mHealth?
There’s a new buzz word in Health Information Technology: mHealth. mHealth is the term used to describe mobile health, which differs from eHealth. eHealth focuses on technologies to change healthcare, while mHealth focuses on consumers’ behavioral and structural changes to foster participatory healthcare.
In e-Health, the vision is that computers will increase the efficiencies of healthcare processes. mHealth, in contrast, is patient-centered, and focuses on utilizing mobile devices/technology to collect data through text, images, emails . However, it is unlikely that consumers will adopt mHealth on their own. For mHealth to truly thrive, health providers must adopt this technology first.
Last week in Washington D.C., The Mobile Health Initiative (mHI) event took place. mHI founders Peter Waegmann and Claudia Tessier were keynote speakers. Mr. Waegmann is also the founder of the Medical Records Institute. In his keynote presentation, he suggests that mHealth may take 15 or 20 years to catch on, but the mHealth revolution “will happen.” He makes a critical point that mobile systems are just enablers of change; they are not creating the changes. To create change the healthcare system at large must adopt, integrate, and utilize mHealth technologies so that patients/consumers will see the value of these tools.
Personal Health Records are Still the Future
A few years ago, anticipating changes that would inevitably follow federal requirements, several major players entered the Personal Health Record (PHR) market, notably Google and Revolution Health. Well, today we learn the Revolution Health application is folding…and Google is engaged in a public relations struggle after media reports linking use of their application to several medical errors.
These applications were targeted directly to patients, not health care providers. Patients today are a. entrenched in the current system, never before having been asked to maintain their own records, b. not knowledgeable about medical data and how to interpret it, and c. largely wary of technology. Those who aren’t wary may be cynical about the compatibility of PHR data between providers. It’s hardly surprising they’ve been slow to adopt.
So the initial ventures appear to be faltering…but don’t be deceived. We are hurtling towards a PHR-based records model. As more providers meet the national Electronic Health Record (EHR) conversion deadline, the PHR model will make logistical sense. It makes common sense as well. Think about it: Americans move on average every six years. They traverse a field littered with specialists and urgent care facilities. The only common denominator in the health history of a modern patient is the patient themselves.
To wit, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is aggressively promoting PHRs among Medicare/Medicaid clients, and patient advocates have never stopped beating the drum. The question is not whether, but when and how PHRs will catch fire.
It might pay you to be ahead of the curve. Established so many times, so many ways: electronic records save money. A patient with a PHR costs $0 in administrative overhead. You won’t have to pay your staff to chase down hospital lab results or spend time on the phone verifying insurance information. Plug it in, press a button and everything will be right in front of you. Press another button and send it to any other provider or pharmacy anywhere, instantly.
If that doesn’t sway you, the government is sweetening the deal. HHS will distribute billions of dollars this year in stimulus funding to health care providers who put EHR systems to what they call “meaningful use”. Last week the officer in charge of the program, Joshua Seidman, expressly stated integrating PHRs into your record system can help you qualify.
Steven Schiff, a California cardiologist, posted in favor of PHRs at the Huffington Post yesterday. A longtime user of EHR technology, he addressed a common concern about the future of progress notes…well worth a look.
For a more wonkish and thorough evaluation of the value of PHRs, you can download the Center for Information Technology Leadership (CiTL) PHR research report.
-Maria Nicholas
www.xlemr.com
What EHR Executives are Saying about Proposed ‘Meaningful Use’ Criteria
The HIS Talk Practice Blog has recently completed an interesting series, asking six specific questions to leading EHR vendor executives regarding the Federal government’s recent announcement on the latest proposed meaningful use definitions and EHR certification criteria. Ten major EHR companies provided responses, including:
- Allscripts – Glen Tullman, CEO
- eClinicalWorks – Girish Kumar Navani, CEO and co-founder
- Eclipsys – Philip M. Pead, President and CEO
- e-MDs – Michael Stearns, President and CEO
- GE Healthcare – Vishal Wanchoo, President and CEO, GE Healthcare IT
- InteGreat, a MED3OOO Company – Tom Skelton, President
- McKesson – Dave Henriksen, SVP and GM, Physician Practice Solutions
- NextGen Healthcare – Scott Decker, President
- Sage – Lindy Benton, Chief Operating Officer
- SRSsoft – Evan Steele, CEO
Each of these executive’s responses to the six questions were interesting and varied. Some answered questions with great detail, some with ‘fluff,’ and others avoided answering the question altogether. Some provided what seemed to be honest personal opinion, and others took the opportunity to plug their company’s EHR product. I focused in on five questions- parts one, two, four, five, and six- of the series. Each of the questions and my impression of the responses are summarized below.
Physicians are Bait for ‘Spearphishing’ of Digitized Health Information
As more and more physicians and hospitals transition into the digital age, a vast amount of personal health data is ‘bait’ in the internet phishing world. While EHR system security is often a top priority, there is little secure hosting and encrypting of health information can do to stop email phishing scams.
It’s as simple as this:
- A faculty physician at a large university health system receives an e-mail appearing to be from the hospital’s information technology staff.
- The e-mail requests the doctor’s login information in order to perform routine security upgrades to the system.
- This seems like a legitimate request from a reliable source; the physician replys back providing his/her login and password.