Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Cost
and Price of Quality IT Monitoring
Everything
you want is life has a price connected to it.
There’s a price to pay if you
want
things better , a price to leaving things as they are, a price for everything.
Harry Brown (1933-2006), Libertarian candidate for president, 2000
Based on a survey of 1000 doctors, Health IT News reports that individual
doctor in private practice spend more
than $40,000 each to monitor quality through their electronic medical records, for a grand total of $15.4 billion in you include
all physicians. Doctors devote 2.6
hours on a week on this effort, and they
and their staff spend 15.1 hours a week
feeding data to their electronic records. Seventy five percent of the surveyed doctors say they waste time and money on measures that aren’t clinically
revelant.
In 2009, the Obama
administration decided to pay $27 billion to doctors and hospitals to encourage
them to install electronic medical records (EMRs). These EMRs would allow government and
insurers to gather data that would allow
them to measure outcomes, and
supposedly, to identify doctors with good outcomes, to weed out doctors with bad outcomes, and to reward the good doctors, and penalize the bad doctors. Today 83% of
physicians have electronic medical records.
Collectively doctors spent $15.4 billion in 2015 –
to maintain their EHRs, hiring of staff to enter data, time spent figuring out what codes to
use, grappling with indecipherable computer screens, with less
patient eye contact, less watching
of patient body language, less
listening to patient histories, less physician contact during examinations,
all of which doctors claim, does not advance quality of care.
In other words, in
the opinion of 3/4s of doctors
surveyed, the price of measuring
“quality” are high overhead costs, less patient contact, and time spent on busywork. Unfortunately, to escape
time, money, and effort expended on EMRs, many
physicians are escaping electronic hassles and drudgeries by becoming
hospital employees, retiring early, or entering concierge practices,
where EMRs are not required.
It’s important, of course, to put EMRs in perspective. In the opinion of federal overseers, “In God we trust, all others use data.”
The theoretical virtue of EMRs is that the records contain essential information on
the patient’s medical history, including
past medical records, lab tests, X-rays and other imaging studies.
If only every
patient could carry their medical record
from doctor to doctor in a thumb drive and could insert it into the new
doctor’s EMR, the patient’s record would end
misunderstandings and duplicate testing,
But we are not there yet, and
many EMRs do not accept data from other EMRs.
Ideally, EMRs could reduce medical errors, end
duplications, engage patients in their own care, create coordination of care. Presently, however, EHRs are clunky to use
and to interpret, and most do not
contain a narrative history of the patient’s history and do not accept doctors’
dictations, their normal way of
communicating with other doctors. And
most physicians do not consider to be either doctor-friendly or useful. Perhaps
some day we shall total transparency ,
even total access to charts and doctors’ clinical notes, but we are not there yet.
"On top of the obscene waste of
billions of dollars each year on quality measures, the most alarming thing
about this study of MGMA member practices is that nearly three-fourths of the
groups reported being measured on quality measures that are not clinically
relevant," said Halee Fischer-Wright, MD., MGMA's president and CEO, in a
statement.
"The vast majority also stated current
measures are useless for improving patient care," she added. "This
study proves that the current top-down approach has failed. It serves no
purpose to have over three thousand competing measures of quality across
government and private initiatives."
Quality remains subjective and like beauty, is in the
eyes (and pocketbooks) of federal and physician beholders.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment