Today I am giving a presentation with Jud DeLoss on the topic of "PHRs, Health 2.0 and the Impact of Social Media on Health Care" at the American Health Lawyers Association 2009 Annual Meeting in Washington, DC.
As a part of the presentation we are sharing the slides from the presentation with the attendees via SlideShare. Below is a copy of the slide deck from the presentation.
Showing posts with label PHR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PHR. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Monday, June 01, 2009
PHRs, The Model T, Meaningful Use and the Patient-Centric HIT Revolution
There is a growing discussion on the health consumer-centric (patient-centric) meaning of "meaningful use" of EHRs and health information technology. Jane Sarasohn-Kahn summarizes this discussion in her recent post, "Meaningful USe - or, whose health is it, anyway?" at Health Populi where she reflects on Ted Eytan's post, "Is it Meaningful If Patients Can't Use It?"
Since Ted's post other health care thought leaders have offered their comments. A list of these individuals can be found in Jane's post. As Jane mentions, this topic was central to much of the discussion that occurred during the first two days of the testimony before the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (NCVHS) on the Future of Personal Health Records held on May 20 and 21. The discussion will continue at the NCVHS hearing on June 9 when there will be a panel focused on "Consumer Advocates and Attitudes" that will include Susannah Fox, Dave deBronkart, Deven McGraw, JD and Robert Gellman, JD.
Jane mentions in her post our testimony before the Subcommittee on Privacy, Confidentiality and Security of the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (NCVHS) on the future of PHRs. Our panel, including me, Jane and Daniel Weitzner, the W3C Technology and Society Policy Director, opened the hearings on PHRs. Our role as the opening panel was to try to set the stage for the context of the discussion on the future of PHRs and consumer facing health care information technology.
As the opening speaker at the hearing I decided to stay away from immediately diving into the legal issues and instead give the committee a landscape view of where I think we are in the history of health information. My goal was to provide a historic framework for PHR development by drawing some historic parallels to the history of the development of our transportation system. By analogy I compared today's PHRs to the Model T era of the automobile area and taking a page from Dave deBronkart told the committee my personal family e-health information story. Below is a complete copy of my written testimony submitted to the committee.
As the discussion continues on "meaningful use" the role that PHRs play is important. Focusing on health care consumers and their practical use of PHR tools is vital to the future of our health care system. As I said in my testimony there will be game changers but we need to see the potential of today's Model T PHRs and build toward the Prius Hybrid PHRs of the future.
Prepared Statement for Subcommittee on Privacy, Confidentiality, and Security National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (NCVHS)
Discussion on the Future of Personal Health Records
Good morning. I want to thank the Co-Chairs, Subcommittee and Committee Staff for the opportunity to participate in today’s discussion on the current state of the personal health record (PHR) and the future use of this and other health care technology tools by the health care industry and the health care consumer.
My name is Bob Coffield. I am a health care attorney from Charleston, West Virginia, with the law firm of Flaherty, Sensabaugh & Bonasso, PLLC. I have a broad-based health care practice, providing legal and business services to a variety of health care clients. A large portion of my practice focuses around health information issues, regulatory compliance, privacy, security, and health technology. Over the past five years, I have become involved in the social media movement, and that involvement has changed the way I live, work, collaborate and communicate. My involvement and interest in the social media movement and its impact on our lives has led me to focus a portion of my practice on legal concepts and issues generated by the use of social media tools and technologies in health care, law and other industries.
Introduction: Today’s PHR is the Model T
As the opening speaker, I want to set the stage for today’s discussion on the questions raised by the committee. As the committee examines the issues, I recommend that you look toward a longer horizon of 20 to 50 years. In this age of information and accelerating technology, it is often easier to predict what may happen in 50 years than what will happen next year. As information technology advances and new technologies are developed, it has become more difficult to conduct short-term strategic planning in the three to five-year range. Over the past 10 years of the maturing information era, we have seen incredible advances and significant disruption in all business, including health care.
At its center, the information age is characterized by the ability to create and transfer information and knowledge freely and to have instant access to knowledge that would have been impossible, difficult or too expensive to find in the past. Jane Sarasohn-Kahn and others today will provide the Committee with an understanding of the current health care consumer marketplace and the major motivators driving health care consumer empowerment in the information age, and also will provide a perspective on the current state of consumer engagement in health care. It is my belief that this changing era is having a profound impact on today’s health care industry. The strategies, systems, approaches and governing rules used today and by past generations may not be successful in today’s and tomorrow’s changing information era.
A part of today’s process should be to consider what the long-term goals are for health information technology, including the PHR, and how it can be used to drive consumer-focused and controlled health care in the information age. Along with this discussion, we have a responsibility to talk about why involvement of the consumer matters and what impact it will have on improving care, reducing costs and creating efficiencies in the health care system.
As we discuss health information technology and PHRs today, we have a responsibility to stay focused on this question: “What will improve the quality of care for you and me, as consumers of health care?” This single question needs to remain at the center of today’s discussion and the continuing debate on consumer health information technology. As the health care industry becomes more and more specialized, complex and technologically advanced, we often lose sight of the purpose of the health care system. That purpose is human care and compassion. You and I, as health care consumers, must remain at the center. My hope is that the future of our health care system will use technology, including PHRs, to improve the human experience and interaction between the professional caregiver and health care consumer.
The questions I often struggle with and hope to hear discussion on today are: How will PHRs drive consumer empowerment, and how will this consumer empowerment lead to improving care? We can all sit around and discuss the best ways to build PHRs, but the questions remain whether or not the health care consumer will be attracted to use PHRs and whether providers will be willing to incorporate PHRs into the treatment and care process.
As I said at the opening of my remarks, I want to set the stage for the discussion and testimony today by sharing a story and painting a historical perspective. As I looked over the agenda of those speaking today, I was struck by the level of experience and diverse backgrounds that each of us brings to the discussion. However, because of the level of specialization represented in this gathering, there is the risk of remaining deep in the weeds, dealing with details, and failing to step back and take a wider view of the landscape. The story and analogy I want to share with you is my attempt to take you on a tour of that broader view.
I am a believer in the adage that history repeats itself. What we are trying to do today is to provide you with a perspective and prediction of the role that the PHR will (should) play in the health information technology infrastructure over the next 10 years. So a historical sketch of where we have been and where we are is valuable to the discussion of where we may go.
I want to start the story with a quote from the 1800s, by inventor Oliver Evans, as he spoke about the future of the transportation system in the United States.
My ancestors, who grew up in the hills of northern West Virginia, came to West Virginia (then Virginia) in the late 1700’s. As we say in West Virginia, “they lived out on the ridge.” A number of generations went by, and there was little mobility of my family. They lived out their lives on those same ridges for well over 150 years. They raised their families and farmed. They lived a relatively isolated and stationary life. Traveling beyond a few miles was difficult, impractical and largely unnecessary, at least from their perspective of the world.
However, by 1900, the landscape had changed, and the Industrial Revolution was having a profound impact on the world. My great-grandfather and grandmother had two sons who were teens in the 1890s. In the 1890s, my great-uncle went to college, came back and taught school for a few years and then went on to law school. Likewise, my grandfather went to college, came home like his brother to teach school for a few years, and then continued on to medical school in Cincinnati, Ohio – at that time a long distance from the northern part of West Virginia. He came back and practiced medicine in Wetzel County, West Virginia, from 1911 until his death in 1936. He saw home patients initially by horseback, and then in 1915, he traveled to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania by train to pick up a brand new Ford Model T, which replaced his horse in his rural medical practice.
As the rail system in the United States matured, it grew into a more complex mass transportation system. Individuals who, prior to that time, had used their own modes of transportation, whether on foot, by horse or carriage, started to rely upon the system for transportation. They became passengers who didn’t own the train or the rails. As the railroad system developed, we saw issues related to standards, such as the gauge of tracks. Local, state and federal government become involved in furthering the growth and expansion of the railroad system by providing financial support, political influence and regulatory assistance to the growing railroad industry.
At that stage in history, no one in the powerful railroad industry would have predicted the disruptive influence by a young, different type of engineer - Henry Ford. With the advent of the automobile and the mass production of the Model T in 1908, our transportation system in the United States was forever changed. Over the next 20 years, the adoption of automobile travel was unprecedented. This revolution led to a demand for better roadways and improvement of the largely privately built turnpike roads. The Federal Highway Act of 1921 authorized the Bureau of Public Roads to provide public funding to help state highway agencies construct paved systems of highways, and this led to the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, which authorized the creation of the Interstate Highway System.
By analogy, we can compare the development of the transportation system to the development of today’s health information system and draw many comparisons and parallels. The health information system, up through the 1950’s and 1960’s, was paper-based, centrally located and uncomplicated. The medical record system for my grandfather’s practice – to the extent that it was used – was simple. Likewise, the medical record system and documentation used by my father and uncle during their medical careers, roughly 1940-2000, was relatively non-complex. During this time, there was little specialization: Physicians were generalists in everything. In large part, physicians from this era cared for their patients from birth to death and, in the case of my grandfather, father, and uncle, cared for multiple generations of families. Providers during that time had a relatively comprehensive picture of the medical history of each individual, as well as that individual’s immediate and collateral family members. Prior to specialization in health care, we had a health system focused on the individual patient, and health information was centered on that individual and the individual’s family.
By the 1970’s, we saw the development of the first electronic health record – the problem-oriented medical record (POMR), predecessor of today’s current Electronic Health Records (EHR) and Electronic Medical Records (EMR). At this same time, we saw the expansion of medical litigation, which has played a significant role in the health information system over the past 30 years.
Prior to 2000, little had been written or heard about PHRs. Back in 2001, in a report called Strategy for Building a National Health Information Infrastructure, the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics mentions PHRs and the growing consumer use of Internet-based health information services. This was important because it was the first time that a national health body acknowledged or officially recognized PHRs. In 2005, the American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA) formed a work group to examine the role of PHRs in relation to EHRs, and the pace and interest in PHRs has continued to increase since that time.
Over the last year, interest and activity in the development and use of PHRs has accelerated. This new-found interest has now culminated in the first law directly regulating PHRs and PHR vendors, under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH), which is a part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, signed into law on February 17, 2009.
How is the history of our transportation system analogous to our health information system? On a basic level, both provide transportation – one transported humans, and the other, human information. Both started as uncomplicated systems that were not interconnected. I imagine you are already formulating other parallel points between these two systems.
To begin today’s discussion on PHRs, we need to examine where PHRs fit in this historical perspective and timeline. What is the equivalent of the PHR in the history of our transportation system? Today’s PHR is the equivalent of the Ford Model T. The PHR will be the vehicle to individually transport health information in the future, introduce the involvement of consumers in their own health information and wellness and inspire a time of innovation and creativeness over the next five to 10 years. If the age of the PHR takes off, it will bring about a wholesale change in the way that health information technology is structured and will radically disrupt traditional health care industry models.
There are various other analogies to be drawn between the two historical perspectives. For example, do the trains and the rail system represent the traditional health care providers and payors in the industry who are maintaining data in silos and segregated systems? Can we draw comparisons between the powerful railroad industry versus the nascent auto industry and the current health care and insurance industry and the emerging Health 2.0 technology movement? Are the disagreements that occurred in the railroad industry over the gauge of railroad tracks analogous to the debate occurring over the need and process to develop standards for health information technology? Can we draw parallels between our country’s development of a national network of railroads through local, state, and federal initiatives to those ongoing efforts by state health information exchanges (HIEs), regional health information organizations (RHIOs) and the national health informational network (NHIN)? Will there be similarities between the freedom that consumers felt the first time they bought an automobile and drove it down the road and the feeling of empowerment experienced when a health care consumer adopts and uses a PHR? In the coming years, will the connecting of EHR and EMR systems and the development of the NHIN be relegated to being used to transfer bulk health data, not unlike the role that the railroad system plays today?
As we look toward the future of PHRs, we have to understand that we are now looking at the Model T stage of PHRs: Call it PHR 1.0. The PHRs of the past 10 years and, in large part, the PHRs of today, are still relatively rudimentary and impractical, not unlike the first automobiles. I suspect my grandfather’s experience of traveling to Pittsburgh by train, having never owned a car before, to pick up his new Ford Model T and drive it back into the hills of West Virginia, was not unlike Dave deBronkart’s experience when he set up his Google Health account and imported his own health information from his providers. Prior to their experiences, neither knew how to drive the vehicle, but they learned in the parking lot. Once they both bought into the product, they didn’t have any good roads to drive on, and when the vehicle broke down they had to fix it themselves. However, through their efforts the world began to change, and their lives were and will be forever changed.
Over the next five to 10 years, and probably longer, we may see PHRs become the multi-colored, sleek-designed, more powerful automobiles, analogous to the golden era of the automobile industry from 1940 to 1950. Continuously over that time period, new personal options will be developed as add-ons to the PHR. As PHR adoption grows, we will have to develop larger, longer and more robust highway systems to allow for the transfer of health data by and between PHRs. Likewise, new standards will come into existence, not unlike those adopted by industry or those created by government. Safety features also will be developed continuously to protect and secure the health information maintained, stored and transferred through PHRs. Think of these as the modern-day innovation, adoption and enforcement of traffic signals, the use of seat belts and requirement for guard rails.
As we look toward the future, we also have to be aware that there will be game changers that we can’t envision at this time. Although PHRs might now be the industry solution to change the way we aggregate and store health information, new technology may be invented that disrupts this strategy and approach. For example, consider the impact that air travel had on the automobile industry. We must remain open to change in this new information era – change will be the norm and not the exception.
Using PHRs to Transform the Health Care Industry
The efforts by large technology companies and other Health 2.0 technology companies could transform the health care industry by triggering advancements in health information technology and laying the groundwork for overall health care delivery and payment reform. Although it is too early to say whether the PHR, in fact, will be the catalyst for health care reform, the Committee, government and the larger health care industry and community need to understand and explore PHRs and their role and consider how the consumer-focused PHR revolution will impact the health industry.
A convergence of factors could cause a comprehensive shift in the way health information is stored and used. Innovations in health information management technology are altering the way that patients, health care providers and payers maintain, use, control, and disclose health information. Through such technology, the current, decentralized system of records maintained by multiple providers and entities at multiple locations – often with conflicting and duplicative information – is being transformed into a centralized record maintenance system that may rely on personal health information networks (PHIN), where the PHR serves as the central repository for health information shared through a system of developing regional or national health information exchanges. Vince Kuraitis of the e-CareManagement Blog calls this change a “transformation from Industrial Age medicine to Information Age health care.”[1]
This transformation in the way information is maintained, stored, and exchanged empowers the health care consumer by offering a new level of control and responsibility over his or her care. It will directly impact the patient-provider relationship.
The traditional model for maintaining medical records, in which the provider of care stores, maintains, and updates the record, is based upon the need to provide continuity of care. The medical record reflects the plan of care, documents the care provided, and records communications among providers. Also, the medical record assists in protecting the legal rights and interests of both consumers and providers.
In the 21st century, our health care system simultaneously has become more fragmented and specialized, on one hand, and more coordinated and wellness-focused, on the other. Health care consumers have become mobile and now seek the services from a variety of providers engaging in numerous specialties. These same consumers change providers on a regular basis and take advantage of new models of care, like urgent care services, to complement traditional primary care services. The increasingly mobile population has caused breakdowns in continuity of care. As individuals move from city to city and state to state, they leave behind a trail of partial medical records – some on paper, some electronic – with various providers, insurers, and others.
The increasing popularity of EMRs, EHRs, RHIOs, and HIEs signals a need to address the increasing complexity of maintaining and sharing these different types and silos of health information. The PHR may be the disruptive technology that provides a simple alternative to ongoing efforts to create an interconnected network of interoperable health information systems with detailed querying functions, capable of making accessible in one place the health information and continuity of care record for individual consumers. In contrast, PHRs would travel with health care consumers and provide a central location for information regarding the consumers’ individualized needs.
Ownership of Health Information
The shift to a consumer-controlled PHR from a provider-based and controlled medical record raises traditional property law issues. As health information becomes increasingly networked and technology permits health information to be transferred more easily, the lines demarcating ownership of health information become further blurred.
Health information is often viewed under the traditional notion of property as a “bundle of rights,” including the right to use, dispose, and exclude others from using. This legal application of historic property law may not be well-suited to the information age, in which patient information is shared through a variety of formats, copied, duplicated, merged, and combined with other patient records into large scale databases of highly valuable information.
Who owns health information? The physician? The insurer? The health care consumer? Under the traditional theory, providers own the medical records they maintain, subject to the consumer’s rights of access in the information contained in the record.[2] This tradition stems from the era of paper records, where physical control meant control and ownership. Provider ownership of the record is not absolute, however; HIPAA and most state laws provide consumers with some right to access and receive a copy of the record. Health care consumers have received other rights out of the bundle of property rights, including the right to request corrections to their medical information and the assurance that such records are maintained confidentially.
The PHR model, where all records are centrally located and maintained by the consumer, flips and realigns the current provider-based ownership model of managing health information. Instead of provider-based control, where the provider furnishes access to and/or copies of the record and is required to seek patient authorization to release medical information, the PHR model puts the health care consumer in control of his or her medical and health information.
[1] Vince Kuraitis, E-CareManagement Blog, Birth Announcement: the Personal Health Information Network, March 8, 2008, http://e-caremanagement.com/birth-announcement-the-personal-health-information-network-phin/.
[2] Alcantara, Oscar L. and Waller, Adelle, Ownership of Health Information in the Information Age, originally published in Journal of the AHIMA, March 30, 1998; http://www.goldbergkohn.com/news-publications-57.html.
Since Ted's post other health care thought leaders have offered their comments. A list of these individuals can be found in Jane's post. As Jane mentions, this topic was central to much of the discussion that occurred during the first two days of the testimony before the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (NCVHS) on the Future of Personal Health Records held on May 20 and 21. The discussion will continue at the NCVHS hearing on June 9 when there will be a panel focused on "Consumer Advocates and Attitudes" that will include Susannah Fox, Dave deBronkart, Deven McGraw, JD and Robert Gellman, JD.
Jane mentions in her post our testimony before the Subcommittee on Privacy, Confidentiality and Security of the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (NCVHS) on the future of PHRs. Our panel, including me, Jane and Daniel Weitzner, the W3C Technology and Society Policy Director, opened the hearings on PHRs. Our role as the opening panel was to try to set the stage for the context of the discussion on the future of PHRs and consumer facing health care information technology.
As the opening speaker at the hearing I decided to stay away from immediately diving into the legal issues and instead give the committee a landscape view of where I think we are in the history of health information. My goal was to provide a historic framework for PHR development by drawing some historic parallels to the history of the development of our transportation system. By analogy I compared today's PHRs to the Model T era of the automobile area and taking a page from Dave deBronkart told the committee my personal family e-health information story. Below is a complete copy of my written testimony submitted to the committee.
As the discussion continues on "meaningful use" the role that PHRs play is important. Focusing on health care consumers and their practical use of PHR tools is vital to the future of our health care system. As I said in my testimony there will be game changers but we need to see the potential of today's Model T PHRs and build toward the Prius Hybrid PHRs of the future.
Prepared Statement for Subcommittee on Privacy, Confidentiality, and Security National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (NCVHS)
Discussion on the Future of Personal Health Records
Good morning. I want to thank the Co-Chairs, Subcommittee and Committee Staff for the opportunity to participate in today’s discussion on the current state of the personal health record (PHR) and the future use of this and other health care technology tools by the health care industry and the health care consumer.
My name is Bob Coffield. I am a health care attorney from Charleston, West Virginia, with the law firm of Flaherty, Sensabaugh & Bonasso, PLLC. I have a broad-based health care practice, providing legal and business services to a variety of health care clients. A large portion of my practice focuses around health information issues, regulatory compliance, privacy, security, and health technology. Over the past five years, I have become involved in the social media movement, and that involvement has changed the way I live, work, collaborate and communicate. My involvement and interest in the social media movement and its impact on our lives has led me to focus a portion of my practice on legal concepts and issues generated by the use of social media tools and technologies in health care, law and other industries.
Introduction: Today’s PHR is the Model T
As the opening speaker, I want to set the stage for today’s discussion on the questions raised by the committee. As the committee examines the issues, I recommend that you look toward a longer horizon of 20 to 50 years. In this age of information and accelerating technology, it is often easier to predict what may happen in 50 years than what will happen next year. As information technology advances and new technologies are developed, it has become more difficult to conduct short-term strategic planning in the three to five-year range. Over the past 10 years of the maturing information era, we have seen incredible advances and significant disruption in all business, including health care.
At its center, the information age is characterized by the ability to create and transfer information and knowledge freely and to have instant access to knowledge that would have been impossible, difficult or too expensive to find in the past. Jane Sarasohn-Kahn and others today will provide the Committee with an understanding of the current health care consumer marketplace and the major motivators driving health care consumer empowerment in the information age, and also will provide a perspective on the current state of consumer engagement in health care. It is my belief that this changing era is having a profound impact on today’s health care industry. The strategies, systems, approaches and governing rules used today and by past generations may not be successful in today’s and tomorrow’s changing information era.
A part of today’s process should be to consider what the long-term goals are for health information technology, including the PHR, and how it can be used to drive consumer-focused and controlled health care in the information age. Along with this discussion, we have a responsibility to talk about why involvement of the consumer matters and what impact it will have on improving care, reducing costs and creating efficiencies in the health care system.
As we discuss health information technology and PHRs today, we have a responsibility to stay focused on this question: “What will improve the quality of care for you and me, as consumers of health care?” This single question needs to remain at the center of today’s discussion and the continuing debate on consumer health information technology. As the health care industry becomes more and more specialized, complex and technologically advanced, we often lose sight of the purpose of the health care system. That purpose is human care and compassion. You and I, as health care consumers, must remain at the center. My hope is that the future of our health care system will use technology, including PHRs, to improve the human experience and interaction between the professional caregiver and health care consumer.
The questions I often struggle with and hope to hear discussion on today are: How will PHRs drive consumer empowerment, and how will this consumer empowerment lead to improving care? We can all sit around and discuss the best ways to build PHRs, but the questions remain whether or not the health care consumer will be attracted to use PHRs and whether providers will be willing to incorporate PHRs into the treatment and care process.
As I said at the opening of my remarks, I want to set the stage for the discussion and testimony today by sharing a story and painting a historical perspective. As I looked over the agenda of those speaking today, I was struck by the level of experience and diverse backgrounds that each of us brings to the discussion. However, because of the level of specialization represented in this gathering, there is the risk of remaining deep in the weeds, dealing with details, and failing to step back and take a wider view of the landscape. The story and analogy I want to share with you is my attempt to take you on a tour of that broader view.
I am a believer in the adage that history repeats itself. What we are trying to do today is to provide you with a perspective and prediction of the role that the PHR will (should) play in the health information technology infrastructure over the next 10 years. So a historical sketch of where we have been and where we are is valuable to the discussion of where we may go.
I want to start the story with a quote from the 1800s, by inventor Oliver Evans, as he spoke about the future of the transportation system in the United States.
"The time will come when people will travel in stages moved by steam engines from one city to another, almost as fast as birds can fly, 15 or 20 miles an hour . . .The 1800’s saw the dawn of the railroad system in the United States, as a result of the development of the steam engine. These developments led to the widespread use of trains as a mode of transportation for a growing population that, until that time, had been relatively immobile. The growth of the railroad system started at the local level, grew to regional connections and ultimately led to a national network of railroad tracks from east to west and from north to south. Prior to this time, personal travel required one to travel on foot, by horse or by carriage.
A carriage will start from Washington in the morning, the passengers will breakfast at Baltimore, dine at Philadelphia and supper in New York the same day . . . .
My ancestors, who grew up in the hills of northern West Virginia, came to West Virginia (then Virginia) in the late 1700’s. As we say in West Virginia, “they lived out on the ridge.” A number of generations went by, and there was little mobility of my family. They lived out their lives on those same ridges for well over 150 years. They raised their families and farmed. They lived a relatively isolated and stationary life. Traveling beyond a few miles was difficult, impractical and largely unnecessary, at least from their perspective of the world.
However, by 1900, the landscape had changed, and the Industrial Revolution was having a profound impact on the world. My great-grandfather and grandmother had two sons who were teens in the 1890s. In the 1890s, my great-uncle went to college, came back and taught school for a few years and then went on to law school. Likewise, my grandfather went to college, came home like his brother to teach school for a few years, and then continued on to medical school in Cincinnati, Ohio – at that time a long distance from the northern part of West Virginia. He came back and practiced medicine in Wetzel County, West Virginia, from 1911 until his death in 1936. He saw home patients initially by horseback, and then in 1915, he traveled to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania by train to pick up a brand new Ford Model T, which replaced his horse in his rural medical practice.As the rail system in the United States matured, it grew into a more complex mass transportation system. Individuals who, prior to that time, had used their own modes of transportation, whether on foot, by horse or carriage, started to rely upon the system for transportation. They became passengers who didn’t own the train or the rails. As the railroad system developed, we saw issues related to standards, such as the gauge of tracks. Local, state and federal government become involved in furthering the growth and expansion of the railroad system by providing financial support, political influence and regulatory assistance to the growing railroad industry.
