Welcome to HealthITlink. Connecting HIT decision makers, SME's, thought leaders, and other industry professionals to achieve better decision making through knowledge sharing & collaboration.

Start participating today.Sign-up here »

Already a member?

Remember Me


Tag archives for public-health

By efficiently collecting data in a way that it can be easily shared across multiple healthcare organizations and leveraged for quality improvement, EHRs can significantly improve public and population outcomes. Beyond data collection, EHRs can help with reporting and surveillance as well. This, along with immunization registries and electronic laboratory reporting, can lead to the […]

ONC/CMS provides strong oversight of the Meaningful Use program by continuousy reexamining the quality of certified products and auditing hospitals and practices that have attested to meaningful use. Last week, ONC “de-certified” a product for not supporting the functionality required by regulations . Meaningful Use audits are done by Figliozzi and Company on behalf of CMS.

More than 1 in 5 seniors with Medicare Advantage plans received a prescription for a potentially harmful “high risk medication” in 2009, according to a newly published analysis by Brown University public health researchers.

In the next few weeks, BIDMC will begin sending 50,000 patient encounter records per week through the state HIE (the MassHIWay) to our quality measurement service operated by the Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative. Also in a few weeks, all the daily reportable lab, syndromic surveillance, and immunization data required by Meaningful Use Stage 2 will be […]

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced a new Medicare Chronic Conditions Dashboard to provide researchers, physicians, public health professionals, and policymakers data on the geographic spread, required services and costs for beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced a new Medicare Chronic Conditions Dashboard to provide researchers, physicians, public health professionals, and policymakers data on the geographic spread, required services and costs for beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions. read more

SuccessEHS has announced that they are among the first ambulatory electronic health record vendors to successfully move into production health information exchange with South Carolina’s Health Information Exchange (SCHIEx).

Here’s a guest post from  Meg Aranow, Principal at Aranow Consulting LLC. Some of us remember that the early HIPAA discussions included the concept of a national patient identifier.   As legislators and administrators attempted to find the right balance between the risks and rewards of automation, ultimately the patient identifier was thought to pose too much privacy risk.  I think that was the right decision in 1998.  But is it right in 2013? The risk-reward playing field has been significantly altered by the infusion of federal stimulus money to hasten the implementation of data exchange among collaborating providers of care.   Clinically misidentified patients are patients who are not associated with their own medical histories or are mistakenly associated with someone else’s medical histories.  These patients have a heightened risk for inappropriate and potentially dangerous care provision.  This potential has always existed within our institutions, but the prevalence increases as our collaborative models are extended.  When clinic records are shared with the collaborating specialty clinic, and then shared with hospital and then the post- acute facilities we increase both the opportunity to deliver great care, and the risk of misidentification occurring somewhere in the chain. Washington administrators are considering a new set of standards to routinize matching algorithms in an attempt to reduce patient mismatches.  To dictate standard matching criteria will compromise the very privacy safeguards they sought to maintain by eliminating the patient identifier in the first place.  Standardized criteria is a weak substitute for an identifier – it weakens privacy protections  and doesn’t actually solve the underlying problems of errant patient identification which stems from intentional or unintentional misreporting and recording of patient demographics. Undoubtedly there are risks with a national patient identifier.  We need to continue our efforts to bolster security and privacy.  Unfortunately today security awareness and breaches both seem to be on the rise.   Most CIO’s are acutely aware of the security standards they must meet and report that they are making incremental progress against multi-year agendas…perhaps foreshadowing a point in the future where breaches of PHI will become increasingly rare.   Additionally, medical identity theft is estimated in the billions – Ponemon Institute suggests a high end of $30B per year.  Making more money available for preventative measures rather than paying for the penalties and remedies for the lapses seems like a worthy paradigm shift.  Strong, reasonably funded security and privacy requirements with repercussions for mistakes and abuse may be the path to finding the new balance of risk and benefit for a collaborative medical system based on a national patient identifier. A patient identifier, separate and distinct from the social security number, and used as one factor in multi-factor authentication at the point of registration for services would assist in the accurate identification of patients at the point of care.  The persistent use of the patient identifier in the private and public HIEs will streamline and make more accurate efforts to share data among collaborating clinicians and public health entities.

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »