In a perspective piece published April 9 by the New England Journal of Medicine, Blumenthal said that to carry out Congress’ intentions in the recently passed health IT stimulus legislation, it will be important not to set the bar too high for providers to qualify for health IT funding. 

The current certification process for health IT needs tightening, he said.

Congress provided $20 billion in health IT incentives in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as the means to improve the quality of health care, not as an end in itself, Blumenthal said. 

“Under the pressure to show results, it will be tempting to measure…the payoff from the $787 billion stimulus package in narrow terms — for example, the numbers of computers newly deployed in doctors’ offices and hospital nursing stations,” Blumenthal said. 

“But that does not seem to be Congress’ intent. It wants improvements in health and health care through the use” of health IT.

via Blumenthal signals position on key stimulus policies — Government Health IT.

In 137 pages of written answers to questions from members of the Senate Finance Committee after an April 2 confirmation hearing, Sebelius repeatedly cited health IT as a way to lower costs, raise the quality of care and achieve comprehensive health care reform.

“A nationwide interoperable health IT infrastructure is a fundamental building block for broader health reform,” she wrote, adding that the federal government must step in to ensure that “systems are interoperable and that patient privacy is assured.”

via Sebelius sees IT as key to health reform — Government Health IT.

The e-mails also revealed an ongoing dispute between medical personnel in the field and program managers with the Military Health System over the new Theater Medical Data Store and the system it replaced, the Joint Patient Tracking Application.

In a March 2 e-mail, Army Brig. Gen. William Gamble, command surgeon for the U.S. Central Command, bluntly told Army Col. Claude Hines, program manager for the Defense Health Information Management System at the Military Health System, that “JPTA worked. The alternative does not. Simple. We need to allow JPTA data entry. I know you are doing your absolute. But as I said a year ago, flick the switch. JPTA is better than what we have now.”

In his e-mail, Gamble detailed myriad problems with the new TMDS system, including a significant delay between the time clinicians in Iraq upload data onto the network and when it is visible to doctors. The delay is particularly frustrating for clinicians at the Landstuhl Army Medical Center in Germany, which is the first stop for wounded soldiers coming from Iraq as they make their way to U.S. hospitals.

He said the minimum time delay to load data into TMDS was three hours and “at times much longer, 48 hours by accounts from [theater] medical providers.”

via Nextgov – Military doctors blast new system to track wounded soldiers in Iraq.

Instead, Obama chose a more modest approach after becoming president, proposing to extract bigger discounts on medications bought through Medicaid. The plan could save the drug companies billions a year compared with price controls.

“This is a great start,” said W.J. “Billy” Tauzin, a former House member from Louisiana who now runs the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), referring to Obama’s health-care plan. “There are things we don’t like about it. But there’s time to discuss all that.”

Obama’s opening gambit to dramatically expand the health-care system has attracted surprising notes of support from insurers, hospitals and other players in the powerful medical lobby who are set to participate in an unusual White House summit on the issue this afternoon. The lure for the industry is the prospect of tens of millions of new customers: If Obama succeeds in fulfilling his pledge to cover many more Americans, those newly insured people will get checkups, purchase medicine, undergo physical therapy and get surgeries they cannot afford today.

To start the process, Obama has proposed a $634 billion health-care reserve fund that would be partially paid for with targeted cuts in payments to insurers, doctors, hospitals, drugmakers and other providers, and he has vowed to fight attempts to water down the package.

The unstated intention of Obama’s approach is to dole out the pain in small, easier-to-swallow bites to minimize opposition, White House aides say. Under the president’s plan, hospitals, doctors, drugmakers, insurance companies and wealthy seniors — all of whom will be represented at today’s summit — would sacrifice. But if the system was calibrated properly, no one would lose too much.

Not everyone is happy, of course, and lobbyists and health-care experts warn that major obstacles lie ahead. The seniors lobby AARP, for example, opposes Obama’s recommendation to raise Medicare prescription premiums on wealthy retirees. Major insurers also dislike his proposed overhaul of the Medicare Advantage program, which markets managed-care plans to seniors, while home-care providers object to cuts to their Medicare reimbursements.

via Health Industry Voices Support for Obama Health Plan – washingtonpost.com.

Obama, who has nominated Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius as his health secretary, will gather about 120 people representing everyone from doctors and patients to health insurers and lawmakers to discuss how to fix U.S. health care.

It’s a challenge that has defeated earlier presidents. But officials say the current U.S. economic crisis only makes it more imperative.

“Our healthcare costs are exploding our economy,” said Melody Barnes, Obama’s senior domestic policy adviser. “When he talks about getting spending under control … one of the primary things he is focusing on is bringing our healthcare costs under control.”

The United States spends approximately $2.5 trillion annually on healthcare but leaves some 46 million people uninsured and consistently ranks lower than other Western countries on indicators like infant mortality rates.

Obama pledged during his election campaign that he would expand health insurance coverage to virtually all people and find a way to control costs, which businesses complain are making their products less competitive in the global markets.

via Obama begins health reform drive with W.House forum | Reuters .

The EHR funds will be controlled by the U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS), which has discretionary use over $2 billion of the funds.

The legislation also allocates, among other things, $85 million for health technology investments to the Indian Health Service, $1.5 billion for Community Health Centers and $50 million to HHS to improve its technology security.

Computerworld spoke with three health technology experts from private corporations and the IT vendor side to get their take on the new bill and whether the billions being spent will succeed in establishing EHRs.

The three experts are:

Dr. Charles Kennedy

Dr. Charles Kennedy, senior vice president for health IT at Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc., the country’s largest health benefits provider. WellPoint provides health coverage to about 34 million members through its subsidiaries, primarily under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield name. Kennedy is a founding member of the certification commission for Healthcare Information Technology and a board member of the National eHealth Collaborative.

Frances Dare

Frances Dare, director of the health care consulting practice at the Cisco Internet Business Solutions Group. Dare recently testified on Capitol Hill and has advised the Obama administration regarding the stimulus package. She has spent more than 25 years in the health care industry as a hospital administrator for two facilities.

Phil Fasano

Phil Fasano, CIO at Oakland, Calif.-based Kaiser Permanente, a $38 billion nonprofit health care system. Kaiser Permanente offers health care services through a network of nearly 14,000 physicians at Permanente Medical Groups; 32 medical centers and more than 400 medical offices that form the Kaiser Foundation Hospitals; and the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, which has 8.7 million members. Kaiser is finishing up a five-year EHR system implementation that cost $5 billion and created 5 petabytes of data on spinning disk serving 32 hospitals, more than 400 medical clinics and 14,000 physicians.

via Obama’s e-health plan: Three heavyweight health IT leaders weigh in.

In general and without providing figures, the budget proposes to build on the $19 billion spending in health information technology in the economic stimulus law and to continue those efforts through HHS’ Medicare, Medicaid and other programs to further adopt and implement health IT to help modernize the health care system and reduce medical errors. For example, Medicare would offer physicians and hospitals temporary incentive payments under that law starting in 2011 for using a certified electronic health record system. In 2015, providers would pay penalties for failure to use such a system.

The budget request also sets out the president’s plan for health care reform. It would establish a reserve fund of more than $630 million over 10 years to finance reform of the way the nation delivers health care to reduce costs and expand coverage. The administration would pay for the reserve fund through new revenue and savings proposals that promote efficiency and accountability and target incentives toward improved quality, according to the budget overview.

“The budget calls for an effort beyond this down payment, to put the nation on a path to health insurance coverage for all Americans,” the request said.

The administration would broaden health care research using the volumes of data in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to track trends and conduct pilot programs to evaluate payment reforms, efforts to provide higher quality care at lower costs and improve beneficiary education. Under the proposal, the budget would also direct more resources to strengthen program integrity efforts to reduce fraud, waste and abuse in Medicare’s prescription drug program, the Medicare Advantage private insurance plan and Medicaid.

via IT, health care would get more under budget — Federal Computer Week.

February 18, 2009

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “Act” or “ARRA”) was passed by Congress on Feb. 13, 2009.  Yesterday, Feb. 17, 2009, President Obama signed the Act into law.  The ARRA includes a number of health care provisions, several of which are summarized in the link below.

Please join us for our first in a series of complimentary webinars regarding the economic stimulus bill on Thursday, Feb. 19, 2009, from 4-5 p.m. EST.  Our national team of lawyers, policy professionals and strategists will highlight key components of the stimulus, anticipated business impacts, and the next steps for implementation. 

via Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP – The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Provides Billions of Dollars For Health Care Initiatives.

The U.S. Government Printing Office has now published the final text of the legislation. Read it by clicking on the links below. You can also download the final stimulus bill public print here.

via ARRA: Public Review.

Enabling Healthcare Reform Using IT – Presentation Transcript

1. A Call for Action Enabling Healthcare Reform Using Information Technology Recommendations for the Obama Administration and 111th Congress December 2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society transforming healthcare through IT™
2. Enabling Healthcare Reform Using Information Technology December17, 2008 / Table of Contents Executive Summary of HIMSS Recommendations………………………………………….2 For the Obama Administration and 111th Congress Full Report of HIMSS Recommendations………………………………………………………6 Appendix 1 – EMR Soft ROI ……………………………………………………………………..25 Appendix 2 – EMR Hard ROI ……………………………………………………………………27 Appendix 3 – EMR Capabilities ………………………………………………………………..28 Appendix 4 – 110th Congressional Legislation……………………………………………..33 Appendix 5 – FAQs …………………………………………………………………………………..35 1
3. Executive Summary Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress Enabling Healthcare Reform Using Information Technology Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress December 17, 2008 Executive Summary Call to Action: 2009 is the year for healthcare reform in the United States. HIMSS believes that that lives can be saved, outcomes of care improved, and costs reduced by transforming the healthcare system through the appropriate use of information technology (IT) and management systems. It is essential that health IT be harnessed as a tool in transforming healthcare, improving quality by delivering information where and when it is most needed, reducing costs, empowering consumers in their healthcare decisions, and providing for the privacy and security of personal health information. To ensure that health IT is appropriately addressed in anticipated healthcare reform policy in 2009, HIMSS developed unified recommendations for the new Congress and Administration concerning the role of health IT in healthcare reform. The recommendations represent necessary measures to develop and sustain a robust IT infrastructure for healthcare. Policymakers should consider the recommendations components of the necessary foundation to strengthen and sustain the success of their healthcare reform legislation, proposals, and regulation policies. Healthcare Reform and the Promise of Health IT: With healthcare spending in the US totaling more than $2 trillion a year i and 45 million people in the US lacking health insurance, ii healthcare reform must be a top priority for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress. iii As a proven tool for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of healthcare, health IT is essential to healthcare reform policy. In preparation for the 111th Congress, Members are already engaged in healthcare reform deliberations, through such initiatives as the formation of workgroups and the development of healthcare reform reports. As part of his healthcare platform during the presidential campaign, Senator Barack Obama called for a $10 billion-a-year investment over the next five years to foster the broad adoption of health IT. iv In addition, as President-elect, Barack Obama is now considering including health IT as part of an economic stimulus package to be introduced in early 2009. v Health IT, such as electronic medical records (EMRs), electronic health records (EHRs), personal health records (PHRs), payor-based health records (PBHRs), and electronic prescribing (e- prescribing), shows promise for transforming the delivery and payment of healthcare in the US, and improving population health and the overall efficiency and effectiveness of healthcare. The electronic exchange of health information made possible through health IT enables providers, payors, and consumers to effectively access health information, while reducing medical errors © 2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Advocacy@HIMSS.org 2
4. Executive Summary Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress and eliminating unnecessary or duplicative healthcare services and costs. Recognizing the benefits of health IT, federal and state governments, in collaboration with the private sector, facilitate many initiatives to help foster the use of health IT. Health IT holds great promise for healthcare throughout the US. The full benefits will be reaped when policymakers, including Members of Congress and the Administration, appropriately address the following issues: • Leadership • Interoperability • Privacy and Security • Electronic Payments • Consumer Empowerment • Funding Recommendations: The recommendations concerning health IT’s role in healthcare represent necessary measures to develop and sustain a robust IT infrastructure for healthcare. Policymakers should consider the recommendations components of the necessary foundation to strengthen and sustain the success of their healthcare reform legislation, proposals, and regulation policies. A full listing of HIMSS’ recommendations concerning health IT’s role in healthcare reform can be accessed at: www.himss.org/2009CalltoAction. A highlight of the recommendations is as follows: • Invest a minimum of $25 billion in health IT to help non-governmental hospitals and physician practices adopt electronic medical records (EMRs). Additional funding should be allocated to cover EMR adoption by federal and state-owned healthcare providers, and establish health IT Action Zones. HIMSS also calls for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to be expanded to make health IT available to Medicaid and SCHIP providers of healthcare to children. • Apply recognized standards and certified health IT products among all federally funded health programs by requiring that federal funding to assist providers and payers within these programs adopt health IT only be used for the purchase or upgrade of new health IT products that apply Healthcare Information Technology Standards Panel (HITSP) interoperability specifications and have Certification Commission for Health Information Technology (CCHIT) certification. • Expand Stark Exemptions and Anti-Kickback Safe Harbors for EMRs to cover additional healthcare software and related devices that apply HITSP interoperability specifications, are CCHIT-certified, and allow for better coordination of care and information sharing among related providers and their patients. In carrying-out out this recommendation, the Secretary should implement necessary measures and requirements to protect against conflict of interest and improper relationships among providers. © 2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Advocacy@HIMSS.org 3
5. Executive Summary Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress • Codify and authorize the following: A. Codify HITSP as the National Standards Harmonization Body responsible for collaborating with the public and private sector to achieve a widely accepted and useful set of standards to enable the widespread interoperability among healthcare software applications. Adequate funding should be authorized and appropriated for HITSP from FY10 – FY14. B. Codify a Senior Level Health IT Leader within the Administration to oversee a national health IT strategy. C. Authorize a Federal Advisory and Coordinating Body for Health IT. Based on the experiences of the AHIC and its Successor organization, the US Congress should authorize a federal advisory committee – operating under the Federal Advisory Committee Act – responsible for advising the Administration on health IT initiatives throughout the US and coordinating standards harmonization through collaboration with HITSP and CCHIT. • Conduct a White House Summit on Healthcare Reform through Information Technology to develop consensus and propose solutions to critical, national health IT issues within the context of the larger national healthcare reform effort. HIMSS’ Comments: HIMSS works tirelessly to advance the best use of information and management systems for the betterment of healthcare, and serves everyone with a stake in this effort. For additional information concerning this report or health IT policy, please contact K. Meredith Taylor, Director, HIMSS Congressional Affairs, at mtaylor@himss.org. © 2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Advocacy@HIMSS.org 4
6. Executive Summary Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress i US Healthcare Costs. Kaiser Edu.org. http://www.kaiseredu.org/topics_im.asp?imID=1&parentID=61&id=358. ii Five Basic Facts on the Uninsured. Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7806.pdf. iii States Moving Toward Comprehensive Health Care Reform. Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/State%20Health%20Reform.pdf. iv Healthcare Information Technology and Management Systems and the 2008 Democratic Platform. Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society. http://www.himss.org/advocacy/d/HIMSS_HIT_Dem_Campaign_Platform.pdf. v Obama Adds Health IT to Economic Stimulus Package. Government Health IT. http://www.govhealthit.com/online/news/350702-1.html. © 2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Advocacy@HIMSS.org 5
7. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress Enabling Healthcare Reform Using Information Technology Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress December 17, 2008 Call to Action 2009 is the year for healthcare reform in the United States. HIMSS believes that lives can be saved, outcomes of care improved, and costs reduced by transforming the healthcare system through the appropriate use of information technology (IT) and management systems. Since 1961, HIMSS has been the healthcare industry’s membership organization exclusively focused on providing global leadership for the optimal use of health IT and management systems for the betterment of healthcare. We work tirelessly to advance the best use of information and management systems for the betterment of healthcare and serve everyone with a stake in the outcome of that effort. HIMSS represents more than 20,000 individual members – of which 73% work in a provider setting – and over 350 corporate members that collectively employ millions of people. Our role is to lead the profession, the industry and other key stakeholders in solving challenges and bringing about change when and where needed. HIMSS believes it is essential to harness health IT as a tool in transforming healthcare, improving quality by delivering information where and when it is most needed, empowering consumers in their healthcare decisions, lowering costs, and providing for the privacy and security of personal health information. How We Arrived at Our Recommendations To ensure that health IT is appropriately addressed in anticipated healthcare reform policy in 2009, more than 100 volunteers convened the HIMSS Healthcare Transformation through Health IT (HTHIT) Workgroup. Chaired by HIMSS members Maggie Lohnes, RN (Chair, HIMSS Advocacy & Public Policy Steering Committee) and Harry Greenspun, MD (Chair, HIMSS Government Relations Roundtable), the Workgroup consisted of physicians, nurses, pharmacists, hospital and clinical practice leaders, consumers, IT specialists, consultants, lawyers, payors, vendors, and representatives from state-level health information exchange (HIE) organizations, and the federal government. The Workgroup deliberated from September – December 2008. 6 ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Advocacy@HIMSS.org
8. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress Health IT is not the sole solution for broad-scale healthcare reform. Rather, health IT provides a mechanism to achieve the intent of healthcare reform: improving access to and the quality of healthcare, while lowering costs, empowering consumers in their healthcare decisions, and ensuring the privacy and security of personal health information. Five Sub-Groups, supporting the Workgroup, were charged with identifying health IT’s role in each of these issues. Two themes emerged as a need for healthcare reform policy to: 1. Provide for a solid infrastructure for health IT that harnesses strong federal leadership and the standardized electronic exchange of health information; and 2. Apply health IT as a means of increasing consumer and provider access to healthcare services and information, optimizing the efficiency of care payments, and protecting the privacy and security of health information. The recommendations concerning health IT’s role in healthcare represent necessary measures to develop and maintain a robust IT infrastructure for healthcare. Policymakers should consider the recommendations as components of the necessary foundation to strengthen and sustain the success of their healthcare reform legislation, proposals, and regulation policies. A Glimpse at the Healthcare Landscape Unfortunately, “efficient” and “effective” are not common descriptors of healthcare in the US. The US spends more on healthcare i and sustains a higher infant mortality rate ii than any other industrialized country. Healthcare in the US is grossly inefficient, with higher healthcare spending not necessarily correlating with better outcomes and access to healthcare services. In 2008, total healthcare spending in the US is expected to reach $2.4 trillion, 16.6% of the GDP, iii up from $2 trillion in 2005. iv By 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) projects healthcare spending will be over $4.1 trillion, accounting for 19.6% of GDP. v The growing levels of healthcare spending correlate with the prevalence of chronic diseases, such as hypertension and diabetes, and treatment of the chronically ill. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, about 45% of Americans suffer from one or more chronic diseases, accounting for 70% of deaths and about 75% of all healthcare spending. As healthcare spending increases, so does the rate of uninsured Americans. Approximately 45 million Americans are uninsured, vi an increase of 1 million from 2000. vii The rising rate of uninsured Americans is the result of high unemployment levels, viii the escalating cost of insurance premiums, lack of access to employer-sponsored healthcare coverage, and the inability to qualify for federal- and state-sponsored health coverage. Uninsured Americans are more likely to skip recommended medical tests and treatments, forgo preventative healthcare services, and delay needed treatments. ix The aging baby-boomer population, combined with the increasing prevalence of Americans with disabilities and chronic diseases, place tremendous strains on publicly-funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare, which provides healthcare coverage to 45 million Americans who are 65 or older, disabled, or have end-stage renal disease, accounts for 14% of federal spending. x From 2006 to 2012, net federal spending on Medicare is projected to increase from $374 billion to $564 billion. The rising budget of the Medicare program is directly attributed to the composition of the program’s beneficiaries and their rendered services: 7 ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Advocacy@HIMSS.org
9. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress • In 2005, 10% of beneficiaries accounted for more than two-thirds of total Medicare spending; xi • About one-third of beneficiaries live with three or more chronic conditions; • In-patient hospital stays make up the program’s largest portion of expenses; and • Approximately 2.2 million beneficiaries reside in long-term care settings. xii Serving as the nation’s largest health coverage program, Medicaid covers an estimated 49.1 million low-income Americans, including families, people with disabilities, and the elderly. In 2007, Medicaid served approximately one in five Americans. In 2008, Medicaid spending is expected to reach $339 billion, an increase of 7.3 percent over 2007. Over the next 10 years, CMS expects expenditures to increase at an annual average rate of 7.9 percent, reaching $673.7 billion by 2017. xiii Nearly three-quarters of Medicaid spending is attributed to one-quarter of the beneficiaries, primarily elderly and disabled individuals. The intense use of acute and long-term care services by these beneficiaries will continue to place an enormous strain on the program. xiv, xv In the US, high levels of healthcare spending do not always correlate with high-quality care. According to the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) 2008 Fact Book, the US has the highest infant mortality rate (6.30) compared to other industrialized countries. Countries ranking higher than the US include Japan, United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Iceland, and France. xvi In addition, the US Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) estimates that the number of deaths from medical errors ranges from 44,000 to 98,000 a year. xvii The Promise of Health IT Health IT shows promise for transforming the delivery of healthcare in the US, improving population health and the overall efficiency and effectiveness of healthcare. Health IT, also referred to as “HIT,” can be defined as the use of computers and computer programs to store, protect, retrieve, and transfer clinical, administrative, and financial information electronically within and between healthcare stakeholders. Health IT is used in a variety of settings: in-patient (hospital, medical/surgical/ long-term care, etc.); out-patient (ambulatory and specialty); life sciences; payors; public health; and others. Examples of health IT include: • Electronic Health Records (EHRs) • Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) • Personal Health Records (PHRs) • Payor-based Health Records (PBHRs) • Electronic Prescribing (e-Prescribing) • Financial/Billing/Administrative Systems • Computerized Practitioner Order Entry (CPOE) Systems The potential benefits of health IT are enormous. Appropriately implemented and utilized, health IT can enable better access to healthcare services and information, resulting in improved healthcare outcomes and cost savings. Medical errors can be reduced and time constraints nearly eliminated when a caregiver uses health IT to review medical records or order healthcare services. Health IT also enables consumers to better communicate with their providers and manage their personal health, resulting in fewer office visits and better disease management. Outside of a provider’s office, health IT enables health information to be aggregated and applied 8 ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Advocacy@HIMSS.org
10. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress to such activities as population health monitoring and disaster management, and optimizes payments for care. The benefits of health IT can be broken down by two categories, “soft” return on investment (ROI) and “hard” ROI. Soft ROI addresses the benefits that are associated with patient safety, process improvement, and regulatory compliance. Hard ROI involves two measurements: quantifiable returns that can be demonstrated in financial terms and quality/process improvements that suggest cost savings that may fit an identifiable or measurable metric. Appendices 1 and 2 detail examples of ROI experienced among hospitals and ambulatory care providers. The providers that are included in the Appendices are recipients of the HIMSS Nicholas E. Davies Award of Excellence. Established in 1994, this program is a nationally-coveted award and peer- reviewed process founded upon the structure of the Malcolm Baldridge Award. Awards are granted on demonstrated excellence in implementation, and proven derived ROI value from EHR/EMR systems, acting as model practices for others to emulate. Priority Issues for Health IT While health IT holds great promise for healthcare throughout the US, the full benefits will not be reaped until policymakers, including Members of Congress and the Administration, appropriately address the following issues: • Leadership • Interoperability • Privacy and Security • Electronic Payments • Consumer Empowerment • Funding The Need for Strong Federal Leadership Many initiatives were developed in 2004, through Executive Order 13335, to help pave the way for the development of a nationwide infrastructure for electronic HIE. The continued support by the federal government for these initiatives is essential to build on the accomplishments of the past four years and to continue these efforts in the utmost capacity. Executive Order 13335 not only called for the widespread use of EHRs throughout the US by 2014, it also called for the creation of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) to coordinate health IT programs across the US. To date, the ONC has been instrumental in facilitating the American Health Information Community (AHIC) and a number of contracts concerning health IT. Examples of the ONC’s contact activities include: • Standards harmonization • Certification of EHR products • Advancement of a Nationwide Health Information Network (NHIN) • Enhancement of the safety of health information • Best-practices concerning state-level HIE activities • Fostering the use of health IT in the Gulf Coast regions affected by hurricanes in 2005 xviii 9 ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Advocacy@HIMSS.org
11. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress To date, the ONC has not been codified into law and does not have the adequate authority to coordinate health IT activities throughout all federal departments and the US. In the ever- changing healthcare, public health, and national security landscapes, policymakers should codify a senior-level health IT position within the administration to oversee a national health IT strategy and carry-out necessary responsibilities. As the federal advisory committee, comprised of healthcare leaders from the public and private sectors, AHIC made great strides in developing recommendations to the Secretary of HHS concerning how to best accelerate the adoption of interoperable health IT. Recommendations included such areas as consumer empowerment, chronic care, EHRs, biosurveillance, and quality. Today, a public/private collaborative body, the “AHIC Successor” is developing to serve as a collaborative on health IT. To ensure that public and private stakeholders continue to be actively engaged in the planning and development of health IT initiatives throughout the US, it is essential that a federal advisory committee on health IT, that is based on the experiences of the AHIC Successor organization, is developed to advise a senior level health IT leader within the administration. As healthcare reform is sure to be a top priority in 2009, it is essential that the Administration supports federal health IT initiatives, as well as heightens the awareness and understanding of the benefits that health IT holds for the entire healthcare community. The President is uniquely positioned to convene stakeholders throughout healthcare and collectively examine some of the leading challenges and issues facing health IT. A national event that is sponsored by the President, which focuses on reforming healthcare using IT, would amplify the importance of health IT and propel a national dialogue on the matter. Achieving Interoperability Through support by the federal government, many initiatives in the private sector play an instrumental role in ensuring the secure and interoperable exchange of health information. It is essential that the federal government continue to support existing initiatives to harmonize standards and certify health IT products. Since its inception in 2005, the Healthcare Information Technology Standards Panel (HITSP) has been leading the national effort to harmonize interoperability standards to facilitate the exchange of patient data. The mission of HITSP is to serve as a cooperative partnership between the public and private sectors to achieve a widely accepted and useful set of standards to enable the widespread interoperability among healthcare software applications, as they will interact in a local, regional and nationwide HIE. HITSP is comprised of 558 member organizations, including standards development organizations (SDOs), non-SDOs, government bodies, and consumer groups, and is administered by a board of directors. HITSP’s harmonization work has addressed such areas as EHRs, biosurveillance, consumer empowerment, medication management, quality and population health. xix It is essential that the federal government support HITSP to advance the standards harmonization effort to achieve interoperability of electronic health record systems. Building on standards harmonization that is made possible through HITSP, the Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology (CCHIT) is an independent, non-profit 10 ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Advocacy@HIMSS.org
12. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress organization that functions as a recognized certification body (RCB) for EHRs and their networks. The mission of CCHIT is to accelerate the adoption of health IT by creating an efficient, credible and sustainable certification program. CCHIT is governed by commissioners who represent a wide array of stakeholders throughout the healthcare community. To date, CCHIT has certified more than 150 EHR products, representing 50% of all vendors in the market and 75% of the overall EHR market to date. xx CCHIT has helped streamline the EHR market by serving as a trusted source to guide providers when adopting health IT products. CCHIT has also aided in fostering interoperability among products through implementation of its standards-based criteria. As stakeholders throughout the US continue to work to achieve the nationwide electronic exchange of health information, it is essential that the federal government leverage its role as the largest payor of healthcare and work to foster the use of CCHIT- certified health IT products that enable the large-scale secure and interoperable exchange of health information. Another challenge to interoperability within healthcare is the lack of an identity solution to effectively link a patient’s medical history across multiple settings and providers. Currently, statistical matching techniques are used to link a patient with his or her medical records through common identifiers such as last name, first name, date of birth, and part of a Social Security Number. Unfortunately, many of these identifiers can change over time and providers/payors do not always use the same set of identifiers for each patient. As a result, medical records are often incomplete and cannot be easily located and accessible among providers, and costs are increased due to confusing claims submissions. Without a common patient identity solution, patients are at risk for medical errors. xxi It is essential that the Secretary of HHS, under direction from the US Congress, establish a patient identity solution. Codes are another essential component to accurately exchanging health information among providers. Codes are applied by providers to identify services and diseases to reimburse providers for healthcare services. Codes pertain to Current Procedural Terminology (CPT), products, supplies, and the classification of diseases. As national and international standards setting organizations develop new codes and coding systems, it is important that healthcare adopts and implements the codes on a timely basis. For electronic HIE to be effective in improving the delivery of healthcare, and to optimize the payment of care, the global use of the most widely- accepted codes is essential to accurately exchange health information. Policymakers should continue to support the routine updating of codes and coding systems for effective healthcare delivery and payment. Providing for the Privacy and Security of Personal Health Information In addition to the need for policymakers to support numerous activities concerning the federal leadership for health IT and the interoperability across healthcare products, policymakers should address how to best ensure the privacy and security of protected health information (PHI) in an increasingly complex healthcare environment. Today, the legal and regulatory landscape surrounding the use and disclosure of PHI poses many challenges to achieving the nationwide exchange of health information. For example, while the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) addresses security and privacy regulations pertaining to the use of health data among Covered Entities (CEs) (healthcare providers, health plans, or healthcare clearing houses), state privacy laws and regulations often impose stricter regulations. Also, HIEs as entities are not covered by HIPAA. These may be among the reasons that the possibility of 11 ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Advocacy@HIMSS.org
13. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress electronic HIE thus far has been difficult to achieve. In addition, providers’ lack of knowledge and awareness concerning the appropriate use and disclosure of PHI could result in a reluctance to use health IT that would result in the overall improved efficiency of healthcare. Additional challenges concerning the privacy and security of PHI arise as new entities that are not considered CEs under HIPAA develop to facilitate electronic HIE. For example, new entities engaged in HIE and the storage and access of PHI that do not have contractual relationships with CEs, but offer a health IT solution to consumers, such as PHRs, are not subject to the HIPAA privacy and security regulations. Such offerings facilitate a migration of PHI outside of the traditional healthcare system and such a scenario is considered by some to pose great risk to consumers in ensuring the privacy and security of their health information. Yet a solution on how to govern such entities has not been established by the federal government. In an effort to address many of the challenges pertaining to the privacy and security of PHI, the federal government has supported initiatives to examine state and federal laws and regulations that pertain to the privacy and security of personal health information. Examples of these initiatives include the Health Information Security and Privacy Collaboration (HISPC), the State Alliance for e-Health, and the state-level HIE Consensus Project. To fully achieve the widespread exchange of health information throughout the US that provides for the utmost privacy and security of PHI, it is essential that the federal government not only continue to support these initiatives, but also ensure that legislative, regulatory, and industry best practice solutions are all leveraged in the most effective way possible to address some the most complex challenges concerning the privacy and security of PHI. Fostering Smart Business Practices in Healthcare As policymakers strive to automate healthcare through such health information systems as EHRs, it is important that health information management systems are equally applied in healthcare to improve the performance of everyday administrative functions among payors and providers, such as processing claims and bills. According to the McKinsey & Company, the US healthcare system consumes more than 15% of total expenditures on processing payments. In addition, it is estimated that providers spend $100 billion or more a year in managing claims and $150 billion is spent among public and private payors. While much of the high costs is associated with activities such as contract management and revenue cycle processes, one of the most important factors is the high cost of transmitting paper- based claims and payment of claims among payors and providers. McKinsey & Company finds that approximately 60% of all claims payments are paper-based, involving paper claims that are sent between payors and providers manually submitting and reconciling claims and depositing checks. Paper-based claims cost approximately $8 per item. Each year in the US, the volume of claim payments is 2.5 million. As the majority of reimbursements are based on paper checks, this costs healthcare $15 – $20 billion a year in postage, processing, and accounting. It is estimated that increasing the rate of electronic payment of claims to 90% from the current 40% could save $6 billion or more across the country. xxii Healthcare and the US economy can no longer afford to wait to bring their business practices into the 21st century. Congress should mandate an end to the use of paper checks for reimbursement among payors and providers of federally-funded healthcare programs. 12 ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Advocacy@HIMSS.org
14. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress Figure A. EMR Adoption Model (EMRAM). Assisting Providers in the Adoption and Use of Health IT While health IT holds great promise for healthcare in the US, not all providers have the financial means to adopt and use health IT products. Unless the federal government proactively assists providers with the financial incentives to adopt and use health IT, healthcare is decades away from reaping the benefits of the widespread exchange of health information. In a recent survey conducted by HIMSS and HIMSS Analytics, about 30% of the 500 surveyed ambulatory care providers use some component of an EMR in their organization. xxiii In addition, HIMSS Analytics’ EMR Adoption Model (EMRAM), based upon a census survey of 100% of medical/surgical non-federal hospitals in the US, indicates that over 80% of hospitals in the US use some level of an EMR (Figure A). The EMRAM identifies the levels of EMR capabilities ranging from the initial clinical data repository (CDR) environment through a paperless EMR environment. HIMSS Analytics can determine the level of EMR capabilities through a methodology and algorithms to score the 5,071 hospitals in its database relative to their progress in implementing the components of an EMR and to provide peer comparisons for care delivery organizations. According to some organizations, the potential savings from the widespread use of health IT could reach over $75 billion each year. For example, the RAND Corporation estimated that, if the healthcare system of the US implemented the use of computerized medical records, the system could save the US more than $81 billion each year. xxiv In addition, the Center for Information Technology Leadership (CITL) estimated that the implementation of national standards for 13 ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Advocacy@HIMSS.org
15. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress interoperability and the exchange of health information would save the US approximately $77 billion in expenses relating to healthcare each year. xxv Unfortunately, financial constraints inhibit many ambulatory and acute care providers (i.e., hospitals) from adopting health IT. According to some studies, initial costs that are associated with adopting health IT are approximately $33,000 xxvi or $10,000 over a three-year period. xxvii In addition, HIMSS Analytics estimates that the average cost for civilian US hospitals is approximately $13,529,000 – $19,585,000 billion to achieve an EMRAM Stage 4. To date, many federal programs, facilitated through such agencies as the Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA), CMS, and AHRQ, are working to foster the use of health IT among providers through the use of financial incentives, such as grants, loans, and increased reimbursement. Many of these programs are focused on those providers that serve the lowest- income Americans. To ensure that federal funds are used to their fullest extent, the federal government must authorize and appropriate funding for health IT in a strategic manner that will foster the wide-scale use of interoperable health IT and support the needs of underserved patient populations. Another challenge among providers in effectively utilizing health IT relates to the financial aspects of supporting telehealth services. While telehealth should not be interpreted as a form of health IT, health IT is an enabling component of telehealth services. According to the American Telemedicine Association (ATA), telehealth refers to a method of delivery care and healthcare services over distances. xxviii Financial challenges surrounding telehealth services relate to infrastructure and reimbursement. Today, lack of funding inhibits many communities from having the proper telecommunications infrastructure, primarily access to broadband, to provide telehealth services that rely on tools such as EMRs, medical imaging, and video conferencing. In 2007, to aid public and non-profit healthcare providers in building state and regional broadband networks for telehealth, the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Rural Health Care Pilot Program (RHCPP) dedicated over $417 million to healthcare entities in 42 states and three US territories. xxix Continued support and expansion of this program is essential for the long-term sustainability and growth of telehealth in the US. In addition to infrastructure, reimbursement for telehealth services is inadequate, inhibiting many providers from engaging in telehealth programs. Medicare is the key program providing reimbursement for telehealth services. Reimbursement for select telehealth services is also available among certain private health plans and some state Medicaid programs. xxx Unless a state mandates for a telehealth services to be covered by private health plans, reimbursement for telehealth services is available only through select Medicaid programs. Under Medicare, reimbursement for telehealth services is inconsistent among providers, services, and geographic regions. For example, even though telehealth can benefit any underserved community that lacks access to a specialized healthcare service, a foundational requirement for telehealth services under Medicare is that the service must be provided for outside of a metropolitan area. In addition, while telehealth holds great promise for home healthcare, Medicare does not reimburse for telehealth services delivered by home health agencies. It is essential that providers are recognized appropriately for their services that are delivered through telehealth. 14 ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Advocacy@HIMSS.org
16. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress Empowering Consumers through Health IT While there are many programs underway among federally-funded health programs that make health IT, such as PHRs and PBHRs, available to beneficiaries, there are no plans to ensure that all beneficiaries have access to such tools to better manage their health. Wide-spread use of health IT among beneficiaries would enable both the private and public sectors to empower consumers with health information through IT. Examples of such programs that are currently underway are through the Veteran’s Health Administration (VHA) and CMS. Through the VHA, veterans can access their PHR, “My Healthe –Vet,” to enter information about their medical and personal histories, as well as keep personal logs concerning their cholesterol and blood sugar levels. Through these features, clinicians are able to maintain a more comprehensive health record on a patient. My HealtheVet also provides patients access to literature and other clinical information. In addition, the patients can request prescription refills and even control who can see their information on the PHR. xxxi CMS is exploring the benefits of consumer-centric health IT. Through multiple pilot projects within Medicare, CMS is assessing the use of PHRs by identifying features that beneficiaries prefer and how a PHR can incorporate claims information from services outside of the program. xxxii, xxxiii Also through CMS, many state Medicaid programs are using health IT to foster consumer engagement with their healthcare. For example, through a Medicaid Transformation Grant, Oregon Medicaid is working to improve the efficiency in healthcare delivery by providing beneficiaries with their own PHR that is facilitated through the Health Record Bank of Oregon (HRBO). xxxiv As Medicare and Medicaid continue to serve some of the most chronically ill patient populations, it is essential that the programs strategically empower the beneficiaries with health IT. The Climate for Healthcare Reform As depicted above, healthcare in the US will continue to operate at inefficient and unsustainable levels unless real reforms are implemented to transform the delivery of care. In 2009, policymakers are determined to enact transformative healthcare policy to address escalating healthcare costs and disparities in access to healthcare services. As part of his campaign, President-Elect Barack Obama’s healthcare proposal included many measures aimed to improve the overall quality, efficiency, and access to healthcare. Aspects of then-candidate Obama’s campaign proposal included: • Provide for affordable and high quality universal coverage through a mix of private and expanded public insurance. • Require that all children have health insurance. • Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. • Create tax-credits to help small businesses provide affordable health insurance to their employees. • Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals and small businesses buy affordable health coverage. • Invest $50 billion toward the adoption of EMRs and other health IT. 15 ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Advocacy@HIMSS.org
17. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress • Improve the prevention and management of chronic conditions. • Reform medical malpractice. • Expand the primary care provider and public health practitioner workforce. • Reduce healthcare costs by allowing the importation of safe medicine. xxxv • Expand funding to ensure a strong workforce that will champion prevention and public health activities. xxxvi As President-elect, Barack Obama is now considering including health IT as part of an economic stimulus package to be introduced in early 2009. xxxvii Healthcare reform has been a long-term priority for many Members of Congress. During the 110th Congress, healthcare reform legislation was introduced in the US House of Representatives and US Senate. Common themes included in legislation pertained to the expansion of federal health insurance, coverage requirements for health plans, application of health IT, and tax credits to assist individuals in purchasing health insurance (Appendix 3). In preparation for the 111th Congress, Members of Congress are already engaged in healthcare reform deliberations. For example, in November, 2008, Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) released a report entitled “Call to Action,” which detailed priorities and next steps for healthcare reform. Also in November, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) announced the formation of three Work Groups within the US Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to deal with critical issues of healthcare reform, such as prevention and public health, quality, and insurance coverage. No matter what form it takes, healthcare reform is sure to be a priority in 2009 and beyond. Healthcare reform is viewed as an even greater priority by policymakers given the current economic climate. In turn, there is no telling if healthcare reform will be considered through one piece of legislation, or numerous legislative vehicles. Conclusion As policymakers engage in deliberations concerning healthcare reform with the goal of re- creating a functional US healthcare system, it is essential that health IT is integrated into any healthcare reform proposal. Health IT is a pivotal tool in transforming the delivery and payment of healthcare, holding opportunities to improve the access and quality of healthcare, while decreasing the costs, empowering consumers in their healthcare decisions, and enhancing the privacy and security of personal health information. When incorporating health IT in healthcare reform policy, it is important that policymakers address some of the most priority issues facing the widespread integration of health IT in healthcare, such as leadership, interoperability, privacy and security, and funding. Policymakers should consider HIMSS’ recommendations concerning each of these priority issues to strengthen and sustain the success of their healthcare reform legislation, proposals, and regulation policies. 16 ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Advocacy@HIMSS.org
18. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress Recommendations 1. Invest a minimum of $25 Billion on Health IT: The US Congress should authorize and appropriate a minimum of $5 billion per year, from FY10-FY14, on health IT in non-governmental hospitals and physician practices xxxviii who contract with or receive funding from federal sources. Additional funding should be made available to provide comparable health IT adoption in federal and state-owned hospitals, public health departments, and physician practices. The following specific recommendations for increased federal funding aim to foster wide-scale use of interoperable health IT and support the needs of underserved patient populations: A. Incentivize EMR Adoption: The US Congress should authorize and appropriate funding for the Secretaries of HHS, the Department of Defense (DoD), and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to incentivize acute and ambulatory care providers, which contract with Medicare and Medicaid or receive federal funding, to adopt EMRs that apply HITSP interoperability specifications and are CCHIT- certified. The Secretary of HHS should provide adequate incentives, such as grants, loans, and tax benefits, to assist providers in adopting EMRs and improve the delivery of healthcare. i. The US Congress should direct the Secretary of HHS to incentivize all acute care providers that contract with Medicare and Medicaid or receive funding federal funding to achieve EMRAM xxxix Stage 4 implementation no later than December 31, 2014. To carry-out this requirement, the Secretary should provide adequate incentives, such as grants, loans, and tax benefits to providers for the purchase, implementation, change management, and training of EMR products that apply HITSP specifications and are CCHIT-certified. ii. The US Congress should direct the Secretary of HHS to incentivize all ambulatory care providers that contract with Medicare and Medicaid or receive federal funding to achieve EMR adoption to accomplish results such as, but not limited to, data repositories, basic medication management, ePrescribing, and clinical decision support no later than December 31, 2014. To carry-out this requirement, the Secretary should provide adequate incentives, such as grants, loans, and tax benefits to providers for the purchase, implementation, change management, and training of EMR products that apply HITSP specifications, are CCHIT-certified, and are integrated with practice payment systems. iii. The US Congress should direct the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Veterans Affairs to review their health IT programs and institute necessary requirements to advance EMR adoption by civilian entities that provide care to beneficiaries and their families. 17 ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Advocacy@HIMSS.org
19. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress B. Provide Health IT for Children: The US Congress should expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP) by providing funding to support the adoption of EMRs, PHRs, and PBHRs for Medicaid and SCHIP providers who deliver healthcare to children, with the goal of expanding the widespread use of payor data and EMRs among providers to achieve EMRAM Stage 4 no later than December 31, 2014. CMS should be empowered to coordinate activities with other agencies to ensure Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and Community Health Centers are engaged in the activity. State Medicaid and SCHIP programs would have the authority to determine how to best allocate the funds among providers and payors, requiring that funds be used for the application of HITSP interoperability specifications and CCHIT-certified health IT products to improve the delivery of healthcare. C. Establish Health IT Action Zones: The US Congress should authorize and appropriate funding for grants and other incentives to establish Health IT Action Zones that demonstrate effective practices for promoting the adoption of health IT by clinicians that provide care to individuals in vulnerable populations, as well as by providers who care for patients who are medically underserved and are impacted by health and/or digital disparities. Health IT Action Zones should also apply health IT to foster model clinical practices in disease management, address primary prevention and co-occurring chronic conditions, and target patients with low health literacy. Grants and other incentives should require the application of HITSP interoperability specifications and CCHIT-certified health IT products. In addition, the US Congress should require the Secretary, in collaboration with a senior level federal administrator for health IT, to carry-out a study evaluating the impact of Health IT Action Zones and make recommendations regarding the use of health IT to improve the health and healthcare of racial and ethnic minority groups. 2. Apply HITSP and CCHIT among all Federally Funded Health Programs: The US Congress should mandate that any funding appropriated for the purchase or upgrade of new health IT products among providers and payors of federally funded health programs only be allocated for the use of health IT products that apply HITSP interoperability specifications and are CCHIT-certified. This requirement should only be enforced when appropriate standards and certified products are available on the market. In addition, not later than December 31, 2014, all federally-funded health programs and all organizations that directly conduct business with federally-funded health programs must adhere to these same requirements. 3. Expand Stark Exemptions and Anti-kickback Safe Harbors: The Secretary of HHS should expand and make permanent the current Stark exemptions and Anti- kickback safe harbors for EMRs to cover additional healthcare software and related devices that apply HITSP interoperability specifications, are CCHIT-certified, and allow for better coordination of care and information sharing among related providers and their patients. In carrying-out out this recommendation, the Secretary should 18 ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Advocacy@HIMSS.org
20. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress implement necessary measures and requirements to protect against conflict of interest and improper relationships among providers. 4. Codify and Authorize the following: A. Codify HITSP as the National Standards Harmonization Body: The US Congress should codify HITSP as the national harmonization body responsible for collaborating with the public and private sector to achieve a widely accepted and useful set of standards to enable the widespread interoperability among healthcare software applications. Adequate funding should be authorized and appropriated for HITSP from FY10 – FY14. B. Codify a Senior Level Health IT Leader within the Administration: The US Congress should codify a senior-level position within the Administration for a set time period to specifically oversee a national health IT strategy and carry out the following responsibilities: i. Coordinate, mandate, and oversee the implementation of a national strategic plan on health IT. The strategic plan should include timelines, milestones, and goals for transforming healthcare using IT for all clinicians, payors, and consumers throughout the US. ii. Coordinate and oversee implementation of health IT initiatives across all agencies and departments of the federal government in coordination with similar efforts in the private sector. iii. Review federal health IT investments to ensure that federal health IT programs meet the objectives of the strategic plan to aid in the establishment of a nationwide interoperable infrastructure for health IT. iv. Facilitate a new initiative by the federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) Council that is focused on health IT. C. Authorize a Federal Advisory and Coordinating Body for Health IT: Based on the experiences of the AHIC and its Successor organization, the US Congress should authorize a federal advisory committee – operating under the Federal Advisory Committee Act – responsible for advising the Administration on health IT initiatives throughout the US and coordinating standards harmonization through collaboration with HITSP and CCHIT. The Committee should report to a senior-level health IT position within the Administration and include membership from the public and private sectors. In addition, the Committee should lead the development of federally-endorsed business cases for health information exchange on the local, state, and federal levels. The US Congress should authorize and appropriate adequate funding to support the functions of the Committee from FY10 – FY14. 19 ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Advocacy@HIMSS.org
21. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress 5. Conduct a White House Summit on Healthcare Reform through Information Technology: Within 90 days of assuming office, the President should host a White House Summit specifically focused on reforming healthcare using information technology. The Summit will provide an opportunity for leading health IT stakeholders to develop consensus and propose solutions to critical, national health IT issues within the context of the larger national healthcare reform debate. The bipartisan summit should include representatives from all stakeholder groups, including clinicians and consumers, with a goal to propose and support immediate legislative and regulatory changes that can transform our nation’s healthcare system. 6. Expand the FCC and RHCPP: The proper information infrastructure must be in place to support access to healthcare in underserved communities. The US Congress should expand the FCC’s RHCPP to incorporate not only rural healthcare providers, but all providers in underserved communities that require access to telehealth networks. In addition, the US Congress should require a study and report within one year after expansion of the RHCPP, to evaluate strengths and weaknesses within the program. 7. Reimburse for Remote Telehealth Visits: HIMSS supports the American Telemedicine Association’s (ATA) recommendation that remote telehealth visits provided by homecare agencies or related organizations should be appropriately recognized for the purposes eligibility and payment by Medicare, similarly to in- home, face-to-face visits. In addition, HIMSS recommends that the US Congress act upon such a recommendation within one year. xl 8. Broaden Medicare Reimbursement of Telehealth Services: The Secretary of HHS should evaluate and make recommendations to the US Congress within 90 days to broaden Medicare reimbursement of telehealth services. 9. Establish a Patient Identity Solution: The US Congress should direct the Secretary of HHS to establish a patient identity solution within one year that will enable the ability to uniquely and uniformly identify a patient and his/her medical history, while protecting the patient’s privacy, with respect to the various databases for completeness, accuracy, and the ability to provide for quality improvement research and analysis. The patient identity solution should be implemented by all clinicians who provide care to federal beneficiaries within two years after adoption. 10. Support Modern Coding Upgrades: The US Congress should direct the Secretary of HHS to support upgrades to modern coding systems, as defined by HITSP, on a timely and regular basis and streamline the healthcare standards’ implementation process by working with the industry in its rule-making process to determine how best to afford flexibility in keeping standards in pace with the industry through a timely and predicable process. 20 ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Advocacy@HIMSS.org
22. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress 11. Enable HIE: The US Congress should direct the Secretaries of HHS, DoD, and VA to incorporate incentives for provider and payor participation in HIE efforts and a Nationwide Health Information Network into other funding initiatives for health IT and healthcare transformation. 12. Conduct a Study and Develop a Roadmap for the Appropriate Uses and Disclosures of Personal Health Information: The US Congress should direct the Secretary of HHS to complete a study within one year on the current legal and regulatory environment affecting the uses and disclosures of electronic personal health information. This study should include HIPAA, state privacy laws, and other applicable federal and state laws and regulations (e.g., financial, fair information practices, consumer protection, etc.). The study should review the work of the ONC, HISPC, HITSP, and relevant work from other organizations. The study should result in the timely development of a pragmatic roadmap or framework concerning the appropriate uses and disclosures of personal health information and any policy recommendations necessary to support the exchange of health information between public and private sectors. The study should be facilitated by the senior health IT leader within the Administration and carried out by a balanced representation of healthcare, patient and information technology stakeholders. 13. Mandate Direct Deposits by 2010: The US Congress should mandate an end to the use of paper checks for reimbursement among the payors and providers of federally funded health programs by December 31, 2010. This action could serve as a tipping point for all payors and providers throughout the US to use electronic direct deposits, a measure which could save $6 billion or more a year in healthcare expenditures. xli 14. Incentivize PHR and PBHR Adoption: The US Congress should direct the Secretary of HHS to require all Medicare and Medicaid contractors or fee-for-service programs to create and make available PHRs and PBHRs for the beneficiaries of such programs. In addition, Medicare, Medicaid contractors or fee-for-service programs should provide incentives to beneficiaries to aid in adoption and utilization of PHRs and PBHRs. 21 ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Advocacy@HIMSS.org
23. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress i Health Care Costs 101 — 2005. California Health Care Foundation. March 2, 2005.http://www.chcf.org/. ii Rank Order- Infant Mortality Rate. 2008 CIA Fact Book. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html. iii Healthcare Costs and the Election, 2008. The Kaiser Family Foundation. Health08.org. http://www.kff.org/insurance/h08_7828.cfm. iv Healthcare Costs, A Primer: Key Information on Healthcare Costs and their Impact. Kaiser Family Foundation. August 2007. http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7670.pdf. v Trends in Healthcare Costs and Spending. Kaiser Family Foundation. September 2007. http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7692.pdf. vi Healthcare Costs and the Election, 2008. The Kaiser Family Foundation. Health08.org. http://www.kff.org/insurance/h08_7828.cfm. vii The Uninsured and Their Access to Healthcare. Medicaid and the Uninsured, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundations. http://www.kff.org/uninsured/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=13335. viii Impact on Unemployment Growth on Medicaid and SCHIP and the Number of Uninsured. Kaiser Fast Facts. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. http://slides.kff.org/chart.aspx?ch=360. ix The Uninsured and their Access to Healthcare. Medicaid and the Uninsured, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundations. http://www.kff.org/uninsured/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=13335. x Medicare Spending and Financing. Medicare. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305_03.pdf. xi Medicare Spending and Financing. Medicare. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305_03.pdf. xii Medicare, A Primer. March 2007. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7615.pdf. xiii 2008 Actuarial Report on the Outlook for Medicaid. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, United States Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ActuarialStudies/downloads/MedicaidReport2008.pdf. xiv Medicaid Spending Growth and Options for Controlling Cost. Congressional Testimony, Congressional Budget Office, Acting Director, Donald B. Marron. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/73xx/doc7387/07-13-Medicaid.pdf . xv The Medicaid Program at a Glance. Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. http://www.kff.org/medicaid/upload/7235-02.pdf. xvi Rank Order- Infant Mortality Rate. 2008 CIA Fact Book. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html. xvii Medical Errors, the Scope of the Problem. US Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/errback.htm. xviii Health Information Technology Initiatives: Major Accomplishments 2004-2006. Health Information Technology, the Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/news/Accomplishments2006.html. xix HIMSS Privacy and Security Toolkit: Managing Information Privacy and Security in Healthcare. HIMSS. Available at: http://www.himss.org/content/files/CPRIToolkit/version6/v6%20pdf/D10_HITSP.pdf. xx A Tipping Point for Healthcare IT, Says HHS. ChannelWeb. http://www.crn.com/healthcare/212100341 xxi Identity Crisis: An Examination of the Cost and Benefits of a Unique Patient Identifier for the US Health Care System. The Rand Corporation. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG753.pdf. xxii Overhauling the US Health Care Payment System. McKinsey & Company. http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Overhauling_the_US_health_care_payment_system_2012. xxiii Ambulatory Healthcare IT Survey. HIMSS Analytics. www.himssanalytics.org/docs/2008ambulatory_final.pdf. xxiv Health Information Technology: Can HIT Lower Costs and Improve Quality?”. Hillestad, Richard and Bigelow, James H. Rand. http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9136/. xxv The Value of Healthcare Information Exchange and Interoperability. Center for Information Technology Leadership. Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society; 2004. xxvi Medical Groups’ Adoption of Electronic Health Records and Information Systems. Gans et al. http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/24/5/1323. xxvii Partners for Patients Electronic Health Record Market Survey. American Academy of Family Physicians Center for Health Information Technology. http://www.centerforhit.org/PreBuilt/chit_2005p4pvendsurv.pdf. xxviii Telemedicine, Telehealth, and Health Information Technology. American Telemedicine Association. http://www.americantelemed.org/files/public/policy/HIT_Paper.pdf. xxix Rural Health Care Pilot Program. Universal Service Administrative Company. http://www.usac.org/rhc-pilot- program/tools/latest-news.aspx#111907. xxx Private Payer Reimbursement for Telemedicine Services in the United States. Department of Telecommunication. Michigan State University. http://www.americantelemed.org/files/public/policy/Private_Payer_Report.pdf. 22 ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Advocacy@HIMSS.org
24. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress xxxi Veteran’s Health Administration: The Best Value in Healthcare. HIMSS Foundation. http://www.himss.org/foundation/docs/RachelMayo.pdf. xxxii Health Plans Participate in CMS PHR Pilot to Help Medicare Beneficiaries Better Manage Their Health. America’s Health Insurance Plans. http://www.ahip.org/content/pressrelease.aspx?docid=20043. xxxiii CMS Expans Personal Health Record Pilot in South Carolina to Include Data from TRICARE. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/release.asp?Counter=3275&intNumPerPage=10&checkDate=& checkKey=&srchType=1&nu. xxxiv Overview of Medicaid Transformation Grant Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Oregon Health Record Bank. http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/hrb-oregon/project-info/overview1008.pdf. xxxv 2008 Presidential Healthcare Proposals: Side-by-Side Summary. Health08.org. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. http://www.health08.org/sidebyside_results.cfm?c=5&c=16. xxxvi Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s Plan to Lower Health Care Costs and Ensure Affordable, Accessible Health Coverage for All. Obama for President. www.barackobama.com. xxxvii Obama Adds Health IT to Economic Stimulus Package. Government Health IT. Available at: http://www.govhealthit.com/online/news/350702-1.html. xxxviii The figure is developed from estimates of the current cost of all ambulatory and acute care providers adopting EMRs. The cost estimates for ambulatory care providers are as follows: Using data from the US Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics’ “Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-2009”, we can determine that there are approximately 411,450 physicians who are either solo practitioners, partners in, or employed by, physician practices. According to “Evidence on the Costs and Benefits of Health Information Technology”, by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), 12% physicians in ambulatory practice have an EMR in their practice. Between these two data points, we can postulate that the 88% of physicians in private practices without EMRs equates to a number of 362,076. In addition, in reports by the American Academy of Family Physicians Center for Health Information Technology entitled “Partners for Patients Electronic Health Record Market Survey” and “Medical Groups’ Adoption of Electronic Health Records and Information Systems”, by Gans et al, we are able to derive a cost estimate between $30,000 and $33,000 per physician for a practice to adopt an EMR system. From the estimations of physicians in physician practices in the US, and the average cost of an EMR per physician, we can estimate that the initial cost of for these 362,076 physicians to adopt an EMR is $11.94 billion. In addition, according to “Can Electronic Medical Record Systems Transform Health Care: Potential Health Benefits, Savings, and Cost”, by Hillestad et al., published in the September/October 2005 edition of Health Affairs, the authors estimate that to achieve a 90% adoption of EMRs among physician practices would cost $17.2 billion over 15 years. Given the successes in EMR adoption to date, this number can be assumed to have lessened over the past three years. Using these data sources, we can determine that the cost estimate for all physicians working in physician practices to adopt an EMR is between $11-15 billion. The cost estimates for acute care providers are as follows: HIMSS Analytics estimates that the low-end estimate for all civilian US hospitals to achieve a “Stage 4” functionality is $13.5 billion with an estimate of $19.6 billion on the high end. As a result, we can estimate that it would cost $13-20 billion for all non-federal US hospitals to achieve Stage 4 functionality. From the ambulatory and acute care cost estimate, we can arrive at the estimate of a range of $24 – $35 billion that is needed for clinical practices and non-federal acute care providers to adopt EMRs. For this recommendation, the minimum cost estimate per year is rounded to $5 billion, resulting in an estimated minimum level of funding at $25 billion. xxxix HIMSS Analytics’ EMRAM identifies the levels of EMR capabilities of the 5,071 non-federal medical/surgical US hospitals. EMRAM levels range from Stage 0 – Stage 7. EMRAM Stage O indicates that a hospital has one or two, but not all three ancillary departmental systems to support the laboratory, pharmacy, or radiology. EMRAM Stage 4 indicates that a hospital has a clinical data repository, nursing documentation on at least one unit, remote access to its PACS, and uses computerized practitioner order entry and decision support protocols on at least one unit other than the emergency department, Stage 7 indicates that a hospital has a paperless EMR environment, the ability to share summary clinical and administrative information within HIEs, physician clinics or other hospitals, as well as patients, and clinical data warehousing and data mining capabilities to analyze their care data to improve protocols and patient care. 23 ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Advocacy@HIMSS.org
25. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress xl ATA’s Federal Policy Recommendations for Home Telehealth and Remote Monitoring. American Telemedicine Association. http://www.americantelemed.org/files/public/policy/Home_Telehealth_Policy_ver3_5.pdf. xli Overhauling the US Health Care Payment System. McKinsey & Company. http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Overhauling_the_US_health_care_payment_system_2012. 24 ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Advocacy@HIMSS.org
26. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress Appendix 1 Examples of Documented Soft Return on Investment from Use of EMR/EHR Systems i Category Examples • Maimonides Medical Center, a 705-bed hospital in New York City, Patient Safety saw problem medication orders drop by 58% and medication discrepancies by 55%. • Through use of an EMR/EHR system, 324-bed Cincinnati Children’s Hospital decreased medication errors by 50% and achieved nearly zero mislabeled lab specimens. • At Ohio State University Health Systems, online medication charting errors in transcription dropped to zero for departments using an EMR/EHR system, versus transcription errors of 26% in departments not using the system. • Each physician at University of Illinois Chicago Medical Center Process Improvement saved five hours per week in time spent reviewing resident orders. • Cincinnati Children’s decreased the time spent on the medication cycle entering orders, receiving orders, and shortening the care process for patients and staff by 52%. • In Chicago, Riverpoint Pediatrics decreased wait time by 36 minutes in all encounters – a 40% decrease. • Cooper Pediatrics of Duluth, Georgia decreased drug-refill wait times by 42% and lowered turnaround telephone call time by 75% (to less than 20 minutes). • Queens Health Network applies the system for sharing Communications documentation by all staff across the continuum of care, aiding in the elimination of duplication of activities. • Citizens Memorial in Bolivar, Missouri, eliminated the need for transport of documents by making the EMR/EHR system available from any of its care locations and hospital departments. “Message to Nursing” enables physicians to send patient instructions or information to a nurse. • Ohio State University Health System advanced full compliance Regulatory Compliance with institutional policies and bylaws regarding do-not-resuscitate orders and restraint orders. • Cincinnati Children’s saw orders permanently unsigned by physicians drop from 40% to around 10% and witnessed a corresponding 24% drop in verbal orders. ii, iii ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Advocacy@HIMSS.org 25
27. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress i All examples are from the Nicholas E. Davies Award. Established in 1994, the Davies Award – based upon the Baldridge National Quality Program – recognizes excellence in the implementation and value from health IT. There are four Davies Awards – Public Health, Organizational, Ambulatory, and Community Health Organizations. http://www.himss.org/davies/index.asp. ii The ROI of EMR-EHR Productivity Soars, Hospitals Save Time and, Yes, Money. HIMSS Nicholas E. Davies Award of Excellence. http://www.himss.org/content/files/davies/Davies_WP_ROI.pdf. iii Moving Ahead: EMR-EHR Drives Ambulatory Care. HIMSS Nicholas E. Davies Award of Excellence. http://www.himss.org/content/files/davies/Davies_WP_Ambulatory.pdf, ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Advocacy@HIMSS.org 26
28. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress Appendix 2 Examples of Documented Hard Return on Investment from Use of EMR/EHR Systems i Category Example • Citizens Memorial of Bolivar, Missouri, saw net patient revenues Patient Flow increase 23%. • Brooklyn’s Maimonides Medical Center experienced an increase in emergency department visits – from 57,795 in 1996 to 77,118 in 2002. In addition, length-of-stay declined from 7.26 days in 1995 to 5.05 days in 2001. • Evanston Northwestern in Evanston Illinois increased volume Materials and Staff Reductions equivalent to eliminating 65 full-time employees throughout the corporation, or $4 million in savings. In addition, the hospital reduced personnel in the emergency department, medical records, and billing, and decreased overtime and temporary expenses, resulting in a total savings of $7.78 million. • In Decatur, Illinois, Heritage Behavioral Health saved $473,859 over three years in the following areas: $211,000 for transcription and documentation; $146,000 for chart audit paybacks; and $117,000 for back-office staffing reductions. • Maimonides saw profits rise from $761,000 in 1996 to $6.1 million Billing Improvements in 2001 as a result of improved bill collection. • Chicago’s Riverpoint Pediatrics increased collection rates from 52% to 88 % and eliminated claims denied due to coding errors. Insurance payment turnaround time fell from between 30 and 60 days, to approximately 15 days. • Southwest Texas Medical, in Beaumont, saw charges rise from $171 to $206 per patient encounter, a 20% jump. A year after implementation, the clinic’s total billable hours increased by $2.1 million, while collections rose $1.4 million. • Citizens Memorial experienced a decrease in accounts receivable for its physicians from more than 80 days to fewer than 50 days by centralizing billing and charging functions, and consolidating the databases of 16 clinics. ii, iii i All examples are from the Nicholas E. Davies Award. Established in 1994, the Davies Award – based upon the Baldridge National Quality Program – recognizes excellence in the implementation and value from health IT. There are four Davies Awards – Public Health, Organizational, Ambulatory, and Community Health Organizations. http://www.himss.org/davies/index.asp. ii The ROI of EMR-HER Productivity Soars, Hospitals Save Time and, Yes, Money. HIMSS Nicholas E. Davies Award of Excellence. http://www.himss.org/content/files/davies/Davies_WP_ROI.pdf. iii Moving Ahead: EMR-EHR Drives Ambulatory Care. HIMSS Nicholas E. Davies Award of Excellence. http://www.himss.org/content/files/davies/Davies_WP_Ambulatory.pdf. ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Advocacy@HIMSS.org 27
29. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and 111th Congress Appendix 3 Enabling Healthcare Reform Using Information Technology Electronic Medical Record Capabilities and Expected Benefits in US Non-federal Hospitals and Physician Clinics December 17, 2008 Overview Understanding the level of electronic medical records (EMR) capabilities in hospitals and clinics is a challenge in the US healthcare IT market. HIMSS AnalyticsTM has created an EMR Adoption ModelSM that identifies the levels of EMR capabilities ranging from limited ancillary department systems through a paperless EMR environment in hospitals. HIMSS Analytics has developed a methodology and algorithms to automatically score the more than 5,000 non-federal, US hospitals in our database relative to their IT-enabled clinical transformation status, to provide peer comparisons for hospital organizations as they strategize their path to a complete EMR and participation in an electronic health record (EHR) or Health Information Exchange initiative. HIMSS Analytics has also created a similar Ambulatory EMR Adoption Model. Both of the models—and the expected benefits to be derived from the various stages—follow in this document. By December 31, 2014, with the proper incentives and funding, we believe it is reasonable to expect that all non-federal US hospitals can reach Stage 4, and all non-federal physician practices can reach Stage 3. EMR Adoption ModelSM for Hospitals and Expected Benefits for Each Stage The stages of the acute care model, and examples of what healthcare organizations at each of those stages could be expected to achieve in efficiencies and outcomes, are as follows. Note that all benefits by stage are cumulative and will be realized by all higher stages. Electronic Medical Record Capabilities and Expected Benefits in US 28 Non-federal Hospitals and Physician Clinics © 2008 HIMSS and HIMSS Analytics
30. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and 111th Congress Stage 0: Not all major ancillary clinical systems are installed (i.e., pharmacy, laboratory, radiology). One or two may be, but not all three. • Hospitals of the 60s. • Operational efficiencies for the automated ancillary departments. • Diagnostic results may be available for access by clinicians. • Some base level clinical decision support may be available, such as medication conflict checking in pharmacy systems, or duplicate or inappropriate test monitoring in laboratories. Stage 1: All three major ancillary clinical systems are installed. • Lab and radiology test results can be sent electronically to ordering physician, assuming the lab and radiology systems have that capability built in. • Diagnostic results can be accessed from the various ancillary clinical systems, and single sign-on functions improve the efficiency for accessing results from multiple systems. Stage 2: Major ancillary clinical systems feed data to a clinical data repository (CDR) that provides physician access for retrieving and reviewing results. The CDR contains a controlled medical vocabulary and the clinical decision support/rules engine. Information from document imaging systems may be linked to the CDR. • Ancillary systems can be interfaced to repository to use CDR’s results reporting capability – allows physicians remote access to results. • ADT & patient accounting can also be interfaced to repository to enable population of billing records – internal efficiencies for hospitals. • Reliance on the paper chart is significantly reduced for care delivery. • Data can be used to supplement outcomes and business analysis. Stage 3: Clinical documentation (e.g., vital signs, flow sheets) is required; nursing notes, care plan charting, and/or the electronic medication administration record (eMAR) system are scored with extra points and are implemented and integrated with the CDR for at least one medical/surgical unit in the hospital. The first level of clinical decision support is implemented to conduct error checking with order entry (i.e., drug/drug, drug/food, drug/lab conflict checking normally found in the pharmacy). Some level of medical imaging access from picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) is available for access by physicians outside the radiology department via the organization’s intranet or via the Web. • Significant efficiencies for nursing – standardization of nursing practice, alerts and reminders, electronic medication administration record integrated with pharmacy system which contributes to reducing medication errors, validating patient histories rather than recreating them, and so on. • Remote access to radiology images helps eliminate duplicate tests, saves physicians from having to drive from home in the middle of the night to read a film of an ER patient. • Adds a significant component of clinical data to further supplement outcomes and nursing protocol analysis. Stage 4: Computerized practitioner order entry (CPOE) for use by any clinician is added to the nursing and CDR environment along with the second level of clinical decision support capabilities related to evidence-based medicine protocols. If one patient service area has implemented CPOE and completed the previous stages, then this stage has been achieved. • Improves patient safety by eliminating medication errors associated with handwriting errors. Electronic Medical Record Capabilities and Expected Benefits in US 29 Non-federal Hospitals and Physician Clinics © 2008 HIMSS and HIMSS Analytics
31. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and 111th Congress • Improves patient safety by adding a higher level of clinical decision support at order creation. • Improves billing functions by ensuring all orders for patient services have been captured. • Improves outcomes by eliminating order rework that may delay medication and treatment administration. • Improves formulary compliance for medication orders. Stage 5: The closed-loop medication administration environment is fully implemented. The eMAR and bar coding or other auto identification technology, such as radio frequency identification (RFID), are implemented and integrated with CPOE and pharmacy to maximize point-of-care patient-safety processes for medication administration. • Improves patient safety – reduces or eliminates medication errors. • Improves outcomes by reducing the time from medication order to medication administration. • Improves medication management by identifying potential medication errors that clinicians may not be aware of. • Improves the tracking of all medications dispensed and administered. • Provides a data set to improve the management and administration of medications for use in both outcomes and protocols analyses. • Nurse recruiting and retention are improved. Stage 6: Full physician documentation/charting (structured templates) is implemented for at least one patient care service area. Level three of clinical decision support provides guidance for all clinician activities related to protocols and outcomes in the form of variance and compliance alerts. A full complement of radiology PACS systems provides medical images to physicians via an intranet and displaces all film-based images. • Improves the timeliness and accuracy of physician documentation to support care delivery processes. • Provides a higher level of clinical decision support with physician protocols and therefore improves clinical outcomes. • Eliminates or significantly reduces the costs/expenses for dictation and transcription. • Provides on-line access to all radiological medical images to improve physician consult processes. • May reduce length of stay for many services. • May reduce discharge-not-final-billed days for many services. • May improve a hospital’s bond rating. • Creates another data set that further improves the ability to more effectively evaluate clinical outcomes and clinical protocols. Stage 7: The hospital has a paperless EMR environment. Clinical information can be readily shared via electronic transactions or exchange of electronic records with all entities within a health information exchange (i.e., other hospitals, ambulatory clinics, sub-acute environments, employers, payors and patients) using the Continuity of Care Document (CCD) transaction standard. The hospital is also using clinical data warehousing solutions to improve treatment protocols and review quality outcomes. • Paper charts/documents no longer negatively impact patient care relative to access or timeliness of data. • All medical record data is on-line and available to all clinicians via secured access. Electronic Medical Record Capabilities and Expected Benefits in US 30 Non-federal Hospitals and Physician Clinics © 2008 HIMSS and HIMSS Analytics
32. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and 111th Congress • All patient care data can be shared with other organizations that are treating the patient using a standard transaction that contains clinical data. • The majority of the patient care data is discrete and provides a rich environment for analyzing clinical outcomes and protocols in a more timely and complete manner. • Quality and outcomes reporting is a by product of the complete EMR environment. • Competitive market advantages are achieved for the population that is served. EMR Adoption ModelSM for Physician Clinics and Expected Benefits for Each Stage The stages of the physician clinic model, and examples of what clinics at each of those stages could be expected to achieve in efficiencies and outcomes are as follows. Note that all benefits by stage are cumulative and will be realized by all higher stages. Stage 0: Paper charts are the only means of storing and accessing clinical information (even if there is a computerized billing system), and Web browsers are not routinely used for any clinical purposes. • The status quo in the majority of physician offices in the US today. Stage 1: The clinic provides a Web browser on the physician and/or nurse desktops for access to online reference material, eligibility information, lab results, etc. Permanent electronic storage of chart notes provided after transcription, but notes are only free text. The patient records are accessible from multiple computers via a local area network. Electronic messaging exists for informal, unstructured intra-office communication. Calling/faxing of prescriptions to pharmacies. • Physicians have access to clinical protocol and content Websites for researching diagnoses and treatment information. • Clinic offices are more efficient and more profitable. Stage 2: Computers/handheld device may be at point-of-care but use is partial or optional. Basic medication management—electronic prescribing, maintaining medication lists, refill tracking. Electronically assisted ordering of tests and referrals (but no closed-loop tracking yet). Beginnings of a clinical data repository—ability to search for patients with particular diagnosis or particular medication. Electronic messaging is increasingly relied upon for clinical collaboration. • Patient safety increased by legible, computer-generated prescriptions. • Improved patient care with the use of order sets that ensure complete and thorough diagnostic testing based on protocols and clinical guidelines. Stage 3 Computers have replaced the paper chart, are used at the point-of-care, and are mandatory for all clinical documentation (i.e., patient histories). Basic clinical decision support for medication interactions, medication allergies used before patient leaves the office. Electronic import and storage of lab results in structured form. Capture of some structured data from within encounters—vital signs, immunizations, etc. Electronic messaging is a standard means of intra-and inter-office clinical collaboration. Connectivity to hospitals for electronic receipt of discharge summaries, including care plans and transmission of admission documents. Electronic Medical Record Capabilities and Expected Benefits in US 31 Non-federal Hospitals and Physician Clinics © 2008 HIMSS and HIMSS Analytics
33. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and 111th Congress • Patient safety increased by drug interaction warnings by checking known current medications with medications being ordered to identify and flag any potential interactions. • Savings to clinic practice in management of phone calls, time spent on chart pulls, reduction in transcription staff, new chart costs, reduction in medical records staff and device connectivity – more efficient operations, better service to patients. • Decreases in patient wait time, drug refill time, telephone call turnaround time. • Increases in efficiency of clinicians to be able to see more patients per day and increase in patient volume. Stage 4: Advanced clinical decision support—protocols, preventive care reminders based on diagnoses, medications, results, orders. Population-based quality measurement and reporting capabilities. Secure messaging and online consultations between physician and patient. Maintenance of an online personal health record for patients. Multiple payor eligibility, claims status inquiry and referral information messaging transactions between physician and payor. Structured messaging between physician, physician staff and payors for automation of disease management cases & communication and reminders to support clinical guidelines. • Further reductions in medication errors due to advanced clinical decision support tools. • Physicians able to easily participate in pay-for-performance initiatives due to quality and outcome reporting capabilities. • Clinics lower costs by using electronic data interchange in eligibility, claims, and remittance advice transactions. Stage 5: Proactive and automated outreach to patients for preventive care and chronic disease management. Proactive searching for patients with particular conditions and medications as new clinical evidence develops. Interconnected regional/community of physicians, hospitals, lab companies, health plans, pharmaceutical industry, imaging companies and patients to easily share and exchange information and collaborate for improved patient care. Capable of sending and receiving Continuity of Care Document transactions with other stakeholders. • Physicians now able to move from predominate focus on sick care to wellness and prevention activities with chronic illness patients. • Clinics connected to health information exchanges that share patient encounter information with other providers and feed personal health records for consumers. For more information, contact Mike Davis at mdavis@himssanalytics.org or Pat Wise at pwise@himss.org. Electronic Medical Record Capabilities and Expected Benefits in US 32 Non-federal Hospitals and Physician Clinics © 2008 HIMSS and HIMSS Analytics
34. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress Appendix 4 Examples of Healthcare Reform Legislation in the 110th Congress Legislation Sponsor Summary H.R. 1841, the AmeriCare Representative Pete Stark The AmeriCare Health Care Act of 2007 would make all US Health Care Act of 2007 (D-CA) residents eligible for benefits under the AmeriCare health plan, require the modification of Medicaid to protect against duplication with the new federal health plan, require the submission of standards electronic claims, promulgate standards for EMRs, and require uniform cost reporting by hospitals. i Representative Ron Paul The Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act of 2007 aims H.R. 3343, the (D-TX) to improve the accessibility and affordability of healthcare Comprehensive Health Care coverage through tax credits for health insurance costs and Reform Act of 2007 tax deductions for payments to health savings accounts. ii S. 334, the Healthy Senator Ron Wyden (D- The Healthy Americans Act aims to make available the Americans Act (H.R. 3163) OR) opportunity for every individual to purchase healthcare through the establishment of a Healthy Americans Private Insurance Plan (HAPI). In addition, the legislation would establish school-based health centers, establish Chronic Care Education Centers, and establish state Health Help Agencies (HHA) to carry out initiatives concerning prevention and wellness and the use and understanding of health IT. iii S. 3072, the Making Health Senator Ron Wicker (R- The Making Health Care More Affordable Act of 2008 aims Care More Affordable Act of MI) to provide comprehensive healthcare reform through tax 2008 (H.R.5955) credits for health insurance costs. The legislation would, among many things, enable small businesses to band together to buy health plans, allow individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines, and provide for certification and auditing of health record banking. iv S. 1783, the Ten Steps to Senator Michael Enzi (R- The Ten Steps to Transforming Healthcare in America Act Transforming Healthcare in WY) recommends ten steps to transform healthcare in America, America Act through such mechanisms as directing states to automatically enroll uninsured individuals, requiring health insurers in each state to offer certified plans, establishment of the Health Insurance Consensus Standards Board to develop recommendations to harmonize inconsistent state health insurance laws, codification of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information technology, establishment of the American Health Information Community, directing the development of healthcare quality measures, and authorizing grants for medical residency programs. v ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). 33 Advocacy@HIMSS.org
35. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress i H.R. 1841, the AmeriCare Health Care Act of 2007. Thomas, The Library of Congress. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1841. ii H.R. 3343, the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act of 2007. Thomas, Library of Congress. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110H8gafm. iii S. 334, the Healthy Americans Act. Thomas, The Library of Congress. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi- bin/query/z?c110:S.334. iv S. 3072, the Making Healthcare More Affordable Act of 2008. Thomas, Library of Congress. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110PYihVM. v S.1783, Ten Steps to Transform Healthcare In America Act. Thomas, Library of Congress. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:96:./temp/~c110wQJpaG. ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). 34 Advocacy@HIMSS.org
36. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress Call for Action Enabling Healthcare Reform Using Information Technology Appendix 5 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT HEALTH IT The Economy, Employment, Cost Savings The US is currently in a recession. What is the business case for spending money to implement health IT? According to the McKinsey & Company, the US healthcare system consumes more than 15% of total expenditures on processing payments. In addition, it is estimated that providers spend $100 billion or more a year in managing claims and $150 billion is spent among public and private payors. While much of the high costs are associated with such activities as contract management and revenue cycle processes, one of the most important factors is the high cost of transmitting paper- based claims and payment of claims among payors and providers. McKinsey & Company finds that approximately 60% of all claims payments are paper-based, involving a paper claims that are sent between payors and providers manually submitting and reconciling claims and depositing checks. As a result, paper-based claims cost approximately $8 per item. Each year in the US, the volume of claim payments is 2.5 million. As the majority of reimbursements are based on paper checks, this costs healthcare $15 – $20 billion a year in postage, processing, and accounting. It is estimated that increasing the rate of electronic payment of claims to 90% from the current 40% could save $6 billion or more across the country. i What impact will health IT have on the workforce? The following information is from Dr. William Hersh, Oregon Health and Science University: Health IT has the potential to create jobs. Research conducted by Oregon Health & Science University in 2008 showed that to achieve the full benefits of health IT, an additional 40,000 IT professionals will be required. Although this seems like a large number, it will pay for itself with increased efficiency of the healthcare system. Investment in health IT also has the potential to ameliorate some of the biggest job casualties of the current economic downturn. Investing in the retooling of IT professionals from other industries to work in health IT will also benefit educational programs that cater to such individuals. 35 ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS).
37. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress How did the Workgroup arrive at the recommended figure for non-governmental hospitals and physician practices — $25 billion? The figure is developed from estimates of the current cost for all non-governmental ambulatory and acute care providers to adopt EMRs. The cost estimates for private sector ambulatory care providers are as follows: Using data from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics’ “Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-2009,” we can determine that there are approximately 411,450 physicians who are either solo practitioners, partners in, or employed by, physician practices. According to “Evidence on the Costs and Benefits of Health Information Technology,” by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), 12% physicians in ambulatory practice have an EMR in their practice. Between these two data points, we can postulate that the 88% of physicians in private practices without EMRs equates to a number of 362,076. In addition, in reports by the American Academy of Family Physicians Center for Health Information Technology entitled “Partners for Patients Electronic Health Record Market Survey” and “Medical Groups’ Adoption of Electronic Health Records and Information Systems,” by Gans et al, we are able to derive a cost estimate between $30,000 and $33,000 per physician for a practice to adopt an EMR system. From the estimations of physicians in physician practices in the US, and the average cost of an EMR per physician, we can estimate that the initial cost of for these 362,076 physicians to adopt an EMR is $11.94 billion. In addition, according to “Can Electronic Medical Record Systems Transform Health Care: Potential Health Benefits, Savings, and Cost,” by Hillestad et al., published in the September/October 2005 edition of Health Affairs, the authors estimate that to achieve a 90% adoption of EMRs among physician practices would cost $17.2 billion over 15 years. Given the successes in EMR adoption to date, this number can be assumed to have lessened over the past three years. Using these data sources, we can determine that the cost estimate for all physicians working in physician practices to adopt an EMR is between $11-15 billion. The cost estimates for acute care providers are as follows: HIMSS Analytics estimates that the low-end estimate for all civilian US hospitals to achieve a “Stage 4” functionality is $13.5 billion with an estimate of $19.6 billion on the high end. As a result, we can estimate that it would cost $13-20 billion for all non-federal US hospitals to achieve Stage 4 functionality. From the ambulatory and acute care cost estimate, we can arrive at the estimate of a range of $24 – $35 billion that is needed for clinical practices and non-federal acute care providers to adopt EMRs. For this recommendation, the minimum cost estimate per year is rounded to $5 billion, resulting in an estimated minimum level of funding at $25 billion. What is the estimated total cost savings from implementing health IT? HIMSS’ Nicholas E. Davies Award of Excellence documents both hard and soft return on investment for health IT acquisitions. This documentation is available in four healthcare settings: Organizational (hospitals & IDNs); Ambulatory; Community-Health Organizations; and, Public Health. The Award has been in existence for more than 10 years and has a rich library of resources publicly available. Two published studies – both from 2005 – focused on the potential savings from the widespread, 36 ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS).
38. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress appropriate use of health IT: RAND Corporate and the Center for Information Technology Leadership (CITL). Finally, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published an analysis in 2008 that reviewed all available, published research regarding costs and savings of IT in healthcare. In early December 2008, The Joint Commission issued a warning that the implementation of technology and related devices is not a guarantee for success of healthcare, and may actually jeopardize the quality and safety of patient care. Health IT is not a panacea. However appropriately implemented – and used effectively – it can improve quality, decrease costs, and save lives. To improve the quality and safety of care through IT, healthcare entities must engage stakeholders in the acquisition and change management processes, and train their staffs to use the systems. Is there any proof that health IT actually does improve quality, and reduce errors and costs? Yes. Since 1994, the HIMSS Nicholas E. Davies Organizational Award of Excellence has recognized excellence in the implementation and derived value of health information technology. Its original and continuing mission is to promote the value of, and provide education about, full implementation of electronic health records (EHRs). The award launched with a focus on hospitals and health systems, and expanded to include physician practices, public health organizations, and most recently, community health organizations. The Davies Award examines the actual use of HIT based on a set of rigorous criteria including pervasive use of the electronic medical record as the primary source of care information, practitioner order entry, clinical decision support, and documented organizational improvement in patient safety and quality outcomes. Davies Award recipients must supply documented evidence on the return on investment (ROI) from their utilization of Health IT. Two types of measurements are consistently described; quantifiable returns that can be demonstrated in financial terms and measurable process improvements as well as ROI derived from reduction of medication error, point of care decision support, access to important patient information when and where it is needed and aggregated data analysis. A very few examples of documented return on investment experienced by recent Davies Award recipients include the following. The Davies Award has been in existence for more than a decade – there are many additional examples available. At Northshore University Health System in Evanston Illinois, errors and near-misses caused by transcription errors – which, prior to implementation – used to represent 42 percent of total errors, were eliminated. Allina Hospitals and Clinics in Minneapolis anticipate a $65 million in return on investment from their health IT, once it is fully rolled out to all facilities. 37 ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS).
39. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress Thanks to appropriately implemented health IT, Wayne Obstetrics and Gynecology in Jessup Georgia increased the number of patients clinicians could see by 225 percent – while reducing the hours clinicians spent documenting patient encounters. More time with patients – less time with paperwork. And, in the Cherokee Indian Hospital Authority, post-implementation the Nation was able to achieve tangible improvements in public health in many areas: increased use of screenings for tobacco use, domestic violence, and cervical and breast cancer; assessments alcohol use and dependence among women of child-bearing age, provision of pneumovax to citizens over the age of 65, higher percentages of citizens with an LDL in goal range, and assessment of hypertension resulting in reductions in the percentage of patients with uncontrolled hypertension. ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS ADOPTION MODEL What is the EMR Adoption Model? HIMSS Analytics, the HIMSS research arm, surveys every non-federal medical/surgical hospital in the US every year, and gathers comprehensive data on the hospitals’ use of healthcare IT. It has created a model for measuring the progress that American hospitals are making in the implementation and use of electronic medical records, and, in a word, the progress is “slow.” The EMR Adoption Model shows, as of September 30, 2008, only 4.3 percent of American non- federal hospitals are at Stage 4 and above, meaning those that have gone beyond having a clinical data repository and nursing documentation implemented, and have computerized practitioner order entry and full clinical decision support on at least one in-patient unit, closed loop medication administration on at least one in-patient unit, physician documentation on at least one in-patient unit, or the ability to fully populate a Continuity of Care Document standard transaction to other stakeholders in a health information exchange and the ability to use data warehousing and data mining tools to analyze patient data to create and improve protocols. We have a long way to go. Please explain the stages of the EMR Adoption Model. HIMSS Analytics’ EMRAM identifies the levels of EMR capabilities of the 5,071 non-federal medical/surgical US hospitals. EMRAM levels range from Stage 0 – Stage 7. Stage 0: Some clinical automation may be present, but all three of the major ancillary department systems for laboratory, pharmacy, and radiology are not implemented. Stage 1: All three of the major ancillary clinical systems (pharmacy, laboratory, radiology) are installed. Stage 2: Major ancillary clinical systems feed data to a clinical data repository (CDR) that provides physician and other clinician access for retrieving and reviewing results. The CDR contains a controlled medical vocabulary (CMV), and the clinical decision support/rules engine (CDSS) for rudimentary conflict checking. Information from document imaging systems may be linked to the CDR at this stage. 38 ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS).
40. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress Stage 3: Clinical documentation (e.g., vital signs, flow sheets) is required; nursing notes, care plan charting, and/or the electronic medication administration record (eMAR) system are scored with extra points, and are implemented and integrated with the CDR for at least one service or one unit in the hospital. The first level of clinical decision support is implemented to conduct error checking with order entry (i.e., drug/drug, drug/food, drug/lab conflict checking normally found in the pharmacy). Some level of medical image access from picture archive and communication systems (PACS) is available for access by physicians via the organization’s intranet or other secure networks outside of the confines of the radiology department. Stage 4: Computerized practitioner order entry (CPOE) for use by any clinician is added to the nursing and CDR environment along with the second level of clinical decision support capabilities related to evidence-based medicine protocols. If one patient service area (not counting the Emergency Department) has implemented CPOE and completed the previous stages, then this stage has been achieved. Stage 5: The closed loop medication administration environment is fully implemented in at least one patient care service area. The eMAR and bar coding or other auto identification technology, such as radio frequency identification (RFID), are implemented and integrated with CPOE and pharmacy to support the five rights of medication administration, thereby maximizing point of care patient safety processes. Stage 6: Full physician documentation/charting (using structured templates) is implemented for at least one patient care service area. Level three of clinical decision support provides guidance for all clinician activities related to protocols and outcomes in the form of variance and compliance alerts. A full complement of radiology PACS systems provides medical images to physicians via an intranet and displaces all film-based images. If a hospital has cardiology PACS, extra points are given. Stage 7: The hospital has a paperless EMR environment. Clinical information can be readily shared via continuity of care (CCD) electronic transactions with all entities within health information exchange networks (i.e., other hospitals, ambulatory clinics, sub-acute environments, employers, payors and patients). This stage allows the healthcare organization to support the true sharing and use of health and wellness information by consumers and providers alike. Also at this stage, healthcare organizations use data warehousing and mining technologies to capture and analyze care data, and improve care protocols via decision support. What are the benefits of achieving Stage 4? The benefits of Stage 4 are as follows: • Improves patient safety by eliminating medication errors associated with handwriting errors. • Improves patient safety by adding a higher level of clinical decision support at order creation. • Improves billing functions by ensuring all orders for patient services have been captured. • Improves outcomes by eliminating order rework that may delay medication and treatment administration. • Improves formulary compliance for medication orders. 39 ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS).
41. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress For more information, read HIMSS Analytics’ EMR Adoption Description and Outcomes, which is available online at www.himss.org/2009CalltoAction PRIVACY AND SECURITY What does HIMSS recommend to address privacy and security issues? Today, the current legal and regulatory landscape surrounding the use and disclosure of PHI poses many challenges to achieving the benefits of the use of electronic health data to achieve cost, quality and safety benefits. In an effort to address many of the challenges pertaining to the privacy and security of PHI, the federal government has supported initiatives to examine state and federal laws and regulations that pertain to the privacy and security of personal health information. Examples of these initiatives include: • The Health Information Security and Privacy Collaboration (HISPC), • The State Alliance for e-Health, and • The State-level HIE Consensus Project. In addition, the Federal Government has facilitated privacy and security implementation challenges thorough programs like CCHIT and HITSP. To fully achieve the widespread exchange of health information throughout the US that provides for the privacy and security of PHI, it is that the policy makers not only continue to support these initiatives but also to ensure that legislative, regulatory and industry best practices solutions are all leveraged in the most effective way possible to address the complex challenges concerning the privacy and security of PHI. With regard to determining the need for legislative action on privacy, HIMSS’ report recommends the following: Conduct a Study and Develop a Roadmap for the Appropriate Uses of Personal Health Information: • The US Congress should direct the Secretary of HHS to complete a study within one year on the current legal and regulatory environment affecting the uses and disclosures of electronic personal health information. • This study should include HIPAA, state privacy laws, and other applicable federal and state laws and regulations (e.g., financial, fair information practices, consumer protection, etc.). The study should review the work of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), the Health Information Security and Privacy Collaboration (HISPC), HITSP, and relevant work from other organizations. • The study should result in the timely development of a pragmatic roadmap or framework concerning the appropriate uses and disclosures of personal health information and any policy recommendations necessary to support the exchange of health information between public and private sectors. • The study should be facilitated by the senior health IT leader within the Administration and carried out by a balanced representation of healthcare, patient and information technology 40 ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS).
42. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress stakeholders. What are the challenges to HIPAA and privacy and security? The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) addresses security and privacy regulations pertaining to the uses and disclosures of personal health information by Covered Entities (healthcare providers, health plans, or healthcare clearing houses) for Treatment, Payment and Operations (commonly known as “TPO”). There are several well recognized concerns relating to the applicability of HIPAA regulations, which regulate organizations, to the current environment of data exchange. State privacy laws and regulations often impose stricter regulations. Also, HIEs as entities are not covered by HIPAA. These may be among the reasons that the possibility of interstate electronic HIE thus far has been difficult to achieve. In addition, providers’ lack of knowledge and awareness concerning the appropriate use and disclosure of PHI could result in a reluctance to use the health IT that would result in the overall improved efficiency of healthcare. Additional challenges concerning the privacy and security of PHI arise as new entities engaged in HIE and the storage of and access personal health information that are not covered by HIPAA and also do not have contractual relationships with CEs but offer a health IT solution direct to consumers, such as personal health records (PHRs). Such offerings facilitate a migration of PHI outside of the traditional healthcare system and such a scenario is considered by some to pose great risk to consumers in ensuring the privacy and security of their health information. Yet the issue of how to govern/regulate such entities is still to be considered. HEALTH IT CERTIFICATION AND STANDARDS What is HITSP? Since its inception in 2005, through an ONC contract with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the Healthcare Information Technology Standards Panel (HITSP) has been leading the national effort to harmonize interoperability standards to facilitate the exchange of patient data. The mission of HITSP is to serve as a cooperative partnership between the public and private sectors to achieve a widely accepted and useful set of standards to enable the widespread interoperability among healthcare software applications, as they will interact in a local, regional and nationwide HIE. HITSP’s harmonization work has addressed such areas as EHRs, biosurveillance, consumer empowerment, medication management, quality and population health. HITSP is comprised of 558 member organizations, including Standards Development Organizations (SDOs), non-SDOs, government bodies, consumer groups, and is administered by a Board of Directors. 41 ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS).
43. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress Once HITSP Interoperability Specifications are recognized by the HHS Secretary, they are used to inform the Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology (CCHIT) product certification criteria. Additionally, Federal Agencies must adopt them according to an August 22, 2006 Executive Order. Specifically, each agency that implements, acquires, or upgrades health information technology systems used for the direct exchange of health information between agencies and with non-federal entities shall utilize, where available, health information technology systems and products that meet recognized interoperability standards (e.g., HITSP Interoperability Specifications). HITSP is also playing an integral role in the development of a Nationwide Healthcare Information Network (NHIN) for the US by providing components of health information exchange for the NHIN specification process. As these building blocks for health information exchange get implemented in healthcare IT systems, clinicians and consumers will be able to access health information wherever and whenever needed, thus improving the efficiency and quality of care and enhancing public health and reporting. What is CCHIT? The Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology (CCHIT) is a recognized certification body for electronic health records and their networks. CCHIT is a private, nonprofit initiative who mission is to accelerate the adoption of robust, interoperable healthcare information technology throughout the US by creating an efficient, credible, sustainable mechanism for the certification of healthcare products. To date, CCHIT has certified more than 150 EHR products, representing 50% of all vendors in the market and 75% of the overall EHR market to date. ii The work of CCHIT has helped streamline the EHR market by serving as a trusted source to guide providers when adopting health IT products. CCHIT has also aided in fostering interoperability among products through implementation of its standards-based criteria. STATE HEALTH IT INITIATIVES What role will states play in the implementation of health IT? In many ways, states are leading the way. States have taken significant steps during the past two years to address policy issues associated with health IT. From January 2007 through August 2008, more than 370 bills with provisions relating to health IT were introduced in state legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). A report released last week by the NCSL states 132 bills with health IT content were enacted in 44 states and the District of Columbia. This represents a more than threefold increase compared to 2005 and 2006, during which 36 bills were enacted. What states are leading the way? Indiana SB 511, 2007 (Enacted 5/2/2007) 42 ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS).
44. Recommendations for the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress Establishes the Indiana Health Informatics Corporation to ensure and improve the health of the citizens of Indiana by encouraging, facilitating and assisting in the development and operation of a statewide system for the electronic exchange of health care information. The bill defines the corporation’s membership and establishes the Indiana health informatics fund. The corporation shall, among other things define a vision for statewide health information exchange system to electronically exchange health care information between entities in a health care system; prepare a plan to create a statewide health information system; encourage and facilitate the development and operation of a statewide health information exchange system; review efforts in other states concerning health information exchange; and encourage and endorse interoperability standards. Call for compliance with HIPAA. Minnesota HB 1078, 2007 (Enacted 5/25/2007) Requires all hospitals and healthcare providers to have interoperable electronic health systems by Jan. 1, 2015. Updates the state’s health privacy laws to allow for record locator services and for providers to electronically represent patient consent. Patients can choose not to participate in the record locater system in total or can have specific provider contacts excluded from the system. Requires a health information exchange that operates a record locater system to establish an audit log of providers who access information in the system. Establishes penalties for providers and health information exchanges that release a patient’s record without proper authorization. Creates a revolving account and loan program for the purchase of interoperable electronic health record systems. Requires all group purchases and health care providers to electronically exchange, in standard form, the following: eligibility, claims, payment and remittance advice. Texas HB 1066, 2007 (Enacted 6/15/2007) Establishes the Texas Health Services Authority as a public-private collaborative to promote development of a seamless electronic health information infrastructure. The corporation shall promote, implement and facilitate the voluntary and secure electronic exchange of health information and create incentives. Unless continued, the corporation will be abolished on Sept. 1, 2011. The corporation will be governed by a board of 11 directors appointed by the governor. The corporation may: establish a statewide health information exchange; seek funding; support regional health information organizations initiatives; and identify standards. Also lists acts in which the corporation may NOT engage, including comparing or rating physicians and providing protected de-identified data for research. i “Overhauling the US Health Care Payment System”. McKinsey & Company. Available at: http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Overhauling_the_US_health_care_payment_system_2012 ii “A Tipping Point for Healthcare IT, Says HHS”. ChannelWeb. Available at: http://www.crn.com/healthcare/212100341 43 ©2008 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS).
45. The full text of this report, “A Call for Action: Enabling Healthcare Reform Using Information Technology,” is available online at www.himss.org/2009CallToAction. This report was developed by over 100 volunteer HIMSS members and other interested stakeholders who spent four months on specific recommendations. Five sub-groups supported the deliberations of the workgroup, focusing on areas of access, quality, cost, consumer empowerment, and privacy and security. Co-Chairs of the sub-groups, along with co-chairs of the workgroup and representatives from partner organizations, made up the Conference Committee. The Conference Committee worked to harmonize all recommendations and finalize the report. Recommendations were then vetted by all HIMSS volunteer committees and the HIMSS Advocacy & Public Policy Steering Committee, and were approved by the HIMSS Board of Directors. Conference Committee leaders of this effort included: Daniel Blum Mark Stevens Executive Director Principal, Blum Consulting Group Pennsylvania eHealth Initiative Consultant, Apptis Inc. John Wade, FCHIME, FHIMSS Sharon F. Canner President Director of Advocacy Programs J.C. Wade and Associates CHIME Mary Walker Hank Fanberg Executive in Residence, HIMSS Strategy & Innovation VP, Client Relationships, Apptis, Inc. Technology Advocacy CHRISTUS Health Elizabeth West, CPHIMS Principal Harry Greenspun, MD Executive Vice President, Chief Medical Officer West Consulting Perot Systems Charlene S. Underwood, MBA, FHIMSS Director, Government and Industry Affairs Peter Grogg, MHA Siemens Associate Director Indiana University Health Center HIMSS Staff Liaison Helen L. Hill, FHIMSS Director, IT Consulting & HIE K. Meredith Taylor, MPH Henry Ford Health System – CSC Director, Congressional Affairs HIMSS Charles W. Jarvis, FACHE Assistant Vice President Healthcare Services and Government Relations NextGen Healthcare Information Systems, Inc. EHR Association Committee Representative A special thanks to all workgroup members Nandan Kenkeremath, JD and HIMSS staff who supported this effort. President Leading Edge Policy and Strategy, LLC Maggie Lohnes, RN, FHIMSS Administrator, Clinical Information Management MultiCare Health System Tacoma, Washington Jean Marie R. Pechette Special Counsel Kelley Drye & Warren LLP Terri M. Ripley, MIT, CPHIMS 4300 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 250 Director of Systems and Programming Arlington, Virginia 22203 Centra Website: www.himss.org/advocacy 44 E-mail: advocacy@himss.org Phone: 703-562-8800

`(a) Establishment- There is established a HIT Policy Committee to make policy recommendations to the National Coordinator relating to the implementation of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure, including implementation of the strategic plan described in section 3001(c)(3).
`(b) Duties-
`(1) RECOMMENDATIONS ON HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE- The HIT Policy Committee shall recommend a policy framework for the development and adoption of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that permits the electronic exchange and use of health information as is consistent with the strategic plan under section 3001(c)(3) and that includes the recommendations under paragraph (2). The Committee shall update such recommendations and make new recommendations as appropriate.
`(2) SPECIFIC AREAS OF STANDARD DEVELOPMENT-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The HIT Policy Committee shall recommend the areas in which standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria are needed for the electronic exchange and use of health information for purposes of adoption under section 3004 and shall recommend an order of priority for the development, harmonization, and recognition of such standards, specifications, and certification criteria among the areas so recommended. Such standards and implementation specifications shall include named standards, architectures, and software schemes for the authentication and security of individually identifiable health information and other information as needed to ensure the reproducible development of common solutions across disparate entities.
`(B) AREAS REQUIRED FOR CONSIDERATION- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the HIT Policy Committee shall make recommendations for at least the following areas:
`(i) Technologies that protect the privacy of health information and promote security in a qualified electronic health record, including for the segmentation and protection from disclosure of specific and sensitive individually identifiable health information with the goal of minimizing the reluctance of patients to seek care (or disclose information about a condition) because of privacy concerns, in accordance with applicable law, and for the use and disclosure of limited data sets of such information.
`(ii) A nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and accurate exchange of health information.
`(iii) The utilization of a certified electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014.
`(iv) Technologies that as a part of a qualified electronic health record allow for an accounting of disclosures made by a covered entity (as defined for purposes of regulations promulgated under section 264(c) of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) for purposes of treatment, payment, and health care operations (as such terms are defined for purposes of such regulations).
`(v) The use of certified electronic health records to improve the quality of health care, such as by promoting the coordination of health care and improving continuity of health care among health care providers, by reducing medical errors, by improving population health, by reducing health disparities, and by advancing research and education.
`(vi) Technologies that allow individually identifiable health information to be rendered unusable, unreadable, or indecipherable to unauthorized individuals when such information is transmitted in the nationwide health information network or physically transported outside of the secured, physical perimeter of a health care provider, health plan, or health care clearinghouse.
`(C) OTHER AREAS FOR CONSIDERATION- In making recommendations under subparagraph (A), the HIT Policy Committee may consider the following additional areas:
`(i) The appropriate uses of a nationwide health information infrastructure, including for purposes of–
`(I) the collection of quality data and public reporting;
`(II) biosurveillance and public health;
`(III) medical and clinical research; and
`(IV) drug safety.
`(ii) Self-service technologies that facilitate the use and exchange of patient information and reduce wait times.
`(iii) Telemedicine technologies, in order to reduce travel requirements for patients in remote areas.
`(iv) Technologies that facilitate home health care and the monitoring of patients recuperating at home.
`(v) Technologies that help reduce medical errors.
`(vi) Technologies that facilitate the continuity of care among health settings.
`(vii) Technologies that meet the needs of diverse populations.
`(viii) Any other technology that the HIT Policy Committee finds to be among the technologies with the greatest potential to improve the quality and efficiency of health care.
`(3) FORUM- The HIT Policy Committee shall serve as a forum for broad stakeholder input with specific expertise in policies relating to the matters described in paragraphs (1) and (2).
`(c) Membership and Operations-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The National Coordinator shall provide leadership in the establishment and operations of the HIT Policy Committee.
`(2) MEMBERSHIP- The membership of the HIT Policy Committee shall at least reflect providers, ancillary healthcare workers, consumers, purchasers, health plans, technology vendors, researchers, relevant Federal agencies, and individuals with technical expertise on health care quality, privacy and security, and on the electronic exchange and use of health information.
`(3) CONSIDERATION- The National Coordinator shall ensure that the relevant recommendations and comments from the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics are considered in the development of policies.
`(d) Application of FACA- The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), other than section 14 of such Act, shall apply to the HIT Policy Committee.
`(e) Publication- The Secretary shall provide for publication in the Federal Register and the posting on the Internet website of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology of all policy recommendations made by the HIT Policy Committee under this section.

via Search Results – THOMAS (Library of Congress).

`(a) In General- The Secretary shall, using amounts appropriated under section 3018, invest in the infrastructure necessary to allow for and promote the electronic exchange and use of health information for each individual in the United States consistent with the goals outlined in the strategic plan developed by the National Coordinator (and as available) under section 3001. To the greatest extent practicable, the Secretary shall ensure that any funds so appropriated shall be used for the acquisition of health information technology that meets standards and certification criteria adopted before the date of the enactment of this title until such date as the standards are adopted under section 3004. The Secretary shall invest funds through the different agencies with expertise in such goals, such as the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Indian Health Service to support the following:
`(1) Health information technology architecture that will support the nationwide electronic exchange and use of health information in a secure, private, and accurate manner, including connecting health information exchanges, and which may include updating and implementing the infrastructure necessary within different agencies of the Department of Health and Human Services to support the electronic use and exchange of health information.
`(2) Development and adoption of appropriate certified electronic health records for categories of providers, as defined in section 3000, not eligible for support under title XVIII or XIX of the Social Security Act for the adoption of such records.
`(3) Training on and dissemination of information on best practices to integrate health information technology, including electronic health records, into a provider’s delivery of care, consistent with best practices learned from the Health Information Technology Research Center developed under section 3012(b), including community health centers receiving assistance under section 330, covered entities under section 340B, and providers participating in one or more of the programs under titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act (relating to Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program).
`(4) Infrastructure and tools for the promotion of telemedicine, including coordination among Federal agencies in the promotion of telemedicine.
`(5) Promotion of the interoperability of clinical data repositories or registries.
`(6) Promotion of technologies and best practices that enhance the protection of health information by all holders of individually identifiable health information.
`(7) Improvement and expansion of the use of health information technology by public health departments.
`(8) Provision of $300 million to support regional or sub-national efforts towards health information exchange.
`(b) Coordination- The Secretary shall ensure funds under this section are used in a coordinated manner with other health information promotion activities.
`(c) Additional Use of Funds- In addition to using funds as provided in subsection (a), the Secretary may use amounts appropriated under section 3018 to carry out health information technology activities that are provided for under laws in effect on the date of the enactment of this title.
`SEC. 3012. HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION ASSISTANCE.

`(a) Health Information Technology Extension Program- To assist health care providers to adopt, implement, and effectively use certified EHR technology that allows for the electronic exchange and use of health information, the Secretary, acting through the Office of the National Coordinator, shall establish a health information technology extension program to provide health information technology assistance services to be carried out through the Department of Health and Human Services. The National Coordinator shall consult with other Federal agencies with demonstrated experience and expertise in information technology services, such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology, in developing and implementing this program.
`(b) Health Information Technology Research Center-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall create a Health Information Technology Research Center (in this section referred to as the `Center’) to provide technical assistance and develop or recognize best practices to support and accelerate efforts to adopt, implement, and effectively utilize health information technology that allows for the electronic exchange and use of information in compliance with standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria adopted under section 3004.
`(2) INPUT- The Center shall incorporate input from–
`(A) other Federal agencies with demonstrated experience and expertise in information technology services such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology;
`(B) users of health information technology, such as providers and their support and clerical staff and others involved in the care and care coordination of patients, from the health care and health information technology industry; and
`(C) others as appropriate.
`(3) PURPOSES- The purposes of the Center are to–
`(A) provide a forum for the exchange of knowledge and experience;
`(B) accelerate the transfer of lessons learned from existing public and private sector initiatives, including those currently receiving Federal financial support;
`(C) assemble, analyze, and widely disseminate evidence and experience related to the adoption, implementation, and effective use of health information technology that allows for the electronic exchange and use of information including through the regional centers described in subsection (c);
`(D) provide technical assistance for the establishment and evaluation of regional and local health information networks to facilitate the electronic exchange of information across health care settings and improve the quality of health care;
`(E) provide technical assistance for the development and dissemination of solutions to barriers to the exchange of electronic health information; and
`(F) learn about effective strategies to adopt and utilize health information technology in medically underserved communities.
`(c) Health Information Technology Regional Extension Centers-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall provide assistance for the creation and support of regional centers (in this subsection referred to as `regional centers’) to provide technical assistance and disseminate best practices and other information learned from the Center to support and accelerate efforts to adopt, implement, and effectively utilize health information technology that allows for the electronic exchange and use of information in compliance with standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria adopted under section 3004. Activities conducted under this subsection shall be consistent with the strategic plan developed by the National Coordinator, (and, as available) under section 3001.
`(2) AFFILIATION- Regional centers shall be affiliated with any United States-based nonprofit institution or organization, or group thereof, that applies and is awarded financial assistance under this section. Individual awards shall be decided on the basis of merit.
`(3) OBJECTIVE- The objective of the regional centers is to enhance and promote the adoption of health information technology through–
`(A) assistance with the implementation, effective use, upgrading, and ongoing maintenance of health information technology, including electronic health records, to healthcare providers nationwide;
`(B) broad participation of individuals from industry, universities, and State governments;
`(C) active dissemination of best practices and research on the implementation, effective use, upgrading, and ongoing maintenance of health information technology, including electronic health records, to health care providers in order to improve the quality of healthcare and protect the privacy and security of health information;
`(D) participation, to the extent practicable, in health information exchanges;
`(E) utilization, when appropriate, of the expertise and capability that exists in Federal agencies other than the Department; and
`(F) integration of health information technology, including electronic health records, into the initial and ongoing training of health professionals and others in the healthcare industry that would be instrumental to improving the quality of healthcare through the smooth and accurate electronic use and exchange of health information.
`(4) REGIONAL ASSISTANCE- Each regional center shall aim to provide assistance and education to all providers in a region, but shall prioritize any direct assistance first to the following:
`(A) Public or not-for-profit hospitals or critical access hospitals.
`(B) Federally qualified health centers (as defined in section 1861(aa)(4) of the Social Security Act).
`(C) Entities that are located in rural and other areas that serve uninsured, underinsured, and medically underserved individuals (regardless of whether such area is urban or rural).
`(D) Individual or small group practices (or a consortium thereof) that are primarily focused on primary care.
`(5) FINANCIAL SUPPORT- The Secretary may provide financial support to any regional center created under this subsection for a period not to exceed four years. The Secretary may not provide more than 50 percent of the capital and annual operating and maintenance funds required to create and maintain such a center, except in an instance of national economic conditions which would render this cost-share requirement detrimental to the program and upon notification to Congress as to the justification to waive the cost-share requirement.
`(6) NOTICE OF PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS- The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register, not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this title, a draft description of the program for establishing regional centers under this subsection. Such description shall include the following:
`(A) A detailed explanation of the program and the programs goals.
`(B) Procedures to be followed by the applicants.
`(C) Criteria for determining qualified applicants.
`(D) Maximum support levels expected to be available to centers under the program.
`(7) APPLICATION REVIEW- The Secretary shall subject each application under this subsection to merit review. In making a decision whether to approve such application and provide financial support, the Secretary shall consider at a minimum the merits of the application, including those portions of the application regarding–
`(A) the ability of the applicant to provide assistance under this subsection and utilization of health information technology appropriate to the needs of particular categories of health care providers;
`(B) the types of service to be provided to health care providers;
`(C) geographical diversity and extent of service area; and
`(D) the percentage of funding and amount of in-kind commitment from other sources.
`(8) BIENNIAL EVALUATION- Each regional center which receives financial assistance under this subsection shall be evaluated biennially by an evaluation panel appointed by the Secretary. Each evaluation panel shall be composed of private experts, none of whom shall be connected with the center involved, and of Federal officials. Each evaluation panel shall measure the involved center’s performance against the objective specified in paragraph (3). The Secretary shall not continue to provide funding to a regional center unless its evaluation is overall positive.
`(9) CONTINUING SUPPORT- After the second year of assistance under this subsection, a regional center may receive additional support under this subsection if it has received positive evaluations and a finding by the Secretary that continuation of Federal funding to the center was in the best interest of provision of health information technology extension services.
`SEC. 3013. STATE GRANTS TO PROMOTE HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.

`(a) In General- The Secretary, acting through the National Coordinator, shall establish a program in accordance with this section to facilitate and expand the electronic movement and use of health information among organizations according to nationally recognized standards.
`(b) Planning Grants- The Secretary may award a grant to a State or qualified State-designated entity (as described in subsection (f)) that submits an application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may specify, for the purpose of planning activities described in subsection (d).
`(c) Implementation Grants- The Secretary may award a grant to a State or qualified State designated entity that–
`(1) has submitted, and the Secretary has approved, a plan described in subsection (e) (regardless of whether such plan was prepared using amounts awarded under subsection (b); and
`(2) submits an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may specify.
`(d) Use of Funds- Amounts received under a grant under subsection (c) shall be used to conduct activities to facilitate and expand the electronic movement and use of health information among organizations according to nationally recognized standards through activities that include–
`(1) enhancing broad and varied participation in the authorized and secure nationwide electronic use and exchange of health information;
`(2) identifying State or local resources available towards a nationwide effort to promote health information technology;
`(3) complementing other Federal grants, programs, and efforts towards the promotion of health information technology;
`(4) providing technical assistance for the development and dissemination of solutions to barriers to the exchange of electronic health information;
`(5) promoting effective strategies to adopt and utilize health information technology in medically underserved communities;
`(6) assisting patients in utilizing health information technology;
`(7) encouraging clinicians to work with Health Information Technology Regional Extension Centers as described in section 3012, to the extent they are available and valuable;
`(8) supporting public health agencies’ authorized use of and access to electronic health information;
`(9) promoting the use of electronic health records for quality improvement including through quality measures reporting; and
`(10) such other activities as the Secretary may specify.
`(e) Plan-
`(1) IN GENERAL- A plan described in this subsection is a plan that describes the activities to be carried out by a State or by the qualified State-designated entity within such State to facilitate and expand the electronic movement and use of health information among organizations according to nationally recognized standards and implementation specifications.
`(2) REQUIRED ELEMENTS- A plan described in paragraph (1) shall–
`(A) be pursued in the public interest;
`(B) be consistent with the strategic plan developed by the National Coordinator, (and, as available) under section 3001;
`(C) include a description of the ways the State or qualified State-designated entity will carry out the activities described in subsection (b); and
`(D) contain such elements as the Secretary may require.
`(f) Qualified State-Designated Entity- For purposes of this section, to be a qualified State-designated entity, with respect to a State, an entity shall–
`(1) be designated by the State as eligible to receive awards under this section;
`(2) be a not-for-profit entity with broad stakeholder representation on its governing board;
`(3) demonstrate that one of its principal goals is to use information technology to improve health care quality and efficiency through the authorized and secure electronic exchange and use of health information;
`(4) adopt nondiscrimination and conflict of interest policies that demonstrate a commitment to open, fair, and nondiscriminatory participation by stakeholders; and
`(5) conform to such other requirements as the Secretary may establish.
`(g) Required Consultation- In carrying out activities described in subsections (b) and (c), a State or qualified State-designated entity shall consult with and consider the recommendations of–
`(1) health care providers (including providers that provide services to low income and underserved populations);
`(2) health plans;
`(3) patient or consumer organizations that represent the population to be served;
`(4) health information technology vendors;
`(5) health care purchasers and employers;
`(6) public health agencies;
`(7) health professions schools, universities and colleges;
`(8) clinical researchers;
`(9) other users of health information technology such as the support and clerical staff of providers and others involved in the care and care coordination of patients; and
`(10) such other entities, as may be determined appropriate by the Secretary.
`(h) Continuous Improvement- The Secretary shall annually evaluate the activities conducted under this section and shall, in awarding grants under this section, implement the lessons learned from such evaluation in a manner so that awards made subsequent to each such evaluation are made in a manner that, in the determination of the Secretary, will lead towards the greatest improvement in quality of care, decrease in costs, and the most effective authorized and secure electronic exchange of health information.
`(i) Required Match-
`(1) IN GENERAL- For a fiscal year (beginning with fiscal year 2011), the Secretary may not make a grant under this section to a State unless the State agrees to make available non-Federal contributions (which may include in-kind contributions) toward the costs of a grant awarded under subsection (c) in an amount equal to–
`(A) for fiscal year 2011, not less than $1 for each $10 of Federal funds provided under the grant;
`(B) for fiscal year 2012, not less than $1 for each $7 of Federal funds provided under the grant; and
`(C) for fiscal year 2013 and each subsequent fiscal year, not less than $1 for each $3 of Federal funds provided under the grant.
`(2) AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE STATE MATCH FOR FISCAL YEARS BEFORE FISCAL YEAR 2011- For any fiscal year during the grant program under this section before fiscal year 2011, the Secretary may determine the extent to which there shall be required a non-Federal contribution from a State receiving a grant under this section.
`SEC. 3014. COMPETITIVE GRANTS TO STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOAN PROGRAMS TO FACILITATE THE WIDESPREAD ADOPTION OF CERTIFIED EHR TECHNOLOGY.

`(a) In General- The National Coordinator may award competitive grants to eligible entities for the establishment of programs for loans to health care providers to conduct the activities described in subsection (e).
`(b) Eligible Entity Defined- For purposes of this subsection, the term `eligible entity’ means a State or Indian tribe (as defined in the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act) that–
`(1) submits to the National Coordinator an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the National Coordinator may require;
`(2) submits to the National Coordinator a strategic plan in accordance with subsection (d) and provides to the National Coordinator assurances that the entity will update such plan annually in accordance with such subsection;
`(3) provides assurances to the National Coordinator that the entity will establish a Loan Fund in accordance with subsection (c);
`(4) provides assurances to the National Coordinator that the entity will not provide a loan from the Loan Fund to a health care provider unless the provider agrees to–
`(A) submit reports on quality measures adopted by the Federal Government (by not later than 90 days after the date on which such measures are adopted), to–
`(i) the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (or his or her designee), in the case of an entity participating in the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act or the Medicaid program under title XIX of such Act; or
`(ii) the Secretary in the case of other entities;
`(B) demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary (through criteria established by the Secretary) that any certified EHR technology purchased, improved, or otherwise financially supported under a loan under this section is used to exchange health information in a manner that, in accordance with law and standards (as adopted under section 3004) applicable to the exchange of information, improves the quality of health care, such as promoting care coordination; and
`(C) comply with such other requirements as the entity or the Secretary may require;
`(D) include a plan on how health care providers involved intend to maintain and support the certified EHR technology over time;
`(E) include a plan on how the health care providers involved intend to maintain and support the certified EHR technology that would be purchased with such loan, including the type of resources expected to be involved and any such other information as the State or Indian Tribe, respectively, may require; and
`(5) agrees to provide matching funds in accordance with subsection (h).
`(c) Establishment of Fund- For purposes of subsection (b)(3), an eligible entity shall establish a certified EHR technology loan fund (referred to in this subsection as a `Loan Fund’) and comply with the other requirements contained in this section. A grant to an eligible entity under this section shall be deposited in the Loan Fund established by the eligible entity. No funds authorized by other provisions of this title to be used for other purposes specified in this title shall be deposited in any Loan Fund.
`(d) Strategic Plan-
`(1) IN GENERAL- For purposes of subsection (b)(2), a strategic plan of an eligible entity under this subsection shall identify the intended uses of amounts available to the Loan Fund of such entity.
`(2) CONTENTS- A strategic plan under paragraph (1), with respect to a Loan Fund of an eligible entity, shall include for a year the following:
`(A) A list of the projects to be assisted through the Loan Fund during such year.
`(B) A description of the criteria and methods established for the distribution of funds from the Loan Fund during the year.
`(C) A description of the financial status of the Loan Fund as of the date of submission of the plan.
`(D) The short-term and long-term goals of the Loan Fund.
`(e) Use of Funds- Amounts deposited in a Loan Fund, including loan repayments and interest earned on such amounts, shall be used only for awarding loans or loan guarantees, making reimbursements described in subsection (g)(4)(A), or as a source of reserve and security for leveraged loans, the proceeds of which are deposited in the Loan Fund established under subsection (c). Loans under this section may be used by a health care provider to–
`(1) facilitate the purchase of certified EHR technology;
`(2) enhance the utilization of certified EHR technology;
`(3) train personnel in the use of such technology; or
`(4) improve the secure electronic exchange of health information.
`(f) Types of Assistance- Except as otherwise limited by applicable State law, amounts deposited into a Loan Fund under this section may only be used for the following:
`(1) To award loans that comply with the following:
`(A) The interest rate for each loan shall not exceed the market interest rate.
`(B) The principal and interest payments on each loan shall commence not later than 1 year after the date the loan was awarded, and each loan shall be fully amortized not later than 10 years after the date of the loan.
`(C) The Loan Fund shall be credited with all payments of principal and interest on each loan awarded from the Loan Fund.
`(2) To guarantee, or purchase insurance for, a local obligation (all of the proceeds of which finance a project eligible for assistance under this subsection) if the guarantee or purchase would improve credit market access or reduce the interest rate applicable to the obligation involved.
`(3) As a source of revenue or security for the payment of principal and interest on revenue or general obligation bonds issued by the eligible entity if the proceeds of the sale of the bonds will be deposited into the Loan Fund.
`(4) To earn interest on the amounts deposited into the Loan Fund.
`(5) To make reimbursements described in subsection (g)(4)(A).
`(g) Administration of Loan Funds-
`(1) COMBINED FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION- An eligible entity may (as a convenience and to avoid unnecessary administrative costs) combine, in accordance with applicable State law, the financial administration of a Loan Fund established under this subsection with the financial administration of any other revolving fund established by the entity if otherwise not prohibited by the law under which the Loan Fund was established.
`(2) COST OF ADMINISTERING FUND- Each eligible entity may annually use not to exceed 4 percent of the funds provided to the entity under a grant under this section to pay the reasonable costs of the administration of the programs under this section, including the recovery of reasonable costs expended to establish a Loan Fund which are incurred after the date of the enactment of this title.
`(3) GUIDANCE AND REGULATIONS- The National Coordinator shall publish guidance and promulgate regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section, including–
`(A) provisions to ensure that each eligible entity commits and expends funds allotted to the entity under this section as efficiently as possible in accordance with this title and applicable State laws; and
`(B) guidance to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.
`(4) PRIVATE SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS-
`(A) IN GENERAL- A Loan Fund established under this section may accept contributions from private sector entities, except that such entities may not specify the recipient or recipients of any loan issued under this subsection. An eligible entity may agree to reimburse a private sector entity for any contribution made under this subparagraph, except that the amount of such reimbursement may not be greater than the principal amount of the contribution made.
`(B) AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION- An eligible entity shall make publicly available the identity of, and amount contributed by, any private sector entity under subparagraph (A) and may issue letters of commendation or make other awards (that have no financial value) to any such entity.
`(h) Matching Requirements-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The National Coordinator may not make a grant under subsection (a) to an eligible entity unless the entity agrees to make available (directly or through donations from public or private entities) non-Federal contributions in cash to the costs of carrying out the activities for which the grant is awarded in an amount equal to not less than $1 for each $5 of Federal funds provided under the grant.
`(2) DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT OF NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION- In determining the amount of non-Federal contributions that an eligible entity has provided pursuant to subparagraph (A), the National Coordinator may not include any amounts provided to the entity by the Federal Government.
`(i) Effective Date- The Secretary may not make an award under this section prior to January 1, 2010.
`SEC. 3015. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM TO INTEGRATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INTO CLINICAL EDUCATION.

`(a) In General- The Secretary may award grants under this section to carry out demonstration projects to develop academic curricula integrating certified EHR technology in the clinical education of health professionals. Such awards shall be made on a competitive basis and pursuant to peer review.
`(b) Eligibility- To be eligible to receive a grant under subsection (a), an entity shall–
`(1) submit to the Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require;
`(2) submit to the Secretary a strategic plan for integrating certified EHR technology in the clinical education of health professionals to reduce medical errors and enhance health care quality;
`(3) be–
`(A) a school of medicine, osteopathic medicine, dentistry, or pharmacy, a graduate program in behavioral or mental health, or any other graduate health professions school;
`(B) a graduate school of nursing or physician assistant studies;
`(C) a consortium of two or more schools described in subparagraph (A) or (B); or
`(D) an institution with a graduate medical education program in medicine, osteopathic medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, nursing, or physician assistance studies;
`(4) provide for the collection of data regarding the effectiveness of the demonstration project to be funded under the grant in improving the safety of patients, the efficiency of health care delivery, and in increasing the likelihood that graduates of the grantee will adopt and incorporate certified EHR technology, in the delivery of health care services; and
`(5) provide matching funds in accordance with subsection (d).
`(c) Use of Funds-
`(1) IN GENERAL- With respect to a grant under subsection (a), an eligible entity shall–
`(A) use grant funds in collaboration with 2 or more disciplines; and
`(B) use grant funds to integrate certified EHR technology into community-based clinical education.
`(2) LIMITATION- An eligible entity shall not use amounts received under a grant under subsection (a) to purchase hardware, software, or services.
`(d) Financial Support- The Secretary may not provide more than 50 percent of the costs of any activity for which assistance is provided under subsection (a), except in an instance of national economic conditions which would render the cost-share requirement under this subsection detrimental to the program and upon notification to Congress as to the justification to waive the cost-share requirement.
`(e) Evaluation- The Secretary shall take such action as may be necessary to evaluate the projects funded under this section and publish, make available, and disseminate the results of such evaluations on as wide a basis as is practicable.
`(f) Reports- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this title, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and the Committee on Finance of the Senate, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report that–
`(1) describes the specific projects established under this section; and
`(2) contains recommendations for Congress based on the evaluation conducted under subsection (e).
`SEC. 3016. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONALS ON HEALTH CARE.

`(a) In General- The Secretary, in consultation with the Director of the National Science Foundation, shall provide assistance to institutions of higher education (or consortia thereof) to establish or expand medical health informatics education programs, including certification, undergraduate, and masters degree programs, for both health care and information technology students to ensure the rapid and effective utilization and development of health information technologies (in the United States health care infrastructure).
`(b) Activities- Activities for which assistance may be provided under subsection (a) may include the following:
`(1) Developing and revising curricula in medical health informatics and related disciplines.
`(2) Recruiting and retaining students to the program involved.
`(3) Acquiring equipment necessary for student instruction in these programs, including the installation of testbed networks for student use.
`(4) Establishing or enhancing bridge programs in the health informatics fields between community colleges and universities.
`(c) Priority- In providing assistance under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give preference to the following:
`(1) Existing education and training programs.
`(2) Programs designed to be completed in less than six months.
`(d) Financial Support- The Secretary may not provide more than 50 percent of the costs of any activity for which assistance is provided under subsection (a), except in an instance of national economic conditions which would render the cost-share requirement under this subsection detrimental to the program and upon notification to Congress as to the justification to waive the cost-share requirement.
`SEC. 3017. GENERAL GRANT AND LOAN PROVISIONS.

`(a) Reports- The Secretary may require that an entity receiving assistance under this subtitle shall submit to the Secretary, not later than the date that is 1 year after the date of receipt of such assistance, a report that includes–
`(1) an analysis of the effectiveness of the activities for which the entity receives such assistance, as compared to the goals for such activities; and
`(2) an analysis of the impact of the project on health care quality and safety.
`(b) Requirement to Improve Quality of Care and Decrease in Costs- The National Coordinator shall annually evaluate the activities conducted under this subtitle and shall, in awarding grants, implement the lessons learned from such evaluation in a manner so that awards made subsequent to each such evaluation are made in a manner that, in the determination of the National Coordinator, will result in the greatest improvement in the quality and efficiency of health care.
`SEC. 3018. AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS.

`For the purposes of carrying out this subtitle, there is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2013. Amounts so appropriated shall remain available until expended.’.

via Search Results – THOMAS (Library of Congress).

a In General- The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall invest in the infrastructure necessary to allow for and promote the electronic exchange and use of health information for each individual in the United States consistent with the goals outlined in the Strategic Plan developed by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Such investment shall include investment in at least the following:

1 Health information technology architecture that will support the nationwide electronic exchange and use of health information in a secure, private, and accurate manner, including connecting health information exchanges, and which may include updating and implementing the infrastructure necessary within different agencies of the Department of Health and Human Services to support the electronic use and exchange of health information.

2 Integration of health information technology, including electronic medical records, into the initial and ongoing training of health professionals and others in the healthcare industry who would be instrumental to improving the quality of healthcare through the smooth and accurate electronic use and exchange of health information as determined by the Secretary.

3 Training on and dissemination of information on best practices to integrate health information technology, including electronic records, into a providers delivery of care, including community health centers receiving assistance under section 330 of the Public Health Service Act and providers participating in one or more of the programs under titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act relating to Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Childrens Health Insurance Program.

4 Infrastructure and tools for the promotion of telemedicine, including coordination among Federal agencies in the promotion of telemedicine.

5 Promotion of the interoperability of clinical data repositories or registries.

The Secretary shall implement paragraph 3 in coordination with State agencies administering the Medicaid program and the State Childrens Health Insurance Program.

b Limitation- None of the funds appropriated to carry out this section may be used to make significant investments in, or provide significant funds for, the acquisition of hardware or software or for the use of an electronic health or medical record, or significant components thereof, unless such investments or funds are for certified products that would permit the full and accurate electronic exchange and use of health information in a medical record, including standards for security, privacy, and quality improvement functions adopted by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.

c Report- The Secretary shall annually report to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, on Ways and Means, on Science and Technology, and on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Finance, on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and on Appropriations of the Senate on the uses of these funds and their impact on the infrastructure for the electronic exchange and use of health information.

via Search Results – THOMAS Library of Congress.

The primary purpose of the Centre is to improve the patient and client experience, providing for better quality and more effective care. By supporting the more efficient delivery of health and care services, it will also enable the care system to better respond to the future needs of the population. In addition to this, the Centre wishes to work to secure economic gains through the growth of knowledge-based, high value added businesses in Northern Ireland serving European markets.

via European Centre for Connected Health | .

The Center for Telehealth and e-Health Law's January WashingtonLive Brown Bag seminar on the Telehealth Agenda for the 111th Congress was held on Monday, January 26, 2009.  Seminar participants from Washington and around the country heard from two key Congressional staff members involved in telehealth and health care policy:  Travis Robey, health care aide to Representative Mike Thompson (D-CA) and Jordanna Davis, Legislative Assistant to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).

Both Congressman Thompson and Senator Whitehouse have made healthcare reform a clear priority.  Congressman Thompson is a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, a key committee with jurisdiction over health care, and is active on telehealth matters.  In the Senate, Senator Whitehouse made health care reform the subject of the first three bills he introduced.

Early discussion focused on the current stimulus package (S. 1).  In opening remarks, Robey discussed the prominence of telehealth in the House version of the Stimulus bill.  Most notably, $2 billion has been set aside for health information technology grants. While there are no specific allocations yet, telemedicine is likely to receive some of the funding.

Additionally, Robey noted the placement of telemedicine in the stimulus plan requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to take telemedicine into consideration for greater healthreform.  HHS Secretary-Designate Tom Daschle, Robey said, should make setting standards of interoperability a top priority. 

Speaking about the Senate version of the Stimulus bill, Davis discussed the provisions being made for telehealth projects.  These included maintaining and increasing funding for existing programs, the creation of a state revolving loan fund for telehealth providers, extension and clinical education services, the instituting a policy and standards committee, and the revision of current privacy laws.  As to future developments in telehealth legislation, Davis suggested that legislators are working towards the creation of  extension services to better understand developments in telehealth, as well as increase funding for interstate coordination efforts.

Robey also noted that Rep. Thompson is drafting an updated version of the Medicare Telehealth Enhancement Act, which the Congressman previously introduced in 2008 (HR6163).  If passed, the legislation would, among other things, eliminate the rural designation for telemedicine reimbursement put in place for Medicare purposes and expand Medicare reimbursements to all providers of telehealth services.  Additionally, the bill would expand patient monitoring services, expand store and forward capabilities of information services, and create an advisory committee on telehealth reimbursements.  Finally, it would reauthorize the two current HRSA grant programs in place for telemedicine, as well as increase available telehealth grant dollars.

via Congressional Staff Review Telehealth & Stimulus Bill at January CTeL Brown Bag.