I found a company in Minnesota at the forefront of this issue and they have some good info on the economic stimulus and electronic health records (http://www.lssdata.com/govt/). I believe I heard that they are trying to address many of the possible privacy issues with their software.

I guess time will tell how this is going to play out.

http://drsamonline.com/2009/01/12/miscellaneous/about-electronic-health-records/

Check it out.

To the Editor:

You admit in your editorial “A Health-Tech Monopoly” (Feb. 11) that electronic medical records “might do some actual good.” We agree, and that is why we support the health information technology provisions of the economic stimulus bill.

The economic stimulus bill being considered will create important national HIT interoperability standards. These standards are essential to achieve the promise HIT holds to help increase patient safety, improve care coordination and reduce unnecessary paperwork. As is true in other industries, basic standards will provide the essential foundation on which the private sector can build innovative commercial products.

Competition and innovation are bedrocks of America’s economic system, as they should be in health care. The HIT provisions in the bill maintain this vision, while building on existing federal efforts to encourage HIT adoption. This bill does not authorize the government to dictate clinical guidelines or national coverage decisions. Medical treatment decisions remain in the hands of physicians.

The bill also provides physicians with significant financial assistance for HIT purchases. This critical support is needed so that physicians can make HIT purchases, and patients can then begin to reap the benefit.

J. James Rohack, M.D.
President-elect, American Medical Association

I am not as worried about the overweaning influence of the government, yet, but I am very concerned that this will be an area of rapidly accelerating difficulties for both integrating medical offices and for the central government institutions responsible for implementing.

I won’t bury this blog with all the data, but feel free to take a look at:
http://suitablesecurity.blogspot.com/2009/02/are-we-looking-at-id-theft-stimulus.html

If an institution has already gone to EMR (and 1.5 million isn’t all that much for these things) then they have a chance of meeting the legal requirements in a somewhat efficient way.

Institutions who’ve held off in hopes of a bailout will be left with a “first version” implementation that will probably not be satisfactory.

Generally you get what you pay for.

It would not surprise me if most of the Federal funds get sucked up with analysis activities.

In my experience most IT projects end up being done at least twice before they’re fully functional. The bigger the project the more likely this is to hold true as the political climates tend to distort priorities and cause difficulties in getting something useful implemented.

Since this is by definition a “big” project I think there is a high probability big chunks of it will be useless.

If the law enforces EMR then those who waited for the bailout will be stuck with the first version, which will be not very effective.

Institutions who’ve mobilized to automate will meet the legal requirements more readily and be better positioned for success.

I don’t consider this to be ’stimulus’ because I don’t see a lot of evidence that IT workers have a high rate of unemployment. I think they’ve just slipped this into the bill because it’s a good opportunity.

Please make sure this correction is made clear to readers.