Posts Tagged ‘PHRs’
Return of Dossia
September 18, 2007
According to an article on iHealthbeat, Children’s Hospital Informatics Program has been hired to restart this project of a life-long medical record sponsored by major corporations. Dossia ran into problems with its first vendor as was reported extensively. ”
Among the appeal of Children’s Hospital’s Indivo to Dossia is that the open source system provides control over health record data.” Will they be able to scale it up for the more than 2.5 million U.S. employees, retirees, and dependents? Time will tell but teaming up with a system which is associated with a provider may be a wise move.
Share this:
New PHR – MyHealthArchive
September 16, 2007
This PHR is a product from PatientCentral Technologies, LLC, of Dallas. It is part of the PatientCentral Suite of products. They are described as: “First-order analysis of the database derives information about the movements of people and things. Second order analysis utilizes deduction, testing, modeling, and root cause analysis to yield insight about the clinical and business processes in play.”
The PHR tries to keep the process simple. There is a good explanation about why a PHR is important. They emphasize that theirs is NOT controlled by insurance companies, a telling statement in itself.
They state that one unique feature is “calendaring and preventive health functions” and promise security through a mechanism which is not detailed. Perhaps more detail on how they secure the data would encourage consumers to sign up.
Share this:Helpful Article on Choosing a PHR
September 14, 2007
In U.S. News and World Report, a brief article on selecting a PHR provides a good introduction to PHRs.
Examples are giving of desktop programs, internet-based and flash drives. Teathered PHRs which connnect to EMRs are also mentioned. The articles touts some benefits as well: “the payoff …is that patients become more knowledgeable about and more accountable for their health and their treatment.”
Missing in the article is information about security and long-term storage of records. But for this abbreviated view, the publication provides a good overview.
Also, I stumbled upon a new blog worthy of note: EHR PHR and Patient Portals by Electronic Health Record Consultants.
Share this:Two PHR Announcements
September 7, 2007
Both University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Health Plan and BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina announced the launch of PHRs. UPMC offer, MyHealthRecord provides access to health records which includes claims data but also the ability to add personal information and get health reminders. With 500,000 covered lives, there is potential for a large pool of users.
BCBS is providing claims data but also a partnership with ParadigmHealth which has extensive chronic and acute disease management tools. “The Integrated Care Management platform will enable BlueCross to fully integrate case management, disease management, maternity management, and high acuity complex care management data and dashboards on a single IT platform.”
Its good to see more large health plans getting in to the PHR business. As I have stated before, there is little data on adoption by plan members and will they trust their health plan to provide this service?
There needs to be a way to integrate one’s personal health information from all sources including real-time provider data and not just delayed claims data, particularly in emergency situations.
Share this:HL7 PHR Functional Model Released for Comment
August 30, 2007
The Electronic Medical Record Committee of HL7 has produced this model for comment until the middle of September. It is encouraging to see this technical standard released. It’s interesting that even consumers have had input on this. The proposed standards include sections to: Manage Historical Clinical Data And Current State Data, Wellness, Preventive Medicine, and Self Care, Manage Health Education, Account Holder Decision Support, Personal Health, Manage Encounters with Providers.
Share this:Payor Based PHRs – A Good Idea?
August 28, 2007
In an article in Health Data Management, the question is asked, “Should Payers Push PHRs?” The answer is yes and no. While a given patient may have many providers, they often have one payer, so a payer-based PHR gives the advantage, using claims data, to consolidate pre-populated health information in a PHR from many providers. Disadvantages include the fact that in some families, each spouse may have their own payer and the family may have information in two places. Claims data may also be delayed in posting compared to provider EHRs. Also, an employer may change payors or the employee may change jobs and payors. Would most people be more likely to stay faithful to a provider therefore making provider-based PHRs more advantageous? Certainly the surveys show that consumers prefer the PHRs in the provider’s hands. Another criticism from the article is that payor records lack detail. Could over-coding by providers and hospitals also make claims data look more alarming to the patient prompting more phone calls to the provider rather than having the records and secure messaging integrated with the provider?
Opinions welcomed.
Share this:HIMSS PHR Definition Released
August 17, 2007
This 13 page document attempts to comprehensively lay out what an ePHR can be and should be. Specifically, it outlines what the ideal PHR would look like. For instance, “The ideal ePHR would receive data from all constituents that participate in the individual’s healthcare; allow patients or proxies to enter their own data (such as journals and diaries); and designate read-only access to the ePHR.”
Other key terms in the definition include, “lay person comprehensible” and “lifelong tool for managing health information”.
It is true that most PHRs can’t begin to make these kinds of promises much less the high premium the document puts on security, confidentiality, and trust, a word rarely used in discussing PHRs but essential in the patient-physician relationship. But I can’t agree more that to be successful, PHRs must be understandable and highly user friendly. They must be available on the long term because we manage our health on the long term, not by quarters or even years. And our information is currently in various sources and needs to be consolidated in one place we have control over.
The full PDF version is here.
PHR Fragmentation
August 10, 2007
On Digital Healthcare and Productivity, David Lansky, senior director at the Markle Foundation , was interviewed on the current state of PHRs. He notes the variety of sponsors for PHRs as leading to “digital silos”. On patient empowerment, “it doesn’t add up to an empowered consumer until the network environment permits information to flow into a tool that the consumer controls and manages.” On privacy and security: “patients need to know there is an audit trail.” On data accuracy in PHRs: “The issue will be less the authoritativeness of the raw data than the ability to translate it into something useful in terms of a clinical decision-making encounter.”
The solution is “It’s really about the way we deliver healthcare and access information.” not necessarily about the technology or payment reform.
Share this:KP Online offers more features
July 31, 2007
Kaiser Permanente Health Connect launched in 2005 for Northern California. It has the standard features for a teathered PHR – appointments, test results, and now includes secure email with providers. Some procedures are described step-by-step as an example of its integration with health information. Adoption has been steadily increasing, now up to 42,000. In this same article in scabee.com (Sacramento Bee newspaper), UC Davis’ MD Online boasts 25,000 patients online, although it does not mention if they are using a specific PHR product.
Maybe the tipping point for PHRs is those which are teathered to an EMR because basic services are offered up front despite the lack of ability to add one’s own content. There is also the advantage of a trusted source owning the PHR, the hospital or provider group.
Share this:Streamlined online medical records among proposals
July 27, 2007
Today, the Cleveland Plain Dealer focused on one of the recommendations of the Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors. Specifically, they note the recommendation to improve family and veteran access to online medical records and disability benefits. Touting C. Martin Harris, CIO of the Cleveland Clinic, the article notes:
“Using aspects of the Clinic model, the federal commission has recommended that the VA and the Pentagon create a Web
site called “My eBenefits” that would allow doctors and service members to access private medical information as the injured move from facility to facility to receive treatment.” The recommendation also includes better sharing of information between the military and Veteran’s Administration medical systems.
Let’s hope these are implemented in a timely manner to fix this shameful problem.
Share this: