Mark Wright

When I look at the CMS roadmap for 2026 and 2027, it’s clear: healthcare industry has reached a point of no return. While much of the current discussion focuses on the "how" of FHIR API implementation, the real strategic challenge lies in the "why." Why are clinical decisions still being stalled by data silos in an era of instant connectivity? The mandate for a 72-hour turnaround on urgent Prior Authorizations is more than a regulatory hurdle. It is a real call to eliminate the friction that costs time, money, and, ultimately, patient outcomes. In our experience , meeting these deadlines shouldn't be treated as a painful compliance exercise. It is a unique opportunity to finally re-engineer the fragmented workflows that have slowed the industry down for decades. 2026 is here! The time to align technical infrastructure with clinical reality is now. How is your leadership team preparing for the shift from "storage" to "action"? #HealthTech #CMS #Interoperability #DigitalHealth #CEOInsights #ClinicalWorkflow #HealthIT #ITIRRA #AIDA

47

20 Comments

The challenge of custodians is what we all have to work on to protect individuals and data collectors. Where does the data go?

3

This video by @InterSystems introduces the OMOP Platform, a new service by InterSystems designed to support researchers by transforming EHR data into the OMOP format. 👉 https://lnkd.in/gAq42nhm The platform features a FHIR-to-OMOP transformation pipeline and an OMOP repository hosted on #InterSystems #IRIS Cloud #SQL.

8

This statement on information blocking could disrupt EHR vendors’ plans to corner the healthcare data exchange market. Here’s some quick background: EHR vendors like Epic, eCW, and Cerner set up (or are setting up) Qualified Health Information Networks (QHINs) that connect with other QHINs to form a national data exchange network. Healthcare provider organizations must decide whether to participate in the national network, and if they do, whether to join the QHIN that their EHR vendor offers or an independent one. It would have been tempting for the EHR+QHIN vendors to strongarm their provider clients into proprietary QHINs. The EHR vendors could have said things like: 🫸 “Choose our QHIN or you will be on your own to bring data from the national network into the EHR.” 💰 “You will have to pay us so much to ingest data from a competitor QHIN that you might as well join ours.” 🏆 “Joining our QHIN may be costly, but it would help you qualify for our Super Amazing Client Program and avoid costly EHR penalties. And we’ll waive our QHIN costs for a year or two.” ⏳“You could submit a request to bring data from a competing QHIN into the EHR, but it’s not really a priority for us and could take a while. Just join our QHIN.” The section of the FAQ document pictured below says that attempts to limit their customers’ ability to select a QHIN would be considered information blocking. EHR vendors that engage in such behavior could face monetary penalties and legal consequences. I agree with this guidance from ASPT/ONC. Providers and other organizations should be able to select the QHIN that offers the best services at the lowest price - not the QHIN that has the most leverage. EHR vendors that offer QHINs already have systems to connect with other QHINs to bring data into the EHR from the national network. They should allow their provider partners to bring life-saving clinical data into the EHR without forcing them into their QHINs. I’m looking forward to seeing whether the four-sentence FAQ response from ASTP/ONC will change the direction of the market on this. Perhaps you are reading this differently. What do you think? Will the EHR+QHIN vendors still convince most providers to join their QHINs? https://lnkd.in/gwgJTSvC

35

12 Comments