Healthcare and research expert joins our Advisory Board

Alan Ezekowitz, MBChB, D.Phil., FAAP is Co-Founder, President and CEO of Abide Therapeutics. We welcome Alan as the newest member of the QPID Health Advisory Board, announced in April. He is a pioneer in the field of innate immunity and previously served as senior vice president and franchise head of endocrine, bone, respiratory, and immunology at Merck Research Laboratories. He also served on the staff of Children’s Hospital of Boston, and later was chief of Pediatric Services and chaired the Executive Committee on Research at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Our Advisory Board is a group of nationally recognized experts in medicine, policy and healthcare IT who provide strategic guidance to our company. Over the past year, QPID Health has grown tremendously—rolling out new products and expanding both our customer and employee bases. Our Advisory Board members speak to the concerns of healthcare providers and guide us on corporate and product strategy as we continue to grow as a company.

Mike Doyle, our CEO, says of the Advisory Board, “We are honored to have attracted this group of esteemed healthcare scholars and leaders who share our passion for helping clinicians deliver the best possible care to patients while addressing issues of cost and efficiency.”

The members of the QPID Health Advisory Board are:

David W. Bates, MD, MSc, Chief of the Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, and Professor of Health Policy and Management at the Harvard School of Public Health.

Alan Ezekowitz, MBChB, D.Phil., FAAP, Co-Founder, President and CEO of Abide Therapeutics

John D. Halamka, MD, MS, a Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Chief Information Officer of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Julia Adler-Milstein, PhD, an Assistant Professor at University of Michigan whose research focuses on policy and management issues related to the use of IT in healthcare delivery.

John E. Osborn, JD, MIPP, a senior advisor with the international law firm Hogan Lovells, executive in residence with the healthcare group of Warburg Pincus, a regular contributor to Forbes.com and a faculty member at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Robert M. Wachter, MD, a Professor of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Associate Chairman of UCSF’s Department of Medicine, and Chief of UCSF’s 60-faculty Division of Hospital Medicine.

Share this story:

How about #Constructive_Innovation for healthcare?

We read a thoughtful piece by Lindsay Dunn in Becker’s Hospital Review blog (Disruption Overkill) questioning the necessity for “Disruptive Innovation” to make the changes we need in healthcare.

The much-ballyhooed buzzword — and debunking of the academic theory behind it — is the subject of a recent New Yorker article. (It’s great fun to read!) According to the author, historian Jill Lepore, hospitals are not purely profit driven, so business theories need not apply.  While attacking her Harvard colleague Clay Christensen she notes:

Innovation and disruption are ideas that originated in the arena of business but which have since been applied to arenas whose values and goals are remote from the values and goals of business. People aren’t disk drives. Public schools, colleges and universities, churches, museums, and many hospitals, all of which have been subjected to disruptive innovation, have revenues and expenses and infrastructures, but they aren’t industries in the same way that manufacturers of hard-disk drives or truck engines or drygoods are industries.

Dunn seems inspired by Lepore when she describes the need for change and innovation without using the “D-word.”

Hospitals are in the midst of an era of significant — and perhaps unprecedented — change. We’ll have to innovate, and we’ll have to change our business models to better meet the demands of our payers and patients for higher-value, more transparent care.

How about #Constructive_Innovation for healthcare?

Share this story:

Advanced EHRs cut inpatient costs, study says. Next we need analysis of cost + quality.

Most of the news we’ve seen on the topic of costs associated with EHRs relates to financial losses for hospitals, not cost savings. So a study published in the American Journal of Managed Care showing per patient savings of nearly 10% caught our eye.

The study (Association of Electronic Health Records With Cost Savings in a National Sample) looked at 5 million inpatient records at 550 acute care hospitals. The authors found savings per adult patient admission of $731, or 9.6%, in the 19% of hospitals using “advanced EHRs” (“consistent with the first requirements of Meaningful Use”). The study, conducted in 2009, concluded that patients, third party payers and hospitals could benefit from these lower costs.

In an interview in HealthLeaders, co-author Abby Kazley provided additional insight, including that similar studies on pediatric populations failed to show improvements. Work remains to truly assess the impact of EHRs and make the right adjustments to leverage the investment made.  When asked “what’s next” she said:

We need to continue to look at the cost and the quality of the care associated with EHRs and we need to look at individual organizations and do system evaluations to see how well the EHRs themselves are working.

We applaud the use of EHRs and are happy to see these cost savings documented. Our mission at QPID Health is to see that hospitals achieve further cost savings while providing the best care possible – by activating the clinical intelligence that EHRs contain.

With the US continuing to outspend other industrialized nations by a long shot (17.6% of GDP versus 9.2%, or $8,745 versus $3,355 per the Commonwealth Fund) but failing to achieve better outcomes, we are headed in the right direction but have a long way to go.

Share this story: