Skip to main content
Tag

Storytelling

Mar 25 2015

Report from the front lines: Technology, engagement, and killing paternalism

By healthcare industry, politics, technology

I’ve spent a good portion of the last two months on the healthcare equivalent of the political stump – called the “rubber chicken circuit” in political circles. Thankfully, there was no actual rubber chicken served during these sojourns, although there was the incident of the seductive breakfast sausage, followed by my solo re-enactment (off stage) of the bridal salon scenes from the movie “Bridesmaids.” I will draw the veil of charity (and gratitude for travel expense coverage) over the details of that incident, and just advise all of you to stick to fruit, cereal, or bagels at conference breakfasts. ‘Nuff said. My original editorial calendar plan was to turn this into a series of posts, broken down by focus into technology and clinical categories. However, since a big part of my goal in standing on the barricades at the gates of the healthcare castle, waving my digital pikestaff in service of system transformation, is breaking down silos … well, go grab a sandwich, and a beverage. This is gon’ be a long one. HIMSS Patient Engagement Summit In early February, I headed to Orlando for the first Health Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Patient Engagement Summit. I was asked to participate in two panel discussions, one titled “Patient Perspectives: The State of Engagement,” the other “Can We Talk? The Evolving Physician-Patient Relationship.” Both were moderated by Dr. Patricia Salber, the bright mind behind The Doctor Weighs In. Being a person with no letters after her name (like Elizabeth Holmes [update: she’s trash, so redacted] and Steve Jobs, I’m a college dropout), I’m used to showing up at healthcare industry events and being seen as something of a unicorn fairy princess. That’s how people commonly called “patients” are usually viewed in industry settings outside the actual point of care. Healthcare professionals/executives are so used to seeing us as revenue units,…

Read More
Feb 24 2015

Shared decision making, please

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

You’ve heard me before 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: A majority of patients (68 percent) say they would prefer to make collaborative decisions about treatment options with their healthcare provider. Forty percent of patients say they have participated in SDM before, and 21 percent have done so within the past year. Most patients surveyed say that SDM improves their satisfaction (89 percent) and makes them feel more involved in the care they receive (87 percent). Nearly half (41 percent) of patients report that they would be “much more likely” to adhere to a treatment plan developed using SDM. 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   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…

Read More
Feb 18 2015

EHR technology: Match.com without a happy ending?

By EHR, health records, healthcare industry, media commentary, medical records, technology

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. Which 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…

Read More
Jan 27 2015

Does the doctor-patient relationship need marriage counseling?

By healthcare industry

The healthcare system is all about building patient engagement lately. Which makes me ask: if we get to engagement, will we ever get married? And if we do … will we wind up needing marriage counseling? Short answer: we already need marriage counseling, and we’re not even officially engaged yet. Herewith is the evidence that the doctor (and health system)-patient relationship needs marriage counseling, stolen adapted from a post on YourTango.com. You aren’t talking – Given the state of digital, or even analog, communication in healthcare, how can doctors and patients talk? Even when we’re in the same room, it’s conversation-us interruptus, given the whole 10 minutes we have for face to face interaction. And remember the last time you emailed your doctor with a question, and got an answer that day? Oh, right. That was the 14th of Never. Thank you, health IT infrastructure of doom, which is so dedicated to the security of our medical data that NO. ONE. CAN. SEE. IT. You see your partner as an antagonist – The healthcare system seems dedicated to keeping doctors and patients in an adversarial relationship. Doctors rat us out for our poor compliance in medication regimens without asking if we can afford said meds. Patients worry that their insurance premiums will go up if they tell the truth about stuff like smoking, or eating habits. Neither side seems capable of climbing off the “forces set in opposition” ledge. And the band plays on … getting less and less healthy in the process. You’re keeping secrets – See #2, and know that antagonists don’t share information well with each other. Doctors keep secrets from patients, i.e. how much treatment options will cost, with payers being fully indicted co-conspirators on that secret-stashing. Patients keep secrets, too, on stuff like cutting pills in half so that fiercely expensive medication will last twice as…

Read More
Jan 15 2015

Patient Engagement. You’re doing it wrong.

