CHIME CIO Interview Series

CHIME Interview Series: Sue Schade, Principal , StarBridge Advisors, LLC

Sue Schade, CIO, MBA, LCHIME, FCHIME, FHIMSS

Sue Schade, CIO, MBA, LCHIME, FCHIME, FHIMSS Starbridge Advisors, LLC

#HealthITChicks show up and stay fierce, and Sue Schade may just be the epitome of that. A nationally recognized health IT leader, Principal at StarBridge Advisors, LLC, and current interim CIO at Stony Brook Medical Center, Schade has over thirty years of collective health IT management under her belt along with a plethora of awards and recognitions from HIMSS, CHIME, and other leading health IT organizations. Now part of a consulting, coaching and interim management firm, Schade has sage advice to share with other CIOs. In this interview, she talks optimization versus replacement, population health management solutions, how to measure success, and the benefits of knowing your application inventory. Sue Schade is paving the way for women in health IT everywhere.

CHIME Fall CIO Forum provides valuable education programming, tailored specifically to meet the needs of CIOs and other healthcare IT executives. Justin Campbell, of Galen Healthcare Solutions, had the opportunity to attend this year’s forum and interview CIOs from all over the country. Here is the next interview in the series:

Key Insights

My approach, or my philosophy, that I’ve worked with organizations on is when you’re adding new components, you first start with the core vendor: can the core vendor do it today?

Usability and number of clicks is clearly something that we hear over and over from clinicians

The main point with workflow is: do you adopt your workflow to the product or do you adopt the product to your workflow?

Vendors are looking at how they can be more user configurable to adapt to the uniqueness of an organization and their specific workflows.

Just inventorying your application portfolio can be painful. You have a lot more disparate and duplicate applications than you ever realized

I’ll be the first to say that many organizations don’t have something they can pull up and say ‘here’s our inventory.’ They should but they don’t.

Campbell: Tell me a little bit about your background, organizations you’ve worked with, and StarBridge Advisors.

Schade: Let me start with StarBridge Advisors. It’s a new health IT advisory firm that I started in the Fall of last year with two colleagues, David Muntz and Russ Rudish. We provide IT consulting, interim management, and leadership coaching, targeting the C-suite and healthcare organizations around the country. We have a network of seasoned experts and advisors that we are able to bring on engagements depending on particular client needs. I currently serve as the interim CIO at Stony Brook Medicine on Long Island, where I have been since March of this year. We are actively recruiting to fill that position with a permanent CIO.  Prior to that, I served as interim CIO at University Hospitals in Cleveland for over eight months, when I first started down this path of consulting and interim management and left the permanent CIO world. Before I went to Cleveland, I was the CIO at University of Michigan Hospitals and Health Centers in Ann Arbor for a little over three years. Prior to that I was the CIO at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, part of the Partners Healthcare System in Boston for almost thirteen years. Take all of that plus the years before that and I have over thirty years in health IT management and a lot of experience in the provider world. I also spent some time working for one of the large consulting firms, Ernst and Young, as a senior manager in their healthcare IT practice, as well as with a startup vendor in the health IT space.

That’s my background. I can tell you the experience when it comes to EHRs is different at every one of those organizations. At Stony Brook Medicine, we’re basically a Cerner shop for our clinicals, both ambulatory and inpatient; we have revenue cycle through them, and the old Siemens product, Invision. At University Hospitals, it was an Allscripts shop for clinicals on the ambulatory and inpatient side, and Cerner Soarian for the revenue cycle. At the University of Michigan, I helped them move the ball towards a total Epic environment as an integrated solution, for inpatient, outpatient, and revenue. At Brigham, we had mostly internally developed systems, which were inherited from a rich history at Brigham of leading the way in the 90s with CPOE. As part of the Partners system, there was a mix of internally developed core systems as well as some vendor products. Prior to my departure at Brigham, we had decided that all of Partners would go onto Epic, and move away from the disparate systems at each of the hospitals. They are just about done at this point, having moved most of their hospitals onto Epic. I’ve worked with the major EHR vendors and certainly have a perspective on the importance of integrated solutions.

Campbell: What an extremely decorated career with a tremendous amount of experience and wisdom gained along the way. Tell me a little bit more about integrated solutions. There is a lot of replacement occurring in the market as folks look to have an integrated system bridging the inpatient and outpatient care setting. What is your view on that? What have you steered organizations to in the past? There’s a lot of opinions between optimizing what you have versus replacing, is the replacement truly worth it?

Schade: I think so! An integrated solution from a core vendor, is optimal. You can argue that core vendors may not be as robust in all areas or specialties,  which is where some may have started from and then built upon. However, at the end of the day you’re dealing with one major vendor that can provide all of those solutions, has a roadmap, and is continuing to build out other modules that integrate into that core system. From a user perspective, there’s one system to learn how to navigate, you have much more seamless workflows, and much better data integration. I think there’s a lot to be said for that.

My approach, or my philosophy, that I’ve used in working with HDOs, is when you’re adding new components, you first start with the core vendor: can the core vendor do it today? Is it on their roadmap? Will they be able to do it, say in the next 12-18 months, or is it not even a thought of theirs? If it’s nowhere today, or not on their roadmap, then you look at a niche vendor that may have that product. If you’re so far ahead of the market in what you’re trying to do that there’s not even a niche vendor that’s looking at it, then you would consider developing it and trying to integrate it into your core system. That’s my philosophy, that’s the approach I will take. Obviously, you may go into organizations, or I may now as an interim CIO, that have a different outpatient system from inpatient, or a different revenue from clinical. You must take into account where an organization is in terms of investment, where they are financially, and where they are in their lifecycle on their contract. It’s not a one-size-fits-all answer. I do see a lot more organizations trying to move to an integrated solution.

Campbell: Sure, and if we take integration between the care settings for instance, I know there’s some sunk cost and unique IP that’s baked into the organization, and embedded into the workflows, quite frankly. As such, it’s a big forklift to be able to move that to a new platform. In terms of core EMR and EHR vendors, what is your perspective in how they are addressing population health management —a term that is admittedly very broad and often overused? It’s seemingly a fragmented market. Do you see that solution coming from core EMR vendors or do you think that they’re best suited for the transactional nature of the records they support and it’s going to be an outside vendor perhaps for population health management?

Schade: I think that some of the stronger vendors in this space are probably somewhat niche and not the core vendors, though the core EHR vendors do have offerings. For instance, we are utilizing Cerner’s HealtheIntent product at Stony Brook Medicine for the work we’re doing with what’s called the Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment Program (DSRIP) in the state of New York. There is a potential for that to be used more broadly as our population health platform, but I think it’s still too early to make that determination. Sometimes it’s vendor readiness and it may also be the organization’s readiness. Some of the population health initiatives are probably driven, very much driven, by those parts of the organization such as operations and administration, not IT, and rightly so. People get to a point where they have to make a change and can no longer wait for IT, who may still be consumed by their core EHR implementation. They stay on the lookout for solutions from niche vendors. It hasn’t quite shaken out yet, but considering what you’re fundamentally working with in terms of patient data, it makes sense that it could be driven from your core EHR vendor, if they can keep up with those solutions.

Campbell: Right, that makes a lot of sense. Speaking of the core EHR, I feel like, and maybe you can comment on this, organizations need to treat it more than a transactional system and rather a strategic asset. EHR and EMR optimization should be a continual process following implementation. Perhaps you can touch on optimizations that you’ve participated in. From the discussions we’ve had with healthcare CIOs and leaders, the toughest part seems to be determining ROI. In terms of drivers for optimization – whether it’s usability, workflow efficiency, number of clicks – what were the areas you focused on and how did you measure success?

Schade: I think you hit the big ones. Usability and number of clicks are clearly something that we hear over and over from clinicians, more so for physicians, but I think it’s an issue for our nurses as well. The main point with workflow is: do you adopt your workflow to the product or do you adopt the product to your workflow? I think there’s some happy medium there and what you don’t want to do is a lot of hard-coded customization,  because every time you get a new upgrade from the vendor you’ll have to do all the retro fitting; Organizations are trying to do less of that so that they can work within the base product. Vendors are exploring how they can be more user-configurable to adapt to the uniqueness of an organization and their specific workflows. This is where your CMIO, CNIO, informatics folks, and clinical analysts are critical in partnering with end users to make sure that the solutions that we deploy make it better for them and not worse. You commonly hear that clinicians understand and accept EHRs are here to stay but still acknowledge how cumbersome certain features are. I’ve been involved in different optimization efforts at organizations post-implementation, and I will say we haven’t focused so much on ROI as we have workflow and user satisfaction. You often get into a situation with a big implementation that at a certain point you must get it done and start creating that list of things that are going to be in the next phase of optimization. Once the go-live is complete and you’ve stabilized, you start looking at your growing optimization list. It’s important that you have clear governance and, again, that you have a partnership with your clinicians and IT so that your clinicians, with support from leadership, are driving the high priority changes that are needed in that optimization effort.

Campbell: Right and you hit the nail on the head there. I’m co-authoring a white paper with Jim Boyle, VP of IS at St. Joseph Heritage Healthcare, as they are going through an optimization initiative, and as you mentioned, there must be a partnership between IT/Administration and clinicians. At St. Joe’s Jim mentions they have established dyad relationships between administration and clinician leaders, and as such, there is perspective and vested interest from both sides. I appreciate you sharing that viewpoint.

Schade: One point I also want to highlight about optimization is training. I think the training piece is critical, as you have to connect those two to the extent that for what you do roll out, your users have to be very well trained, they need to know how to use all the functionalities, and they need to know how to use it efficiently. Sometimes when an optimization or a change is requested, when you really look at it, it could be a training issue, in that the users don’t know how to do something or lack awareness into something that is possible within the system. You should have those two tied very tightly together. I’ll use the example without mentioning specifics, but we have a go-live this week at Stony Brook Medicine introducing a couple new major enhancements and modules. Keeping tabs on how it’s going, one of the issues that’s coming up is training: did everyone go through the training that was made available or not? When you have training available, but not mandatory, you start running into issues of, people aren’t sure how to do something, what’s possible, and they might ask for it to be different, but again then it goes back to let’s make sure we have comprehensive and complete training.

Campbell: That’s a truly salient point. Recently, three prominent Boston-area physicians just contributed an opinion piece to WBUR, “Death By A Thousand Clicks”.  They postured that when doctors and nurses turn their backs to patients in order to pay attention to computer screen, it pulls their focus from the “time and undivided attention” required to provide the right care.  Multiple prompts and clicks in an EHR impact patients – and contribute to physician burnout. That said, if providers lack proper training, they may not know of the systems capabilities or have awareness of a more efficient way of accomplishing a task.

Schade: Exactly, do you use Outlook, for example, or what’s the main software you use?

Campbell: Yes, Outlook.

Schade: So people like you and me, who do not use an EHR as the system of record, we’re in Outlook all day for calendar, tasks, and email. Someone may watch over your shoulder as you do something one day and go ‘Oh! Didn’t you know you can do xyz?’ and you go, ‘Oh! No I didn’t!’ and they go ‘Here click on that.’ Suddenly you learn a quicker shortcut or method to accomplish something but in the meantime you’ve been doing it the way you’ve always done it with significantly more clicks and steps. Again, it comes back to training and people understanding what’s possible and how to do things. That’s not to say there aren’t opportunities to make the software work better for our clinicians.

Campbell: I wanted to touch base on one more broad question around application rationalization and consolidation. I’m sure it’s been different from organization to organization, but as CIO, what applications are under your purview outside of the EHR? Have you taken part in a consolidation effort in the past where you may have duplicative functionality brought on by a best of breed approach to system adoption? And did you leverage an application to do that or certain practice? If you can elaborate on your experience with that I think it would be helpful for other organizations who are looking at eliminating the technical debt legacy systems create.

Schade: We had started down that path at Michigan, before I left, so I can’t say that I took it all the way to completion. It was one of the opportunities identified as part of an overall value and margin improvement effort in attempting to reduce costs within the organization. I’ll tell you, just inventorying your application portfolio can be painful. You have a lot more disparate and duplicate applications than you ever realized, but step one is to get your hands around that current state. Let me just say this, application rationalization is something that often goes hand-in-hand with implementation of a new core EHR because you may be implementing a common system where there have been disparate systems at multiple facilities and that common system can replace a lot niche applications. The current state inventory of applications is a critical initial step. I’ll be the first to say that many organizations don’t have something they can pull up and say ‘here’s our inventory.’ They should, but they don’t.

About Sue Schade

Sue Schade, MBA, LCHIME, FCHIME, FHIMSS, is a nationally recognized health IT leader and Principal at StarBridge Advisors providing consulting, coaching and interim management services.

Sue is currently serving as the interim Chief Information Officer (CIO) at Stony Brook Medicine in New York. She was a founding advisor at Next Wave Health Advisors and in 2016 served as the interim CIO at University Hospitals in Cleveland, Ohio.

Sue previously served as the CIO for the University of Michigan Hospitals and Health Centers and prior to that as CIO for Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. Previous experience includes leadership roles at Advocate Health Care in Chicago, Ernst and Young, and a software/outsourcing vendor.

She is active in CHIME and HIMSS, two leading healthcare IT organizations. Sue was named the CHIME-HIMSS John E. Gall, Jr. CIO of the Year in 2014 and holds the following recognitions:

  • “Most Powerful Women in Healthcare IT” – Health Data Management, 2016 & 2017.
  • “50 Top Healthcare IT Experts” – Health Data Management, December 2015.
  • “11 Hospital IT Executives You Should Follow on Twitter” – Health Data Management, August 2015.
  • “50 Leaders in Health IT” – Becker’s Health IT & CIO Review, July 2015.
  • “Top 10 Most Influential Healthcare CIOs on Twitter” – Perficient, April 2015.
  • “100 Hospital and Health System CIOs to Know” Becker’s Hospital Review, 2013, 2014, 2015.
  • “10 CIOs You Should Follow on Twitter Today” – FierceCIO, April 2014.
  • “Top 10 Women ‘Powerhouses’ in Health IT“ – Healthcare IT News, April 2013.
  • “8 Influential Women in Health IT“ – Fierce HealthIT, October 2012.

Sue can be found on Twitter at @sgschade and writes a weekly blog called “Health IT Connect” –  http://sueschade.com/

About Justin Campbell

Justin is Vice President, Strategy, at Galen Healthcare Solutions. He is responsible for market intelligence, segmentation, business and market development and competitive strategy. Justin has been consulting in Health IT for over 10 years, guiding clients in the implementation, integration, and optimization of clinical systems. He has been on the front lines of system replacement and data migration is passionate about advancing interoperability in healthcare and harnessing analytical insights to realize improvements in patient care. Justin can be found on Twitter at @TJustinCampbell and LinkedIn.

CHIME Interview Series: David Parker, CIO/VP of IT, Magnolia Regional Health Center

David Parker, CIO

David Parker, CIO/VP of IT, HIM, & Ambulatory Informatics Magnolia Regional Health Center

Magnolia Regional Health Center, where David Parker is CIO/VP of Information Technology, is taking physician engagement to the next level. An annual physician retreat helps the health center gather information on what the providers need to perform the best care possible. In this interview, Parker shares how their providers drove the decision for a new EHR; how the MEDITECH platform has changed over the years; and the benefits of total provider engagement in a transition process. He also discusses the issues that arise with legacy systems and how archival is top of mind for the organization.

CHIME Fall CIO Forum provides valuable education programming, tailored specifically to meet the needs of CIOs and other healthcare IT executives. Justin Campbell, of Galen Healthcare Solutions, had the opportunity to attend this year’s forum and interview CIOs from all over the country. Here is the next interview in the series:

Key Insights

In our community, we enjoy our autonomy and do not want to get into the hip pocket of another big healthcare organization.

We followed the Ready program that MEDITECH offered to us and that significantly helped us achieve a successful implementation.

When we were running the MEDITECH Magic system, we had Magic on the acute side and GE Centricity on the ambulatory side. We had lab and radiology report interfaces, but aside from that, there was very little other integration between those systems.

Although physicians typically don’t want change and appreciating the monumental project that comes with replacing systems, they recognized this is the way for us to progress forward. 

That was the intent of the retreat – the findings from those breakout sessions. We took that and and determined how to start addressing this for the physicians. That’s what drove our selection process.

We know we can save our hospital money if we can pick an archival solution and sunset these legacy systems.

Campbell: Please tell me a little about Magnolia Regional Health Center?

Parker: Magnolia Regional Health Center is in the northeastern corner of Mississippi, about an hour and a half east of Memphis. We serve seven counties, with a population base of about 200,000 people. We’re licensed for 200 beds but operate 171 beds. We have roughly 200 physicians within our organization.

We have a graduate medical education program here, so we’re able to raise our own physicians, which has been very valuable for the past decade that the program has been in place. We’ve had one or more members from every graduating class either choose to continue their residency here or complete their residency program and then choose to set up shop with us; it’s been quite a blessing for our community. We are a city and county owned hospital, meaning we’re not associated with any other health organizations; we’re a standalone system. Our closest competitor is roughly an hour away. We’re fortunate we don’t have heavy competition in our neighborhood, although that’s starting to change. We’re starting to see a little more encroachment in our community from other healthcare systems. We’re all being pressured from different angles and trying to find ways to grow our systems; we must adjust and adapt.

Campbell: Great, thank you. What EMR system does MRHC currently leverage? With usability and productivity deficiencies currently driving replacement activity in the EMR market, do you have any plans to migrate platforms?

Parker: We’ve been a customer of MEDITECH since the early 90’s. Last year, we implemented MEDITECH’s 6.1 – their latest platform – on the acute side and this year, we’re implementing MEDITECH’s web ambulatory product; we’re a MEDITECH customer across the board. We have almost every single module that MEDITECH offers as it’s a good fit for a hospital of our size.

During the vendor selection process, several of our physicians wanted us to look at Epic as they had trained at much larger hospitals and knew the Epic platform and liked it. However, it was just not in the cards for us, as it was too expensive. Epic doesn’t sell to directly to community based hospitals like us, so the only option we had was to partner with another Epic hospital. We took that message back to our physician base. Here in our community we enjoy our autonomy and do not want to get into the hip pocket of another big healthcare organization, so we decided that was not an option.

The MEDITECH Magic platform has been a good product for us. We used it until it was getting long in the tooth. The younger doctors did not like the look and feel of Magic platform, so, we started visiting with MEDITECH and learning how they were moving forward. Their R&D dollars were not going towards Magic, but rather, they were going towards their new 6.x platform. As such, we selected that as our go-forward platform. We implemented that with MEDITECH’s Ready  methodology that they’ve put in place. It’s a project timeline and guide to follow with best practices for choosing your consultants; making sure those consultants know the system – they’re trained and certified; determining what teams to put together internally; how to backfill for them; and how to allow those teams to fully focus on the implementation. We followed the Ready program that MEDITECH offered to us and that significantly helped us achieve a successful implementation.

Campbell: It sounds like you made an outstanding decision to stick with the platform that you’ve long been on and served itself well to you. MEDITECH is well known for their stability and it’s great to hear that you’re advancing your use of their platform and adopting even more features through it. To that regard, tell me a little bit about how that decision was made in the context of interoperability demands? A lot of groups consolidate and move to a single solution so they don’t have to worry about interoperability within the enterprise, especially between care settings. Could you touch on your experience with that and how that’s handled within MRHC?

Parker: When we were running the MEDITECH Magic system, we had Magic on the acute side and then GE Centricity on the ambulatory side. We had lab and radiology report interfaces, but aside from that, there was very little other integration between those systems. As we moved forward, the doctors expressed the desire for one platform. When MEDITECH came on-site to do their demos, they also showed how this new product they were working on that would be fully integrated. The doctors who saw it could see the benefit of it. Although physicians typically don’t want change and appreciating the monumental project that comes with replacing systems, they recognized this is the way for us to progress forward.  Meaningful Use is here to stay and we decided we must continue plugging away at that and other anticipated regulatory measures. Our physicians recognized they’re going to require more and more use of electronic health records and having those systems integrated so we can harvest the data for reporting and analytics is critical to our success.

I’m very proud to say that our physicians drove us to make this move. We have an annual physician educational retreat, where we meet off-site and break into sessions. Out of all those different breakout sessions, there was the resounding sentiment from the 80 or so physicians who attended to replace MEDITECH Magic. It wasn’t that they pushed for a particular system, but they said, ‘We have used Magic for many years, we have made Meaningful Use Stage 1 and 2 with MEDITECH Magic, but we’re very frustrated with it. It’s time to go look for something else.’ That was the intent of the retreat, the findings from those breakout sessions. We took that and determined how to start addressing this for the physicians. That’s what drove our selection process for the next six months or so of 2014. We looked at the options including Epic, Cerner, McKesson, and MEDITECH. We made the doctors a part of that process and solicited their feedback. We also solicited input from all the other departments that it would affect.

Campbell: It’s truly profound that the providers drove the selection process, where you have engagement and they feel like they’re a part of it. Shifting gears a bit, can you tell me about data you migrated from GE Centricity? Did you abstract the data into the new system? Was there a data migration that took place? Is the GE Centricity system still running?

Parker: That is the one thing that’s been a little frustrating in this whole process, as MEDITECH does not have a migration path from Magic or any external system, so it was not an option to migrate data into the system. We still have GE Centricity running, as well as the Magic system, so we can still access historical data in those systems. MEDITECH 6.1 contains a link that allows you to contextually SSO to Magic, which is helpful, but we still need the icon for Centricity on the desktops for the users. Our plan over the next year is to start looking at how we are going to archive all of the data and retire the legacy systems. We have MEDITECH Magic data, we have MEDITECH Homecare Hospice product from years in the past, we have GE Centricity records, and we’ve got some other little systems that we need to archive. We need to be able to retire those legacy systems because right now we still maintain those servers and pay some licensing to keep the systems running.

Campbell: How does archival fit within the overall project of system upgrade and replacement?

Parker: We’ve been very focused on the 6.x implementation for the last two years. We kicked off at the beginning of 2015 with an implementation of the acute side, and that was roughly a 16-18-month project. Once we were live, we spent several months fixing things then shifted our focus to ambulatory. Now that ambulatory is live, we’ll probably spend a few months on enhancements and additional optimization opportunities. Then we’ll start looking at how to get rid of the technical debt that’s looming out there. We know we can save our hospital money if we can pick an archival solution and sunset these legacy systems.

Campbell: That sounds very logical. Shifting gears a bit, what is MRMC’s plans for population health management? Are you leveraging a solution today or do you have plans to? Or is it even something that’s applicable to your organization today?

Parker: It’s not too applicable right now. We do have the surveillance dashboards MEDITECH offers and we’re building them now, but don’t have them live yet. We’re evaluating incorporating those dashboards into the workflow, and we have an internal committee pursuing that initiative. Sepsis prevention is the big area that we’re focusing on right now. Once we get our arms around that, we’ll move onto other population health initiatives. We’re in discussions with a big hospital that’s about an hour south of us regarding collaboration through health information exchange. As we move that forward we’ll look at getting more population health data out of MEDITECH and into this bigger group of hospitals that’s forming a larger community.

Campbell: It’s how you survive in this value-based world. The data sharing must happen and that’s why data blocking is such a huge topic. The patients are demanding that the data follow them, but the infrastructure may not be in place to allow it to happen. Do you have a comment on any other projects that might be ongoing at the organization once you’ve completed the implementation?

Parker: One of the next big large initiatives we plan on tackling is clinical documentation improvement. We recently purchased Nuance’s Clintegrity product and we’ll soon be focusing on getting that up and going. We think that’s a game changer for us and our physicians have been clamoring for something like this. We survived the switch over from ICD-10, but there’s so much more that we could be doing to improve documentation, to code our charts better and to accurately reflect the health of our patients. We were very disappointed in our health grade score, which surprised us, but as we started digging into the data it was clear to us that we are not doing a good job of documenting just how sick our patients are. It looks like they’re not very sick, and they come in and get much sicker, or pass away, and we haven’t done a good job to document that these patients were very sick when they presented at the hospital to begin with. The CDI program that we’re putting into place with Nuance will take us roughly six months to get it in place, but we think it will be a positive change for us.

About David Parker
David Parker serves as CIO/VP of IT for Magnolia Regional Medical Center, a non-profit, city owned, HIMSS EMRAM Stage 6, 200-bed acute care hospital located in Corinth, MS. Mr. Parker leads an IT team of 24 employees and is responsible for IT management, project leadership, budgeting, & strategic planning. Mr. Parker currently oversees upgrading of platforms and operating systems as a part of MRHC’s initiative to become a HIMSS EMRAM Stage 7 hospital.

Prior to his current position, Mr. Parker served as an IT director for a smaller health care system in Oklahoma for 10 years. Mr. Parker has also held positions where responsibilities included support of a local hospital finance system and electronic medical records implementation at a health care facility.

Mr. Parker holds a BS in Finance from Texas A&M University. 

About Justin Campbell
Justin is Vice President, Strategy, at Galen Healthcare Solutions. He is responsible for market intelligence, segmentation, business and market development and competitive strategy. Justin has been consulting in Health IT for over 10 years, guiding clients in the implementation, integration, and optimization of clinical systems. He has been on the front lines of system replacement and data migration is passionate about advancing interoperability in healthcare and harnessing analytical insights to realize improvements in patient care. Justin can be found on Twitter at @TJustinCampbell and LinkedIn.

CHIME Interview Series: Paul Brannan, Alabama Health Information Technology Coordinator, Alabama Medicaid Agency

Paul Brannan, Alabama HIT Coordinator

Paul Brannan, Alabama HIT Coordinator, Alabama Medicaid Agency

A champion in the Medicaid arena and now in health information exchange, Paul Brannan, Health Information Technology Coordinator and Director of Alabama’s HIE, One Health Record®, knows how to make quite the connection. His advice to those in the HIE startup/entrepreneurship space is the same he follows himself: create solutions that are easily usable in the provider’s workflow. One Health Record® is intentionally free to its providers and has gained flexibility with how they send records outbound, based on what the system is ready to consume. They are also willing to customize their interface with the provider’s EMR system. No EMR? No problem. One Health Record® provides a portal through a secure website where you can see the longitudinal record of care. Brannan’s future initiatives reflect this provider-centric way of thinking: from working to integrate with Public Health so One Health Record® can become a connection hub for their providers, to reestablishing their connection with Georgia’s HIE, One Health Record® has a robust value proposition and it shows.

CHIME Fall CIO Forum provides valuable education programming, tailored specifically to meet the needs of CIOs and other healthcare IT executives. Justin Campbell, of Galen Healthcare Solutions, had the opportunity to attend this year’s forum and interview CIOs from all over the country. Here is the next interview in the series:

Key Insights

We’re in the process of expanding into providing a patient portal for patient’s to be able to see consolidated views of their records from the providers who participate in our exchange.

In the state of Alabama, we find a lot of our provider community is rural in nature and may not have a high-profit margin, so we want to be as low cost to them as we possibly can.

The move to value-based purchasing in the healthcare arena is going to make the information that we have, and its ability to improve treatment, of greater value to our large-scale payers.

If providers don’t have an EMR or they’re not happy with how the information being sent is viewed from the EMR, we also provide a portal where providers can access a patient’s longitudinal record of care.

What we find with a lot of our smaller providers is that, without an extensive IT staff, the cost and difficulty of maintaining all the different connections they encounter is becoming prohibitive.

Most providers are still thinking in a fee for service mindset, where they’re looking at the volume of healthcare. If a HIE adds time and effort to the treatment of the patient, there’s going to be resistance even if the HIE adds value.

Campbell: Can you give me a little bit of background on yourself, your organization, and your current role within the organization.

Brannan: My historical background has been with the Medicaid Agency. I’ve been with the Alabama Medicaid Agency for 20 years. I first came on board in the tech support area. In the late 90s, when we were looking to implement a claim processing system, I was drafted to be a part of the team who developed the RFP and did the implementation.  As a result, I was promoted to Deputy MMIS Coordinator. After a couple of years, my boss moved on to another opportunity, I had the chance to take over our Medicaid Claims Processing System as MMIS Coordinator.  Our Commissioner later gave me the opportunity to direct our Project Management Office because of the project management rigor we were using in the MMIS area.  Two years ago I was asked to lead the State’s health information exchange and was named by our governor as the State HIT Coordinator.

Now our HIE’s background: Medicaid has been interested in the electronic health record market for many years. We started under transformation grants, establishing a free EMR for Medicaid providers, focused on monitoring certain chronic conditions. That morphed, when the Affordable Care Act was passed, taking advantage of the funding by helping providers purchase their own EMR system through Meaningful Use as well as establishing a statewide health information exchange. In Alabama,  One Health Record® is the only HIE in the state.  We offer services for all Alabama providers, not just Medicaid.

We’re in the process of expanding into providing a patient portal for patients to be able to see consolidated views of their records from the providers who participate in our exchange, as well as implementing ADT alerting.

Campbell: I appreciate the thorough background. I noted on your website that as of January 31st you’re at just over 2 million patients, 87 connected facilities, 13 connected hospitals, and over a million registered documents. That’s pretty impressive. Tell me a little about the sustainability and, quite frankly, the solvency model for the HIE. I know with public HIEs, some of them are funded through grants, others have a business model centered around the value proposition they’re offering. If you could elaborate on that, that would be helpful.

Brannan: We have intentionally been free to our providers, at least as far as what we charge, to drive adoption. In the state of Alabama, we find a lot of our provider community is rural in nature and doesn’t have a high-profit margin, so we want to be as low cost to them as we possibly can. This means we’ve been funded to date by a combination of: federal funding, state funding through the Medicaid agency, as well as grants from the Department of Public Health, and Blue Cross Blue Shield—which is Alabama’s major insurance provider. Long term, for sustainability, we’re looking at several different funding models.  We feel that sustainability will come from a combination of value to our large-scale providers and our major hospitals in the state providing a large part of the funding. Lesser amounts will likely come from our individual providers, our primary care doctors, and others, with some funding coming from our insurance community as well.  The move to value-based purchasing in the healthcare arena is going to make the information that we have available, and its ability to improve treatment, of greater value to our large-scale payers.  In Alabama, large scale payers make up a good portion of the population under Medicaid.  Therefore, we anticipate Medicaid funding being a part of the long-term solution, and we hope that our major insurers will see value in what we’re doing as well.

Campbell: In terms of the transactions that are taking place, you mentioned ADT’s for the patient portals, but what about for providers? What data do they have access to in the portals? What inbound transactions do you consume today?

Brannan: We can consume any of the ITI-based standards for incoming transactions, and as such we support patient registrations and queries for information.  We are fairly flexible in how we send things outbound based on what the target system is ready to consume. If they want a CCDA, we can do that. If they want a customized interface with their EMR system, as some of our large-scale providers do, we’re willing to work with their EMR vendor to implement that by breaking the CCDs into discrete data elements per standards. If all they’re ready for right now is purely a direct account, we are a HISP (Health Information Service Provider), so we can provide direct mailboxes for them as well. If they don’t have an EMR or they’re not happy with how the information we send is viewed from their EMR, we also provide a portal that they can go in to see the longitudinal record of care. That can be viewed through a secure website, and if their EMR system supports it, we can make that viewable as a window within their EMR system.

Campbell: Switching gears a bit, a lot of the HIEs are swimming in a deluge of data. Can you elaborate a bit on the governance process you use today to dictate data access? Is it federated at all?

Brannan: We are a hybrid. We have some providers who are very interested in having us store their data. For them, we have a data repository where we can store their records. However, we have several providers who feel strong ownership of their information and are not interested in it being stored in multiple locations. For those, we offer a more federated approach where we simply store the demographics along with the pointer information. That information then gets pulled on-demand, but it’s not stored, so it does not persist with us, it goes straight to the provider. We require everyone who is connected to our exchange to agree that they will only provide records for people that they’re actively treating and they will only pull those records for treatment purposes.

Campbell: Is there a particularly compelling use case that you can share, in terms of the HIE being used in the provider community, or more broadly, for public health purposes?

Brannan: The use cases that we support directly with a query-based exchange have a lot to do with emergency situations: someone’s away from their primary source of care, they’re on vacation or somewhere where their records are not easily accessible. We make it so that those records can be made accessible in an emergency.

We had an even more interesting use case recently where a provider referred to a specialist, and the specialist called to get the records. The people who had those records said ‘you need to get on One Health Record® so we can send them electronically, we’re trying to get out of the paper record business.’ Without us even having to contact that specialist, they were calling us saying ‘I’ve had a couple of people wanting us to get on One Health Record® so that we can quit this paper exchange.’ They were interested in what they needed to do to be a part of our exchange so they could remove the inefficiencies involved in sending paper records back and forth.

Campbell: That’s great. When people are coming to you, instead of you having to sell the value, that they’re being incentivized to do so, that’s when you know it’s working. I noted an article published in the Birmingham Medical News in December 2015, featuring Alabama One Health Record®, mentioned you were pursuing initiatives around immunizations and specifically alerting. Can you tell me about any progress or challenges you faced with that initiative?

Brannan: The only real drawback we’ve had in moving forward with those initiatives is getting approval from public health authorities to set it up. They want to make sure the information that is going to be shared is secure. We’re working with their leadership to hopefully make that happen soon because it is something we’ve had provider interest in. Once that occurs, what we envision happening, as part of our value-added service, is being a connection hub for all our providers. Right now, providers must maintain multiple connections. We want to simplify that for them by taking on the connection to Public Health so they can do immunizations reporting, cancer registry reporting, or any public health-related reporting, without having it as a separate connection. We’re even exploring, as a long-term possibility, establishing connections to insurers as well, to allow them to do eligibility inquiries and claim submissions.  What we find with a lot of our smaller providers is that, without an extensive IT staff, the cost and difficulty of maintaining all the different connections are becoming prohibitive. We’re trying to simplify that as part of our value-added proposition to our healthcare community.

Campbell: You hit the nail on the head there, as smaller groups just don’t have the resources. If you have an entity like the HIE it makes a lot of sense: the infrastructures is already there, let it do the heavy lifting and connect rather than having to make a major outlay and investment in IT.

Let’s talk about other initiatives that have your focus in this near term. There is seemingly a purchasing pause in the industry, at least in the provider community, where they’re trying to rationalize their existing infrastructure and investments. It’s not the days of money being thrown into the implementation of new technology via government incentives, but rather there’s a lot of rationalization occurring. That said, tell me what it’s like to operate as a HIE in this climate, and what initiatives that you might be facing in the next couple of months.

Brannan: We’re asking a provider to make an investment of time and for many a capital outlay. We are free but their EMR vendor will likely charge them for establishing the connection as well as charge an annual maintenance fee.  Before they make that kind of investment they want to know what’s in it for them. The obvious selling point for a HIE is having complete access to the record of the individual at the point of care. Part of what we’re marketing now, as more and more payers in the Alabama region are moving to some type of value-based reimbursement, is the importance of them being able to see what’s happening in the provider community and with other people who are treating the patients as well. Our value-add proposition is to provide any data they might need to help manage their population, as well as looking for opportunities to partner with them to improve healthcare practices in those hospitals.

Campbell: Absolutely, if you have access to the data, the power of analytics and machine learning applied to that data is very profound. Switching topics for a moment, has there been anything made aside from just the initial connection to GaHIN (Georgia Health Information Network) or is there active communication today? Was it merely a proof of concept or is it something used in practice to serve the two geographies?

Brannan: It has been used in practice and we’re looking to reestablish it. Unfortunately, one of the drawbacks of being a state entity is that as long as we’re under the state umbrella, we follow state procurement laws, which means we can’t purchase a system that other vendors use on a permanent basis. Instead, we have to periodically go out for bid.  Our HIE backend software had to go out for bid last year, and a new vendor won the bid, which meant we had to replace our HIE software. This required us to reestablish our Sequoia certification which was part of the underlying agreement we had with Georgia.  Because we are reestablishing that certification, we have had to temporarily cut off the connection with GaHIN. We are right on the brink of regaining that Sequoia certification – we expect that happening in the next few weeks – and Georgia has expressed interest in reestablishing the connection as soon as that happens.

It is a very important connection. We have people in the eastern part of the state, who see providers in Georgia. There are also populations who simply cross over to other states and have the need for medical care while they’re there and providers there need to see their records. So, that’s something we’re interested in reestablishing as soon as possible, but it’s not currently active today.

Campbell: I can appreciate that. It is a major forklift going from one major HIE platform to another

Brannan: We have providers actively using the new platform as it stands. We tried to make that cutover without causing any disruption to their current connections, making it as seamless as we can.

Campbell: And all the while you must be mindful to look at what’s in the queue in terms of integration that has yet to be developed. As such, I imagine there was some bifurcating of feeds that were occurring while you were working through that transition.

Brannan: Exactly. We had that going on for a good period of time making the transition as seamless as possible. Ultimately all our connected provider had to move to our new endpoint. It took them a little while to make that transition, depending on what their IT infrastructure looked like. We’ve been able to do it fairly painlessly. Most providers made the move with us, which is something that we’re very pleased with.

Campbell: Very good. Lastly, in closing, given your vast background on the Medicaid and HIE side, what have you learned over the years that you would like to impress on our audience of health IT entrepreneurs and startups. Has there been anyone, mentor or colleague, that’s impacted you? If there’s something you’ve learned in your career, or just based on your experience, and can share that story, that would be great.

Brannan: The key to working in the entrepreneur/startup space is making something that is usable in the provider’s workflow. That’s ultimately where the rubber is going to meet the road. As long as a HIE system is seen as an additional tax on the provider’s time, then it’s going to be difficult to get buy-in, no matter how much value it gives. Most providers are still thinking in a fee for service mindset, where they’re looking at maximizing the volume of patients treated. If what is being provided for them adds time and effort to the treatment of the patient, there’s going to be a resistance. Integrate what you’re doing into the workflow of the provider so that it works somewhat seamlessly or causes minimal disruption to what is already a busy workflow.  Most of the resistance we’ve seen comes from providers who say ‘well I see value in that, I just can’t afford to take an extra five minutes per patient. Because of the way my EMR looks at the records you provide, it requires me going to a whole other screen and making so many additional clicks.’  That’s part of the reason we’re willing to integrate into EMR systems for providers who have the wherewithal to support the cost and effort it takes for the EMR to integrate our records into their system.

About Paul Brannan
Paul serves as Alabama Health Information Technology Coordinator, where he is responsible for managing the $5 million HIT program for the state. He also serves as Director of One Health Record®, Alabama’s State Health Information Exchange.

Paul works with local, state, federal, and private partners to build collaboration with Alabama’s health providers, payers, and patients to improve health information exchange and promote better health outcomes. His vision is to see all Alabama stakeholders connected and securely exchanging data as appropriate to make Alabama a healthier state.

Paul is a graduate of Auburn University, holding a BS in Secondary Education.

About Justin Campbell
Justin is Vice President, Strategy, at Galen Healthcare Solutions. He is responsible for market intelligence, segmentation, business and market development and competitive strategy. Justin has been consulting in Health IT for over 10 years, guiding clients in the implementation, integration, and optimization of clinical systems. He has been on the front lines of system replacement and data migration is passionate about advancing interoperability in healthcare and harnessing analytical insights to realize improvements in patient care. Justin can be found on Twitter at @TJustinCampbell and LinkedIn.

CHIME Fall Forum Interview Series: Rich Pollack, VP & CIO, VCU Health System

Rich-Pollack-CIO

Rich Pollack, VP & CIO at VCU Health System

There’s a lot of healthcare history at Virginia Commonwealth University Health Systems, where Rich Pollack is VP and CIO, and not just because their medical school has been in existence since 1838. VCUHS was also the third site to deploy the TDS7000 System, meaning computer provider order entry (CPOE) has been in use for more than 30 years. While that predates Pollack, he has a compelling history of his own. He started out on the clinical side of healthcare as a radiology administrative manager. As the world of health IT started to shift and electronic health records became more prominent, Pollack found his clinical background desired by HIT Vendors, and what might look like a meticulously planned career journey was in fact serendipitous. Pollack’s experience continues to serve him well today as he continually looks for ways to enhance patient care through the merging of two worlds. As far as initiatives that are in queue for the year, we discuss everything from telemedicine to data archival, and all their Cerner solutions in between.

CHIME Fall CIO Forum provides valuable education programming, tailored specifically to meet the needs of CIOs and other healthcare IT executives. Justin Campbell, of Galen Healthcare Solutions, had the opportunity to attend this year’s forum and interview CIOs from all over the country. Here is the next interview in the series:

Key Insights

It’s a little unusual, you don’t typically find a lot of academic medical centers with a payer organization

We’re going to try and avoid point solutions and instead go for the EMR vendor’s population health solution, partly because of its tight integration into the EMR.

This organization was an early adopter of electronic medical records and CPOE. We were the third site to deploy the TDS7000 System, way back in the late 70s-early 80s.

What was fortuitous for me was that for a long time, health IT was mainly focused on business systems, financial, billing, and revenue. It was only in the late 80s-early 90s that the focus began to shift to clinical systems and the electronic medical record. That’s exactly around the time that I made the transition into health IT.

You need that understanding of what patient care processes are like: what is the world of the clinician and the caregiver?

Campbell: Let’s start out with a little bit of background about yourself and about VCU Health. I know you’ve been there for over a decade. Tell me about your role there and what you folks are working on.

Pollack: I’ve been here for about 11 ½ years. We’re an academic medical center leveraging Cerner EMR, about a $3B a year organization, and we’re fully integrated. In other words, we have a hospital component that has a community hospital and a children’s hospital, with over 900 beds. We also have a large outpatient component where we see about 650,000 patients a year in over 100 clinics, mostly specialty/sub specialty. We also own our 750-physician practice plan. Those physicians practice in all the clinics and hospitals. They’re complimented by 1,500 other providers, mid-levels, residents, and such.

We are a part of Virginia Commonwealth University, which is the largest university in Virginia. The medical school, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, has been in existence since 1838, so there is a rich history. Another component we added in about 15-16 years ago, is a payer. We have an insurance entity called Virginia Premier. It is a Medicaid HMO, and is the third largest in the state with about 200,000 or so members. That’s a little unusual, as you don’t typically find a lot of academic medical centers with a payer organization.

I run the IT organization, which oversees all the information technology for the entities I previously mentioned. We’re well integrated at the infrastructure layer: we run the same revenue cycle/billing system, from GE, across the inpatient/outpatient environment; and the same EMR, Cerner, services the entire organization. There is a certain amount of decentralization, as you would typically see within an academic medical center, but for the most part, we’re still tightly integrated.

Campbell: That sounds like a vast realm of responsibility for a healthcare information technology leader like yourself. How many applications are you responsible for in the enterprise and do you leverage any enterprise application management software to catalog and manage those?

Pollack: We have about 150-160 applications, depends how you categorize them, which is relatively modest for the size of the organization we are. That’s primarily because we have three core systems that are used by everyone: the EMR, revenue cycle, and ERP. Of those 150-160, some of them are very small applications. You have CBord Dietary Planning Software that runs on a server somewhere and it’s not awfully critical, all the way up to the revenue cycle GE/IDX systems that run on redundant AIX boxes, to the Lawson/Infor ERP, which is remote hosted, as well the Cerner EMR, which is also remote hosted. That’s the portfolio. We don’t necessarily have a formal application management system, but we have a database that we put together that tracks these applications. It looks at: who are the owners, who are the stewards, how old is the software, when’s the next release, when is it going to go out of support, where is it run, how many servers, what location, and those kinds of things. We put that together mainly from a disaster recovery stand-point because we want to know where these systems are, how are they going to be supported from a DR standpoint, what tier they are, and what’s the underlying architecture to support DR for that tier.

Campbell: Thank you for elaborating on that. It’s very insightful. In terms of population health management, how is that managed today? Do you have point solution? Do you rely on the EHR vendor? Do you have a data warehouse that you’re leveraging? Can you tell me a little bit about your approach?

Pollack: Though we don’t have a formal ACO, we are involved in managing population health. As an organization, we’ve been involved in population health management for a long time. We have a large indigent population with a lot of chronic disease patients. We recently stood up a multidisciplinary complex care clinic, that serves our top 5% most costly populations. We use our enterprise analytics data warehouse and our analytics team to help stratify and identify certain populations.

We are looking to deploy Cerner’s HealtheIntent Population Health Platform, primarily the care management aspects of that, both acute and community care management, and secondarily, the smart registries feature. We’re trying to avoid point solutions and instead leverage the EMR vendor’s population health solution, primarily due to its tight integration into the EMR. We are wanting to avoid pushing the physicians, who are the decision makers for these complex populations, out to yet another, or third, application, to try and manage these populations. We wanted to integrate it as tightly in the EMR as we can. That is the place our clinicians live.

Campbell: That makes a lot of sense. I think that’s why Epic and Cerner are in the positions they are today, namely the advantage of native, seamless integration and a singular database across care settings. This approach alleviates the need to harmonize nomenclatures across different care settings. Switching gears again, I know you have a background in medical biology, and you’re a HIMSS fellow as well. Tell me about how you apply your background into your everyday role. Coming from a clinical background, there may be components of it that are valuable to being a healthcare CIO.

Pollack: It’s interesting. In hindsight, it might look like some meticulously planned career journey, but in fact it was anything but. It was pure luck and happenstance that I started out on the clinical side, not on the business and IT side. My first career for 13 years was as a radiology administrative manager. I was involved in: nuclear medicine, ultrasound, radiology, the early days of CT Scanners, PACS, and such. I thought I would stay in that field forever. By chance, I was looking to make a move geographically and ended up going to work for a small health IT company down in North Carolina, that was looking for someone with a radiology background. One thing led to another, and I eventually gravitated into health IT. What was fortuitous was for a long time, health IT was mainly focused on business systems – financial, billing, and revenue. It was only in the late 80s-early 90s that the focus began to shift to clinical systems and the electronic medical record. That’s exactly the time that I made the transition into health IT. My clinical background and experience began to serve me well because of the focus on EMRs; I gravitated towards that. I worked for a couple HIT vendor companies, and then eventually became a CIO. I became attracted to the community hospital setting initially, but then went on to big academic medical centers: MD Anderson, Indiana University Health, and then eventually came to VCU Health.

My clinical background has served me extremely well because that is a bulk of what we do, or a significant part of what health IT is involved in. It’s also the most challenging part. You need that understanding of what patient care processes are like: what is the world of the clinician and the caregiver? I’ve been there, I’ve worked closely with them, I understand what’s involved and the nuances about it. I have a passion for it. All of those things have worked to serve me well. If the industry had gone in some other direction and supply chain was the most important thing, maybe I would be unemployed now… *laughing* At any rate, it just so happened that there was a confluence of forces at work – my background in clinical care with the industries change in direction towards EMRs – and it all came together.

Campbell: Very serendipitous. I imagine having that appreciation, more importantly that perspective, allows you to build trust with stakeholders in clinical positions. Thank you for sharing that background. Let’s discuss CHIME a bit. Tell me about the draw of CHIME for you and what you went there looking for this year. What were the key insights you gleaned from attending the event?

Pollack: The size of the event facilitates networking, which is such a key underpinning and important aspect of belonging to CHIME. I have made incredible contacts, incredible friends and professional relationships through CHIME over the years because it’s focused on networking, connecting peers, and mentoring and supporting each other in many ways. That’s probably the greatest value of the organization.

I find the educational offerings, particularly the track sessions, valuable and engaging. For the most part they’re not vendor presentations, they’re real world experiences from my peers across the country that I can derive some real essence from. That’s tremendously beneficial. I think some of the keynotes have been very inspiring over the years, so I get a lot out of that as well. Those are the key underpinnings: the educational aspects, the networking, and the professional development. I’m CHCHIO certified, which I had to study and take an exam for. I was a little reluctant to do so, but I did manage to pass! I tell people they must’ve had a big curve that year. But I got through that and achieved certification.

The other aspect, which has been particularly important the last several years with ACA and so on, is the voice CHIME brings to the political arena in terms of legislation and regulation. Whether it’s the ONC that they’re dealing with, Congress, the Federal Communication Commission, or the FDA, CHIME has developed a very strong advocacy voice for the world of healthcare IT. They represent our interests and needs extremely well and in a pragmatic way. They bring some of our experienced and senior members in close contact with the people who are setting up and crafting the legislation and regulations, so they can realize what will not work and why, or if there is a better way to go. I’m more of a recipient or beneficiary of that activity from CHIME, but I have a great respect and appreciation for it.

Campbell: In closing, what’s on tap for you this year? It sounds like you’re going to be focused on archival and I imagine integrating the community hospitals will be top of mind for you.

Pollack: We’re building a new hospital and rolling them into Cerner and GE/IDX, that’s our singular, largest project, but we have a lot of others. We have what we call an ERR roadmap, that we update every couple of years, with a lot of subprojects. We’re wrapping up Cerner Oncology implementation, we’ve got Cerner Women’s Health taking off, and we’re looking at adopting the Cerner Behavioral Health module. We’re conducting a lot of optimization, where we go back, revisit and optimize physician and nursing documentation. Those are some of the significant pieces. We also have a lot planned on our infrastructure side. This is one of those years where we’re investing quite a bit into building out our DR capability across our two data centers. We are trying to move forward with VDI at the desktop, which has been a challenge for us in the past, but new technology is making it more feasible for us. The organization continues to grow, the outpatient footprint gets bigger, and we’re opening clinics all over the state. We have telemedicine today but we’re going to go more into the world of virtual visits in a big way, so that’s an exciting venue for us as well.

Campbell: Well, I’ll tell you it sounds like you’re on the forefront of healthcare information technology. This has been most enlightening. Thank you for taking the time to chat.

About Rich Pollack
Rich Pollack is Vice President and Chief Information Officer for VCU Health System. There, his responsibilities include setting the vision for IT, supported by effective strategic and tactical plans that define the best practices in support of patient care and operational excellence.

At VCU Health Systems, his accomplishments include:
* Ongoing successful installation of electronic medical records and computerized physician order entry
* Selection and initiation of a new hospital billing system and enterprise resource planning system
* Contributing to the development of a new all-digital 15 story acute care tower utilizing layers of integrated technology, including wireless, VoIP phones, bedside device integration, mobile access to facilitate effective communication and high-quality care

He also has served as:
* Chief Information Officer for Clarian Health Partners, a $2 billion health system in Indianapolis
* An IT leader at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, lastly as CIO overseeing a 500-person information systems organization with projects totaling more than $100 million supporting clinical, academic, research and administrative functions
* Director of Information Systems for Nash Health Care Systems in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, where he and his team successfully implemented a computer-based patient record system for the 450-bed, multi-hospital organization, which received special commendation as best industry-practice

Rich has more than 30 years of health care management experience.

Rich holds a master’s degree in medical biology and is a member of several professional organizations.

About Justin Campbell
Justin is Vice President, Strategy, at Galen Healthcare Solutions. He is responsible for market intelligence, segmentation, business and market development and competitive strategy. Justin has been consulting in Health IT for over 10 years, guiding clients in the implementation, integration and optimization of clinical systems. He has been on the front lines of system replacement and data migration, is passionate about advancing interoperability in healthcare and harnessing analytical insights to realize improvements in patient care. Justin can be found on Twitter at @TJustinCampbell and LinkedIn.