The Savvy Tech Strategy Behind Obamacare

snydeq writes "The U.S. health care industry is undergoing several massive transformations, not the least of which is the shift to interoperable EHR (electronic health records) systems. The ONC's Doug Fridsma discusses the various issues that many health care IT and medical providers have raised regarding use of these systems, which are mandated for 2014 under the HITECH Act of 2004, and are all the more important in light of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. Key to the transition, says Fridsma, is transforming health IT for EHRs into something more akin to the Internet, and less like traditional ERP and IT systems. 'I think what we're trying to do is the equivalent of what you've got in the Internet, which is horizontal integration rather than vertical integration,' Fridsma says. 'We've done a lot of work looking at what other countries have done, and we've tried to learn from those experiences. Rather than trying to build this top down and create restrictions, we're really trying to ask, "What's the path of least regret in what we need to do?"'"

Comments

Too bad someone didn't figure this all out

[hsmith]

Before the govt started handing out $44k for docs to adopt shitty EHR systems and collect free money. We now have a plethora of shitty EHR systems in hospitals that don't solve any issues at all.

So, the government created this incentive (Which made a few companies insanely rich, like Epic, Cerner, and Athena) - and created this massive siloed data mess. Anyone who has worked in HIT knows what a complete failure this EHR rollout has been on every front.

Even better are the CHIIT "certification" standards (aka, a complete pile of shit) which were to ensure that EHR software met a bunch of standards to get that $44k. One of the hallmarks was "Interoperability" - which to CHIIT meant "systems can communicate with themselves" - derp.

The EHR rollout was a complete failure, mainly due to the govt pushing shit out on the marketplace with their stupid incentives. It is going to take over a decade to untangle the mess of complete crap.

Re:Too bad someone didn't figure this all out

[intermodal]

This is from the same government that brought us the VA hospital system. I work in HIT myself, and I see nothing good coming of these new technology mandates.

Re:Too bad someone didn't figure this all out

[hsmith]

Good idea, but in reality it should be all revolved around creating true standards and interoperability. Systems communicating together should have been the single desirable element in all of it. Instead, it was an afterthought. Now we get garbage like Commonwell (From the 5 largest EHR vendors) that will create more proprietary garbage.

The people that created the mess we are in want to fix it? Please.

Re:Too bad someone didn't figure this all out

[PatHMV]

Right on. Moreover, who benefits from all this, anyway? The idea is that the patient benefits, because an ER doc at one facility can see all of that patient's health records when treating him. But what if the patient doesn't want that? The reality is that all this centralized electronic data will benefit insurance companies, not patients. Once certain things (epilepsy, say) are flagged in your electronic, accessible to any person authorized by law to see them (and that will be insurance companies, governments, and probably your own employer at some point), then it's there, and you're tagged for life. Good luck getting a driver's license. Or overcoming the stigma of some unpopular disease.

I don't WANT all of my medical records out there. I don't think it will benefit me or my health. But these days I have little choice.

Bingo

[Anonymous Coward]

I just filled out my BS bingo card when they called both "horizontal integration" and "vertical integration".

On topic: The path of least regret would have been single payer system, but we somehow ended up with a Republican profit-utopia called "Obamacare".

It uses the standard government tech strategy

[Richy_T]

Costs three times as much as the originally budgeted cost, is delivered five times past the deadline and doesn't do a tenth of what was promised.

Learning from what other countries have done?

[Hatta]

Other countries have single payer health care, which delivers better outcomes at a lower cost. Try learning from that.

Re:Learning from what other countries have done?

[h4rr4r]

That does not maximize insurance industry profit. Which is in fact the entire point of the ACA.

Re:Learning from what other countries have done?

[dfenstrate]

Other countries have single payer health care, which delivers better outcomes at a lower cost. Try learning from that.

And those countries do that by either gaming the statistics, or having a homogenized society where social pressure to conserve public resources can be successfully applied.

Re:Learning from what other countries have done?

[Hatta]

Single payer just makes sense. A centralized, not for profit system is going to be more efficient than a thousand different companies with their finger in the pie.

And what's wrong with a little pressure to conserve resources? Waste is rampant in the medical industry. As it is now, hospitals get paid for an x-ray whether it's needed or not. More needless tests means more profit, exactly the wrong incentive. We need to tie funding to outcomes, not procedures, and a centralized system is the right way to do that.

Re:Learning from what other countries have done?

[CanHasDIY]

Yep. It really amazes me that Obama set up the law so that he had to fight with states to set up health care exchanges.

Ah, well, simple answer there - he didn't

Re:Learning from what other countries have done?

[brentrad]

Nope, I'm just opposed to health insurance (in its current form.) Auto/fire/theft insurance is one of those "just in case" things. If you are careful, you may never need to use that insurance, and therefore your insurance costs will be lower, and that's a great thing.

Health insurance is a different thing altogether, because everyone is going to need to get health care throughout their life. Even if you're careful, exercise all the time, eat well, you could still have a incredibly costly genetic disease that will bankrupt you even with good insurance. If you avoid getting health care throughout your life, you're going to tend to be less healthy...and then eventually you'll need costly care, and in the end you haven't saved any money at all.

I agree we should extend the benefits of Medicare. In fact, let's extend it to cover everyone in the US, i.e. Medicare Part E (for everyone.) Great idea, I'm glad you recommended it. You do realize Medicare is a single payer system right?

Cato Institute? Puh-lease. Why don't you just link directly to redstate.com or huffingtonpost.com? It would be just as fair and balanced as anything from the Cato Institute, a well-known libertarian think tank that is opposed to the government being in charge of anything.

The free market has had plenty of time to demonstrate to us exactly how they handle healthcare insurance. If the free market worked, healthcare in the US wouldn't be in the state it is today. Instead what we get with free market healthcare is preexisting conditions, yearly and lifetime benefit limits, insurance companies that spend all their time figuring out how to not pay claims, insurance companies that will cancel your coverage if you have an expensive claim and forgot to mention on your insurance application that you had acne treatment when you were 17, etc.

I've worked in the healthcare industry for over 10 years, and I've been on both ends: I worked for an insurance company, and I work now for a healthcare clinic. Please don't try to tell me that insurance companies' hands are tied by the government, and that's why costs are high and coverage is bad. Insurance companies are in the business to make as much money as they can, and they do that by paying as little as they can, and charging as much money as they can get away with. Any savings they pass on to shareholders, they don't cut costs to their customers. They also raise costs to providers by each one having their own highly specific rules about how claims must be submitted and formatted, what information needs to be sent with each claim, etc. If the insurance companies would get together and decide on a set of common rules, we could reduce complexity and cost for providers and patients. But instead we have a Business Office with around 20 employees, processing claims for 30 physicians. It's sure great for providing a lot of jobs, but increases the prices for everyone.

Not sure where you got the part about "everyone who disagrees with you is an inhuman monster who just wants poor people to suffer and die". Was that directed at me, or just at some caricature Democrat/liberal/socialist that you are assuming I am?