Thursday, 1 September 2016

The Dog Whistles of Health Care

Discrimination in health care was institutionalized in Independence, Missouri on July 30, 1965 when President Johnson signed the Social Security Amendments of 1965 into law, creating “two moral frameworks for public financing of healthcare”. Medicare was supposedly an “earned” right for the elderly, while Medicaid was framed as a “welfare” program for the poor. It was a necessary political compromise. It was just a first step and bigger and better things would certainly be accomplished in due course. It was better than nothing. But fifty years later, and after taking yet another “first step” with Obamacare, the wasteful, divisive, discriminatory, and ultimately self-defeating direction we chose back in 1965, and again in 2010, has not changed one bit.

After 45 years of tinkering with Medicare and Medicaid, Obamacare in a bold stroke expanded the welfare model of medical care upwards into the heart of what used to be known as the American middle class, the former engine of progress and prosperity.  First, Obamacare expanded the Medicaid program itself to include people who are less poor than current Medicaid recipients. When Medicaid opened its doors in 1966, it provided charity health care to approximately 2% of Americans. Today, over 22% of Americans (72.6 million) and almost half of our children (35.3 million) are receiving their medical care via this welfare program and the numbers are trending sharply upwards.

Gift Horses

But the greatest innovation of Obamacare is undoubtedly the Health Insurance Marketplace, which is a brand new welfare program for the middle class. People who are not deemed poor enough to receive Medicaid charity can obtain Federal medical assistance on a means-tested sliding-scale. Largely unbeknownst to them, another 10.5 million working Americans were placed on welfare while “shopping” for health insurance in 2016.  These people are reportedly rejoicing their good fortune, because Obamacare is better than anything these people ever had, or could ever hope for.

In recent days, Aetna announced that it will drastically reduce its participation in the Obamacare marketplaces, joining a long string of other health insurers, including giants like United Healthcare and Humana, and small local outfits like Scott & White in Texas, all of which cited massive financial losses in this market. It looks like next year the many “choices” available to these people in the Obamacare marketplace will be severely curtailed, particularly in areas where poor, uneducated, low-information voters reside. The “choices” were not great to start with, seeing how most Obamacare plans rely on managed care provided by narrow networks of doctors and hospitals, and the level of charitable support is fixed, regardless of your “choice”. The optics of many choices was there to create an illusion of consumers “shopping”, as opposed to just having people apply for welfare.

The price for sparing these people the social stigma of being on welfare turned out to be not only too high, but also too low (think Escher paintings here). People who qualify for Medicaid are prohibited from “shopping” on the Obamacare marketplace, unless they are willing to forgo handouts and pay full price, because a “Marketplace insurance plan would cost more than Medicaid and usually wouldn’t offer more coverage or benefits”, and a government website proudly declares that Medicaid “generally provides a more comprehensive benefit package than private insurance”. If this is true, the Obamacare architects decided to pay private insurers on the marketplace more for less, which is not preventing insurers from bleeding cash. On the other hand, some of the same insurers, and many others, seem to be making money hand over fist in the Medicaid market which pays less for more.

How is that for a brain twister? Yes, yes, I know, if you are a physician and you accept Medicaid, you know precisely how to untwist this nasty little knot, but this narrative was not created for you. The first thing, or person (loosely speaking) to remember here is Jonathan Gruber. A while back Mr. Gruber shared with us that the guiding principles in the rooms where Obamacare was designed were that American voters are stupid and that lack of transparency is a good thing. It should be obvious by now that the introduction of Obamacare to the public was false and its initial incarnation, chockfull of choices, “subsidies”, marketplace “shopping” and all, was (designed to be?) temporary. But hey, it was just a first step and it was better than nothing. So what’s next?

The Morning After

As is the custom in our great nation, now that Obamacare marketplaces have been exposed as the hoax they really are, the cheerleading section is transitioning to its Monday morning role of funeral criers. Every ‘splaining media outlet is diving into lengthy treatises about risk pools, moral hazard, actuarial values, complete with charts and “I told you so” interviews on how to salvage the situation. The government, as usual, is doubling down on the “everything is (still) awesome” anthem of planned stagnation. Insurers leaving the marketplace are a sign of normal competitive business. Sky rocketing premiums are a result of initial underpricing of products. Things will eventually even out. And besides, why worry your little head about premiums going up or down, if the government is paying for the ride?

See, the more the premiums go up in 2017, the more people would be able to pay less for marketplace plans. This is because very poor people are disproportionately more likely to use the Obamacare marketplace, and these people seem to have a predilection for cheap health insurance plans. Theoretically, all Americans except the 20% or so at the top (the fifth highest income quintile), are eligible for welfare in the marketplace if their stars fall slightly out of alignment. Right now, the self-appointed elites are piloting this marketplace solution for people who have few if any choices in life in general, but make no mistake, the forthcoming rollout to the rest of us will be fast and furious.

After you read a dozen or so articles on the subject, several options surface as the popular wisdom of the unpopular elite minority who won’t be caught dead anywhere near an Obamacare marketplace:
  • On autoplay since 2012 – Repeal and replace the whole darn thing with something really good.
  • Whistling past the graveyard – Stay on target. Ignore the noise. Keep pushing the happy narrative. Nothing to see here. Next year will be better.
  • Pedal to the metal – Add some serious fangs to the individual mandate. Force insurers to eat their marketplace veggies if they want public cash desserts.
  • Resurrection – Remind me, why did we drop that “public option”? What was it again?
Plebeian logic says that at least for the immediate future we will be whistling past the graveyard of health care in America. After that, as strange as it may sound (go ahead and bookmark this), they will be rolling all four option into one grand solution.

The Pauper Option

If you are eligible for Medicaid in the state of Louisiana for example, you have five choices, which is more than some Obamacare marketplace “shoppers” have. On the Healthy Louisiana website, you can enroll, select a plan, compare plans, compare networks of providers, and compare plan benefits, including co-pays, cash rewards for healthy behavior, free cell phones and even free diapers and school supplies. Is this a marketplace? I think Healthy Louisiana is as much a marketplace as the Obamacare Venezuelan shopping mall. It provides infinitely more information. It includes plans from Obamacare quitters, such as Aetna and United Healthcare. The state pays less, beneficiaries get more, and insurers make very nice profits.

In Baton Rouge, there is one (1) oncologist in the United Healthcare network and zero (0) plastic surgeons in the Aetna network. Sometimes, you just have to travel to New Orleans, Shreveport or Lafayette. It’s only a few hours by car. Most people don’t need oncologists and plastic surgeons. Most people are perfectly fine just having 100 family practitioners, almost half of which are doctors.  In Louisiana, Medicaid pays $41.53 for a typical office visit (99213), which is a bit more than half the Medicare rate, and usually less than half of what private insurers pay. With a full time schedule, and average overhead, a primary care doctor seeing nothing but Medicaid patients in Louisiana, will end up with $100,000 to $130,000 a year before tax.

This is the secret sauce. This is what’s missing from the Obamacare marketplaces. There may be room for additional tinkering with networks, but it won’t be enough. The only way to bring costs down is to attack the supply chain. Like Walmart. Like Medicaid. But you can’t do it if you have to compete in earnest, because you will lose all your suppliers. Everybody has to do it together, and that would be collusion. So you either merge & acquire until you are the sole insurance provider in a market, or you make the government do it for you. Either way, we end up with a marketplace of Medicaid plans. Like Healthy Louisiana.

Before you argue that physicians will just stop accepting Obamacare marketplace plans, remember that many, many doctors do take Medicaid and adding 12.5 million people from the marketplace to the 72.6 million already on Medicaid is not a big deal at all. This is why insurers that specialize in Medicaid do better on the Obamacare exchanges. It’s not that they know how to manage these people. They know where to find and how to manage these doctors.

They probably won’t call it Medicaid. Maybe Medimart will be acceptable. It will most likely cost a little more to maintain the appearance of respectability, at least for a while, but this is a generous program for these people. The line is drawn at 400% Federal Poverty Level (FPL), and as the global sharing economy grows, and as employers begin to see the light, those who can’t quite reach six figures incomes, eighty percent of people in America, will be “shopping” at Medimart, because that’s what these people do.

Monday, 15 August 2016

Eliminating the Hurdles of Clinical Quality Measures for the 2016 Reporting Year

Dynamic Health IT is proud to announce we have successfully pilot-tested with ICSA Labs for 2015 Edition CQM-related measures (c)(2) and (c)(3).

That's a bit of a mouthful, but it means that our software, CQMsolution, remains at the forefront in providing meaningful, submission-ready clinical quality measure output. CQMsolution supports 93 CMS eCQMs and the 64 aligned PQRS measures.

Under 2015 Edition, Clinical Quality Measure reporting has been made more comprehensive. The three existing measures (c)(1), (c)(2) and (c)(3) have been revised:
  • Cypress 3.0 validation software, which includes more robust testing relative to 2.6.1, must be supported
  • The latest set of measure versions for the 2016 reporting year, validated by Cypress, must be supported
  • Required data export capability is expanded
  • Data import should be more accessible (“without developer assistance”)
  • Exported data file must meet R2 implementation guide for QRDA
The three CQM measures are also joined by a new measure: measure(c)(4) - filtering. In meeting (c)(4), EHRs must be able to filter quality measure results at the patient and aggregate levels by a list of variables. The filtered results must be made available in a human-readable format and data file.

Not reinventing the wheel, replacing tires

Our developers put in rigorous work over the last quarter, incorporating feedback from clients, to dramatically enhance the software, making it easier-to-use, more robust and, of course, certification-ready for ONC 2015 Edition and Cypress 3.0.

We saw this development cycle as a great opportunity to take everything we have learned over the past few years - in the form of our feature enhancements and performance improvements - and integrate it fully with new development.

This meant taking the principles behind engine and UI that worked and preserving them, while using the regulatory changes in measure logic and output as a chance for a coordinated re-design. The CQMsolution calculation engine uses the eMeasure HQMF files, which are based on the Quality Data Model (QDM), as the basis for evaluation. We use these files to create the data structures through which we process patient data. 

In contrast to feature-specific roll-outs, this was a bottom-up version. It is not often you get a chance to re-write core parts of your application. This can be a perilous process, but there were two factors that made it successful:
  • The ability to create a completely new calculation engine for 2016 reporting year without altering previous reporting year calculation engines meant we were not required to maintain backwards compatibility in the new code
  • After identifying our time parameters and client needs, our development team realized complete development focus would be needed. The project was afforded development time in a distraction-free environment.

CQM data intake and calculation were worked all at once, allowing for a holistic approach. Combined with extensive testing, relying in part on a more exhaustive Cypress data set, the result was a robust upgrade, built on clean code.

-         Key changes
-        
The changes from the 2014 release measure to the 2015/2016 release measures were dramatic, requiring a rewrite of major portions of CQMsolution. Example of these changes can be seen in the text of the measures. New subset operators were added and new temporal operators that make the measures more clear. 

The changes in QRDA format also called for a rewrite to the parsing and generating pieces that enable our clients' certification and submission of CQMs.

On top of the CQM engine, we integrated user experience changes to make both certification testing and day-to-day use of the application easier and reflective of technical changes. These changes range from easier report tracking in the UI, to one-click certification testing through single-upload "compound" report and API to Cypress.

Improvements ahead
-         
CQMsolution 3.0 is now in beta testing with clients, pending final ONC certification. The development cycle is perpetual and we intend to stay at the forefront of CQM development. By year's end, 2017 reporting year support should be complete and a number of features are in the pipeline for the near term, including API-based data collection from client EMRs. 

We look forward to rolling those out and, of course, to our full certification on all four CQM measures. Stay tuned!

Sunday, 14 August 2016

Well, Shit.

My twitter feed is all abuzz this morning on the death of @jess_jacobs. Jess is a woman with a challenging illness who documented some of the complete failures of our health system to provide her with even barely adequate care  I've met her briefly about four times in my life. Her death saddens me this morning, not because I knew her well, but because she did great things with her life, and because we share at least one thing in common, our jackets. But in some ways I feel the way that others do when their favorite celebrity dies.

Among many of my friends Jess IS a celebrity.  But outside our world, she is not known well enough, nor is her story told often enough.  So I will walk today in honor of Jess, and instead of telling my story, I will tell hers.

   Keith









Thursday, 4 August 2016

Offering an Informal FHIR Chat, Whitfield area, Bengaluru, India

I'll be in Bangalore for about 10 days later this month, to work with several of my teams during the week of the 22nd, and to deliver some standards training internally the following week.  One of my architects suggested that we set up an informal FHIR chat on the weekend I'll be staying through, either Saturday, August 27th, or Sunday August 28th for folks in India who want to learn more about FHIR.

Timing is too tight for me to arrange a venue through any sort of official channels, however, others in the region might be able to put something together.

So, here is the offer.  I'm free for the entire day either Saturday or Sunday, and can deliver an overview of HL7 FHIR for developers in India.  If you are interested in helping to pull this together, please either leave a comment for me here, or e-mail me at keith.boone@ge.com.

   Keith

Tuesday, 2 August 2016

FHIR Applications Roundtable at Harvard Medical School

The DHIT Team has been an active participant in FHIRConnectathons during the past two years. Among the benefits of these events is the unique glimpse they provide into what the industry is delivering with FHIR and how the standard continues to evolve through active development.

Our team is also eager to find connections between out interoperability expertise and real-world healthcare problems. With those (and other) goals in mind, our President Jeff Robbins attended the 1stannual FHIR Applications Roundtable at Harvard  Medical School in Boston to learn more.  

Although FHIR is a relatively new standard, it has great potential and forward-thinking healthcare IT organizations are already deploying FHIR solutions. 
Harvard Medical School

The Roundtable consisted of a series of 15 minute presentations by academics, software developers and consultants highlighting FHIR-related projects.

The projects on display included patient and provider-facing apps, Clinical Decision Support, clinical collaboration platforms, patient education, all the way up to a complete, native FHIR-based EHR. The expansiveness of the applications and implementations discussed demonstrates just how far the standard has come from its days in draft status.

On the policy front, Steve Posnack, Director of the Office of Standards and Technology at the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology spoke about efforts to encourage interoperability through FHIR developement and the  HL7 FHIR App Ecosystem. ONC is encouraging market-ready FHIR support through its "challenges."

DHIT plans to offer a CCDA-to-FHIR converter in the near future.  Stay tuned!

Tuesday, 17 May 2016

Matthew Dugal celebrates five years with Dynamic Health IT

Dynamic Health IT congratulates Matthew Dugal on five years with the company!

Matthew has blazed new trails with our development team. He is a dedicated, caring employee, offering a wealth of expertise on any project to which he lends his talents. 





Matthew, congratulations on your 5 year anniversary with DHIT.  I feel very fortunate to have you on our team and have really come to appreciate your huge talent for software development through seeing the success of the products you’ve developed here, particularly CQMsolution.  You are also an amazing resource and trove of information for all things related to computer software and hardware, from setting up servers to finding the right piece of software to get a task done, to security and network troubleshooting.  Finally, you are reliable, dependable and ethical --- all great qualities for an employee.  Thanks for all you do!
-- Jeff Robbins

A big 5 year Congratulations to you Matthew! You are an integral part of Dynamic Health IT’s team. Your engagement in the ‘Magic’ that occurs here at DHIT encourages our clients to count on us. Your patience and perseverance on some of the most difficult projects has contributed to our products' success. Your honesty and dedication is admired. Thank you for all you do.
-- Raychelle Fernandez

Matthew is a great resource when it comes to programming. Not only does he know how to get the job done, but he can clearly explain and teach you how it was done so you feel confident to do it again in the future. Over the past 5 years he has taught me several valuable tricks of the trade that I’ve applied here at DHIT and at school. THANKS MATTHEW!!!
-- Maria Ruiz

Congratulations on your 5 years with Dynamic Health IT, Matthew. It is a pleasure working with you. Your programming and problem-solving skills are enormous and appreciated. Your knowledge of technology is very broad and invaluable. Beyond that, you are a very kind person to work with. We are so lucky to know you as a person and have you as a team member!
-- Ozlem Kurt

Matthew is a pleasure to work with - very knowledgeable and always willing to help. He’s not only very committed to the company, he also invests time and energy to his coworkers. DHIT would not be what it is without Matthew’s support and dedication. 
-- Maureen Bell

Matthew is a great coworker and a complete professional. He always shows good results in his projects and I always learn from him when we work together.
-- Erick Lanford

Matthew is a wizard coder whose technical expertise touches everything DHIT does - from our product line to our network infrastructure. Each time we attend a conference or interact with colleagues and clients in the industry, you can see the fruits of his labor. His hard work and deep dive into quality measures is evident when you realize the kinds of unparalleled things CQMsolution can do. I'm grateful for his guidance anytime I seek information across our projects. Matthew is thoughtful and thorough in everything he does. It's fun to hear his insights, whether work-related or not.
-- Joshua Shreve

Tuesday, 26 April 2016

CCDA Implementation-a-Thon II: Chicago

HL7 International, the standard bearer for healthcare information exchange, has kept up its hands-on approach with implementers and developers. One of their newest offerings is a series of Implementation-a-thons for C-CDA. As we did in Orlando, our team traveled to take part in the C-CDA Implementation-a-Thon this month in Chicago.
HL7.org

After the Orlando meetup, we were looking to take a deeper dive into the standard and share what we had been working on since January.

One of HL7's stated goals for the event was to "identify issues and potential trouble spots" in the CCDA. While some of us in the room are nominally competitors, we are all united around the common goal of making CCDA use and implementation as easy as possible, resolving ambiguities in the standard and working toward greater interoperability. EHR firms such as Epic and NextGen and a range of other developers, users and experts were all in the room, working toward this shared goal.

The collaborative spirit was encouraging, though some of the major industry players have been missing. This can make it difficult to coalesce around a decision on how to overcome major roadblocks to interoperability.

As is often the case at Connect-a-thons and other healthcare IT meetups, there were plenty of new faces, an indication of the growth in interest and a reminder that the standard requires ongoing outreach and education.

Here's a quick and dirty rundown of some key topics covered, followed by a few of our observations on specific discussion areas:
  • Implantable devices
  • Gender identity: administrative gender and birth gender
  • "Assessment and Plan" vs. "Assessment" and "Plan of Care" 
  • Approaches to "no known" value (allergies, medications, problems, etc.)
  • Discharge Medications (v1.1 vs. v2.1)
  • Care Plan: when to send, defining sections
  • ONC C-CDA test data review and import
  • Human readable vs. machine readable format and its effect on interoperability
  • Medications: approaches to recording a "tapered dose"

Implantable devices

PHOTO: Boston Scientific
A key question around implantable devices - a class of equipment that includes artificial joints and pacemakers - is where the implant should be recorded in a C-CDA.

Does it go into "Procedures,""Medical Equipment" or some combination of the two?

For ONC Certification, it is expected to be in "Procedures" section, unless there is no implantable info, then it lives in the"Medical Equipment" section. At the Implementation-a-thon, HL7 further clarified that the implantable device information should always appear in the Medical Equipment section. When the specific procedure for the implant is known, it should also go into Procedures.



Gender identity

There is not yet an agreed-upon standard in healthcare data for distinguishing the sex of the patient as determined at birth from other notions of gender identification.

HL7 currently uses the concept of administrative gender, defined as "the gender of a person used for administrative purposes." FHIR, which built upon RIM, can incorporate XML resources to capture gender identity, but the best practice has not been decided.

In the case of a transgender male - whose birth sex was assigned female and whose current gender identification is male - SNOMED codes are capable of capturing this distinction. Common practice in C-CDA would most likely record the Administrative gender for this patient as female.

As HL7 explains in its current detailed descriptions:
(G)ender may not match the biological sex as determined by genetics, or the individual's preferred identification... Systems providing decision support or enforcing business rules should ideally do this on the basis of Observations dealing with the specific gender aspect of interest (anatomical, chromosonal, social, etc.) However, because these observations are infrequently recorded, defaulting to the administrative gender is common practice. 
That last sentence gets at the fact that even the underlying process for recording gender identity and sex assignment is in need of clarity. There is no single approach, for instance, to mapping gender as recorded on an intake form with relevant C-CDA sections.

The Implementation-a-thon also explored the example of administrative gender as represented in 'UNK' nullFlavor, paired with an observation recorded in Social History. The general guidance from HL7 is that gender identity concepts should appear in"Social History,"while the "pending guidance" on birth sex is as follows:
C-CDA recordtarget/Administrative Gender is the field used to record the Birth Sex and must be coded as follows: M (male), F (female) or a nullFlavor of 'UNK'.
However, there will be further clarification coming from ONC and report back to the group.

Future considerations on this subject:
  • Some Clinical Quality Measures require a reliable location for patient birth sex.
  • Similarly, certain genetic predispositions and Clinical Decision Support in general also require birth sex, but not at the expense of multiple conceptions of gender identity.
  • Which concept of sex or gender identity should be used in patient matching across data sets?

The discussion centering around this issue further underscored the need for all major players to take part in the shaping of the standard in order to avoid confusion and incoherence.



Lessons Learned

HL7 events never fail to be highly educational. Among the takeaways for us:
  • As the C-CDA standard becomes increasingly flexible and interoperable, wide participation in dialogue and educational outreach are esssential
  • Recording of gender identity and sex will likely be unresolved until an industry-wide consensus can be achieved across major providers, EHR developers, payers and policymakers
  • As the standard and certification testing evolve, development practices must follow suit. The new testing tool is a great help in this process.
  • Translation codes for alternate value sets should be used whenever possible, rather than rejecting a C-CDA outright.
  • More focus is needed on reconciling discrete values in machine readable with the text description in the human readable portion.