Information Exchange in support of care coordination is one of the three meaningful use criteria cited in the ARRA (Stimulus) legislation, with the other two being demonstrated use of eRx and ablity to provide quality reporting metrics.
In many conversations and presentations though, it appears that the consensus view is that “Information Exchange” is that which occurs between clinicians. Funny thing though, the legislation never states that this is indeed the requirement. Within the Recovery Bill, Division B, Subtitle A, Section 4101 that legislation states:
(ii) INFORMATION EXCHANGE.-The eligible professional demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary, in accordance with subparagraph (CHi), that during such period such certified EHR technology is connected in a manner that provides, in accordance with law and standards applicable to the exchange of information, for the electronic exchange of health information to improve the quality of health care, such as promoting care coordination.
Thus, is HHS chooses to go down this path, Information Exchange for care coordination could be defined very broadly to include an entity that has a stake in coordinating care, including the patient/consumer. Therefore, might a clinician that agrees to provide a consumer with open access to their records be construed to meet this particular requirement for “meaningful use”? If yes, portal providers such as EMR agnostic MEDSEEK or EMR vendors such as NextGen or Epic who offer a portal may see an uptick in their patient portal business.
But what might happen if HHS tied Information Exchange for care coordination together with the language of Division A, Part 1, Section 13405 (don’t you just love government docs!) which states:
(1) the individual shall have a right to obtain from such covered entity a copy of such information in an electronic format and, if the individual chooses, to direct the covered entity to transmit such copy directly to an entity or person designated by the individual, provided that any such choice is clear, conspicuous, and specific;
In such a scenario, we see portability of medical records in support of information exchange come to the forefront. Might such an incentive encourage recalcitrant organizations to begin opening up and allowing patients/consumers to not only have a digital copy of their records, but request that it be sent to the PHR or personal health cloud of their choosing and then using their PHR as the locus for care coordination?
If such does come to pass, PHR providers may have a unique opportunity to assist physicians in addressing what will be one of the more difficult meaningful use criteria. What Chilmark also likes about this scenario is that it gives the patient/consumer direct control of their records and in some respects puts them on more equal footing with the clinician> This could become one of the few areas where consumers directly benefit from all the billions being spent on HIT.
One area that might trip this up completely though is demonstrating “care coordination.” It is here that the PHR vendor will need to focus their energies demonstrating that their solution provides the tools and capabilities in support of such among all stakeholders in this web of information exchange.
[…] Funny thing though, the legislation never states that this is indeed the requirement.” Article John Moore, Chilmark Research, 21 May […]
Great post, John. This is an aspect of the whole meaningful use debate and stimulus opportunity that a lot of people are missing.
MediKeeper is seeing very large opportunities that are coming from the implementation of a solution that either does not require a full EMR solution or is looking to enhance an existing solution like Epic or NextGen.
[…] Wondering if meaningful use will impact PHR market […]