By healthcare industry

Now that I have, for my sins, been tagged as a patient engagement expert, I figure that entitles me to the occasional rant on the topic of the healthcare system – particularly the US iteration thereof – and its utter inability to understand how to connect and communicate effectively with its customer base: patients. If you’ve been a patient, for anything beyond a short trip to your primary care doc for something simple (and easily diagnosed) like a laceration or a minor infection, you know that arriving at the doors of The Medical-Industrial Complex is like being the new kid in school. There’s an old joke about bacon and eggs – the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed. In the ongoing sketch comedy/Shakespearean tragedy that is medical care. the clinical teams who deliver care, and the facilities in which they deliver it, are most certainly involved. Patients? We’re fully committed. We are engaged, we are fully present. What we’re not getting from the delivery side is an authentic invitation to engage. en•gage•ment: noun, a formal agreement, i.e. to get married; an arrangement to do something at a specific time; the act of being engaged, i.e. “continued engagement in trade agreements” Seems simple, right? Patient appears, asking for care. Clinical professionals deliver that care. Patient happy, clinicians happy, everybody wins. Oh, wait – did the doctor wash her hands before she started the physical exam? If the patient is aware of the importance of handwashing in preventing infection, and asks if the doctor lathered up and rinsed according to protocol, does that patient risk being labeled “difficult” or “aggressive”? If so, so much for patient engagement. Given that the statistics on handwashing in healthcare settings aren’t at 100% (~ 90% for RNs, < 75% for attending MDs in a 2008 study at an Ohio hospital), clinical folks…

Read More
Dec 07 2014

Keeping Patients in the Dark

By e-patients, healthcare industry

Back when I slaved in the depths of Hunter Thompson’s “shallow money trench,” we had a phrase we deployed whenever we thought the grownups were keeping us in the dark. We would say we’d been sent to Mushroom Land, where one is kept in the dark and fed sh*t, the better to keep us from making, or spotting, trouble. These were the very same grownups who, every four years like clockwork, would look at the calendar and say, “Holy crap, there’s a Presidential ELECTION this year?” But I digress. The medical-industrial complex has, for eons, kept its customers (commonly called “patients”) in Mushroom Land pretty consistently. For a very long time, that was facilitated by a lack of access to scientific knowledge for the common human, but that started to shift in the 19th and 20th centuries, as public education rose across most parts of the globe. Of course, “math phobia” and “science denial” are still pernicious little devils, but the average person with an 8th grade literacy level and an internet connection can find out about just about anything. I had the privilege of being awarded a seat at Dartmouth’s 2014 Summer Institute for Informed Patient Choice, or SIIPC14 for short, in late June 2014 (last week, as I write this). The purpose of the conference was to chew on topics and issues related to not keeping patients in the dark when it comes to making informed decisions about their health, their healthcare, and their relationships to the medical care teams they work with to gain or retain “best health.” This event had some serious meat on its bones, both in reputational throw-weight of the presenters and breadth of stakeholder groups represented in the audience. Dartmouth itself is no stranger to uber-smart-ness, particularly in healthcare, given the work and thinking that emerges from Geisel School of Medicine and the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center (one of…

Read More
May 09 2014

Employer-backed health insurance plans on life support?

