Skip to main content
Tag

Storytelling

Oct 24 2018

Whither Cochrane, for e-patients and everyone else?

By healthcare industry
Image from Twitter user @Rasha_Fadlallah

This will be the third, and last, in my short series on attending the Cochrane Colloquium in Edinburgh in September of this year. In the first post, I talked about what that conference was like; in the second, I shared an overview of Cochrane as a global movement to make medical evidence work better for clinicians, patients, and communities around the world. This last one will talk about some of the issues Cochrane is facing, as an organization and as a proponent of science in a world that seems to have a rising suspicion of science and research.

I watched the Cochrane Colloquium open not just with a welcome to Edinburgh – although there was that, in spades – but with a behind-the-scenes PR flame war that wound up sucking up the the headline space for Cochrane that week, and in the weeks since. I talked about it in my podcast the following week, and have watched the conversation go by since my first day on the ground at the Edinburgh International Convention Center. The short-snort version of what happened is this:

  • On September 14, the Friday before the Cochrane Colloquium was to kick off (on Sunday the 16th), a letter went up on the Cochrane Nordic Center site’s News page from Dr. Peter Gøtzsche, wherein he announced that he had been expelled from the Cochrane governing board by a slim majority vote by that board. He cast it as a moral crisis, caused by Cochrane’s too-chummy relationship with the pharmaceutical industry. That letter has since disappeared from the Cochrane Nordic pages, the link is to a PDF on the Mad In America site.
  • Cochrane itself stayed silent for 24 hours, putting up its response to Gøtzsche’s letter late on Saturday, referencing only an independent review of “complaints related to the conduct of a Member” and saying that they would comment further only when the review was complete (confusing, right?).
  • Throughout the Colloquium, conversations went on everywhere but on the platform about this letter, the expulsion of Gøtzsche from Cochrane’s governing body, and what the reasons for same might be. There seemed to be no real detail on “reasons” beyond “behavior,” which behavior was never specifically defined.
  • This took over the entire agenda of the Cochrane Annual General Meeting at the Colloquium, bumping the report from the Cochrane Consumer Network, and other agenda items. Image in this post is from a Cochrane AGM attendee during the meeting.
  • Conversations about this appeared in mainstream media, including the Boston Globe’s STAT News, “Turmoil erupts over expulsion of member from leading evidence-based medicine group“; in the journal Nature, “Mass resignation guts board of prestigious Cochrane Collaboration“; in the BMJ blog, “Trish Greenhalgh: The Cochrane Collaboration—what crisis?” (note: I find this post by Trish Greenhalgh to be the most even-handed of the ones linked so far).
  • Hilda Bastian, a scientist, writer, and cartoonist, put up a great piece on her PLOSOne blog, “Boilover: The Cochrane HPV Vaccine Fire Isn’t Really About the Evidence – but it’s Critical to Science” that captures the issue well, with the bonus of visuals.

I’m a professional communicator, so I’m amazed that Cochrane let the guy they were drop-kicking get the story out first. That’s PR 101 – s/he who gets the story out first owns the narrative. When the drop-kickee got the first announcement out, Cochrane was left in damage control mode, with neither side fleshing out any of the details regarding the “behavior” that led to the drop-kick. The social exhaust of that damage control continues to waft across the landscape. Cochrane will most certainly survive, and I hope that they learned from this series of unfortunate events. Crisis communications planning is totally a thing – a thing I recommend every organization and enterprise get savvy to.

My point? Science is as messy a business as any other human endeavor. As soon as you think you’ve got your hands, and your mind, wrapped around something … it squirrels away, and changes the entire question. Add human behavior and emotion, and stuff can flame up quickly.

Here’s my suggestion: Cochrane needs more ground-level troops – the ones called “patients,” or “citizen scientists,” or just “people” – to participate in the scientific inquiry that forms the body of their work. This is true across all scientific fields, but it’s particularly true in medical science. Human health and care is the ultimate purpose of all medical research, which means that having people/patients included in that work is critical. Much of the “science denial” hooey behind stuff like the anti-vaxx movement and the silliness that is anything Mehmet Oz says, or Gwyneth Paltrow ditto, is rooted in the giant castle walls that have separated people from Important Work In Science with paywalls, and the mindset that said “doctor knows best” when it came to medical practice. But those castle walls are being stormed on the regular since the democratization of knowledge and access to information that arrived when Tim Berners-Lee came up with the World Wide Web at CERN back in 1989.

Medical science is threaded through with uncertainty. Intuition, hypothesis, testing that hypothesis, analyzing results … lather, rinse, repeat. Getting citizen scientists and front line clinicians involved in the creation, analysis, and compilation of the science that informs how humans get and/or stay healthy is a civil/human rights issue, as well as an acceleration-of-discovery play. Paternalism can’t run the table any more. There also has to be an ongoing, robust discussion of that science: is it trustworthy, who paid for it, how much implicit bias was either included or removed, how can population-level science intersect with n-of-1 precision medicine, the 21st century medical science unicorn? Everybody in, nobody out, bring on the inevitable arguments. Scientific papers are basically arguments – don’t be afraid of conflict, from conflict can come consensus, alignment, and progress. Participatory science, it can totally be a thing.

Whither Cochrane? I think it’s up to us, the citizens of the world who care about making healthcare better for everyone. Let’s get to work.

This post originally appeared on the Society for Participatory Medicine blog

Oct 30 2017

Selling my health data? CUT. ME. IN. BITCHES.

By healthcare industry, politics

keep calm and sell your data imageRemember when American taxpayers spent over $25B(that’s billion) on digitizing medical records? If you don’t … well, we did.

The last time you went to the doctor, how easy was it for you to see your aftercare instructions online, or follow up on your prescriptions, or get your lab results in the online patient portal?

My guess is that it might have been easy-ish to see stuff in your doctor’s patient portal, but sharing that data from, say, your primary care MD with your ob/gyn or your rheumatologist — unless they were in the same system, in the same practice office — would have been a big NOPE. You would have done what all of us did back in the ’80s, and the ’90s, and the ’00s, and still today — you would have printed it out, or paid for a copy, and then lugged that paper with you to the other MD’s office. Where it would have been stuffed into a paper chart, and/or hand-entered into that practice’s EHR (Electronic Health Record). 20% — that’s one in five — MDs still use paper charts (as of 2016).

OK, so now you’re as up to speed as you’ll need to be for the rest of my point here — American taxpayers have shelled out major moolah to digitize medical records. When it comes to those American taxpayers’ benefits from said digitization, that’s YMMV territory, that right there.

Which makes the major moolah that the healthcare system is minting off of de-IDing and selling the data inside those records pretty infuriating. What, you say, you had no idea that was happening? Not surprising, because the healthcare system DOES. NOT. WANT. YOU. TO. KNOW., since if you did know, you might protest. Or even (gasp) ask to be cut in on that moolah.

Have you ever heard of a company called QuintilesIMS [NYSE: Q]? If not, you’re not alone. IMS Health was founded in the 1950s, and built a market for prescription data collected by their field agents in pharmacies across the US, and then the world. Quintiles was founded in the 1980s as a CRO (Contract Research Organization) recruiting for pharmaceutical clinical trials. IMS merged with Quintiles last year (2016), yielding up the new QuintilesIMS.

The company hoovers up petabytes-worth of our health record data every year — not a HIPAA violation, since this data is “de-identified” (just go Google “Latanya Sweeney” for some 411 on how effective that whole de-ID-ing thing really is) — and then sells it to the highest bidder. The revenue from those sales amounts to a significant chunk of the company’s earnings (2016 total revenue $1.953B — major moolah, indeed).

That’s

  • our health data
  • created by our interaction with our healthcare team
  • paid for by us, and our healthcare coverage.

American healthcare cost $3.4 trillion-with-a-T in 2016. American taxpayers ponied up more than $25 billion-with-a-B to make it easier for data brokers like QuintilesIMS to suck up and sell the data in our medical records.

I think it’s long past time for all the players in this little major-moolah circle jerk to recognize just “whose data is it anyway” and start spreading the gelt. Amazon cards; points amassed for vacations or cars or furniture, o my; tuition credits; tax breaks; a partridge in a pear tree, dipped in platinum — any of those would work. Even cold, hard cash.

But first, we gotta rise up, and demand it, in chorus. There’s a rising level of noise about creating a new economy, for/by the people, based on the data created by we-the-people.

The conventional commercial doctrine is that data are proprietary to the companies that collect them. This needs to change profoundly and completely since the playing field can only be leveled by making data available to all potential competitors. One way of achieving this is to ensure data belong to the people who generate the information, i.e., to individuals who drive cars, surf the internet, and buy goods. Enforcing this principle will ensure that data can be accessed by all, but also that individuals are compensated for the activities that generate information, at the same time as receiving a strong degree of privacy protection. ~ Foreign Policy, “It’s Time to Found a New Republic” August 14, 2017

Let’s make it happen. Start the chorus. Three … two … one … SING!

I’d say we start singing in the direction of the FCC, the FTC, and our (totally not doing their jobs these days) Congressional “representatives.” And start singing out about data-brokers like QuintilesIMS.

We MUST pay attention to the man behind the curtain. ’Cause he’s holding on to ALL of the money!

This post originally appeared on my Medium channel. 

Jun 20 2016

Primary + People/Patients = Winning?

By healthcare industry, politics

I’ve been all over ever’where so far this year, invited to participate in a number of events that, taken together, seem to indicate there’s some progress being made on “healthcare system transformation,” even if it’s still happening at a glacial pace. One of these events was the Starfield Summit, put together by the Robert Graham Center, which is the policy think-tank arm of the American Academy of Family Physicians. I fielded an invite when the Graham Center reached out to the Lown Institute to ask if there was a patient-type human who might lend something to the conversation as an attendee.

So I took the “let patients help” rallying cry to DC for a couple days of lock-in with a bunch of primary care docs and the wonks who love them. Which, by the way, includes me, which you know if you’ve been paying attention. Primary care docs are the ideal partners for people/patients who are working to shift the USS Medical Industrial Complex aircraft carrier – both primary care MDs and patients are low on the medical-industrial complex power pole, so if we team up, we might be able to boost each other up to start showing up on the power radar.

If you’d like a good overview of the importance and impact of primary care on a health system, something that Ben Miller shared on the first day is a great précis. Money quote from the conclusion, IMO:

Primary care is imperative for building a strong healthcare system that ensures positive health outcomes, effectiveness and efficiency, and health equity. It is the first contact in a healthcare system for individuals […]. It provides individual and family-focused and community-oriented care for preventing, curing or alleviating common illnesses and disabilities, and promoting health.

What I heard, saw, and discussed over the two days tells me that a power amplification is not fully “there” yet, but it’s building. My ticket to the party is one indicator, the other is that I made it clear during my time there that I brought a penetrating view of the system as it is, the system as it could be, and how we might work together – primary care clinicians and people/patients – to turn our aircraft carrier away from grounding on the rocks of “sucks up 47 times its weight in GDP” economic disaster. Oh, and not kill folks in the process, since that’s also a good goal, right? Quality, lower cost, satisfied patients, satisfied *providers* – the quadruple aim that AAFP itself codified a few years ago.

The format of the event was refreshing – there was the usual “sit in a big room, listen to wonks, watch slide decks” stuff, but that was broken up over the two days by what I’ll call “working group breakouts” where we assembled in small groups, in separate rooms, to wrestle the Big Ideas under discussion, which were:

20160424_084730

Just a small topic, since it’s the core of everything, right? Primary care IS healthcare, but primary care clinicians are paid much lower reimbursement rates than, say, cardiac surgeons (thanks to the RUC, who make sure the *specialty* MDs get the big bucks re reimbursement), primary MDs/NPs/RNs have low-on-the-pole status when it comes to $$. And $$ = power in most cultures, including ours. My key takeaways from that segment of the session, which tackled

  1. Payment, measurement, and the primary care paradox
  2. What does effective primary care look like?
  3. Disruptive innovations in primary care payment
  4. Primary care payment, social determinants, and community risk

can be summed up in one statement from my breakouts, “we have internalized the oppressor.” This tweet also sums up the discussion pretty well.

 

Lunch featured a keynote by Shannon Brownlee of the Lown Institute. Ben Miller captured the essence here:

 

Next on the Big Ideas discussion list was the metrics of primary care. Specifically:

  1. Measuring primary care: lessons from the UK quality outcomes framework
  2. Payment reform, performance measurement, and delivery system transformation
  3. Measuring the three Cs: comprehensiveness, continuity, and coordination
  4. Payment and measurement innovations in the primary care of children

My takeaways from the 3+ hours we spent wrestling those ideas and input can be summed up with:

  • Embracing the concept of a Learning Health System is the only way forward (next time, they must invite Josh Rubin to the party!)
  • Without the community fully embedded in the creation and governance of a healthcare system, you’re measuring the wrong stuff
  • Adding health literacy – “how my body works” and “how doctors/nurses/care workers can help me” – to K-12 education HAS. TO. HAPPEN.
  • We have to stop admiring the problem and start actually CHANGING the system

Core issue? This:

 

Day 2 kicked off with an examination of how primary care teams can impact the success or failure of a system of care. The pieces of that puzzle:

  1. Innovations in primary care teams
  2. Linking primary care, public health, and the community
  3. Integrated teams (primary care + mental health)
  4. Training a diverse primary care team

My time on the board of Virginia Supportive Housing (2004 – 2010) gave me a close-up view of the power of the “housing first” model in health/mental health care in an underserved population, and the exponential impact that addressing the social determinants of health has on the actual health of an individual, and therefore that person’s community at large. Help someone get off the street – “housing first” – and provide them with wraparound services, including basic healthcare, and magic happens. Yeah, it’s complicated, but as Winston Liaw said in his welcome on Day 2:

 

My takeaway from that morning round of robust discussion lined up as:

  • Effective teaming will take agitation from the lower depths (citizens, community health workers) to shake up status quo
  • A shared leadership model has to emerge, one that includes PEOPLE (the ones called “patients) in system leader positions
  • “It takes time” can’t supersede the desperate need for rapid-cycle change in the healthcare system (stop admiring the problem!)
  • Until healthcare includes mental health, full-stop, we’ll be stuck in cycling #fail

The afternoon sessions tackled:

  1. Building primary care teams
  2. Advancing teamwork between the medical home and the medical neighborhood
  3. Shifting culture of primary care teams
  4. Statewide innovations in primary care payment

My favorite quick-hit presentation from that set was Andrew Morris-Singer from Primary Care Progress, who said, among many other things, that

 

On the topic of building primary care teams, he said this:

 

That one in the lower right – “trust” – is bedrock. Without trust, none of this will happen, and trust only happens when you have face-time to build a relationship. That’s true inside the medical team, and double-true when you’re talking care team/community relationship building.

Mar 16 2016

Help us, IBM-Dell-Apple. You’re our only hope.

By healthcare industry, media commentary, politics, technology

I’ve been on the road a lot over the last six months, getting the chance to interact with (and, I hope, influence), audiences in health tech and health policy. There’s so much desire for change, search for innovation, and just straight up “desperately seeking [something]” out there, it’s almost hilarious that no real change/shift/what-have-you has yet occurred in the giant $3-trillion/year-and-rising sucking sound that is the American healthcare system.

Which is why I concluded, long ago, that the system would not be re-invented from within, particularly when it comes to the tech side of the party. Since the medical-industrial complex is keeping the fax machine manufacturers of the universe in business, it’s hard not to snort with laughter at tech “innovations” that emerge from inside the complex’s ivory towers.

Tech innovation – on both the consumer and the system side – will come from companies with a proven history of delighting ground-level customers. The ones I like to call “people.” Here’s a Casey-ism that will be appearing in a new report on tech in healthcare from The Beryl Institute:

“My sense about technology, and whether it’s engagement or system improvement or anything in this zone, I think that the change is going to come from outside the healthcare industry. The solutions are going to be delivered by companies or entities that have a history of putting technology in the hands of consumers (people) and having those consumers (people) say ‘awesome!’ and just start using it.”

I don’t think anyone – consumer or clinician – has touched anything related to Electronic Health Records (EHR) tech and said anything resembling “awesome” about the experience.

ehr-no-one-ever

We, as a nation, have thrown $30+ billion at getting our healthcare delivery system into the 21st century, but have so far only seen it get to the point where it’s partying like it’s 1995 (Windows 95 – it’s AWESOME! Not.). Data exchange, a/k/a “interop,” is still a distant dream, which is why I have a QR code tattooed on my sternum as a political statement. “I am my own HIE,” essentially.

What we need here is a “1984” moment in healthcare. Not the George Orwell book, but the Mac computer ad that ran on Jan. 22, 1984 during the third quarter of the Super Bowl.

Epic Systems won’t deliver it. As much as Jonathan Bush would like athenahealth to deliver it … nope. Our “Obi Wan only hope” is going to have to come from a company that’s got a track record – distant or current – of delivering into the hands of consumers easy-to-use tech that has them saying “awesome!” and then … just using it.

ibm-dell-apple-3-way
“Help us, IBM-Dell-Apple. You’re our only hope.”

Which is why I’m saying “help us, IBM-Dell-Apple, you’re our only hope.” I’m not including Google, because they’ve already tried/failed, with GoogleHealth, and then (IMO, stupidly) abandoned the healthcare vertical after one play.

IBM might seem like an odd player to include here, but I know what they’re up to at the Serious Games lab at UNC under gamer-grrl extraordinaire Phaedra Boinodoris. (The Medical Minecraft project is of particular note there.)

Dell is in the personalized-medicine space, particularly in pediatric cancer, where they’ve built the Neuroblastoma and Medulloblastoma Translational Research Consortium (NMTRC) as a tumor board tool across 25 universities and children’s hospitals looking to build some real precision medicine/faster cures to fight children’s brain cancer.

Apple is the only player to serve up an actual consumer device with health apps – the iWatch and the ResearchKit, which turns an iPhone into a research contribution engine for a variety of projects looking at conditions from autism to breast cancer to Parkinson’s disease.

People, consumers, are ready (desperate?) to engage with the healthcare system using the same digital tools they use daily to manage everything from soccer practice to shopping lists to banking: their smartphones. The challenge to the healthcare system is to make tools to make that possible … which they have utterly failed to do, to date.

It’s time to hand the problem to proven consumer-delighters.

“Help us, IBM-Dell-Apple. You’re our only hope.”

Dec 07 2015

Internet of Things (IoT) + healthcare = what, exactly?

By healthcare industry, technology

You can’t turn around these days without running into a headline about the Internet of Things (IoT). It seems as if everything from your car to your cardiac pacemaker is talking to everything else on the internet, and we’re all about to

If you’re confused about the whole IoT thing, and what it means to healthcare, you’re not alone.

