Healthcare IT NewsHealthcare IT News
TwitterFacebookLinkedInHealthcareITNews International
  • Home
  • Topics
    • ARRA/Stimulus
    • Business Intelligence
    • Claims Processing
    • Data Warehousing
    • EDIS
    • Election 2012
    • Electronic Health Records
    • Enterprise Content Management
    • Enterprise Resource Planning
    • ePrescribing
    • Financial/Revenue Cycle Management
    • Health Information Exchange (HIE)
    • ICD-10
    • Mobile/Wireless
    • Network Infrastructure
    • Policy and Legislation
    • Privacy and Security
    • Quality and Safety
    • RIS and PACS
    • RTLS
    • Telehealth
    • Workforce Management
  • Issues
    • January 2012
    • December 2011
    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
  • Webinars
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • On Demand Webinars
  • White Papers
  • Blog
  • Events
  • HIMSS JobMine
  • RSS
  • Press Releases
  • Slideshows
  • Videos
  • Podcasts
  • Supplements
  • Survey Analyses
  • Newsletters
  • Advertise
  • Login
  • Register
  • SUBSCRIBE
    • Newspaper
    • Email Newsletter
Home » News
Receive News By Email

  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • RSS Icon
  

Ownership of EHRs poses barrier to adoption

March 25, 2009 | Molly Merrill, Associate Editor

WINSTON-SALEM, NC – The issue around ownership of electronic health information must be addressed before it can be used to improve healthcare, says a recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

"This legal uncertainty presents a major obstacle to integrating and using information about a single patient from various clinicians and hospitals," say the article's authors,  Mark A. Hall, a professor of law and public health sciences at Wake Forest University and Kevin A. Schulman, MD, a professor of medicine and vice chairman for business affairs in the Department of Medicine in Duke University's School of Medicine.

Hall and Schulman point out that with paper records the concept of ownership is more straightforward: providers and insurance plans own the paper, so they control the information. "But now that digitizing information frees it  from particular storage media, confusion reigns," they said.

Normal property rights do not apply to patients and their medical records because providers also have a right to the information, the article explains, so patients don't have sole possession or control.  Instead, they have privacy rights to protect and control access to their records.

 "Strong privacy laws (favoring the patient) and clinicians' economic interests in limiting access to health records increase barriers to forming integrated electronic records. This combination of low commercial value with restricted access leaves medical information lying stunted in an undernourished field, " wrote Schulman and Hall.

The article says the "infomediary" to build the network among different EHRs would need clear authority to bundle and exercise the economic rights of multiple parties.

 "An intermediary could compile a bundle of patients' authorizations to use their information for research or marketing purposes; the compiler could, with patient authorization, then market these databases to permitted users or could transfer the bundled rights to a third party aggregator and marketer," the article states.

"Some earnings could flow back to patients or compensate participating clinicians. In this way, placing bundled rights to medical information into a stream of commerce could direct them toward their highest and best use," the authors suggest.

The article maintains that a new system of patient-initiated control of health records could be the key to a successful system. Such a system could "loosen the logjam of competing interests and stimulate market mechanisms to make much larger investments in using and sharing electronic health information."
 

Related Topics:
  • Kevin A. Schulman

Reader Comments (4)Login to Post a Comment

Randall says: Schulman and Hall - inaccurate and misguided
March 30, 2009 | 3:50PM GMT

"Strong privacy laws (favoring the patient) and clinicians' economic interests in limiting access to health records increase barriers to forming integrated electronic records. This combination of low commercial value with restricted access leaves medical information lying stunted in an undernourished field, " wrote Schulman and Hall.”

This statement is inaccurate and misguided. Schulman and Hall should go to Denmark and take a look at a system where over 90% of physicians use a shared system for medical records. Even though the patients can opt out of the system, few chose to do so. The U.S. physician not desiring more interoperability is the exception. As an EMR vendor for the U.S., I talk to physicians in small and independent practices (i.e. the 70% of physicians) every day. I desire to see a successful system of sharing of health information. The real value of the EMR/PHR for patients and their physicians will not be achieved until there is an ability to share information with something more sophisticated than a fax. The Danes did this for a fraction of the cost we are anticipating in the U.S. The attempts in the U.S. to force patients and physicians into a shared system are doomed to fail. For example, the patient should be able to directly authorize their own ROI as it is done in Denmark. In contrast, the U.S. is attempting to put their physicians in the middle of such hassles, and adding onerous physician penalties when the system breaks down. I desire a clear conscious, so please remember you heard this here... this planned approach to release of information promises to thwart adoption. I know this because of direct feedback I am receiving on a daily basis from physicians representing the majority.
In the U.S., our planned, centralized approach to personal health information is the next boondoggle in the making. In fact, we are heading down the same path as in the U.K. where the system for sharing information has failed in spite of the equivalent of tens of billions of dollars having already been spent! The gap between the vendor/academic/government policy makers and the real world continues to be beyond enormous. However, when I report these realities to the former, it is nearly always a "deer in headlight" experience. I don't expect deer to know how much they don't know, but I have higher expectations for persons and organizations. Am I just stupid, or what?

1168403 says: ownership of emr records
March 30, 2009 | 8:12AM GMT

CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, " DIDN'T HIPAA SAY THAT THE PATIENT HAS THE RIGHT TO SAY WHO SEES THEIR REOCRDS" if that is the case, then ownership is quite simple....IT BELONGS TO THE PATIENT.
If it has anything to do with or about me, (record wise) then it is absolutely 100% my property and I will determine who sees it and when. That was the main thrust behind the EMR.. the ability for the records to be housed digitally NOT ON LINE, but on a portable EMR which the patient has control over.
Just to take the records from paper and move them to a doctors computer where still any office worker there can look at them does not spell privacy to me. Privacy to me is where, I as the patient and owner of those records, says who can see them.

Why all of a sudden is there this hue and cry from the doctors? Are they afraid of losing a patient? Losing income? Hell they should have thought about that when they only ave a patient 4 minutes of their time per visit.
If I sound a little bitter it is because I have invented the portable EMR, one that the patient carries with the, ONE THAT DRIVES THE PATIENT TO THE DOCTOR SO THAT THEY CAN UPLOAD THEIR RECORDS,AND GET PAID FOR DOING SO EVERY SINGLE TIME..

I can show any doctor that wants to listen how they can double their income by using my portable income... how does an additional $1-2,000,000 per year sound??? I can show them how it can be done with a portable EMR.. if they want to listen... That's my opinion and you can use it.. Norman

pH 7.40 says: EMR/EHR Mess
March 25, 2009 | 1:04PM GMT

Very precise and to the point.

A great deal of patient time is spent by the clinician documenting what you did instead of the actual patient care. This is compounded by the number of different proprietary software clients used to document one task or another.

For me, one patient visit is a minimum of three different systems. Depending on the acuity and the services needed/requested it may be 7 or more from the ordering of the procedures to the viewing of results.

Any thing that slows documentation and flow disrupts and diverts attention that should be given to patients.

That is just the internal mechanism of one ancillary service.

When each insurer requires data entered independent of those use within the confines of the facility this, again, slows and compounds the processes.

There needs to be one system, one chart that all the data flows to one place and is retrievable by those authorized.

Until the proprietary software is removed from the system and replaced by such as is an Open Source framework then these problems will persist and plaque all institutions.

And the funneling of funds will continue to use, update, and pay licensing fees.

Fees for products that do nothing to improve the flow, storage, retrieval of information and fees that do nothing to eliminate time spent struggling with multiple packages of software.

Using the current model this, in essence, is money and time that will never be recoverable in terms of productivity and time spent with the patient.

If has it be, no...it MUST be bundled to do all with one.

1168403 says: EMR MESS
March 30, 2009 | 8:20AM GMT

How would you like to be able to use just one Portable EMR and not have to worry about billing and all the other garbage that comes with the various non compatible systems?
I can show you how you can save upwards of $50,000 right off the bat by letting SGMS Corp (my company) provide you with portable EMRs for your patients, and you get paid for using them. You can save that money by letting us do your billing (95% first pass approval and those that get returned we have a 98.5% second pass rating)...
You save your billing salaries, insurance for them etc.... and if you have 2 people well then just double it.
What are you paying now for billing?? Somewhere in the area of $85,000 when all that is said and done, salary, insurance, benefits, 401K, lost office space..etc..
if you billed $1,000,000 this year all you would have paid us is $65,000 (6.5%) of recovered payment..My next question is something for you to think about very carefully..

IF I SAVE YOU THREE MINUTES A PATIENT, WHAT WOULD THAT BE WROTH TO YOU INCOME WISE AT THE END OF THE YEAR.. FIGURING THAT YOU SEE AN AVERAGE OF 25 PATIENTS PER DAY.??
iF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN FINDING OUT HOW MUCH MORE MONEY WE CAN MAKE YOU EMAIL ME AT info@sgmscorp.com

Oh and by the way you suggestion of open software is just that.. OPEN TO ANYONE, HACKERS, THIEVES ETC.. KEEP IT OFF LINE... JUST ASK MASTER CARD, THE VA, AMEX, AND SEVERAL WELL KNOW BANKS AOBUT THEIR ON LINE THEFTS..

You asked and I answered.. Norman

Most Popular

Latest Headlines
Most Popular
  • 10 most outlandish kinds of ICD-10 codes
  • 5 stages of EHR maturity and patient collaboration
  • Megaupload: Lessons Learned in Cloud Computing Risks
  • 5 issues affecting cloud service quality and performance
  • 'Obamacare' a lightning rod, but what about health IT?
  • McKesson acquires peerVue
  • Demand exceeds supply for some health IT jobs
  • Arkansas selects OptumInsight for statewide HIE
  • Vocal against health reform, Missourians quiet on health IT
  • 5 simple ways to realize ROI from your EHR

WEBINARS AND WHITE PAPERS

  • WHITE PAPERS
    Business Intelligence for Hospitals: Empowering Healthcare Providers to Make Informed Decisions
  • WHITE PAPERS
    Driving Meaningful Use of Enterprise Content Management
  • ON DEMAND WEBINARS
    The Value of Document and Content Management in Healthcare Transformation
  • ON DEMAND WEBINARS
    Case Study: Sentara Healthcare Completes an Award-Winning EHR with Enterprise Content Management
  • WHITE PAPERS
    Winning the EHR Battle with Enterprise Content Management
More Resources
Syndicate content

HIMSS JOBMINE

  • Director, Sales - HIMSS - Arlington, VA
  • Program Analyst - Mathematica Policy Research - Princeton, NJ
  • Oracle Implementation Analyst - Virginia Mason Medical Center - Seattle, WA
  • Web and Custom Development Manager - Virginia Mason Medical Center - Seattle, Washington
  • Epic Analyst/Builder - Vitalize Consulting Solutions - Nationwide
more jobs

Marketplace

Follow Healthcare IT News on TwitterFan Healthcare IT News on FacebookJoin Healthcare IT News on LinkedInRSS Subscriptions
Digital EditionBlogEvents
JobsMobile SiteMobile App
 
Healthcare Finance News Government Health IT EHRWatch Healthcare Payer News HITECHWatch ICD10Watch mHIMSS PhysBizTech NHINWatch
©2012 MedTech Media Healthcare IT News is a publication of MedTech Media
Subscribe Advertise About Us Privacy Policy