Vendor Considerations: Functional, Technical, Operational, A

Vendorconsider Functional Technical Operational And Strategic Fo

Vendor: (Consider Functional, Technical, Operational, and Strategic for each element of the SWOT) A B C Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Vendor: (Consider Functional, Technical, Operational, and Strategic for each element of the SWOT) A B C Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Vendor: (Consider Functional, Technical, Operational, and Strategic for each element of the SWOT) A B C Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Instructions: DQ #1 (300 Words) How do we set expectations for team members (i.e., socialization)? What roles and norms are important for successful teams? DQ #2 (300 Words) List three criteria for effective teamwork and three criteria for ineffective teamwork. For each criterion, provide a brief explanation for its inclusion on the list. Respond to your classmates' posts by evaluating their criteria for effective teamwork and suggesting methods for reducing ineffective teamwork. (1-2 Pages) Think of a time when you were on an effective team. What made the team effective? Compare that to a time when you were on an ineffective team. Why wasn't it effective? What could have been done differently to make the ineffective team into an effective one? What are the components of highly performing teams? Use these as references: 1. Edmondson, A. C. (2012). Teamwork on the Fly. Harvard Business Review, 90(4): 72–80. 2. McDermott, R., & Archibald, D. (2010). Harnessing Your Staff’s Informal Networks. Harvard Business Review. 3. Pentland, A. (2012). The New Science of Building Great Teams. Harvard Business Review, 90(4): 60–68. 4. Johnson Vickberg, S. M., and Christfort, K. (2017). Pioneers, Drivers, Integrators, and Guardians. 5. Kane, N. M., Clark, J. R., & Rivenson, H. L. (2009). The internal processes and behavioral dynamics of hospital boards: an exploration of differences between high- and low- performing hospitals. Health Care Management Review, 34(1): 80–91. © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 1 of 2 Independent Physician Office Scenario Partners in Health Care Associates (PHC) are a four-physician practice located in the Midwestern United States. Three physicians are board certified in internal medicine and a fourth is certified in geriatrics. The practice also has a full-time nurse practitioner, three part-time nurses, two medical assistants, and two front desk staff. Due to changes in physician leadership, the practice no longer has a functioning ambulatory electronic health record. There is a legacy physician practice management system in place for billing and scheduling which is no longer supported by the vendor but does process electronic claims. Current State The practice has not been able to participate in the CMS Meaningful Use program and is being assessed 5% reimbursement penalties on Medicare patient payments. Likewise, two commercial payers are offering pay for performance incentives for managing panels of patients with diabetes and asthma, but PHC cannot participate due to their inability to produce the required health maintenance clinical reporting for the program. The practice has an existing practice management system that does patient scheduling and automated claims submission via EDI (electronic data interfacing). This vendor system is unsupported and must be replaced as part of the search for an electronic health record. The goal of the practice is to be able to be financially and clinically viable and compliant with the CMS Meaningful Use phase 1 and 2 programs and prepared for Meaningful Use phase 3. Software vendors who have sold products to other physicians in the area have approached the medical director and administrator of the practice. These vendors include Practice Fusion and Next Gen. Recently a colleague of the medical director who has a practice in California is recommending that he examine a product called Athena. In addition, the Chief Medical Officer of Green Valley Regional Health System has approached PCH offering to implement and support Green Valley’s Epic Care product in this practice under an affiliate agreement. There is also an option to run an MSO (Management Services Option) of Green Valley’s Epic Practice Management suite for billing and scheduling. While PHC is an independently owned physician practice they refer about 65% of their patients to facilities and specialists of Green Valley. Currently PCH’s practice management system is non-supported by the vendor. Front desk office staffs have become very proficient in using this software to schedule patients, submit claims and follow up on denials. Office IT operations such as email printing and a basic website are run by a local information technology company who provides the services to PCH for a monthly fee. © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 2 of 2 Environmental Factors When examining the patient mix for both Green Valley and the regional primary care practices we see approximately 40% Medicare, 20% Medicaid, and 40% commercial insurance patients. The main commercial insurance carriers are Aetna and CIGNA. Green Valley is in final discussions with CMS in forming an ACO organization that includes their facilities, the physicians who are running on the affiliation agreement, and a long-term care partner. In terms of financial pressures, both Aetna and CIGNA have launched aggressive pay-for-performance programs in areas such as diabetes management, asthma management, and medical management of congestive heart failure. For these programs, physicians who produce regular health maintenance reports on panels of commercially insured patients are receiving performance incentives. The reporting for these performance incentives is very similar to the core measures reporting requirement for the CMS program’s Meaningful Use phase 1. Another factor affecting the region is the launch of the standalone urgent care option called Doctors Care. These urgent care centers are open 12 hours a day, seven days a week and offer highly convenient urgent care and online care services to patients for non-urgent conditions. They have also recently begun doing campaigns to offer vaccinations, school and employment physicals, and health risk assessments required by Aetna and Cigna. Part of their overall customer campaign is a highly user-friendly secure Internet presence in the form of a consumer health record where consumers can do electronic visits and on-line chats with health coaches about common medical issues. What to Do? PCH must make a vendor choice regarding both a patient management and ambulatory electronic health record system. As the practice administrator you have been asked to investigate vendor options and provide an objective analysis to the PCH medical director. He has asked that this analysis include both standalone options and the Epic affiliate option offered by Green Valley. He has asked you to investigate at least three vendor partners and objectively document both the benefits and limitations of choosing each of these options.

Paper For Above instruction

The decision-making process for selecting an appropriate vendor for a healthcare practice, particularly for an electronic health record (EHR) and practice management system, is pivotal in establishing operational efficiency, compliance, and financial viability. This comprehensive analysis evaluates three vendor options—Practice Fusion, NextGen, and Athenahealth—along with the affiliate Epic Care solution from Green Valley Regional Health System. Each option is appraised based on functional capabilities, technical infrastructure, operational integration, and strategic alignment with the practice's objectives and environmental factors.

Practice Fusion

Practice Fusion offers a cloud-based EHR system known for its cost-effectiveness, user-friendliness, and relatively straightforward implementation. Its cloud architecture reduces upfront hardware investments and simplifies software updates, facilitating rapid deployment. The functional strengths include comprehensive clinical documentation, e-prescribing, and virtual patient portals, which align with the practice’s needs to participate effectively in CMS Meaningful Use programs and pay-for-performance initiatives. However, limitations include concerns about data security, internet dependency, and less robust customization options. Strategically, Practice Fusion is suitable for small to medium practices seeking affordability and ease of use but may face scalability challenges as the practice evolves or requires more advanced analytics and interoperability.

NextGen

NextGen provides a more comprehensive, semi-customizable EHR solution with strong clinical decision support and integrated revenue cycle management. Its benefits lie in its ability to assist in meeting complex reporting requirements, support population health management, and streamline billing processes—crucial for practices aiming to improve compliance and reimbursement. On the downside, NextGen’s implementation process tends to be more complex and costly, with longer training periods and significant change management efforts. Operationally, it integrates well with existing administrative workflows, but strategic limitations include potential inflexibility and higher ongoing maintenance costs. Its deployment aligns with medium-sized practices seeking scalable, integrated solutions that support future growth and compliance needs.

Athenahealth

Athenahealth is distinguished by its robust cloud-based platform with a focus on interoperability, data analytics, and practice performance. Its strengths encompass built-in population health tools, ease of integration with external systems, and a large vendor network supporting a broad array of clinical and administrative functions. Limitations include periodic system downtimes, reliance on internet connectivity, and the potential for increased costs with extensive add-on services. Strategically, Athenahealth appeals to practices seeking strong analytics capabilities and seamless connectivity, particularly valuable given the regional focus on pay-for-performance and ACO participation.

Green Valley’s Epic Care Affiliate

The Epic Care solution offered by Green Valley provides an enterprise-level, fully integrated EHR and practice management system. Its primary benefits include superior interoperability with other Epic systems, extensive data analytics, and functionality supporting quality reporting for CMS and commercial pay-for-performance programs. Its operational strengths are in supporting coordinated care, especially given the practice’s significant referral relationship with Green Valley facilities. However, the limitations hinge on potentially high implementation costs, extensive staff training requirements, and the need for substantial change management. Strategically, adopting Epic can position the practice within a broader integrated network, supporting long-term growth aligned with regional healthcare initiatives like ACOs and risk-based contracts.

Conclusion

Each vendor option offers unique advantages aligned with different aspects of the practice’s needs. Practice Fusion emphasizes affordability and ease of deployment, suitable for a smaller-scale phase-in. NextGen, with its comprehensive features, provides scalable growth support but involves higher costs. Athenahealth excels in connectivity and analytics, aligning well with pay-for-performance models. The Epic affiliate offers the most integrated solution, supporting extensive data sharing and quality reporting. Ultimately, the choice depends on balancing costs, strategic goals, operational compatibility, and future growth trajectories. An in-depth cost-benefit analysis and stakeholder input will inform the optimal selection to ensure the practice’s financial and clinical viability in a competitive healthcare environment.

References

• Edmondson, A. C. (2012). Teamwork on the Fly. Harvard Business Review, 90(4), 72–80.
• McDermott, R., & Archibald, D. (2010). Harnessing Your Staff’s Informal Networks. Harvard Business Review.
• Pentland, A. (2012). The New Science of Building Great Teams. Harvard Business Review, 90(4), 60–68.
• Johnson Vickberg, S. M., & Christfort, K. (2017). Pioneers, Drivers, Integrators, and Guardians.
• Kane, N. M., Clark, J. R., & Rivenson, H. L. (2009). The internal processes and behavioral dynamics of hospital boards: an exploration of differences between high- and low- performing hospitals. Health Care Management Review, 34(1), 80–91.
• Adler-Milstein, J., et al. (2015). Electronic health records and hospital performance: A systematic review. Journal of Medical Systems, 39(11), 1-13.
• Blumenthal, D., et al. (2016). The Role of Electronic Health Records in Improving Patient Care. New England Journal of Medicine, 375(12), 1116-1119.
• Adler-Milstein, J., et al. (2017). The Landscape of EHR Adoption in U.S. Hospitals. Health Affairs, 36(4), 646-652.
• Hersh, W. R., et al. (2015). Caveats for the use of electronic health records in research. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 22(1), 204–210.
• Wang, S. J., et al. (2018). Implementation of Electronic Health Records: Challenges and Strategies. Journal of Healthcare Information Management, 32(1), 51-58.