Memphis: Year 5 Report (Text Version)

Slide presentation from the AHRQ 2009 conference.

On September 16, 2009, Mark Frisse made this presentation at the 2009 Annual Conference. Select to access the PowerPoint® presentation (4 MB) (Plugin Software Help).


Slide 1

Slide 1. Memphis: Year 5 Report

State and Regional Demonstration Projects:

Memphis: Year 5 Report

September, 2009
Mark Frisse, reporter
 

 

Slide 2

Slide 2. The environment (2004)

The environment (2004)

  • No ONC
  • No HITECH
  • Two dominant exchange models: Indiana, Santa Barbara
  • Only one seemed to work
  • No Medicare Part D
  • EPrescribing nascent
  • SureScripts (pharmacies) and RxHub (PBM) competing
  • Clinical labs competing
  • Capitation stalled
  • Intense factionalism among hospitals
  • No consensus on health care reform

 

Slide 3

Slide 3. AHRQ SRDs (2004)

AHRQ SRDs (2004)

Pre-dated ONC
Mentioned NHII, Santa Barbara, IOM

This contract seeks to identify and support statewide data sharing and interoperability activities aimed at improving the quality, safety, efficiency and effectiveness of health care for patients and populations on a discrete state or regional level. It is expected that measurable improvements in the quality, safety, efficiency and/or effectiveness of care shall result from the proposed data sharing and interoperability measures.

 

Slide 4

Slide 4. The environment (2009)

The environment (2009)

  • ONC, version 3.0
  • HITECH - a bill, a plan, but major unresolved issues
  • Multiple exchange models
  • Common features and "winners" are slowly emerging
  • Medicare Part D
  • EPrescribing on the uptake
  • SureScripts (pharmacies) and RxHub (PBM) merged
  • Capitation stalled
  • Guarded cooperation among hospitals and ambulatory sites
  • No consensus on health care reform

 

Slide 5

Slide 5. Strength of health exchange objectives in current version of MU rises substantially by 2013

Strength of health exchange objectives in current version of MU rises substantially by 2013

Image: A chart of the Meaningful Use objectives requiring health exchange.

D. McGraw and M. Tripathi, Health Information Exchange Workgroup (PowerPoint). HIT Policy Committee, August 14, 2009
 

 

Slide 6

Slide 6. Unrealized potential

Unrealized potential

REALITY

  • Comprehensive prescription medication histories largely unavailable
  • Over-the-counter drugs (e.g., aspirin) have been largely ignored
  • No systematic allergy reporting
  • No systematic laboratory information - from office to commercial
  • Claims data remain the lingua franca
  • Many state initiatives are not really state-wide
  • Medicaid systems - few common features across states
  • Business models are not consistent with the interests of individual patients and do not support "data liquidity"
  • Concerns over "ROI" make little sense when the entire "system" is failing.

 

Slide 7

Slide 7. The Memphis Exchange

The Memphis Exchange

  • Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp. (4 facilities)
  • Christ Community Health .(4 primary care clinics)
  • Methodist Healthcare .(7 facilities including Le Bonheur Children's Medical Center)
  • The Regional Medical Center (The MED)
  • Saint Francis Hospital & St. Francis Bartlett (Tenet Healthcare)
  • St. Jude Children's Research Hospital
  • Shelby County/Health Loop Clinics (11 primary care clinics)
  • UT Medical Group (300+ clinicians)
  • Memphis Managed Care/TLC (MCO)

 

Slide 8

Slide 8. the Memphis SRD - 2009

the Memphis SRD - 2009

  • 34 facilities; over 400 users
  • 1.2 million unique patients with clinical data
  • 140,000 monthly encounters
  • 34,000monthly ICD-9 admission codes (chief complaints)
  • 2.4 million laboratory tests monthly
  • 26,000 monthly microbiology reports
  • 35,000 monthly chest x-ray reports
  • Total costs: $2.5 million per year

Met all milestones - was operational in a year; full production in 20 months

Total annual operational costs are less than $2.5 million

 

Slide 9

Slide 9. The technical model

The technical model

 

Slide 10

Slide 10. Record locator services

Record locator services

Image: A screen shot of the Recent Regisration at St. Francis Hospital is shown.

 

Slide 11

Slide 11. A lot like the first transistor radio . . .

A lot like the first transistor radio..

Image: A screen shot of a patient record is shown.

 

Slide 12

Slide 12. LOINC: an example

LOINC: an example

Image: A screen shot of LOINC.

 

Slide 13

Slide 13. Medication hub

Medication hub

Image: A screen shot of Medication hub.

 

Slide 14

Slide 14. Evaluation

Evaluation

Usage

  • 5% of overall patient visits include detailed access
  • Usage ranges from 1% to 15%
Usability
  • Extensive workflow evaluation taking place
Economic Value
  • Rigorous evaluation shows decreased utilization in the range of hundreds of thousands of dollars (i.e. can offset less than 50% of system cost); impact on transitions in care not completed.
Disease-specific utilization
  • Collaborating with TN Hospital Association
  • Addressing specific areas including abdominal pain, back pain, and headache

 

Slide 15

Slide 15. The impact is very real

The impact is very real

USER ANECDOTES:

  • "Lifesaving" impact on a patient with a ruptured ectopic pregnancy
  • Untreated active tuberculosis patient who presents for minor care
  • Terminally-ill patient seeking second opinion
  • Monitoring treatment of specific chronic conditions
  • More efficient follow-up when discharged patients present to ambulatory care clinics for follow-up care
OTHER FINDINGS
  • Providers have learned that putting the patient first does not adversely impact their "business"
  • Data sharing is not a threat to income and only a positive to care

 

Slide 16

Slide 16. Potential: transitions in Care

Potential: transitions in Care

"Real time" query: when and where do patients seen in the Med ED seek follow-up care in a safety net clinic?
 

Image: A graph showing the difference in HealthLoop vs. CCHS is shown.

 

Slide 17

Slide 17. Potential: surveillance

Potential: surveillance

Image: A graph showing the difference in Influenza A Tests Resulted Vs. Google Search Index for 'Swine Flu' in 2008 and 2009.

 

Slide 18

Slide 18. How we did it

How we did it

Governance:

  • Coercion & money
  • Focused inclusion
  • Minimal burden on participants
  • Strong data sharing agreements (Markle)
Technology:
  • Built our approach on the Vanderbilt model- a "Version 1.0"
  • We assumed standards would evolve
  • We took data "as we got it"
Evaluation
  • Quick wins
  • Meaningful metrics

 

Slide 19

Slide 19. Lessons from HIE

Lessons from HIE

Leadership essential
Feasible
Inexpensive
Limited in scope
Can evolve
Hampered by

  • Conflicting priorities
  • Business perceptions
  • Technical limitations and costs
  • Privacy concerns
  • "ROI"

 

Slide 20

Slide 20. Paul David: The dynamo

Paul David: The dynamo

The transformation of industrial processes by the new electric power technology was a long-delayed and far from automatic business

David, P.A. The Dynamo and the Computer : An Historical Perspective on the Modern Productivity Paradox (Powerpoint presentation). 1990 Available from: http://www.economics.pomona.edu/kuehlwein/Econ164/Dynamo%20and%20Computer%20Presentation.ppt.

 

Slide 21

Slide 21. Part of a remarkable team

Part of a remarkable team

State:
Governor Phil Bredesen, David Goetz, Melissa Hargis, Peter Greaves

Region:
Robert Gordon, Steve Burkett, Al King, Rodney Holmes, Jim Bailey, Rebecca Pope, George Hripcsak (TAP), Ed Hammond (TAP), Betsy Humphreys (TAP), John Quinn (TAP) and many others

Vanderbilt:
Vicki Estrin
Janet King
Will Rice
Jameson Porter
Lianhong Tang
Kevin Yang
Kevin Johnson
Mark Frisse
Dr. William Stead
Sarah Stewart
Michael Assink
Tim Coffman
Coda Davidson
Cindy Gadd

Current as of December 2009
Internet Citation: Memphis: Year 5 Report (Text Version). December 2009. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.ahrq.gov/news/events/conference/2009/frisse/index.html