Slashdot Mirror


Healthcare Giant Faces IT Nightmare

Joan writes "Kaiser Permanente, the largest HMO in the U.S., has spent about $4 billion on an unreliable electronic medical record system that is impacting patient care, according to a 722-page internal report revealed by Computerworld. The CIO resigned after the news came out, and CEO George Halvorson is telling the media that the goal is an alarmingly low 99.5% uptime and that all the problems are really just power outages. Yesterday, Slashdot covered a story about the possibility that the NHS in the UK could now claim the 'biggest IT disaster' prize, but Americans, fear not: so far, the Brits are running a much more efficient failure at $24,000 per physician per year, while America's KP is spending $76,920 per physician, per year on its failing project."

49 of 342 comments (clear)

  1. maybe they can merge by yagu · · Score: 4, Funny

    Maybe they can merge the two projects (the Britain and the KP project) for greater efficiencies.

    1. Re:maybe they can merge by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We have an opening for Dean of our MBA department. You are a shoo in. When can you start?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:maybe they can merge by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Funny

      While we're at it, let's combined the FBI, CIA, NSA and Defense Department IT departments into one nationwide organization and put FEMA in charge to manage that disaster.

    3. Re:maybe they can merge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hold on a second!
      He didn't mention the synergies that merging the two products would bring to the core competenancies of both organizations.

      Now that I have, can I get the job?

    4. Re:maybe they can merge by Phillup · · Score: 2, Funny

      I give...

      How is that different from how we do it now?

      --

      --Phillip

      Can you say BIRTH TAX
    5. Re:maybe they can merge by RealSurreal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's not as far-fetched as you might think. Many NHS Trusts go to the States to visit Kaiser and see how their methods can be used in the NHS: http://www.dearden.co.uk/kaiser.shtml

    6. Re:maybe they can merge by eclectro · · Score: 2, Funny

      The crossover of vertical integration between both systems will create a low pressure dynamic.

      In other words, it will suck. I should get the job.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  2. News came out by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 3, Informative
    If by 'News' you mean an internal email that detailed all manner of underhanded dealings, sent by a project supervisor, implicating the CIO and CEO.


    See here for details.

    --
    "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
  3. Woo-Hoo! by Hap76 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We're Number 1! We're Number 1!

    Huh?

    You mean we're NOT in a competition to make health care unaffordable? Doh!

    P.S. You'd think that a company selling healthcare (something on which people will spend any amount of theirs and others' money) could actually afford working generators and uninterruptible power supplies - if they can't afford it, then how does anyone else?

    1. Re:Woo-Hoo! by jbrader · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My medical paid all but $10 to have my wisdoms pulled. Of course I'm not a baby that wants general anesthetic and NO2 either.

      --
      You are so boring that when I see you my feet go to sleep.
    2. Re:Woo-Hoo! by bfields · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Medical insurance, unless you have some severe, traumatic injury, is a worthless investment.

      That's the way medical insurance is *designed* to work. It's a net loss as long as all we need is routine stuff (like wisdom tooth extractions). And we accept that in the understanding that in the case of a severe, traumatic injury--something we just wouldn't be able to pay for *at all* otherwise--we'll be covered.

    3. Re:Woo-Hoo! by Johnny5000 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Medical insurance, unless you have some severe, traumatic injury, is a worthless investment. You're better off investing what you would pay in premiums to a company in a good mutual fund and use the money when/if you need it.

      And in the case of the severe, traumatic injury, chances are the medical insurance will still only cover a fraction of that, and you'll end up declaring bankruptcy if you can't pay for it.

      Aren't most bankruptcies in the US caused by medical expenses, and involving people who do have insurance, no less?

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    4. Re:Woo-Hoo! by John+Newman · · Score: 4, Insightful
      That's the way medical insurance is *designed* to work. It's a net loss as long as all we need is routine stuff (like wisdom tooth extractions). And we accept that in the understanding that in the case of a severe, traumatic injury--something we just wouldn't be able to pay for *at all* otherwise--we'll be covered.
      It may work that way for young, healthy, childless people, but the wheels fall off when you think about everyone else. Everyone will require significant medical care during their life. If not due to injury, then most certainly due to age or for routine care of children. The very idea of "medical insurance" starts to sound like an oxymoron when you realize that virtually every human being is guaranteed to have some sort of chronic and treatable - and therefore expensive - medical condition when they get older (and "older" may well mean 40s, not 80s). "Insurance" here acts less like true insurance - where the odds of having to redeem a claim are very low - and more like an investment plan where the bank can choose to seize your investment at any moment and pawn your needs off on the government instead.
    5. Re:Woo-Hoo! by arth1 · · Score: 2, Funny
      jbrader (697703) wrote:
      My medical paid all but $10 to have my wisdoms pulled. Of course I'm not a baby that wants general anesthetic and NO2 either.

      You mean you transcend dental medication?

      Regards,
      --
      *Art
  4. well this obviously can't be right by bunions · · Score: 4, Funny

    The free market is more efficient than some socialist government project. There must be some error in the article.

    --
    there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
    1. Re:well this obviously can't be right by networkBoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The term clusterfuck comes to mind...
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    2. Re:well this obviously can't be right by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The efficiency is only over the long haul. The advantage of a free-market system is that, when large organizations get sufficiently bad, they fail and are replaced by other, presumably more efficient, ones. It is painful and takes years to happen, but they do. In a centralized economy, large, stultified, inefficient organizations are coded into law and can't fail until there is a revolution.

    3. Re:well this obviously can't be right by Brandybuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The first word in "free market" is "free". That's free as in unhindered, unrestricted, unencumbered, etc. The US medical industry is not a free market, as there is a bewildering array of non-market forces hindering, restricting and encumbering it.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    4. Re:well this obviously can't be right by bunions · · Score: 2, Insightful

      there's no such thing as a completely free market. your argument is the free-marketers equivalent to the communist saying "oh, but there's never been a -real- communist government, so just pointing at the litany of the failures of communism doesn't mean anything."

      --
      there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
    5. Re:well this obviously can't be right by Larry+Lightbulb · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's often said that Group Health Cooperative http://www.ghc.org/ is run by communists, or socialists at the very least, and they seem to be doing ok.

    6. Re:well this obviously can't be right by bunions · · Score: 5, Funny

      In a truly free market, incompetent doctors would put themselves out of business because all their patients would be dead - problem solved!

      --
      there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
    7. Re:well this obviously can't be right by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The non-profit organization pulled in $3.3 billion in profits, eh?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    8. Re:well this obviously can't be right by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 2, Informative

      1. A perfect communist government would still fail.

      Ah, but that is your opinion, and something you believe, not something you can have any proof of since such a thing never existed.

      2. The more capitalist a nation is, the more prosperous it is (you don't need to have a completely capitalist nation to see it's effects).

      Well yes, most countries in northern Europe, and especially Scandinavia are doing quite badly indeed.. I bet this is due to the socialist nature of their governments also.

      Not to mention that capitalism is not the same as 'free market', and I'm pretty sure that Europe has seen some extremely capitalist governments that brought their citizens an extreme amount of missery.

    9. Re:well this obviously can't be right by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The US healthcare system has lots of problems, but it is already a free market. Many people argue that changing that would make things worse, not better.

      And many who argue that also ignore the tiny detail that many western countries have a healthcare system that is at least as good and is upto 50% cheaper.

    10. Re:well this obviously can't be right by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Kaiser is not being "oppressed", they are simply overpaying. They pass that right on down the line to their policyholders. Also, since they operate hospitals, they are in fact being shafted.

      I know that, on the surface, it seems like no big deal that poor people get free medical care at the expense of big companies. The problem is that these big companies are starting to close their hospitals in poor areas - reducing the overall healthcare availability for poor people.

      Like I said, unfunded mandates are generally not good for anybody.

      And the US healthcare system is not a "free market".

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    11. Re:well this obviously can't be right by rolfwind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Talk to me about free market when I can take my dandy time selecting a hospital - a casual search due to some semi to fully egregious injury - and when I can ask them for a quote to fix it up front - give or take 10%. I would also like readable bills minus the bullshit.

      Then I'd be interested in this premise of a free market healthcare system.

  5. Re:Go USA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Did you also no that the correct spelling of new that you want is knew?

    Jim

  6. Why the hell do they use Citrix? by jmyers · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have used Citrix and it solved some problems for us, but why the shell would you use Citrix for a new application developed from scratch? To me Citrix is a system to run legacy applications. Any time in the last 10 years I would think you would choose a platform that does not require a hack (multi user ms windows) to run.

    "We're the largest Citrix deployment in the world," Deal said. "We're using it in a way that's quite different from the way most organizations are using it. A lot of users use it to allow remote users to connect to the network. But we actually use it from inside the network. For every user who connects to HealthConnect, they connect via Citrix, and we're running into monumental problems in scaling the Citrix servers."

    1. Re:Why the hell do they use Citrix? by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For every user who connects to HealthConnect, they connect via Citrix, and we're running into monumental problems in scaling the Citrix servers.

      I'm not surprised at all. I don't want to give details, but my former employer had as a customer a very large European hotel chain who insisted on using Citrix in its architecture. I saw trouble tickets almost every day related to the Citrix servers, which were always falling down and causing one sort of problem or another. I was really glad I didn't have to work on those problems and the only thing it taught me was that any business that relies on Citrix is foolish.

    2. Re:Why the hell do they use Citrix? by DelawareBoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are at least two of reasons.

      Deployment: Hospitals, Physician Offices, etc., often have diverse locations and diverse applications needed to run on all of their systems: you wouldn't put a radiology system on a Patient Care floor (you'd want to see the results, not the actual application). Using Citrix, a hospital can buy some beefy hardware for their servers and run cheaper hardware in these offices.

      Lack of IT staff: Many hospitals either have a small amount of IT staff, or they grew from that type of an environment. This smaller staff can easily manage an upgrade when upgrading a dozen or more servers in a few locations, as opposed to thousands of computers in a large amount of places. And since hospitals are always working, they don't always have the luxury of upgrading in a few hours of downtime, even if they want to hire temp workers to install applications locally. (Sure, there are other ways around this, but my experience is that they refuse to use it.

      Case in point: One hospital I used to work for had a home-grown VB5 application (and still used it as of 2004, last time I was there) for all deployment on Windows NT workstations. They would use a SysDiff on a workstation before an install and after an install and see what changes needed to happen. As a result, they had to maintain a monstrous amount of permutations of registry settings, hardware configurations, etc. because not every workstation should have the same thing installed --and-- physicians would need their settings carried over if they signed into a new terminal, regardless of where they signed in. Citrix would have saved these people tons of headaches, man hours, etc.

    3. Re:Why the hell do they use Citrix? by javaxjb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because it effectively was a legacy app in the sense that it was running a legacy programming language/system MUMPS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUMPS. I haven't used MUMPS, but my brother-in-law was working on a project to add a web interface to a MUMPS application. The language was so unwieldy (see the previous link and note the user of abbreviations and [sometimes] syntactic meaning of spaces) that he recommended scrapping the conversion a rewriting from scratch in Java because it would be up and running sooner and be much easier to maintain. Unbeknownst to him, management set up another group to start a rewrite and they completed the rewrite in half the time the upgrade team had been working (at the point the upgrade was cancelled). From TFA it appears IT at Kaiser was similary concerned, but in their case management appears to have ignored IT.

      --
      Programmers in mirror are brighter than they appear
  7. 99.5% availability is par for the course. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Remember that we're talking application uptime, not server uptime. This means that for any multi-server and multi-tier application, application uptime is essentially the product of the uptime of all servers that make up the app. Factor in that windows makes up the bulk of application servers and that people often have weekly scheduled downtimes that are in the hours, and 99.5% is actually quite ambitious.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    1. Re:99.5% availability is par for the course. by CodeMasterPhilzar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When I worked at IBM in 90s we had several clients that rebooted their servers once a quarter. A couple were asking for once a year reboots... Even then, they complained about a 45 min reboot cycle. That's roughly 99.966% uptime for the server. Just about all our operating system, application, even hardware updates had to be set up such that they could go into a running system without halting it. There are probably systems out there that would consider that downtime budget lavish...

      --
      --- Just another Code-Monkey
  8. Name of the software? by cybin · · Score: 2, Funny

    What's this software called? SickPeopleSoft? :)

  9. Citrix? by McNihil · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't send a boy to make a mans job. AS/400!

  10. Not surprising at all by realmolo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The dirty secret of the software industry is that if you need a complicated piece of custom software, you're going to pay *huge* amounts of cash to have it developed, and it's never going to work right.

    Anyone who has worked in the IT industry for a while knows the sheer HORROR of most the "niche" software products that big businesses need. They're universally terrible. The people that make that stuff have no incentive to make their product GOOD. They only care about making it marginally functional, so they can make sure their customers have to pay them support fees for eternity.

  11. Evil Monkey by SuicidalLabRat · · Score: 2


    Fortunately, we Americans have short attention spans; otherwise, come the next debate over rising health insurance costs being the result of high malpractice coverage and low/no income 'over usage' of US medical care, we would be pointing the proverbial evil-monkey finger at health care management debacles such as this.

    SLR-

  12. Get used to IT by phorest · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Congratulations,

    Make a system to save money on efficiency to be totally inefficient.

    Actually, what will be found out (in the near future) that consolidating medical records, precribing, admissions -or- billing on a large system will be so unwieldy that the organization will be hurt more if it's attempted then it could ever make things better. This is not to say that it is impossible, but the myriad of laws, policies, regulations, and over-lapping dependencies will set it up to fail.

    I found it especially interesting that a mere power-outage grinds the system to a halt as apparently they don't appear to have any plans for that, but to blame Citrix for their implementation woes is going abit overboard. An organization that big should stick with regional datacenters then to put all its eggs in one basket.

    --
    God: When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
  13. Re:Go USA! by bberens · · Score: 4, Funny

    US health service is second only to our education!

    --
    Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
  14. Funny thing. by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Informative

    About 15 years ago, I worked in Denver for IBM watson lab on the KP system. It was actually a OS2 desktop with AIX backend and had been decent system over the last decade. Then talking to ppl at KP, they told me that higher ups wanted a windows system. Well, I guess they got exactly what they wanted.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  15. I hope they get this thing right by massysett · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From the perspective of a patient, at least, "health care" IT is in the stone age. Can't set appointments over the Internet. Providers don't use email. Billing involves multiple pieces of paper. Getting a prescription filled involves shuttling a piece of paper with scribbles on it. Records retrieval depends of pieces of paper not getting lost. At first glance the KP system is promising and could ulimately lead to untold cost savings. Unfortunately, at least to an ignorant observer like me, it seems that only the big, integrated systems like Kaiser, the VA, and the military have any hope of ever getting some modern IT, at least as long as the US politicians keep their heads up their asses and refuse to do anything about this country's absolutely dysfunctional and outrageously expensive "health care system".

  16. Re:Bad Math?! where does 77k/(year*doctor) come fr by TopShelf · · Score: 2, Informative

    Quoth the article:

    When fully implemented, it is supposed to give more than 100,000 of Kaiser's physicians and employees instant access to the medical records...

    That 100,000 includes Kaiser employees, so the actual number of physicians should be much lower.

    --
    Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
  17. Re:4 BILLion?!?!? by thomas.galvin · · Score: 2, Funny

    How the hell do you spend 4 billion dollars on software?

    A couple of their secretaries upgraded to Vista.

  18. Re:Probably not. by John+Newman · · Score: 5, Informative
    I doubt it. I bet there are more bankruptcies as a result of credit card overextension, or poorly managed home loans, than as a result of medical expenses.
    A recent study that made some ripples in the media indeed found that half of all bankruptcies were due to medical bills. Most frighteningly, they found that 75% of families forced to declare bankrupcty for medical bills had health insurance.
  19. HIPAA may be the answer by peacefinder · · Score: 4, Informative

    Citrix offers one huge advantage in the world of healthcare IT: When the thin client is not connected, no patient data exists on a thin client machine.

    The HIPAA Security regulations are good regs, as such things go. But one of their demands is that you know exactly which machines have Electronic Personally-identifiable Health Information (ePHI) on them. Any such data must be protected, backed up, and audited. Further, each machine containing ePHI is subject to the organization's media disposal policy.

    Now, ideally an EMR system should not leave tracks on the client machine even with its fat client. But if the EMR's fat client does leave data on the client machine, then meeting HIPAA Security requirements would be one heck of a lot easier to accomplish if all you have is thin clients. I have no idea if the EPIC client does leave data on the client computers, but if it did there would be reason to be very interested in using Citrix to keep all ePHI off of all periphrial machines.

    --
    With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
  20. Citrix or anything else by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 2, Insightful

    >"We're the largest Citrix deployment in the world," Deal said.

    Alarm bells should have gone off.

    >"We're using it in a way that's quite different from the way most organizations are using it"

    When you make a pair of statements like that, you're really saying "We've just taken on more technical risk that we understand".

  21. Re:Probably not. by R2.0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Careful...

    (from the link)"We also used the questionnaire to estimate how frequently illness and medical bills contributed to bankruptcy. We developed two summary measures of medical bankruptcy. Under the rubric "Major Medical Bankruptcy" we included debtors who either (1) cited illness or injury as a specific reason for bankruptcy, or (2) reported uncovered medical bills exceeding $1,000 in the past years, or (3) lost at least two weeks of work-related income because of illness/injury, or (4) mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Our more inclusive category, "Any Medical Bankruptcy," included debtors who cited any of the above, or addiction, or uncontrolled gambling, or birth, or the death of a family member.16"

    In other words, their analysis included lost income from illness (not covered under medical insurance), self reporting, and addiction or gambling. So the study didn't show that "medical bills" per se waere the cause, only that there were "medical" factors involved.

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  22. Re:Huge Opportunity by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Is this problem really so hard that nobody can write the software without a major cluster-f***k?

    Oddly enough, yes.

    Health care management systems are a royal pain to build. They need to (if you want to be inclusive) do all of the following: billing, insurance submission, pharmacy and supply ordering both provider and vendor side (including inventory management), lab work integration, patient record management, facility booking, scheduling, and or interfacing with all of the above. You're doing this in a highly distributed system (both logically and physically), where fault tolerant behavior is required (and the 99.5% uptime mentioned is drastically too low). You're trying to do this while gathering inputs from hundreds or thousands of different systems, both internal and external, all of which talk different protocols using different vocabulary, all of which need to be reconciled, and all of which have their own quirks. To operate this system you have your standard IT grunt that has no more than 2 years of ITT Tech training. All of this needs to be done in a high-security environment where information is compartmentalized, both at the functional and the individual level. The users of this system range from physicians who don't know how to use a keyboard to administrators who want customized reporting and statistics out of the thing. A large subset of the users are prima donnas who *are* essential to your operation and who *will* walk if you don't satisfy their whims. Now go up another level - you also want a system that's easy to customize and extend (medical science doesn't stand still). Without a doubt, due to the fragmentation of the health care provision in our country, the range of users and functions these systems have to cover, and the extension requirements in place, these systems are some of the most complex that are constructed. K-P actually had an easier time of it, because of their vertical nature where so much of their operations are internal, but even so they needed to interface with hundreds of external contractor's systems (they contract out specialty care like heart surgery).

    So, no, it's not an easy job; no, you can't just buy one off the shelf; and, unless you want to go to a much more regimented and controlled health care system, it's not going to get any easier. There's a reason why there are hundreds of companies in this business and why multi-billion dollars worth of this type of work is being done each year.

    --
    That is all.
  23. Re:Probably not. by twotommylong · · Score: 5, Informative

    A true life story

    I have a dependant, who became afflicted with a rare conditon about a year ago, and we ran up 207,000 (and counting) of medical bills this year. Tomorrow is their last day of therapy... at which point 'we hope' we're done. Therapy costs $2000 a day.

    The day they were discharged from the hospital for the inpatient, my employer also saw fit to lay me off, with 11 weeks of severence, and, of course, no extension of company paid benefits beyond the end of the termination month. COBRA cost me 1000/month for what was in the industry know as 'high deductible health care' [basically it's medicare part d for healthcare.. with a huge 'donut hole']. My plan has a 10,000 out of pocket max, and then the insurance pays 100%

    Couple this with the getting the 'best doctors' to deal with this meant going out of network... when you go out of network, you see "oh, I'm only going to pay $10,000, as that is my Out of Pocket Max" Err, no.. see health insurance companies have this 'usual and customary' valuation of procedures, saying that if doctor charges $4500 for a MRI, and Medicare only reimburses that at $2000, well, the insurnance will only pay 100% of the '$2000', leaving the 'insured' paying the $2500 that is 'not covered'. You'll be surprised that an insurance company will pay $100 to an innetwork physician, for an office visit, but only pay $35 for an out of network physician, because medicare has deemed that 'usual and customary.'

    So the bill yesterday said, after insurance paid "their share" of all claims that I still owe 97,000 (remember that 10,000 'out of pocket Max'. This after the privilege of paying $9000 this year for insurance coverage.

    Note We have depleted 20,000 for living expenses while I was looking for a new job, and now that I have a job we have dedicated 500 a month to pay off the debt, and I am spending 2 hours a day appealing most of the 'usual and customary' valuations, which I will probably whittle off about 50K (I have no problem paying the difference between the common 'negotiated' rate with in network providers and Mayo's bill, but Medicare just doesn't cut it).

    This is not a sob story, I'm actually been in the health industry most of my adult life... but If I were 20 years younger, and all this happened, I'm certain I'd be bankrupt.