




















It all comes down to access.



Is the term “Payor” healthcare’s oxymoron?















EHR: Got a few minutes?



Let’s roll back a few hours.  Got the time?








Kind Regards,


Paul M. Roemer
Managing Partner, Healthcare IT Strategy

1475 Luna Drive, Downingtown, PA 19335
+1 (484) 885-6942

My profiles: LinkedInWordPressTwitterMeetupBlog RSS

Why is the large provider business model obsolescing?









saint Paul M. Roemer
Chief Imaginist, Healthcare IT Strategy

1475 Luna Drive, Downingtown, PA 19335
+1 (484) 885-6942

My profiles: LinkedInWordPressTwitterMeetupBlog RSS

Who should be able to answer these business questions?






That is astonishing. Nobody can tell you:

* With whom you will interact.
* How long you will stay.
* What will happen to you.
* How it will happen to you.
* When it will happen to you.
* Who will be doing the happening.
* Exactly when it will happen.
* Whether it will need to happen again.
* What it will cost.
* What you will be charged.
* What will be covered.
* How much you will owe.






* They had a P&L by patient?
* They had a P&L per procedure?

Of course they would!


saint Paul M. Roemer
Chief Imaginist, Healthcare IT Strategy

1475 Luna Drive, Downingtown, PA 19335
+1 (484) 885-6942

My profiles: LinkedInWordPressTwitterMeetupBlog RSS

The Spandex Insecurity—the Ego has Landed









saint Paul M. Roemer
Chief Imaginist, Healthcare IT Strategy

1475 Luna Drive, Downingtown, PA 19335
+1 (484) 885-6942

My profiles: LinkedInWordPressTwitterMeetupBlog RSS

Are you “The Hospital of Perpetual Implementations?”

“There is no use trying,” said Alice;
“one can’t believe impossible things.”
Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as
six impossible things before breakfast.”


“My EHR is certifiable.”

“They told me it will pass meaningful use.”






Does reform need to be reformed?

The following is the comment I posted to,

Kent Bottles: Is It Really Impossible to Control the Cost of Health Care in the U.S.?

Kent, your narrative should be mandatory reading for all those in Washington whose vision of reform stands in stark contrast to the piece. Then, before they are allowed to propose or vote on their vision, they should be forced to explain why their vision doesn’t address these issues.

In my non-luminary opinion, here’s where I think the reformists have failed. The notion of spending funds that don’t exist, to fix things that may not be broken, without fixing those that are could only come from Washington.

Permit me to over simplify things to make a point. When I look at healthcare, I see a three legged stool; pharma, the payors, and the providers—the three P’s. Not exactly in a pod, each working to their own benefits and operating under different business models—models which are in conflict. For example, many hospitals operate as not for profits, which conflicts with the for profit sectors.

I believe the present reform effort will increase the conflict. Why? Because the legislation is siloed—it looks a lot like the word ‘soiled’ which might also be part of the problem. The legislation does not seem designed to address healthcare as in integrated industry. The way reform is positioned, each nudge that is put to one leg of the stool will cause a reaction, an unfavorable one, to the other legs. It is a little like doing an experiment, changing multiple variables at once, and hoping for the best.

Two sides of the stool, the payors and pharma, have behemoths running the show. Among the behemoths, the business models in pharma are quite similar and the same holds for the payors.
I think it is important to distinguish between the business of healthcare (the dollars and cents) and the healthcare business (the clinical side). The provider segment is highly fragmented. There is no behemoth provider cartel. The business of healthcare, is the side most in need of reform. Each of the thousands of providers operates under their own business model. None of these businesses was designed to be interoperable—I do not use this term in the same sense being used by the ONC and CMS.

The business of healthcare, with all of its inefficiencies, is designed to operate within its four walls and across a limited geographical radius. The long term goal of healthcare reform, I believe, is to make the provider side appear as one giant services provider. Just because consolidation sort of worked for steel, the airlines, and the automotive industry does not mean it will work for delivering healthcare.

My final comment has to do with the payor side of healthcare, and I’ll start by acknowledging that this one is more than a little provocative, one for which I have not thought through a workable solution—I’ll leave that to those of you who aren’t grasping for metaphorical tomatoes to throw. I could be convinced to skip the rest of my comments if for a moment I thought that the business model of the payors was—let’s cover everyone who needs care for a fair cost. Ignore for the moment that my statement is naive.

We know that on a small scale it is possible for people to self-insure, to meet their needs without having to rely on payors. I’ll frame my final comment with a question—where is the value-add to healthcare from the payors?

Here is my issue with the current model. You want to go to the movie, you hand me ten dollars for an eight dollar ticket, and I pay the movie theater on your behalf and pocket the two dollars. In this instance I am merely the middle man, I manage the transaction. The theater gets no marginal benefit, and you get no marginal benefit.

Not complex enough? Let’s say someday millions of people want to go to the movies and a ticket will cost them eight dollars. Anticipating that, everyone pays me a dollar a day so that when the time comes they can go. On that day, I pay for movie tickets for those who want to go, pocket the difference, and I keep the money for those who don’t go.

In my small mind, that’s how I view the payor leg of the stool. I think the payors relish reform. I think the more they complain about how badly this will hurt them the more they may like it. It reminds me of the Uncle Remus story in which Brer Rabbitt pleading with Brer Bear and Brer Fox not to throw him into the briar patch.

What industry wouldn’t be salivating if they could find an additional thirty or forty million customers overnight? What if you could charge them a monthly fee and make the co-pay so high that you might not have to cover major medical claims? Does this sound absurd or does it sound a little like the mortgage banking industry? Fess for no service. I am not saying that this will happen in every case, but I do not think one can argue that this will never happen.

Circling back to how to reform reform. From my vantage point, the most advantageous reform idea would be to force multiples of payors to compete in every state. Competition could do wonders for cost control.

A final thought. Earlier this year a House committee passed legislation on “can’t fail” businesses. The Financial Services Committee voted on an amendment that would let regulators dismantle a firm, limit mergers and acquisitions, and force an end to activities deemed systemically risky. The financial industry opposed the measure, as part of legislation to overhaul Wall Street rules. This could be another opportunity for the camel—Washington—to get its nose further under the healthcare tent. There is nothing that limits the legislation to financial services. Call me a cock-eyed pessimist, but what is there to prevent Congress from deciding that the payors need to be dismantled, thereby ushering in a federal payor model? That would give them two legs of the stool. What if…?

“Are the best intentions of EHR Half-Full or Half Empty?”

Doublethink. Functioning simultaneously on two contradictory beliefs and accepting both as true. By definition, one must be false, unless of course you are living in a parallel universe, in which case you’re in need of more help than I can deliver. George Orwell defined it as, “A vast system of mental cheating”—on yourself, I might add.

What does doublethink accomplish and why does it exist with varying degrees within each of us? First, it allows us to overcome our own competence. I think that’s worth repeating, overcoming our own competence. We know better and yet we talk ourselves out of accepting what we know, creating an equal and offsetting false belief.

Second, it acts as a safety net. How? Let’s say we are one hundred percent confident in Belief A. Well, almost. There’s always that little nagging disbelief, that little devil on the shoulder trying to convince you otherwise. Sort of like ‘buyer’s remorse’—only we’ll call it believer’s remorse. Just in case Belief A is wrong, maybe I should have a backup belied, Belief B. Jeckyll and Hyde.

How does that impact one in the EHR problem?  Buckle up. Most people with whom I’ve worked are very passionate about what they do and are paladins of their methods.  Sort of EHR young Turks.  Belief A. They do everything they can for the program.

While sincerely believing in the importance of EHRs, here’s what else I’ve observed.  Much of that belief envelopes the limited notion of believing that nothing lays outside of their skill set. They often recognize it more as a desire than a belief.  They know fully that they will face challenges which are new to them.  They know fully that many implementations have failed and that they need to spend more effort on change management and work flow alignment than was budgeted.  The list of challenges for which they lack the expertise never empties.  They know the light at the end of the tunnel is just a train. They know fully that solving the current problem only seems to reveal the next one.  Belief B.

So, we’ve come full circle. We outwardly profess we can do what others have failed to do, yet in our heart of hearts we believe that you may never see an ROI. Doublethink.

Which gets us back to our original question, “Are the best intentions Half-Full or Half Empty?”

I am Stupified

Got the T-shirt.

Did you know AIG got $79 billion?  There’s also our friends at Goldman.  This got me thinking—some would argue that it in itself is noteworthy.  There’s a reason nobody shed tears for these guys, and that is the average person has no connection to them other than what they hear on the evening news.  We never got a car loan or a mortgage from them, so when they were dangling over the precipice we wouldn’t have lost any sleep had they been allowed to fail.  Unfortunately, the reports of their death were greatly exaggerated.

American poet John Godfrey Saxe based the poem The Blind Men and the Elephant on a fable told in India many years ago.  The poem is about blind men trying to describe the elephant solely on what they are able to feel.  As they are all feeling a different part, they each think the elephant is something different from what it is and from what the other believes.

It feels like the reform effort involves an equally obtuse process—dozens of people in separate rooms, each with their own pad of paper and box of Crayolas. When they finished creating their vision of reform, the person with the biggest office stapled all the pages together with the big red stapler like the one they used in the movie Office Space.

Here’s how this all ties together—don’t blink or you may miss it.  People weren’t vocal about AIG and Goldman because we weren’t connected, because it wasn’t personal.  The opposite is true about healthcare reform.  We are connected.  It is personal.  This is what Washington doesn’t get.  If they don’t demonstrate that they get it, it will fail.

Nancy Pelosi has been the poster child for the reform effort.  Her unfavorable ratings are at two to one.  Sixty percent of Americans, also known as voters, are against the reform.  I’d wager that nearly one hundred percent of those people have insurance, and rightly or wrongly, they believe that reform will take that from them.  There is a small but important distinction here.  They are not against reform per se; they are against the reform as is being discussed.  Moreover, the snowball rolling down hill that Washington–and most of the east coast–can’t stop is that nobody can accurately describe what it is they’re against.

How can the average person know if reform will work?  If reform can’t be explained clearly on a single page, Washington will lose the voter–they have.  The opponents of reform had their message down to a page; the one bullet point is “change the bill.”