Comments on: RIP Meaningful Use Born 2009 – Died 2014??? https://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2014/11/26/rip-meaningful-use-2009-2014/ Everything you always wanted to know about the Health Care system. But were afraid to ask. Thu, 01 Dec 2022 19:47:33 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.3.4 By: Nandip Kothari https://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2014/11/26/rip-meaningful-use-2009-2014/#comment-711865 Tue, 06 Jan 2015 14:48:14 +0000 https://thehealthcareblog.com/?p=78011#comment-711865 Excellent article. I applaud the author for eloquently stating what most of technologists in the healthcare industry have known for years.

As a taxpayer, my only regret is that in the Medicaid MU program, funds were handed out to doctors for doing nothing at all. The majority of Medicaid physicians I know signed up for a free EMR, took the first year $22,000, then did nothing thereafter. They never intend to use an EMR. And worst, the government incentives for Medicaid doctors is not over yet. More of our tax dollars going down the drain.

]]>
By: Robert Higgs https://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2014/11/26/rip-meaningful-use-2009-2014/#comment-706159 Thu, 18 Dec 2014 16:36:05 +0000 https://thehealthcareblog.com/?p=78011#comment-706159 Good article. I wrote another one in 2009 and posted it to our web site http://www.icucare.com. The concept and idea for “wiring” the healthcare system was valid and needed since we live in a digital age and that, data represents the science which is suppose to be what medicine is all about. The plan for how to accomplish was flawed from the start. There isn’t but two “components” in the healthcare system that matter; the “patient and the care provider”. Only one of these two components is mobile throughout their lifetime, the patient. George Bush’s speech stated that “every American would have an electronic medical record”. We lost track of that objective from the very start. The way to accomplish the stated goal would have been to develop a National PHR in conjunction with rolling out electronic medical records systems using existing NIST and ASTM standards. My word, even XML which is still the root of every standard today was capable of being used as the standard for interoperability due to its ability to be generated and more importantly parsed into other operating systems. This PHR would be owned by the patient with the healthcare industry being contributing stakeholders. It’s lot easier to “wire” two (2) point in a network to be capable of communications than it is to wire 100,000+ end points into a common network that can. The hospital system, who own the healthcare delivery system see a patient as no more than a “customer” that they call a patient. They no more want to share pertinent information about their customer to a competing hospital system than CVS would want to share their personal information on their customers with Walgreens. ICUcare has developed a Private Exchange in the form of a PHR. The system uses a Smart Card as one of five methods for transporting a user’s medical information including native DICOM images from their cloud based system and the point of care with the ability retrieve the encounter data including imaging back to its central repository. The system uses the international standard as developed by NIST and is capable with VistA, EPIC, Cerner, Allscripts, eClinicalWorks and others bi-directionally. It has never been about a lack of technology. It has only been about a lack of intelligence and “will”. “Ideas are much like dreams, without a viable plan of action (not just doing something), most never come true”!

]]>
By: lew https://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2014/11/26/rip-meaningful-use-2009-2014/#comment-705110 Mon, 15 Dec 2014 12:12:05 +0000 https://thehealthcareblog.com/?p=78011#comment-705110 In reply to Saurabh Jha.

I would ask the question as well. Do the Scandinavians use ‘tech’ as much as we think we should?

]]>
By: Whatsen Williams https://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2014/11/26/rip-meaningful-use-2009-2014/#comment-700588 Sun, 30 Nov 2014 19:49:29 +0000 https://thehealthcareblog.com/?p=78011#comment-700588 No oversight, no regulation, and no accountability. MU provides an illusion of these, without any evidence that following these random edicts wil improve outcomes, reduce adverse events, or reduce costs.

Bob does not click the CPOE nor is he impeded by the CDS. Until he uses these poorly designed systems, be skeptical of what he states on EHRs.

]]>
By: Cynthia https://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2014/11/26/rip-meaningful-use-2009-2014/#comment-700085 Fri, 28 Nov 2014 22:03:52 +0000 https://thehealthcareblog.com/?p=78011#comment-700085 You write,

“This change would allow EHRs to communicate with each other and developers to write apps that could link to the large systems like those built by Epic and Cerner. Promoting this kind of interoperability would be a judicious role for a smaller, less muscle-bound ONC, and for MU Stage 3.”

Good luck with that. Epic and Cerner will fight tooth and nail to protect their multibillion-dollar monopolies, even if it means dumping even more healthcare costs onto the taxpayer. Never mind that their fortunes weren’t build by the free market. They instead were built on the backs of the taxpaying public.

]]>
By: Rob https://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2014/11/26/rip-meaningful-use-2009-2014/#comment-700081 Fri, 28 Nov 2014 21:47:41 +0000 https://thehealthcareblog.com/?p=78011#comment-700081 I had no disagreement with the first 1/2 of the article. It is right on describing the history and even intent of the program and ONC. Up to 2011 I was a strong proponent of the HITECH bill, even giving talks lauding the intent of the program. I agree that the goal was to get doctors on decent IT that would allow interoperability and clinical decision support. My disagreement comes with the statement: “With Meaningful Use Stage 2 (2012-present), things went sour. ” No, things started to go sour before that. My hope (and the hope of many others) was that the implementation of IT would transform health care into something that could become more efficient (because computers can do that).

My first realization that this was a foolish idea was when we had our first upgrade of our EMR so it complied with Stage 1 of meaningful use. It became much less usable. I was mystified why they would make clinical care harder with a so-called upgrade. Only in retrospect do I realize that all of this happened because of the economics of meaningful use incentives in the marketplace: the venders realized that doctors were only buying systems that got them the money, so this was their sole focus. Since institution, vendors have responded to the marketplace, which does not reward improved care or efficiency, but pays handsomely for compliance.

The bottom line is that instead of transforming the system as a tool enabling efficiency and access to information, IT was transformed by the system into a tool to enable otherwise unreasonable data and documentation requirements to be done with a single click. Instead of making care more lean, IT allowed it to become a bloated boondoggle of data and documents.

The lesson I learn from this is that money trumps all. Until it is less profitable to do bad medicine, it will continue getting worse. Until we stop rewarding doctors, hospitals, and EMR vendors for treating patients as a commodity and not a customer, we will continue down this path. Anything less than radical change of financial incentives will have minimal impact.

]]>
By: William Palmer MD https://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2014/11/26/rip-meaningful-use-2009-2014/#comment-699840 Thu, 27 Nov 2014 23:51:19 +0000 https://thehealthcareblog.com/?p=78011#comment-699840 Shouldn’t the number one goal be better care? …and not interoperability?
Don’t we need some trials showing EHR adoption leads to better care?
Doesn’t interoperability also ease hackability?
Has the industry and public fully appreciated the damage and risks of data loss? Has this danger sunk in yet? Is it not likely that after we do feel the impact of purloined data that we will end up with mixed systems: analog and digital?

]]>
By: @BobbyGvegas https://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2014/11/26/rip-meaningful-use-2009-2014/#comment-699750 Thu, 27 Nov 2014 15:42:57 +0000 https://thehealthcareblog.com/?p=78011#comment-699750 In reply to @BobbyGvegas.

Helps if I’d spell it right.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=interoperababble

]]>
By: Jeff Goldsmith https://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2014/11/26/rip-meaningful-use-2009-2014/#comment-699692 Thu, 27 Nov 2014 11:20:11 +0000 https://thehealthcareblog.com/?p=78011#comment-699692 In reply to Joe Flower.

This is why the SGR fix “everybody” (e.g. every significant health care lobby) has signed off on is bad policy: it imbeds MU incentives PERMANENTLY into Part B physician payment. No. No. No.

]]>
By: @BobbyGvegas https://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2014/11/26/rip-meaningful-use-2009-2014/#comment-699551 Thu, 27 Nov 2014 02:10:57 +0000 https://thehealthcareblog.com/?p=78011#comment-699551 “And yes, the #1 goal is interoperability, which is technically quite feasible. But it does need government action to make it the industry standard, because the IT companies and most of the provers have been highly reluctant to open their “walled gardens” — the exact opposite of seamless care coordination.”
__

Google “Interoperabbable.” I coined the term. I currently own the above-the-fold search results. (I’d provide direct links, but THCB blocks mine.)

]]>