Free IT For Doctors, Updated – New York’s Using It For Those Who Treat the Poor

I’ve written about the potential market for IT in the primary care physician arena before (here and here, for example). There is a substantial need for solutions in this arena, and for those that can serve other physician specialties too.

That’s apparently part of the thinking behind New York City’s $19.8 million grant for physician systems that integrate clinical and billing/administrative functions. They’re starting with docs who treat Medicaid patients and the uninsured. That’s a good place to start.

Washington DC has decided to do something similar, starting with eight community health clinics and moving into local hospitals.

I haven’t looked at these particular apps, and I worry about ongoing R&D and support under this model – but I’ll keep watching. And I’m betting there are creative ways to enhance an app of this kind that these programs haven’t yet considered.

The Trouble With IT Innovation – People Get Dependent on Tech Too Soon

The California HealthCare Foundation’s iHealthBeat summarizes several recent articles on problems with the massive IT/connectivity project now underway in the UK.  This is the next-generation version of a “PC’s for PCP’s” (primary care doctor) we managed in Hungary as part of a World Bank/USAID initiative in the early 90’s.

People have the tendency to become dependent on these new systems too soon and drop redundant processes (like paper calendars).   Apparently that’s happened in the UK, where some children reportedly missed scheduled vaccinations as a result of tech problems.

There also appears to be a healthy dose of classic government-contracting problems:  delays, slowdowns, failure to adequately manage the project.

Reformers, beware.

Provider Evaluation Tools For Health Care “Consumers”

The San Francisco Business Times notes the infrequent use of California’s new hospital rating site for consumers. I’m not surprised that usage is low, and I think the Business Times draws the wrong conclusions.

As I’ve said before, I think that simpler is better when it comes to organizing health information for the general public. The Times, and at least one of its interviewees, thinks otherwise. They suggest that simplicity may be one reason why the site isn’t being used.

I disagree. I think it isn’t being used because people don’t know it’s there – and because, as I’ve also suggested before, it’s not part of a larger site that addresses the many different contexts within which people will search for health information. Simplicity of organization and presentation, however, is what will make it comfortable and usable for people once they do find it.

Digging up this kind of health information isn’t like conducting a straightforward Google search (a fact that hasn’t gone unnoticed at Google). People don’t go looking for comparative data on hospital costs, because the idea itself hasn’t occurred to them. You have to bring it to where they are – metaphorically (in their learning process) and literally (in their browsing habits.)

That’s why I’ve been promoting the idea of ‘context-driven health data’ for all parties: consumers, doctors, employers, and administrators. The Times also mentioned Vimo.com, which is an interesting start-up designed along just those lines.

They’re in an early stage of development and have a lot of work to do. If they thrive, however, they’ll be going head to head against Steve Case’s Revolution Health. That could be interesting to watch.