Tag Archives: electronic medical record

Build the information medical highway and expect more traffic

Posted on by

A recent article indicates that increased patient access to online records was associated with increased in-person and telephone contacts (JAMA 2012; 308: 2012-19).

Background (from study introduction): The Institute of Medicine’s report on “Crossing the Quality Chasm” indicated that electronic patient-physician messaging was a promising technology to improve quality and efficiency.  Furthermore, previous studies have suggested that 25-70% of all visits to physicians do not require face-to-face appointments.

Design: To explore this topic further, the authors performed a retrospective cohort study on the use of health care services between 2005-2010 at Kaiser Permanente in Colorado.  This study examined patients ≥18 years old and looked at health care utilization before and after initiation of MyHealthManager (MHM). Users of MHM were compared with nonusers.  And, both groups (users and nonusers) were examined with regard to their health care utilization before and after MHM rollout. The first 30 days before and after activation of MHM were excluded from analysis to minimize the effect of increased utilization at the initiation of MHM.

Results:

  • By June 2009, patient use of MHM had increased to 53.8%.  In total, 87,206 MHM patients were identified and 71,663 nonusers were identified for study participation. 
  • MHM users were slightly older and more likely to be female.
  • After initiation of MHM, the rate of office visits increased by 0.7 per member per year (p<0.001) and the number of telephone encounters increased by 0.3 per member per year (p<0.001).  
  • The authors breakdown this data based on age, absence of chronic disease, presence of specific diseases (diabetes, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure).  In all of these scenarios, MHM users had increased visits after initiation of MHM.  Nonusers generally had the same or less visits at the same time.
  • Figure 2 shows that MHM and nonusers had identical health care utilization beforehand.  Afterwards, the MHM users maintained a parallel line of increased usage that was fairly consistent for a year after rollout.

Why did this happen?  The authors note that the result was contrary to their expectations.  They speculate that individuals may have increased their in-person use after developing additional concerns following their review of information online and that individuals may sign up who are already more likely to use services.  Online access, in these individuals, may facilitate access to more frequent visits.

I think this article points to a more pervasive miscalculation of the effect of information technology and health care utilization.  While electronic health records (EHRs) can help organize and communicate vast amounts of information, the proposition that they will ultimately reduce health care costs/utilization or improve efficiency is looking dubious.  In my opinion, the best we can hope for is that EHRs, when used optimally, will improve the quality of the care.  It is equally possible, however, that EHRs could result in more legible but less accurate information due to well-recognized issues like copy-forwarding with inadequate editing.

Related blog posts:

Aptly titled “The Cost of Technology”

Posted on by

A brief commentary in JAMA makes some real useful observations regarding the effects of the electronic medical record on patient care (JAMA 2012; 2497-98).   The article describes a drawing by a 7-yer-old girl of her doctor who has an outstanding reputation among his peers.  Yet, in the drawing he is staring at the computer, and his back is to the patient.

The author notes that “when a physician focuses on a patient with complete attention, this simple act of caring creates a connection between two human beings. Almost immediately, the patient begins to feel, well, cared for, and this becomes a first step toward helping that person feel better.”

The computer is now a third player in this dynamic.  We “find ourselves entering more and more data while we are trying to listen to and talk with our patients.”  “By default, the patient moves down to second place…it is becoming the new reality.”

Physicians have to develop electronic records that allow us to record our thinking and improve efficiency so that we have more time to communicate with patients.  Can this be accomplished?

Related blog entry:

Increased complexity or improper coding?

Posted on by

Not surprisingly, the adoption of electronic health records (EHR) has been associated with higher charges, especially in the emergency room setting (NEJM 2012; 367: 2465-67).  The question remains whether this increased complexity that is being billed is justified or simply due to “gaming” the system with electronic technology.

A specific example has been the increase in the highest level 5 codes used in emergency department (ED) visits, from 27% to 48% of Medicare charges (2001 to 2010).

While “gaming” may be part of the answer, more of the answer lies in the increasing complexity of patient conditions and more complex therapeutic options.  Specifically, the increase in higher coding has been associated with the following:

  • Marked increased use in new diagnostic technology. Overuse of technology is ill defined and failure to diagnose carries a much heavier penalty for physicians.
  • Increased numbers of patients without medical homes.  This increases the need for more diagnostic certainty.
  • Reduced hospital capacity.  Patients may be boarding in ED for quite some time before eventual admission or discharge.

Although the reasons stated explain how there may be more justification for higher complexity, it is well-recognized that EHRs facilitate billing by presenting check-boxes to more easily satisfy coding requirements.  This helps eliminate undercoding.  One of the drawbacks, though, with EHRs has been elaborate documentation at the expense of more direct patient contact.

Take home message:

The current system of coding is flawed.  While the complexity of care has increased, it remains difficult to identify the true value of the care provided. When most incentives reward increased testing and increased documentation which are easy to quantify, this is what will happen.