Compilation shows US Veterans Administration spent the most at $16B
Clinical laboratory leaders and pathologists will be interested in which hospital systems are making the largest investments in electronic health record (EHR) technologies. Especially considering laboratory information systems (LIS) must interface with these platforms and require extensive reworking when hospitals change their EHRs. For example, hospitals moving to the Epic Systems EHR often require their laboratories to implement the Epic Beaker LIS as well.
According to information sourced by Becker’s Hospital Review, the top 16 hospital systems each spent $500 million or more on EHRs, adding, however, that the information is “not an exhaustive list.”
Number three on the list is Kaiser Permanente which operates multiple hospitals within its nine healthcare networks across the United States serving 12.5 million members. For that reason, its total investment in EHR technology represents a much larger number of hospitals than the other health systems on the list.
Of the 16 providers on the list, 12 installed EHRs provided by Epic Systems of Verona, Wis. Four of the providers implemented EHRs from Oracle Health (formerly Cerner), North Kansas City, Mo., and Meditech of Westwood, Mass.
“Looking forward, there are many advantages in terms of investing in the future and how we will be aligned with technologies including digital and AI applications,” said pathologist Angelique W. Levi, MD (above), vice chair and director of pathology reference services at Yale School of Medicine, in a news release following a site visit to Geisinger Diagnostic Medicine Institute in Danville, Pa., to see Epic Beaker in operation at Geisinger’s clinical laboratory. “But what we gain immediately—having all the patient information accessible in one place in a linked and integrated fashion—is very important.” (Photo copyright: Yale School of Medicine.)
Provider, EHR, Investment
Becker’s list below shows the total amount invested by the 16 healthcare systems was approximately $38.32 billion. The average EHR implementation cost is $2.39 billion for a large healthcare provider.
Becker’s stated they assembled this list from public sources and that there may be other EHR/hospital contracts with a total cost that also would make the list. It is not common to see a list of what hospitals actually spend to acquire and deploy a new EHR.
Epic added 153 hospitals to its client base in 2023. Epic’s EHR competitors—Oracle and Meditech—both experienced declines in client retention rate, Healthcare IT News reported based on the KLAS data.
“Both current and prospective large organization customers are drawn to Epic because they see the vendor as a consistently high performer that provides strong healthcare IT [information technology], quality relationships, and the opportunity to streamline workflows and improve clinicians’ satisfaction,” Healthcare IT News said of the KLAS report’s findings.
In a blog post, authors of the KLAS report explained that in 2023 Oracle added specialty hospital clients and Meditech “saw several new sales” which included healthcare systems and independent providers.
In the next few years, the industry is “ripe for disruption. Another vendor could come in and turn everything on its head,” the KLAS blog article concluded. “Even those who choose Epic want to have more competitive options to choose from.”
Preparing for an LIS Change
Clinical laboratory leaders who may be transitioning their LIS during a new EHR installation may learn from colleagues who completed such an implementation.
Angelique Levi, MD, vice chair and director of pathology reference services at Yale School of Medicine, who was part of the pathology team, noted that one challenge for labs is addressing “information that’s from many different places when we’re talking about cancer care, prognostic testing, and diagnostics.
“It’s become much more complicated to manage all those data points,” she continued. “Without being on an integrated and aligned system, you’re getting pieces of information from different places, but not the ability to have linked and integrated reports in one spot.”
EHR implementations are among the most labor-intensive, expensive projects undertaken by hospitals. Therefore, it is crucial that clinical laboratory and pathology leaders research and learn why an EHR (and possibly LIS) change is needed, what is expected, and when results will be received.
Only about a third of the hospitals surveyed are in full compliance with giving public access to prices, the watchdog group contends, but the AHA disputes its methodology
It’s been almost four years since the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) enacted its Hospital Price Transparency rule which requires hospitals—including their medical laboratories—to make their prices available and easily accessible to the public. But according to a 2024 report from PatientRightsAdvocate.org (PRA), just 34.5% of reviewed hospitals are fully compliant with the transparency rule. That’s a slight decrease from the 36% compliance rate the PRA listed in its 2023 report, the watchdog group stated in a blog post.
Released on Feb. 29, this was the group’s sixth semi-annual hospital price transparency report since the CMS rule took effect in 2021.
The rule “requires hospitals to post all prices online, easily accessible and searchable, in the form of (i) a single machine-readable standard charges file for all items, services, and drugs by all payers and all plans, the de-identified minimum and maximum negotiated rates, and all discounted cash prices, as well as (ii) prices for the 300 most common shoppable services either as a consumer-friendly standard charges display listing actual prices or, alternatively, as a price estimator tool,” the report states.
The required viewable prices are to be for, among others, medical imaging, clinical laboratory testing, and outpatient procedures such as a colonoscopies, etc.
“With full transparency, consumers can benefit from competition to make informed decisions, protect from overcharges, billing errors, and fraud, and lower their costs,” the report states. “Employer and union plans can use pricing and claims data to improve their plan designs and direct members to lower cost, high-quality facilities. However, continued noncompliance impedes this ability.”
At any time, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) could decide to file charges against a hospital or a clinical laboratory for not posting their prices on their websites in compliance with the federal rule. Such an action by DOJ officials would be to specifically put the entire industry on notice that there will be consequences for non-compliance.
The PRA’s report provides hospitals and clinical laboratories with a reminder that consumer watchdogs are also monitoring compliance.
“Our comprehensive study of 2,000 hospitals indicates nearly two-thirds (65.5%) of hospitals reviewed continue failing to fully comply with the rule, yet the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has only fined fourteen hospitals for noncompliance out of the thousands found to not be meeting all of the rule’s requirements. When hospitals don’t post their prices, they can charge whatever they want,” wrote PRA Founder and Chairman Cynthia Fisher (above) in a letter to President Biden. Hospital medical laboratories are also required to post their prices for tests. (Photo copyright: PatientRightsAdvocate.org.)
To compile their report, PRA analysts examined the websites of 2,000 US hospitals between September 3, 2023, and January 13, 2023, and found that 1,311, or 65.5%, were not in full compliance, mostly due to “missing or significantly incomplete pricing data,” the report states.
More than 6,000 licensed hospitals operate in the US, the report notes. The group said it focused on hospitals owned by the largest US health systems.
Among the notable findings:
The 2023 report found that 98% of Kaiser Permanente’s 42 hospitals were in full compliance with the rule, but in the 2024 study, none were compliant because the hospitals began posting multiple files instead of a single file.
In total, 103 hospitals rated as noncompliant in the previous report were found to be compliant in the new analysis. Conversely, 135 hospitals previously rated as compliant were listed as noncompliant in the 2024 report.
The report lauded three hospitals for posting “exemplary files” that were “easily accessible, downloadable, machine-readable, and including all negotiated rates by payer and plan.” Those were Cape Cod Hospital in Hyannis, Mass.; Christus Santa Rosa Medical Center in San Antonio; and UW Health University Hospital in Madison, Wis.
In its discussion of the findings, PRA called on CMS to step up enforcement of the pricing transparency rule. The group also wants the government to close what it describes as the “estimator tool loophole,” which allows hospitals to list non-binding price estimates and price ranges instead of concrete prices.
“Price estimator tools do not achieve the goals of price transparency policy and fundamentally undermine the intent of the regulations,” the PRA’s report contends.
In response to the 2023 PRA report, AHA Group Vice President for Public Policy Molly Smith issued the following statement, “Once again, Patient Rights Advocate has put out a report that blatantly misconstrues, ignores, and mischaracterizes hospitals’ compliance with federal price transparency regulations. The AHA has repeatedly debunked point-by-point Patient Rights Advocate’s intentionally misleading ‘reports’ on price transparency.”
Citing CMS data, Smith said that as of 2022, 70% of US hospitals had complied with two key federal rules:
One requiring hospitals to post machine-readable files with pricing information.
The other mandating a list of prices for at least 300 “shoppable” services.
More than 80% of hospitals had complied with at least one of the rules, she contended in an AHA press release.
Speaking to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, PRA Founder and Chairman Cynthia Fisher said her group performs a more in-depth study of pricing data compared with CMS.
“They did not do a comprehensive review,” she told the publication. “We do a deep dive for full compliance.”
The PRA study came on the heels of a January report from Turquoise Health that offered a rosier assessment of hospital compliance, albeit with different criteria. According to the Turquoise report, as of Dec. 15, 2023:
90.7% of 6,357 US hospitals had posted machine-readable files,
83.1% posted information about negotiated rates, and
77.3% posted cash rates.
The Turquoise Health end-to-end price transparency platform uses a 5-point system to rate the quality of hospitals’ machine-readable files and said that more than 50% scored five stars. Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists may find it timely to review their lab organization’s compliance with this federal price transparency rule.
Millions of cancelled healthcare appointments and lengthy waits for care abound in UK, New Zealand, and in the US
Strikes continue on multiple continents as thousands of healthcare workers walk off the job. Doctors, medical laboratory scientists, nurses, phlebotomists and others around the world have taken to the picket lines complaining about low wages, inadequate staffing, and dangerous working conditions.
In England, junior doctors (the general equivalent of medical interns in the US) continue their uphill battle to have their complaints heard by the UK government. As a result, at hospitals and clinics throughout the United Kingdom, more than one million appointments have been cancelled due to strikes, according to the BBC.
“The true scale of the disruption is likely to be higher—many hospitals reduce bookings on strike days to minimize last-minute cancellations,” the BBC reported. “A total of one million hospital appointments have had to be rescheduled along with more than 60,000 community and mental health appointments since December [2022], when industrial action started in the National Health Service (NHS).”
According to The Standard, “Consultants in England are to be re-balloted over the prospect of further strike action as doctors and the government remain in talks with a view to end the dispute. The British Medical Association (BMA) said that specialist, associate specialist, and specialty (SAS) doctors will also be balloted over potential strike action.”
“We must be prepared to take the next step and ballot for industrial action if we absolutely have to—and we will do this … if upcoming negotiations fail to achieve anything for our profession,” Ujjwala Anand Mohite, DRCPath, FEBPath (above), a histopathologist at the NHS, Dudley Group of Hospitals, and the first female Chair of the SAS committee UK, told The Guardian.
New Zealand Doctors, Clinical Laboratory Workers Strike
In September, the first-ever nationwide senior doctor strike occurred in New Zealand and was then followed by another strike of about 5,000 doctors and 100 dentists from New Zealand’s public hospitals, the World Socialist Web Site reported.
Similar to the UK, the strikes reflect mounting frustration over pay not keeping up with inflation and “decades of deteriorating conditions in the public health system,” the WSWS noted.
This follows months of strikes by the island nation’s medical laboratory workers, which are ongoing.
“Our pay scales, if you compare them internationally, are not competitive. About half of our specialists come from abroad, so it’s quite important for the country’s health system to be able to attract and keep people,” Andy Davies, a lung specialist who joined the picket outside 484-bed Wellington Hospital, told the WSWS.
“We’re not asking for the world, we’re asking for an inflationary pay rise, and we haven’t had an inflationary pay rise year-on-year, and it’s beginning to show,” he added.
“What type of health system do they want?” he continued. “Do we want one that treats all people and manages what they need, or do we want a hacked down system that does less?”
The conflicts over pay and working conditions have caused many healthcare workers in New Zealand to leave the field entirely. This has led to severe shortages of qualified workers.
“Patient waiting times—for cancer, hip replacements, cardiac problems, and many other conditions—have exploded due to understaffed and overwhelmed hospitals,” the WSWS reported.
US Healthcare Workers also Striking
The US has its share of striking healthcare workers as well. Healthcare Dive tracked 23 ongoing or anticipated strikes throughout the nation’s healthcare industry since January 1, 2023. In 2022, there were 15 strikes of healthcare workers at the nation’s hospitals and health systems.
These walkouts include doctors, nurses, pharmacy workers, imaging specialists, and thousands of frontline healthcare workers striking over dangerously low staffing levels, unsafe working conditions, and low pay.
In October, 75,000 nurses, support staff, and medical technicians from Kaiser Permanente participated in a 72-hour strike comprised of hundreds of hospitals and clinics throughout California, Washington state, Oregon, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, Reuters reported.
The three-day strike, “Marked the largest work stoppage to date in the healthcare sector,” Reuters noted. Doctors, managers, and contingency workers were employed to keep hospitals and emergency departments functioning.
“The dispute is focused on workers’ demands for better pay and measures to ease chronic staff shortages and high turnover that union officials say has undermined patient care at Kaiser,” Reuters stated.
Staffing shortages following the COVID-19 pandemic are partly to blame for current struggles, but contract staffing to fill critical positions has exacerbated the problem.
“Kaiser’s outsourcing of healthcare duties to third-party vendors and subcontractors has also emerged as a major sticking point in talks that have dragged on for six months. … The clash has put Kaiser Permanente at the forefront of growing labor unrest in the healthcare industry—and across the US economy—driven by the erosion of workers’ earning power from inflation and pandemic-related disruptions in the workforce,” Reuters noted.
Across the globe, many healthcare workers—including clinical laboratory scientists in countries like New Zealand—are feeling burnt out from working in understaffed departments for inadequate pay. Hopefully, in response to these strikes, governments and healthcare leaders can come to resolutions that bring critical medical specialists back to work.
Clinical laboratories and pathologists should expect to receive increase referrals from oncologists with younger patients
More people are getting serious cases of cancer at younger and younger ages. So much so that some anatomic pathologists and epidemiologists are using the term “Turbo Cancers” to describe “the recent emergence of aggressive cancers that grow very quickly,” Vigilant News reported.
Cancer continues to be the second leading cause of death in the United States and current trends of the disease appearing in younger populations are causing alarm among medical professionals and scientists.
“Because these cancers have been occurring in people who are too young to get them, basically, compared to the normal way it works, they’ve been designated as turbo cancers,” Harvey Risch, MD, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Epidemiology in the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at the Yale School of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine, in an interview with Epoch TV’sAmerican Thought Leaders.
It’s anatomic pathologists who receive the biopsies and analyze them to diagnose the cancer. Thus, they are on the front lines of seeing an increased number of biopsies for younger patients showing up with the types of cancers that normally take many years to grow large enough to be discovered by imaging and lumps leading to biopsy and diagnosis. It’s a medical mystery that may have long term effects on younger populations.
“What clinicians have been seeing is very strange things,” said Harvey Risch, MD, PhD (above), Professor Emeritus of Epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine, in an Epoch TV interview. “For example, 25-year-olds with colon cancer, who don’t have family histories of the disease—that’s basically impossible along the known paradigm for how colon cancer works—and other long-latency cancers that they’re seeing in very young people.” Epidemiologists and anatomic pathologists are describing these conditions as “turbo cancers.” (Photo copyright: Yale University.)
Early-Onset Cancer Rates Jump Sharply
According to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about 3.3 million Americans died in 2022, and 607,800 of those deaths were attributed to cancer. This statistic translates to approximately 18.4% of US deaths being due to cancer last year.
An article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association titled, “Patterns in Cancer Incidence among People Younger than 50 Years in the US, 2010 to 2019,” states that the rates of cancer in people under the age of 50 has risen sharply in recent years. The study found that “the incidence rates of early-onset cancer increased from 2010 to 2019. Although breast cancer had the highest number of incident cases, gastrointestinal cancers had the fastest-growing incidence rates among all early-onset cancers.”
The largest increase in cancer diagnoses occurred in people in the 30 to 39-year-old age group. This number represents a jump of almost 20% for the years analyzed for individuals in that demographic. The researchers also found that cancer rates decreased in individuals over the age of 50.
Breast cancer, which increased by about 8% in younger people, accounted for the most diagnoses in this age group. However, the biggest increase was 15% for gastrointestinal cancers, including colon, appendix, bile duct, and pancreatic cancer.
Because cancer can recur or progress, researchers have concerns about what happens to young cancer patients as they grow older and what effect cancer may have on their lives.
“They are at a transitional stage in life,” Chun Chao, PhD, Research Scientist, Division of Epidemiologic Research at Kaiser Permanente, told The Hill. “If you think about it, this is the age when people are trying to establish their independence. Some people are finishing up their education. People are trying to get their first job, just start to establish their career. And people are starting new families and starting to have kids. So, at this particular age, having a cancer diagnosis can be a huge disruption to these goals.”
Sadly, young cancer survivors have a heightened risk of developing a second cancer and a variety of other health conditions, such as cardiovascular diseases and metabolic disorders.
Lifestyle a Factor in Increased Risk for Cancer
“The increase in early-onset cancers is likely associated with the increasing incidence of obesity as well as changes in environmental exposures, such as smoke and gasoline, sleep patterns, physical activity, microbiota, and transient exposure to carcinogenic compounds,” according to the JAMA study.
“Suspected risk factors may involve increasing obesity among children and young adults; also the drastic change in our diet, like increasing consumption of sugar, sweetened beverages, and high fat,” Hyuna Sung, PhD, Cancer Surveillance Researcher at the American Cancer Society, told US News and World Report. “The increase in cancers among young adults has significant implications. It is something we need to consider as a bellwether for future trends.”
“Increased efforts are required to combat the risk factors for early-onset cancer, such as obesity, heavy alcohol consumption, and smoking,” said Daniel Huang, MD, Assistant Professor of Medicine at the National University of Singapore, one of the authors of the study, in the US News and World Report interview.
Other studies also have shown a rise in so-called turbo cancers.
“Cancer as a disease takes a long time to manifest itself from when it starts. From the first cells that go haywire until they grow to be large enough to be diagnosed, or to be symptomatic, can take anywhere from two or three years for the blood cancers—like leukemias and lymphomas—to five years for lung cancer, to 20 years for bladder cancer, or 30 to 35 years for colon cancer, and so on,” Risch told the Epoch Times.
Not the Occurrence Oncologists Expect
“Some of these cancers are so aggressive that between the time that they’re first seen and when they come back for treatment after a few weeks, they’ve grown dramatically compared to what oncologists would have expected,” Risch continued. “This is just not the normal occurrence of how cancer works.”
Risch believes that damage to the immune system is the most likely cause of the rise in turbo cancers. He said the immune system usually recognizes, manages, and disables cancer cells so they cannot progress. However, when the immune system is impaired, cancer cells can multiply to the point where the immune system cannot cope with the number of bad cells.
It is a statistical fact that more people are being diagnosed with serious cases of cancer at younger and younger ages. If this trend continues, clinical laboratories and pathologists can expect to see more oncology case referrals and perform more cancer diagnostic tests for younger patients.
This is good news for clinical laboratories that already perform medical testing for telehealth providers and an opportunity for medical labs that do not, it is an opportunity to do so
Telemedicine visits have become commonplace since the arrival of COVID-19. Before the pandemic, telehealth was primarily used to give remote patients access to quality healthcare providers. But three years later both patients and physicians are becoming increasingly comfortable with virtual office visits, especially among Millennial and Gen Z patients and doctors.
Now, a recent study by the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania (Penn Medicine) suggests that there could be a significant financial advantage for hospitals that conduct telemedicine. This would be a boon to clinical laboratories that perform medical testing for telemedicine providers.
According to Digital Health News, in July 2017 Penn Medicine launched a 24/7/365 copayment-free telemedicine program for its employees called Penn Medicine OnDemand. To engage with a telemedicine provider, patients must have a smartphone or tablet with a front-facing camera and updated operating system.
Telemedicine Visits Cost Less than In-Office Doctor Appointments
An analysis of the OnDemand program’s data collected from its inception through the end of 2019 found that the telemedicine appointment per-visit cost averaged around $380, whereas the cost of an in-person visit at an emergency department, primary care office, or urgent care clinic averaged around $493.
Typically, Penn Medicine’s employees used the telemedicine program for common, low risk health complaints. Healthcare conditions that many patients might otherwise not seek treatment for if an in-office visit was inconvenient.
“The data we analyzed pre-date the pandemic. It was a time when people were just putting a toe in the water and wondering, ‘Let me see if telemedicine could treat my needs,’” Krisda Chaiyachati MD, an internal medicine physician and Adjunct Assistant Professor at Penn Medicine, told Digital Health News. Chaiyachati lead the research team that conducted the telemedicine study.
“These days, people seem willing to jump in for an appropriate set of conditions,” he added. “The good news is that we made care easier while saving money, and we think the savings could be higher in the future.”
Chaiyachati and his colleagues found that telemedicine can save employers healthcare costs without sacrificing quality of care.
“The conditions most often handled by OnDemand are low acuity—non-urgent or semi-urgent issues like respiratory infections, sinus infections, and allergies—but incredibly common, so any kind of cost reduction can make a huge difference for controlling employee benefit costs,” Krisda Chaiyachati MD (above), a Penn Medicine physician and the study’s lead researcher, told Digital Health News. Clinical laboratories that already perform testing for telemedicine providers may see an increase in test orders once hospitals learn of the costs savings highlighted in the Penn Medicine study. (Photo copyright: Penn Medicine.)
Telemedicine on the Rise
The idea is not new. In late 2018, Planned Parenthood launched the Planned Parenthood Direct mobile app in New York State. The app provides New York patients with access to birth control, emergency contraception, and UTI treatment with no in-person visit required.
The program has since expanded across the country. Users of the app can connect with a physician to go over symptoms/needs, and the be sent a prescription within a business day to the pharmacy of their choice.
The concept is similar to Penn Medicine OnDemand, which gives patients 24/7 year around access to treatment for common and low-acuity medical issues in a convenient, virtual process.
Telemedicine was on the rise in other parts of the healthcare industry before the pandemic. According to “The State of Telehealth Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic” published by Julia Shaver, MD, Kaiser Permanente, in the journal Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice, 76% of US hospital systems had utilized some form of telemedicine by 2018. This rate grew exponentially while the healthcare system had to navigate a world with COVID-19 on the rise.
And, apparently, quality of care does not suffer when moved from in-person to virtual settings. Two studies conducted by The University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC) found telemedicine to be effective and that “common concerns about telemedicine don’t hold up to scrutiny,” according a news release.
In her New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) paper on the studies, Kathleen Fear, PhD, URMC’s Director of Data Analytics, Health Lab, and her co-authors, wrote: “Three beliefs—that telemedicine will reduce access for the most vulnerable patients; that reimbursement parity will encourage overuse of telemedicine; and that telemedicine is an ineffective way to care for patients—have for years formed the backbone of opposition to the widespread adoption of telemedicine.”
However, URMC’s study found the opposite to be true. The NEJM authors wrote, “there is no support for these three common notions about telemedicine. At URMC, the most vulnerable patients had the highest uptake of telemedicine; not only did they complete a disproportionate share of telemedicine visits, but they also did so with lower no-show and cancellation rates. It is clear that … telemedicine makes medical care more accessible to patients who previously have experienced substantial barriers to care.
“Importantly, this access does not come at the expense of effectiveness. Providers do not order excessive amounts of additional testing to make up for the limitations of virtual visits. Patients do not end up in the ER or the hospital because their needs are not met during a telemedicine visit, and they also do not end up requiring additional in-person follow-up visits to supplement their telemedicine visit,” the NEJM authors concluded.
“Not only did our most vulnerable patients not get left behind—they were among those engaging the most with, and benefiting the most from, telemedicine services. We did not see worse outcomes or increased costs, or patients needing an increased amount of in-person follow up. Nor did we find evidence of overuse. This is good care, and it is equitable care for vulnerable populations,” Fear said in the news release.
“For patients, the message is clear and reassuring: Telemedicine is an effective and efficient way of receiving many kinds of healthcare,” she added.
Opportunities for Clinical Laboratories
Dark Daily has covered the fast growing world of telemedicine in many ebriefs over the years.
As telemedicine broadens its reach across the healthcare world, clinical laboratories and pathology groups would be wise to seek collaboration with health plans and providers of telemedicine to figure out where sample collection and testing fits into this new virtual healthcare space.
