Issue link: https://beckershealthcare.uberflip.com/i/1383677
61 INNOVATION Richard Zane, MD. Chief Innovation Of- ficer at UCHealth (Aurora, Colo.). e potential for the development of hospital at home is far greater than simply allowing patients to convalesce at home in a more in- timate, familiar and less costly environment. What a hospital-at-home program can evolve to is an out-of-hospital environment — home or anywhere — where the rational deployment of technology (remote patient monitoring, including behavioral activa- tion, artificial intelligence and prescriptive intelligence combined with the judicious intersection of human adjudication) will recognize when patients with complex medical conditions or who are immediately post-procedure show signs of deterioration far before they are traditionally symptomat- ic. is will allow for earlier and likely less complex intervention, avoiding progression of illness and need for acute, episodic and/ or unscheduled care. Nick Patel, MD. Chief Digital Officer at Prisma Health (Columbia, S.C.). A strong hospital at home program that leverages the appropriate personnel, data, inclusion criteria and technology allows for decom- pression of busy hospitals and more im- portantly, provides the equivalent level of care at the fraction of the cost. Technolo- gies such as remote patient monitoring, enhanced video visits and automation pro- vide providers and patients with more op- tions for care delivery and reduce the risk of hospital-acquired infections. Tom Andriola. Vice Chancellor of IT and data at University of California Irvine. What excites me is just the open-mindedness to think about creating a more patient-cen- tric experience. We've seen that the technol- ogy can work if it is implemented properly; the pieces are there. It's a matter of thinking about the patient, the caregiver, the differ- ent interactions and the possible scenarios that you'll have to accommodate. When we can put it together in the right way, we can provide the patient with the opportunity to receive care, recover or maintain their chron- ic condition from the comfort of their home and familiar surroundings. I consider that progress in patient centricity. e way I think about things, tech is not lead- ing the way. e availability of technology is opening people's minds on how we might de- liver services differently, consider a more pa- tient-centric experience, and discuss where this type of care is appropriate and where not. Technology is the enabler, but clinicians and caregivers will always be in the lead. Pankaj Jandwani, MD. Chief Innovation Officer at MidMichigan Health (Midland, Mich.). It is exciting to see how the pan- demic, presenting us with some of the most significant challenges, motivated us to be in- novative, build better processes and capabil- ities and figure out how to treat more of our patients in the comfort of their own homes. I am also pleased to see more data on the safety and value of hospital at home, which perhaps also motivated CMS to recognize this model for better reimbursement. I am proud of the accelerated learning and implementation of hospital at home at Mid- Michigan Health, starting with treating COVID-19-positive patients in their homes. is model perfectly aligns with our goal to create a system of care to provide healthcare close to the patient's home while maximizing quality and access. MidMichigan Health cur- rently serves over 23 counties of rural Mich- igan, and transportation, especially during winter, is challenging for many patients and families. Building on the hundreds of thou- sands of miles saved by our patients through virtual visits, hospital-at-home models allow us the opportunity to achieve zero harm by reducing adverse events related to unfamiliar hospital environments. An integrated EMR across the care settings that provides objective scores and tools to stratify patients based on their risk of clinical deterioration, re-hospitalization and mor- tality is a must to correctly identify patients who will safely benefit from this model and manage their care. To that end, we have pri- oritized training our clinicians and standard- izing processes to effectively leverage remote monitoring and securely communicate with our patients. We are exploring solutions that integrate data from these devices into the EMR and provide timely decision support in a predictive manner to improve patients' outcomes. Additionally, we continue to im- prove on educating patients and families on use of remote monitoring devices and collaborating with our community partners to improve broadband availability in our rural communities. n California has poured millions into health collaborations with Big Tech, but is it paying off? By Katie Adams P ublic health experts are concerned about Califor- nia's reliance on Big Tech companies to help with its COVID-19 response, citing concerns such depen- dence could lead to a crumbling public health infrastruc- ture, Kaiser Health News reported May 6. California has spent millions on contracts with several big tech companies since the pandemic began. For example, the state has spent $93 million on the centralized vaccine clearinghouse Salesforce developed, which has been un- popular among Californians. The state also signed a $72 million no-bid contract with Google sister company Verily to expand COVID-19 testing, which it decided it will not renew. California's next no-bid contract to expand COVID-19 testing went to OptumServe and is now valued at $600 million. Current and former public health officials told Kaiser Health News California's reliance on Big Tech companies to help with public health matters could leave state and local health departments unable to respond to future threats and crises. "These are companies that are profit-driven, with share- holders. They're not accountable to the public," Flojaune Cofer, PhD, a former epidemiologist for the state's public health department, told Kaiser Health News. "We can't rely on them helicoptering in. What if next time it's not in the interest of the business or it's not profitable?" Daniel Zingale, who advised healthcare policy for three California governors, echoed Dr. Cofer's concerns, saying, "What is best for Google is not necessarily best for the people of California." n