Mighty Casey Media: Comedy Health Analyst

Stop screaming. Laughing hurts less.

Media commentary

World on fire. Film at 11.

by 5 Comments

I wasn’t lucky enough to get a press pass, or a scholarship, to HIMSS15 this year. Given events of the last few days, I’m really sorry I can’t be on the ground in Chicago for what feels like a grassroots revolt brewing in protest of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) dropping an announcement, on Friday late afternoon, that they were thinking of gutting the rules for patient access to their own records under the “Meaningful Use” criteria of healthcare reform. You know, the one where we spent something like $6B of taxpayer money. Which was supposed to make care easier, safer, cheaper.

There are phases and stages of Meaningful Use. We’re in MU2 right now. Originally, by the end of the MU2 period (running through 2020), a practice or facility had to demonstrate that 5% of the people/patients cared for in that practice or facility viewed, downloaded, or transmitted their personal health information (PHI) to a 3rd party. That was the criteria for a healthcare provider seeking stimulus $$ for EHR technology deployment [updating: and Medicare reimbursement].

Here’s the “new” rule (clue train: instead of 5%, it’s 1. No, not 1%, one patient) being proposed:

mu2-gutting

I know, right? Friday afternoon, everyone in the industry is heading to Chicago for HIMSS15, who’ll care? Sorry, CMS, but you are totally busted. Here’s data access rights activist Regina Holliday, who’s at HIMSS and whose hair is now on fire:

Speaking of “hair on fire” … so’s mine.

Seems like the Empire is trying to strike back. Or the Capitol (the big-money healthcare industry players who drop money on K Street lobbyists like snowflakes in Boston in the winter of 2014) thinks it’s run over all the Districts (patients, caregivers, families) and has little to fear from our powerlessness. I think they’re wrong. Dead wrong. And they’re about to find out just *how* wrong. Expert, activist patients, along with savvy clinical folks whose hearts are truly in their work, are now assembled in District 13.

My take can be summed up in this image [updated on Tuesday, April 14]:

bluebutton mockingjay mashup image

We are coming for your silos. Because it’s OUR data, and OUR lives.

Shared decision making, please

by 2 Comments

You’ve heard me before (here, here, and here for a start) on the subject of shared decision making (SDM). Short version: I’m an advocate for partnership in medical care. Partnership that includes the values, outcome goals, and cost considerations of THE. PATIENT. Which means shared decision making.

My buddies over at Software Advice have just published the results of a survey* they did in collaboration with the Mayo Clinic’s Knowledge and Evaluation Research (KER) Unit that took a deep dive into what’s happening in the real world with SDM, and what patients who are exposed to the process think of it.

The key findings:

  1. A majority of patients (68 percent) say they would prefer to make collaborative decisions about treatment options with their healthcare provider.
  2. Forty percent of patients say they have participated in SDM before, and 21 percent have done so within the past year.
  3. Most patients surveyed say that SDM improves their satisfaction (89 percent) and makes them feel more involved in the care they receive (87 percent).
  4. Nearly half (41 percent) of patients report that they would be “much more likely” to adhere to a treatment plan developed using SDM.
  5. 47 percent of patients would be “extremely” or “very likely” to switch to a provider whose practice offers SDM.

If you click through to the full article in the 2nd graf, you’ll see a number of graphs and charts reporting on patients’ responses to questions about provider choice and treatment protocol adherence – one of my least favorite words, but it’s a favorite of pharma and healthcare system peeps, so there it is. The pie chart that stood out for me was this one:

Likelihood to Switch to SDM Provider

11-likelihood-switch

 

For the math-challenged, 80% of the patients surveyed were moderately, very, or extremely likely to switch to a healthcare provider who practices SDM. Physicians and other clinicians who interact with patients at the point of care need to digest this: fully informing patients of the treatment options available to them, and working with patients to craft a treatment plan TOGETHER, is a survival strategy for the clinician. Ignore SDM principles at the peril of your continued professional relevance.

This is particularly timely given my upcoming attendance at the Lown Institute’s Road to RightCare: Engage, Organize, Transform conference in San Diego March 8 through March 11. I’ll be hearing from researchers, clinical teams, patient voices, and policy wonks on how to create a right-care healthcare system whose bedrock is shared decision making.

Also, the recent JAMA Oncology articles on the myth of the demanding patient, which myth has formed some of the institutional-side (translation: dinosaur providers) pushback against the wide adoption of patient input on their treatment (in other words: SDM) in the U.S. and elsewhere, are starting to knock down the walls that have kept SDM from becoming the standard medical practice model it should be.

“Nothing about me, without me” is a rallying cry of the participatory medicine movement. Shared decision making is, I believe, part of an overall civil rights issue, since patients who aren’t asked their goals and preferences for treatment are being given care that isn’t their choice. A real hurdle for SDM is going to be the inevitable end-of-life conversation – life is, after all, 100% fatal – that we all have to have, unless we die suddenly in a plane crash or car wreck.

Where are you on the SDM spectrum? Does your doctor talk you through all your options, or just write you a prescription or send you for a scan? “Shut up and do as I say” medicine needs to be consigned to the scrapheap of history. Agree? Disagree? Share your thoughts in the comments.

*Source: Practice Management systems consultancy Software Advice

EHR technology: Match.com without a happy ending?

by 3 Comments

My last two posts explored the question of the doctor/patient relationship in the context of romantic relationships. The first one asked if we were anywhere close to getting engaged, the second looked at the possibility that the whole enchilada needed some intervention-level relationship counseling.

In the couple of weeks since, I’ve had some interesting digital and face to face conversations about digital communication tools, patient engagement, and the doctor/patient relationship that have led me to ask if the crop of EHR (Electronic Health Record) systems in current use across the land, as part of Obamacare’s drive toward healthcare system quality, safety, and access (or, as I like to put it, to the tune of “Old McDonald Had a Farm,” EHR, HIE, E-I-E-I-O!), aren’t analogous to online dating sites like Match.com.

healthcare cupid imageWhich leads me to the observation that the EHR tech I see – all of it, from Epic to Practice Fusion to athenahealth to NextGen to Cerner – can in many ways be compared to Match.com. You put in personal data – name, personal details, outcome goals – and the technology (supposedly) helps you toward your goal. With EHR, that’s best-health, with Match.com, it’s a romantic relationship, but both take data input, digitize it, and claim to provide solutions based on that input.

And I have to say that my observed success ratio on both EHR technology and online dating is similar. As in: mostly it feels like “failure to launch.”

So … go grab a cup of coffee, or a bottle of water. This will be a lengthy look at that question, but I promise to bring it home with at least a couple of laughs along with my pointed observations.

The leading lights of healthcare IT haven’t made the doctor-patient relationship any easier to create and maintain than Match.com has for romatic relationships. For every success story, there are hundreds (thousands? millions?) of examples of bitter frustration. With the billions (yes, with a B) spent on buying and implementing EHR systems, the phrase “meaningful use” – which was supposed to be the demonstration of clinical and patient communication tools to enable better quality healthcare – has become a punchline.

A couple of weeks ago, I shared a post from The Health Care Blog by Bob Wachter, an interview with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center CIO John Halamka, on my social media channels. In it, Halamka said that only 3% of patients wanted their health records kept locked up tight behind virtual doors, so he had to lock up the data of the other 97% to keep the 3% happy. When I shared that post on my LinkedIn profile, it opened a conversation about that statement, such as what the heck the underlying facts to support it were.

“It’s interesting that the 3% figure was not referenced. I am not in the health informatics field, nor do I have time to do an in depth literature review for discussion. However, a quick Google search yields several informative studies. One small study (n=30) of patient preferences found that patients wanted granularity in terms of what they want to share, or not share. No participant wanted to universally share ALL information. Another study (n=105) reported that 1 in 2 patients hid medical information from their own doctors.”

In other words, is that 3%/97% statement the equivalent of creating convenient details about yourself on an online dating profile? When I asked a few people in the e-patient zone about this, I heard this story about how a major health records system in Boston [spoiler alert: Halamka’s IT system] basically spewed garbage instead of useful patient health history data when they opened the data taps to the now-dead Google Health. So, apparently it’s exactly like confabulating facts on an online dating profile. Also, some additional reading led me to a story on CIO about an epic system failure, also in Boston [spoiler alert: I’ll let you figure out what/why], that tied up an entire hospital network’s system for five long days in November 2002.

Back to my metaphor, of EHR tech being analogous to online dating. If the communication partner you’re talking to says they’re a 42 year old architect in Cambridge, or the lab that’s just completed the path report on your biopsy, can you trust what they’re saying? Is there accessible, verifiable information to support the claim? Can you believe what you’re seeing? Can you even SEE what’s really there?

Both of those scenarios rely on trust, and a sense of security. And the ability to actually SEE. WHAT’S. GOING. ON. As Mordac, the “preventer of information services” in the Dilbert comic strip, says, “Security is more important than usability. In a perfect world, no one would be able to use anything.”

I had the opportunity last week to be part of the Health Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS)’s first Patient Engagement Summit in Orlando. Yep, more acronyms – E-I-E-I-O. The two panels I was part of talked about the current state of the doctor/patient relationship, and the overall event was all about how technology can either support, or hinder, that relationship. The crazy part is that both the clinical side of healthcare – doctors, nurses, researchers – and the patient side – the rest of us – are desperately determined to get engaged (with each other), get married (create the best possible outcomes), and live happily ever after (better community health for EVERYBODY!).

The trouble is, I’m afraid, that the tools that are supposed to be the grease on the rails to making that happen – the digital communication systems that hold our care data – are set up by Mordac. Screaming headlines about stuff like the recent Anthem breach are like screaming headlines about sharp rises in sexual assault figures – they’re a real buzz-kill for trust between possible relationship partners.

If you actually know me, you know I’ve taken a rather extreme step toward fostering relationship clarity, doctor/patient-wise. It’s the image that is my Twitter avatar (click that link to see it), and it is a real 3×3″ QR code tattooed on my chest. I can’t say that it has any effect on my dating profile (I bailed on online dating years ago), but it has made many of my healthcare-relationship interactions … interesting.

Can I, or any of us, trust health IT and EHRs to help make our healthcare relationships happy and successful? Or are we stuck in the slough of despond that is Match.com?

Give me your thoughts in the comments …

#epatient – Are Millennials Born That Way?

by 1 Comment

Most of the people I meet in my voyages ’round healthcare system transformation, grassroots edition, arrived at the portal of #epatient via a trip through the medical-industrial complex. Either they, or someone they cared for, wound up getting “a thing” – cancer, Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, player to be named later – and they found themselves inside the medical care delivery system, bewildered, and looking for answers.

In short, most – not all, by any means, but most – are over 40.

Imagine my surprise, and delight, when I was sent a report on a survey conducted with 385 randomly selected patients across the US*, with most of the responses coming from 18 to 35 year old millennials (people born 1982 and after). The survey asked them their opinions on shared decision making, open notes, and shared medical visits, three new medical practice models that are rising in adoption.

Here’s the context of the survey questions:

  • Shared decision-making involves the doctor and patient evaluating multiple treatment options and deciding together on the best course of action.
  • Open notes is a policy allowing patients to view the medical notes doctors take about them during visits, which includes accessing those notes from home.
  • Shared medical appointments, or “group visits,” involve attending an extended (60- to 90-minute) medical appointment with 10 to 15 other patients and one or more physicians.

The survey results make me think we might finally be reaching a tipping point toward positive change, given that a big majority (76%) of respondents said they were extremely or very likely to use shared decision making. Over 60% were extremely or very likely to welcome open notes:

Millennial PM Likelihood 4

 

The demographics of the survey respondents was a pretty representative sample as far as chronic conditions go:

Millennial PM Chronic Disease

One surprise in the demographic detail was that more men responded than women. Given that, historically at least, women have been more likely to use the medical care system (annual Pap smears, reproductive health visits) than men, the fact that men outnumbered women in this gives me even more hope. Are dudes getting it? “It” being that their health is their responsibility, and that a relationship with a good primary care provider is a good life plan.

Millennial PM Gender

To recap, millennials want shared decision making and open notes. Shared/group appointments, not so much. I think that the shared/group appointment approach would be best deployed in “building health literacy” settings: condition-specific education on diabetes, for example. I also think that telemedicine needs its own survey, given that practice model could be used both real-time or asynchronously via secure video links.

The millennial generation has grown up with digital tools and instant access to information. I seriously doubt that they’re going to be willing to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous wait times, or outrageous balance billing, when they seek medical care. Hope for real system transformation may have crested the distant horizon, and be riding toward us. May its speed be supersonic.

*Source: Practice Management systems consultancy Software Advice

Healthcare.gov and me: I win!

by 2 Comments

Unless you’ve been living under a rock since October 1, you’ve heard that Healthcare.gov, the site where Americans can shop for health insurance, had a rocky start in life. OK, it was an epic mess.

I was one of the people who was eager to jump on the site on October 1, since I haven’t had health insurance since I completed cancer treatment in 2008. That cancer diagnosis and treatment put me in the pre-existing condition pile, which put renewal insurance premiums for my individual coverage at an eye-popping level. You can read the details on that here. On October 1, I hopped on my Mac, and surfed over to Healthcare.gov … and had the same experience everyone else seemed to be having:

healthcare.gov error message image
image credit: forbes.com

That continued over the following seven days, with me developing a nice little flat spot on my forehead from head/desk-ing my way through many attempts per day at getting past the first step of creating a profile on the site. Even when I had completed that process of creating a profile, every time the site announced “Success! Click here to continue.” I clicked “there” and … got a blank page.

On October 8, I realized that I, and the site’s developers, might have missed something. I was using Google Chrome, my default browser, and the dominant browser across the web. Could it be that the dim bulbs that built the Frankenstein that is the Healthcare.gov site optimized the site only for native browsers? I opened Safari, and discovered that yes, they were indeed that dim, because even though the site loaded at the speed of a slug on Quaaludes, it did load. And “Success!” allowed me to continue the enrollment process. No blank pages.

I re-enacted scenes from 1995, when I would log on to Netscape to download email on my dial-up connection: open the page, hit “go,” and then make coffee. When I returned with a hot cup of joe, I’d repeat the process on each subsequent page, working in another tab while the site loaded the next page in the process. I managed to complete the entire enrollment process, save for the last “pull the trigger” step of hitting the ENROLL button, because I wanted to make sure I had the money for my first month’s premium available. Which turned out to be unnecessary, since when I did hit the ENROLL button, I got a message saying that my selected insurer would be contacting me about billing. That conversation happened a few days ago, and I’ve paid my first month’s premium.

As of January 1, 2014, I’ll have health insurance again for the first time since December 31, 2008. WIN.

Here is the upside of what I saw in my voyage through Healthcare.gov:

  • Even though my state is one that announced it “hated Obamacare, would not be building its own marketplace, and we hate Obamacare,” there was a wide array of plans offered to me.
  • I could compare plans side-by-side.
  • Premiums were a wide range, with some surprises: the lowest-premium Bronze Plan had 0% co-insurance (I wasn’t on the hook for a percentage of cost on covered services), with higher premium plans tagged with 25% co-insurance.

Here’s the thing that made me go “WTF?”:

  • Only the Bronze Plans are HSA-friendly. HSA=Health Savings Account, essentially 401(k)s for healthcare. Individuals can sock away $3,300/year (in 2014) of pre-tax money in a dedicated savings account for healthcare costs, with people over 55 allowed to sock away an additional $1,000 for a total of $4,300 in 2014. Since all the Bronze Plans I was offered had deductibles of $5,500 or more, with the plan I selected carrying a $6,350 deductible, it would seem reasonable – fairer? – to allow consumers to fund their HSAs annually to match the level of their deductible.

On the whole, this is a big win for me, and other uninsured people who fell into the “pre-existing condition” bucket. By the way, just being female was considered a pre-existing condition until the Affordable Care Act passed. In spite of the views of Fox News talking heads (all male, of course), gender equality needs to exist in all phases of public life, including health insurance.

Bottom line? I win.

#HCSM Review 36: Exploring healthcare costs, access, e-patients as experts

by 3 Comments

hcsm-triptych.jpg

Welcome to the MightyCasey–hosted edition of the HealthWorksCollective #HCSM Review, a peer-reviewed compendium of timely, on-topic writing about healthcare from across the web.

Last Friday, I put out a call for posts about healthcare costs and/or health insurance innovation for the HCSM community. Here’s the brain candy that flew over the MightyCaseyMedia transom:

First up: an examination of STD occurrence alongside STD testing costs in the New York metro area from ClearHealthCosts.com (@chcosts), written by Sherry Mazzocchi. This is a deep dive into the incidence of STDs across New York City, with snapshots of what consumers actually pay for STD testing at a number of facilities across the region. Runs from $0 (for members of a subscription medical practice) to $600 for women who visit a Westchester County practice. Like Uwe Reinhardt has said for years, healthcare pricing is chaos behind a veil of secrecy.

For patients looking to pierce that veil and direct-pay for their care, ClearHealthCosts’ founder Jeanne Pinder offers up this post – New ways of paying: Cutting out the middleman. Seems like everybody’s looking for a better way to hold down health costs. In a number of cases, that means patient and provider are getting together directly, without the middleman (the insurance company). You could start asking, “How much is that?” and acting on the answer.

With Oct. 1 and the dawn of the ACA’s new health insurance marketplaces, Jeanne Pinder shares What it means to you: Oct. 1 and buying health insurance. Maybe you avoid the topic of health insurance, but you can’t any longer. If you’re not covered by employer insurance, Medicare or Medicaid, you will need to know things about buying insurance (or choosing not to buy it). Her post offers some actionable advice on how to figure out what the marketplace means to you.

From one of my favorite places, Costs of Care (@CostsofCare), comes a post by David Marcovitz titled “A Routine Denial,” about how it feels to have an expensive test declined by your insurer after it’s been done. If you’ve ever been on the receiving end of one of these notices, you know that it feels anything but routine. After the appeals process. David discovered just how chaotic healthcare pricing is. A great read.

Like David, Brave Bosom founder Andrea Downing (@BraveBosom) discovered that she had a genetic predisposition to a disease. In her case, it was BRCA, the genetic mutation that increases risk for breast cancer. Andrea is a leader in the young “previvor” community, and offers up this post on what healthcare reform means for her, for her community, and for other people who have potential destructive dynamite in their DNA. Genetic testing and counseling is a terrific resource; worrying how it might impact your insurance coverage shouldn’t have to be a consideration when you’re making a decision about your health.

ePatient Dave deBronkart (@ePatientDave) is a world-famous (really) patient activist. He’s written two books, and spoken at conferences across the globe. His post “Ratty boxers: what it means to really, truly have no money” resonated powerfully for me, since all e-patient experts face the same challenge: patients aren’t yet seen as experts worthy of remuneration by the healthcare industry. Dave has helped move the needle on that – here’s hoping that his message spreads into the hearts and minds of organizations who are still expecting patients to pay for the privilege of speaking to audiences who need to know what we know: how to make healthcare more human-friendly.

Alan Brewington (@abrewi3010) blogs at PainTalks.com – he’s a guy with chronic arthritis from some rather epic sports injuries. He sent along a post on the pending health insurance exchanges from the front lines in a Red State: Idaho. Titled “Health Insurance Exchange, Idaho, Arthritis, and Me,” Alan’s post walks the reader through an exploration of the new health insurance exchange marketplace, figuring out what kind of coverage is available at what premium cost. As a chronic pain patient, Alan knows more about the ins and outs of health insurance than the average guy his age, and makes some good observations about what it will take for healthcare reform to work.

Closing our cavalcade of #HCSM awesome, here’s a post from Carolyn Thomas at MyHeartSisters.com (@HeartSisters) on how online communities help patients cope, and give them the power to move on. “Discover. Join. Leave.” is a great journey through the life cycle of online patient groups. Some come and stay, others arrive looking for specific help, all make a contribution when they can. Peer-to-peer healthcare is a web, just like … the web. Carolyn tells a great troll-taming story, too – another terrific read.

If you’d like to participate in the HealthWorksCollective #HCSM Review – click this link to look at the schedule, and find out how to get on the list. Thanks for reading, and I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments!