For more information contact: Slideshare@marcusevans.com Presentation delivered by Joseph H. Schneider, MD, MBA, FAAP, Vice President and Chief Medical Information Officer and Medical Director, Clinical Informatics, North Texas, Baylor Scott and White Health at the marcus evans National Healthcare CMO/CMIO Summit 2015 at the Ritz-Carlton Buckhead Atlanta.

1. The Patient is the Future of
Health Information ExchangeHealth Information Exchange
National Healthcare CMO/CMIO Summit
Atlanta, GA
Joseph Schneider, MD, MBA
Chair, Texas Medical Association Council on Practice Management
,
March 10, 2015
, g
Vice President of Clinical Informatics and
Chief Medical Information Officer, North Texas Division
Dallas, TX

2. Disclosures – I have…
• No financial relationships to disclosep
• Not used trademarks for ease of reading
• Been working on personal health records (PHRs)• Been working on personal health records (PHRs)
and health information exchange since the late
1990s after 15 years of manufacturing & finance1990s after 15 years of manufacturing & finance
• A great respect for HIT work to date
• A great fear we may be chasing the impossible
dream with regards to interoperability
1

6. Our Objectives –
Wh t W Will C T dWhat We Will Cover Today
• The interoperability vision
• HIEs, DIRECT and other interoperability
i l di FHIRattempts including FHIR
• The raw reality of interoperability problems
th t t h l l ’t lthat technology alone can’t solve
• Recommendations to help make patients
responsible for their own information and toresponsible for their own information and to
be the source of truth
5

7. Our HIT Situation in North Texas
• BSWH Quality Alliance (our ACO) has over 75
different EMRs
• Strategy - bring together in a single warehouse
and single private HIE with “data normalization”
• A single patient portal/PHR is a distant vision –
patients can have as many portals as they have
doctors with EMRs and no consolidated PHR
• DFW has not been fertile ground for community
HIEs – multiple attempts have not succeeded
6

8. The Interoperability/HIE Vision
Lower costs & highest quality care through having all your information at
the practitioner’s fingertips !!
7

9. Making the HIE
Vision WorkVision Work
• Formerly the Nationwide Health Information Networky f
• A "network of networks”
• Managed by Healtheway - public/private coalition
F f i i ld i i• Four types of organizations could participate:
– EHRs users
– Personal health record/consumer apps organizationspp g
– Health information exchanges (HIEs)
– Others such as public health, research, quality
• Enormous amounts accomplished to date but enormous• Enormous amounts accomplished to date but enormous
amounts yet to be accomplished - workgroups supporting
this include the Standards and Interoperability Framework
8

10. Making the HIE Vision
Work in New YorkWork in New York
• Common statewide policies/standards for
interoperability with state-level governance
• Local autonomy to develop HIE services that
meet diverse needs and expectations of
consumers and providers
• Local leadership and financial commitment to
build trust/use
• Good progress in some markets
9

11. Making the HIE Vision
Work in TexasWork in Texas
• Fewer statewide policies/standards
• 12 public, 3+ private HIEs, with different rules
• No geographic monopolies – join any HIEg g p p j y
• ~1/3 of Texas is supported only with DIRECT
• Some progress despite these limitations in San• Some progress despite these limitations in San
Antonio (single database model) and Houston
(federated model)(federated model)
10

12. Making the HIE Vision Work:
Privacy Management is ComplexPrivacy Management is Complex
11

13. An HIE
AlternativeAlternative
• Allows “push” communication between trustedp
participants, e.g., primary care to specialist
• Assumes sender gets patient consent
• A special form of secure e-mail
• Challenges:
ti id di t f i i t– no nationwide directory of recipients
– lots of different approaches by organizations (post
office versus direct delivery)
– Much like the EMR inbox problem, the named receiver
is not always the person who should be getting the
message and sometimes is not availableg
12

14. Making the HIE Vision Work:
CommonWell Health AllianceCommonWell Health Alliance
• Non-profit vendor association
• Will certify products that support standards/policies
• Initial efforts:
– Patient Linking/Matching so EHRs won’t have to handle
matching of 1 billion+ individual records.
– Patient Access and Consent Management - Foster aPatient Access and Consent Management - Foster a
patient-controlled means to simplify consent management
– Record Locator Service and Directed Query - Match
locations of a patient’s previous encounters
– Now interested in FHIR
• E l i f E i i bl
13
• Exclusion of Epic is a problem

15. Making the HIE Vision Work:
Is One EMR The Answer?Is One EMR The Answer?
• Unlikely to be one EMR anytime soony y
• Epic’s “Care Everywhere” is great for Epic
customers, but Epic isn’t everywherecustomers, but Epic isn t everywhere
– Each installation is unique
– Uses a federated model not available to other EMRsUses a federated model not available to other EMRs
– Not all Epic sites are in Epic’s HIE
• VA h in l d t b ith >25% f p p l ti n• VA has a single database with >25% of population
but VistA is not gaining market share
14

16. Making the HIE Vision Work:
Is HL 7’s The Answer?Is HL-7s The Answer?
• FHIR: Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources
• Goal: Replace CCDA with easy-to-implement internet-
based open messaging and documents standards
• Works by exposing discrete data as “services” for retrieval
• E.g., demographics, admissions, diagnostic reports,
allergies, and medications can each be retrieved and
manipulated via their own resource URLs
• Much easier to implement than standard HL7
15

17. Making the HIE Vision Work:
Is HL 7’s The Answer?Is HL-7s The Answer?
16

18. Making the HIE Vision Work:
Is HL 7’s The Answer?
• Has a great deal of support
Is HL-7s The Answer?
• SMArt (Substitutable Medical Applications, reusable
technologies) has ONC grant funding to “enable the
equivalent of the iTunes App Store for health”
• In 2014
• HITPC and HITSC endorsed more open APIs.
• JASON report on "A Robust Health Data
Infrastructure" says FHIR is best candidate API
approach and APIs should be part of stage 3 MU
17

19. Making the HIE Vision Work:
Is HL 7’s The Answer?
Argonaut Project* - Goals from December 2014 for 2015:
Is HL-7s The Answer?
FHIR Data Query: FHIR Resources/profiles for
query and response of discrete elements of MU
C D SCommon Data Set
FHIR Document Query: FHIR resource/profile to
bl / f l denable query/response of selected resources, esp.
transition of care and patient summary CCDAs
Security Implementation GuideSecurity Implementation Guide
*athenahealth, Beth Israel Deaconess, Cerner, Epic, Intermountain, Mayo,
M di h M K P SMART/B Child ’ Ad i B d
18
Meditech, McKesson, Partners, SMART/Boston Children’s, Advisory Board

20. The Interoperability Reality:
Increasingly Complex StructuresIncreasingly Complex Structures
A major interoperability assumption is
that by combining the records of a
patient you get to the truth.p y g
Unfortunately this is not always true
19

21. Where Is the Patient In All This
Technology?Technology?
20

22. The Reality:
What Patient Disclosures Should SayWhat Patient Disclosures Should Say
• We will take care of your data but there is a good chance:y g
– Your data from different doctors may be conflicting
– Your data may be too overwhelming for your doctor to use
– Your consents may be conflicting or impossible to follow
– Your data may be mixed with someone else’s or we won’t be
able to match you with your datay y
– Your data may be lost or stolen
– Your data may be destroyed sooner than you want
Y d i i i HIE b f li bili– Your doctor may not participate in an HIE because of liability
concerns
• But trust us anyway and sign here …y y g
21

23. Your Data May Be Conflicting:
The Allergy ConundrumThe Allergy Conundrum
• Patient tells Boston physician they have an allergy;p y y gy;
recorded in their EMR
• Patient moves to Dallas; new physician conclusively
d i ll i d d hi i h i EMRdetermines no allergies and records this in their EMR
• Patient is in Denver ED; HIE from Boston and Dallas
show patient is both allergic and non-allergicshow patient is both allergic and non allergic
• Conflicts can exists for other patient-level data, e.g.,
name changes, addresses, gender, even immunizations
• Getting physicians to “fix” their EMRs for “incorrect”
info is not a viable solution, particular in one-time visits
22

24. Your Data May Be Overwhelming:
The Problem List ParadoxThe Problem List Paradox
• Baby with murmur; hospitalist adds
d d h
y p
“undiagnosed murmur” (785.2) in hospital
EMR; data sent to HIE
• Pediatrician adds more specificPediatrician adds more specific
problem(VSD; 745.4) in office EMR; data
sent to HIE
• VSD Repaired: (ICD 35 53) entered byVSD Repaired: (ICD 35.53) entered by
surgeon in yet another EMR; data sent to
HIE
• Quickly there are three entries in the HIE• Quickly there are three entries in the HIE
because no one manages the patient’s
problem list across multiple EMRs
23

25. Your Data May Be Overwhelming:
The Lab Results FloodThe Lab Results Flood
• Hospital is required to produce CCDA with allHospital is required to produce CCDA with all
lab results for Meaningful Use
• Hospital EMR generates CCDA with every labHospital EMR generates CCDA with every lab
done during hospital admission
• HIE receives a 90 page CCDA and dutifullyHIE receives a 90 page CCDA and dutifully
adds all labs to the repository
• Physician looking to review key discharge labs isPhysician looking to review key discharge labs is
overwhelmed with thousands of data points
24

26. Your Consents May Be
ConflictingConflicting
• Patients can “Opt-In” & “Opt-Out” of two HIEs at
th tithe same time.
– Which prevails?
– How does the physician know data is missing?p y g
• Patients can restrict data by paying cash, but another
physician may release it in a separate encounter if
the patient doesn’t remember to block it each timethe patient doesn t remember to block it each time
• States have different rules for “sensitive data” e.g. in
Texas clinicians have a right to see a patient’s HIVg p
status whereas in other states they do not
• Adolescent privacy (e.g., birth control) is difficult in
an HIE environment without blocking all dataan HIE environment without blocking all data
25

27. Your Identity
May Be MismatchedMay Be Mismatched
• Large organizations use “Master Patient Indexes”g g
where matching occurs using selected data elements
• Most have multiple mismatches daily
T f i h• Two types of mismatches:
– You are inappropriately given someone else’s history
– Your history cannot be matchedYour history cannot be matched
• Bad clinical outcomes happen infrequently but will
be more common when done on a larger scale
• Biometrics improves this, but is still challenging and
not well accepted
26

28. Your Data May Be Lost or Stolen
At some point,p ,
patients will start to
say
“Give me my data and
I’ll k it ”I’ll keep it secure”
27

29. Your Data May Be
DiscardedDiscarded
• HIEs often not subject to record retention lawsj
so data destruction can happen after 2-3 years
versus 7-25 years
• Physicians and patients need data years later
– Physicians need support for court cases years
later “Here’s what the system showed me ”later … Heres what the system showed me…
– Patients who need to transfer data must revert
back to the old method of asking their doctor tog
send it
28

30. Your Physician May Fear
Sharing DataSharing Data
• Physicians sharing data may be subject to• Physicians sharing data may be subject to
HIPAA/other penalties associated with
inappropriate release of patient data bypp p p y
anyone in the data exchange chain
• No known court cases yet
• Could have a chilling effect on physician
data sharing
T i i d l f h b• Texas is attempting model safe-harbor
legislation
29

31. Maybe It’s Time For A New Approach
30

32. Let Patients Manage Their Own Data
• Let’s build tools and incentives supporting:
A i l i f ll f i ’ d– A single repository for all of a patient’s data
– Getting data easily to patients after each encounter
– Allowing patients to manage their own data– Allowing patients to manage their own data
including managing inconsistencies, etc.
– Sending appropriate data to the next care siteg pp p
– Having appropriate data available in emergencies
– Physicians in use of this data as a primary source
• In brief, let’s make give patients the ability to be
responsible for their data and the tools for
physicians to trust patients once againphysicians to trust patients once again
31

33. Wait – Isn’t NATE Already Doing This?
The National Association
for Trusted Exchange
(NATE) partners are ( ) p
using PHRs with DIRECT,
but we need to augment g
their work greatly –
Here’s some
recommendations:
32

34. Incentivize Each Person To Have
A Single Portable Data RepositoryA Single Portable Data Repository
• Example: Incentivize payers employers andExample: Incentivize payers, employers and
schools to provide each individual with a single
portable portal/PHR that they would use toportable portal/PHR that they would use to
hook to EMRs to collect and transmit their data
and do portal functions (e g schedule appts)and do portal functions (e.g. schedule appts)
• Incentivize active use of this tool by the
insured/employee as a condition ofinsured/employee as a condition of
insurance or employer benefits
33

35. Give Patients/Customers
Their Data EasilyTheir Data Easily
• Example: Incentivize the Blue Button orp
something better in all EMRs and teach it to
seniors, students, workers…
34

36. Help Patients
Manage Their DataManage Their Data
• Allow patients to:p
– add, modify, delete and prioritize data
tif th i di l h f th h– notify their medical homes of these changes
• Provide care coordination support for those
/who cannot manage their own Portal/PHR
through insurers, churches, and others
• Send data from EMRs in patient-friendly terms,
not medicalese
35

37. Support Patients Sending Appropriate
Data to the Next Point of CareData to the Next Point of Care
• Incentivize new ways to get PHR info toy g
physicians (DIRECT is a crude start)
• Support professional societies in:
– Defining data elements for visit types
– Define metadata to support filtered sending
f i f tiof information
• Incentivize Portals/PHRs have easy-to-use ways
for patients to choose and send filtered data thatfor patients to choose and send filtered data that
matches professional requirements and patient
privacy needs
36

38. Support Physicians
In Use of Patient DataIn Use of Patient Data
• Incentivize EMRs to have “delta” functions that
compare patient-submitted content to the EMR
and provide functions to easily add/subtract data
I ti i di l h l d f i l• Incentivize medical schools and professional
organizations to teach how PHRs can be a
primary source of information about patientsp y s c b p s
• Incentivize EMRs to capture a “snapshot” of the
data the patient sent for liability protections
• Provide standards for tracking all data sources and
changes (“provenance”)
37

39. Real Life: Our Portal/PHR
In North TexasIn North Texas
• Patients have a consolidated PHR for two EMRsPatients have a consolidated PHR for two EMRs
• They can add, delete, and change problems,
medications, allergies and immunizationsmedications, allergies and immunizations
• Primary care physicians are notified of these
changes and may elect to make the changes inchanges and may elect to make the changes in
the primary care EMR
• Specialists are NOT notified of changes at thisSpecialists are NOT notified of changes at this
time out of concern of overwhelming them
38

40. What Have We Learned?
• “Morbid Obesity” is by far the most deleted problemMorbid Obesity is by far the most deleted problem
• Allergies are frequently updated by patients (both
additions and deletions)additions and deletions)
• Over 1,000 clinical changes per month are coming in
from patients on a base of 100 000 patient accountsfrom patients on a base of 100,000 patient accounts
• We are still investigating how patients react to this,
but early indications are that they are pleased to havebut early indications are that they are pleased to have
control over their information
39

41. Some Additional Obvious Questions
That DO Have AnswersThat DO Have Answers
• How can we trust patients not to mess up their data?How can we trust patients not to mess up their data?
• What about my 93 year old grandmother who never
has touched a computer?has touched a computer?
• What about someone who doesn’t have a computer?
Wh t b t d l t ?• What about adolescents?
• How will a person know which allergy is correct?
• Can a doctor see what a patient has changed?
• How will we gather data for research and quality?
40

42. Was George Bush Right in 2004?
“T t t ti t i“To protect patients, improve
care and reduce cost, we
need a system where
everyone has their own
personal electronic medical
record that they control andrecord that they control and
they can give to a doctor
when they need to.”
George W BushGeorge W. Bush
April 2004
41

43. Thank You -
Questions and DiscussionQuestions and Discussion
drjoes1tx@gmail.com
42