If some of the paranoia about health IT that I heard last week at the American Medical Association annual meeting really is representative of practicing physicians — and not just the protectionist Medical Establishment — this country is in trouble.

As much as the AMA purports to speak for all doctors, only about one in five U.S. physicians is a dues-paying member these days, and the membership does largely seem like a clubby collection of aging white males who stubbornly cling to the status quo — particularly when it comes to IT. This is a remarkable situation, given that the status quo in health IT has changed like never before with the the stimulus legislation that allocates a net $19.2 billion for health IT over the next eight years, the bulk of which goes to help doctors and hospitals purchase electronic medical records.

Funny thing is, cantankerous AMA delegates repeatedly claimed they had no input in drafting of the stimulus. Yes, the lobbying group that likes to project the image that it speaks for the nation’s physicians felt closed out of the process that is going to provide billions of dollars of aid to medical practices.

Frankly, that’s a ludicrous assertion. How come numerous medical specialty societies, particularly the American Academy of Family Physicians, got heard? Why was the relatively small Medical Group Management Association, representing practices of three or more physicians, successful in lobbying on behalf of its membership? The final bill incorporated provisions that had been under consideration for at least three years, and subject to many, many congressional hearings and lobbying opportunities.

Those with a bone to pick included St. Petersburg, Fla., neurosurgeon David McKalip, who believes the incentive program actually penalizes doctors by forcing them to go electronic. McKalip said that an EMR would cost his solo practice $120,000 over five years, much less than the maximum bonus of $44,000 from Medicare or $63,750 from Medicaid. In fact, he’s planning on taking the Medicare fee cuts for not using EMRs that take effect in 2015. “It’s cheaper for me to take the penalty than to put the system in,” he said.

But that was only the beginning of his assault on the stimulus bill, which also boosts federal funding for “comparative effectiveness” research to study and recommend best practices. McKalip called this program “a tool for controlling care and rationing care,” believing that Medicare would use the research to tell doctors how to do their jobs and refuse to pay for treatment not meeting official guidelines. That’s Big Brother at its worst.

Interestingly, outgoing AMA President Nancy Nielsen said that the organization supports comparative effectiveness research.

The AMA did find many other things wrong with the stimulus, though. The organization’s House of Delegates passed a resolution stating that the rush for doctors to install EMRs by the time the incentives start in 2011 will cause a spike in demand for IT products and services, likely driving up prices. That’s a fair argument. However, another resolution directs the AMA to tell the federal government that the EMR incentive program “should be made compliant with AMA principles by removing penalties for non-compliance and by providing inflation-adjusted funds to cover all costs of implementation and maintenance of EMR systems.”

It’s one thing to ask for more money to cover ongoing expenses. It’s another thing altogether to conclude that the government is not in compliance with the principles of a private organization. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.

Above article published on

http://industry.bnet.com/healthcare/1000797/fear-and-loathing-at-the-american-medical-association/

Rep. Bryan Cutler Proposes Using $25M In Stimulus

LANCASTER, Pa. — The use of electronic medical records could become more widespread in Pennsylvania if new legislation passes.

Rep. Bryan Cutler, R-100th district, is introducing a bill that would create a grant program for health care providers to implement the health information technology.

The systems used in parts of Lancaster General Hospital and some of its doctors offices put a patient’s medical records in one electronic chart.

Cutler wants to use $25 million in stimulus money to fund the program.

“This technology needs to be adopted for patient safety and for decreasing costs,” said Cutler.

Sixty percent of the doctors in its health system will have computerized medical records by July and all of them will have the system by 2010, Lancaster General officials said.

The medical record system will be shared with physicians outside its health system, Lancaster General officials said.

Above article published on

http://www.wgal.com/wgalhealth/19396405/detail.html

For years controversy has surrounded whether electronic medical records (EMR) would lead to increased patient safety, cut medical errors, and reduce healthcare costs. Now, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine have discovered a way to get another bonus from the implementation of electronic medical records: testing the efficacy of treatments for disease. In the first study of its kind, Richard Tannen, M.D., Professor of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, led a team of researchers to find out if patient data, as captured by EMR databases, could be used to obtain vital information as effectively as randomized clinical trials, when evaluating drug therapies. The study recently appeared online in the British Medical Journal. “Our findings show that if you do studies using EMR databases and you conduct analyses using new biostatistical methods we developed, we get results that are valid,” Tannen says. “That’s the real message of our paper - this can work.” In January 2009, President Barack Obama unveiled plans to implement electronic medical records nationwide within five years, arguing that such a plan was crucial in the fight against rising health care costs. Of the nearly $900 billion in Obama’s planned stimulus package currently before the United States Senate, $20 billion is proposed for electronic health records. Tannen says he and his group recognized that the large EMR databases containing compiled medical information could potentially give researchers the ability to study groups reflective of the total population, not just those who participate in clinical trials, and circumvent studies too costly or unethical for clinical trials. However, such databases contain observational information, which critics argue do not offer the same level of control as randomized trials. “Our study cautiously, yet strongly, suggests that enormous amounts of information within electronic medical records can be used to expand evidence of how we should or shouldn’t manage healthcare,” Tannen says. To address criticisms of observational studies, Tannen’s group had to first determine a way to use EMR databases for insights on therapy efficacy and then prove the results they found were valid. Beginning six years ago, Tannen’s team selected six previously performed randomized trials with 17 measured outcomes and compared them to study data from an electronic database — the UK general practice research database (GPRD), which included the medical records of roughly 8 million patients. Treatment efficacy was determined by the prevalence of cardiovascular outcomes, such as stroke, heart attack and death. After using standard biostatistical methods to adjust for differences in the treated and untreated groups in the analysis of the database information, Tannen found that there were no differences in the database outcomes compared to randomized clinical trials in nine out of 17 outcomes. In the other eight outcomes, Tannen’s group used an additional new biostatistical approach they discovered that controlled for differences between the treated and untreated groups prior to the time the study began. By using the new biostatistical method instead of the standard approach, the researchers showed there were no differences between the outcomes in the EMR database study compared to the randomized clinical trials. Though Tannen warns the ability to use EMR databases from the United States to measure the efficacy of therapies will take more than 10 years of national data, he says the results of his study should serve as a catalyst for more researchers to explore the accuracy of the information that can be obtained using EMR database studies. “An appropriately configured EMR database could offer an invaluable tool, but we need to get to work now on how to configure it properly,” Tannen says. “If we don’t worry about this issue right now and promote a higher investment in the area of EMR research, we’ll lose an opportunity, an enormous health opportunity.” Mark Wiener and Dawei Xie from Penn are co-authors on this study. This research was funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Above article originally published on www.sciencedaily.com

The medical information age.

With the recent explosion in information and technology over the past twenty years come vast changes throughout every industry worldwide. The medical industry itself has not been exempt from the transition from paper forms of data, to computerized electronic forms. The revolution of converting huge amounts of records, x-rays, names and prescriptions is very time consuming but nevertheless, it must be done. The same thing is taking place in the music business with cd’s being phased out of the market to give rise to mp3’s. Even though it hasn’t happened overnight, it is still a necessary step in the progression of human needs. The difference with the medical field is human lives are what’s at stake opposed to human desires.

Controversy.

Many patients are choosing to be implanted with radio frequency identification (RFID) transmitter inside of their body that stores their entire medical background. Some states have made it mandatory for aids and Alzheimer patients to get the implant for their own good. In the event of an emergency where a patient may be unable to respond to health care workers questions, the information regarding the patient may still be obtained. This controversial technique to store information has forced the entire medical structure to re-examine its own information storage and retrieval procedures. Are health care facilities equipped to handle the ever growing amount of patients in an accurate and timely manner? The answer is yes, however the medical field at large has been slow to adapt. The benefits far outweigh privacy issues that are often discussed surrounding electronic storage of medical records. All computer systems as well as communication methods may be vulnerable to attacks but it certainly doesn’t stop their increased use.

Electronic Medical Records (EMR)

It is no secret that clinical physician assistants prefer electronic medical records over out-dated paper documents. The biggest complaint amongst them is being forced to serve as not only an assistant but a secretary as well. There is just too much administrative work to take care of!

