Stimulus Avoids Serious Solutions For Health IT 184
ivaldes3 writes in to note his post up on Linux Medical News, pointing out the severe shortcomings of the Health IT provisions of the just-passed stimulus bill. "The government has authorized enough money to purchase EMR freedom for the nation. Instead the government appears set to double down on proprietary lock-down. The government currently appears poised to purchase serfdom instead of freedom and performance for patients, practitioners and the nation. An intellectual and financial servitude to proprietary EMR companies for little or no gain. A truly bad bargain."
Try A Different Pot Of Money (Score:5, Informative)
So there certainly is money available for this type of work. And for those not familiar with grant funding by the US government, the NIH is the single largest grant provider for the life science in the US.
Privacy protections are lagging (Score:1, Informative)
The privacy laws aren't anywhere close to where they need to be before this step is taken. Your data is going to be stolen/lost and resold. It is only a matter of time until it ends up in the hands of off-shore brokers who are beyond the reach of US "regulators".
With all of this information sharing, where is the protection for pre-existing conditions? People who have paid insurance their entire lives, then change jobs or move out of state and are denied coverage. Maybe because they simply forgot to disclose some conversation or question they asked their doctor. Humana applications go back FIVE years and they want to know everything you've ever discussed or asked your doctor about.
It is too easy for insurers to deny coverage in order to pump up quarterly profits.
Those issues need to be solved... along with the issue of who owns "my" personal information.
Re:Opinionated much? (Score:4, Informative)
He has the same rant about proprietary applications without interchangeable data formats in the medical field that people have with MS Office. Health Systems are just as bad if not worse than the other closed proprietary systems that people here constantly rail about. It's very likely that you'll have to buy a special program to read the medical information that you get from your doctor. It's a closed silo system that won't get any better based on the new funding.
The TFA doesn't seem to have noticed... (Score:3, Informative)
Page 488 of the ARRA [loc.gov]:
(b) STUDY AND REPORT ON AVAILABILITY OF OPEN SOURCE HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS.
(1) STUDY.
(A) IN GENERAL. - The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, in consultation with the Under Secretary for Health of the Veterans Health Administration, the Director of the Indian Health Service, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, and the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, conduct a study on -
(i) the current availability of open source health information technology systems to Federal safety net providers (including small, rural providers);
(ii) the total cost of ownership of such systems in comparison to the cost of proprietary commercial products available;
(iii) the ability of such systems to respond to the needs of, and be applied to, various populations (including children and disabled individuals); and
(iv) the capacity of such systems to facilitate interoperability.
(B) CONSIDERATIONS. - In conducting the study under subparagraph (A), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take into account the circumstances of smaller health care providers, health care providers located in rural or other medically underserved areas, and safety net providers that deliver a significant level of health care to uninsured individuals, Medicaid beneficiaries, SCHIP beneficiaries, and other vulnerable individuals.
(2) REPORT. - Not later than October 1, 2010, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall submit to Congress a report on the findings and the conclusions of the study conducted under paragraph (1), together with recommendations for such legislation and administrative action as the Secretary determines appropriate.
I'm planning on using this to justify why we're applying for ARHQ research funding for implementation of a non-CCHIT certified product... we're just trying to help them research open source options. ;-)