DOCSLIB.ORG

Digital Health Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

2020 STATE OF GEORGIA’S DIGITAL HEALTH ECOSYSTEM Driven by Innovation Proven by Performance EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW Georgia is home to 200 Digital+ Health companies that are innovating healthcare in a variety of ways - from healthcare Michele Madison, Morris Manning & Martin, software to medical devices to services. 2019 TAG Digital Health Board Chair With an estimated $20.7B economic impact in the State, and $11.8B in estimated direct revenue Statewide, Digital Health is helping drive Georgia’s Chris Karabinos, Harvest Business 1 Advisors, 2020 TAG Digital Health Board economy . But the impact is broader. Chair Through the advancement of new Digital Health solutions developed in Georgia, healthcare systems and physicians nationally are better able to screen, Phyllis Parker Board member, Georgia diagnose and collaborate on the delivery State University, Center for Health IT,TAG Digital Health Board member of healthcare in new ways improving access to healthcare and improving health outcomes throughout the United States. Dr. Sweta Sneha, Founder and Executive Director, Healthcare Management and Examples of Digital Health solutions Informatics at Kennesaw State University, TAG Digital Health Board member developed and managed by Georgia- based companies includes solutions in the areas of population health, revenue cycle management, patient Robin Hackney, FairWarning, TAG Digital engagement, imaging, telehealth and Health Board member remote monitoring, cybersecurity, care coordination, consumer healthcare apps and more. These successful businesses will continue to create a major impact Brian Kenah, ShareCare, TAG Digital Health nationally as they grow. And the Digital Board member Health economy in Georgia will continue to support the launch of new companies to address new challenges. Jennifer Georgino, GA Blockchain The TAG Digital Health Board thanks the following Coalition, Dealbox, TAG Digital Health Board member individuals for their contributions: Reba Adams, Georgia Institute of Technology Center for Economic Development Research Gracie Carter, CSM, Master of Healthcare Management and Informatics Candidate Pat Williams, Institute for Healthcare Felice Felser, Vice President of Clinical Informatics, iMedX IT Board Chair, TAG Digital Health Board Heather Maxfield, TAG, Vice President, Government Affairs member & Statewide Economic Development Ken Rome, Graphic Designer, Owner, Notusmedia Copyright 2020 Technology Association of Georgia, All Rights Reserved 1 HEALTHCARE INNOVATION LANDSCAPE IN GEORGIA In the early 2000s, healthcare in the United States o HBOC and McKesson were major players on was in crisis. Per capita healthcare spending was the national healthcare technology landscape the highest in the world and growing at a 4-5% rate, since the 1970’s, with thousands of technology yet the health of the US population was average and alumnae starting other Healthcare Information not improving. In 2009, President Obama signed the Technology (“HIT”) companies in metro Atlanta. Health Information Technology for Economic and • A vibrant Innovation Community, with incubators Clinical Health (HITECH) Act into law to promote the and accelerators around the state fostering new adoption of health information technology thereby Digital Health, medical and medical device ushering healthcare into the digital era. The HITECH startups. Two major institutions are: Act was enacted to drive the adoption of electronic health records (EHR) with the expectation that, o ATDC (Atlanta Technology Development Center) was founded on Georgia Tech’s campus in 1970 once digitized, medical records could be analyzed and is widely regarded as one of the most to identify approaches to improve health outcomes successful incubators in the nation. Today, across the population while improving privacy and 50 of its 180 total startups (28 percent) are security (HIPAA). The intent of the law was to focused on healthcare, medical devices and engage patients to manage their own healthcare Digital Health technology. and thereby improve the coordination of care. This Act, combined with the subsequent Patient o ATV (Atlanta Technology Village), founded in Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and other 2012, has 30 of its 300 startups and companies (10%) focused on Digital Health. related laws, drastically changed many aspects of healthcare to include delivery, business models • A robust Healthcare Technology Community and payment models that drive medical provider including Professional technology organizations, and patient behaviors, and patient (consumer) cross-industry partnerships, Accountable Care engagement through the use of technology. Organizations (ACOs) and a vigorous Digital Health startup community. While the Digital Health industry in Georgia has been a major industry for decades, the impact • Collaborative Industries - Georgia has an of these national forces has generated incredible advantage over other states in that it is also a growth since 2010. As the employment growth chart national leader in other technology industries in the “By the Numbers” chart in this report show, such as mobility, Fintech (financial technology), there are 200+ Digital Health companies in Georgia, logistics and information security. This creates with over 44,000 jobs, representing a 31 percent opportunities to combine technologies for increase over the course of nine years. the purpose of creating hybrid solutions; examples include mobile health, revenue Many factors contribute to making Georgia a Digital cycle management and healthcare asset Health innovation hub; management tracking. • 200+ Digital Health companies operating in • A strong workforce - Nurtured by excellent local Georgia as of this report (Dec. 2019). See list universities to include Emory University, Emory in this report. School of Medicine, Georgia State University, • A long history of leading institutions in healthcare, Georgia Institute of Technology, Kennesaw State global health and healthcare technology: University, Mercer University, Morehouse College, Morehouse School of Medicine and the University o The CDC, the world’s leader in global health, of Georgia. has been headquartered in Atlanta since the 1950’s and its precursor was initially located • Cooperative Research and Development - Often here in the 1940’s. produced from partnerships between healthcare systems, technology providers, businesses, payors o HIMSS was founded on Georgia Tech’s campus and academia. in 1960 with an incredible amount of healthcare technology expertise in the state at There is a healthy spirit of collaboration within the that time. healthcare technology community in Georgia, and Continued on page 5 2 DIGITAL HEALTH COMPANIES 3M Health Information Systems Etegrity Health Solutions Inc MD Solutions Inc 3M M*modal ExamWorks Clinical Solutions MED ASSETS-PRECYSE 4th Source, Inc. Experity (DocuTap and Practice Velocity) Med Easy Software Abbott (Alere Health LLC) FairWarning, Inc. MediBase group Inc. Accel Healthcare Resources LLC GE Healthcare Medical Asset Management Across Healthcare GENEX Services Inc Medical Management Associates Inc AdvancedMD Georgia Health Information Network Medicat LLC Alliant GMCF [Part of Alliant Health Solutions] Georgia Partnership For Telehealth Medicus IT Alliant Health Solutions GHX Medipro Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. Global Emergency Resources Medipurpose Appian Gozio Health MediStreams Athena Health Grant Thornton LLP Meditech Autocruitment Greenway Medical Technologies Meditology Services Axiom Corporation HCL America, Inc. Microsoft (For Healthcare) Axway HealthAsyst Monocle Health Data Azalea Health Innovations, Inc Health Catalyst, Inc. NASCO Barco Inc Healthcare Data Experts National Electronic Attachment, Inc. Bintellica, LLC Healthgrades (previously Influence Health) National Research Corporation BioIQ HealthLink Dimensions Navigant Bluecat Networks Inc HealthNovation NCR Health Booz Allen Hamilton Healthpac Computer Systems NEOS Technologies Bottomline Technologies HealthSystems NextGen Healthcare Brightree LLC HealthSystems Resources NIIT Technologies Cannon Medical Systems Healthyou North Highland Company CardioMEMS (Abbott) Hewlett-Packard (HP) Northrop Grumman CareLogistics HIMformatics LLC NorthStar Healthcare Consulting Carematics HMS NRC Health Carestream Health Hola Doctor nThrive Centerpoint IT HyBridge Solutions NTT Data, Inc. CGI Group ImedX Nuance Communications Change Healthcare Immucor Inc Nuesoft Technologies CIOX Health Influence Health ( HealthGrades) Onecare Clean Hands Safe Hands Info Pro Group Optum Insight ClearWave Infor Global Solutions Oracle Clinigence Infosys Public Services Parallon Clockwise.md Ingenious Med Patientco Cloud vault Health InHealth Record Systems Payspan Coalition America Inovalon PharmaCentra LLC Coker Group Interactive Health Network LLC Philips Healthcare Compliance 360 INC Intermed Systems Inc Premedex Convergint Technologies, LLC Intrado (was West Corporation) Premier Anesthesia Core Management Resources Group Jackson Healthcare Solutions Presidio Networked Solutions Corus360 Jtech PricewaterhouseCoopers Cotiviti Jvion Primus Software Corporation Craneware Kaiser Permanente Procare RX CSRA (GDIT) Karna PURSUANT HEALTH Desir Group Executive Search Kaufman, Hall & Associates, Inc Qgenda Diamond Computing KaZee Inc. QUALITY SYSTEMS, INC/NEXT GEN Document Plus Technologies KGS HEALTHCARE DR Wanted L7 Technology Partners Quality Technology Services DXC Technology Legacy Data Access, Inc. RelayHealth (Mckesson Pharma) Ebix
Recommended publications
  • Personal Health Record (BPHR) Version 2.0 Patch 5

    Personal Health Record (BPHR) Version 2.0 Patch 5

    RESOURCE AND PATIENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Personal Health Record (BPHR) Web Portal User Manual Version 2.0 Patch 5 September 2020 Office of Information Technology Division of Information Technology Personal Health Record (BPHR) Version 2.0 Patch 5 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PHR Web Portal Application Requirements ............................................. 1 1.2 PHR Users and Definitions ...................................................................... 2 2.0 Register to Use PHR ........................................................................................... 4 3.0 Common Functions .......................................................................................... 10 3.1 Logon ..................................................................................................... 10 3.2 About the PHR ....................................................................................... 11 3.3 Privacy Policy ........................................................................................ 11 3.4 Terms and Conditions ............................................................................ 12 3.5 Contact Us ............................................................................................. 12 3.6 FAQ ....................................................................................................... 12 3.7 Download Adobe Acrobat Reader ........................................................
  • F Personal Health Records: History, Evolution, and the Implications Of

    F Personal Health Records: History, Evolution, and the Implications Of

    JANUARY 2011 F MEMBER BRIEFING HEALTH INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY PRACTICE GROUP Personal Health Records: History, Evolution, and the Implications of ARRA PHR Series #1 Robert L. Coffield, JD* Flaherty Sensabaugh & Bonasso PLLC Charleston, WV Jonathan Ishee, JD, MPH, MS, LLM University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Northwest Diagnostic Clinic PA Houston, TX Jeffrey L. Kapp, JD Jones Day Cleveland, OH Kevin D. Lyles, JD Jones Day Columbus, OH Rebecca L. Williams, RN, JD Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Seattle, WA Introduction Computerized personal health records (PHRs) have existed for more than a decade. But it was not until late 2007 when large technology companies such as Microsoft and Google began to offer PHR products. That initial development was followed in 2008 by the formation of Dossia, a consortium of large employers created to offer PHRs to their employees. A number of other PHR vendors have recently introduced new PHR products to the market to connect consumers with their healthcare information. Recognizing this market activity, Congress for the first time addressed privacy and security requirements for PHRs in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) under Title XIII, Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act). The efforts by these large technology companies and other “Health 2.0” technology companies likely will play a vital role in shaping the health information technology (HIT) landscape. Although it is too early to predict how PHRs will evolve and what their role will be in the new era of healthcare reform, health lawyers need to understand the spectrum of legal issues associated with PHRs and consider how a consumer-focused PHR revolution might impact their health industry clients.
  • Personal Health Records: Beneficial Or Burdensome for Patients and Healthcare Providers? Melissa Lester Marshall University, Lester5@Marshall.Edu

    Personal Health Records: Beneficial Or Burdensome for Patients and Healthcare Providers? Melissa Lester Marshall University, [email protected]

    Marshall University Marshall Digital Scholar Management Faculty Research Management, Marketing and MIS Spring 2016 Personal Health Records: Beneficial or Burdensome for Patients and Healthcare Providers? Melissa Lester Marshall University, [email protected] Samuel Boateng Jane Stanley Alberto Coustasse Marshall University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://mds.marshall.edu/mgmt_faculty Part of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons, and the Health and Medical Administration Commons Recommended Citation Lester, M., Boateng, S., Studeny, J., & Coustasse, A. (2016). Personal health records: Beneficial or burdensome for patients and healthcare providers?. Perspectives in Health Information Management, 13(Spring): 1-12. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Management, Marketing and MIS at Marshall Digital Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Management Faculty Research by an authorized administrator of Marshall Digital Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Personal Health Records: Beneficial or Burdensome for Patients and Healthcare Providers? Personal Health Records: Beneficial or Burdensome for Patients and Healthcare Providers? by Melissa Lester, MSW, MS; Samuel Boateng, MS; Jana Studeny MSHI, RN-BC, CP-HIMS and Alberto Coustasse, DrPH, MD, MBA, MPH Abstract Personal health records (PHRs) have been mandated to be made available to patients to provide increased access to medical care information, encourage participation in healthcare decision making, and enable correction of errors within medical records. The purpose of this study was to analyze the usefulness of PHRs from the perspectives of patients and providers. The methodology of this qualitative study was a literature review using 34 articles.
  • Healthcare Terminologies and Classifications

    Healthcare Terminologies and Classifications

    Healthcare Terminologies and Classifications: An Action Agenda for the United States American Medical Informatics Association and American Health Information Management Association Terminology and Classification Policy Task Force Acknowledgements AHIMA and AMIA Terminology and Classification Policy Task Force Members Keith E. Campbell, MD, PhD The American Health Chair, AHIMA and AMIA Terminologies and Classifications Policy Task Force Information Management Chief Technology Officer, Informatics, Inc., and Assistant Clinical Professor; Association (AHIMA) is the Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health and premier association of health Science University information management Suzanne Bakken, RN, DNSc, FAAN (HIM) professionals. AHIMA’s Alumni Professor of Nursing and Professor of Biomedical Informatics School of 51,000 members are dedicated to Nursing and Department of Medical Informatics, Columbia University the effective management of personal health information Sue Bowman, RHIA, CCS needed to deliver quality Director of Coding Policy and Compliance, American Health Information healthcare to the public. Management Association Founded in 1928 to improve the quality of medical records, Christopher Chute, MD, PhD AHIMA is committed to Professor and Chair of Biomedical Informatics, Mayo Foundation advancing the HIM profession in an increasingly electronic and Don Detmer, MD, MA President and Chief Executive Officer, American Medical Informatics Association global environment through leadership in advocacy, Jennifer Hornung Garvin, PhD, RHIA, CPHQ, CCS, CTR, FAHIMA education, certification, and Medical Informatics Postdoctoral Fellow Center for Health Equity Research and lifelong learning. To learn more, Promotion, Philadelphia Veterans Administration Medical Center go to www.ahima.org. Kathy Giannangelo, MA, RHIA, CCS, CPHIMS Director, Practice Leadership, AHIMA Gail Graham, RHIA The American Medical Director, Health Data and Informatics Department of Veterans Affairs Informatics Association (AMIA) Stanley M.
  • Personal Health Records: the People’S Choice? Lisa Sprague, Senior Research Associate

    Personal Health Records: the People’S Choice? Lisa Sprague, Senior Research Associate

    Issue Brief – No. 820 November 30, 2006 Personal Health Records: The People’s Choice? Lisa Sprague, Senior Research Associate OVERVIEW — Information technology (IT), especially in the form of an electronic health record (EHR), is touted by many as a key component of meaningful improvement in health care delivery and outcomes. A personal health record (PHR) may be an element of an EHR or a stand-alone record. Proponents of PHRs see them as tools that will improve consumers’ ability to manage their care and will also enlist consumers as advocates for wide- spread health IT adoption. This issue brief explores what a PHR is, the extent of demand for it, issues that need to be resolved before such records can be expected to proliferate, and public-private efforts to promote them. NATIONAL HEALTH POLICY FORUM FACILITATING DIALOGUE. FOSTERING UNDERSTANDING. Issue Brief – No. 820 November 30, 2006 Personal Health Records: The People’s Choice? Take control, health care consumers are exhorted. Don’t risk having your health information swept away in a storm or unavailable when you are taken unconscious to the emergency room. Safeguard yourself and your family. Become empowered! The empowered consumer, a stock character in health-reform scenarios, is not so easily identified in real life. There is a range of reasons for this: A given consumer may be sick or injured or cognitively impaired, thus lack- ing the ability and/or will to exercise choice. He or she may have been conditioned to do what the doctor says without second-guessing. Most commonly, he or she may lack the information that is the coin of empow- erment.
  • Implications of an Emerging EHR Monoculture for Hospitals And

    Implications of an Emerging EHR Monoculture for Hospitals And

    Koppel R, Lehmann CU, J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015;22:465–471. doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2014-003023, Perspective Implications of an emerging EHR RECEIVED 29 May 2014 REVISED 29 July 2014 ACCEPTED 4 August 2014 monoculture for hospitals and healthcare PUBLISHED ONLINE FIRST 23 October 2014 systems Ross Koppel1, Christoph U Lehmann2 ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................... In many hospitals and health systems, a ‘new’ electronic health record means a shift to one vendor: Epic, a vendor that dominates in large and medium hospital markets and continues its success with smaller institutions and ambulatory practices. Our paper examines the implications of this emerging monoculture: its advantages and disadvantages for physicians and hospitals and its role in innovation, professional autonomy, implementation difficulties, workflow, flexibil- ity, cost, data standards, interoperability, and interactions with other information technology (IT) systems. .................................................................................................................................................... Key words: Epic; Implementation; Cost; Markets; Data Standards; Innovation Many healthcare systems and practices are shifting to Epic’s Several Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) describe Epic as the electronic health record (EHR).1 Based on software (MUMPS) default EHR choice—not because of its outstanding perform- developed at Massachusetts General
  • Athenahealth, Inc. (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)

    Athenahealth, Inc. (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)

    Table of Contents UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 Form 10-K (Mark One) þ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 or ¨ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from to Commission File Number 001-33689 athenahealth, Inc. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 04-3387530 (State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer incorporation or organization) Identification No.) 311 Arsenal Street, Watertown, Massachusetts 02472 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) 617-402-1000 Registrant’s telephone number, including area code Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Name of each exchange on which registered Common Stock, $0.01 par value The NASDAQ Stock Market Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes þ No ¨ Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ¨ No þ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
  • Healthcare Industry Highlight: Revenue Cycle Management

    Healthcare Industry Highlight: Revenue Cycle Management

    Industry Highlight: Revenue Cycle Management Q1 2019 RCM Overview Intelligent, Automated Workflow Patient Access Claims Management RCM intelligently automates the complex tasks of the front and back office, optimizing: Case Management ✓ Patient encounters and consolidation of REVENUE records Charges & CYCLE ✓ Participation in value-based programs to Reimbursement generate maximum revenue ✓ Claims management, accounts receivable and claim resubmission Clinical ✓ Medical practice workflow, reducing Documentation redundant staff effort Medical Coding Increasing complexity in medical coding and rising healthcare costs make RCM an essential tool to maintain cash flow and stay solvent 1 RCM Market Size and Outlook The global RCM market is projected to grow to $65.2BN by 2025 from $23.6BN in 2016, a nine-year CAGR of 12.0% Value of Global RCM Market ($USD in BN) $80 Facing tight margins, time-consuming 60 regulation and enormous waste in the healthcare system, medical practices 40 are looking for adaptable solutions to streamline workflow, generating 20 significant drive in the RCM market 0 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 $23.6BN $16.5BN 40% Value of global RCM market in Estimated hospital spend on Percentage of RCM end-user market 2016 external RCM by 2020 constituted by physicians’ offices 12.0% $6.7BN 3-5% CAGR through 2025 Annual provider spend on Hospitals’ lost revenues due RCM to RCM errors 2 Source: CMS NHE Projections , Grandview Research, MicroMarketMonitor, HFMA Inefficiencies RCM Can Help Solve Key Industry Trends:
  • Entityname Filenumber "D" PLATINUM CONTRACTING SERVICES, LLC L00005029984 #Becauseoffutbol L.L.C. L00005424745 #KIDSMA

    Entityname Filenumber "D" PLATINUM CONTRACTING SERVICES, LLC L00005029984 #Becauseoffutbol L.L.C. L00005424745 #KIDSMA

    EntityName FileNumber "D" PLATINUM CONTRACTING SERVICES, LLC L00005029984 #BecauseOfFutbol L.L.C. L00005424745 #KIDSMATTERTOO, INC N00005532057 #LIVEDOPE Movement N00005462346 (2nd) Second Chance for All N00004919509 (H.E.L.P) Helping Earth Loving People N00005068586 1 800 Water Damage North America, LLC L00005531281 1 city, LLC L00005556347 1 DUPONT CIRCLE, LLC L00005471609 1 HOPE LLC L00005518975 1 Missouri Avenue NW LLC L00005547423 1 P STREET NW LLC L42692 1 S Realty Trust LLC L00005451539 1 SOURCE CONSULTING Inc. 254012 1 Source L.L.C. L00005384793 1 STOP COMMERCIAL KITCHEN EQUIPMENT, LLC L00005531370 1% for the Planet, Inc. N00005463860 1,000 Days N00004983554 1,000 DREAMS FUND N00005415959 10/40 CONNECTIONS, N00005517033 100 EYE STREET ACQUISITION LLC L00004191625 100 Fathers, The Inc. N00005501097 100 Property Partners of DC LLC L00005505861 100 REPORTERS N0000000904 1000 47th Pl NE LLC L00004651772 1000 CONNECTICUT MANAGER LLC L31372 1000 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, SE LLC L30799 1000 VERMONT AVENUE SPE LLC L36900 1001 17th Street NE L.L.C. L00005524805 1001 CONNECTICUT LLC L07124 1001 PENN LLC L38675 1002 3RD STREET, SE LLC L12518 1005 17th Street NE L.L.C. L00005524812 1005 E Street SE LLC L00004979576 1005 FIRST, LLC L00005478159 1005 Rhode Island Ave NE Partners LLC L00004843873 1006 Fairmont LLC L00005343026 1006 W St NW L.L.C. L00005517860 1009 NEW HAMPSHIRE LLC L04102 101 41ST STREET, NE LLC L23216 101 5TH ST, LLC L00005025803 101 GALVESTON PLACE SW LLC L51583 101 Geneva LLC L00005387687 101 P STREET, SW LLC L18921 101 PARK AVENUE PARTNERS, Inc. C00005014890 1010 25TH STREET LLC L52266 1010 IRVING, LLC L00004181875 1010 VERMONT AVENUE SPE LLC L36899 1010 WISCONSIN LLC L00005030877 1011 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE LLC L17883 1012 13th St SE LLC L00005532833 1012 INC.
  • Healthcare It Industry Update │ Q3 2016

    Healthcare It Industry Update │ Q3 2016

    HEALTHCARE IT INDUSTRY UPDATE │ Q3 2016 www.harriswilliams.com Investment banking services are provided by Harris Williams LLC, a registered broker-dealer and member of FINRA and SIPC, and Harris Williams & Co. Ltd, which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Harris Williams & Co. is a trade name under which Harris Williams LLC and Harris Williams & Co. Ltd conduct business. 0 HEALTHCARE IT INDUSTRY UPDATE | Q3 2016 HEALTHCARE IT PRACTICE OVERVIEW CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . WHAT WE’RE READING Harris Williams & Co. is pleased to present our review of Q3 Healthcare IT . KEY HEALTHCARE MACRO activity. This report provides commentary and analysis on current capital market INDICATORS trends and merger and acquisition dynamics within the Healthcare IT industry. PUBLIC MARKETS . PUBLIC COMPARABLES We hope you find this edition helpful and encourage you to contact us directly if . M&A ACTIVITY you would like to discuss our perspective on current industry trends and M&A . PRIVATE PLACEMENT ACTIVITY opportunities or our relevant industry experience. IPO ACTIVITY OUR PRACTICE CONTACTS Sam Hendler Harris Williams & Co. is a leading advisor to the Healthcare IT industry. Our global Managing Director practice includes professionals across the firm from Harris Williams & Co.’s [email protected] Technology, Media & Telecom Group and Healthcare & Life Sciences Group. +1 (617) 654-2117 Jeff Bistrong HW&Co. Healthcare IT Taxonomy Managing Director [email protected] +1 (617) 654-2102 . Patient-Facing Solutions Mike Wilkins . Care Delivery: Managing Director Operational Efficiency [email protected] +1 (415) 271-3411 . Care Delivery: Clinical / Acute Thierry Monjauze Managing Director . Care Delivery: [email protected] Clinical / Non-Acute +44 20 7518 8901 CARE DELIVERY EMPLOYERS ORGANIZATIONS PATIENTS .
  • This Is the 19Th Annual Sohn Investment Conference. the First

    This Is the 19Th Annual Sohn Investment Conference. the First

    This is the 19th Annual Sohn Investment Conference. The first time Ispoke here was in 2002. It is amazing how this great event has grown, and I am honored to be here. 1 2 A couple weeks ago, we wrote in our quarterly letter that we believe that a narrow group of cool kid stocks have disconnected from traditional valuations and formed a bubble. This got a lot of criticism. Half the critics thought we were talking our book, even though we didn’t name names. The other half were upset that we didn’t tell them which stocks we were short. Since we can’t seem to please anybody, I’ve decided to validate both criticisms. Today, I’m going to illustrate the bubble basket doing a deep dive into one of the companies, while not disclosing the others. This company is an excellent company with an excellent product, run by a well‐meaning and honest, though occasionally promotional CEO. The world may be a better place if it succeeds, and even though we are short, I am in no way rooting for it to fail. Its main problem is that it isn’t positioned to succeed the way the bulls hope, as the assumptions the bulls are making are not plausible. The stock is simply at the wrong price. It’s caught up in a bubble and could easily fall 80% or more from its recent peak. Let me introduce you to athenahealth. 3 I think athena deserves a smaller capitalization, and I’m not just referring to how it fails to capitalize the first letter of its name.
  • PROPERTY RIGHTS and ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS by Jessica Carges

    PROPERTY RIGHTS and ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS by Jessica Carges

    No. 17-37 Summer 2017 MERCATUS GRADUATE POLICY ESSAY PROPERTY RIGHTS AND ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS by Jessica Carges The opinions expressed in this Graduate Policy Essay are the author’s and do not represent official positions of the Mercatus Center or George Mason University. Abstract This is an analysis of the current assignment of property rights of electronic health records and patient medical data. The paper focuses on the adverse incentives created by the current structure of property rights and hypothesizes that giving patients and provers co-ownership of medical data will best address concerns about interoperability and privacy, and also result in a number of additional positive benefits. Next the paper describes ways to make stronger patient ownership a reality despite the presence of special interest groups incentivized to block access. The paper concludes with state policy level analysis examining New Hampshire – the only state to currently grant patient ownership over medical data and electronic health record. this paper finds that state governments can follow New Hampshire’s lead and extend co-property rights to patients and providers to improve interoperability and privacy outcomes. Author Bio Jessica Carges is a research associate with the State Fiscal Health Team at The Pew Charitable Trusts. She received an MA in economics from George Mason University, and is an alumna of the Mercatus MA Fellowship program. Jessica holds a BS in economics, also from George Mason University. Committee Members Bobbi Herzberg, Distinguished Senior Fellow, F.A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. Nicole Fisher, President, HHR Strategies, Inc.