As buzzphrases go, “Internet of Things” is having its Andy Warhol 15 minutes of fame on an auto-replay loop right now … but what will the actual interconnectedness of the technology we use in our daily lives deliver to us in the way of helping us live better/healthier lives? Will we find ourselves living out a cautionary “I, Robot” sci-fi tale as we become slaves to our IoT robot masters?

The answer is … (wait for it) … “it depends.” And what it depends on is how we humans build and interact with our robot mast … um, the Internet of Things.

The biggest challenge is that healthcare, as an industry, sees the people it serves – we’ll call those people “patients” – as the product, not the customer. Which, I think, goes a long way to explaining why this most human of all industry sectors – the one we seek help from when we get sick – has so resolutely resisted becoming digitally accessible/approachable to its customer base.

If you need a ride, Uber. If you want to shop, Amazon. If you want dinner, Yelp or BlueApron. If you need a doctor’s appointment … well, you can call the office to make an appointment. Or use the portal (if there is one). Or hit up the local urgent care. But there will be plenty of waiting, and it’s unlikely to be a tech-assisted process in any meaningful way.

How could the IoT help you in this situation? Well, if you have an iWatch, or an Android smartwatch (yes, there are such things), you could share your health-related data with your doctor (if s/he has an electronic medical records system that allows for that – pro tip: there ain’t many of those). There are a few consumer-accessible IoT devices that can communicate with clinical teams, like the AliveCor mobile ECG.

The IoT revolution, which allows your refrigerator to alert you if you’re low on milk and your car to text you to remind you it’s time for an oil change, hasn’t really arrived in healthcare. Sure, your iWatch and your Fitbit can send and receive health-related data via the web to you, and to anyone you’ve shared it with, but that “anyone” is unlikely to be your doctor unless s/he is a *very* early-adopter, tech-wise.

For those of us who are early-adopters on the consumer side of tech, this presents an opportunity to be leaders in the healthcare arena by testing and assessing IoT quantified-self and self-tracking tools. When we find something that works well for us – in losing weight, in managing a chronic condition – we can then encourage our healthcare partners (our doctors and nurses) to join in our tech-enabled self-care.

What about the hackers who are lying in wait for all that user-generated data on the Internet of Things? The folks at Arxan sent me the infographic below, which is a great starting place to assess the security of any IoT app or device you’re assessing.

Meanwhile, gotta dash. My Fitbit is reminding me it’s time for a walk.

 

 

Nov 06 2015

Elephants, middlemen, and systems – oh, my!

By healthcare industry, politics, technology

I’ve been MIA here, but I’ve been loud/proud pretty much everywhere else in the last few months. Including here and here.  What follows is a rant based on what I’ve been seeing/doing since last seen on this page.

Elephants

There’s an old joke that goes like this: “What’s an elephant?” “It’s a mouse designed by a government committee.” There’s also the old “elephant in the room” bromide about topics that are not to be mentioned under any circumstances, despite their obvious impact on the issue under discussion. And the “How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.” motivational meme, along with the “blind guys describing an elephant” metaphor used to explain the impact of silo-ed thinking.

We’re up to our parietal bones in pachyderms in the healthcare transformation discussion. The biggest one – you can call him Jumbo, or you could call him Dumbo – is always in the room. What I call him is Huckster Nation.

elephant in the room by banksy

Image: Banksy

What do I mean? I mean the underpinning of pretty much all of American culture – the carnival barker sales guy (guy in this usage is gender neutral). We are a nation of flacks, flogging everything from Sham-Wow to space stations, and that includes our healthcare system. Hell, I’m selling myself, or at least I’m offering to rent out the contents of my cranium in exchange for coin of the realm, as are we all, in one way or another.

Americans have taken this to the level of a cultural art form, in that we’ve built our national myth around economic freedom. That it works out to be a literal myth for too many of us – income divide, I’m talking to you – is part of what I’m calling out here, but for the moment let’s focus on the carnival barkers sales guys in US healthcare, shall we?

I’m taking about the ….

Middlemen

Who are the middlemen in healthcare? Apart from the obvious ones – the health insurers, including Medicare, who administer the payment/money side of healthcare delivery – there are a metric sh*t ton of middlemen of all sorts threaded throughout the system. To use a biology metaphor, let’s call the ones that help Good Bacteria and the ones that don’t help Ebola Outbreaks. By the way, I’m defining “help” as an effort at improving something: making care more accessible, creating technology that improves care/care process, research that discovers new treatments.

