Site moved to www.healthblawg.com/2012/01, redirecting in 1 second...

« December 2011 | Main | February 2012 »

3 posts from January 2012

January 05, 2012

Health Care Social Media – How to Engage Online Without Getting into Trouble (Part II)

I have been asked to write up some of the core takeaways from the health care social media presentations I have been giving recently, so I am sharing a version of this narrative on HealthBlawg, in two parts.  You may wish to begin with Part I 

Professional responsibility and malpractice liability

The American Medical Association has promulgated a social media policy; so has the Veterans Administration.  The two represent very different approaches.  The AMA essentially advocates proceeding with caution, and being cognizant of the damage that one’s own social media activities – and one’s colleagues’ – may do to the profession.  The VA, on the other hand, is out in front on this issue – just as it was with electronic health records – encouraging the use of social media tools to disseminate information and engage patients and caregivers in productive dialogue likely to improve overall wellbeing and health care outcomes.

Patient care should not be provided in open social media forums, but appropriate disclaimers on blogs, Facebook pages, YouTube channel pages, and the like, should be sufficient protection for providers seeking to use these tools for sharing of general advice and information.

As in other settings, there are emergency exceptions.  If the only way to communicate lifesaving information to a patient is via a public social media channel, then a clinician should not refrain from doing based on a concern about a privacy violation.

Daily deal websites

Groupon, Living Social and other daily deal websites are being used by health care providers -- though thus far mostly by those that are not covered by traditional commercial or governmental health insurance (e.g., dental, chiropractic, acupuncture services).  This may change as the health insurance landscape changes over time.  There are a number of legal issues, and their resolution will depend, in part, on where you are situated, since many of the relevant rules are state laws, which vary.  For example:

  • Groupon collects 50% of the price of the groupon as its fee; is that illegal fee-splitting under applicable state law?
  • Is the 50% fee an illegal kickback in exchange for a referral?  Are you subject to federal laws in this area in addition to any state laws?
  • Do provider agreements with third party payors prohibit the offering of discounts to plan subscribers?  (If you can get over the first two issues, you may need to screen out patients who are insured by carriers who limit your ability to discount or risk being in default under an agreement with your biggest customer.)
  • There is at least one more issue to consider, as well:  State laws on gift certificates and their requirements touching on expiration dates.  Lawsuits have been filed alleging that the relatively short life of the daily deal violates state gift certificate laws. 

With the proliferation of high-deductible health plans, and FSAs, HSAs and the like, the general public is becoming more price sensitive in paying for health care services; while health care providers need to become more creative in order to address this issue, they must also remember that they are subject to a wide-ranging set of regulations above and beyond other consumer-facing businesses.

Social Media Policies and Procedures

Despite the legal landscape, it is possible for a health care provider to develop a robust social media program.  The critical first step is developing a set of policies that respects the legal and regulatory limits, and that is consistent with the organization's level of readiness to engage through social media.  Establishing clear guidelines will allow clinicians and staff to participate in the online conversation without having to review individual posts on a regular basis with legal and regulatory advisors. An existing policy from another organization may be used as a starting point in the development process, but local customization is key. 

An external-facing social media policy should set limits and expectations for people who come to the organization's web properties – web site, Facebook page, blog, YouTube channel, Twitter stream, etc. -- so that, for example, a poster who violates the terms of service will be on notice that a hospital whose staff should be monitoring social media accounts at least daily may decide to take down a post (on a forum such as Facebook) if it does not comply with the policy.

An internal set of policies and procedures is also needed to address internal operational and policy issues for both official and unofficial channels. Staff need to be sensitive to the fact that they are, in effect, brand ambassadors on a 24/7 basis, and that if they mention their employer in their own posts on their personal Twitter accounts or Facebook pages, they should do so consistent with company policy – noting that “tweets are my own” or words to that effect.  Some organizations may desire to insist on all employees' “radio silence” except for designated spokespersons.

The best policies are those that are developed through an inclusive process, rather than a top-down process, so that the employees most likely to be active on social media may offer input to the process sand also feel ownership of the final product in a way that will promote adherence.

No matter what the tenor of an individual organization’s policies may be, they must be implemented – they do no good up on the shelf.  Staff must be trained on the policies, and are retrained as policies are updated on at least an annual basis.  Adherence to the social media policies should be a condition of employment, just the same as adherence to any other employer policy, and the distribution of policy documents and training may be integrated with a broader employment process within your organization.

Sine this is a rapidly changing arena – and since social media comfort levels in an organization may change relatively rapidly – social media policies should be reviewed on a regular basis, at least annually.

Conclusion

The cat is out of the bag.  Even if you wanted to avoid social media entirely, it is simply too late to attempt to do so.  Even if your practice or institution does not have an active social media presence, it is likely that others are already discussing you on line.  It is important to set up a social media monitoring program right away, if you do not already have one in place, so that you may respond in the real world to issues flagged in cyberspace.

You can become an active participant in health care social media and stay on the right side of the law, and these days it is becoming more and more imperative to use this toolset for marketing, patient communication and care management.

 

Be sure to check out Part I of this two-part series on health care social media, which lays out the range of issues and concerns and goes into greater detail on HIPAA issues.

David Harlow
The Harlow Group LLC
Health Care Law and Consulting
 
 

January 04, 2012

Me too! It's not fair! The tragedy of the commons in the health care marketplace

There are at least two conversations going on in the health care marketplace today, each focused on one of two key questions. One is: How can we achieve the Triple Aim? The other is: Why do they get to do that?  (It's not fair! I want more!)  

Until we stop asking the second question, we can't answer the first question. Why? Because all too often the answer to the second question is the equivalent of: It's OK, Timmy, I'll buy you TWO lollipops; pick whichever ones you want.  

It's the tragedy of the commons, transposed to the health care marketplace.

Recent cases in point:

  • Avastin
  • Tufts Medical Center - Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts grudge match
  • Mammography and PSA guidelines

1.    Avastin.  Late last year, the FDA yanked its breast cancer treatment approval for Avastin, based on a finding that it does not meet the "safe and effective" standard. CMS says it will still pay for the drug anyway, as will many commercial payors, based on physician judgment.

2.    Tufts Medical Center - Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts. The contract negotiation (out in public view) focused, in part, on Tufts' complaint that BCBSMA pays way more for health care services provided by another network, Partners Health Care, and that it should be compensated on the same scale.  (Others have noticed this disparity too, and have found that higher payments were not accompanied by higher quality -- see reports by Massachusetts state agencies.)  In the context of the present discussion, we may wish to consider whether Partners should be paid less, rather than whether Tufts Medical Center should be paid more.  This episode, according to some, will pave the way for more regulations.

3.    Mammography and PSA guidelines.  Evidence-based medicine says fewer tests are needed, yet consumer demand based on anecdotal evidence, or unwillingness to shift gears becasue of expaectations based on prior recommendations, remains in place, and some payors elect to continue to pay for testing in siutuations that the evidence says testing is not warranted. 

(These are just a few examples "ripped from the headlines" to make a point -- please don't attack my conclusions if you disagree with the specifics of these examples offered, and I invite you to offer additional examples.)

The health care marketplace is, not to put too fine a point on it, imperfect. Often, patients demand goods or services based on direct-to-consumer advertising or peer recommendations without an evicence-based clinical need, physicians are happy to order the drug or the test because they have little or no economic incentive to refuse (and perceive an economic incentive to comply -- avoidance of a potential malpractice case over a missed diagnosis, for example), and patients have little or no exposure to the actual cost of the drug or test at issue.  Things are changing, to be sure: the patient co-pay for the demanded drug may be a little higher or the patient may have a high-deductible health plan, the physician may have a slight disincentive to ordering the more expensive drug or test, but thus far these economic incentives have not been significant enough to shift behavior in a significant manner, and the commons -- the money available for all public and private sector spending, on everything -- has been laid waste: diverted, a few dollars at a time, into the gaping maw of the health care beast.  The result is not improved health status -- just increased health care spending, and decreased spending on everything else.  

Unfettered patient choice coupled with payor-provider risk sharing seems to some to be a recipe for disaster (see: myriad predictions of ACO-induced doom and gloom). CMS is staking out a claim in this new territory, and the folks at the Center for Innovation are being quite frank about it: We have a big chunk of change at our disposal right now to help change the health care marketplace, but in the future we will all have to do more with less.  

At least one national physician group has finally come around to this way of thinking: Per NPR, The American College of Physicians greeted the new year by issuing the latest edition of its ethics manual, which includes the following passage:

In making recommendations to patients, designing practice guidelines and formularies, and making decisions on medical benefits review boards, physicians' considered judgments should reflect the best available evidence in the biomedical literature, including data on the cost-effectiveness of different clinical approaches.

ACP President Virginia Hood told NPR:

We also have to realize that if we don't think about how resources are used in an overall sense then there won't be enough health care dollars for our individual patients. So while concentrating on our individual patients and what they need we also to think on this bigger level both for their benefit and for the well-being of the community at large.

It seems to me that there is a way forward, but it will have to involve a delicate mix of market and regulatory models.  Adding ethics into the mix may be the way to pull us out of the purely economic tragedy of the commons.  

David Harlow
The Harlow Group LLC
Health Care Law and Consulting

January 03, 2012

Health Care Social Media – How to Engage Online Without Getting into Trouble (Part I)

I have been asked recently to write up some of the core takeaways from the health care social media presentations I have been giving recently, so I am sharing a version of this narrative on HealthBlawg, in two parts.  Check back later this week for Part II

Introduction

“Why do you rob banks?”

“That’s where the money is.”

The legendary bank robber Willie Sutton, when asked, gave this straightforward response explaining his motivation.  A similar motivation may be ascribed to the early adopters among health care providers who have established beachheads on various social media properties on line.  Why be active in on line social networks?  That’s where the people are: patients, caregivers, potential collaborators and referral sources, like many, many other people, are using social media more and more.  Facebook has become nearly ubiquitous, and its user base is growing not only among the younger set, but also among the older set, who are signing up so they can see pictures of their grandkids.  In today’s wired society, on line social networking is the new word of mouth.  Word-of-mouth referrals, personal recommendations, have always been prized; we have simply moved many of those conversations on line.

Over half of Americans rely on the internet when looking for health care information.  Many on line searches are conducted on behalf of another person.  Most people expect their health care providers to be on line, providing trustworthy information – and the day of the static website has passed.  In addition, a growing subset of the population is comprised of “e-patients” – the “e” stands for educated, engaged and empowered – who seek out health care providers prepared to engage with them both in person and on line.

Only about twenty percent of U.S. hospitals have a social media presence, and likely a similar proportion of other health care providers.  Thus, while some health care providers have been using social media for years, there is still an opportunity to reap the benefits of being an early adopter.  Whether or not a provider is on line, others are likely discussing that provider – on review sites, on Facebook, even on Twitter – so whether or not one establishes a social media presence, it is imperative to establish a listening post to keep abreast of what is already being posted on line – complaints, recommendations and other information will come to light, and steps may be taken in the real world to ameliorate situations giving rise to complaints and to capitalize on praise and referrals.

Finally, health care reform is pushing health care providers into social media.  The Meaningful Use regulations will soon require that providers seeking incentive payments for adoption of electronic health records must make greater use of personal health record portals, and programs like the Medicare Shared Savings Program, or Accountable Care Organization program, require patient-centeredness and patient engagement, which in this day and age require the use of online social tools.

With all of these motivating factors, why are health care providers reticent, and slow to adopt the use of social media tools?  There are numerous legal and regulatory issues triggered by the use of social media and some health care providers are put off by the perception of the risk involved.  However, there are legal and regulatory risks (and attendant market and business risks) to the decision to remain uninvolved.

The key issues for consideration include the following:

  • Privacy and security rules, under HIPAA as well as other federal and state laws, and the ever-diminishing ability to fully de-identify protected health information
  • Professional responsibility codes, including both professional society codes of ethics and state regulations promulgated by boards of registration in medicine
  • Malpractice liability for professional advice rendered via social media
  • Issues raised by daily deal sites such as Groupon and Living Social, including anti-kickback, fee-splitting, insurance contracts, state insurance laws and gift certificate laws
  • Liability under Federal Trade Commission rules for failure to disclose a financial relationship in conjunction with an online rating, review or other commentary
  • Trouble with the National Labor Relations Board if employee discussion of working conditions in unreasonably limited (even in non-union shops)

If not managed appropriately, it is clear that these issues may lead to significant liabilities, ranging from civil and administrative fines, to negative publicity, to private lawsuits predicated on HIPAA or state law violations.  (Even though HIPAA does not provide for third-party liability some state laws do, and creative lawsuits may seek to bootstrap private liability on a HIPAA violation as well.)

However, it is possible to manage all of these issues through the development of comprehensive social media policies – both outward-facing (i.e., to patients and the general public) and inward-facing (i.e., to physicians, other clinicians, and other staff) that are tailored to a specific medical practice or other health care organization.  The policies themselves must be tailored to local conditions, because each practice, each health care organization is at a slightly different point on its own health care social media journey, its comfort level with social media tools, and its thoughts about how to use these tools, and to what end.

Here is further detail about several of the key categories of legal issues identified above:

HIPAA and other privacy concerns

Privacy concerns arising from HIPAA and state privacy laws start from the proposition that only a patient has the right to authorize the release of his or her own private health information.  Thus, while an individual patient is free to blog about her medical condition or experience with the health care system without implicating HIPAA or other privacy rules, provider-generated social media content with identifiable patient information used without consent would raise red flags.  Provider discussions of cases on social media should follow the “elevator rule” or the “coffee shop rule” – If you wouldn’t say it in a crowded elevator or coffee shop, don’t post it online.

As one emergency room physician recently learned the hard way (she was dismissed by her employer and sanctioned by her state medical board), even a de-identified Facebook post about a patient may easily be re-identified using information from third-party sources.  The HIPAA rules list eighteen categories of identifying information that must be stripped from a record or patient story in order for it to be considered de-identified. Number eighteen is, essentially, anything else that may be used to re-identify the de-identified information.  Since we are, collectively, doubling the amount of information posted online on a regular basis, that which is de-identified today may well be easily re-dentified tomorrow. 

Thus, the best practice would be to write about composite/fictionalized patients, or simply get patient consent.  Providers may wish to rewrite their HIPAA NPPs (notice of privacy practices) to include some level of consent to communication with or about a patient on Facebook, for example, if that is something that would make sense, and that might happen on a regular basis. 

Other disclosures made inadvertently may lead to difficulties as well.  For example:

  • A cell phone photo taken in a hospital emergency room of a friend proudly displaying a newly-stitched wound may inadvertently capture the image of another patient in the background. That post may be a HIPAA violation attributable to the hospital, even if it did not post the photo. 
  • An employee of a public hospital tweets her displeasure in seeing a clinic staffed up for the convenience of a political figure seeking service off-hours.  Her public sharing of identifiable health information led to her being fired.
  • Positive test results posted by a patient on Facebook might invite response on a human level, but the response must be more measured.  For example, if a patient posts on a hospital Facebook wall after getting some good test results, “I'm cancer free one year later,” hospital staff can't post much more than “Congrats; everyone should check out our cancer center's web page.”  Even in a situation like this, where the patient self-identifies first, there is no consent to unlimited public discussion of his condition.

 

Please check back later this week for Part II, which will touch on professional responsibility and malpractice issues, daily deal sites and the development of policies and procedures for provider organizations engaged in the use of health care social media.

David Harlow
The Harlow Group LLC
Health Care Law and Consulting