Sharing, curation, and use of data for a continuously learning health system hold great potential in wide and far reaching areas such as clinical care, patient engagement, informed clinical choice, quality improvement, drug and device safety, effectiveness assessments, and scientific discovery. But to achieve this, an unprecedented level of collaboration among and communication between all stakeholders in the health system is required.
This paper calls for three key considerations:
- Foster a culture of data sharing
- Create the operational functionality for data sharing
- Build the continuous data-sharing improvement capacity
This panel brings together experts to discuss how to achieve secure data sharing. Where are we right now? What are the big hurdles to data sharing? What are workable solutions? Do we agree with the three considerations laid out in this paper? Why or why not? What do we think the solutions will look like? Where should we focus our efforts?
Connect
It's not all about the money. At some point doctors need to start acting as patient advocates rather that hospital employees on commission.
Pending
Patient experience ties both financial need and medical care together. Internet reviews already influence the way people buy products or services. It's in the health institutions best interest to prioritize the patient and promote a "customer first" mentality.
It's interesting to consider the history of automating processes outside of healthcare. Factory improvements require large initial investment and provide long term savings. Data sharing is no different. Costly and time consuming processes will soon be automated and provide overall savings to health institutions.
Connect
In my opinion, any initiative for sharing data needs to be targeted at the patients. In my experience, sharing data is a very trivial task, assuming the data is electronic. However, the complex legal and moral implications of sharing patient data is the main obstacle. The property rights rest with the patient, so I don't really see a way around this. I would go so far as to say, that there needs to be a regulation compelling health records to be used only with express consent from patient (even if you have the data). I say this because there is a divide in the industry - the ones with the data and ones without. The data holders have all kinds of incentives to exclude those without, irrespective of the patient's wishes. Once the playing field is level, everyone will start clamoring for 'sharing and caring'.
Connect
Thank you for your question. I was wondering the very same thing, Hayward! Perhaps if this is government regulated, tax incentives or the like would help. Would creating a positive public reception of data sharing encourage companies? Similar to "giving campaigns" and employee volunteering, they may see a marketing pay-off. What do you think?
Connect
In response to Adrian’s comment, unfortunately, many physicians are now employees of large institutions. In Massachusetts, only 20% of physicians are self-employed and that number is going to drop to single digits in the next five or 10 years. As employees of these larger businesses (yes they are businesses) the individual physicians do not have control over how the institution uses the data in the institution’s EHR. It is also unrealistic to think that the physicians are going to sacrifice their professional career and income to obtain control over the data.
Re: Jonathan’s comment that “It's in the health institutions best interest to prioritize the patient and promote a "customer first" mentality” I fully agree and we already see this happening. In my hospital, the motto which is plastered on all the walls is “patients first in everything we do”. However, how this plays-out may not be what we expect. For example, this may translate into all (paying) patients getting a private rooms, iPads to use while hospitalized, fancy food and very personal care to ensure they write a good review for others to read online. However none of this matters when it comes to the quality of healthcare provided or the need to reduce the cost of healthcare.
Connect
Part 2
I am also less optimistic than Jonathan who stated “Costly and time consuming processes will soon be automated and provide overall savings to health institutions.” This is an assertion which is yet to be proven. Having been involved in information technology for very long time, almost everything in information technology take substantially longer and cost four times as much as would have been expected. In addition, assumptions which would appear to be rational and predictable, when applied to healthcare turn out to be incorrect. For example, 2-3 decades ago, prior to the first HMO, everyone “knew” that the HMOs would be able to drive down cost and improve quality. Even now, many still believe that if the right incentives are in place, eg pay for performance (P4P), the cost of healthcare would drop precipitously in the quality would rise. Now that we’re starting to see the data, it is obvious that those dogmatic assertions turned out to be very wrong.
Connect
Part 3
Given my experience with patients, I think it is unrealistic to expect them to be involved in decisions regarding data sharing. Most people are just trying to get their medicines at an affordable price and these abstract benefits, which may or may not flow to somebody, will not immediately effect the patient and therefore they are not going to partake in any “data sharing” decisions. Further, the healthcare system really does not have the bandwidth to engage in a discussion of this type with patients, let alone expecting the patient to truly understand the ramifications of sharing their data. It is well documented that most patients do not understand the full ramifications of “informed consent,” and agree to sign the form simply because they trust that physician.
Connect
part 4
Finally, this needs to be done in a way that does not involve financial disincentives. Community hospitals, safety net hospitals, small medical groups, even intermediate size hospitals, do not have the luxury to spend money on health IT issues which are not going to immediately benefit the institution. We can argue that it is the right thing to do, which it is, but the institution’s first goal is to keep the lights on and keep the hackers out. There is nothing left over after that to deal with these other issues. I had tried to get hemoglobin A1c data (blinded) of all the patients in my hospital and only obtained the data after two years of trying. And that was a very simple ask. Imagine if I said to them “send me a list of patients who are of a specific age and are taking of specific drug and who had a specific lab abnormality and who failed have a follow-up visit with their primary care physician within 6 months of the lab abnormality.”
Connect
Part 5
I am sorry to be so pessimistic but that is the way I see the world of HIT. I love IT and healthcare and I think it has great potential, but we need to learn to walk before we can run. I think we need to promote small apps, which can be objectively assessed as to their efficacy, then expand upon what is proven to work.
We also need to remember what is the problem we are trying to solve. I think we would all agree that the first and most important problem is to reduce the cost of healthcare and improve the quality of healthcare. The solution to that problem is not in health information technology. The solution to that problem is investing in social services/early childhood education. This has been demonstrated in Europe and in the US and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has been a major advocate. Unfortunately, that approach does not employ health information technology people, does not push money into the healthcare system and is not nearly as sexy or easy to implement as health information technology. The lack of a constituency for those non-sexy services and the vocal constituency in favor of (always more) health information technology makes it unlikely the ship is going to change directions.
Connect
"Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that man behind the tree." goes the old saying. @Bodhisattya's comment above "The Patient is KEY" gets my vote because it recognizes that patient data is used as a means to lock in the patient and avoid transparency of cost and quality. All of the comments about "IT is expensive" and "change takes time", and "physicians are just following orders" may be correct in some sense but are also a cynical avoidance of our responsibility to our patients. As long as physicians AND hospitals profit from a lack of patient mobility and a lack of transparency, cynicism rules the day.
Connect
I try to view the world objectively and optimistically. While you call it "cynicism," I believe that my statements reflect the reality as to how the healthcare system really works today.
It does no one a service to say "physicians should take control of the situation and demand..." when that is no longer how healthcare system works and that will only result in the physician losing their ability to practice in their chosen community.
Today's healthcare IS a collaboration of many participants and physicians and the patients are only 2 players among many, and they do not have the political power to take control of the healthcare system. Maybe things will change in the future, as the healthcare system seems to completely re-invent itself every decade, but I do not see that change happening anytime soon. I too wish it were otherwise.
Pending
That said, while recognizing the barriers we face now to patient control of their data, we can start setting the context for how that might change in the future. Some of you many know that I write a blog about informatics-related topics, and I recently was motivated to write about an aspect of this topic based on the paper by Mikk, Sleeper, and Topol in JAMA (DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.12145). We ultimately need to move to cloud-based, standards-based patient data stores, with the EHRs of the world then (with appropriate authorization by the patient and authentication by the system) would access that data store. The challenge is how to get there, and the cost will ultimately need to become part of the cost of healthcare. Here is the link to my blog, and I welcome comments and suggestions:
informaticsprofessor.blogspot....
Connect
Dr. Hersh's vision is more realistic than some may think. Dr. Chen and I host a demonstration project at hieofone.org/ that uses the FHIR standards and emerging blockchain credentialing for the physicians and audit for authenticity. This enables any patient to host their own trusted health record that authorized physicians can sign into, update, write a prescription, etc.. The linkage with institutional EHRs that have enabled the OpenEpic API interfaces is also operational. Check out the website, and the 2-minute highlights video.
As Dr. Hersh notes in his blog, a longitudinal health record needs to be standards-based. It also needs to evolve and last a lifetime. This precludes proprietary approaches and walled gardens as a business model. Patient-centered health records need to be as open source and "continuously learning" as medicine itself. This brings us back to the money thing. Will patients have a right to a standards-based and open source health record? Or, will each patient be captured by some combination of EHR vendor and hospital or insurance business? The standards and blockchain trust technologies are almost here (as we show) but the business and medical profession issues are yet to be discussed. What will the AMA and our professional societies do about this?
Pending
The manuscript concludes "For data sharing to become more common, the culture of health care, public health, and medical science will need to evolve such that refusing to share is understood as counter to the best interests of individuals and society."
The culture is already changing. This manuscript and our discussion are signs of the change. Data sharing and interoperability are national conversations today and technology is increasing alongside customer expectations. With internet forums and blogs, refusing to share is a public statement.
Pending
I do not dismiss the financial issues Hayward presents and I do see real potential value in Adrian's HIE-of-1 model. Beyond that, data-sharing should ultimately give: (a) patients information in a way that enables them to make value-based decisions regarding their care; (b) clinicians patient-generated information that enables them to make decisions that take into account psychological and SDOH factors that influence their ability and willingness to be engaged and actively involved in their care and health maintenance; and (c) researchers and model-builder information they need to develop, continually evaluate and improve care guidelines.
Connect
Although it is early in the patient-engagement and "Patient Portal" game, there is data to suggest that these innovations may not move the needle on the quality/cost problem as we had expected. For example a 2013 AIM concluded "Evidence that patient portals improve health out- comes, cost, or utilization is insufficient." (Ann Intern Med. 2013;159:677-687) and there is data that providing patients with cost data, thus enabling them to choose a less expensive Rx option, was not effective (I do not have that reference readily available.)
Again, I am sorry to be such a "bummer" but we need to keep our eye on the data if we hope to solve the cost/quality problem and not simply pursue a goal just because it seems rational or like it would be "meaningful." The history of medical care is replete with "treatments" that everyone "knew" worked
but when put under the microscope were found to be useless/harmful.
Pending
Patient portals in it of themselves are not effective enough to drive patient engagement or move the needle on the quality/cost problem as Dr. Zwerling suggests. The fragmentation of these portals where they are directly coupled to an institutional EHR only exacerbates the problem. How realistic is it for a patient to remember possibly more than one login to different institutions? How realistic is it for a patient to possibly remember which institutions they have gone to for care, especially when patients are going to urgent/immediate care centers seeing different providers? There is clearly a disconnect between patient expectations and the current reality of our Health IT as most *assume* that institutions and EHRs all talk to each other and are then completely baffled that it is not the case. Adding another patient portal layer to the existing fragmented EHR landscape will be a losing battle. We must rethink how we can harness existing and emerging technologies to put patients and physicians (irregardless if they work in an institution or not) front and center, not as an afterthought like we are currently experiencing.
Pending
I agree that today's patient portals (incl. PHRs) are not a solution. Instead, I contend we need a completely different type of patient-facing tool, more like a personal health profile that provides meaningful information tailored to a patient's specific health needs/risks, literacy level, degree of knowledge, social determinants, etc. It should promote useful communication between the patient and care team by helping to structure encounters around discussion of the patient's situation/problems and the available treatment plan options, including their potential risks, benefits and requirements. It should help guide the patient through a learning process creates a rational/realistic mindset and strategy for establishing and implementing the treatment plan, and which addresses the patient's concerns and fears. I have concrete ideas for such a tool; one that integrates the best of today's health IT and fills the gaps through collaborative innovation.
Pending
Dr. Chen and Dr. Beller make great points. St Cloud VA Health Care System developed "Health Hub" as one patient centered location for all VA programs and electronic modalities. Veterans stop by, have a cup of coffee and receive education and/or support for any need. This reliable one location for support encourages the less than interested, to give patient portals a try. As I say "if it causes you problems, give me a call. If you have to call 6 times, call me 6 times." One location for support, frees clinicians from following program's changing websites and workflow. "Want your patient using the portal? Send them our way and we'll help them sign up and show them how to use the computer."
One location for veteran and staff support eased our Veteran Health Information Exchange (VHIE/VLER) implementation in one of the nations most legally complicated states. The state of Minnesota requires Dual Consent authorization for health information exchange. Authorizations must be signed on both sides for bi-directional exchange. We mailed VA side of authorization to all 38,000 St. Cloud veterans with 16,000 signed and returned. The volume of available information and the veterans themselves, encouraged community providers across the state to join VHIE and exchange health information with the VA.
Last summer, I called every provider in MN, brought them all together on one call and discussed details to state wide VHIE implementation. In the spirit of helping Veterans, we received no competitive type resistance. The systems that could afford it were very supportive, so much so, they pressured us to grow faster then anticipated.
fedhealthit.com/2017/05/7618-2...
Connect
Modern Healthcare
By Rachel Z. Arndt | November 30, 2017
There's a new app available for healthcare patients to make some money off their medical data.
Falls Church, Va.-based healthcare IT company Health Wizz has created a patient-data-aggregation platform that allows patients to trade and sell their data to pharmaceutical companies, researchers and other organizations.
The platform, which was previously available in beta and was relaunched Thursday, runs on a mobile app through which patients can aggregate their health records.
"We provide interoperability on the phone itself as opposed to waiting for the electronic health record companies to provide interoperability," said Raj Sharma, CEO of Health Wizz.
Patients pull the data into the Health Wizz app via EHR patient portals. They can then use the DirectTrust framework to send their data to providers.
Or they can use the blockchain to share data with organizations actively seeking it out, such as pharmaceutical companies and researchers. The blockchain does not store the actual records but instead points these organizations to the sources of a patient's data, which they can access after getting digital permission.
The blockchain also enables the financial interactions Health Wizz encourages: Patients can charge—in a cryptocurrency similar to bitcoin—for access to their information. The patient decides whether his or her data will be anonymized or not... truncated.
modernhealthcare.com/article/2...
Pending
DirectTrust is an organization that certifies HISPs (health internet service providers) through which data flows from sender to recipient using encrypted email as per the Direct Projects technical specifications. It's fine, however, the data are not encrypted end-to-end (from sender to recipient) since the data are exposed briefly at the HISP; business associate agreements (BAAs) reduces the risk of lawsuit for a breach. If the sender and receiver have digital certificate, otoh, the data are not exposed, so DirectTrust and the BAAs are not required' and if identity certs are also used, then the receiver has reasonable certainty who sent it. Blockchain uses a different method of transport and data security. All three methods are P2P capable. And selling one’s own PHI seems fine, but I don’t know if there would be unintended consequences. Good to explore new innovations.