"EHRs: The Real Story" - Sobering assessment from Medical Economics

From Medical Economics -

"EHRs: The Real Story",  pg. 18-27, Feb. 10, 2014, available here (PDF).

Full issue at http://medicaleconomics.modernmedicine.com/sites/default/files/images/MedicalEconomics/DigitalEdition/Medical-Economics-February-10-2014.pdf - it is large, 12 MB:

... "Despite the government’s bribe of nearly $27 billion to digitize patient records, nearly 70% of physicians say electronic health record (EHR) systems have not been worth it. It’s a sobering statistic backed by newly released data from marketing and research f rm MPI Group and Medical Economics that suggest nearly two-thirds of doctors would not purchase their current EHR system again because of poor functionality and high costs."

Here are other key findings from this national survey:

• 73% of the largest practices would not purchase their current EHR system. The data show that 66% of internal medicine specialists would not purchase their current system. About 60% of respondents in family medicine would also make another EHR choice.

• 67% of physicians dislike the functionality of their EHR systems.

• Nearly half of physicians believe the cost of these systems is too high.

• 45% of respondents say patient care is worse since implementing an EHR. Nearly 23% of internists say patient care is significantly worse.

• 65% of respondents say their EHR systems result in financial losses for the practice. About 43% of internists and other specialists/subspecialists outside of primary care characterized the losses as signifcant.

• About 69% of respondents said that coordination of care with hospitals has not improved.

• Nearly 38% of respondents doubt their system will be viable in five years.

• 74% of respondents believe their vendors will be in business over the next 5 years.

My own views are:

While some might dismiss such surveys as well as reports of harms as "anecdotes" (those same persons conflating scientific discovery with risk management, see http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/08/from-senior-clinician-down-under.html), I observe that such articles/surveys are increasing in frequency the past few years and are coming from reasonably capable observers - clinicians - .unlike, say, a Fox News survey of pedestrians on complex political matters.

Another physician survey is here:  http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/01/honest-physician-survey-on-ehrs.html.

Here's an interesting ad hoc survey of nurses:  http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/07/candid-nurse-opinions-on-ehrs-at.html.
.
This is not what the Medical Informatics pioneers intended, and is not due to physicians being Luddites (a topic I addressed at http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/03/doctors-and-ehrs-reframing-modernists-v.html).

In my opinion, organizations that have the expertise to change the current trajectory of this technology such as the American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) needs to leave its tweed-jacket academic comfort zone and become more proactive - or perhaps I should say aggressive - in combating the industry status quo.  

The health IT industry trade associations such as HIMSS have no such qualms about aggressively and shamelessly pushing their version of EHR utopia, an agenda that has led to massive profits for the industry... but to clinician survey results such as above.  And to injured and dead patients.

-- SS

Texas Medical Association slams ONC Healthcare IT safety plan

The Texas Medical Association offers views similar to the views I have been writing about for a decade and a half on healthcare IT quality and patient care risks:

FierceHealth IT today

Texas Medical Association slams ONC safety plan

By Dan Bowman

The health IT safety action plan proposed by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT in December is not specific enough to succeed, according to recent comments made by the Texas Medical Association. In its letter to National Coordinator for Health IT Farzad Mostashari, TMA said that responsibility for the plan "lacks focus," and should be overseen by a "highly visible HIT Safety Czar. TMA also called setting mandatory deadlines and developing a "robust" reporting and learning system imperative to the success of the plan, saying that the plan's current reliance on voluntary reporting and funding represents a "fundamental weakness." "TMA believes that significant patient safety risks exist now, and new ones will emerge in the next one to two years as many [electronic health record] and other HIT vendors merge or go out of business," the letter said. Additionally, the group expressed doubts about a code of conduct proposed to keep vendors in line as far as ensuring cooperation with safety organizations for adverse event reporting. "TMA is concerned that this will not materially affect industry accountability and generate the changes that are needed," the letter said. "For example, what if a developer does not comply with said code of conduct? There is no penalty or impetus for change." The American Medical Association was a bit less harsh in its assessment of ONC's plan. It supports most of the ideas outlined in the plan, although it called for more research to be done on the impact of electronic health record use regarding patient safety in the ambulatory setting. "Physicians are concerned about potential liabilities from EHR system design and software flaws, as well as lack of interoperability among EHR systems that could result in incomplete or missing information, which may lead to errors in patient diagnosis and treatment," the AMA letter said. "In addition, the impact that EHRs have on physician practice workflows can lead to unintended consequences. Those impacts are the result of how the software is developed." HIMSS said in its letter to Mostashari that it wants to see more provider-vendor cooperation when it comes to investigation of patient safety events, as well as usability, while the AHA said in its letter that its stakeholders would like to see more of a focus on a single, national approach to matching patients with their records with a goal of patient safety. The College of Healthcare Information Management Executives, meanwhile, said that the plan needs to be facilitated by stakeholders not directly under government control. To learn more: - here's the TMA letter (.pdf) - read the AMA letter (.pdf) Related Articles:HIMSS, AHA support ONC's patient safety plan CHIME: ONC's role in health IT safety plan 'overstated' HHS issues health IT safety action plan

The TMA and AMA letters linked above are worth reading in their entirety.

I note, with little surprise, the "softer" stances (e.g., self-policing vs. government oversight) taken by industry-dominated bodies such as HIMSS and CHIME.

On the other hand, I find the AMA's "less harsh" views somewhat disappointing.  Their letter is welcome, and more research needs to be done as to risks in ambulatory settings (and inpatient settings as well).  However, the delays in action during the research are of concern.

Where patient safety is concerned, fast action is a top priority.  Patients, needless to say, have more rights than computers and their sellers.

-- SS

The HIT Scam

Worth a read -

The HIT Scam By Greg Scandlen

Notable in the piece are these observations:

 ... even the editors of the Washington Post have come to agree the whole [national health IT] project was a fiasco — but only after we wasted $27 billion of taxpayer money.

Yet, those who are enriching themselves on the $27 billion are just happy as clams over the program. John Hoyt, the Executive Vice President of the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) was quoted in a recent Health Change Bulletin as saying −

This data suggests that the HITECH portion of the 2009 stimulus law is achieving its intended result of encouraging increased implementation and meaningful use of electronic health records among hospitals. Facilities…are laying the groundwork for interoperability to occur. Stage 6 and Stage 7 hospitals are fully prepared for provider-to-provider or facility-to-facility interoperability, as well as increasing the provider or facility’s ability to provide electronic health data reporting to public health and immunization registries to support population health review and syndromic surveillance.

There, aren’t you greatly reassured? By the way, the New York Times piece cited above reported that –

RAND’s 2005 report was paid for by a group of companies, including General Electric and Cerner Corporation, that have profited by developing and selling electronic records systems to hospitals and physician practices. Cerner’s revenue has nearly tripled since the report was released, to a projected $3 billion in 2013, from $1 billion in 2005.

No doubt the companies that paid for the RAND study are also members of HIMSS. And General Electric certainly has what might be called a “special” relationship with President Obama.

I've been writing on similar issues for more than a decade.

It's well past the time when the same rigor that applies to pharma and medical devices be applied to the health IT sector.  And the marketing hype, along with bad health IT, abolished.

-- SS 

Good HIT, Bad HIT, HIMSS And Reckless Technology Advocacy: Will This Hurt President Obama?

HIMSS, the Health Information Systems Management Society, is the large vendor trade group representing healthcare IT sellers.

At the HIMSS blog entitled "Health IT is an essential element to transform the Nation’s healthcare system" (link), Carla M Smith, MA, CNM, FHIMSS writes this with regard to the House  letter to HHS Secretary Sebelius asking her to suspend payments for the EHR Incentive Payments authorized in the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009:

HIMSS opposes halting the Meaningful Use EHR Incentive Program. Health IT is an essential, foundational element of any meaningful transformation of the Nation’s healthcare delivery system. 

(Of course, not mentioned is "transformed" into what, exactly; this utopian ideation is a topic for another time.)

A chart is then presented as to "how US civilian hospitals have, since the first incentive payments were made in second quarter, 2011, matured in their use of health IT."  Then this statement is made:

Healthcare providers are adopting certified EHRs and using them for meaningful purposes; thus, achieving Congressional intent to improve the quality, safety, and cost-effectiveness of care in U.S.

Really?  (See my Feb. 2012 post "Hospitals and Doctors Use Health IT at Their Own Risk - Even if Certified.")

This non-evidence based, amoral advocacy by HIMSS for health IT may cost the President the November election.  HIMSS has beguiled the president into similar unquestioning advocacy for the technology in its present form, which his opponents are now (rightfully) seizing upon as in the House letter.

The reckless mistakes made by HIMSS and their advocates include these two:

1.   The unquestioned belief that this expensive technology would save billions of dollars in healthcare costs, instead of depleting precious healthcare resources better spent on, say, improvement of healthcare services for the poor.

2.  More importantly, the appallingly naïve belief that any health IT is good health IT, and that any health IT is only capable of good, not bad.

HIMSS has thus failed to recognize - or perhaps worse, recognized but recklessly ignored - the profound difference between good health IT (GHIT) and bad health IT (BHIT).

As I defined at my teaching site on Medical Informatics:

Good Health IT ("GHIT") is defined as IT that provides a good user experience, enhances cognitive function, puts essential information as effortlessly as possible into the physician’s hands, keeps eHealth information secure, protects patient privacy and facilitates better practice of medicine and better outcomes.

Bad Health IT ("BHIT") is defined as IT that is ill-suited to purpose, hard to use, unreliable, loses data or provides incorrect data, causes cognitive overload, slows rather than facilitates users, lacks appropriate alerts, creates the need for hypervigilance (i.e., towards avoiding IT-related mishaps) that increases stress, is lacking in security, compromises patient privacy or otherwise demonstrates suboptimal design and/or implementation.  

I am an advocate of the former, and an opponent of the latter.

Bad health IT is prevalent in 2012 due to lack of meaningful quality control, software validation, usability standards and testing, and regulation of any type - a situation HIMSS long favored.   (The failed National Programme for HIT [NPfIT] in the NHS learned this the hard way, as will Australians needing emergency care, I predict.)

Put bluntly, in the end BHIT maims and kills patients, squanders precious healthcare resources, and drains the treasury into IT industry pockets (see my Oct. 3, 2012 post "Honesty and Good Sense on Electronic Medical Records From Down Under" and this query link on health IT risks). 

Further, the failure to recognize that the technology's downsides need to be understood and remediated before national deployment occurs and under controlled conditions, not after (which uses patients as non-consenting experimental subjects for software debugging), speaks to gross corporate negligence on the part of HIMSS.  It's not as if they did not have advance warning of all of healthcare IT's deficiencies. 

BHIT also permits record alterations after the fact that may be to conceal medical error.  I am aware of numerous instances of such alterations, fortunately caught by critical-thinking, detail-minded attorneys.  However, like health IT harms, the incidences of known alteration attempts likely reflect the "tip of the iceberg."

HIMSS and its fellow travelers have thus led this administration down the Garden Path of health IT perdition.

I warned of this in a Feb. 18, 2009 Wall Street Journal letter to the editor:

Dear Wall Street Journal:

You observe that the true political goal is socialized medicine facilitated by health care information technology. You note that the public is being deceived, as the rules behind this takeover were stealthily inserted in the stimulus bill.

I have a different view on who is deceiving whom. In fact, it is the government that has been deceived by the HIT industry and its pundits. Stated directly, the administration is deluded about the true difficulty of making large-scale health IT work. The beneficiaries will largely be the IT industry and IT management consultants.

For £12.7 billion the U.K., which already has socialized medicine, still does not have a working national HIT system, but instead has a major IT quagmire, some of it caused by U.S. HIT vendors. [That project, the NPfIT in the NHS, has now been abandoned - ed.]

HIT (with a few exceptions) is largely a disaster. I'm far more concerned about a mega-expensive IT misadventure than an IT-empowered takeover of medicine.

The stimulus bill, to its credit, recognizes the need for research on improving HIT. However this is a tool to facilitate clinical care, not a cybernetic miracle to revolutionize medicine. The government has bought the IT magic bullet exuberance hook, line and sinker.

I can only hope patients get something worthwhile for the $20 billion.

Scot Silverstein, MD

Mr. President, again, quite bluntly, the health IT industry took you for a ride, and the damage is done and is continuing due to lack of any meaningful health IT post market surveillance.   (As I wrote here, the untoward results have already been used against the current administration, with more perhaps to follow.)

In the U.S. we have the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) in place:

The introduction of this act was influenced by the death of more than 100 patients due to a sulfanilamide medication where diethylene glycol was used to dissolve the drug and make a liquid form.  See Elixir Sulfanilamide disaster. It replaced the earlier Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906.

It should be honored, not ignored via special accommodation to the health IT industry and its trade group.

HITECH also needs to be put in dormancy until the problems with these unregulated medical devices get worked out in relatively small, controlled settings to minimize risk, with patient informed consent.  This is in accord with human rights documents dating at least to the Nuremberg Code, as in any new, experimental or partly-experimental medical device, pharmaceutical, or therapy.

-- SS
 

HIMSS Senior Vice President on Medical Ethics: Ignore Health IT Downsides for the Greater Good

The Health Information Management Systems Society (HIMSS) is the large health IT vendor trade group in the U.S.  At a Sept. 21, 2012 HIMSS blog post, John Casillas, Senior Vice President of HIMSS Financial-Centered Systems and HIMSS Medical Banking Project dismisses concerns about health IT with the refrain:

... To argue that the existence of something good for healthcare in many other ways, such as having the right information at the point of care when it’s needed, is actually bad because outliers use it to misrepresent claims activity is deeply flawed.

Through the best use of health IT and management systems, we have the opportunity to improve the quality of care, reduce medical errors and increase patient safety. Don’t let the arguments of some cast a cloud over the critical importance and achievement of digitizing patient health records.

Surely, no one can argue paper records are the path forward. Name one other industry where this is the case. I can’t.

Let’s not let the errors of a few become the enemy of good.

The ethics of these statements from a non-clinician are particularly perverse.

The statement "Don’t let the arguments of some cast a cloud over the critical importance and achievement of digitizing patient health records" is particularly troubling.

When those "some" include organizations such as FDA (see FDA Internal 2010 memo on HIT risks, link) and IOM's Committee on Patient Safety and Health Information Technology (see 2012 report on health IT safety, link) both stating that harms are definite but magnitude unknown due to systematic impediments to collecting the data, and the ECRI Institute having had health IT in its "top ten healthcare technology risks" for several years running, link, the dismissal of "clouds" is unethical on its face.

These reports indicate that nobody knows if today's EHRs improve or worsen outcomes over good paper record systems or not.  The evidence is certainly conflicting (see here).

It also means that the current hyper-enthusiasm to roll out this software nationwide in its present state could very likely be at the expense of the unfortunate patients who find themselves as roadkill on the way to the unregulated health IT utopia.

That's not medicine, that's perverse human subjects experimentation without safeguards or consent.

As a HC Renewal reader noted:

Astounding hubris, although it does seem to be effective.  Such is PC hubris.  Who could ever call for reducing the budget of the NIH that is intended to improve health.  Has health improved?  No.

So why does a group with spotty successes if not outright failure never get cut?  It’s not the results, it’s the mission that deserves the funding.  So it’s not the reality of HIT, it’s the promise, the mission, that gets the support.  Never mind the outcome, it’s bound to improve with the continued support of the mission.

Is this HIMSS VP aware of these reports?  Does he even care?

Does he believe patients harmed or killed as a result of bad health IT (and I know of a number of cases personally through my advocacy work, including, horribly, infants and the elderly) are gladly sacrificing themselves for the greater good of IT progress?

It's difficult to draw any other conclusion from health IT excuses such as proffered, other than he and HIMSS simply don't care about unintended consequences of health IT.

Regarding "Surely, no one can argue paper records are the path forward" - well, yes, I can.  (Not the path 'forward', but the path for now, at least, until health IT is debugged and its adoption and effects better understood).  And I did so argue, at my recent posts "Good Health IT v. Bad Health IT: Paper is Better Than The Latter" and "A Good Reason to Refuse Use of Today's EHR's in Your Health Care, and Demand Paper".  I wrote:

I opine that the elephant in the living room of health IT discussions is that bad health IT is infrequently, if ever, made a major issue in healthcare policy discussions.

I also opine that bad health IT is far worse, in terms of diluting and decreasing the quality and privacy of healthcare, than a very good or even average paper-based record-keeping and ordering system.  

This is a simple concept, but I believe it needs to be stated explicitly. 

A "path forward" that does not take into account these issues is the path forward of the hyper-enthusiastic technophile who either deliberately ignores or is blinded to technology's downsides, ethical issues, and repeated local and mass failures.

If today's health IT is not ready for national rollout, e.g., causes harms of unknown magnitude (e.g., see this query link), results in massive breaches of security as the "Good Reason" post above, and mayhem such as at this link, then:

The best - and most ethical - option is to slow down HIT implementation and allow paper-based organizations and clinicians to continue to resort to paper until these issues are resolved.  Resolution needs to occur in lab or experimental clinical settings without putting patients at risk - and with their informed consent.

Anything else is akin to the medical experimentation abuses of the past that led to current research subjects protections such as the "Ethical Guidelines & Regulations" used by NIH.

-- SS