Here are some examples of Good Bacteria:

  • Organizations that build health literacy tools to improve people’s access to and understanding of healthcare (click here for an example)
  • Open-access scientific journals (click here and here for examples)
  • Companies that build tech that helps patients, or clinical teams, or patients AND clinical teams (click here and here for examples)

Here are some Ebola Outbreaks:

  • Any commercial enterprise operating the healthcare sector that puts ROI above human lives (click here for an example)
  • Not-for-profit healthcare systems that treat humans solely as profit modules (click here for an example)
  • Health insurance companies that allow games of “gotcha” where their covered lives are the game pieces (click here for a Modern Healthcare piece on the issue)

Systems

Which brings me to the whole US healthcare system conundrum, which was summed up pretty well by my friend Dan Munro:

system isn't broken image

Image: Dan Munro

I attended the Population Health Alliance Forum conference recently in DC. I was surrounded by middlemen – some Good Bacteria, some Ebola Outbreaks – as I sat and listened to clinicians, analytics geeks, policy wonks, and carnival barkers sales guys talk about issues in population health. Population health is defined as “the health outcomes of a group of individuals, including the distribution of such outcomes within the group.” Meaning that in most conversations where the phrase appears, you’re talking about Employer Sponsored Insurance (ESI), or Medicare. So the attendees were heavy on the big insurer and big health provider side, with a strong showing in the “we want to sell our stuff to big insurers and big health providers” cohort.

I was, as far as I could tell, the only person wearing the “I’m a patient here, myself” label. I guess I was the patient voice carnival barker sales guy. Hey, we’re all selling something, even if it’s only an idea.

Meanwhile, I’m surrounded by system players in a series of hotel ballrooms in DC. I found myself getting a little shouty with frustration on Twitter:

 

 

 

 

 

That last one – the “what’s the ROI?” thing – was fueled by rage. The US healthcare system, which sucks up $3 trillion-with-a-T every year – making it the most expensive healthcare system in the world, but 11th on the Top 10 list on health outcomes – is stuck on a “what’s the ROI?” loop, driven by the carnival barkers sales guys, while human lives sink below the metric radar. In other words, loot trumps lives.

In the metaphor I’m using in this post, Ebola Outbreaks are overwhelming the Good Bacteria. So here’s what we gotta do – we gotta call out Ebola Outbreaks when and wherever they appear. If you see one, shout it out – preferably in public, like on Twitter! – and tag me. I’ll be “Nurse with the Good Bacteria,” and whistle up both some outrage, and some common sense solutions.

Let’s not keep the insanity that is $3T+/year in exchange for “sorta OK” on a lather/rinse/repeat cycle. Who’s with me?

Jun 18 2015

UPDATE: Patients ARE smarter (and louder) … here’s proof

By e-patients, healthcare industry, media commentary, technology

It’s been a fun week here in Mighty Casey Media Land. We kicked off the week a little early (on Sunday) – the 411 on that is available here, and some of the social exhaust is available on Storify here and here. One member of the e-patient posse worried that the guy was gon’ have to enter witness protection, given the avalanche of opprobrium aimed his way from the expert-patient community.

In an email thread among a group of expert patients working on aggregating and curating patient-useable outcomes reporting tools, Dr. Corrie Painter said she had called the Brookings Institution, the think tank where the author of the US News piece that set my hair on fire does his think-tank thing, and left a terse message on the Governance Studies main line about pontificating patriarchal putzes (technical term).

Given my willingness to talk to anyone, any time, if it moves the needle on healthcare system transformation, I went one better and called the *other* number on the guy’s bio page. I expected to wind up leaving a voicemail, but …

He. Answered. The. Phone.

We talked for about 30 minutes, during which I assured him that I did *not* think that Yelp reviews were the ne plus ultra, or even a thing, when it came to outcome metrics on physicians and other clinical providers of medical services. But, as I pointed out in my “I’m channeling Lewis Black, with boobs, in healthcare here: righteous rage + cutting humor = driving that point home!” post, what real metrics are *available* to patients seeking intel on the expertise and outcomes of the doctors they go to for care?

There are PQRS and Physician Compare data sets, but they’re pretty small beer. Physician Compare serves up Medicare data – just *try* to find intel on a pediatrician, or an obstetrician, in that reporting tool.

In a follow-up post of his own, Yaraghi clarified his position on online review sites like Yelp *not* being the right place for medical provider ratings based on medical training, outcomes, or efficacy of care. His closing graf is the money shot for me:

Patients’ involvement in their medical care is the best thing that could happen to our severely sick health care system. Patients should have access to reliable and valid data to help them decide about their medical provider. They should have the capacity to shop around and visit multiple providers. Healthcare is the most important service we obtain in our life and being able to choose who provides it, in my opinion, is a fundamental patient right. Currently available online patient reviews however, are not the correct measure to rely on when making such a decision.

Net/net here: Niam Yaraghi is a guy with an open mind on the idea of patient expertise. In the days and weeks to come, I hope that the e-patient community turns out in force to engage him in conversation, and to make their case for both patient expertise and the deep need for effective, accessible physician scoring – on number of procedures, on patient satisfaction, on recurrence rates, on all stats relating to the efficacy and humanity of their care – that people can use to find the best doctor for their healthcare needs.

Jun 14 2015

From the Patients Are Smarter Than You Think Desk …

By e-patients, healthcare industry, media commentary, technology

See this UPDATE, too.

Sundays are pretty quiet here in Mighty Casey Media Land. Yeah, there are those Sundays where I read my wall calendar without my glasses on, and totally think it’s Father’s Day when it’s really Flag Day … but that’s about as exciting as it gets most weeks.

Today is one of the latter Sundays, where I not only cause a Father’s Day panic on Facebook (yeah, that’s a thing), but also get Twitter DMs that set my hair on fire. Which you know, if you’ve been hangin’ round this water cooler for a while, is never a good thing.

This morning, I picked up my phone while I was waiting for my coffee to brew, and what ho – a DM from my friend HealthBlawg with a link to a “stupid patients, don’t Yelp doctors” piece on US News with the headline “Online Doctor Ratings Are Garbage.” The piece is by Niam Yaraghi, whose pieces on US News usually have me nodding along in full agreement … but not this time.

In the “don’t Yelp, bitch” piece, Yaraghi essentially tells people they’re too stupid to understand medical care’s value and outcomes, that we should just lie back and think of England and let those nice doctors do their work.

Let’s take ’em in order, shall we?

Patients are neither qualified nor capable of evaluating the quality of the medical services that they receive.

Seriously?? Does Yaraghi know any cancer patients, or people with MS, or ALS, or rheumatoid disease, or diabetes? I’m pretty sure the answer there is “no,” that he knows a whole bunch of polysyllabic “experts” due to his work at Brookings, but very few ASPs (Actual Sick People). The patient community is teaching the clinical community constantly about both medical research and business operations.

I’ll say it again: input from the patient community is, daily, saving the bacon of MDs/NPs/PhDs and other letter-after-name denizens of the medical-industrial complex and their minions.

So slow your roll, Niam, and the next time you meet an ASP, thank them for their *own* work on healthcare quality improvement.

If patients are not qualified to make medical decisions and rely on physicians’ medical expertise to make such decisions, then how can they evaluate the quality of such decisions and know that their doctor’s decision was the best possible one?

It’s spelled S-C-I-E-N-C-E, bitch.

But hey, most of gen-pop (people who are temporarily, not permanently, ASP – like when they break their leg, or get pneumonia) might not be as UpToDate (yes, many of us read PubMed, and even understand it) as a practiced e-patient ASP. So what do most people do when they need to find some on-the-ground help for a health issue? They hit the web … and usually find us. Or Dr. Oz, which is regrettable, but that snake oil PR machine has got a big f**king ad budget. But even if they hit Oz first, they usually wind up with us.

And hey, are DOCTORS even the real experts when it comes to evaluating the efficacy of their treatments? Plenty of evidence suggests that clinicians get as stuck in Usual Suspects-ville as does any other profession. I call it We’ve Always Done It This Way syndrome. It takes 17 years, on average, for proven science to arrive at the point of care. If you get diagnosed with [pick a really big disease], do you want to just trust that your MD is up on all the latest treatment options, or do you want to be *sure* s/he is? Welcome to Dr. Google, dude. Yelp reviews don’t turn up on condition-specific searches, but *we* sure do.

Since patients do not have the medical expertise to judge the quality of physicians’ decisions in the short run and are neither capable of evaluating the outcomes of such decisions in the long run, their feedback would be limited to their immediate interaction with medical providers and their staff members.

I’ve addressed the “science, bitch!” thing above, but let’s drill in on that “outcomes” point, shall we? Have you, yourself, ever tried to find outcomes data on a doctor? Pack a lunch. A lunch that can last for days. Physician Compare on Medicare’s (CMS) site looks like it could serve up some stats … but it doesn’t serve up much beyond “has EHR tech that fulfills Meaningful Use requirements.” Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS – another CMS data bank project) serves up a whole lotta data – in table or spreadsheet form – but it’s pretty hard to parse “quality” from “takes Medicare” or “participates in PQRS” or “participates in eRX.” No notations as to whether s/he is Dr. Hodad.

How about, rather than bitch about patients who want to serve up UX (User Experience) data on their clinical teams, you use your keyboard to help create some clarity on quality reporting that can be understood BY. AVERAGE. HUMANS.

Instead of the quality of the medical services, patients would evaluate the bedside manners of physicians, decor of their offices and demeanor of their staff.

Bedside manner is no indication of the value of the care received at the hands of a clinician. I’ve had doctors look deep into my eyes, hold my hand, and then do a hard sell for a pharmaceutical product of questionable efficacy for my condition. I’ve taken a show about that on the road (sort of), which you can read about here.

Office decor reviews for doctors’ offices will only add ordnance to the arms race that US healthcare has become, where providers build more and more luxurious settings for us to get questionably effective care in … and then charge us higher fees for that care, since marble is really expensive.

