Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Healthcare Giant Faces IT Nightmare

Posted by Zonk on Thu Nov 16, 2006 01:09 PM
from the awesome-rpg-character-name dept.
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."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Biggest IT Disaster Ever? 405 comments
lizzyben writes, "Baseline has a major story about a major IT disaster in the UK: 'In 2002, the English government embarked on a $12 billion effort to transform its health-care system with information technology. But the country's oversight agency now puts that figure at $24 billion, and two Members of Parliament say the project is "sleepwalking toward disaster"... In scale, the project... (NPfIT) is overwhelming. Initiated in 2002, the NPfIT is a 10-year project to build new computer systems that would connect more than 100,000 doctors, 380,000 nurses and 50,000 other health-care professionals; allow for the electronic storage and retrieval of patient medical records; permit patients to set up appointments via their computers; and let doctors electronically transmit prescriptions to local pharmacies.'" An Infoworld article from earlier this year sketches some of the all-time greatest IT meltdowns.
[+] Big HMO Jolted By Email, System Failures 171 comments
JoanofAlaska writes "The Wall Street Journal is running a front page story about the internal mass e-mail that exposed the failing $4 billion dollar electronic medical record system at Kaiser Permanente, the biggest non-profit HMO in the country. When word of the system's meltdown quickly spread back in November, one reporter obtained a 722 page internal document that showed patient safety lapses as a result of the system's problems. Then in February, the Los Angeles Times had a front page story in which a systems analyst who worked on the project called it 'the worst [technology] project I have seen in my 25 years in the business.' They've created a website to try to rebuild confidence in the project, and they say their goal for system availability is 99.7% (they're currently at 99.2%)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by yagu (721525) * <yayagu AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday November 16 2006, @01:10PM (#16872414) Journal

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

  • News came out (Score:4, Informative)

    by Hijacked Public (999535) on Thursday November 16 2006, @01:13PM (#16872460)
    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 [fixkp.org] for details.

  • Woo-Hoo! (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?
    • You have things backwards. The purpose of a company selling healthcare is not to actually pay for services, but rather to drain the coffers of those who pay them.

      For example, my employer (the people of the Commonwealth actually), pays for the majority of my medical insurance with a small amount being deducted from my pay. I had to have wisdom teeth pulled earlier this year.

      My dental insurance would pay for the novacaine but not the nitrous oxide. Nor would they pay for me to be put comletely under. Over
      • Re: (Score:3, 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.
        • Re: (Score:3, 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
      • Re:Woo-Hoo! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bfields (66644) on Thursday November 16 2006, @01:43PM (#16872934) Homepage
        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.

        • Re:Woo-Hoo! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by John Newman (444192) on Thursday November 16 2006, @02:37PM (#16874000)
          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.
      • Re: (Score:3, 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 ins
          • Re:Probably not. (Score:5, Informative)

            by John Newman (444192) on Thursday November 16 2006, @02:31PM (#16873878)
            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 [healthaffairs.org] 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.
            • Re: (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 ho
            • Re:Probably not. (Score:5, Informative)

              by twotommylong (794494) on Thursday November 16 2006, @05:31PM (#16877076)
              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.
  • by bunions (970377) on Thursday November 16 2006, @01:17PM (#16872530)
    The free market is more efficient than some socialist government project. There must be some error in the article.
    • Since when is the US health care system a free market?

      • what would you call it?
        • by networkBoy (774728) on Thursday November 16 2006, @01:34PM (#16872804) Homepage Journal
          The term clusterfuck comes to mind...
          -nB
        • by Brandybuck (704397) on Thursday November 16 2006, @01:41PM (#16872910) Homepage Journal
          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.
          • Re: (Score:3, 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."
              • 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 c
            • 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.
            • Re: (Score:3, 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.
                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  The non-profit organization pulled in $3.3 billion in profits, eh?
                    • Re: (Score:3, 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 gener
    • Kaiser Permanente are clearly much more efficient at wasting money than the NHS, almost 3 times more efficient at it.

       
    • Re: (Score:3, 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.

  • Always got to do it bigger and better.

    Basically what this means is there's a lot of completely incompetent management in the healthcare sector generally. Actually I think this is better because the US organisation being private can be bankrupted and replaced by someone who actually has a clue what they're doing. The NHS will simply continue sucking the taxpayer dry without the incompetent twits having any sanction against them at all.

     
  • Honestly. I really did not know that any other health service organisation of any kind could fuck it up better than the NHS in the UK. Public spending goes up and lots of IT companies rub their hands together and con the incompetent civil servants.

    The government is now highly keen on national ID cards and biometric scanning, and are extremely keen to use it as a solution to everything from immigration to terrorism - except it won't solve anything and it will be broken in no time. Obviously many IT compan
  • by jmyers (208878) on Thursday November 16 2006, @01:22PM (#16872596)
    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."
    • by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) on Thursday November 16 2006, @01:35PM (#16872820)
      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.
    • by peacefinder (469349) * <alan.dewitt@NOsPaM.gmail.com> on Thursday November 16 2006, @02:54PM (#16874318) Journal
      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.
    • >"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".
  • by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Thursday November 16 2006, @01:26PM (#16872660)
    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.
  • What's this software called? SickPeopleSoft? :)
  • Citrix? (Score:2, Insightful)

    Don't send a boy to make a mans job. AS/400!
  • by realmolo (574068) on Thursday November 16 2006, @01:32PM (#16872758)
    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.

  • Funny thing. (Score:5, Informative)

    by WindBourne (631190) on Thursday November 16 2006, @02:04PM (#16873348) Journal
    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.
  • by massysett (910130) on Thursday November 16 2006, @02:05PM (#16873368) Homepage
    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".
    • Re: (Score:3, 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.
    • Re:Huge Opportunity (Score:5, Interesting)

      by frank_adrian314159 (469671) on Thursday November 16 2006, @04:21PM (#16875908) Homepage
      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.