Epic has been fighting the stigma of being a closed system for a while now. It seems that Epic isn’t happy about this characterization and they’re coming out guns blazing to try and show how Epic is interoperable. They’re so interested in changing this perception that Epic recently hired a lobbyist to change how they’re viewed by the people in DC.
A recent tweet highlighted a slide from the Epic user conference (Epic UGM) that shows how many Epic patient records they’re exchanging per month. Here’s the tweet and graph below:
— Farzad Mostashari (@Farzad_MD) September 16, 2014
Farzad Mostashari asks a very good question, “Does that graph help?” I find Farzad’s tweet also interesting because just over a year ago Farzad tweeted another Epic interoperability chart when he was still National Coordinator at ONC. I’ll embed the previous chart below so you can easily compare the two graphs side by side:
I think Farzad is right to be skeptical about Epic’s claims to interoperability. First, it seems Epic is finally making some progress with Epic to Epic interoperability, but Epic to Non-Epic systems is still far behind. Second, Epic loves to claim how they have charts for some huge percentage of the US population (currently about 314 million people). I bet if we looked at the percentage of total Epic charts that have been exchanged, it would be an extremely small number. I also wonder if the charts above count a full patient chart or something simple like a lab result or prescription.
I don’t want to harp on this too much, because this is a step forward for Epic. Even if they’re not as interoperable as they could be and as we’d like them to be, I’m excited that they’re now at least open to the idea of interoperability.
With that said, I wish that Epic would spend more time and effort on actually being interoperable and not just trying to say that they’re interoperable. This includes committing the resources required to support connections outside of Epic. I’ve heard over and over from health IT vendor after health IT vendor about how hard it is to get Epic to work with them in any form or fashion. There’s a way that Epic could scale their effort to hundreds of other health IT vendors, but they haven’t made the commitment to do so.
Think about the opportunity that Epic has available to them. They have enough scale, reach and clout that they could by force of size establish a standard for interoperability. Many health IT vendors would bend over backwards to meet whatever standard Epic chose. That’s a powerful position to be in if they would just embrace it. I imagine the reason they haven’t done so yet is because the market’s never demanded it. Sometimes companies like Epic need to embrace something even if it doesn’t drive short term sales. I think this is one of those choices Epic should make.
I’m sure that lobbyists can be an effective solution to change perceptions in Washington. However, a far more effective strategy would be to actually fully embrace interoperability at every level. If they did so, you can be sure that every news outlet would be more than excited to write about the change.