Skip to main content

"An Affordable Fix For Modernizing Medical Records"

...from the Veterans Health Administration and Midland (TX) Memorial Hospital.

I know enough about my own strengths and weaknesses to know that I'm no IT expert. But I am acutely interested in examples of people and teams thinking differently to solve long-standing, intractable problems and, for better or worse, there are lots of those to be found in the IT realm.


Yesterday, it was a story about a team adding iPhone portability to MEDITECH functionality, delivering to harried physicians better access to clinical data and more productive hours in every work day. (Wow. Apple in the boardroom AND the physician lounge. Has to be an IT traditionalist's worst nightmare. But I digress...)

Today, the Wall Street Journal features a story about Midland (TX) Memorial Hospital finding an affordable, open-source alternative to proprietary EMR systems:
"In the push to digitize America's hospitals, Midland Memorial faced an all-too-common dilemma: a crying need for information technology to replace archaic paper records, but a shortage of funds to pay for it. Midland Chief Executive Russell Meyers found an unexpected freebie of sorts: the software used to power the electronic medical-record system of the Veterans Health Administration.

"Created with several billion dollars in taxpayer funds over two decades and used in more than 1,400 VA facilities, the source code is in the public domain, meaning software developers around the world can freely build features into it. Add the cost of hardware and the services of a company that has adapted the VA software for commercial use, and Midland paid less than $7 million for a full electronic medical-record system.

"Medsphere Chairman Kenneth Kizer, the former undersecretary for health at the VA who oversaw the development of VistA before joining the company, says its enhanced version of the software, called OpenVistA, "can be installed in one-third the time and for about one-third the cost of the big-name proprietary systems."
I'm partial to open source for reasons that I freely admit are more philosophical than technical. And as counter-argument, the major IT vendors offer the usual litany of benefits of buying from one company - reliability, stability, connectivity with financial systems, etc. Who knows? They may be right, at least for the wealthy and risk-adverse.

But if they're asking you to spend $21 million to buy their system instead of $7 million for VistA they better be REALLY right. And be able to prove it...which I doubt they can.

The Takeaway: Nobody has all the money they need to do everything they want. But isn't a difficulty really just a problem waiting for a solution? Maybe it's time to stop saying things like "It's unaffordable! We don't have enough money!" And time to start asking "...what of our thinking and preconceived ideas must we change to do this with less money?" Models and options, surprises and alternatives are out there everywhere, sometimes in unexpected places, sometimes hiding in plain sight.

Here's a link to the Meditech/iPhone story from yesterday.


Comments

jesran said…
I agree with this blogger 100%. Let's solve this problem.
Best Care Anywhere
By Phillip Longman
http://books.google.com/books?id=Pe9-adfujDgC&dq=best+care+anywhere&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en
Jay Andrews said…
When you need any facility, it depends how much is it worth of. If its really worth buying it, then go for it and if the budget is low try to find an alternate. In EMR systems case there are many systems one could buy if you cannot buy it then try to outsource the application.
Andy Stones said…
I agree with JAy that outsourcing the application is nowaday very much in. Many big firm are outsourcing their software from different countries.

Popular posts from this blog

Michael Porter On Health Care Reform

Michael Porter, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, proposes "A Strategy For Health Care Reform - Toward A Value-Based System." His proposals are fundamental, lucid and right-on, meaning they're sure to be opposed by some parties to the debate, the so-called "Yes, but..." crowd. Most important, in my opinion, is this: "... electronic medical records will enable value improvement, but only if they support integrated care and outcome measurement. Simply automating current delivery practices will be a hugely expensive exercise in futility. Among our highest near-term priorities is to finalize and then continuously update health information technology (HIT) standards that include precise data definitions (for diagnoses and treatments, for example), an architecture for aggregating data for each patient over time and across providers, and protocols for seamless communication among systems. "Finally, consumers must become much mor

Being Disrupted Ain't Fun. Deal With It.

Articles about disrupting healthcare, particularly those analogizing, say, Tesla's example with healthcare's current state, are frequently met with a chorus of (paraphrasing here) "Irrelevant! Cars are easy, healthcare is hard." You know, patients and doctors as examples of "information asymmetry" and all that. Well, let me ask you this: assuming you drive a car with a traditional internal combustion engine, how much do you know about the metallurgy in your car's engine block? I'll bet the answer is: virtually nothing. In fact it's probably less than you know about your own body's GI tract. Yet somehow, every day, us (allegedly) ignorant people buy and drive cars without help from a cadre of experts. Most of us do so and live happily ever after (at least until the warranty expires. Warranties...another thing healthcare could learn from Tesla.) Now, us free range dummies - impatient with information asymmetry - are storming healthcare

My Take On Anthem-Cigna, Big Dumb Companies and the Executives Who Run Them

After last Friday's Appeals Court decision, Anthem's hostile takeover of, er, merger with Cigna has but a faint pulse. Good. Unplug the respirator. Cigna's figured it out but Anthem is like that late-late horror show where the corpse refuses to die. Meanwhile, 150 McKinsey consultants are on standby for post-merger "integration" support. I guess "no deal, no paycheck..." is powerfully motivating to keep the patient alive a while longer. In court, Anthem argued that assembling a $54 billion behemoth is a necessary precondition to sparking all manner of wondrous innovations and delivering $2.4 billion in efficiencies. The basic argument appears to be "We need to double in size to grow a brain. And just imagine all those savings translating directly into lower premiums for employers and consumers."  Stop. Read that paragraph again. Ignore the dubious "lower premiums" argument and focus on the deal's savings. $2.4 billion saved