ie8 fix

Who will control the coming health IT standards?

By | February 27, 2009, 10:52am PST

Summary: Do we want industry writing the nation’s health IT standards? CCHIT’s “standards” are, in fact, mainly approvals of whatever industry is doing. Many of these “standards” are proprietary.The best open standards aren’t.

The passage of the Obama Stimulus, and the presentation of a budget supporting comparative effectiveness, makes the question of health IT standards urgent.

What will they be and who will create them?

As of this writing, Nextgov writes, it appears that responsibility is headed toward the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology under Robert Kolodner and the Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology under Mark Leavitt (right).

This interpretation of the law is fair, but there is something of a shotgun wedding feel to all this. The preacher has already started the bit about “whoever has objections” and for the Obama Administration the clock is ticking.

How fast is it ticking? The Office of Management and Budget guidelines on handling the money are out but there is as yet no indication as to how the money should be spend regarding health IT.

The reason for concern is that CCHIT is, as Neil Versels notes, an industry group. It was created by the Healthcare Information Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Right after the inauguration CCHIT’s Leavitt asked for $20 billion, delivered essentially to the industry.

Do we want industry writing the nation’s health IT standards? CCHIT’s “standards” are, in fact, mainly approvals of whatever industry is doing. Many of these “standards” are proprietary.

The best open standards aren’t.

Right now the blogosphere is arguing about whether CCHIT is being “thrown under the bus,” and the group’s organizational background. But the key question, to me, is whether we want open standards or industry standards as the backbone of health IT.

Electronic Health Records (EHRs) can be extremely useful, not only at the point of care but in research. They let us create large groups of cohorts with any background or type of condition. No more relying on the old Framingham Heart Study. We can do it live, for any condition, based on any demographic cut you care to make.

But that is only possible if our health IT standards are open and royalty free. They won’t be unless this marriage of stimulus to CCHIT is halted before it’s consummated.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Disclosure

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a journalist, writer and part-time futurist for over 30 years. At the present moment I run only a personal blog in addition to my ZDNet open source blog. DanaBlankenhorn.Com has the subtitle The War Against Oil. In the past I have used it to write about political history, e-commerce, personal matters, some ideas related to open source, and The World of Always On, which is the idea of using sensors, motes and RFID to turn WiFi links into platforms for applications which live in the air. My IRA account at Schwab holds a few tech shares, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials, but there are no open source companies in it. I don’t even own any CBS stock.

Biography

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist since 1978, and has covered technology since 1982. He launched the Interactive Age Daily, the first daily coverage of the Internet to launch with a magazine, in September 1994.
5
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Who will control the coming health IT standards?
scotsilv Updated - 6th Mar 2009
Standards are a red herring in 2009. We have plenty of them, especially at the Federal level (e.g., see Consolidated Health Informatics Project homepage at http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/chiinitiative.html ).

What we need is usuability (see http://tinyurl.com/hostileuserexper), clinical trials to prove effectiveness, and regulatory oversight as in pharma to assure quality and safety.

A clinical trials information system in pharma, subject to FDA inspection and validation, is less complex that a full EHR/CPOE system. The latter, under no regulation at all, also has a potentially far more immediate impact on patients.

With regard to that issue, I've penned a (somewhat tongue in cheek) "Draft Patient Rights Statement and Informed Consent on Use of HIT" here: http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/03/draft-patient-rights-statement-and.html
0 Votes
+ -
The standards are irrelevant..
supercharlie 27th Feb 2009
The real question is.. how much the records will be sold for once they are inevitably breached. SSL is apparently broken, there isnt a credit card on the planet that isnt in some hackers database, so.. how much is a databse full of people's ailments, maybe even psychological histories, to say... insurance carriers.. banks loaning money.. employers.. the list goes on and on... Oh I know.. how about an online lookup of you offshore in the Isle of Man.. that would be pretty spiffy too..

Standards? phht.. the data will be in there.. its just waitin for the hackers..
0 Votes
+ -
At the risk of repeating myself
DanaBlankenhorn 27th Feb 2009
Get rid of underwriting standards -- as the
insurance companies have said they are willing
to do -- and the motivations you fear disappear.
Hi Dana,

You are more than correct about CCHIT.
And, here is a chilling story to emphasize your point.

http://healthcarefinancials.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/cchit-is-prejudiced-and-lacks-diversity-%e2%80%93-an-indictment/#comment-2978#comment-2978

Best.
Hope Hetico; RN, MHA, CPHQ, CMP
[Atlanta, GA]
www.HealthcareFinancials.com
0 Votes
+ -
The link
DanaBlankenhorn 27th Feb 2009
Is to a post by D. Marcinko making specific
charges against the CCHIT, stating that most
medical professions are not represented within
it.

Thanks.
0 Votes
+ -
Standards are a red herring in 2009. We have plenty of them, especially at the Federal level (e.g., see Consolidated Health Informatics Project homepage at http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/chiinitiative.html ).

What we need is usuability (see http://tinyurl.com/hostileuserexper), clinical trials to prove effectiveness, and regulatory oversight as in pharma to assure quality and safety.

A clinical trials information system in pharma, subject to FDA inspection and validation, is less complex that a full EHR/CPOE system. The latter, under no regulation at all, also has a potentially far more immediate impact on patients.

With regard to that issue, I've penned a (somewhat tongue in cheek) "Draft Patient Rights Statement and Informed Consent on Use of HIT" here: http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/03/draft-patient-rights-statement-and.html

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix