I have been mulling over the idea of population health after I posted a note on the topic nearly a year ago (see: Population Health Management; Software Designed to Support ACOs). I recently came across an article that helps to better understand the term, which is a good place to start (see: What exactly is 'population health,' anyway?). Below is an excerpt from it:
As anyone who either attended HIMSS15 or followed the ensuing conversation can attest, population health is currently all the rage. While reporting from the show floor, in fact, it seemed just about every vendor, from all walks of life, was trumpeting "population health" in one form or another. What has become eminently clear is that defining population health depends on whom you ask....[One hospital executive provided the following definition:] "It's the ability of a provider to effectively manage the healthcare needs of a defined group across the continuum of services either through direct provision of care or through structured relationships with other providers.....[Here's another definition:] "Population health management is a coordinated effort to care for at-risk patient populations – such as those with chronic diseases and high care utilization rates – across the continuum to improve their outcomes and reduce costs...." Solutions need to expand across the health continuum, from healthy living, prevention, diagnosis, treatment, recovery and home care, to truly impact patients' health at the individual and population levels."
Here's yet another definition from my blog note cited in the first paragraph:
The goal of population health management (PHM) is to keep a patient population as healthy as possible, minimizing the need for expensive interventions such as emergency department visits, hospitalizations, imaging tests, and procedures. This not only lowers costs, but also redefines healthcare as an activity that encompasses far more than sick care.
I have no problem with the goal of achieving a better understanding population health. Quickly summarized, the goal of population health software deployed in hospitals is to deliver high quality, low cost care to populations of patients, particularly those with chronic diseases. As healthcare reimbursement gets ratcheted down in this county, it's obvious why this type of software is of interest to hospital executives. It's also obvious that population health involves the understanding and manipulation of Big Data, given the number of patients served in larger hospitals and the complexity of the medical records of those with chronic diseases.
The fact that this is a whole new functionality category for hospital software is of great interest to me. It makes sense from the perspective of healthcare vendors -- a new software product results in greater revenue for them. Examine, for example, Cerner's HealthIntent. Here's a description of this product copied from the company web site:
This cloud-based platform enables health care systems to aggregate, transform and reconcile data across the continuum of care. A longitudinal record is established, through that process, for individual members of the population that the organization is held accountable for; helping to improve outcomes and lower costs for health and care.
This is where I get confused. This sounds like a description of the purpose of EHRs for which hospitals and the federal government have already paid tens, or often hundreds, of millions of dollars. Why do hospitals then need an additional cloud-based platform to analyze population health data? Why isn't this a solution provided by EHRs? The answer to this question speaks directly to the limitations of EHRs. They have been designed primarily to model and automate the paper chart.
Comments