To choose the best medical provider, patients are encouraged to rely on measures of medical expertise and avoid invalid online reviews. 

And just how the French-pressed **** are we supposed to do that, Niam? Having the whole alphabet after your name on a list of medical specialty MDs is no guarantee, at all, of either efficacy of care, or basic humanity.

Dr. Farid Fata had a solid platinum set of credentials as an oncologist – residency at Maimonides Medical Center, an oncology fellowship at Memorial Sloan Kettering, and a respected practice in the Detroit metro area for over a decade – until the FBI burst into his offices on August 6, 2013 to arrest him for fraud. He’d diagnosed and treated people for cancer who did not have cancer. BTW, there were no Yelp reviews for his practice.

Here’s the thing: patients KNOW STUFF. Rather than telling us to shut up and stop Yelping, how about you recommend *listening* as a cure for what ails US healthcare? I’m a Yelp Elite reviewer – that and $4 will get me a crap fancy coffee at Starbucks – who’s a globally recognized patient voice, and I’ve posted four reviews of health/medical facilities (a 3% rate of review in my total number of 141 reviews to date). Two of those facilities are mammography practices. I’ve had breast cancer, so as experts go … yeah, I am one.

I don’t use Yelp reviews on my checklist for choosing a new member of my clinical care team, because I’m an e-patient expert with a massive global network in both the medical and patient communities.

So, hey, Niam, what’s your recommended roll for someone who’s got [insert suspected diagnosis here] and is looking for credible, actionable information to inform their decision tree? Until the clinical side of the house gets their outcomes reporting sh*t together … people gon’ Yelp.

Shut up and deal.

yelp welcome screen

Apr 21 2015

Security vs. access: threading the needle

By healthcare industry, media commentary, politics, technology

The annual big-data party known as the HIMSS conference played out in Chicago – and online – last week. During the event, one of the central issues that arose in the social media conversation under the #HIMSS15 tag involved the one facing patients trying to access their health records, either digitally or on old-school paper: the security/access conundrum. Data that’s accessible to a patient could also wind up accessible to Romanian hackers (you’ve heard me on this topic before), and efforts at making patient data “secure” mean that data is often secure from the patient whose data it is. Patients give their forehead some serious keyboard every day over that one.

The folks over at Software Advice released a report on HIPAA breaches on March 12*, which I only caught up with when I returned from my Mighty Mouth 2015 Tour of Info-Sec and Right Care. Full disclosure, I’m quoted in the report, but that’s not why I’m talking about it here.

Here’s my biggest takeaway from the piece: 54% of the patients surveyed for the report would consider ditching a healthcare provider if that provider had a breach.

Most Patients Would Switch Providers After Breach

pie chart of likelihood of switching providers

 

Key findings in the report:

  1. Forty-five percent of patients are “moderately” or “very concerned” about a security breach involving their personal health information.
  2. Nearly one-quarter of patients (21 percent) withhold personal health information from their doctors due to data security concerns.
  3. Only 8 percent of patients “always” read doctors’ privacy and security policies before signing them, and just 10 percent are “very confident” they understand them.
  4. A majority of patients (54 percent) are “moderately” or “very likely” to change doctors as a result of a patient data breach.
  5. Patients are most likely to change doctors if their medical staff caused a data security breach, and least likely to change doctors if hackers were responsible.

Given the rising number of breach reports hitting headlines, including the massive one that impacted 80 million Anthem customers (possibly including me – not 100% confirmed yet) in January, this is not an issue that will go away. From the expert patient perspective, this is doubly frustrating, because the first thing that happens after a breach headline is the throttling of patient access to our records. Additional sign-on protocols, tighter credentialing, or a full-on “no more digital access” from smaller providers, all laid at the door of “because HIPAA.”

This doesn’t just affect access, it can have an impact on care. Here are the report’s stats on patients withholding information from their medical providers due to breach concerns:

Security Concerns Can Stifle Communication With Doctor

pie chart on patient withholding info

Quoting from the report:

“Health care lawyer and blogger David Harlow is also troubled by our results. Doctors need to get a full picture of a patient’s health history, he explains. If they don’t, the effectiveness of treatment could suffer—or worse, the patient could be harmed. For example, if a doctor is not told about a patient’s current prescriptions, the doctor could inadvertently prescribe a second medication that has adverse interactions with the first drug.

“That’s an invitation for disaster,” Harlow says. “It means we have a lot of work to do to convince people of the safety and importance of sharing information with physicians.”

My thinking on this topic can be summed up in the closing quote from the report, from yours truly:

“Concerns over digital privacy and security have obscured the real conversation, which is, ‘How can we make health care more accessible, frictionless and safe with the data we collect about patients?’”

*Source: Practice Management systems consultancy Software Advice

Apr 13 2015

World on fire. Film at 11.

By healthcare industry, media commentary, politics, technology

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.

Close Menu