DISQUS

Jay Bhatt · 6 months ago

Excellent piece. The point is certainly an important one considering health IT and having standards as well as everyone speaking the same language.

Jamie P. Morano, MD, MPH · 6 months ago

Yes, indeed! Thanks, Geeta, for this great commentary.

I just returned from a semi-annual business meeting of our local community hospital in Rockville, MD held on June 2, 2009; apparently federal stimulus package money is being generated to help this hospital system with HIT infrastructure. It would be important to know if these stimulus HIT investments are interoperable between each recipient? Let's hope the records will be accessible for more than the 6 months that are currently allowed with our current EMR system!

For other HIT folks out there, can we somehow modify our VA system (or other privately owned systems such as Dartmouth-Hitchcock or Vanderbilt) that work very well and are already field-tested? From "Health Affairs", HIT systems are currently being piloted by the US Government and in Massachusetts, but the key is making these financially feasible for hospitals and private practices. And you're right, if the HIT systems are subsidized, it will be crucial to make sure that the medical staff is both willing and able to document via these systems appropriately.

A dream for me would be a free-access Google-like system of health office/hospital records based on the Outlook model (with VA-like security) in which physician practices could add/modify the system to their needs but also somehow be automatically updated by the government systems in terms of compliance with diagnostic codes and formularies!

Monica · 6 months ago

A very interesting article. I personally feel that despite the challenges and the initial opposition, eventually the concept will have a good chance of getting mass acceptance, more so as recent generations of doctors are very computer savy. It will increase convenience, add accountability, create more order and easier sharing of information as with any other IT based solution.
It would be exciting to watch as IT hits the health field.

Dr. Neeta Venepalli · 6 months ago

Unless the government finds a way to reward physicians for switching to health technology instead of paper charting, it won't happen. This could be in the form of subsidies or tax refunds for clinics/hospitals or a reward system with regards to insurance costs. Otherwise, what incentive is there for doctors to switch to more expensive computer systems that require even MORE time to learn to use (for them and their staff), regardless of the ultimate payout? I welcome Mr. Kundra's suggestions on how to make the esoterics of HIT accessible, practical, and cost effective. Until then, paper charting is here to day.

Craig Gordon, MD MBA · 6 months ago

I agree health care IT COULD yield improvements in medical care (less medical errors, less duplicate testing, better information for physicians to act on) but health care IT is just in its infancy. Multiple problems exist including: health care IT that can accessed by community physicians, hospitals, and acamdemic centers; affordability; the fact that within healthcare there are multiple specialties, each with their own demands; the fact that the data needs to be entered in a fast, accurate, and yet detailed manner; and the fact that it is hard to template what physicians do. While I am an advocate of further research to developing and delivering health care IT, we should approach this process slowly, intelligently in order to work out bugs, ensure physician use and confidentiality, and to avoid huge IT mistakes that the government has a track record for (e.g. FBI database as just one example). In deed this effort should be led by private companies with the government assisting and consulting and ensuring confidentiality and common standards.