Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Federal Deadline Hobbling eHealth IT Rollout

Posted by Soulskill on from the you-can't-hold-servers-together-with-red-tape dept.

Lucas123 writes "A federal deadline that begins next year and requires hospitals to prove they're meaningfully using electronic health records will lead to technical problems and data errors affecting patient care, say politicians and top IT professionals responsible for the deployments. Physicians and hospitals have until the end of 2011 to receive the maximum federal incentive monies to deploy the technology. If not deployed by 2015, they face penalties through cuts in Medicare reimbursements. 'I think we have nontechnology people making decisions about technology,' said Gregg Veltri, CIO at Denver Health. 'I wonder if anybody understands the reality of IT systems and how complex they are, especially when they're integrated together. You're going to sacrifice quality if you increase the speed [of the rollout].'"

14 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. Fast, Good, Cheap, pick 2... by RingDev · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Slow, Bad, Expensive, pick 1...

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    1. Re:Fast, Good, Cheap, pick 2... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Slow, Bad, Expensive, pick 1...

      We're talking about the US Federal Government here. In particular, the CMMS (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Security)

      You get all three.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Fast, Good, Cheap, pick 2... by Da_Biz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We're talking about the US Federal Government here. In particular, the CMMS (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Security). You get all three.

      "Ggovernment is bad" sock puppet, we're talking about private-sector insurance here. CMMS has a fraction of the administrative costs of the private sector. I've worked at private insurance companies: the business processes and technology is frequently appalling.

      Stop chanting the "privatization is good" mantra--some of those who grew up in the Reagan era (such as myself) and were diehard conservatives (such as myself) understand that sometimes, private industry is NOT the answer.

    3. Re:Fast, Good, Cheap, pick 2... by NecroPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because it's the private sector receiving that money to build an infrastructure that meets the government requirements.

      Or to put it more simply:

      * Government give money to hospital.
      * Hospital supposed to use money to build computing infrastruture that makes medical records / insurance easier to process.
      * Hospital say "five year deadline too fast; we too stupid/bureaucratic to build infrastructure. We need more time so that money can be hidden / wasted / embezzled."

      --
      I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
    4. Re:Fast, Good, Cheap, pick 2... by Danse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Republicans haven't been fiscally conservative for decades now. In fact they've actually been worse than Democrats most of the time. Just look at government growth figures. Don't take that as some kind of endorsement of Democrats though, they're usually not fiscally responsible either. The problem is that most of the issues that the government deals with are a lot more complex than can be explained easily to the public. So you can't tell who's lying about any given subject unless you have a pretty intimate knowledge of it.

      While one representative may be telling the truth about how some program is wasting money, he'll also turn around and funnel that money to different interests that support him and tell us how it's such a good thing to do, regardless of the reality of the situation. So we end up with wars of soundbites that one side or the other will win, and ultimately we just end up with a somewhat different mix of irresponsible assholes wasting our money.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    5. Re:Fast, Good, Cheap, pick 2... by shentino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with privatization is that it puts corporate profits ahead of the mission.

      And unfortunately people have proven that if they can get away with cheating, they will do it. Look at all the money swallowed by the telecom industry.

      That's one thing I like about government. It might be bureaucracy, but it's about as close to "interest in the common good" as we're ever going to get, seeing as the bureaucrats, at least in theory, still have to answer to the voters that put them in office. With corporations, the "voters" are shareholders who probably don't give two shits about anything except dividends and stock value.

    6. Re:Fast, Good, Cheap, pick 2... by rev_sanchez · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From what I've seen with these kinds of projects we tend to start off with a very complicated yet somehow vague mandate. Hospitals spin their wheels trying to become compliant and generally do a poor rush job at the last minute. When this becomes painfully obvious the deadline is extended and everyone eventually does a somewhat adequate job at becoming more or less compliant most of the time.

      In sort it works like every other giant IT project and we're still in phase 1.

      --
      If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
  2. Politicians playing the King! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is the same as the political push for the CFL light bulbs. Non technology people dictating the technology sector. Obama does not have an ounce of knowledge about health care systems, yet thinks he knows everything that should be done. It's a farce.
     
    Side note: Jesus told the people they absolutly did not want a King, yet the people wanted to blindly follow and appointed a King anyway. So, here is your King Obama, shortly to dictate Intel manfucaturing numbers because it effects "the environment".

  3. On the flip side by Dynedain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On the other hand, look at the digital TV transition debacle.

    If you don't set a deadline and enforce it, difficult technology implementations tend to drag on forever.

    --
    I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
  4. The clear solution... by SOdhner · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The clear solution is to just not put a deadline on it at all. Surely that will result in quality systems, right? I mean, it's not like they can put this off indefinitely... can they? Oh.

  5. A lot of hospitals already have e-records by alen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    i know people that work in the medical field and a lot of hospitals already have electronic charts. people i know have worked with them for years. going back to 2005 or earlier as far as i can remember.

    I bet this is another case of the leftovers crying about investing money in infrastructure that will save them money in the long run but they see it as an expense and fight it. just like the genius MBA's at Dell and HP who concentrated on volume and tight margins while Apple went the opposite direction. Now Mac sales are growing by double digits, profits are rolling in from boring things like computer sales, the prices compared to higher end Dell/HP computers are comparable on the same specs most of the time, and Apple has a much better brand name. And they don't have Asus and Acer taking away their market share

  6. It's the Fed's money, they don't have to take it. by WilliamBaughman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is there something I'm missing? It seems like the deadline is for applying to receive "federal incentive monies" to roll out the new technology. If they're not rolling out the new technology, then they shouldn't be applying for the money. If they are rolling out the technology, then send in the application for free money.

  7. The whole thing is ridiculous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    First off, only in the health care industry - which is insulated from almost any market pressure - would you have to have the government fund such a basic infrastructural system. All these companies/doctors have to do is sit back, rake in the profits, and wait for the government to improve their basic tools of business for them. It's bullshit - why should I have to pay for this as a taxpayer? Banks seem to have figured out how to do monetary transactions just fine on their own, why couldn't there be a visa of medical records come around? Take a few cents/dollars for a transfer of medical info, get it so ubiquitous that doctors/hospitals are FORCED into using them - Oh, wait, there's no incentive for the doctors/companies to make it easy for individuals to do this - because individuals aren't their customers, Insurance companies are. And why should they care about your medical records being easy to access and transfer?

    Either make them pay for their own systems, or nationalize health care and give me my monies worth. The government owns half the equipment they use through tax breaks/incentives etc. anyways. I shouldn't have to subsidize their extortion and medicine should never have been a 'For Profit' business.

  8. Re:Does hospital IT work pay well enough? by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You are making my point for me. Dr's are running everything and programmers are 'overhead'. I think that will keep really great programmers away and that increases the pain associated with healthcare IT development.