By healthcare industry

I’ve been heard in these precincts and elsewhere on the topic of employer-backed group health insurance, and the reasons why I believe it’s an idea whose time has gone. Granted, I’ve felt like a little voice crying in the wilderness, but with a firm conviction that I was just an early adopter of this opinion. So imagine my glee when a headline popped up in my Google+ news feed that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation had published a study showing a distinct downward trend in the number of companies paying for employee health insurance. The key findings: The percentage of non-elderly people with employer-sponsored insurance declined 10.2 percentage points from 69.7% to 59.5% over the study period while pubic coverage increased 3.1 percentage points. While most states saw “significant declines” in employer-sponsored insurance coverage, the range was wide—from New Hampshire (73.8% coverage) to New Mexico (48.0% coverage). Employer-sponsored insurance coverage varied by income. It fell less (2.8%) for high-income groups (400% federal poverty level [FLP] or above) than for those with lower incomes (200& FPL or below) where the fall was 10.1%. Nationally, the percentage of private-sector firms offering employer-sponsored insurance fell from 58.9% to 52.4% (although the percentage of workers eligible for coverage at firms that offered employer-sponsored insurance held steady). The take-up rate also fell from 81.8 percent to 76.3 percent. Small firms offering coverage declined (67.7% to 56.3%) while at large firms it remained essentially unchanged. Single-person premium costs doubled ($2,490 to $5,081); family premiums rose 125 percent ($6,415 to $14,447); employee contributions increased (17.5% to 20.8% of the total premium). In short, less than 60% of adults who are employed full-time now have employer-backed group health insurance coverage. My response in the G+ thread? HALLELUJAH. The prospect of losing group health insurance scares the pants off of those who still have that coverage. What I…

Read More
Oct 29 2013

Healthcare Talk: Patients with Power

By healthcare industry, technology

I had the chance to participate in a Hangout on Air with Kathi Browne, who is the founder/moderator of the Google+ Healthcare Talk community. If you’re on G+ and in the healthcare industry, that community is one you want to join – lots of discussion on topics from healthcare policy to social media to patient safety to care quality. It’s invitation-only – if you’d like to join, hit the G+ link above and ask Kathi to add you to the community. Last night’s (Monday, Oct. 28, 2013) Hangout on Air was a conversation with Bill Guthrie, CEO of Patients with Power, a new web-based platform for shared decision-making for cancer patients and their oncology teams that’s in beta at UCSF’s lung cancer oncology unit and also as a survival-planning tool at Cornell-Weill/New York Presbyterian’s ob-gyn onco unit. Decision-making for cancer patients – shared, or not – is a firehose. Patients with Power does what its name promises, it gives patients access to the information they need to make an informed decision, information that’s solidly based in evidence-based medicine since it’s based wholly on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for cancer treatment. Bill has given me a demo of the tool, and it’s superb. He also did a walk-though last night. Give a watch/listen: //www.youtube.com/embed/FPTIjDwirDI

Read More
Sep 11 2013

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

By healthcare industry, media commentary, technology

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…

Read More
Jun 23 2013

Stetho-Snopes: Time for some rigorous myth-busting in healthcare?

By healthcare industry, politics, technology

It was recently revealed that an Excel error contributed to the European fiscal crisis, and a continuing global economic recession/depression. Paul Krugman called the revelation the Excel Depression in the NY Times.  Certainly lives are at stake when the success or failure of large economies are at risk, but not nearly as many lives as are at stake every day given the lack of transparency (and even, in some cases, plain truth) in bioscience research and medical outcomes reporting. Ben Goldacre gave a barn-burning TED talk, “Battling Bad Science,” in 2011. He gave another one in 2012 in which he called the data manipulation in scientific research the “cancer at the core of evidence-based medicine.” His point? We cannot make a meaningful decision in the absence of ALL the data. Tim Berners-Lee, the man who invented the actually-useful-to-humans WWW part of the Internet, has consistently called for raw data – ALL the raw data – NOW. Paul Levy, the former CEO of Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, recently blogged about the failure of the Journal of Pediatric Surgery to reveal, in a report on a surgery for sunken-chest deformity, a widely-reported death of a teenage boy after said surgery, even though that boy’s case is used as an example of avoidable medical error in safety bootcamps for medical interns and residents. Boggles the mind, doesn’t it? Even if the data is fully reported, the PR geeks who write up the announcement of results might get that report 100% wrong. Witness the recent contretemps over a University of Chicago study on patient engagement, shared decision-making, and healthcare cost control. A full outline of that mess, by ePatient Dave deBronkart in Forbes, will give you 411 on that story. The Cliff’s Notes: it was a post-discharge survey, not a full study; it measured attitudes, not outcomes; and the press release was sent out on…

Read More
Close Menu