ONC Dispels EHR Certification Myths

Confused about EHR certification? You’re not alone. In a post to the federal HealthIT Buzz blog entitled Perpetually Perplexed by Regulatory Interpretations? Separate the Fact from Fiction,  Steven Posnack , the Director of the Federal Policy Division of  the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) has debunked five common misunderstandings related to EHR certification:

  • If an eligible professional or eligible hospital combines multiple certified electronic health record (EHR) Modules together (or a certified EHR Module[s] with a certified Complete EHR), that combination also needs to be separately certified in order for it to meet the definition of Certified EHR Technology – *FICTION*
  • The ONC-Authorized Testing and Certification Bodies (ONC-ATCBs) operate under contract with and receive funding from ONC – *FICTION*
  • The ONC-ATCBs favor big EHR technology developers – *FICTION*
  • As an EP or EH, you need to demonstrate meaningful use in the exact way that EHR technology was tested and certified – *FICTION* (mostly)  See the jointly posted ONC and CMS FAQs (#24 or 10473
  • Certifications “expire” every two years – *FICTION*

Posnack’s article confirmed two additional frequently-heard statements as factual:

  • Testing and certification under the Temporary Certification Program does not examine whether two randomly combined EHR Modules will be compatible or work together – *FACT*  
  • Certification doesn’t require that an EHR technology designed by one EHR developer make its data accessible or “portable” to another EHR technology designed by a different developer – *FACT*

MGMA Study Reports Most Physicians Are Satisfied With Their EHR Systems

A study conducted by MGMA indicates most doctors surveyed who have implemented electronic record systems are satisfied or very satisfied, and many report increased productivity and reduced costs as those systems are optimized, according to Modern Healthcare.  The full MGMA study may be downloaded here (registration required).  This report is highly recommended reading.

The study, funded by PNC Bank, tabulated over 4,500 responses from a variety of organizations representing over 120,000 physicians, over half of them in independent private practice. Of the respondents, 16.3 percent believed they had optimized their EHR.   One surprising finding - independent physicians are farther along in the process than hospital-employed physicians: 

Finding independent practices further along in EHR optimization than IDS- and hospital-owned practices might seem surprising at first glance. As components of larger systems with greater access to financial and technical resources and expertise, IDS- and hospital-owned practices would seem more likely to lead rather than trail independent practices in EHR adoption. Yet, aspects of hospital and IDS-ownership may slow EHR adoption; it also may slow integration of EHR with other technologies

The leading barrier to implementation of EHR cited was “Expected loss of productivity during transition to the EHR system”, followed closely by “Insufficient capital resources to invest in an EHR.” 

Most telling is Figure 12 in the report, which shows 85.8% of "optimized" EHR users satisfied or very satisfied with their systems overall; 56.5% of such users satisfied with the ability of the EHR to decrease practice costs; 61% of such users satisfied with the ability of the EHR to increase provider productivity; and 60.8% satisfied with the ability of EHR to increase practice revenue.  MGMA concludes:

These data indicate that EHR users find reaching full optimization of their system produces benefits, and that they are more likely to perceive these benefits than other users. Efforts to optimize an EHR implementation are likely to produce tangible benefits for a majority of EHR users.

 

 

Incentive Payments for Hospital-Based Physicians under HITECH

The devil is in the definition, as least when it comes to getting financial incentive payments for the adoption of electronic health records (EHR). The American Hospital Association (AHA) recently asked the White House Office of Health Reform, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to revise the definition of "hospital-based" so that physicians working in hospital outpatient clinics or hospital-based facilities can receive incentive payments from Medicare and Medicaid under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA).

In many ways, AHA's request makes sense. If ARRA is to incentivize "meaningful use" of EHR, it should not exclude physician users practicing in off-site clinic or outpatient locations -- these are often the very physicians whose implementation and use of EHR is key to the creation of a community-wide EHR infrastructure. In other ways, though, AHA's request is a vexing reminder of the mental contortions required to maintain the old meanings and purposes of terms while introducing new ones.

Whether an outpatient or "provider-based" clinic qualifies as part of the hospital for reimbursement purposes varies from state to state and from payer to payer. AHA's request to expand the definition for purposes of ARRA incentive payments seems to make sense from an EHR-policy implementation perspective, but folding in yet another "hospital-based" definition for ARRA purposes challenges the conceptual integrity of the word -- and starts to make my head spin.

The AHA letter is available at http://www.aha.org/aha/letter/2009/091204-let-hit-arra.pdf.

Certifying EHRs for "Meaningful Use"

On November 2, 2009, the Texas-based Drummond Group Inc. announced in a Press Release that it will submit to become a certifying body upon the release of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) requirements for certifying bodies for Electronic Health Records (EHR).  ONC is currently working on the scope and definition of "meaningful use" for EHR, expected to be finalized in early 2010. Along with these new policies on meaningful use of EHRs, ONC announced plans to expand the number of EHR certification agencies to support the new initiative. 

Currently, the only approved EHR certification agency, since 2004, is the Certification Commission for Health Information Technology (CCHIT).

"In The Event That I Can No Longer Make Decisions For Myself, I Wish ..." - Storing Advanced Directives on GoogleHealth

Google Health and National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization's Caring Connections have partnered to allow patients to store and access their advance directives on line.  Advance directives are essentially "directions" that a person gives to their medical professionals about what interventions they wish to have provided or withheld under specific circumstances -- especially in emergencies and at "end-of-life" moments -- when such person can not express those wishes himself or herself.  Advance directives laws vary from state-to-state, but typically require such directives to be in writing, signed and to have a personal representative listed.

GoogleHealth and Caring Connections will offer a "living will" feature that allows users to download a free state-specific advance directive and store completed and signed scanned documents securely on line in their GoogleHealth account.  By "storing" such advanced directives in GoogleHealth's centralized repository, the hope is to offer providers with a better method to insure that a patient's true wishes with regard to health care interventions are honored.  But, will it?

What had me wondering is how exactly will the provider access the advanced directive on Google Health without the individual (who presumably has lost his or her ability to communicate) providing his or her password?   I suppose that in instances where a personal representative has been appointed, the individual could make sure to provide such password to his/her personal representative -- but watch out, because if the personal representative changes, then the password may need to change too.  Another option may be for individuals to pre-authorize their entrusted health care provider with access to their personal Google Health account.  Yet, this also has problems where one does not necessarily know which emergency room provider might end up providing them with care. 

Nevertheless, even with its limitations, Google Health's new advanced directive feature will likely be beneficial in many circumstances.  To learn more about GoogleHealth and Caring Connection's new advance directive feature, click here.

Relationship of "Meaningful Use" of EHR, and the Department of Veterans Affairs

[Installment 5 - Governance Considerations from HIT for the Board and Other Hospital Stakeholders] 

This is the fifth in a series of blog posts that relate to the governance concerns surrounding developments in HIPAA, HITECH and HIT. 

The other week, two separate and apparently unrelated events occurred on consecutive days with respect to electronic health records (“EHRs”) that dramatically underscore the focus of this series. Governing Boards of hospitals and other stakeholders must place a very high priority in their struggle to cope with the new and somewhat uneven landscape of health information technology (“HIT”).

On July 16, 2009, Health Data Management reported that “[t]he federal HIT Policy Committee has approved revised recommendations of a workgroup for an initial definition of ‘meaningful use’ of electronic health records systems. The report goes on to emphasize that “[t]he definition is important because providers must demonstrate meaningful use of EHRs to qualify for Medicare and Medicaid incentive payments starting in 2011 under the economic stimulus law.”

Therefore, health providers will have to meet minimum prescribed standards for their EHRs if they are to benefit in the future from the federal economic stimulus package under the HITECH Act to recoup a portion of the heavy costs that they will incur to implement their EHRs programs. 

On the following day, July 17, 2009, the federal Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) published a press release on its Web site that it will temporarily halt 45 information technology projects which are either behind schedule or over budget. These projects will be reviewed by the VA, and it will be determined whether these projects should be continued. The release goes on to say that each of the 45 affected projects will be temporarily halted with no further development until a new project plan that meets the requirements of Program Management Accountability System is created.

Some of the titles of the VA projects that will be halted include significant EHRs-related projects such as “Health Data Repository II,” “Clinical Data Service,” “Home Telehealth Development,” “Occupational Health Record Keeping System,” “Lab Data Sharing & Interoperability – Anatomic Pathology/Microbiology” and many others.

By simply securing additional funding from Congress, the VA, as an agency of the federal government that is generally a favorite of the legislators, can retool and retrench its EHRs initiatives after making a relatively embarrassing press release and perhaps enduring some criticism and lost time. 

The Boards of health care providers do not have the luxuries of the VA. They simply cannot afford false starts and mistakes if they are to meet the meaningful use standards of the HITECH Act on a timely basis. As this blog has stated in earlier installments, the survival of many hospitals is threatened by the uncertainties of possible health care reform, declining patient population, reduced reimbursement, heavy regulation, intense competition, dwindling donor contributions and heavy endowment losses for non-profit hospitals, a history of unclear returns from past substantial investments in HIT and many other factors. The costs of mistakes for the private sector hospitals are not simply the embarrassment or lost time of the VA. They are the huge outlays for conversion to EHRs and the potential for losing access to the federal stimulus funds.

These questions and others must be properly considered at a high level in the hospital, with committed Board oversight, in order to avoid or mitigate liability and loss that will result from expensive choices made with inadequate or incomplete information. 

 [To be continued in Installment 6] 

Sharing of Electronic Health Records Among Hospitals

[Installment 3 - Governance Considerations from HIT for the Board and Other Hospital Stakeholders]

This is the third in a series of blog posts that relate to the governance concerns surrounding developments in HIPAA, HITECH and HIT. Jim Landers of the Washington Bureau of the Dallas News  wrote an article that was published on June 24, 2009, entitled "Administration: Hospitals unwilling to share electronic records will miss out on billions in stimulus funds." His article prompted me to write on the topic as part of this series. 

 

In his article Mr. Landers stated:

 

The Obama administration's point man on electronic medical records [David Blumenthal, national coordinator for Health Information Technology] warned Tuesday that hospitals unwilling to share such files [electronic health records or EHR] with their competitors would not be eligible for billions of dollars in economic stimulus funds.

 

Mr. Blumenthal was further quoted by Mr. Landers as follows: “There's a fair amount of money in the law for hospitals that adopt interoperability [the means to share EHRs]. If they don't, they're not likely to be eligible for payment."

 

Mr. Landers correctly points out that many hospitals would be concerned that such free sharing of EHR among hospitals could give rise to the potential for losing patients to competitive institutions. I believe that, faced with deepening economic pressures and more highly educated patients with abundant choices, hospitals and their governing bodies must be increasingly concerned about material collateral issues that arise from sharing EHR with their competitors. 

 

I would add to the observations of Mr. Landers that embedded in EHR in one form or another could be relatively proprietary financial and business information regarding costs, charges or reimbursement of the hospital and/or treating physicians. In the exchange of EHR among hospitals, such proprietary information could be included. There exists a potential for the violation of antitrust laws for sharing of sensitive pricing and business information among competitors. The effect of such a violation could be a major financial and public relations fiasco for the hospitals. Removal or de-identification of such proprietary information could be costly or relatively impractical. This aspect warrants review by competent legal counsel and information technology and financial experts for the hospital. 

 

The ever-increasing momentum for acceleration of hospital conversion to EHR creates challenges and opportunities for a hospital and its governing board. On the one hand a hospital’s initiatives in this area can possibly make the hospital eligible for stimulus money to assist in the expensive cost of conversion to EHR. On the other hand there must be careful analysis at the governing board level of such an initiative in light of the risks involved.

 

These questions and others should be properly considered at a high level in the hospital, with board oversight, in order to avoid or mitigate liability and litigation, maintain the hospital’s reputation for candor and transparency and avoid the adverse publicity of regulatory violations and penalties.  

Will Too Much "Meaning" = Not Enough Use?

When I first reviewed the Matrix and other documents released by the HIT Policy Committee’s “Meaningful Use” Workgroup, my initial reaction was “When did defining ‘Meaningful Use’ of EHR morph into attempting to use EHRs to ‘meaningfully’ reform the entire healthcare delivery system.”?  More simply put, the Workgroup’s initial recommendations seemed to me to be over-ambitious.

The term "Meaningful EHR User" in ARRA (at Title IV, subtitle A, section 4104) is described as "an eligible professional" who meets the following criteria: 

  1. demonstrates that he/she is using certified EHR technology in a "meaningful manner, which shall include the use of electronic prescribing";
  2. demonstrates that he/she uses the certified EHR technology to be "connected, in a manner that provides... for the electronic exchange of health information to improve the quality of health care, such as promoting care coordination"; and
  3. submits information on selected "clinical quality measures".   

In my view, the first round of "Meaningful Use" requirements should be specific and reasonably achievable by healthcare providers. For example, perhaps the terms could require that the healthcare provider demonstrate how he/she uses electronic prescribing at least 75% of the time; or, how a provider records patient notes and medical encounter information in a certified EHR for no less than 75% of his/her new patient encounters.   

 

Interestingly, the National Coordinator for HIT decided to “send the workgroup back to work on another set [of recommendations]" for defining Meaningful Use soon after the Workgroup released its first set of recommendations. In the second go around, I think that many in the healthcare industry hope to see Meaningful Use criteria that are attainable by healthcare providers on a practical level. Otherwise, the entire premise of the HITECH Act providing incentives to increase EHR adoption could be thwarted. 

 

"Meaningful Use" Definition Recommendation Due out June 16th

The HIT Policy Committee is suppose to unveil its recommendations on the definition of "Meaningful Use" of electronic health records (EHRs) on June 16th, reports Health Data Management.  Any approved definition of "Meaningful Use" would then be forwarded to the Office of National Coordinator for further consideration.  

What will constitute "Meaningful Use" of an EHR has been the subject of much debate and speculation lately because it is a necessary condition that hospitals and physicians must meet in order to qualify for Medicare and Medicaid incentive payments under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).  ARRA initially describes “Meaningful Use” to include:

  • The use of a certified EHR with ePrescribing capability;
  • The ability to report on clinical quality measures; and  
  • The use of EHR technology that allows electronic exchange of patient health information.

Further information with regard to required standards, reporting and connectivity levels are to be determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Final Rule on the initial definition of "Meaningful Use" is due out by the end of 2009, so stay tuned....


 

Review Health Information Before You Click "Upload to Google Health"

Using Google Health, a free personal health record tool, requires patients to be proactive both in terms of creating their electronic health record (EHR) and in checking the accuracy of the information loaded into the EHR, particularly when it comes from insurance claims data.  An article published in the April 13, 2009 issue of "The Boston Globe" illustrates how inclusion of raw insurance claims data in an EHR can be misleading and result in inaccurate diagnoses and even life-threatening situations.

Google Health and other EHR tools can greatly improve communication among health care providers, and offer patients a way of taking charge of their health records.  However, while insurance claims data can help to quickly and efficiently populate the patient's EHR, it can also create a misleading picture of a patient's past medical history and current health status.  If, for example, a patient's insurance paid for a colonoscopy or other diagnostic procedure to rule out cancer, the billing code information may make it appear that the patient was, in fact, diagnosed with the condition the procedure actually ruled out. 
 
The lesson?  Users of Google Health and other EHR tools should review their information for accuracy, and involve their physicians in the review and update of their personal health information.

EHR Demo Applications Due November 26, 2008

Phase I of CMS's EHR Demonstration project began September 1, 2008.  Physicians selected by CMS to participate in this EHR demo project will be eligible to receive incentives totaling up to $58,000 per physician over five years or $290,000 per practice over five years.

CMS's selected Community Partners are now accepting applications from eligible physicians located in the following regions: 

I have provided links to a CMS-selected Community Partner for each region above.   For additional general information about the EHR demonstration project, visit CMS's Frequently Asked Questions webpage.   

Interested physicians must complete and submit an application to a Community Partner for the applicable region no later than November 26, 2008.

Best Practices for HealthVault and Google Health

At the end of June, Investor's Business Daily reported that Google, Microsoft, Aetna, Blue Cross/ and 27 other private organizations "agreed on" ground rules for protecting the privacy of the sensitive information" contained in personal health records (PHRs). Their Report indicated that the group has been working together for the past 18 months, and on Wednesday, June 26th, released the "hundreds of pages long" framework, which "starts with the idea that the information in a PHR is the user's to control -- and spells out how to guard it." 

The "best practices" agreed upon by this private workgroup are posted onlineAmong them is a policy that audit trails should be conducted so that consumers can see who is looking at their records.  In addition, the workgroup recommended that insurers, employers, and others be prohibited from seeing the information without the individual's prior authorization.  

The point that PHR repositories, like the ones being offered by Google and Microsoft, are not subject to HIPAA has been focused on by opponents of these models.  However, in developing and releasing the Report containing privacy and security "best practices," I think that this is a step in the right direction and may reassure healthcare consumers that information maintained in such online filing cabinets will be kept as confidential and secure as when maintained by entities subject to federal privacy laws, like HIPAA.

   

LIVE Audio Conference - Keys to Compliance with EHRs

On Thursday, July 17, 2008, National Constitution Center Conferences is offering a 60-minute Live Audio Conference called “Electronic Health Records:  Keys To Compliance” during which I will discuss many of the legal issues, challenges and practical solutions to utilizing electronic health records. Some of the topics and questions I will cover include:

  • Electronic Health Records and Security under HIPAA
    • Keys to balancing access to EHRs with privacy & security
    • Medical Identity Theft Prevention laws & EHRs: How do state laws apply?
    • Evolving privacy & security standards of EHRs
  • Security Breaches: Avoid the Common Pitfalls
    • How to effectively respond when a security breach occurs
    • Security Breach Notification laws
    • Privacy Issues regarding access, wireless networking and HIPAA audits
  • Keys to Drafting Compliant EHR Management Policies
    • Ways employees can jeopardize patient data - and how to safeguard it
    • How should EHRs be stored and who should have access to them?
    • How often should your program be audited to ensure compliance?

The Audio Conference will also offer a LIVE Question and Answer session during which I will respond to questions posed by participants.  For more information on this live Audio Conference, visit www.constitutionconferences.com.

And The EHR Demo Project Winners Are.....

In a June 10 HHS News Release, Secretary Mike Leavitt named the 12 communities that will participate in a 5-year national Medicare demonstration project that provides incentive payments to physicians for using certified electronic health records (EHR) to improve the quality of patient care (the "EHR Demo Project").  The communities selected to work with the CMS on the EHR Demo Project are:

  • Alabama
  • Delaware
  • Jacksonville, FL (multi-county)
  • Georgia
  • Maine
  • Louisiana
  • Maryland/Washington, DC
  • Oklahoma
  • Pittsburgh, PA (multi-county)
  • South Dakota (multi-state)
  • Virginia
  • Madison, WI (multi-county)

Over the five-year span of the project, total financial incentives and bonus payments provided to participating physician practices may be up to $58,000 per physician or $290,000 per practice.  Secretary Leavitt states:

"The use of electronic health records, and of health information technology as a whole, has the ability to transform the way health care is delivered in our nation [and] we believe that EHRs can help physicians deliver better, more efficient care for their patients, in part by reducing medical errors. This project is designed to demonstrate these benefits and help increase the use of this technology in practices where adoption has been the slowest at the individual physician and small practice level."

Although in some respects it is disappointing that New Jersey was not among the communities selected to be a part of the EHR Demo Project, perhaps it is an indication that physicians in this state are ahead of the curve with EHR adoption.  If this is indeed the case, New Jersey may already be well on its way to improving patient care and reducing health care delivery costs through the use of technology ..... making it a "winner" too. 

CMS Gives Qualified "OK" To Hospital Covering Cost Of Customized EHR Software For Physicians' Use

In its May 28th Advisory Opinion, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) found that a hospital system's proposal to pay for customized software to facilitate communication between its electronic health record (EHR) system and EHR software used by physicians affiliated with the hospital would not constitute a prohibited compensation arrangement under the Stark Law.  CMS explained that since the software would be used solely to order or communicate results of tests and procedures furnished by the hospital, the arrangement would not be a prohibitive arrangement.  CMS also emphasized the relevance of the fact that the software could not be modified to perform an alternate function and could not be resold, transferred or assigned by an affiliated physician practice.  Since CMS found that the arrangement fell outside of the Stark Law's prohibition with respect to a "compensation arrangement," it did not address whether the arrangement complies with any of the physician self-referral exceptions, including the 2006 EHR Exception for arrangements involving donated EHR technology.

CMS Launches PHR Test Pilot

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced in a Press Release dated May 7, 2008 its new pilot test project in South Carolina that will use an on-line tool called a Personal Health Record (PHR) to give Medicare beneficiaries the ability to collect and then access information about their health or health care services, and collect information about their health.   CMS states that it is ensuring that strict privacy and security safeguards are in place to protect all beneficiary data.    

The CMS Press Release explains that one feature of the test pilot PHR allows individuals to look up information specific to their own personal health status and health conditions.  The PHR tool used in the pilot also provides convenient links to carefully selected Web sites with educational material on health topics.  This makes it easier for the beneficiary or other authorized users to do research that will help them understand their health issues and better manage their own care.  The beneficiary also will control who is able to see the information in the PHR, and will decide whether and with whom the information can be shared – from health care providers to caregivers and family members.  

The pilot, which began on April 4, 2008, is expected to run for 12 months and CMS will use information gathered from the pilot to determine future steps with respect to PHRs. 

 

 

Is There Proof in the EHR Pudding?

On October 30, 2007, Secretary Mike Leavitt  of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced on HHS.gov a five-year demonstration project that will encourage small to medium-sized physician practices to adopt electronic health records (EHRs).   In the federal government's Press Release, Secretary Leavitt stated: 

This demonstration is designed to show that streamlining health care management with electronic health records will reduce medical errors and improve quality of care for 3.6 million Americans.  By linking higher payment to use of EHRs to meet quality measures, we will encourage adoption of health information technology at the community level, where 60 percent of patients receive care . . . We also anticipate that EHRs will produce significant savings for Medicare over time by improving quality of care.  This is another step in our ongoing effort to become a smart purchaser of health care -- paying for better, rather than simply paying for more.”

CMS will recruit about 100 physician practices of three to five physicians for each of 12 demonstration programs.  Under the programs, Medicare will pay bonuses for practices that use EHRs to report on and manage quality.  The level of bonuses has not yet been determined. 

Questions that will be asked specifically about EHRs will include: 

(1) What are the costs and savings from maximum use of EHRs?

(2) What affect does EHR use have on quality?

(3) What are other incentives for adoption?

(4) How does implementation of EHRs effect the work flow of practices?

(5) What is the degree of EHR functionality that practices actually use?  

The findings of the demonstration study could offer physicians proof that investing the time and money to covert their paper practices to EHRs is worth while . . . or not.  Many proponents of EHR maintain that implementation increases a practice's efficiency, quality of care, and has financial benefits over time.  If the demonstration project provides hard support to this effect, providers could be encouraged to implement electronic health record systems for their practices. 

 

Microsoft launches website for managing personal health information

Yesterday, the New York Times reported that Microsoft Corp. launched "HealthVault," a website designed to allow patients to store and manage their medical and health information, and which is described by Microsoft as "part filing cabinet, part library, and part fax machine for an individual's or a family's medical records and notes." 

 

Microsoft's HealthVault attempts to implement a "centralized model" of storing health information where patients arrange to have information downloaded to a centralized web-based data repository.  This model differs from the "decentralized model" where information remains in its original locations (e.g., the hospital, physician's office, laboratory), but is linked through a network of connections among participating providers who have agreed to "share" information when needed to treat a patient.   Which model will prevail remains to be seen, but some interesting points should be noted. 

 

From a HIPAA standpoint, HealthVault, and similar models that are popping up (e.g., goggle is working on a similar "vault"), are not directly subject to the requirements set forth in the Privacy and Security rules because they are not "health care providers," "health plans" or "health care clearinghouses."  Furthermore, such "vaults" may not even be "HIPAA Business Associates" because, as I currently understand these models to be, the agreement to store the information is between the patient and HealthVault, and so the services provided will typically not be "on behalf of" the health care provider. 

 

One question that is being asked by some is whether health care providers should, upon request by a patient, download all records in their possession to the vault without written assurance this information will be maintained private and secure?  But even if, as proponents argue, this sort of "information download" is analogous to a provider faxing the information to a destination requested by the patient, it raises other issues such as "is the provider required to download new information about the patient when it is received, or should providers wait for the patient to request each download?"  Then, if providers only download new information when their patients make the request on a case-by-case basis, and the patient fails to do so, does that create an incomplete picture of the patient and diminish the clinical value of such vaults?  Other issues include: who will pay for the administrative cost of providers taking the time to download information to such vaults, and will providers current software be compatible and allow for easy transmission? 

 

Similar patient-controlled Personal Health Record (PHR) have failed miserably in the past, which has led many to try alternate models such as decentralized direct provider-linked RHIOs.  Yet, it will be interesting to see whether HealthVault can make PHRs work.

 

EMR Adoption Concerns

Concerns continue to mount regarding the recent IRS memorandum declaring that nonprofit hospitals can share their e-health record software and support with physicians without losing their tax-exempt status. A recent report from Leerink Swann & Company contends that a heightened competitive environment in urban areas will be the result of the memorandum declaration, as hospitals vie to attract surgery and other hospital-based procedures. The report predicts that under the relaxed Stark Law, physician practices might delay an EMR purchase in hopes of local hospitals picking up the tab. In addition, hospitals may choose to only work with larger EMR vendors, potentially locking smaller vendors out of the marketplace. The report also notes that increased price competition and discounting among EMR vendors overall has resulted in lower profits.

Study Shows EMR System Can Pay For Itself Within 2 Years

According to a study published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons (JACS), electronic health record (EHR) systems can potentially imbue enough cost reduction to pay for the cost of the system in under two years' time!   Despite growing enthusiasm and awareness of the benefits to patients, physicians have been slow to adopt EHRs often citing cost as an major obstacle to implementing an EHR.  Therefore, studies like this one which demonstrate that a positive return on investment is possible will be key to convincing skeptical physicians to part with their paper record systems.  

To find out more about the study design and findings, read on . . .

Continue Reading...

Health Experts Say Privacy Rules Needed for e-Health Records

Do we really need more rules to protect health information?  Certain health experts seem to think so.   Dr. Deborah Peel, a psychiatrist and founder of Patient Privacy Rights Foundation, believes that "thousands" of electronic databases that contain patients' health records exist, and that those patients don't have any way to keep their personal information from being shared with third parties. 

Continue Reading...

Insurance Companies Finalize Plans to Post Electronic Health Records On The Internet

Hartford Business Journal recently reported that privacy groups are sounding alarms as the nation’s largest insurance companies finalize plans to allow millions more customers to post their health records on the Internet.  Insurers like Hartford-based Aetna Inc. say Web-based tools help patients and physicians keep track of medical information while potentially holding down spiraling medical costs.  The articles stated that about 100 million insurance customers in the U.S. have access to Web-based tools, but companies don’t have an estimate of how widely they are used. Insurers hope to at least double the technology’s reach by the end of next year . . .

Continue Reading...