In early March, Becker’s Hospital Review reported that MD Anderson Cancer Center placed their Oncology Expert Advisor project on hold. Announced in 2013, the joint effort between the hospital and the software giant was to be a revolutionary step forward in the use of “big data” to significantly improve clinical decision making and healthcare delivery. The article cites a number of reasons as to why the initiative was sidelined, not the least of which was cost. However, according to the article, a far more interesting complication arose involving MD Anderson’s electronic health record (EHR) system, which was changed after the program had begun. IBM Watson’s technology no longer communicated with the new EHR system and therefore had outdated information.
By now, it’s probably safe to say that some, if not all, of you have experienced some level of “big data fatigue.” The phrase has become ubiquitous, no matter the industry, although it seems none more so than in healthcare. Indeed, almost every healthcare news source to which I subscribe these days seems to have weekly articles, essays, white papers and blogs about big data. But there’s a common thread often missing from these reports. While they all report on the inevitability of big data’s influence on the healthcare sphere, as well as the manner in which electronic health/medical records (EHR/EMR) will continue to impact the future of care delivery, there is little discussion of the role of evidence as it relates to big data.
There’s no disputing that the current state of healthcare is in flux. Regardless of public opinion and political leanings about the topic, the manner in which clinicians and health systems deliver care is changing, and more disruption to long-accepted paradigms is on the horizon. Though the move away from fee-for-service medicine has been in existence for some time, the adoption of an evidence-based approach in the provider market has been uneven at best. Perhaps now more than ever, a refocusing is required on just what evidence-based medicine (EBM) is, and why the application of the scientific method to healthcare delivery is essential to achieving the crucial Triple Aim.
2016 marked a banner year for our company. We are humbled by the loyalty of our ever-expanding client roster. At the same time, we take great pride in what we’ve accomplished over the last 12 months and we’d like to share some of those endeavors with you here. If you’re new to Hayes, or not yet a member, we invite you to view just a sample of the innovation and growth we’ve experienced as an indication of things to come.
So without further ado…
You can’t get away from the word “value” in today’s healthcare environment. It’s in practically every headline of every blog, whitepaper, and email blast. From value-analysis teams to value-based medicine and purchasing, the word has become so commonplace, it risks losing its own value. With the continued shift away from fee-for-service medicine and toward pay-for-performance, we’ll need to embrace value as not only part of our vocabulary, but as a guide for our business practices. Along those lines, I’d like to take the opportunity this week to tell you about our business values; about how they make us the obvious choice for your health technology assessments; and about how our adherence to those values cost us $100,000.
On October 9, 1991, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Videx (didanosine) as part of a treatment for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. The year before, I began working with two small insurance companies to examine the existing evidence for the treatment of HIV and AIDS, in order to provide them with unbiased information to make evidence-based coverage determinations. Additional healthcare technologies emerged, such as positron emission tomography (PET) scanning, high-dose chemotherapy, and bone marrow transplantation, requiring unbiased analysis of the research into their respective effectiveness. Based on the success of these efforts, it became apparent that there was enough interest in an evidence-based approach to coverage determinations to develop a subscription- and service-based resource for the payer environment. However, to be done correctly, it had to be on a large scale, with multiple clients and an exhaustive exploration of the research. Thus, the Hayes Medical Technology Directory was born.
Trying to make decisions about which healthcare technology to acquire, the appropriate timing of these acquisitions, and the utilization of these products can feel like an endless game show episode. The movement toward a value-based healthcare delivery system has left healthcare organizations scratching their heads to come up with the answers about how to make the most cost-efficient and clinically effective purchases and deployment decisions that will enhance patient outcomes without negatively affecting the bottom line. Both clinical leadership and supply chain coordinators want to know: can I phone a friend? Do I have a 50/50?
It seems only fitting that we held our inaugural Client Symposium by the historic Philadelphia waterfront. We’ve envisioned ourselves as a lighthouse, shining a light on the best available evidence and providing you with decision-making tools to establish best practices and deliver value-based medicine. Although today’s technology has made it possible for us to work with our partners remotely all over the world, we recognized the need and benefit of face-to-face interactions. After nearly thirty years in business, we called the ships to shore, allowing us all the opportunity to reunite, recognize, and reinvigorate our journey to improve the provision of evidence-based healthcare.
Last week, the FDA released a safety communication regarding laparoscopic uterine power morcellation. Laparoscopic power morcellators are medical devices used during certain gynecologic procedures such as hysterectomy and myomectomy (the removal of uterine fibroid tumors). Power morcellators essentially chop the tissue into tiny pieces that are then removed through small incision sites.
Topics: Hayes Blog
The May issue of the journal Health Affairs focused on the recent slowdown in healthcare spending. These spending data, which were released by the government earlier this year, showed that between 2009 and 2011 healthcare expenditures increased about 3% annually, in contrast to the average 5.9% growth we experienced in the previous 10 years.
Topics: Hayes Blog