1
Trends in CardiovascularInformation Systems
Research and report by
2
This premium report is to be viewed only by authorized peer60 clients and participating healthcare providers in the associated research study.
Healthcare providers: Receive all of our premium reports when your organization participates (caregivers, tech &
support personnel, and leadership).
If you are not authorized to view this report, please delete it now.
Reproduction or distribution of any part of this report without authorization is prohibited
without consent from peer60.
Contact Chris Jensen at [email protected] for report content distribution conditions and
guidelines.
Find out more here
For Authorized Users Only!
3
TABLE OF CONTENTSExecutive Summary
Vendors Covered in This Report
Demographics
Two-Year Expected Change in Procedures
Provider Recommendation Scores
Organization’s EHR
CVIS Replacement Market (a.k.a. Blood Sport)
Damage Control... “Huston, we have a problem”
Conclusion
4
5
6
8
12
17
19
24
30
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Let’s start with the bad news. The most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics declared heart disease to be the #1 cause of death-- a staggering 27.6 million adults (11.5%) diagnosed with heart disease. We’re not trying to depress you, but it makes sense-- the baby-boomer population is aging, and we’re well aware of the prominence of obesity in our society. Negative health effects shouldn’t entirely be a surprise. The good news is that healthcare provider organizations are expanding and improving their services and facilities to accommodate and treat this increase in cardiovascular disease. Patient care is more important than ever-- and rightfully so. A patient with heart disease in particular typically requires extended care, making it critical for their data to be accessible every step of the way. With demand going up, more physicians are being hired; more Cath Lab, Echo Lab, and Nuclear Medicine modalities are being purchased; and of course more information technology is being utilized, yet at the same time the healthcare industry is trying to reduce costs while actually improving quality of care. This puts caregivers and their organizations between a rock and a hard place: how do you reduce cost AND improve quality? That is quite literally the trillion dollar question. Here’s where technology might be able to save the day: A reliable, easy-to-use, and robust cardiovascular information system (CVIS) can collect all applicable patient data (including images/video) and help physicians and other care providers with detailed, personalized outcome analysis. At its best, a CVIS does what it’s meant to do: it mines and reports critical cardiovascular related data, and it’s easy to use. At its worst, a CVIS produces headaches, increases costs, and generally gets in the way. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon--or in this case, a heart surgeon-- to draw this conclusion: If it’s hard to use, it’s practically useless. Yet many providers are still working with sub-par solutions, usually opting to go with a one-size-fits-all vendor, while keeping one eye open for a CVIS that can satisfy basic needs such as reporting capabilities and ease-of-use. Which vendors are leaving the door open to being replaced and which vendors are providers looking at to help them move cardiovascular medicine into the future? This report goes straight to the source by asking chiefs of cardiology, CV department directors, and other leaders what CVIS solution can get the job done-- and whether or not that solution is currently being used.
Report Author: Chris JensenJunior Author: Jordyn Crowley
5
VENDORS COVERED IN THIS REPORT
6
DEMOGRAPHICS
5%12%
31%
23%
19%
10%
1-25 beds26-100 beds101-250 beds251-500 beds501-1000 beds1001+ beds
Participants by Title
Participants by Facility Size
Thanks to our participants, who represent a broad spectrum of opinions and concerns in their varying roles. Each provides a different perspective that vendors need to consider when offering and servicing their solutions.
48%
32%
14%
4%
2%
Cardiovascular Director
Cardiologist
Cardiovascular Manager
Chief of Cardiology
Imaging Director
Cardiovascular Director
Cardiologist
Cardiovascular Manager
Chief of Cardiology
Imaging Director
1-25 beds
26-100 beds
101-250 beds
251-500 beds
501-1000 beds
1001+ beds
7
23%
15%
14%12%
11%
9%
4%3%
9%GE HealthcareMcKessonPhilips HealthcareEpicSiemensMerge (IBM)LUMEDXMeditechOther
DEMOGRAPHICS CONT.
Organization’s CVIS Vendor
Not pictured: Agfa, Digisonics, Evident, Fuji, INFINITT, Meditech, Verity
GE Healthcare
McKesson
Philips Healthcare
Epic
Siemens
Merge (IBM)
LUMEDX
Meditech
Other
8
TWO-YEAR EXPECTED CHANGE IN PROCEDURES
5%
13%
29%
26%
8%8%7%
2%
3%
21%+ increase
11-20% increase
6-10% increase
0-5% increase
No Change0-5% decrease
6-10% decrease
11-20% decrease
21%+ decrease
Expected Change in Procedures Over the Next Two Years
What can we say that isn’t plain to see in this graph? CV procedures are going up in the neighborhood of 5-10%, which is not surprising.
9
TWO-YEAR CHANGE CONT.
5%
5%
8%
7%
9%
17%
8%
4%
23%
16%
4%
33%
21%
22%
30%
27%
42%
33%
64%
19%
26%
27%
42%
14%
16%
26%
9%
17%
5%
4%
17%
1-25 beds
26-100 beds
101-250 beds
251-500 beds
501-1000 beds
1001+ beds
Expected Change in Procedures by Organization Size
21%+ decrease
11-20% decrease
6-10% decrease
0-5% decrease
No Change
0-5% increase
6-10% increase
11-20% increase
21%+ increase
10
TWO-YEAR CHANGE CONT.
38%
25%
15%12% 11%
6% 6% 6%
Reasons for Predicted Increase in Procedures Over Next Two Years
Reasons for Predicted Increase
This data breaks down the specific reasons providers gave when predicting an increase in procedures– but isn’t everyone saying the same thing? It’s a bit of a chicken-egg situation, where it’s more likely the chicken (aging populations, less healthy populations, population growth) driving the increase within organizations than the egg (expansion for the sake of capturing more of the existing market). Take the majority of providers who say expanding their facilities or services is what will drive procedures up over the next two years: they aren’t just expanding for the fun of it– they are growing because the demand for CV procedures is growing. And why is that? It’s because the population is aging, and big surprise, becoming a more...well...doughy (read: obese), sedentary people
in general. An increase in CV disease leads to an increase in procedures which means organizations are having to hire more staff, increase their service lines, build more labs, etc... and so the dominos go. Another piece of data that sticks out is providers’ expectation of expanded insurance coverage. As much as physicians are there to provide care to those in acute situations– it’s cheaper and more efficient to get an important procedure done earlier instead of allowing the risk to materialize–unfortunately, sometimes a care plan really comes down to someone other than the provider (we’re looking at you, insurers). As payers expand their definitions and requirements based on evidence, more patients will hopefully be eligible for care.
*Other: Market share, increased market competition, referrals, accreditation
11
TWO-YEAR CHANGE CONT.
Very few providers actually predict a decrease in CV procedures in the near future, but it’s still worth hearing them out. Some attribute the belief that there will be a decrease because of technology, which will reduce return visits. Can improved technology really stem growth or slow it down? As long as the masses continue to live less healthy lives, up-and-coming technology won’t likely be enough to cause a decrease in cardiovascular procedures, but it can help providers manage
more procedures without sacrificing quality of care. We’d count that as a major win in what is currently a losing battle. While a large percentage of providers think expanded insurance will increase the number of CV procedures done in their hospitals, there’s a group who believe insurance will actually decrease visits. The reasons behind this faith in expanded coverage isn’t readily clear and warrants additional research.
Reasons for Predicted Decrease
12
PROVIDER RECOMMENDATION SCORES
#1 MOST RECOMMENDEDC V I S S o l u t i o n
EPIC
PHILIPSHighly RECOMMENDED
C V I S S o l u t i o nHighly RECOMMENDED
C V I S S o l u t i o n
IBM
13
RECOMMENDATION SCORES CONT.
6.6 6.5
5.65.4 5.3
5.0
4.6 4.5
Epic Philips Healthcare
Merge (IBM) Siemens GE Healthcare
Meditech LUMEDX McKesson
Average Recommendation by Current CVIS
Looking at provider recommendation scores by vendor, we see some of the lowest scores in any health IT segment. Interestingly, enterprise and standalone solutions are rated as number one and two with Epic and Philips, respectively. While all scores are low, these two vendors have enough separation from other prominent competitors in the space to have a little breathing room.
Not pictured: Agfa, Digisonics, Evident, INFINITT, Meditech, Verity
This graph is not to be publicly published
14
RECOMMENDATION SCORES CONT.
5.75.4
5.3
4.6
4.0
Cardiologist Cardiovascular Director
Cardiovascular Manager
Chief of Cardiology Imaging Director
Average Recommendation by Title
Among CV providers, cardiologists are the happiest with their current vendors by a slight margin. However, any time the frontline user of a solution is happier than the decision-making leadership, it’s worth taking note. In comparison, are caregivers happier with their EHR than CIOs and other IT leadership? Not a chance. Not to put a damper on what is an interesting data point, but with scores across all titles in the sub 6’s, no one is ecstatic about the overall CVIS experience. Where is the most critical miss for suppliers? Chiefs of cardiology. Sure, an even lower score is given
by imaging directors, but given the subject matter, they are not as relevant inthis study (and no slight intended toward ourimaging directors). Anyway, if this group (chiefs of cardiology) is even just lukewarm on a solution, it’s going to be an uphill battle and may cause some vendors to “get the boot.” At an average score of 4.6, don’t let the door hit you on the way out (as the expression goes)– unless there isn’t a suitable alternative. In that case, chiefs will simply have to manage their expectations.
15
RECOMMENDATION SCORES CONT.
7.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
5.1
4.2
8.0
6.0
4.1
6.7
4.5
6.0
5.7
5.5
7.0
6.0
3.5
8.0
5.4
4.3
5.6
6.7
6.8
8.0
5.0
4.0
8.0
GE Healthcare
McKesson
Philips Healthcare
Epic
Siemens
Merge (IBM)
LUMEDX
Meditech
Vendor Ratings by Title
Looking at provider recommendation scores by participant title shows that most vendors have a sweet spot in terms of who the biggest supporter is among their install bases. As usual, GE’s top-down marketing approach is displayed by the rating among chiefs of cardiology. On the other hand, Philips appears to be winning the war among both CV directors and managers. Score well with these two groups and you’re more than likely to have staying power. Meditech scores well among CV managers. Epic is propped up by imaging directors, but doesn’t fare nearly as well among leadership and cardiologists. One of the most interesting data points in this breakout is IBM’s rating among cardiologists. These frontline users are so often an afterthought when in reality they should be viewed as an extremely important group (second only to the patient experience). Can focusing more attention on end users create a bubble up effect that equates to the capture of market share? Only if the end users (caregivers) are vocal enough.
Chief of Cardiology
Cardiovascular Director
Cardiovascular Manager
Cardiologist
Imaging Director
This graph is not to be publicly published
16
RECOMMENDATION SCORES CONT.
3.0
4.0
8.0
5.0
6.6
6.0
8.0
5.0
6.4
3.6
5.8
7.0
5.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
3.1
6.3
9.5
6.0
6.8
5.0
7.0
3.5
7.7
6.0
6.0
4.6
4.0
8.5
5.7
7.0
5.5
3.0
5.0
GE Healthcare
McKesson
Philips Healthcare
Epic
Siemens
Merge (IBM)
LUMEDX
Meditech
Vendor Ratings by Bed Count
1-25 beds
26-100 beds
101-250 beds
251-500 beds
501-1000 beds
1001+ beds
This graph is not to be publicly published
17
ORGANIZATION’S EHR
33%
28%
19%
10%
7%
3%
Epic
Cerner
Meditech
Allscripts
McKesson
Evident
Organization’s EHR Vendor
A care organization’s EHR is an important reference point in analyzing trends in specific departments as enterprise EHR vendors continue to improve and push their modules out to their customers.
Not pictured: Centricity, eCare, GEMMS, HMS, Medhost
Epic
Cerner
Meditech
Allscripts
McKesson
Evident
18
ORGANIZATION’S EHR CONT.
14%
25%
32%
14%
4%
12%
29%
18%
12%
6%
30%
30%
5%
5%
20%
42%
42%
8%
20%
60%
7%
7%
7%
88%
6%
6%
20%
20%
20%
40%
Epic
Cerner
Meditech
Allscripts
McKesson
Current EHR vs. Current CVIS Whether it’s healthcare IT or a trip to Costco, people seem to want the “whole package.” It’s not a revelation that many provider organizations seem to prefer an integrated clinical platform compared to having each department manage solutions from individual vendors. This means best of breed vendors will continue to face a bit of an uphill battle to maintain market share. It can be done, but these vendors have to be vigilant in the management of their businesses. In contrast to the narrative of care organizations standardizing on enterprise platforms (where it makes reasonable sense), providers rank integration much lower than important issues such as customer service and features such as robust reporting capabilities. How do vendors like Epic contractually entice providers to switch to its one-size-fits-all system even though providers rank other CVIS features as more important? It’s because no vendor in the space is consistently doing an amazing job at making providers stand up and take notice or take a stand against encroachment by big enterprise players. Only Epic seems to be seeing real success with the enterprise approach as it relates to a CVIS add-on. It remains to be seen how Cerner will approach this market with its CVIS module. At the end of the day, people are willing to give up marginally better solutions in favor of a vendor that provides all solutions under its umbrella– especially when IT leadership has an unspoken goal to reduce the number of different solutions to manage, support, and sometimes even babysit. This should be the last wake-up call CVIS vendors need before they see additional business slip through their fingers. We can see in this data set where relationships lie. With Cerner’s acquisition of much of Siemens’ health IT assets (excluding radiology and cardiology), it makes sense that a strong relationship exists between these two suppliers. This is displayed in the data by Siemens accounting for the majority of CVIS solutions among Cerner’s EHR install base. Meditech customers lean towards GE’s CVIS, while Allscripts customers have a more pronounced pull for LUMEDX.
GE Healthcare
Philips Healthcare
McKesson
Merge (IBM)
Siemens
Epic
LUMEDX
This graph is not to be publicly published
19
CVIS REPLACEMENT MARKET(A.K.A. BLOOD SPORT)
#1 in CVIS REPLACEMENT BUSINESS
EPIC
PHILIPSCVIS Business Replacement Leader
GE HEALTHCARE
CVIS Business Replacement Leader
20
REPLACEMENT MARKET CONT.
46%54%
Switching
Not Switching
CVIS Replacement Market
Say it with us: C-H-U-R-N. Close to half of our nearly 200 participants state that they are seriously considering replacing their current CVIS in the near future. However, without any highly rated supplier solutions in this department, the post-honeymoon relationship is likely to be underwhelming.
Switching
Not Switching
21
REPLACEMENT MARKET CONT.
48%
33%
29%
19%17% 17%
14%
5% 5%3% 3% 3%
This data supports the idea of one-size-fits-all enterprise platforms making significant inroads in the CVIS market with Epic far and away capturing the greatest mindshare for replacement business. As was stated, the value of moving to a simpler health IT strategy will eventually win the day among provider leadership (for obvious reasons), unless major innovation or markedly
higher customer service occurs outside of the enterprise vendors. Interestingly, the emerging trend we’re seeing is pressure not only from the enterprise EHR side, but enterprise imaging vendors like IBM, McKesson, and Agfa squeezing the market from the other side. Can we use the word “enterprise” any more frequently in this report? Stay tuned.
Vendors Most Considered for Replacement Business
This graph is not to be publicly published
22
REPLACEMENT MARKET CONT.
100%100%
14%
43%
43%
29%
14%
14%
14%
14%
14%
14%
14%
42%
42%
26%
11%
5%
21%
11%
11%
5%
5%
5%
5%
31%
23%
15%
31%
31%
31%
23%
38%
25%
50%
25%
13%
25%
13%
50%
50%
33%
33%
17%
Epic
GE Healthcare
Philips Healthcare
LUMEDX
Siemens
Merge (IBM)
McKesson
Fuji
Agfa
Wolters Kluwer
Digisonics
INFINITT
Considered Vendors by Bed Count
What hope can 1-100 bed hospitals have of grabbing Epic’s attention for their solutions, let alone coming up with the budget to cut the checks? These obstacles don’t seem to stop them from stating decisively that Epic is the frontrunner in what appears to be a one horse race. It should be noted that several of these smaller hospitals, that are looking at Epic, are part of IDNs and are reaping the perceived benefits of the decisions by the larger, supremely influential hospitals in the overall organizations. On the other end of the scale, GE is keeping up on the mindshare front with Epic among the mega hospital organizations (1001+ beds), while Philips is garnering the most attention among hospitals with 501-1000 beds.
1-25 beds
26-100 beds
101-250 beds
251-500 beds
501-1000 beds
1001+ beds
This graph is not to be publicly published
23
REPLACEMENT MARKET CONT.Considered Vendors by Title
In mindshare for replacement business, IBM once again scores well among cardiologists. Word seems to be out among this group that its solutions have the most to offer to those who are the “boots on the ground.” It would be interesting to get the perspective from the other side of the caregiver coin (nurses) to see if the narrative carries through. One would think IBM could make some serious hay by having the solution practicing cardiologists prefer to use. Execution will never go out of style. Let’s address the elephant(s) in the room (as if there could be more than one). Both Epic and Siemens’ mindshare percentage among chiefs of cardiology is a bit anecdotal as a limited number of chiefs suggested their departments are in the market. So, while not bad news, we probably won’t bet the farm on this data.
Cardiovascular Director
Cardiovascular Manager
Chief of Cardiology
Cardiologist
Imaging Director
This graph is not to be publicly published
24
DAMAGE CONTROL... “HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM”
52%
38%
33%30% 29%
20%
17%
McKesson Siemens LUMEDX GE Healthcare Epic Philips Healthcare
Merge (IBM)
Who’s Losing Business(As Percentage of Total Installations)
Among participants who said they are seriously considering a move to a competing CVIS solution, we discovered why certain vendors are most vulnerable to being replaced. Perhaps McKesson should consider taking an “all hands on deck” approach as its customers are saying it has a lot of work to do. It’s worth noting that the n here is not insignificant.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, IBM is shedding the fewest customers among the major CVIS vendors. Does this have anything to do with its favorability among cardiologists? The answer is almost assuredly “yes.”
This graph is not to be publicly published
25
DAMAGE CONTROL CONT.Vendors at Greatest Risk of
Losing CVIS Business
A couple of juicy insights cropped up in this data. First, intentionally or not, war has apparently been waged by Epic against McKesson’s CVIS customers–McKesson customers who state their relationship is on the rocks consider Epic as the most viable replacement by a massive margin. Siemens is also in a bit of trouble as it appears it is being outflanked on both sides by both Epic (enterprise) and Philips (best-of-breed), with GE (another best-of-breed player) coming up from behind.
Epic
GE Healthcare
Philips Healthcare
LUMEDX
Siemens
Merge (IBM)
McKesson
Fuji
Agfa
Walters Kluwer
Digisonics
INFINITT
This graph is not to be publicly published
26
DAMAGE CONTROL CONT.
21%
17% 17%
15%
11%
7%
4%3%
Make it much easier
to use
Customer service
Reporting capabilities
More robust platform
Reduce the cost
Nothing, we're being forced to
switch
Integration Other
How to Save “At Risk” Installations
This data supports the notion that cardiologists have more influence on whether the CV department keeps its CVIS or not; the majority of this group suggest lack of usability as the main reason for going back out to the market. This point, plus the fact that very few participants mentioned they were being forced to adopt CVIS from an enterprise
firm, should give all best-of-breed players real hope to not only retain a much greater percentage of customers, but also to succeed when going head-to-head with an enterprise vendor for net new business. The key is to build better, easier-to-use products and to do a much better job servicing customers.
This graph is not to be publicly published
27
DAMAGE CONTROL CONT.
10%
40%
20%
33%
11%
9%
33%
30%
20%
7%
33%
9%
33%
25%
20%
27%
22%
27%
33%
15%
10%
13%
11%
22%
18%
15%
10%
7%
11%
22%
5%
11%
7%
11%
18%
11%
GE Healthcare
Philips Healthcare
McKesson
Merge (IBM)
Siemens
Epic
LUMEDX
How to Save “At Risk” Installations by Vendor
Breaking down the “How to Save ‘At Risk’ Installs” graph, we find the most prominent solutions in this space each have specific areas in which improvement is critical to retaining customers. But how many of these vendors are zeroing in on these pain points? You just have to ask nicely and say please. (Ok, well, there’s a little more to it than that, but that’s a discussion for another day.)
Customer service
Reporting capabilities
Make it much easier to use
More robust platform
Reduce the cost
Integration
Nothing, we’re being forced to switch
Other
This graph is not to be publicly published
28
DAMAGE CONTROL CONT.How to Save “At Risk” Installations by Title
Cardiovascular Director
Cardiovascular Manager
Chief of Cardiology
Cardiologist
Imaging Director
29
DAMAGE CONTROL CONT.How to Save “At Risk” Installations
by Bed Count
1-25 beds
26-100 beds
101-250 beds
251-500 beds
501-1000 beds
1001+ beds
30
CONCLUSION Well, its plain that most CVIS suppliers have their work cut out for themselves if any want to decisively break away from the pack. Frankly, many have their work cut out if they simply want to survive. As of right now, Epic is making the most headway in winning replacement business, which is the biggest indicator of what’s important to providers now. With the continued discussion about all things “enterprise” in health IT, standalone vendors either need (1) strong partnerships, (2) distinguishable benefits (think unique selling proposition), or (3) a legitimate and swift exit strategy. For those finding themselves without any one of these, the outlook is not positive.
31
APPENDIX A
AgfaDigisonicsEvidentFujiINFINITTVerity
Additional vendors covered in this report: