JP Morgan Healthcare Conference HIT Panel Discussion with Schmidt, Chopra, and Park

If you follow health information technology and are interested in the future of health care take time and listen to this panel discussion on Innovation Opportunities for the Health Information Technology Market with Eric Schmidt, Chairman of Google, Aneesh Chopra, Federal CTO for the United States, Todd Park, CTO of HHS, and moderated by John Doerr, venture capitalist at Kleiner Perkins.

The panel discussion was part of the Annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference held in January 2011.

To start off moderator, John Doerr has the audience rattle off a bunch of great questions for the panel to address. Just listening to the questions will make you want to listen to the panel discussion.

Thanks to Susannah Fox and Claudia Williams for tweeting the link. Thanks to Brian Ahier (@Ahier) for posting the Vimeo link to the panel discussion.

WVHIN: Public Comment Period on Proposed Privacy and Security Policies

The West Virginia Health Information Network (WVHIN), West Virginia's health information exchange, has issued proposed privacy and security policies and is seeking public comments on the proposed policies from December 3, 2010 through January 3, 2011. The WVHIN is a public/private partnership created in 2006 under W.Va. Code 16-29G-1 et seq. and is charged with building a secure electronic health information system for the exchange of patient data among physicians, hospitals, diagnostic laboratories, other care providers, and other stakeholders.

The proposed privacy and security policies that are available for review and comment are as follows:

• Patient Consent - General
• Patient Consent - Permissible Purpose
• Patient Consent - Sensitive Health Information
• User Authorization
• User Authentication
• Patient Amendment of Protected Health Information
• Patient Access to Protected Health Information
• Minimum Necessary
• Breach Notification

Pursuant to a press release from the WVHIN on the proposed privacy and security policies:

“WVHIN has been developing our core privacy and security policies that will guide us in our initial health information exchange implementation and pilot for 2011. We expect to have changes to the policies as a result of learning how to improve our operations through testing in the pilot period.“

“The policies have been developed over the past few months by the WVHIN Privacy and Security Committee and legal counsel, and are based upon an established WVHIN Privacy Framework and national best practices recommendations in Health Information Exchange (HIE). The committee is made up of stakeholder organizations including provider groups, state government, and consumer groups. The committee followed a cycle of reviewing and vetting the policies that have resulted in our drafts.”

“We have established a public comment period for the draft policies and would like to invite any member of the public to comments on these policies. Thus, we would like to request your assistance in forwarding this e-mail to any parties you may feel would like to comment on the policies. We welcome all feedback”, according to Business Development Manager Samantha Stamper.

Written comments on the proposed privacy and security policies may be submitted to Samantha Stamper, Business Development Manager by January 3, 2011 at sstamper@wvhin.org.

WV HIT Funding Under HITECH: WVHIN Gets $7.8M and WV REC gets $6M

Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius and the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, David Blumenthal, announced the HITECH funding under the ARRA for State Health Information Exchanges (HIEs) and Regional Extension Center (RECs) across the country.

The White House Press Release provides a detailed list of HIEs and RECs receiving grants. Inormation is also available via the HHS News Release, Sebelius, Solis Announce Nearly $1 Billion Recovery Act Investments in Advancing Use of Health IT, Training Works for Health Jobs of the Future.

West Virginia will receive the following funding:

• West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources in conjunction with the West Virginia Health Information Network HIE Award: $7,819,000

• West Virginia Health Improvement Institute, Inc. REC ward:$6,000,000

More information about the health information technology programs and awards can be found on the Office of National Coordinator HIT Website.

• State Health Information Exchange Cooperative Agreement Program

• Health Information Technology Extension Program

CMS and ONC Issue Rules on Proposing a Definition of Meaningful Use and Setting Standards for EHR Incentive Program

Yesterday the Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services (CMS) and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) issued two regulations laying the foundation for improving quality, efficiency and safety through meaningful use of certified electronic health record (EHR) technology.

The two regulations are part of the implementation of the EHR incentive programs for physicians and hospitals enacted under the HITECH provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). CMS issued a proposed rule outlining the proposed provisions governing the EHR incentive programs, including defining the central concept of “meaningful use” of EHR technology. ONC issued an interim final regulation setting forth the initial standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria for EHR technology.

For more details see the following CMS Press Release. Also, CMS has issued Fact Sheets on the proposed regulations:

• CMS Proposes Requirements for the Electronic Health Records (EHR) Medicaid Incentive Payment Program
  
• CMS Proposed Requirements for the Electronic Health Records (EHR) Medicare Incentive Program
  
• CMS Proposes Definition of Meaningful Use of Certified Electronic Health Records (EHR) Technology

Below are links to complete copies of the rules. Once they are published in the Federal Register I will update with the specific Fed Reg details. Some light reading for the New Year!

Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Electronic Health Record Incentive Program
AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would implement the provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) (Pub. L. 111-5) that provide incentive payments to eligible professionals (EPs) and eligible hospitals participating in Medicare and Medicaid programs that adopt and meaningfully use certified electronic health record (EHR) technology. The proposed rule would specify the-- initial criteria an EP and eligible hospital must meet in order to qualify for the incentive payment; calculation of the incentive payment amounts; payment adjustments under Medicare for covered professional services and inpatient hospital services provided by EPs and eligible hospitals failing to meaningfully use certified EHR technology; and other program participation requirements. Also, as required by ARRA the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) will be issuing a closely related interim final rule that specifies the Secretary’s adoption of an initial set of standards, implementation, specifications, and certification criteria for electronic health records. ONC will also be issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking on the process for organizations to conduct the certification of EHR technology.

Health Information Technology: Initial Set of Standards, Implementation Specifications, and Certification Criteria for Electronic Health Record Technology
AGENCY: Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology,
Department of Health and Human Services.
ACTION: Interim final rule.
SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is issuing this interim final rule with a request for comments to adopt an initial set of standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria, as required by section 3004(b)(1) of the Public Health Service Act. This interim final rule represents the first step in an incremental approach to adopting standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria to enhance the interoperability, functionality, utility, and security of health information technology and to support its meaningful use. The certification criteria adopted in this initial set establish the capabilities and related standards that certified electronic health record (EHR) technology will need to include in order to, at a minimum, support the achievement of the proposed meaningful use Stage 1 (beginning in 2011) by eligible professionals and eligible hospitals under the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs.

Lorman Medical Records Law Seminar: March 18, 2010

On March 18, 2010 I will be speaking on Medical Records Law at a seminar in Charleston, West Virginia. The seminar is sponsored by Lorman Educational Services. Joining me for the day long seminar will be three very knowledgeable health care colleagues:

• Michael T. Harmon, MPA, CIPP/G, Compliance Specialist for the West Virginia Mutual Insurance Company, a Medical Professional Liability Insurance Company
• Sallie H. Milam, J.D., CIPP/G, Executive Director of the West Virginia Health Information Network and Chief Privacy Officer for the West Virginia State Government
• James W. Thomas, Esq., Manager of the Charleston, West Virginia Business Law Department of Jackson Kelly PLLC whose practice focuses primarily upon health care matters of a business, regulatory and operational nature
  

Additional information about the seminar and how to register can be found at Lorman Educational Services. Following is the full seminar agenda:

8:30 am – 9:00 am			Registration
9:00 am – 9:15 am			Overview
9:15 am – 10:30 am			HIPAA Compliance: Reality and Perspective
			— Michael T. Harmon, MPA, CIPP/G
			Overview Enforcement Complaints Case Examples Summary of HITECH Changes
10:30 am – 10:45 am			Break
10:45 am – 12:00 pm			HITECH Financial Incentives for Implementation of HIT
			— James W. Thomas, Esq.
			Qualifying an Electronic Health Record System Available Financial Incentives
12:00 pm – 1:00 pm			Lunch (On Your Own)
1:00 pm – 2:00 pm			Health Information Exchange in West Virginia: Impact on Patient Records
			— Sallie H. Milam, J.D., CIPP/G
2:00 pm – 2:15 pm			Break
2:15 pm – 3:30 pm			Consumer Driven Health Care: HITECH, Health 2.0, Social Media and Personal Health Records
			— Robert L. Coffield, Esq.
			HITECH Breach Notification Requirements Impact of Health 2.0 and Social Media Technology on the Future of Health Care Development and Adoption of Personal Health Records Discuss the Legal Implications of Emerging Technology
3:30 pm – 4:30 pm			Panel Discussion
			— Robert L. Coffield, Esq., Michael T. Harmon, MPA, CIPP/G, Sallie H. Milam, J.D., CIPP/G and James W. Thomas, Esq.

WVHCA Report: $1.1B Cost Saving from Adoption of HIT

iHealthBeat reports on the release of a new report prepared by CCRC Actuaries for the West Virginia Health Care Authority.

The full report is available via the West Virginians for Affordable Health Care website and is titled, Health Care Financing in the State of West Virginia: An analysis and Projection of the Current System and Potential Transformations, August 2009.

According to the articles, the report indicates that the adoption of health information technology (HIT) and implementation of centralized medical care through medical home concepts could save West Virginia's health care system more than $1.1B in 2014. The estimates in the report used insurance claims data from more that 800,000 West Virginia residents, including data from Medicaid and Mountain State Blue Cross Blue Shield.

More details in the AP article by Tom Breen from the Charleston Gazette and Washington Post, Report: Health strategy could save W.Va. $1B.

The Washington Post article indicates:

. . . In the case of electronic prescriptions, the report estimates an overall savings of $164 million in 2014, including nearly $51 million in savings to private insurers and $42 million in savings to policyholders. . .

. . . The report estimates that a statewide rollout of medical homes would cost about $45 million up front and incur ongoing costs of about $368 million . . .

. . . Estimates suggest that about nine in 10 health care offices still keep everything in paper. As the new report says, up front costs for physicians run from $25,000 to $45,000 and have annual costs thereafter of between $2,000 and $9,000, steep amounts for small practices . . .

UPDATE: Thanks to a reader comment - you can now read the full report. The report is titled, Health Care Financing in the State of West Virginia: An analysis and Projection of the Current System and Potential Transformations, August 2009.

Following is the Executive Summary of the report which contains some very interesting statistics on the state of health care in West Virginia.


Executive Summary

• A cohort model was developed to simulate health care eligibility, utilization and insurance availability of the projected 1,828,538 West Virginians in 2009.
• The model utilizes 8,640 cohorts to represent current insured status, health care utilization, age, gender, and household income.
• The projected average age in 2009 is 40.2 years.
  
• West Virginia is projected to have a population of 1,806,545 in 2019 and the average age is projected to increase to 42.2 years.
• The number of commercially insureds is 757,884 in 2009.
• The number of non-Medicare PEIA insureds is 175,324 in 2009.
• The number of non-dual eligible Medicaid insureds is 321,113 in 2009.
• The number of dual eligible Medicaid/Medicare insureds is 57,118 in 2009.
• The number of Medicare eligible PEIA insureds is 37,784 in 2009.
• The number of other Medicare insureds is 168,571 in 2009.
• The number of West Virginia CHIP insureds is 24,480 in 2009.
• The number of uninsured West Virginians is 286,264 in 2009.
• Health care costs can be defined as charges or as allowed charges. In terms of allowed charges, projected West Virginia expenditures total $13.1 billion in 2009.
• Allowed charges are projected to grow to $24.4 billion in 2019.
• In 2009, the uninsured population is projected to incur $3.2 billion in allowed charges, resulting in bad debt and charity care of almost $900 million.
• Initiative I, Adult Medicaid Expansion, is projected to cost the State of West Virginia $56.8 million and the Federal Government $162.0 million in 2014, while overall health care expenditures will decrease $611.5 million. Low income residents see the majority of the savings, spending $591.5 million less on health care.
• Initiative II, Adult Medicaid Expansion Combined with an Insurance Mandate for Employers and Individuals, is projected to cost the State of West Virginia $56.8 million in higher Medicaid expenditures and $1,004.3 million in insurance premium subsidy. The initiative will cost the Federal Government $162.0 million in 2014, while overall health care expenditures will decrease $2,176.0 million. Low income residents see the majority of the savings, spending $2,212.8 million less on health care.
• Initiative III, Adult Medicaid Expansion combined with an Insurance Mandate for Individuals, is projected to cost the State of West Virginia $56.8 million, $983.4 million in insurance premium subsidy. The initiative will cost the Federal Government $162.0 million in 2014, while overall health care expenditures will decrease $1,634.7 million. Low income residents see the majority of the savings, spending $1,656.2 million less on health care.
• Initiative IV, Medical Home, is projected to save the State of West Virginia $57.3 million in claim expenditures and the Federal Government $199.3 million in 2014, and overall health care expenditures will decrease $642.6 million. Low income residents and insurance companies see the majority of the savings, spending $170.6 million and $173.2 million less on health care, respectively. This initiative requires $45 million of initial costs and a total of $368.2 million of ongoing physician reimbursement per year.
• Initiative V, e-Prescribing, is projected to save the State of West Virginia $16.0 million in claim expenditures and the Federal Government $53.8 million in 2014, and overall health care expenditures will decrease $164.0 million. Low income residents and insurance companies see the majority of the savings, spending $41.9 million and $45.6 million less on health care, respectively. The cost of implementing e-prescribing has not been projected.
• Initiative VI, Electronic Medical Records, is projected to save the State of West Virginia $28.3 million and the Federal Government $98.5 million in 2014, and overall health care expenditures will decrease $317.6 million. Low income residents and insurance companies see the majority of the savings, spending $84.3 million and $85.6 million less on health care, respectively. This initiative requires around $25,000 to $45,000 of initial costs and an annual cost of $3,000 to $9,000 per provider. However, these cost estimates appear to be declining over time.
  

WVHIN Releases RFP for West Virginia Health Information Exchange

Today the West Virginia Health Information Network released a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a statewide Health Information Exchange. More information, including the deadlines, bidder worksheets and a full copy of the RFP are available on the WVHIN website.

Following are sections from the RFP that provide a general overview of the proposed West Virginia Health Information Exchange and a general scope of the RFP:

The West Virginia Health Information Network (WVHIN) is soliciting proposals to provide a statewide Health Information Exchange (HIE) infrastructure platform for physicians, hospitals, other health care organizations, and consumers. The purpose of this Request for Proposal (RFP) is to obtain vendor services and expertise in support of the WVHIN. Details on the scope of work, requirements and deliverables are contained in this RFP. WVHIN reserves the right to use the results of this RFP to obtain services for additional and related work should the need arise throughout the course of this project . . .

. . . According to the eHealth Initiative’s Sixth Annual Survey of Health Information Exchange 2009, there are almost 200 self‐reported HIE initiatives across the country with a substantially increased number of organizations that reported being operational. The impetus for HIEs has increased as a result of the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 and specifically key provisions from the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act. These provisions called for the Office of the National Coordinator (ONC) to create a program to engage in collaborative agreements with states or “qualified” state‐designated non‐profit, multistakeholder partnerships to “conduct activities to facilitate and expand the electronic movement and use of health information among organizations according to nationally recognized standards.” . . .

. . . There are 1.8 million people in the very rural state of West Virginia with a high level of elderly and low‐income people in many of the rural areas. With a geographically dispersed population, access to and coordination of care is a critical issue. To serve this rural population, there is a relatively high number of hospitals with less than 100 beds and a high level of clinics serving the underserved making access and care coordination both difficult and essential. Based on the population profile and the number of small providers, a strong case was made for the need for a statewide HIE, which will help providers overcome communication and geographic barriers to access and coordination of care.

The WVHIN was established in July 2006 by the West Virginia Legislature at the request of the Governor. The WVHIN is a sub‐agency under the West Virginia Health Care Authority. The intent of the legislation was for the WVHIN “to promote the design, implementation, operation and maintenance of a fully interoperable statewide network to facilitate public and private use of health care information in the state”. With this authority, the WVHIN established a multi‐stakeholder board and has been working with stakeholders to develop and implement a state‐level HIE. . .

. . . With this mandate, the WVHIN established a vision to enable “high quality, patient centered care facilitated by health information technology”. The WVHIN mission is as follows: “The West Virginia Health Information Network provides the health care community a trusted, integrated and seamless electronic structure enabling medical data exchange necessary for high quality, patient‐centered care.” Guiding principles have been established around collaboration, facilitation of patient‐centric care, enabled participation by all providers, quality improvement, patient participation, privacy and security, and sustainability.

The WVHIN, along with health systems, physicians, other providers, payers, and consumers, has a unique opportunity to establish a state‐level HIE infrastructure that helps communities and regions share data across organizations. The WVHIN is well positioned to provide a cost‐effective HIE infrastructure that benefits from economies of scale while enabling communities to develop their own unique solutions. As a convener and collaborator, the WVHIN will build bridges between health care stakeholders to launch and fund HIEs. It will help communities address complex issues such as setting standards for interoperable data exchange, addressing liability, setting policies for privacy and security, and exchanging data across state lines. It will collaborate with other health information technology (HIT) and HIE initiatives such as the Regional Extension Center (REC) to be initiated, public health, Medicaid, and others, to leverage collective resources. WVHIN activities are being pursued within the parameters of the West Virginia Statewide Health Information Technology Strategic Plan. WVHIN is one of several participating entities that jointly developed the strategic plan.

West Virginia's Statewide Health Information Technology Strategic Plan

Over the past several months I have been involved with a group in developing West Virginia's statewide strategic plan for health information technology.

The final draft of the West Virginia Health Information Technology Statewide Strategic Plan, September 2009 is now available for review and comment. Additional comments and feedback on the strategic plan are welcome.

The strategic plan is a part of West Virginia's efforts to position itself as a national leader in implementing and adopting health information technology to improve our health care system. The strategic plan will be a part of the the state's efforts to submit applications to the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) for funding under the State Health Information Exchange Cooperative Agreement Program and the Health Information Technology Extension Program: Regional Centers Cooperative Agreement Program, both programs developed under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Title XIII - Health Information Technology, Subtitle B.

The project has been lead by the Adoption of Health Information Technology Workgroup under the West Virginia Health Improvement Institute. Both private and public stakeholders from across West Virginia have collaborated and provided input into the development of the strategic plan.

Technology: Then and Now

The discussion about health care reform has been front and center lately. Along with the debate comes the discussion and questions about the role technology will (should) play in the reform efforts. I was reminded of a photo I found a few months ago while I was home visiting my dad and looking through some old photo albums with him. 

Although the technology may have changed some from 1978 to 2008 - human nature hasn't really changed that much. Reforming the health care system involves more than implementing technology. Health information technology will not save the system, make health care cheaper or better without changes to the underlying structure of the system of health that we have built. If we continue our health care system with the fundamental flaws that exist without changing the human/process side - adding technology won't help.

Below is a photo of me from Christmas 1978 with the Atari 2600. The second photo of my son with the Nintendo Wii in 2008. Has much change in 30 years? 

HITECH Act Breach Notification Guidance: What Renders PHI Unusable, Unreadable or Indecipherable For Purposes of Breach Notification?

On April 17, 2009, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) issued guidance on the technology requirements to render protected health information (PHI) "unusable, unreadable or indecipherable to unauthorized individuals, as required by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) which is a part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

The April 27, 2009 Federal Register (74 FR 19006),contains the official copy of the regulation, Guidance Specifying the Technologies and Methodologies That Render Protected Health Information Unusable, Unreadable, or Indecipherable to Unauthorized Individuals for Purposes of the Breach Notification Requirements Under Section 13402 of Title XIII (Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; Request for Information

The guidance is effective as of April 17, 2009. However, the guidance will apply to breaches 30 days after publication of the interim final regulations.

HHS's press release on the guidance states:

The guidance issued today provides steps entities can take to secure personal health information and establishes the trigger for when entities must notify that patient data has been compromised. This guidance is related to “breach notification” regulations, which will be issued by HHS and the Federal Trade Commission respectively. The HHS regulations will apply to entities covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and the FTC regulation will apply to vendors of personal health records and certain others not covered by HIPAA. The Recovery Act requires that these regulations be published within 180 days of enactment.
The guidance was developed through a joint effort by the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), and Centers for Medicare &Medicaid Services (CMS).

The guidance also seeks public comments on the guidance as well as the breach notification provisions under FTC's new Health Breach Notification Rule and the yet to be releases HHS Breach Notification Requirements for HIPAA Covered Entities and Business Associates. Public comments must be submitted on or before May 21, 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 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.

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.

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.

EvriChart: A West Virginia based health information technology company

Today's Charleston Gazette features an article by Eric Eyre on a health information technology company located in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia. EvriChart relocated to West Virginia four years ago and focuses its business on managing health information for hospitals, physicians and other health care providers. John King, COO of the company is a native West Virginia who grew up in Greenbrier County.

As a health lawyers who focuses on issues around health information technology I was surprised to read the article and learn about this West Virginia based company. I had not heard of them before. I plan to reach out to them and see how we might get them involved in the West Virginia Health Information Network and other West Virginia based health technology efforts. 

This company is another great example of creative West Virginians coming home to West Virginia to create a new economy in our state.

According to EvriChart's website, the company offers a variety of services to health care HIM departments. They have a solution called EvriChart Clear that create a documented, customized medical records plan for the retention and destruction of your patient files, including:

• Identifies all records eligible for destruction
• Provides full documentation of all records eligible for destruction
• Verifies which records should be retained
• Provides a searchable file level index for retained records
• Prevents costly errors with stored records
• Provides ongoing management for future destruction
• Provides web-based request and retrieval of retained records
• Provides a complete management plan
• Populates your EHR on-demand

The company also provide web-based access to the health information through its product called EvriChart Client Portal.

West Virginia's Health Information Technology Efforts

Yesterday the Charleston Gazette ran an op-ed piece, West Virginia A Leader In Health Information, written by Kenneth Kizer and Peter Groen.

The article provides an overview of the various efforts in West Virginia to become a national leader in health information technology. The op-ed piece states:

As Congress deliberates the economic stimulus package aimed at, among other things, accelerating use and adoption of health information technology, leaders would be well served to look to West Virginia's example as a guide for how to accomplish this objective in a cost-effective fashion.
West Virginia has quietly become a national leader in the use of health information technology, particularly in the area of "open-source" electronic health record solutions that are used by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and Indian Health Service. These high-value systems, developed with a substantial investment of federal funds over the past 30 years, have been adapted and are being used in a number of innovative ways to improve the health of West Virginians:

• The state Department of Health and Human Resources has just completed rolling out Bar Code Medication Administration in all eight state hospitals. This technology, developed by the VA in the late 1990s, has been shown to reduce the overwhelming majority of medication errors among hospitalized patients.

• DHHR completed implementation of OpenVista, the commercial version of the internationally known electronic health records used by the VA last fall. This means that all federal and state hospitals in West Virginia now use essentially the same system. No other state has done this.

• West Virginia University Hospitals recently launched the second phase of implementing a proprietary electronic health records system.

• The Community Health Network of West Virginia finished installing MedLynksTM RPMS, a cousin of OpenVista, in 30 clinic locations located across the state last year, and continues to implement MedLynk RPMS at additional sites. (RPMS is currently used by the Indian Health Service at almost 200 of its facilities.)

A recent survey conducted by the Shepherd University Research Corp. found that 76 percent of state hospitals have at least begun implementing an electronic health records system; this is among the highest rates, if not the highest, in the nation. These are important developments that will result in higher quality and safer health care, reduced costs and saved lives. The people of West Virginia should take pride in these accomplishments - and look forward to completion of additional efforts underway.
Gov. Manchin's strategic plan for improving health care in West Virginia envisions important improvements, including installing electronic medical records in all hospitals and clinics in the state; implementing the West Virginia Health Information Network - a statewide network to improve information flow between different types of healthcare facilities; implementing a new web-based Medicaid claims management system to more efficiently process claims and better detect fraud and abuse; expanding use of personal health records; and continuing to increase e-prescribing.
Under the leadership of DHHR Secretary Martha Walker and Medicaid Commissioner Marsha Morris, the department has launched a Medicaid transformation initiative aimed at creating "medical homes" for Medicaid patients. Medical homes use "health information exchange" technology to connect different types of electronic medical records so that they are integrated to provide more complete information so that doctors can better treat chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease and more effectively work to keep people healthy.
The Medicaid program has established the West Virginia Health Improvement Institute and an Innovation Community to teach caregivers how to integrate health information technology and medical home concepts to support patient education and self-management. Pilot programs to show the effectiveness of these efforts are underway. The West Virginia Medicaid program competed for funding from the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to support these efforts.
Further, the West Virginia Telehealth Alliance is one of 69 programs across the country that has been funded to enhance broadband capacity for nearly 300 participating facilities supporting telehealth and HIT applications in West Virginia.
Clearly, West Virginia has taken the initiative and is aggressively moving forward to improve health care using a blend of open source and commercial health-care IT systems. There is much the rest of the nation can learn from West Virginia's experience.
Kizer, a doctor and public health specialist, is a former undersecretary in the U.S. Department of Health Services. Groen is with the Computer & Information Science Department at the Shepherd University Research Corp.

American Well: e-House Calls by the Hawaiian Doctor

Today Hawaii Medical Service Association along with American Well roll out American Well's technology that redesigns the house call -- call it "e-House Call." More about the joint effort and how to log in can be found at HMSA's Online Care For Consumers.

American Well's technology allows live, face-to-face consultations between physicians and patients. The technology matches up the patient with the physician. Hawaii hope that the project will provide convenient, affordable and better access to health care in a state (not unlike West Virginia) that has remote areas/islands.

I plan to invite American Well to West Virginia to see whether we might roll out a similar effort in conjunction with the West Virginia Health Information Network or as a part of the innovation community under the Medicaid Transformation Grant program that I am working on through the West Virginia Health Improvement Institute.

More background information in the AP News article, "The Hawaii doctor is in - online." Also, David Harlow over at HealthBlawg recently examined whether American Well might be the disruptive innovation to unseat retail based health clinics.

Tip to @jenmccabegorman.

ONCHIT Issues Nationwide Privacy and Security Framework for Electronic Exchange of Health Information

Today the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONCHIT) issued The Nationwide Privacy and Security Framework for Electronic Exchange of Individually Identifiable Health Information. The summary states that the framework creates a set of consistent principles to:

". . .address the privacy and security challenges related to electronic health information exchange through a network for all persons, regardless of the legal framework that may apply to a particular organization. The goal of this effort is to establish a policy framework for electronic health information exchange that can help guide the Nation's adoption of health information technologies and help improve the availability of health information and health care quality. The principles have been designed to establish the roles of individuals and the responsibilities of those who hold and exchange electronic individually identifiable health information through a network."

Along with the Nationwide Privacy and Security Framework the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has issued The Health IT Privacy and Security Toolkit. The Toolkit includes new HIPAA Privacy Rule guidance documents developed by the ONCHIT and the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to help facilitate the electronic exchange of health information.

Of particular interest to many interested in PHRs will be the OCR's guidance on Personal Health Records and the HIPAA Privacy Rule and the draft Draft Model Personal Health Record (PHR) Privacy Notice & Facts-At-A-Glance (the "Leavitt Label").

The Toolkit provides information and guidance focused around these key areas:

• Individual Access Principle - Individuals should be provided with a simple and timely means to access and obtain their individually identifiable health information in a readable form and format.
• Correction Principle - Individuals should be provided with a timely means to dispute the accuracy or integrity of their individually identifiable health information, and to have erroneous information corrected or to have a dispute documented if their requests are denied.
• Openness and Transparency Principle - There should be openness and transparency about policies, procedures, and technologies that directly affect individuals and/or their individually identifiable health information.
• Individual Choice Principle - Individuals should be provided a reasonable opportunity and capability to make informed decisions about the collection, use, and disclosure of their individually identifiable health information.
• Collection, Use, and Disclosure Limitation Principle - Individually identifiable health information should be collected, used, and/or disclosed only to the extent necessary to accomplish a specified purpose(s) and never to discriminate inappropriately.
• Data Quality and Integrity Principle - Persons and entities should take reasonable steps to ensure that individually identifiable health information is complete, accurate, and up-to-date to the extent necessary for the person's or entity's intended purposes and has not been altered or destroyed in an unauthorized manner.
• Safeguards Principle - Individually identifiable health information should be protected with reasonable administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to ensure its confidentiality, integrity, and availability and to prevent unauthorized or inappropriate access, use, or disclosure.
• Accountability Principle - These principles should be implemented, and adherence assured, through appropriate monitoring and other means and methods should be in place to report and mitigate non-adherence and breaches.

I have only made an initial pass though the information and guidance documents. There is a lot to read and digest over the holidays. Please post in the comments your thoughts on the new federal principles and guidelines.

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.

Health 2.0: Stay Focused on the Goals

Ben Heywood, co-founder of PatientsLikeMe, outlines simple (but difficult) goals that those in the health 2.0 space must accomplish. Based on his post I take it that he highlighted these during his keynote address at the second Health 2.0 Northeast conference.

His simple but eloquent message to the health 2.0 community:

I believe we, as the eHealth community, need to focus on two major goals: 1) solve patients’ problems, and 2) create business models that allow us to do #1.

Successful companies must show real and tangible benefits directly to the patient consumer. As one who regularly participates in the health information discussion and debate as West Virginia moves forward with its health information network infrastructure -- I often try to step back and ask, like Mr. Heywood, the simple question, "does this help the patient -- why and how?"

To be disruptive and successful the current crop of creative companies have to show a direct and immediate impact on improving care and quality linked to a reduction in cost or a value proposition that the increase in cost is worth such expenditure.

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:

• Summary
• Introduction Statement
• Press Release
• Section by Section Analysis
• Privacy and Security Provisions
• Incentives

To locate the current status of the bill check out Thomas. I suspect that there will be little movement on the bill this Congressional session - but it does give insight into what might be coming down the road.

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.

eHealthWV: West Virginia EHR Public Service Announcement

As a part of West Virginia's participation in the Health Information Security and Privacy Collaborative (HISPC), West Virginia Medical Institute and its partners launch the eHealthWV website focused on educating consumers about electronic health records and health information exchange.

West Virginia was one of a number of states awarded a grant by RTI International to participate in the HISPC, a national collaborative effort to study health information security and privacy. To learn more about EHRs and HIEs check out the website. They also have a toolkit of brochures for physician practices to use.

Project Director, Patty Ruddick, notified me last week that they had filmed a new EHR/HIT public service announcement that will start airing across West Virginia over the next few months. I thought I would upload the PSA to YouTube and share a copy (click below to watch).