Practitioners who use electronic forms of record keeping are able to almost instantly engage their patients covering vast amounts of data from the computer. Digging in file cabinets, verifying past treatments etc. are rendered obsolete by simply using inexpensive powerful software designed for medical professionals. The rampant prescription drug abuses are being eliminated with multifunction safeguards that allow doctors to know conclusively who they are dealing with at any given moment. Forgeries and similar crimes are easily detected and the decrease in illegal activities lowers overall health care insurance cost.

Conclusion.

Regardless of how any of us may feel about the rise of medical technology and information, it is here to stay. The quicker we learn to utilize it for our advantage the better off we will be.

Above article published on http://www.articlesbase.com/computer-forensics-articles/using-emr-software-in-the-information-age-763158.html

Electronic medical records are the wave of the future, and Chicago area hospitals are already on board.

Hospitals with more advanced record-keeping technology have fewer complications, lower mortality rates, and lower costs, according to a study released last week by Johns Hopkins University. The study looked at more than 40 hospitals with digital record systems and more than 160,000 patients in a six-month period.

“It’s the right thing to do and we’re going to see a lot of studies like this in the next 5-10 years that attempt to measure the benefits of electronic medical records,” said Dr. Mike Kelleher, chief medical information oficer at Children’s Memorial Hospital.

Most of Chicago’s top medical institutions including Northwestern Memorial Hospital, NorthShore University HealthSystem–Evanston Hospital, Glenbrook Hospital, Highland Park Hospital, Skokie Hospital, and 75 doctor’s offices–, University of Illinois Medical Center at Chicago, Rush University Medical Center and Children’s Memorial Hospital have either already made the leap to digital records, or are in the process.

Former President George W. Bush laid out the goal of having electronic records nationwide by 2014, a goal that was quickly adopted by President Barack Obama.

Wired In

The study findings are no surprise to Chicago-area hospitals, well versed in digital technology.

“What we did was transformational–it changed the way we do things and the way we think,” says Mark Neaman, president and chief executive officer of NorthShore University HealthSystem.

“Patients can even have a Blackberry conversation with their physician or order a prescription online,” Neaman said.

NorthShore University HealthSystem, one of the pioneers in digital records, went completely digital in 2004.

Digital records can even prevent mistakes from being made.

“We have seen measurable improvements in the quality of our outcomes, reduced medication errors and become generally more efficient,” Neaman said.

The complete transition at NortthShore $took 15 months from launch to finish in April of 2004 and cost an estimated $42 million, according to Neaman.

“We applied the big bang theory,” Neaman said. “We wanted to have everything up and running quickly.”

Almost all Chicago-area hospitals have some digital record keeping system in place or are in the process of implementing one.

Security, however, becomes a major concern with personal information in digital form.

With electronic records, it is much easier to track who has accessed a file—an important security feature—but making sure the right people have access can be time consuming.

“It’s a big concern,” Kelleher said. “You have to make sure that the people you give access to are properly vetted.”

“Before electronic medical records, files were continually being misplaced,” said Dr. David S. Channin, radiologist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and chief of imaging informatics at Northwestern University Medical School. “We relied on loose pieces of paper with illegible writing, and human memory.”

Northwestern Memorial has used electronic records for more than a decade now for nearly all of their services.

More Benefits

The benefits of digital records aid in many different aspects of patient care.

One key benefit is allowing doctors to find information on patients more easily.

While it may take physicians or nurses more time to enter information into the system, the ability to find it and search for it with ease is invaluable according to Kelleher.

Patients and doctors can also have their information readily available at the touch of a keyboard without having to dig through extensive files.

Digital Divide

Despite the many advantages there are still countless hospitals that are falling behind with this technology.
After years of recording information manually, some doctors are hesitant to change to a new electronic system.

“The older physicians are more likely to be unwilling or uncertain about using the computer system,” said Kelleher.

“The catch is that there are tradeoffs between quality and efficiency and independent tradeoffs within each one,” says Dr. Channin.

There is also a steep cost of investment as far as equipment and training.

NorthShore University HealthSystem invested an estimated $42 million in the new technology, $5 million of which went to training staff, according to Neaman.

They are foreseeing an estimated return of 17 million dollars per year in savings related to the new system, but the return is very long-term and small in comparison.

Originally Published by Vanessa Handand and Chris Kelly, Northwestern University.