At that stage in history, no one in the powerful railroad industry would have predicted the disruptive influence by a young, different type of engineer - Henry Ford. With the advent of the automobile and the mass production of the Model T in 1908, our transportation system in the United States was forever changed. Over the next 20 years, the adoption of automobile travel was unprecedented. This revolution led to a demand for better roadways and improvement of the largely privately built turnpike roads. The Federal Highway Act of 1921 authorized the Bureau of Public Roads to provide public funding to help state highway agencies construct paved systems of highways, and this led to the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, which authorized the creation of the Interstate Highway System.
By analogy, we can compare the development of the transportation system to the development of today’s health information system and draw many comparisons and parallels. The health information system, up through the 1950’s and 1960’s, was paper-based, centrally located and uncomplicated. The medical record system for my grandfather’s practice – to the extent that it was used – was simple. Likewise, the medical record system and documentation used by my father and uncle during their medical careers, roughly 1940-2000, was relatively non-complex. During this time, there was little specialization: Physicians were generalists in everything. In large part, physicians from this era cared for their patients from birth to death and, in the case of my grandfather, father, and uncle, cared for multiple generations of families. Providers during that time had a relatively comprehensive picture of the medical history of each individual, as well as that individual’s immediate and collateral family members. Prior to specialization in health care, we had a health system focused on the individual patient, and health information was centered on that individual and the individual’s family.
By the 1970’s, we saw the development of the first electronic health record – the problem-oriented medical record (POMR), predecessor of today’s current Electronic Health Records (EHR) and Electronic Medical Records (EMR). At this same time, we saw the expansion of medical litigation, which has played a significant role in the health information system over the past 30 years.
Prior to 2000, little had been written or heard about PHRs. Back in 2001, in a report called Strategy for Building a National Health Information Infrastructure, the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics mentions PHRs and the growing consumer use of Internet-based health information services. This was important because it was the first time that a national health body acknowledged or officially recognized PHRs. In 2005, the American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA) formed a work group to examine the role of PHRs in relation to EHRs, and the pace and interest in PHRs has continued to increase since that time.
Over the last year, interest and activity in the development and use of PHRs has accelerated. This new-found interest has now culminated in the first law directly regulating PHRs and PHR vendors, under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH), which is a part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, signed into law on February 17, 2009.
How is the history of our transportation system analogous to our health information system? On a basic level, both provide transportation – one transported humans, and the other, human information. Both started as uncomplicated systems that were not interconnected. I imagine you are already formulating other parallel points between these two systems.
To begin today’s discussion on PHRs, we need to examine where PHRs fit in this historical perspective and timeline. What is the equivalent of the PHR in the history of our transportation system? Today’s PHR is the equivalent of the Ford Model T. The PHR will be the vehicle to individually transport health information in the future, introduce the involvement of consumers in their own health information and wellness and inspire a time of innovation and creativeness over the next five to 10 years. If the age of the PHR takes off, it will bring about a wholesale change in the way that health information technology is structured and will radically disrupt traditional health care industry models.
There are various other analogies to be drawn between the two historical perspectives. For example, do the trains and the rail system represent the traditional health care providers and payors in the industry who are maintaining data in silos and segregated systems? Can we draw comparisons between the powerful railroad industry versus the nascent auto industry and the current health care and insurance industry and the emerging Health 2.0 technology movement? Are the disagreements that occurred in the railroad industry over the gauge of railroad tracks analogous to the debate occurring over the need and process to develop standards for health information technology? Can we draw parallels between our country’s development of a national network of railroads through local, state, and federal initiatives to those ongoing efforts by state health information exchanges (HIEs), regional health information organizations (RHIOs) and the national health informational network (NHIN)? Will there be similarities between the freedom that consumers felt the first time they bought an automobile and drove it down the road and the feeling of empowerment experienced when a health care consumer adopts and uses a PHR? In the coming years, will the connecting of EHR and EMR systems and the development of the NHIN be relegated to being used to transfer bulk health data, not unlike the role that the railroad system plays today?
As we look toward the future of PHRs, we have to understand that we are now looking at the Model T stage of PHRs: Call it PHR 1.0. The PHRs of the past 10 years and, in large part, the PHRs of today, are still relatively rudimentary and impractical, not unlike the first automobiles. I suspect my grandfather’s experience of traveling to Pittsburgh by train, having never owned a car before, to pick up his new Ford Model T and drive it back into the hills of West Virginia, was not unlike Dave deBronkart’s experience when he set up his Google Health account and imported his own health information from his providers. Prior to their experiences, neither knew how to drive the vehicle, but they learned in the parking lot. Once they both bought into the product, they didn’t have any good roads to drive on, and when the vehicle broke down they had to fix it themselves. However, through their efforts the world began to change, and their lives were and will be forever changed.
Over the next five to 10 years, and probably longer, we may see PHRs become the multi-colored, sleek-designed, more powerful automobiles, analogous to the golden era of the automobile industry from 1940 to 1950. Continuously over that time period, new personal options will be developed as add-ons to the PHR. As PHR adoption grows, we will have to develop larger, longer and more robust highway systems to allow for the transfer of health data by and between PHRs. Likewise, new standards will come into existence, not unlike those adopted by industry or those created by government. Safety features also will be developed continuously to protect and secure the health information maintained, stored and transferred through PHRs. Think of these as the modern-day innovation, adoption and enforcement of traffic signals, the use of seat belts and requirement for guard rails.
As we look toward the future, we also have to be aware that there will be game changers that we can’t envision at this time. Although PHRs might now be the industry solution to change the way we aggregate and store health information, new technology may be invented that disrupts this strategy and approach. For example, consider the impact that air travel had on the automobile industry. We must remain open to change in this new information era – change will be the norm and not the exception.
Using PHRs to Transform the Health Care Industry
The efforts by large technology companies and other Health 2.0 technology companies could transform the health care industry by triggering advancements in health information technology and laying the groundwork for overall health care delivery and payment reform. Although it is too early to say whether the PHR, in fact, will be the catalyst for health care reform, the Committee, government and the larger health care industry and community need to understand and explore PHRs and their role and consider how the consumer-focused PHR revolution will impact the health industry.
A convergence of factors could cause a comprehensive shift in the way health information is stored and used. Innovations in health information management technology are altering the way that patients, health care providers and payers maintain, use, control, and disclose health information. Through such technology, the current, decentralized system of records maintained by multiple providers and entities at multiple locations – often with conflicting and duplicative information – is being transformed into a centralized record maintenance system that may rely on personal health information networks (PHIN), where the PHR serves as the central repository for health information shared through a system of developing regional or national health information exchanges. Vince Kuraitis of the e-CareManagement Blog calls this change a “transformation from Industrial Age medicine to Information Age health care.”[1]
This transformation in the way information is maintained, stored, and exchanged empowers the health care consumer by offering a new level of control and responsibility over his or her care. It will directly impact the patient-provider relationship.
The traditional model for maintaining medical records, in which the provider of care stores, maintains, and updates the record, is based upon the need to provide continuity of care. The medical record reflects the plan of care, documents the care provided, and records communications among providers. Also, the medical record assists in protecting the legal rights and interests of both consumers and providers.
In the 21st century, our health care system simultaneously has become more fragmented and specialized, on one hand, and more coordinated and wellness-focused, on the other. Health care consumers have become mobile and now seek the services from a variety of providers engaging in numerous specialties. These same consumers change providers on a regular basis and take advantage of new models of care, like urgent care services, to complement traditional primary care services. The increasingly mobile population has caused breakdowns in continuity of care. As individuals move from city to city and state to state, they leave behind a trail of partial medical records – some on paper, some electronic – with various providers, insurers, and others.
The increasing popularity of EMRs, EHRs, RHIOs, and HIEs signals a need to address the increasing complexity of maintaining and sharing these different types and silos of health information. The PHR may be the disruptive technology that provides a simple alternative to ongoing efforts to create an interconnected network of interoperable health information systems with detailed querying functions, capable of making accessible in one place the health information and continuity of care record for individual consumers. In contrast, PHRs would travel with health care consumers and provide a central location for information regarding the consumers’ individualized needs.
Ownership of Health Information
The shift to a consumer-controlled PHR from a provider-based and controlled medical record raises traditional property law issues. As health information becomes increasingly networked and technology permits health information to be transferred more easily, the lines demarcating ownership of health information become further blurred.
Health information is often viewed under the traditional notion of property as a “bundle of rights,” including the right to use, dispose, and exclude others from using. This legal application of historic property law may not be well-suited to the information age, in which patient information is shared through a variety of formats, copied, duplicated, merged, and combined with other patient records into large scale databases of highly valuable information.
Who owns health information? The physician? The insurer? The health care consumer? Under the traditional theory, providers own the medical records they maintain, subject to the consumer’s rights of access in the information contained in the record.[2] This tradition stems from the era of paper records, where physical control meant control and ownership. Provider ownership of the record is not absolute, however; HIPAA and most state laws provide consumers with some right to access and receive a copy of the record. Health care consumers have received other rights out of the bundle of property rights, including the right to request corrections to their medical information and the assurance that such records are maintained confidentially.
The PHR model, where all records are centrally located and maintained by the consumer, flips and realigns the current provider-based ownership model of managing health information. Instead of provider-based control, where the provider furnishes access to and/or copies of the record and is required to seek patient authorization to release medical information, the PHR model puts the health care consumer in control of his or her medical and health information.
[1] Vince Kuraitis, E-CareManagement Blog, Birth Announcement: the Personal Health Information Network, March 8, 2008, http://e-caremanagement.com/birth-announcement-the-personal-health-information-network-phin/.
[2] Alcantara, Oscar L. and Waller, Adelle, Ownership of Health Information in the Information Age, originally published in Journal of the AHIMA, March 30, 1998; http://www.goldbergkohn.com/news-publications-57.html.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Ted Eytan, MD's Photo Friday
Thanks to Ted Eytan, MD for featuring Jane Sarasohn-Kahn and me as the "Photo Friday" models of the week. The photo was taken at the start of our testimony before NCVHS on the future of PHRs.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
ONC Developing Online Project To Educate Consumers About PHRs
Government Health IT reports that the the Office of the National Coordinator (ONC) is developing an online model containing information for consumers about personal health records (PHRs) and the privacy policies related to their use. ONC's effort appears targeted at engaging consumer to make more informed decisions about the use of PHRs.
The Office of the Secretary for HHS issued a notice of Agency Information Collection Request and 30 day Comment Request, 74 Federal Register 24012 (May 22, 2009), providing details of the proposed project.
If others have additional information on this project -- please leave a comment.
The abstract in the Federal Register notice states:
The Office of the Secretary for HHS issued a notice of Agency Information Collection Request and 30 day Comment Request, 74 Federal Register 24012 (May 22, 2009), providing details of the proposed project.
If others have additional information on this project -- please leave a comment.
The abstract in the Federal Register notice states:
A new health information technology, the personal health record (PHR), seeks to provide consumers with the capability to directly manage their own health information. Although PHRs can exist in different formats or media (i.e., paper or electronic), the term usually refers to an online record containing an individual’s personal health information. PHRs typically include information such as health history, vaccinations, allergies, test results, and prescription information. Given the newness of the electronic PHR concept, the different ways to establish PHRs, and the sensitivity of personal health information, ONC is taking steps to establish that useful facts about PHRs and PHR privacy policy information be made available to consumers so they can make informed decisions about selecting and using PHRs. Toward this end, ONC has a project to develop an online model for PHR providers.
The model will be developed to:
› Allow presentation of important PHR facts and policies to consumers,
› Allow consumers to understand and consistently compare PHR service provider policies with others, and
› Focus on the key information that may influence decisions and choices of PHR service provider.
The project includes iterative rounds of in-depth consumer testing during April–October 2009 to assess and analyze consumer understanding and input about the model. The model will be iteratively revised to design a final template that will allow PHR vendors to convey useful and understandable facts to consumers about their privacy, security, and information management policies. Testing will be conducted in six locations that cover the four geographic census regions and will include 90-minute, one-on-one, cognitive usability interviews with six to seven participants at each of six sites, for a total not to exceed 42 interviews. In addition, each participant will have been recruited through a 15-minute screening interview. The participants will be recruited according to U.S. census statistics for race/ethnicity, age, marital status, gender, and income. Also, the sample will include participants both familiar and unfamiliar with PHRs and participants who manage chronic health issues or a disease for themselves or others.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Modern Day Hatfield-McCoy: Google Health and Microsoft HealthVault
The Hatfields and McCoys, a metaphor for a modern day high-tech industry rivalry centered on personal health records (PHRs) involving Google Health, Microsoft HealthVault and other PHR vendors. An image that a West Virginia health care lawyer can really appreciate.
Thanks to a tweet by @2healthguru for pointing out the CNET article, Microsoft, Google in healthy competition. The article provides a good overview of the developing PHR movement and some insight into the future. However, I'm a bit concerned by the accuracy of the article when I see two of the individuals mentioned in the article (Matthew Holt and Dave deBronkart) tweeting (here and here) that they weren't really interviewed for the article.
Later this week I will be in D.C.along with others testifying at the Hearing on Personal Health Records before the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (NCVHS), Subcommittee on Privacy, Confidentiality and Security . The Subcommittee is looking at the future of the PHR marketplace and consumer-facing health information technology.
The story of the Hatfield-McCoy feud is woven into the fabric of southern West Virginia lore along the Tug River and well known by all West Virginians. Above is a photo of the West Virginia Hatfield clan around 1897, led by Devil Anse Hatfield, second from the left. For more history and photos check out the West Virginia Division of Culture and History.
Note: If you are into off-road vehicle trails, come visit West Virginia and check out the modern day version -- the Hatfield-McCoy Trails.
Thanks to a tweet by @2healthguru for pointing out the CNET article, Microsoft, Google in healthy competition. The article provides a good overview of the developing PHR movement and some insight into the future. However, I'm a bit concerned by the accuracy of the article when I see two of the individuals mentioned in the article (Matthew Holt and Dave deBronkart) tweeting (here and here) that they weren't really interviewed for the article.Later this week I will be in D.C.along with others testifying at the Hearing on Personal Health Records before the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (NCVHS), Subcommittee on Privacy, Confidentiality and Security . The Subcommittee is looking at the future of the PHR marketplace and consumer-facing health information technology.
The story of the Hatfield-McCoy feud is woven into the fabric of southern West Virginia lore along the Tug River and well known by all West Virginians. Above is a photo of the West Virginia Hatfield clan around 1897, led by Devil Anse Hatfield, second from the left. For more history and photos check out the West Virginia Division of Culture and History.
Note: If you are into off-road vehicle trails, come visit West Virginia and check out the modern day version -- the Hatfield-McCoy Trails.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Microsoft and Mayo Clinic Collaboration: Mayo Clinic Health Manager
Today Microsoft Corporation and Mayo Clinic announced a new consumer online health service called Mayo Clinic Health Manager, build on the HealthVault platform.
The press release states that Mayo Clinic Health Manager provides individuals "a place to store medical information and receive real-time individualized health guidance and recommendations based on the clinical expertise of Mayo Clinic . . . [extending] the capabilities of traditional personal health records, using an individual's health information to generate customized recommendations on which they can act to help them better manage their health and the health of their families."
Learn more from the Media Kit or take a tour.
How does this change the current PHR landscape?
Like others who have been commenting today I see this as combining the power brand of Mayo Clinic and its guidelines with what appears to be simple PHR tools designed to allow you to record, track, monitor, etc. your health information. However, at this point it still doesn't get over the hurdle of the individual having to individually input their own data.
Will health consumers become engaged to take on this role? Can providers and payors start to feed good data into the system to lessen the burden on the consumer/patient? What role will state and federal payors play in these systems? How will we all address the issues raised by Dave deBronkart (e-patientDave) which have been the center of discussion on the health blogosphere the past couple of weeks.
More questions than answers.
UPDATE (4/23/09): Did Microsoft sign a HIPAA Business Associate Agreement as a part of the collaboration? In HIPAA lawyer jargon the real question is "whether Mircrosoft is offering a service for or on behalf of the Mayo Clinic and is receiving protected health information." Answer per Microsoft from Nei Versel's Healthcare IT Blog.
The press release states that Mayo Clinic Health Manager provides individuals "a place to store medical information and receive real-time individualized health guidance and recommendations based on the clinical expertise of Mayo Clinic . . . [extending] the capabilities of traditional personal health records, using an individual's health information to generate customized recommendations on which they can act to help them better manage their health and the health of their families."
Learn more from the Media Kit or take a tour.
How does this change the current PHR landscape?
Like others who have been commenting today I see this as combining the power brand of Mayo Clinic and its guidelines with what appears to be simple PHR tools designed to allow you to record, track, monitor, etc. your health information. However, at this point it still doesn't get over the hurdle of the individual having to individually input their own data.
Will health consumers become engaged to take on this role? Can providers and payors start to feed good data into the system to lessen the burden on the consumer/patient? What role will state and federal payors play in these systems? How will we all address the issues raised by Dave deBronkart (e-patientDave) which have been the center of discussion on the health blogosphere the past couple of weeks.
More questions than answers.
UPDATE (4/23/09): Did Microsoft sign a HIPAA Business Associate Agreement as a part of the collaboration? In HIPAA lawyer jargon the real question is "whether Mircrosoft is offering a service for or on behalf of the Mayo Clinic and is receiving protected health information." Answer per Microsoft from Nei Versel's Healthcare IT Blog.
Friday, April 17, 2009
FTC Proposed Health Breach Notification Rule for PHRs and Electronic Health Information
Yesterday, April 16, 2009, the Federal Trade Commission released its proposed Health Breach Notification Rule for Vendors of Personal Health Records (PHRs) and Electronic Health Information.
The official title of the proposed rule is: 16. C.F.R. Part 318: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments Concerning Proposed Health Breach Notification Rule, Pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
The FTC is seeking written comments electronically or in paper form. The comments must be submitted by June 1, 2009 and will be placed on the public record and made accessible at the FTC website at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm.
The FTC's press release states:
The official title of the proposed rule is: 16. C.F.R. Part 318: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments Concerning Proposed Health Breach Notification Rule, Pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
The FTC is seeking written comments electronically or in paper form. The comments must be submitted by June 1, 2009 and will be placed on the public record and made accessible at the FTC website at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm.
The FTC's press release states:
The Federal Trade Commission today announced that it has approved a Federal Register notice seeking public comment on a proposed rule that would require entities to notify consumers when the security of their electronic health information is breached.More information over at info.rmatics blog who appear to have done a quick summary of the proposed rule. I have only had a chance to quickly scan the proposed rule but will add addition comments once I have a chance to read the entire proposed regulations. Comments and thoughts of others are welcomed - please post your comments.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act) includes provisions to advance the use of health information technology and, at the same time, strengthen privacy and security protections for health information. Among other things, the Recovery Act recognizes that there are new types of Web-based entities that collect or handle consumers’ sensitive health information. Some of these entities offer personal health records, which consumers can use as an electronic, individually controlled repository for their medical information. Others provide online applications through which consumers can track and manage different kinds of information in their personal health records. For example, consumers can connect a device such as a pedometer to their computers and upload miles traveled, heart rate, and other data into their personal health records. These innovations have the potential to provide numerous benefits for consumers, which can only be realized if they have confidence that the security and confidentiality of their health information will be maintained.
To address these issues, the Recovery Act requires the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a study and report, in consultation with the FTC, on potential privacy, security, and breach notification requirements for vendors of personal health records and related entities. This study and report must be completed by February 2010. In the interim, the Act requires the Commission to issue a temporary rule requiring these entities to notify consumers if the security of their health information is breached. The proposed rule the Commission is announcing today is the first step in implementing this requirement.
In keeping with the Recovery Act, the proposed rule requires vendors of personal health records and related entities to provide notice to consumers following a breach. The proposed rule also stipulates that if a service provider to one of these entities experiences a breach, it must notify the entity, which in turn must notify consumers of the breach. The proposed rule contains additional requirements governing the standard for what triggers the notice, as well as the timing, method, and content of notice. It also requires entities covered by the proposed rule to notify the FTC of any breaches. The FTC can then post information about the breaches on its Web site, and notify the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
My Family Health Portrait: A Family PHR
The Surgeon General has launched a new online tool allowing a user to create an electronic family health tree to track your family health history. The site is called "My Family Health Portrait." The Surgeon General press release.
The tool draws on the value of creating a family health genealogy and marries it with the concepts of PHRs. The tool states, "using My Family Health Portrait you can:
According to the details on the website the tool will be interoperable and EHR-ready (i.e., developed using HL7 Family History Model, LOINC, SNOMED-CT and HL7 Vocabulary) . Information included in the My Family Health Portrait can then be transferred and embedded in EHRs or PHRs. The details on the website indicate that the tool is open source, free and can by "adopted" by other organizations.
Coinciding with the release of My Family Health Portrait, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has published new HIPAA Privacy Rule FAQs related to family medical history. The new FAQs support the roll out of the Surgeon General's family health history portal.
The FAQs address the following questions:
1. Does the HIPAA Privacy Rule limit an individual’s ability to gather and share family medical history information?
2. Does the HIPAA Privacy Rule limit what a doctor can do with a family medical history?
3. Under the HIPAA Privacy Rule, may a health care provider disclose protected health information about an individual to another provider, when such information is requested for the treatment of a family member of the individual?
More from the Washington Post. Tip from iHealthBeat.
The tool draws on the value of creating a family health genealogy and marries it with the concepts of PHRs. The tool states, "using My Family Health Portrait you can:
- Enter your family health history.
- Create drawings of your family health history to share with family or health care worker.
- Use the health history of your family to create your own.
According to the details on the website the tool will be interoperable and EHR-ready (i.e., developed using HL7 Family History Model, LOINC, SNOMED-CT and HL7 Vocabulary) . Information included in the My Family Health Portrait can then be transferred and embedded in EHRs or PHRs. The details on the website indicate that the tool is open source, free and can by "adopted" by other organizations.
Coinciding with the release of My Family Health Portrait, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has published new HIPAA Privacy Rule FAQs related to family medical history. The new FAQs support the roll out of the Surgeon General's family health history portal.
The FAQs address the following questions:
1. Does the HIPAA Privacy Rule limit an individual’s ability to gather and share family medical history information?
2. Does the HIPAA Privacy Rule limit what a doctor can do with a family medical history?
3. Under the HIPAA Privacy Rule, may a health care provider disclose protected health information about an individual to another provider, when such information is requested for the treatment of a family member of the individual?
More from the Washington Post. Tip from iHealthBeat.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Medicare PHR Pilot Project
HealthcareIT News reports on the announcement of a Medicare personal health record (PHR) pilot project that will be made available to Medicare beneficiaries in Arizona and Utah.
The four PHR companies selected out of almost 40 who applied to participate in the pilot are: Google Health, HealthTrio, NoMoreClipboard.com and PassportMD.
The Arizona Republic has more on the pilot project. More background information on CMS's PHR projects.
Tip to iHeathBeat on the article.
UPDATE: Today's iHealthBeat indicates that interoperable PHRs could result in$21B savings per study conducted by Center for Information Technology Leadership. Read the press release and full Value of Personal Health Records report.
The four PHR companies selected out of almost 40 who applied to participate in the pilot are: Google Health, HealthTrio, NoMoreClipboard.com and PassportMD.
The Arizona Republic has more on the pilot project. More background information on CMS's PHR projects.
Tip to iHeathBeat on the article.
UPDATE: Today's iHealthBeat indicates that interoperable PHRs could result in$21B savings per study conducted by Center for Information Technology Leadership. Read the press release and full Value of Personal Health Records report.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The Health Cloud
Tim Sturgill, MD JD at symtym provides an explanation and insight into the potential shift from silo'ed EHRs controlled by multiple providers to a Health Cloud centralized around a single PHR.The result of such a shift lessens the need for complex health information exchanges to process and communicate information among a variety of health information silos, matching patient records and trying to match multiple sources of health information that may or may not be identical.
This approach is similar to the discussion and perspective I outlined in a recent article on PHRs for Health Lawyer News.
Graphic image courtesy of Tim's post.
Friday, October 17, 2008
The Rise of the Personal Health Record
The October edition of the Health Lawyers News, a publication of the American Health Lawyers Association (AHLA), contains an article I co-authored with Jud DeLoss, a principal in the law firm of Gray Plant Mooty, who blogs at Minnesota Health IT. On the eve of the Health 2.0 Conference next week the article provides a look at some of the legal issues around PHRs.
The article, The Rise of the Personal Health Record: Panacea or Pitfall for Health Information (pdf version), provides an introductory background on the changing world of PHRs, highlights Health 2.0 and covers some of the legal implications and compliance issues for PHRs. We are working on a longer and more detailed analysis that will be turned into a Member Briefing for the Health Information and Technology Practice Group. I would appreciate your posting a comment on topics or legal implications that we might consider covering in the full Member Briefing.
If you are a health lawyer, law student interested in health law or otherwise interested in the the legal aspects of the health care industry and not already a member of AHLA -- think about joining. The AHLA is at the top of my professional associations for written resource material, member briefings, in person programs, listserves and collaboration with health lawyer colleagues.
The Rise of the Personal Health Record: Panacea or Pitfall for Health Information
I. Introduction
Giant bytes have been taken out of the personal health record (PHR) market by technology companies like Google, Microsoft, Dossia, and others on a mission to connect consumers with their health information. If successful, the efforts by these and other Health 2.0 technology companies could transform the health care industry. It is too early to say whether the PHR will be the catalyst for health care reform; however, we can explore what may lie in the wake if a consumer-focused PHR revolution occurs.
Technological changes in health information management are altering the way in which patients and health care providers maintain, use, control, and disclose health information. We are experiencing a paradigm shift from the current decentralized system of records maintained by multiple entities at multiple locations – often with conflicting and duplicative information – to a centralized system relying on personal health information networks (PHINs), regional health information networks (RHIOs) or national health information exchanges (HIEs).
In the 21st Century, our health care system has become more fragmented and specialized. Patients seek the services from a variety of providers – from family care providers to specialists. Moreover, as individuals move from city to city and state to state, they leave a trail of partial medical records with various providers, insurers, and others.
The rise of electronic medical records (EMRs), electronic health records (EHRs), RHIOs, and HIEs reflects a need to address the increasing complexity of maintaining and sharing health information. PHRs may be the disruptive technology providing an alternative to a complex system of interconnected interoperable health information systems, often among health care stakeholders who have conflicting and competitive interests.
A. PHRs Defined
The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) defines a PHR as “an electronic record of health related information on an individual that conforms to nationally recognized interoperability standards and that can be drawn from multiple sources while being managed, shared and controlled by the individual.”[2]
The ONC report highlights the growing importance of PHRs to facilitate the participation of individuals in their own care and wellness activities. Encouraging individuals to become engaged in their health care, and providing the means to document, track, and evaluate their health conditions, a PHR can lead to more informed health care decisions, improved health status, and ultimately, reduced costs and improved quality of health care. The PHR is broader than a medical record and contains any information relevant to an individual’s health, including diet and exercise logs, a list of over-the-counter medications, and personal information.
PHRs are distinguishable from EMRs and EHRs. A key distinction is that a PHR is under the patient’s control. The individual patient is the ultimate guardian of information within a PHR. Portability is another distinguishing characteristic of the PHR. The goal of a PHR is to be a lifelong source of health information for an individual.
B. History of PHRs
According to Wikipedia, the earliest article mentioning PHRs is dated June 1978. Wikipedia also mentions that most articles written about PHRs have been published since 2000. In its November 2001 report, the National Committee on Vital & Health Statistics (NCVHS) mentions PHRs and the growing consumer use of Internet-based health information services.[3]
Early on, PHRs were used in a rudimentary fashion as a way for individuals to track their own specific health care information. First generation PHRs can be categorized as either stand-alone PHRs, requiring patients to gather and enter their own information, or tethered PHRs, provided by a health plan, provider, or employer sponsor who populated the PHR with information.
The past twelve months mark a new era of increased activity. Call it a second generation of PHRs or PHR 2.0. The advancement is led by the entrance of large technology companies, such as Google with Google Health and Microsoft with HealthVault, into the PHR marketplace. PHR
2.0 is not merely a data collection application, but rather a platform for the electronic aggregation and storage of health information as well as the foundation for various applications.
At the federal level, ONC also is focusing on patient-centered health care. Released in June 2008, the ONC - Coordinated Federal Health Information Technology Strategic Plan: 2008-2012 serves as the guide to coordinate the federal government’s health information technology (HIT) efforts to achieve a nationwide implementation of an interoperability health information system.[4] A critical goal is to create “patient-focused health care” through the promotion of the deployment of EHRs and PHRs and other consumer HIT tools.
C. Social Networking and Health 2.0
The transformation to a PHR-based health information system is fueled by the intensifying interest in web-based social networking and the Health 2.0 movement. The increasing adoption of social networking and lightweight web-based tools among the general public may create a willingness to have and utilize PHRs. There are various technology players positioning themselves to create the “killer PHR application” to become the default standard for industry and the personal portal for each patient’s personal health information.
The definition of the Health 2.0 movement is still being refined.[5] Jane Sarasohn-Kahn, of THINK- health, defines Health 2.0 as “the use of social software and its ability to promote collaboration between patients, their caregivers, medical professionals and other stakeholders in health.”[6] Early use of the Internet for health care was limited to the distribution and search for health information. The read-only World Wide Web has been transformed into the World “Live” Web. Today, user-generated content is being created by businesses, professionals, and ordinary people at lightening speed through social media tools such as blogs, wikis, collaborative websites, and a variety of web based products.
Online health social networking and software as service models harness the positives of networking and collective intelligence to generate a new level of collective knowledge. Whether it is patients sharing observations on chronic conditions,[7] physicians globally exchanging clinical information and insights,[8] human powered health service searching,[9] online consulting,[10] or promoting transparency through tools for organizing, managing, and comparing health care paperwork[11] -- the Health 2.0 movement is creating business models and becoming a catalyst for improving efficiency, quality, and safety of health care.
D. The Common Framework for Networked Personal Health Information
Recently the Markle Foundation announced the Common Framework for Networked Personal Health Information,[12] which has been endorsed by a collaborative group of providers, health insurers, consumer groups, and privacy groups. The framework outlines a set of practices to encourage appropriate handling of personal health information as it flows to and from PHRs.
The framework uses the term “consumer access services,” which it defines as an emerging set of services designed to help individuals make secure connections with health data sources in an electronic environment. Consumer access services are likely to provide functions such as authentication as well as data hosting and management. The framework also provides analysis of the application of HIPAA to consumer access services.
II. Ownership of Health Information
The shift to a patient-centric PHR from a provider based record raises traditional property law issues. As health information becomes networked and technology allows for health information to be transferred more easily, the lines of ownership of health information become further blurred.
Health information is often viewed under the traditional notion of property as a “bundle of rights,” including the right to use, dispose, and exclude others from using it.[13] This legal application of historic property law may not be well suited to today’s health information where patient information is shared via a variety of formats, copied, duplicated, merged, and combined with other patient records into large scale databases of valuable information.
Who owns health information? The physician? The insurer? The patient? Under the traditional rule, providers own the medical records they maintain, subject to the patient’s rights in the information contained in the record.[14] This tradition stems from the era of paper records, where physical control meant ownership. Provider ownership of the record is not absolute, however. HIPAA and most state laws provide patients with some right to access and receive a copy of the record, along with amendment and accounting of disclosures.[15]
The PHR model, where all records are located and maintained by the patient, flips and realigns the current provider-based model of managing health information. Instead of provider-based control, where the provider furnishes access to and/or copies of the record and is required to seek patient authorization to release medical information, the PHR model puts the patient in control of his medical information.
III. Legal Liability and Compliance Issues Associated with PHRs
PHRs open the door to a wide-range of new and modified legal claims. PHR stakeholders should recognize and address the negative implications to avoid long-term problems. These, of course must be balanced against the liability risks of not adopting an available technology designed to improve the quality of health care.
A. Medical Malpractice
Medical malpractice cases address whether: a patient-physician relationship was created; the treatment provided was within the standard of care; a breach of the standard of care was causally related to the injury; and the patient was injured.[16]
Seeking to prove or disprove these elements raises the issue of whether the PHR would be relevant as evidence against a provider. Generally speaking, if the data within the PHR was provided to or accessible by the provider then the evidence is admissible.[17]
Many providers have expressed concerns over the accuracy and completeness of PHRs if controlled by patients. Whether the information is credible is a legitimate question. On one hand, a patient would not want to jeopardize his or her health by including inaccurate information. On the other hand, it is well known that patients often withhold sensitive and possibly embarrassing information.
Moreover, with the advent of electronic discovery under Federal and States Rules, the production of PHRs in their electronic form could impact evidentiary issues. Health 2.0 and other social networking sites suddenly become fair game for defense lawyers seeking to discredit patients’ claims. Patients may attempt to refer to those same records and other portions of their PHR as examples of treatment modalities approved by other medical providers. Plaintiffs’ lawyers may also investigate the potential for utilizing the collective knowledge of the types of treatments suggested online within the patient networking sites as evidence of the standard of care. In essence, the possibility exists to use PHRs as the “expert” to support or reject claims of malpractice.
B. Defamation and Invasion of Privacy
Generally, a claim of defamation requires the publication of a false statement that harms the plaintiff’s reputation or esteem in the community.[18] Accordingly, PHRs which are solely accessible by the individual or upon the invitation of the individual may not create a cause of action for defamation. However, those PHRs that include communication with other individuals or providers may provide the publication necessary to satisfy that element.
Defamation based upon online communication is fairly new. Typically, such claims have involved false celebrity information posted on the Internet.[19] Arguably, where an individual uses a PHR to publish false information, an analogous claim could be pled.[20]
Generally, the tort of “invasion of privacy” encompasses four claims: (1) intrusion upon the plaintiff’s seclusion; (2) appropriation of the plaintiff’s name or likeness; (3) publicity of the plaintiff’s private life; and (4) publicity placing the plaintiff in a false light.[21] The improper disclosure of health information contained within the PHR may form the basis for one or more of these claims. Each of these claims involves the use or disclosure of private information – such as health information – concerning a person. If wrongfully used or disclosed, those responsible for the use or disclosure, as well as those responsible for protecting the PHR, may face potential liability.
C. Discrimination and Improper Disclosure
HIPAA prohibits impermissible uses and disclosures of protected health information. Although individuals are free to use and disclose their own information as they see fit, appropriate firewalls need to be constructed where, for example, employer-sponsored health plans are providing PHRs. Information in the PHR should not flow from the plan to the plan sponsor nor should it be used for employment purposes.
In addition to HIPAA, employers – and possibly insurers – must consider the implications of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and similar State laws. The laws offer protection to employees from access to employee health information and discrimination based upon that information.
D. Breach of Contract
Despite the disclaimers and protections set forth in user agreements, it may be possible for an individual to argue that some protections arise through the agreement itself. While user agreements tend to be drafted almost entirely in favor of the PHR vendor or provider/plan, these documents may contain limited rights in favor of the individual. The individual could bring an action for breach of those rights in the event of a violation.
E. HIPAA Compliance
Most PHR vendors have taken the position that HIPAA does not apply to them. PHR vendors generally do not qualify as covered entities. Such vendors take the position that they are not business associates because they are not providing services on behalf of covered entities but rather have a relationship with the patients. Moreover, the patient releases information to or creates information in the PHR, and HIPAA does not regulate individuals’ use and disclosure of their own information.
The contrary position is that many of the PHRs are now linked directly with covered entities to allow the health information to be transferred. Several high profile relationships have been announced relating to collaborations between PHRs and medical facilities to provide PHRs for patients.[22] The collaborations should be reviewed to determine whether a business associate relationship has been created.There has been recent activity to expand the reach of HIPAA to encompass PHRs. Federal and State proposals also may address privacy and security concerns separately. In the interim, private initiatives, by the Markle Foundation and others, propose a voluntary framework to protect health information.
F. State Laws
Many States have enacted breach notification requirements and other consumer protections, which raise new issues with respect to PHRs. Some states, e.g., California, have expanded the breach notification rules to specifically cover health information. These regulations must be addressed with respect to PHRs.Finally, many states have promulgated regulations addressing the movement towards health information exchange. Many recognize “record locator services” or other similar entities that may contain health information or act as an intermediary for locating such information.[23] These State laws may be implicated by PHRs.
G. Stark and Fraud and Abuse
The Federal Stark Law prohibits certain referrals for Designated Health Services (“DHS”) by a physician to an entity with which he/she has a financial relationship.[24] In addition, the Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits remuneration in exchange for the referral of a patient for services covered by a Federal health program.[25] The violation of these laws may provide the basis for a claim under the Federal False Claims Act.[26] State laws may provide additional restrictions and prohibitions.
Recently, a number of health plans and systems have begun to offer PHRs to patients and providers. Currently, the Stark exception and Anti-Kickback Statute safe harbor expressly allow only for EHR and electronic prescribing to be donated. PHR donation may not be protected.
In addition to the practical issues associated with the donation and use of PHRs, new avenues of identifying fraud and abuse are being opened with discovery involving PHRs. Federal investigators and qui tam litigators may turn to PHRs to prove treatment that was billed for may not have been provided. In addition, the compilation of information via Health 2.0 raises the specter of data aggregation to establish fraud over a large population of patients.
Conclusion
PHRs bring a new dimension to the debate over how to create an interoperable health information network. The shift of power into the hands of patients could bring about a sustainable model. Before proceeding with the expansion of PHRs, the legal implications that go along with such an adoption should be addressed.
Bob Coffield is a member of Flaherty, Sensabaugh & Bonasso, PLLC in Charleston, West Virginia. Bob is also a Co-Chair of the Privacy and Security Compliance and Enforcement Affinity Group, a part of AHLA’s Health Information and Technology Practice Group.
Jud DeLoss is a principal with the law firm of Gray Plant Mooty in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Jud is also a Vice Chair of the AHLA’s Health Information and Technology Practice Group.
[1] Mr. DeLoss thanks Bryan M. Seiler, a Summer Associate at the firm, for his assistance in this article. Mr. Seiler is a third year student at the University of Minnesota Law School.
[2] National Alliance for Health Information Technology, Defining Key Health Information Technology Terms, April 2008. http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/documents/m20080603/10.1_bell_viles/testonly/index.html.
[3] Report and Recommendations From the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, Information for Health, A Strategy for Building the National Health Information Infrastructure, November 15, 2001. http://aspe.hhs.gov/sp/NHII/Documents/NHIIReport2001/default.htm.
[4] ONC-Coordinated Federal Health IT Strategic Plan: 2008-2012 (June 3, 2008), http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/resources/reports.html.
[5] Health 2.0 Wiki, http://health20.org/wiki/Main_Page.
[6] California Healthcare Foundation, The Wisdom of Patients: Health Care Meets Online Social Media, Jane Sarasohn-Kahn, M.A., H.H.S.A., THINK-Health, April 2008, http://www.chcf.org/documents/chronicdisease/HealthCareSocialMedia.pdf.
[7] E.g., Patients Like Me, http://www.patientslikeme.com/; TuDiabetes.com, http://tudiabetes.com/; Daily Strength, http://dailystrength.org/; SugarStats, http://www.sugarstats.com/; Revolution Health, http://www.revolutionhealth.com/.
[8] Sermo, http://www.sermo.com/.
[9] Organized Wisdom, http://organizedwisdom.com.
[10] American Well, http://www.americanwell.com.
[11] change:healthcare, http://company.changehealthcare.com/; Quicken Health, http://quickenhealth.intuit.com/.
[12] Markle Foundation, Connecting for Health, Connecting Consumers Common Framework for Networked Personal Health Information, June 2008; http://www.connectingforhealth.org/phti/.
[13] Christiansen, John R., Why Health Care Information Isn’t Property – And Why That Is to Everyone’s Benefit, American Health Lawyers Association, Health Law Digest, 1999.
[14] Alcantara, Oscar L. and Waller, Adelle, Ownership of Health Information in the Information Age, originally published in Jounal of the AHIMA, March 30, 1998; http://www.goldbergkohn.com/news-publications-57.html.
[15] E.g., 45 C.F.R § 164.524.
[16] See, e.g., Nogowski v. Alemo-Hammad, 691 A.2d 950, 956 (Pa. Super 1997).
[17] See, e.g., Breeden v. Anesthesia West, P.C., 656 N.W.2d 913 (Neb. 2003) (nurse’s electronic note on patient condition which would have prevented administration of anesthesia should have been reviewed by anesthesiologist despite no verbal or handwritten report by nurse).
[18] See, e.g., Mahoney & Hagberg v. Newgard, 729 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. 2007).
[19] See, e.g., Carl S. Kaplan, Celebrities Have Trouble Protecting Their Names Online, Cyber Law Journal (July 30, 1999).
[20] See, e.g., Churchey v. Adolph Coors Co., 759 P.2d 1336 (Colo. 1988). See also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 577, cmt. k (1977).
[21] See, e.g., Werner v. Kliewer, 238 Kan. 289, 710 P.2d 1250 (1985); Humphers v. First Interstate Bank, 298 Or. 706, 696 P.2d 527 (1985). See also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652 (1977).
[22] E.g., Google Health with Cleveland Clinic and Microsoft HealthVault with Mayo Clinic.
[23] See, e.g., Minn. Stat. § 144.291, Subd. (i).
[24] 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn(a).[25] 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b).[26] 31 U.S.C. § 3729.
The article, The Rise of the Personal Health Record: Panacea or Pitfall for Health Information (pdf version), provides an introductory background on the changing world of PHRs, highlights Health 2.0 and covers some of the legal implications and compliance issues for PHRs. We are working on a longer and more detailed analysis that will be turned into a Member Briefing for the Health Information and Technology Practice Group. I would appreciate your posting a comment on topics or legal implications that we might consider covering in the full Member Briefing.
If you are a health lawyer, law student interested in health law or otherwise interested in the the legal aspects of the health care industry and not already a member of AHLA -- think about joining. The AHLA is at the top of my professional associations for written resource material, member briefings, in person programs, listserves and collaboration with health lawyer colleagues.
The Rise of the Personal Health Record: Panacea or Pitfall for Health Information
I. Introduction
Giant bytes have been taken out of the personal health record (PHR) market by technology companies like Google, Microsoft, Dossia, and others on a mission to connect consumers with their health information. If successful, the efforts by these and other Health 2.0 technology companies could transform the health care industry. It is too early to say whether the PHR will be the catalyst for health care reform; however, we can explore what may lie in the wake if a consumer-focused PHR revolution occurs.
Technological changes in health information management are altering the way in which patients and health care providers maintain, use, control, and disclose health information. We are experiencing a paradigm shift from the current decentralized system of records maintained by multiple entities at multiple locations – often with conflicting and duplicative information – to a centralized system relying on personal health information networks (PHINs), regional health information networks (RHIOs) or national health information exchanges (HIEs).
In the 21st Century, our health care system has become more fragmented and specialized. Patients seek the services from a variety of providers – from family care providers to specialists. Moreover, as individuals move from city to city and state to state, they leave a trail of partial medical records with various providers, insurers, and others.
The rise of electronic medical records (EMRs), electronic health records (EHRs), RHIOs, and HIEs reflects a need to address the increasing complexity of maintaining and sharing health information. PHRs may be the disruptive technology providing an alternative to a complex system of interconnected interoperable health information systems, often among health care stakeholders who have conflicting and competitive interests.
A. PHRs Defined
The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) defines a PHR as “an electronic record of health related information on an individual that conforms to nationally recognized interoperability standards and that can be drawn from multiple sources while being managed, shared and controlled by the individual.”[2]
The ONC report highlights the growing importance of PHRs to facilitate the participation of individuals in their own care and wellness activities. Encouraging individuals to become engaged in their health care, and providing the means to document, track, and evaluate their health conditions, a PHR can lead to more informed health care decisions, improved health status, and ultimately, reduced costs and improved quality of health care. The PHR is broader than a medical record and contains any information relevant to an individual’s health, including diet and exercise logs, a list of over-the-counter medications, and personal information.
PHRs are distinguishable from EMRs and EHRs. A key distinction is that a PHR is under the patient’s control. The individual patient is the ultimate guardian of information within a PHR. Portability is another distinguishing characteristic of the PHR. The goal of a PHR is to be a lifelong source of health information for an individual.
B. History of PHRs
According to Wikipedia, the earliest article mentioning PHRs is dated June 1978. Wikipedia also mentions that most articles written about PHRs have been published since 2000. In its November 2001 report, the National Committee on Vital & Health Statistics (NCVHS) mentions PHRs and the growing consumer use of Internet-based health information services.[3]
Early on, PHRs were used in a rudimentary fashion as a way for individuals to track their own specific health care information. First generation PHRs can be categorized as either stand-alone PHRs, requiring patients to gather and enter their own information, or tethered PHRs, provided by a health plan, provider, or employer sponsor who populated the PHR with information.
The past twelve months mark a new era of increased activity. Call it a second generation of PHRs or PHR 2.0. The advancement is led by the entrance of large technology companies, such as Google with Google Health and Microsoft with HealthVault, into the PHR marketplace. PHR
2.0 is not merely a data collection application, but rather a platform for the electronic aggregation and storage of health information as well as the foundation for various applications.
At the federal level, ONC also is focusing on patient-centered health care. Released in June 2008, the ONC - Coordinated Federal Health Information Technology Strategic Plan: 2008-2012 serves as the guide to coordinate the federal government’s health information technology (HIT) efforts to achieve a nationwide implementation of an interoperability health information system.[4] A critical goal is to create “patient-focused health care” through the promotion of the deployment of EHRs and PHRs and other consumer HIT tools.
C. Social Networking and Health 2.0
The transformation to a PHR-based health information system is fueled by the intensifying interest in web-based social networking and the Health 2.0 movement. The increasing adoption of social networking and lightweight web-based tools among the general public may create a willingness to have and utilize PHRs. There are various technology players positioning themselves to create the “killer PHR application” to become the default standard for industry and the personal portal for each patient’s personal health information.
The definition of the Health 2.0 movement is still being refined.[5] Jane Sarasohn-Kahn, of THINK- health, defines Health 2.0 as “the use of social software and its ability to promote collaboration between patients, their caregivers, medical professionals and other stakeholders in health.”[6] Early use of the Internet for health care was limited to the distribution and search for health information. The read-only World Wide Web has been transformed into the World “Live” Web. Today, user-generated content is being created by businesses, professionals, and ordinary people at lightening speed through social media tools such as blogs, wikis, collaborative websites, and a variety of web based products.
Online health social networking and software as service models harness the positives of networking and collective intelligence to generate a new level of collective knowledge. Whether it is patients sharing observations on chronic conditions,[7] physicians globally exchanging clinical information and insights,[8] human powered health service searching,[9] online consulting,[10] or promoting transparency through tools for organizing, managing, and comparing health care paperwork[11] -- the Health 2.0 movement is creating business models and becoming a catalyst for improving efficiency, quality, and safety of health care.
D. The Common Framework for Networked Personal Health Information
Recently the Markle Foundation announced the Common Framework for Networked Personal Health Information,[12] which has been endorsed by a collaborative group of providers, health insurers, consumer groups, and privacy groups. The framework outlines a set of practices to encourage appropriate handling of personal health information as it flows to and from PHRs.
The framework uses the term “consumer access services,” which it defines as an emerging set of services designed to help individuals make secure connections with health data sources in an electronic environment. Consumer access services are likely to provide functions such as authentication as well as data hosting and management. The framework also provides analysis of the application of HIPAA to consumer access services.
II. Ownership of Health Information
The shift to a patient-centric PHR from a provider based record raises traditional property law issues. As health information becomes networked and technology allows for health information to be transferred more easily, the lines of ownership of health information become further blurred.
Health information is often viewed under the traditional notion of property as a “bundle of rights,” including the right to use, dispose, and exclude others from using it.[13] This legal application of historic property law may not be well suited to today’s health information where patient information is shared via a variety of formats, copied, duplicated, merged, and combined with other patient records into large scale databases of valuable information.
Who owns health information? The physician? The insurer? The patient? Under the traditional rule, providers own the medical records they maintain, subject to the patient’s rights in the information contained in the record.[14] This tradition stems from the era of paper records, where physical control meant ownership. Provider ownership of the record is not absolute, however. HIPAA and most state laws provide patients with some right to access and receive a copy of the record, along with amendment and accounting of disclosures.[15]
The PHR model, where all records are located and maintained by the patient, flips and realigns the current provider-based model of managing health information. Instead of provider-based control, where the provider furnishes access to and/or copies of the record and is required to seek patient authorization to release medical information, the PHR model puts the patient in control of his medical information.
III. Legal Liability and Compliance Issues Associated with PHRs
PHRs open the door to a wide-range of new and modified legal claims. PHR stakeholders should recognize and address the negative implications to avoid long-term problems. These, of course must be balanced against the liability risks of not adopting an available technology designed to improve the quality of health care.
A. Medical Malpractice
Medical malpractice cases address whether: a patient-physician relationship was created; the treatment provided was within the standard of care; a breach of the standard of care was causally related to the injury; and the patient was injured.[16]
Seeking to prove or disprove these elements raises the issue of whether the PHR would be relevant as evidence against a provider. Generally speaking, if the data within the PHR was provided to or accessible by the provider then the evidence is admissible.[17]
Many providers have expressed concerns over the accuracy and completeness of PHRs if controlled by patients. Whether the information is credible is a legitimate question. On one hand, a patient would not want to jeopardize his or her health by including inaccurate information. On the other hand, it is well known that patients often withhold sensitive and possibly embarrassing information.
Moreover, with the advent of electronic discovery under Federal and States Rules, the production of PHRs in their electronic form could impact evidentiary issues. Health 2.0 and other social networking sites suddenly become fair game for defense lawyers seeking to discredit patients’ claims. Patients may attempt to refer to those same records and other portions of their PHR as examples of treatment modalities approved by other medical providers. Plaintiffs’ lawyers may also investigate the potential for utilizing the collective knowledge of the types of treatments suggested online within the patient networking sites as evidence of the standard of care. In essence, the possibility exists to use PHRs as the “expert” to support or reject claims of malpractice.
B. Defamation and Invasion of Privacy
Generally, a claim of defamation requires the publication of a false statement that harms the plaintiff’s reputation or esteem in the community.[18] Accordingly, PHRs which are solely accessible by the individual or upon the invitation of the individual may not create a cause of action for defamation. However, those PHRs that include communication with other individuals or providers may provide the publication necessary to satisfy that element.
Defamation based upon online communication is fairly new. Typically, such claims have involved false celebrity information posted on the Internet.[19] Arguably, where an individual uses a PHR to publish false information, an analogous claim could be pled.[20]
Generally, the tort of “invasion of privacy” encompasses four claims: (1) intrusion upon the plaintiff’s seclusion; (2) appropriation of the plaintiff’s name or likeness; (3) publicity of the plaintiff’s private life; and (4) publicity placing the plaintiff in a false light.[21] The improper disclosure of health information contained within the PHR may form the basis for one or more of these claims. Each of these claims involves the use or disclosure of private information – such as health information – concerning a person. If wrongfully used or disclosed, those responsible for the use or disclosure, as well as those responsible for protecting the PHR, may face potential liability.
C. Discrimination and Improper Disclosure
HIPAA prohibits impermissible uses and disclosures of protected health information. Although individuals are free to use and disclose their own information as they see fit, appropriate firewalls need to be constructed where, for example, employer-sponsored health plans are providing PHRs. Information in the PHR should not flow from the plan to the plan sponsor nor should it be used for employment purposes.
In addition to HIPAA, employers – and possibly insurers – must consider the implications of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and similar State laws. The laws offer protection to employees from access to employee health information and discrimination based upon that information.
D. Breach of Contract
Despite the disclaimers and protections set forth in user agreements, it may be possible for an individual to argue that some protections arise through the agreement itself. While user agreements tend to be drafted almost entirely in favor of the PHR vendor or provider/plan, these documents may contain limited rights in favor of the individual. The individual could bring an action for breach of those rights in the event of a violation.
E. HIPAA Compliance
Most PHR vendors have taken the position that HIPAA does not apply to them. PHR vendors generally do not qualify as covered entities. Such vendors take the position that they are not business associates because they are not providing services on behalf of covered entities but rather have a relationship with the patients. Moreover, the patient releases information to or creates information in the PHR, and HIPAA does not regulate individuals’ use and disclosure of their own information.
The contrary position is that many of the PHRs are now linked directly with covered entities to allow the health information to be transferred. Several high profile relationships have been announced relating to collaborations between PHRs and medical facilities to provide PHRs for patients.[22] The collaborations should be reviewed to determine whether a business associate relationship has been created.There has been recent activity to expand the reach of HIPAA to encompass PHRs. Federal and State proposals also may address privacy and security concerns separately. In the interim, private initiatives, by the Markle Foundation and others, propose a voluntary framework to protect health information.
F. State Laws
Many States have enacted breach notification requirements and other consumer protections, which raise new issues with respect to PHRs. Some states, e.g., California, have expanded the breach notification rules to specifically cover health information. These regulations must be addressed with respect to PHRs.Finally, many states have promulgated regulations addressing the movement towards health information exchange. Many recognize “record locator services” or other similar entities that may contain health information or act as an intermediary for locating such information.[23] These State laws may be implicated by PHRs.
G. Stark and Fraud and Abuse
The Federal Stark Law prohibits certain referrals for Designated Health Services (“DHS”) by a physician to an entity with which he/she has a financial relationship.[24] In addition, the Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits remuneration in exchange for the referral of a patient for services covered by a Federal health program.[25] The violation of these laws may provide the basis for a claim under the Federal False Claims Act.[26] State laws may provide additional restrictions and prohibitions.
Recently, a number of health plans and systems have begun to offer PHRs to patients and providers. Currently, the Stark exception and Anti-Kickback Statute safe harbor expressly allow only for EHR and electronic prescribing to be donated. PHR donation may not be protected.
In addition to the practical issues associated with the donation and use of PHRs, new avenues of identifying fraud and abuse are being opened with discovery involving PHRs. Federal investigators and qui tam litigators may turn to PHRs to prove treatment that was billed for may not have been provided. In addition, the compilation of information via Health 2.0 raises the specter of data aggregation to establish fraud over a large population of patients.
Conclusion
PHRs bring a new dimension to the debate over how to create an interoperable health information network. The shift of power into the hands of patients could bring about a sustainable model. Before proceeding with the expansion of PHRs, the legal implications that go along with such an adoption should be addressed.
Bob Coffield is a member of Flaherty, Sensabaugh & Bonasso, PLLC in Charleston, West Virginia. Bob is also a Co-Chair of the Privacy and Security Compliance and Enforcement Affinity Group, a part of AHLA’s Health Information and Technology Practice Group.
Jud DeLoss is a principal with the law firm of Gray Plant Mooty in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Jud is also a Vice Chair of the AHLA’s Health Information and Technology Practice Group.
[1] Mr. DeLoss thanks Bryan M. Seiler, a Summer Associate at the firm, for his assistance in this article. Mr. Seiler is a third year student at the University of Minnesota Law School.
[2] National Alliance for Health Information Technology, Defining Key Health Information Technology Terms, April 2008. http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/documents/m20080603/10.1_bell_viles/testonly/index.html.
[3] Report and Recommendations From the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, Information for Health, A Strategy for Building the National Health Information Infrastructure, November 15, 2001. http://aspe.hhs.gov/sp/NHII/Documents/NHIIReport2001/default.htm.
[4] ONC-Coordinated Federal Health IT Strategic Plan: 2008-2012 (June 3, 2008), http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/resources/reports.html.
[5] Health 2.0 Wiki, http://health20.org/wiki/Main_Page.
[6] California Healthcare Foundation, The Wisdom of Patients: Health Care Meets Online Social Media, Jane Sarasohn-Kahn, M.A., H.H.S.A., THINK-Health, April 2008, http://www.chcf.org/documents/chronicdisease/HealthCareSocialMedia.pdf.
[7] E.g., Patients Like Me, http://www.patientslikeme.com/; TuDiabetes.com, http://tudiabetes.com/; Daily Strength, http://dailystrength.org/; SugarStats, http://www.sugarstats.com/; Revolution Health, http://www.revolutionhealth.com/.
[8] Sermo, http://www.sermo.com/.
[9] Organized Wisdom, http://organizedwisdom.com.
[10] American Well, http://www.americanwell.com.
[11] change:healthcare, http://company.changehealthcare.com/; Quicken Health, http://quickenhealth.intuit.com/.
[12] Markle Foundation, Connecting for Health, Connecting Consumers Common Framework for Networked Personal Health Information, June 2008; http://www.connectingforhealth.org/phti/.
[13] Christiansen, John R., Why Health Care Information Isn’t Property – And Why That Is to Everyone’s Benefit, American Health Lawyers Association, Health Law Digest, 1999.
[14] Alcantara, Oscar L. and Waller, Adelle, Ownership of Health Information in the Information Age, originally published in Jounal of the AHIMA, March 30, 1998; http://www.goldbergkohn.com/news-publications-57.html.
[15] E.g., 45 C.F.R § 164.524.
[16] See, e.g., Nogowski v. Alemo-Hammad, 691 A.2d 950, 956 (Pa. Super 1997).
[17] See, e.g., Breeden v. Anesthesia West, P.C., 656 N.W.2d 913 (Neb. 2003) (nurse’s electronic note on patient condition which would have prevented administration of anesthesia should have been reviewed by anesthesiologist despite no verbal or handwritten report by nurse).
[18] See, e.g., Mahoney & Hagberg v. Newgard, 729 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. 2007).
[19] See, e.g., Carl S. Kaplan, Celebrities Have Trouble Protecting Their Names Online, Cyber Law Journal (July 30, 1999).
[20] See, e.g., Churchey v. Adolph Coors Co., 759 P.2d 1336 (Colo. 1988). See also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 577, cmt. k (1977).
[21] See, e.g., Werner v. Kliewer, 238 Kan. 289, 710 P.2d 1250 (1985); Humphers v. First Interstate Bank, 298 Or. 706, 696 P.2d 527 (1985). See also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652 (1977).
[22] E.g., Google Health with Cleveland Clinic and Microsoft HealthVault with Mayo Clinic.
[23] See, e.g., Minn. Stat. § 144.291, Subd. (i).
[24] 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn(a).[25] 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b).[26] 31 U.S.C. § 3729.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
HR 6898: The Health-e Information Technology Act of 2008
Jen McCabe Gorman at Health Management RX brought attention to a new House of Representative Bill (HR 6898) focused on electronic health information introduced in the 110th Congress by Congressman Pete Stark. The bill was introduced on September 15, 2008, and is currently referred out to committee.
Jen provides some great analysis and brainstorming on the impact of the draft bill in her post, "Breaking News: Congress Wants to Create National eHealthNetwork, Legislate Who Owns Health Data." Well worth a read for anyone interested in health information technology, electronic health information, personal health records, health 2.0 or the future of our health care system.
Jen highlights those sections dealing with who owns the electronic health information. Should it be the government? the provider? the consumer? This key legal concept - ownership of health information -- is a key question to discuss and debate. As I have mentioned in the past (here and here) the consumer health movement may force a change in the traditional legal notion of health information ownership rights.
The draft bill also addresses a variety of other areas - including the regulation of non-covered entities under HIPAA (many of which weren't even contemplated when HIPAA was enacted) who create or handle health information, codification of ONCHIT under HHS and empowering them with various tasks, creating Medicare related incentives for adoption and modifying other sections of the current HIPAA privacy standards. I haven't had a chance to read through the full bill and spend time reading the related materials but look forward to further analyzing.
For more information about HR 6898 (The Health-e Information Technology Act of 2008) check out Congressman Stark's website information about the legislation:
Jen provides some great analysis and brainstorming on the impact of the draft bill in her post, "Breaking News: Congress Wants to Create National eHealthNetwork, Legislate Who Owns Health Data." Well worth a read for anyone interested in health information technology, electronic health information, personal health records, health 2.0 or the future of our health care system.
Jen highlights those sections dealing with who owns the electronic health information. Should it be the government? the provider? the consumer? This key legal concept - ownership of health information -- is a key question to discuss and debate. As I have mentioned in the past (here and here) the consumer health movement may force a change in the traditional legal notion of health information ownership rights.
The draft bill also addresses a variety of other areas - including the regulation of non-covered entities under HIPAA (many of which weren't even contemplated when HIPAA was enacted) who create or handle health information, codification of ONCHIT under HHS and empowering them with various tasks, creating Medicare related incentives for adoption and modifying other sections of the current HIPAA privacy standards. I haven't had a chance to read through the full bill and spend time reading the related materials but look forward to further analyzing.
For more information about HR 6898 (The Health-e Information Technology Act of 2008) check out Congressman Stark's website information about the legislation:
- Summary
- Introduction Statement
- Press Release
- Section by Section Analysis
- Privacy and Security Provisions
- Incentives
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
PHR Certification Criteria: Public Comments Being Accepted
Josh Seidman, president of Center for Information Therapy, of provides an update of the status of Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology's (CCHIT) process for certification of personal health records (PHRs) over at The Health Care Blog.
CCHIT has published the first draft of the 2009 certification criteria for Personal Health Records (PHR) 09 Introduction and Personal Health Record (PHR) 09 Criteria (Draft 01).
CCHIT is currently taking public comments on the drafts through October 28, 2008.
CCHIT has published the first draft of the 2009 certification criteria for Personal Health Records (PHR) 09 Introduction and Personal Health Record (PHR) 09 Criteria (Draft 01).
CCHIT is currently taking public comments on the drafts through October 28, 2008.
Friday, September 12, 2008
The Facebooking of Medical Records
Bob Wachter on the Facebooking of medical records over at The Health Care Blog. Great thought provoking read for those in the health care world and who understand the powers of online social networking tools for communication.
Recently I just completed co-authoring with Jud DeLoss the feature article for the next AHLA Health Lawyers News on PHRs where we discuss what may be a major shift in health information gathering from provider-centric to patient-centric. Basically the rise of the PHR and what may be on the horizon for health lawyers with such change. Bob's example and analogy of the Facebook culture is a valuable one as we look at the pros/cons of such a shift. His thoughts on leveraging the value of collaborative social networking tools to reinvent the medical record system are valuable and should be considered as we look at ways to improve the bedrock of good medical care -- the patient history and record of care.
I'd take the ideas a bit further and provide another analogy. Think about the use of Twitter (or recently discussed and TC50 winner Yammer - Twitter for businesses) like solutions to allow access to a real time updates of the patient's condition in timeline fashion among those caregivers providing care to the patient. The providers would be the followers. If able, the patient could also participate in this stream of information. Sounds a bit like Dr. Wachter's synopsis program.
Just some Friday morning thoughts. Would be interested to hear from others in the comments.
Recently I just completed co-authoring with Jud DeLoss the feature article for the next AHLA Health Lawyers News on PHRs where we discuss what may be a major shift in health information gathering from provider-centric to patient-centric. Basically the rise of the PHR and what may be on the horizon for health lawyers with such change. Bob's example and analogy of the Facebook culture is a valuable one as we look at the pros/cons of such a shift. His thoughts on leveraging the value of collaborative social networking tools to reinvent the medical record system are valuable and should be considered as we look at ways to improve the bedrock of good medical care -- the patient history and record of care.
I'd take the ideas a bit further and provide another analogy. Think about the use of Twitter (or recently discussed and TC50 winner Yammer - Twitter for businesses) like solutions to allow access to a real time updates of the patient's condition in timeline fashion among those caregivers providing care to the patient. The providers would be the followers. If able, the patient could also participate in this stream of information. Sounds a bit like Dr. Wachter's synopsis program.
Just some Friday morning thoughts. Would be interested to hear from others in the comments.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
ADVANCE Magazine - Article on EHRs and PHRs
Recently I was interviewed for an article looking at the legal issues involved in the developing world of EHRs and PHRs written by Beth Walsh for ADVANCE Magazine. The article, Looking at Legality: Medical Records - New questions and concerns are popping up around the legalities of EHRs and PHRs, appears in the August 11, 2008 edition of the magazine.
Those interested in reading the article can register for the free online digital edition of ADVANCE Magazine (left side bar). The article appears on page 24.
Those interested in reading the article can register for the free online digital edition of ADVANCE Magazine (left side bar). The article appears on page 24.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Connecting for Health: Another wave in the shift to consumer controlled health information
The recent announcement of the Common Framework for Networked Personal Health Information by the Connecting for Health collaboration lead by the Markle Foundation is just the next wave in what may be a tidal shift. The tidal shift is one centered on the input, control, ownership, and administration of health information that results from the active and real use of PHRs by consumers.Those participating in and endorsing the Connecting for Health initiative are a diverse group of health care and technology companies, including Google, Microsoft, Intuit, WebMD, Dossia, BlueCross BlueShield, AARP, AAFP, SureScripts and others.
Whether or not the wave is large enough or just one of many more to come is yet to be determined. The ocean of health information and health information exchange is so fluid these days as we undergo major projects surrounding health information technology at the national level, state level, by HIEs, private industy, etc. For health lawyers - it is a field day for spotting regulatory legal issues and implications. Some of the real life factual scenarios we have been going through as a result of work related to the West Virginia Health Information Network and the NIH2 project remind me of law school exams.
For more insight on the Connecting for Health collaborative check out thoughts by other health care lawyers: Jeff Drummond who talks about the provider "betamax" and "culture fears, David Harlow who raises good questions and applauds the effort to gain public trust. He also looks at whether the recent PHR developments might obviate the need for local HIE infrastructure (with follow up commentary from Micky Tripathi at MAeHC Blog).
Also, Matthew Holt looks at the important health vs. wealth issue underlying the effort and the (non)involvement of the EMR vendors in the process. Jen McCabe Gorman at Health Management Rx makes predications of a possible PHR health app war focused on creating strategic affiliations with health care businesses in an effort to gain market share in the consumer focused PHR space.
Check out the latest developments with a Google News search: "connecting for health".
For another "wave" on the tidal shifting consumer health front from a guy who knows waves - check out Scott Shreeve, M.D.'s post, "Cease and Desist? How about Understand and Resist," at Crossver Health. Scott's post breaks down the issues involved in the attempt by the California and New York Departments of Health to prevent consumers from accessing their own genetic information. More from Matthew Holt.
Another example not unlike the PHR issue, where the current health regulatory structure is not evolving quick enough to satisfy the needs of the consumer focused health technology startups. In this case the consumer focused genetic health 2.0 companies. As Scott ends with, ". . . One intractable issue. Millions of dollars at stake. Tens of millions of people watching. Vegas odds, anyone?"
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Better Understanding of Key Health Information Technology Terms
On April 28, 2008, the National Alliance for Health Information Technology released its Report, "Defining Key Health Information Technology Terms," to the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.
The report is an effort to get everyone working in health information technology to have a common understanding of and differences between EMRs, EHRs, PHRs, HIEs, HIOs and RHIOs. If you don't know what each of these are or are interested in better understanding these key health tech terms check out the report.
An article by Health Data Management indicates that the Report will be "presented on June 3 to the American Health Information Community, a Department of Health and Human Services advisory body, for final approval."
The report is an effort to get everyone working in health information technology to have a common understanding of and differences between EMRs, EHRs, PHRs, HIEs, HIOs and RHIOs. If you don't know what each of these are or are interested in better understanding these key health tech terms check out the report.
An article by Health Data Management indicates that the Report will be "presented on June 3 to the American Health Information Community, a Department of Health and Human Services advisory body, for final approval."
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Google Health: Google Partners with Cleveland Clinic
The New York Times Technology Section reports on a pilot project between Gooogle and the Cleveland Clinic in an article, Google to Store Patients' Health Records.
The article indicates the pilot project will involve a volunteer patient group transferring their personal health records so that they are available via Google Health, a new health record product being developed by Google. The article quotes Pam Dixon of the World Privacy Forum concerning privacy issues under HIPAA (incorrectly referenced by the Times as HIPPA).
I don't necessarily agree with the scope of the comments regarding the applicability of HIPAA in this situation. Although I don't know the full details of the relationship for the proposed project but it would appear that Google in this situation might be serving as a business associate of the Cleveland Clinic for the project. As a business associate it is likely that Google would be held contractually to many of the HIPAA privacy standards.
Tip to Matthew Holt at Health 2.0 Blog for noticing the NYT article.
UPDATE (2/22/08): ZDNet's Larry Dignan at Between the Lines has more on the pilot project including the Cleveland Clinic's press release.
The comments to Dignan's post are interesting reading especially a couple with a legal perspective. The comment, two misconceptions, highlights the overall light enforcement efforts by OCR and lack of penalties, whether Google might fit the "healthcare clearinghouse" definition under the "covered entity" definition, entering into a contract with the health care provider (business associate requirement) and discusses the subpeona and marketing misconceptions.
Also, more from NYT's Steve Lohr, Google Health Begins Its Preseason at Cleveland Clinic which indicates that Google Health will be made available to the public following completion of the pilot project (appoximately 2 months). The article also has a quote from fellow health care blogger and CIO of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, John Halamka, who indicates that the hospital is also interested in linking its EMR with Google Health. As a board member of the West Virginia Health Information Network I would like to explore the idea of utilizing and integrating Google Health into our statewide effort to bring about an integrated/interoperable health information system.
Jane Sarasohn-Kahn at HealthPopuli shares her thoughts and additional link commentary on the Google/Cleveland Clinic project. Jane highlights a recent report, Personal Health Records: Why Many PHRs Threaten Privacy, by the World Privacy Forum looking into privacy issues for PHRs.
Matthew Holt's follow up post taking a closer glimpse at the privacy questions, motives and opportunities both pro/con surrounding the Google Health project.
UPDATE (2/24/08): For the latest article covering the Google Health project check out Newsweek's article, Web Surfer, Health Thyself, out in the March 3 edition.
Also, MSNBC provides some additional insight on how Google Health will interact with the existing Cleveland Clinic EHR (or PHR) in Google Goes to the Doc's Office. The article describes the pilot project as follows:
However, Dmitriy at TrustedMD makes some great points, including this quote:
Follow the latest news (blog posts) and the Techmeme reaction to the project.
The article indicates the pilot project will involve a volunteer patient group transferring their personal health records so that they are available via Google Health, a new health record product being developed by Google. The article quotes Pam Dixon of the World Privacy Forum concerning privacy issues under HIPAA (incorrectly referenced by the Times as HIPPA).
I don't necessarily agree with the scope of the comments regarding the applicability of HIPAA in this situation. Although I don't know the full details of the relationship for the proposed project but it would appear that Google in this situation might be serving as a business associate of the Cleveland Clinic for the project. As a business associate it is likely that Google would be held contractually to many of the HIPAA privacy standards.
Tip to Matthew Holt at Health 2.0 Blog for noticing the NYT article.
UPDATE (2/22/08): ZDNet's Larry Dignan at Between the Lines has more on the pilot project including the Cleveland Clinic's press release.
The comments to Dignan's post are interesting reading especially a couple with a legal perspective. The comment, two misconceptions, highlights the overall light enforcement efforts by OCR and lack of penalties, whether Google might fit the "healthcare clearinghouse" definition under the "covered entity" definition, entering into a contract with the health care provider (business associate requirement) and discusses the subpeona and marketing misconceptions.
Also, more from NYT's Steve Lohr, Google Health Begins Its Preseason at Cleveland Clinic which indicates that Google Health will be made available to the public following completion of the pilot project (appoximately 2 months). The article also has a quote from fellow health care blogger and CIO of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, John Halamka, who indicates that the hospital is also interested in linking its EMR with Google Health. As a board member of the West Virginia Health Information Network I would like to explore the idea of utilizing and integrating Google Health into our statewide effort to bring about an integrated/interoperable health information system.
Jane Sarasohn-Kahn at HealthPopuli shares her thoughts and additional link commentary on the Google/Cleveland Clinic project. Jane highlights a recent report, Personal Health Records: Why Many PHRs Threaten Privacy, by the World Privacy Forum looking into privacy issues for PHRs.
Matthew Holt's follow up post taking a closer glimpse at the privacy questions, motives and opportunities both pro/con surrounding the Google Health project.
UPDATE (2/24/08): For the latest article covering the Google Health project check out Newsweek's article, Web Surfer, Health Thyself, out in the March 3 edition.
Also, MSNBC provides some additional insight on how Google Health will interact with the existing Cleveland Clinic EHR (or PHR) in Google Goes to the Doc's Office. The article describes the pilot project as follows:
. . . The Cleveland Clinic already keeps electronic records for all its patients. The system has built-in smarts, so that it will alert doctors about possible drug interactions or when it's time for, say, the next mammogram. In addition, 120,000 patients have signed up for a service called eCleveland Clinic MyChart, which lets patients access their own information on a secure Web site and electronically renew prescriptions and make appointments.UPDATED 2/26/08: Scott Shreeve goes Giga over Google Health. Read his first impressions of the Google PHR after his test drive at HIMSS.The system has dramatically cut the number of routine calls to the doctor and boosted productivity, though it has yet to effectively deal with information from an outside physician, Harris says. Those records are typically still on paper, and have to be laboriously added to the Cleveland Clinic system. It is a big problem, especially for the clinic's many patients who spend winters in Florida or Arizona, where they see other doctors.
Adding Google's technology lets patients jump from their MyChart page to a Google account. Once on Google, they'll see the relevant health plans and doctors that also keep electronic medical records. That means the patient can choose to share information between, say, the Arizona doctor and the Cleveland Clinic . . .
However, Dmitriy at TrustedMD makes some great points, including this quote:
Yet, even with free PHRs out there, consumers simply do not care for spending their time to learn and use them. Who would bother entering and checking their medical records if you are healthy and would rather go see a movie? And once you get sick, you do not want to enter them either. You just want your doctors and hospitals to hand your medical records to you. But you see, the providers have different priorities that a mere piece of software just cannot solve . . . PHRs' real problems are not technical, usability or even privacy. The real problem is consumer and provider motivation . . .He ends his posts with some questions we should all be discussing. Until we see a reimbursement model that creates incentives for providers to look at more health information and consumers to care about and take an active part in their health -- I'm not sure the PHR/EHR initiatives will fully develop and mature.
Follow the latest news (blog posts) and the Techmeme reaction to the project.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)