Leonardo da/Shutterstock.com

Featured eBooks
Using Data to Support Decision Making
Smart Cities: Beyond the Buzz
What’s Next for Federal Customer Experience
Senators Look to Change Federal Rules for Electronic Health Records

The measure aims to fix the system’s problems—but also make them more transparent.

A bi­par­tis­an pair of sen­at­ors Tues­day in­tro­duced le­gis­la­tion aimed at im­prov­ing elec­tron­ic health re­cords’ trans­par­ency and ac­count­ab­il­ity.

Since the spring, Sen­ate Health, Edu­ca­tion, Labor, and Pen­sions Com­mit­tee mem­bers have been dis­sect­ing elec­tron­ic health re­cords, un­earth­ing a lit­any of prob­lems with this in­form­a­tion tech­no­logy. And in the middle of one such hear­ing, a bi­par­tis­an con­sensus emerged—one that turned in­to the bill in­tro­duced Tues­day.

As Sen. Shel­don White­house re­calls, he heard Sen. Bill Cas­sidy ask­ing tough ques­tions on gag or­ders bar­ring doc­tors and hos­pit­als from dis­cuss­ing spe­cif­ic glitches in their pur­chased sys­tems. “I said right across the hear­ing room, ‘If you’re look­ing for a co­spon­sor on that, let me know,’” White­house, a Rhode Is­land Demo­crat, told Na­tion­al Journ­al.”

So, the two HELP Com­mit­tee mem­bers teamed up and in­tro­duced the Trust IT Act of 2015 Tues­day. The meas­ure would es­tab­lish a health IT rat­ing sys­tem that lets con­sumers com­pare dif­fer­ent products; ban health IT vendors from hav­ing nondis­clos­ure clauses in con­tracts; re­quire products meet­ing cer­tain se­cur­ity and in­ter­op­er­ab­il­ity re­quire­ments for cer­ti­fic­a­tion; and more.

The bill comes at a time when the HELP Com­mit­tee has made im­prov­ing health in­form­a­tion tech­no­logy a pri­or­ity, and as Obama­care aims to bol­ster the ex­change of health in­form­a­tion through elec­tron­ic health re­cords. Also, the le­gis­la­tion’s in­tro­duc­tion came on the same af­ter­noon that the Health and Hu­man Ser­vices De­part­ment re­leased two fi­nal rules aimed at in­creas­ing in­ter­op­er­ab­il­ity and im­prov­ing pa­tient out­comes.

The com­mit­tee has been hold­ing a series of hear­ings on elec­tron­ic health re­cords since March as it eyes in­tro­du­cing a bi­par­tis­an med­ic­al-in­nov­a­tion bill by the end of this year, and ac­cord­ing to a Re­pub­lic­an HELP aide, Chair­man Lamar Al­ex­an­der ex­pects that much of the newly in­tro­duced bill from White­house and Cas­sidy could be in­cor­por­ated in­to the com­mit­tee’s in­nov­a­tion le­gis­la­tion.

In late April, Al­ex­an­der and the pan­el’s top Demo­crat, Sen. Patty Mur­ray, an­nounced a bi­par­tis­an, full-com­mit­tee work­ing group aimed at find­ing ways to im­prove elec­tron­ic health re­cords. Staff from both parties began meet­ing with health pro­fes­sion­als, health in­form­a­tion tech­no­logy de­velopers, and oth­er ex­perts in the field.

In the chair­man’s words at a June hear­ing, elec­tron­ic health IT is a “tech­no­logy that has great prom­ise, but through bad policy and bad in­cent­ives, it has run off track.”

After those re­marks at a hear­ing titled “Health In­form­a­tion Ex­change: A Path To­wards Im­prov­ing the Qual­ity and Value of Health Care for Pa­tients,” Mur­ray named sev­er­al itemsthat needed im­prov­ing: shar­ing in­form­a­tion between dif­fer­ent sys­tems, known as in­ter­op­er­ab­il­ity; in­creas­ing the ease of shop­ping for elec­tron­ic health re­cord sys­tems; en­sur­ing the se­cur­ity of pa­tients’ health in­form­a­tion; and more. The new le­gis­la­tion ad­dresses some of these is­sues, and in a state­ment to Na­tion­al Journ­al, Mur­ray said: “I truly ap­pre­ci­ate the bi­par­tis­an work Sen­at­ors White­house and Cas­sidy have done to­ward im­prov­ing our health care sys­tem through stronger health in­form­a­tion tech­no­logy. I look for­ward to re­view­ing the le­gis­la­tion and con­tinu­ing our ef­forts to­geth­er to ad­vance med­ic­al in­nov­a­tion for fam­il­ies.”

Part of the new bill deals with gag clauses; a Septem­berPolitico re­port de­tailed that some big firms mar­ket­ing elec­tron­ic re­cord sys­tems have con­tracts bar­ring pro­viders from talk­ing about the bugs in the sys­tems.

“If you have a product which just does not work, the pro­vider can’t tell any­body about that,” Cas­sidy, a Louisi­ana Re­pub­lic­an, told Na­tion­al Journ­al last week. “And so you have tax­pay­er-sub­sid­ized products ba­sic­ally—be­cause people are get­ting such heavy sub­sidies to pur­chase them—which don’t work, but no one can know it.”

The le­gis­la­tion would change this, re­quir­ing health vendors to at­test that they don’t par­ti­cip­ate in cer­tain in­form­a­tion-block­ing tac­tics and al­low­ing the HHS in­spect­or gen­er­al to in­vest­ig­ate such al­leg­a­tions and as­sess pen­al­ties for those en­ga­ging in such prac­tices.

An­oth­er key com­pon­ent of the bill is let­ting health care pro­viders com­pare products based on se­cur­ity, us­ab­il­ity, and in­ter­op­er­ab­il­ity. It would es­tab­lish a health IT rat­ing sys­tem that would be avail­able on­line at the Of­fice of the Na­tion­al Co­ordin­at­or for Health In­form­a­tion Tech­no­logy web­site.

“Right now, after a health IT product is cer­ti­fied for use, there’s no way to en­sure that it con­tin­ues to de­liv­er as prom­ised for doc­tors and pa­tients, and no way to eas­ily com­pare one product to an­oth­er,” White­house said in a press re­lease an­noun­cing the bill. “This bill will es­tab­lish im­port­ant safe­guards to pre­vent sys­tems from un­der­per­form­ing and will grade them on their per­form­ance—changes that will im­prove mar­ket com­pet­i­tion and drive in­nov­a­tion.”

An­oth­er pro­vi­sion of the bill would re­quire that, in or­der to be cer­ti­fied, health IT products would have to meet cer­tain se­cur­ity, in­ter­op­er­ab­il­ity, and user-friendly design re­quire­ments. The over­all goal is bet­ter co­ordin­a­tion, said Cas­sidy, who is a prac­ti­cing phys­i­cian, in the re­lease. “Doc­tors will be able to bet­ter care for their pa­tients and, in turn, de­liv­er on the prom­ise that their in­form­a­tion is be­ing used for their be­ne­fit and not for the be­ne­fit of oth­ers.”

(Image via Leonardo da/Shutterstock.com)