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.
Best of all, the researchers say the test could provide an inexpensive means of early diagnosis. This assay could also be used to monitor how well patients respond to cancer therapy, according to a news release.
The protein had previously been identified as a promising biomarker and is readily detectable in tumor tissue, they wrote. However, it is found in extremely low concentrations in blood plasma and is “well below detection limits of conventional clinical laboratory methods,” they noted.
To overcome that obstacle, they employed an ultra-sensitive immunoassay known as a Simoa (Single-Molecule Array), an immunoassay platform for measuring fluid biomarkers.
“We were shocked by how well this test worked in detecting the biomarker’s expression across cancer types,” said lead study author gastroenterologist Martin Taylor, MD, PhD, Instructor in Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, in the press release. “It’s created more questions for us to explore and sparked interest among collaborators across many institutions.”
“We’ve known since the 1980s that transposable elements were active in some cancers, and nearly 10 years ago we reported that ORF1p was a pervasive cancer biomarker, but, until now, we haven’t had the ability to detect it in blood tests,” said pathologist and study co-author Kathleen Burns, MD, PhD (above), Chair of the Department of Pathology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a Professor of Pathology at Harvard Medical School, in a press release. “Having a technology capable of detecting ORF1p in blood opens so many possibilities for clinical applications.” Clinical laboratories may soon have a new blood test to detect multiple types of cancer. (Photo copyright: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.)
Simoa’s Advantages
In their press release, the researchers described ORF1p as “a hallmark of many cancers, particularly p53-deficient epithelial cancers,” a category that includes lung, breast, prostate, uterine, pancreatic, and head and neck cancers in addition to the cancers noted above.
“Pervasive expression of ORF1p in carcinomas, and the lack of expression in normal tissues, makes ORF1p unlike other protein biomarkers which have normal expression levels,” Taylor said in the press release. “This unique biology makes it highly specific.”
Simoa was developed at the laboratory of study co-author David R. Walt, PhD, the Hansjörg Wyss Professor of Bioinspired Engineering at Harvard Medical School, and Professor of Pathology at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
The Simoa technology “enables 100- to 1,000-fold improvements in sensitivity over conventional enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) techniques, thus opening the window to measuring proteins at concentrations that have never been detected before in various biological fluids such as plasma or saliva,” according to the Walt Lab website.
Simoa assays take less than two hours to run and require less than $3 in consumables. They are “simple to perform, scalable, and have clinical-grade coefficients of variation,” the researchers wrote.
Study Results
Using the first generation of the ORF1p Simoa assay, the researchers tested blood samples of patients with a variety of cancers along with 406 individuals, regarded as healthy, who served as controls. The test proved to be most effective among patients with colorectal and ovarian cancer, finding detectable levels of ORF1p in 58% of former and 71% of the latter. Detectable levels were found in patients with advanced-stage as well as early-stage disease, the researchers wrote in Cancer Discovery.
Among the 406 healthy controls, the test found detectable levels of ORF1p in only five. However, the control with the highest detectable levels, regarded as healthy when donating blood, “was six months later found to have prostate cancer and 19 months later found to have lymphoma,” the researchers wrote.
They later reengineered the Simoa assay to increase its sensitivity, resulting in improved detection of the protein in blood samples from patients with colorectal, gastroesophageal, ovarian, uterine, and breast cancers.
The researchers also employed the test on samples from 19 patients with gastroesophageal cancer to gauge its utility for monitoring therapeutic response. Although this was a small sample, they found that among 13 patients who had responded to therapy, “circulating ORF1p dropped to undetectable levels at follow-up sampling.”
“More Work to Be Done”
The Simoa assay has limitations, the researchers acknowledged. It doesn’t identify the location of cancers, and it “isn’t successful in identifying all cancers and their subtypes,” the press release stated, adding that the test will likely be used in conjunction with other early-detection approaches. The researchers also said they want to gauge the test’s accuracy in larger cohorts.
“The test is very specific, but it doesn’t tell us enough information to be used in a vacuum,” Walt said in the news release. “It’s exciting to see the early success of this ultrasensitive assessment tool, but there is more work to be done.”
More studies will be needed to valid these findings. That this promising new multi-cancer immunoassay is based on a clinical laboratory blood sample means its less invasive and less painful for patients. It’s a good example of an assay that takes a proteomic approach looking for protein cancer biomarkers rather than the genetic approach looking for molecular DNA/RNA biomarkers of cancer.
