enabling independent software vendors, system integrators and healthcare IT pros to develop on a common platform, the joint venture aims to support a robust ecosystem of partners that offers customers real choice.”

For veteran watchers of technology centric alliances, it is easy to be skeptical.

The platform approach is exactly what Microsoft Amalga was about – a gigantic integration engine for healthcare. It is no surprise that Amalga will be a major foundational asset in the new company. The challenge with Amalga, and the reason why its adoption was limited in the US, is that giant footprint implementations are far from the ideal solution. Amalga required massive investments and a multi-year implementation to stand-up, and in a world where hospitals and other healthcare organizations don’t have the appetite or budget for monolithic systems and if they do…it likely orbits around an EMR.  The likes of Epic have taken up most of the bandwidth that hospitals can afford for big-iron IT projects and despite Microsoft attempt to buy market share, its ‘platform strategy’ had limited success.

If the JV platform vision is right (and what is needed for the industry) it will take a few years to get legs. Beyond integrating their HCIT suites (and apparently work has already been underway here for a few months) it will take considerable effort for the new company to ready its platform for app developers, a sometimes skeptical lot. Developers may opt to wait and see whether the JV successfully drives adoption for their platform vision given their traditionally limited resources and proclivity for aligning around the true vendor platforms where market share is known, versus jumping on board into the Microsoft/GE health care legacy.

Finally, is this big platform vision the right approach in today’s world of SaaS, Cloud, SOA, and modular app development? Healthcare already has many traditional stacks   – Epic, Cerner, McKesson, Allscrips…the list goes on. The new entrants like Aetna/Medicity, Optum/Axolotl, IBM, Oracle, and others are focused on integrating data and workflows. If the new company claims it is the ‘true path’ for data integration, the market could become confused with other mega HCIT vendor messages, given they acute need for nimble solutions that are quick to implement, solve an immediate pain point, and provide a near term ROI.

Big HCIT vendors must do more to help perpetuate a strong vision and direction for the healthcare industry and perhaps this is where this new venture can emerge as a leader. Microsoft and GE have both tried and neither was successful. Perhaps they have some new innovation and new capabilities that could create a truly differentiated solution. We’re watching closely and would like to 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 »

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 »

We recently reviewed an article outlining the current debate between the American Telemedicine Association (ATA) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) regarding the statutory restrictions placed on telehealth by CMS in certain rules effecting accountable care organizations (ACOs).  In summary, ATA is asking that five Medicare requirements that effectively limit the use of telemedicine—by prohibiting reimbursement—be waived or modified.

It is ironic that CMS is supporting unnecessary road blocks to ACO enablement, a care delivery methodology that is a cornerstone of the 2009 health reform legislation.    At the core of the government’s support for ACOs is the idea that Medicare and Medicaid spending is unsustainable and a system that rewards providers for delivering the same (or better care) could be most impactful by better managing patients with chronic conditions, reducing readmissions and minimizing ER visits.

Thus, it seems counterintuitive that new approaches to delivering care (i.e., ACOs), should be encumbered.  As persuasively pointed out by a letter from the head of the ATA to the head of CMS; “telehealth should be an integral part of how ACOs provide healthcare. The benefits of telehealth for Medicare beneficiaries and Medicare program include:

  • Reduction of in-person overuse, such as in emergency rooms and preventable inpatient admissions
  • Triaging for faster, appropriate specialist care
  • Improve[d] patient outcomes and quality
  • Increase provider productivity
  • Relief for provider shortages
  • Reduction in disparities to patient access
  • Decrease unnecessary variations in care…”
    – Source

While impactful, yet another memo from the ATA on this same subject was even more persuasive.  Entitled “Recommendations to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation,” the ATA explored connecting doctors to patients via telehealth instead of traditional office visits, and the significant savings in Medicare spending that could result.  In this memo, the ATA used the example that Medicare spent over $4.5 billion in 2009 on ambulance rides for patients. While it was not argued that this entire amount was wasteful or unnecessary, the memo pointed out that the Center for Information Technology Leadership analyzed this line item and determined that leveraging telehealth would result in $500 million of annual savings.

We haven’t yet seen the reply by CMS to the ATA memo, but it seems that any past reservations about telehealth should be reevaluated to reduce the friction of pursuing the ACO model.  As the ATA’s Administrator ironically points out in his memo to CMS regarding the CMS ‘definition’ of an ACO: “An ACO will be innovative in the service of the three-part aim of better care for individuals, better health for populations, and lower growth in expenditures.  It will draw upon the best, most advanced models of care, using modern technologies, including telehealth and electronic health records, and other tools to continually reinvent care in the modern age.

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

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 U.S. is on the verge of a dramatic demographic shift as more than 10,000 Baby Boomers turn 65 each day.  This startling demographic change has tremendous implications for our society, ranging from the availability and utilization of our healthcare resources to the staggering, uncontrollable economic cost of providing medical care and support services.

While the problem is wide-spread, the age of Health Reform has shifted the traditional health delivery model to one focused on the individual.  In our research on seniors, TripleTree has unearthed several emerging themes that introduce improved transparency, advocacy, and choice into the senior’s decision-making process regarding their health and prescription drug coverage.  As a result, the senior becomes the focal point to improved coverage that better aligns with their specific health needs as well as cuts unnecessary cost and waste out of the purchasing and enrollment process.

The following themes highlight a few examples of how an alignment around the senior has played into the strategies of large corporate entities as well as emerging innovators that specialize in combining technology with high-touch service capabilities.

Leveraging “Brand”

The new generation of seniors will be much more retail-savvy, will demand greater transparency, and will have improved information tools to help guide all aspects of their health-related spending.  Recognizing this, retailers such as Wal-Mart, Walgreens, and CVS/Caremark are strongly positioned to leverage their trusted brand within the decision-making processes of seniors.

  • Wal-Mart, through a recently announced co-branded Medicare Part D prescription drug plan with Humana, is already taking advantage of this phenomenon.  The Humana Wal-Mart-Preferred Rx Plan (PDP) is being offered in over 4,000 Wal-Mart pharmacies nationwide, providing substantial cost savings for the 18 million Americans that rely on Medicare Part D for their prescriptions.
  • Walgreens has made several acquisitions that place limited service, acute illness clinics in retail stores and employer settings.  These purchases – which include Whole Health Management, I-trax Health Management Solutions, and Take Care Health Systems – highlight Walgreens’ efforts to expand an already trusted relationship with their customers.
  • CVS/Caremark, like Walgreens, has capitalized on an opportunity to expand its platform to include other service-line extensions.  The company’s acquisition of MinuteClinic and subsequently, its rather aggressive expansion strategy have played on the brand’s trusted, neighborhood presence as a means of providing face-to-face care and assistance for seniors and other demographics.

Unique Demands & Approaches

While the complexities of comparing and procuring health insurance are much greater than that of other day-to-day purchasing decisions, new industry dynamics are driving the demand for solutions that can address both the functional requirements of health insurance exchanges as well as the purchasing preferences of seniors.  New innovative approaches are being developed to address the emerging demands of this new healthcare marketplace.

  • Transparency: Several emerging vendors – such as Connextions, Benefitfocus, and Extend Health – have established themselves as trusted sources of information within the health and prescription drug coverage procurement process.  Their solutions interface with multiple data feeds (including eligibility, subsidy, health plan, premium data, etc.) and present this data in an easy-to-use, consumer-friendly format that can be understood and relied upon by the senior.
  • High-Touch Advocacy: Companies that layer personalized advocacy and support services over their core technology are a step ahead as the requisite technology-services mix comes together to enable a comprehensive yet flexible approach that caters to the personal buying habits and technological proficiency of a diverse senior population.
  • Establishing Trust in the Decision-Making Process: Seniors, to an extent greater than their younger peer groups, have a more pronounced set of preferences and possible reservations when it comes to making decisions regarding their health and prescription drug coverage.  This dynamic – which is only exacerbated as the senior ages and experiences accelerated cognitive impairment – introduces greater uncertainty and the potential for mistrust within the purchasing process.  To combat any negative preconceptions, companies that wish to market successfully to seniors must be disciplined in how they incorporate an easy-to-understand decision-making framework with personalized, high-touch guidance and support.

Soon, our research team will be publishing a series of reports on the Seniors market.  A range of themes are evaluated in the context of providing seniors with greater access to resources, support, and decision-making tools as they increasingly desire to age independently in the home.   Let us know if you’d like a copy.

Have a great week.

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 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 »

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 »

In 2011, the first wave of the baby boomers will turn 65, and by 2030, there will be >70 million elderly Americans, more than double the number in 2000.  It has been well discussed that the current health care system does not have the necessary infrastructure to adequately support the complex needs of our aging population.  We continue to hear about the new and innovative technologies that are poised to fix our healthcare delivery system by keeping the seniors well monitored and living in their homes longer.  While technologies for senior care have clearly evolved, many of the challenges that have kept it from widespread adoption over the past twenty years still remain including:

  • Slow adoption among seniors:  Seniors are slower-than-average adopters of technology, and this has contributed to a sense of untapped opportunity in the market.  The underlying reasons for this are not complicated – most products are not designed with the senior population in mind.  It is certainly plausible that seniors would use technology more readily if it were designed to meet their needs, but there is a natural avoidance from this population today.
  • Out-of-pocket costs:  A lack of Medicare reimbursement for remote monitoring of patient care has pushed the costs to the consumers.  Emerging technologies must be able to provide outcomes and ROI studies which prove the value of their product/solution before reimbursement will be considered.
  • Lack of defined sales channels: Because of reimbursement issues, almost all of these products have yet to penetrate a highly visible sales channel.  Until consumer electronics retailers, such as Best Buy start prominently displaying senior care technology solutions, most of these products will remain available only through a distributor or direct from the manufacturer.
  • Regulation and lack of interoperability: The FDA has indicated that it intends to regulate the flow of health information and a lot of confusion still exists around what is and what is not health information.  A lot of attention is focused on the Continua Health Alliance, which will hopefully sort out some of the interoperability issues.
  • Products instead of solutions:  In our view, a key problem in this market is that there are now dozens – if not hundreds – of technology products for the elderly and their caregivers, but very few full solutions.  Every day brings a new press release about a new product.  It seems to me that the future leaders in this market will be those that find a way to offer a fully integrated technology-enabled solution rather than a list of products.

Our team is assessing this pending “Silver Tsunami “and preparing a research publication for release later this quarter.  We’re still early in the seniors-focused technology curve and many ideas/companies will struggle (and fail) amid the challenges described above.  Those organization fortunate enough to grasp it, will thrive in this extremely large and underserved market. Thanks and have a great week.

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 »

Older Posts »