News

Given the increase in threats and vulnerabilities introduced to the market on a daily basis, the process of moving protected healthcare data securely is critical to the role of IT teams in healthcare organizations.  Considering the demands that IT teams must meet in order to comply with data privacy laws and industry regulations such as HIPAA, IT professionals are in a continuous battle for file and data security. In this recently published report by Ipswitch, over 500 IT professionals around the globe were surveyed about their use of data and file transfer solutions and policies in place at their organizations.  The global findings show that while 82 percent of healthcare IT professionals believe securely transferring and sharing of files is very important, only 30 percent have policies that restrict insecure cloud file sharing services.  In the US, 38 percent of healthcare IT respondents stated they use cloud file sharing services but only 40 percent have policies in place that restrict its use.  The results were even more surprising in Europe as only 20 percent of IT organizations stated they have policies in place.  This is a significant concern as sensitive information such as patient records and medical data are outside IT control and vulnerable to data loss and breach.  While IT teams are aware of the issue, employees are continuously circumventing IT approved solutions by using these insecure services placing the organization and its data at risk. The report reveals that while external threats to data loss are still prevalent, internal threats represented the most common cause of data loss.  In the US, 72 percent of respondents shared that human and processing errors are to blame – significantly outweighing external attacks and breaches.  Meanwhile, 21 percent of IT professionals said they may have experienced a data breach or suffered data loss but are not sure.     Identifying and mitigating risks is critical to protecting data.  However, the report shows that more than a third (38 percent) of IT professionals said their processes to identify and mitigate file transfer risk are not efficient. “The survey findings point to an obvious disconnect between IT and organization leadership when it comes to file transfer security,” said Paul Castiglione, Senior Product Marketing Manager at Ipswitch. “IT teams need to voice this as a priority for 2016 to ensure the company has granular access control, automated policy governance, and protection of data in transit and at rest. By implementing a MFT solution and enforcing strict policies, IT teams can make sure sensitive company data is safe and secure, without hassle.” To learn more, check out the 2016 State of Data Security and Compliance blog by Ipswitch. Get your FREE copy and learn how leading edge healthcare IT teams are meeting data security challenges.  

The National Association for Trusted Exchange and CommonWell Health Alliance are teaming up to keep momentum on interoperability, with each becoming a member of the other's organization. Members of the two groups will begin working together immediately.

The federal government paid bonuses to 231 hospitals with subpar quality because their patients tend to be less expensive for Medicare, new research shows. The bonuses are small, generally a fraction of a percent of their Medicare payments. Nonetheless, rewarding hospitals of mediocre quality was hardly the stated goal when the Affordable Care Act created financial incentives to encourage better medical care from hospitals, doctors and other health care providers. A study published Monday in the journal Health Affairs looked at the more than $1 billion in payments made last year in the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing program, which raises or lowers Medicare payments to hospitals based on the government’s assessment of their quality. Medicare primarily uses death and infection rates and patient surveys to judge hospitals, but it also evaluates how much each hospitals’ patients cost, both in treatment and recovery. The 231 hospitals the study identified had below average scores on quality measures but were awarded the bonuses because caring for their patients during their stays and in the 30 days following their discharge cost Medicare less than what it cost at half of hospitals evaluated in the program. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, began measuring cost in October 2014 to encourage hospitals to provide care in the most efficient way possible. In the period examined in the study — the federal fiscal year that ended in September 2015 — spending counted for 20 percent of a hospital’s score in determining whether a hospital would get a bonus, penalty or regular payment. Under this formula, hospitals with Medicare spending below the median hospital were able to qualify for bonuses even though their quality measures were below the median, the study found. Patients at those 231 hospitals cost Medicare on average nearly $16,000, about $2,300 less than the average spending for the patients at other hospitals that received bonuses, according to the study’s lead author, Anup Das, a medical and health policy student at the University of Michigan. The average bonus for those lower quality hospitals was an 0.18 percent increase in Medicare payments for each patient stay during that fiscal year. Most of the 1,700 hospitals that received a bonus that year had higher than average quality ratings, and their patients in some cases were more costly to Medicare. [See also: 15 quality chiefs at best hospitals.] “High-quality low-spending hospitals received the greatest financial benefit from the program,” the study said. “In this respect, CMS achieved its goal with the new spending measure. However, some low-quality hospitals received bonuses because of their low spending.” In a statement, CMS said it would consider revising the program for future years so that hospitals scoring below the national median for quality would not receive a bonus. The statement also noted that this year, three-fourths of hospitals’ scores were based on quality measures. “We believe that there needs to be a balanced consideration between quality and cost, which is reflected in our scoring methodology,” the statement said. The study found the lower-quality hospitals that received bonuses in the last fiscal year had higher death rates for heart attacks, heart failure and pneumonia than half of the nation’s other hospitals evaluated in the program. These hospitals were also less likely to follow recommended procedures for care, like choosing the right antibiotic for patients or performing an angioplasty on a heart attack patient within 90 minutes of their arrival at the hospital. [See also: 1,700 hospitals win Medicare quality bonuses, but will never collect.] The 231 lower-quality hospitals with bonuses also received less enthusiastic ratings from patients about how well doctors and nurses communicated, responded to issues and managed pain, the study found. The study did not name the 231 hospitals. “It’s a small decrease in quality, but the differences are significant,” Das said in an interview. Other new federal quality payment programs created by the health law, such as accountable care organizations, deny bonuses to doctors or hospitals with substandard quality of care, no matter how efficiently they operate. The study suggested the government add a similar limitation to the Value-Based Purchasing program. The study did not look at the current federal fiscal year, which runs through this September. This year, Medicare gave bonuses to 1,705 hospitals, averaging 0.51 percent, and reduced payments to 1,375 hospitals by an average of 0.34 percent, according to a Kaiser Health News analysis. Along with spending, Medicare’s other criteria are: death and infection rates; how faithfully a hospital followed basic clinical guidelines; and how patients rated their experiences in surveys. Spending counts for a fourth of each hospitals’ scores, more than last year, and is scheduled to continue to do so for the next two years. The study’s lead author, Das, said in the interview that a preliminary analysis found some lower-quality hospitals again received bonuses.  

McKesson and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona are partnering to create a new service that helps physician practices that may not be part of a value-based network take on risk as traditional accountable care organizations do. The service, dubbed ACO Partner, is not an accountable care organization. But don't call it a product either, said John Wallace, ACO Partner's new president and chief operating officer. Wallace is McKesson's national vice president and general manager of accountable care services. "It's more of support structure," Wallace said, for the physician practices and providers that need help making the transition to performance reimbursement. It works like this: Physicians and providers sign a shared savings contract with a health plan participating within ACO Partner. Through the services provided, the practice reduces its expenses in medical claims in general, and a percentage of that savings goes back to the provider and insurer, according to Wallace. There is no cost to practices, so they share in the savings without risking payment cuts. "We're making the bet to say, 'Let's do it for them.' We're taking on the responsibility of analytics," Wallace said. So far, only Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona has signed on. [See also: McKesson launches venture capital fund.] ACO Partner in marketed to independent physicians who may not have the resources to transition to value-based care, and also to ACOs and clinically integrated networks that may need help accelerating the transition to getting paid for high quality and cost effective healthcare. "Better benefits for lower costs," Wallace said. "It allows them to take more market share, to compete at a higher level." McKesson provides the technology infrastructure and the analytics to support payers as they collaborate with the provider networks. ACO Partner claims to help physicians with the practical components of value-based care, including disease management, care management, population health management and patient engagement. Providers and payers contracting with ACO Partner have access to  strategic management, analytics, population health, technology, network development, physician engagement and care management services. "A lot of ACOs are making heavy investments in services and technology without a clear roadmap for success," Wallace said. A year from now, Wallace wants ACO Partner to have three to five health plans participating in state of Arizona. Beyond Arizona, he envisions the model in multiple other states. For patients, the new entity is intended to strengthen outcomes while helping reduce out-of-pocket expenses, Wallace said. "Providers love it because they have a better patient experience," Wallace said. "Plans love it because they're seeing a higher quality of care delivered. And it extends to a more efficient cost structure." Twitter: @SusanJMorse

As physicians study the Merit-based Incentive Payment System and Advanced Alternative Payment Models outlined in the newly proposed MACRA rule, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has released its finalized Quality Measure Development Plan in support of the new payment structure.

In response to the ongoing water crisis in Flint, Michigan, Google.org, the company's charitable arm, is donating $250,000 to provide technical resources to help resolve the water issues now and in the future.

UMMC CHIO John Showalter, MD, describes what associative data lakes, honest brokers and more mean to becoming a learning health system.

IBM Watson said it will provide free storage to nonprofit organizations and academic medical center researchers using Apple’s ResearchKit. But developers looking to tap into the supercomputer's analytics will have to pay.

The health system’s CIO said implementing the platform will enable it to improve care while reducing cost and risk.

SQL Server 2016 will bring new functions for protecting data in motion and at rest, visual reporting, cloud-first features and big data analytics tools.