Solving the crisis?! Well, not really. 2016 is the year when managed care programs will either suffer and succumb to the pressures of HIT, or successfully find new talents and leaders to advance their system ahead of the rest and implement a Medical GIS.
2016 is also the year when a significant percentage of healthcare programs will fall behind in the most basic IT and HIT requirements even further. Some may even fall so far behind their competitors, that it becomes necessary to sell, or initiate a major overhaul.
The first thing to go with a successful overhaul are the “leaders” of the past. They are the ones who are dragging your managed care system behind, not only in its technology, but also it economic potentials, in the form of rewards and benefits for . . . . need I say? . . . . “good service.”.
Sourced through Scoop.it from: brianaltonenphd.wordpress.com
This philosophy defines the neoinstitutional theory of health care administration, the primary theory by which my dissertation work on managed care and the current barriers that exist for GIS implementation. The lack of success and rapid growth, when compared with the advancements epidemiologists, marketing companies, surveillance specialists, and climatic health experts have made using GIS, is due to the absence of upper level management having any direct, first hand knowledge or field and hands on experience with GIS and the use of GIS skills to create your own maps . . . from scratch. . . . by hand . . . not just by using the routine shapefiles that most GIS’s are provided.
Some very old habits have resurfaced again, due to the last two year’s worth of failed healthcare information technology improvements. The primary proofs of these failures are demonstrated best by programs still unable to produce an entire and effective HIT information management system. realize, the bulk of these programs have only a few dozen metrics that are required of them, about 60 meaningful use metrics.
I have identified thirty-four major SETS of metrics that need to be developed, and then managed regularly on a monthly, quarterly or annual basis, for any managed care system to demonstrate its expertise in understanding population health and the roles of medical GIS in producing more cost effective HIT-GIS guided Managed Care programs.
These 34 classes I came up with define about 1500 to 2000 metrics. Most of them were developed as part of a major MC program I was involved with back when the first contemporary forms of these systems came to be (more than 10 years ago). So these 34 classes on population health/meaningful use reporting shouldn’t be too difficult to develop in three years or less.
Now I admit, this is just my preliminary set, and is based upon projects in which I was able to develop these reports in very little time over the past 10-15 years. I suspect a few more details will need to be added as I recheck my sql and sas algorithms and rewrite them to more rapidly produce the end products that are required. This project is based upon real life, real time data. There is a real need for managed care systems to develop a programs that are more robust, not scripted as just a bunch of various “silo” projects, by unmanaged, non-integrated research teams and offices. Working together as part of an HIT-GIS program, these programs can have a very significant impact.
On the page this ‘blurb’ is linked to, I define the following sets of skills and applications of GIS as the directions these programs need to be heading. All but two of these items should be able to be accomplished in under one calendar year, with or without a GIS.
Location/Access improvements; redesigning plans and servicesCost savings by redesigning facilities, determining needsServices — quality and adding new services, documenting thisFuture planning (projection of health and patients and costs; plans/goals)Standardized reporting of valuable QA information; meet MU requirementsPerformance Improvement QI scores, documenting and reporting on 60+ specific metricsPerform Ad hoc reporting, per local needAchieve more recognition and support:Improve professional reputationIncrease Public Support and recognitionPress related support and recognitionObtain other institutional support and recognition (tertiary care settings, university hospitals, npos, clinics, allied health)Improve financier support and recognition; improve investments; improve IT infrastructure.Obtain more allied corporations support (manufacturers, inventors, innovators)Receive more Federal and State support and recognition, and publish more in the literature.