Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Rationale for Independent Health Record Banks William A. Yasnoff, MD, PhD, FACMI Managing Partner, NHII Advisors William A. Yasnoff, MD, PhD, FACMI Managing.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Rationale for Independent Health Record Banks William A. Yasnoff, MD, PhD, FACMI Managing Partner, NHII Advisors William A. Yasnoff, MD, PhD, FACMI Managing."— Presentation transcript:

1 Rationale for Independent Health Record Banks William A. Yasnoff, MD, PhD, FACMI Managing Partner, NHII Advisors William A. Yasnoff, MD, PhD, FACMI Managing Partner, NHII Advisors HIMSS Legislation & Regulation Teleconference October 6, 2006 © 2006 NH I I ADVISORS

2 2 2 © 2006 NH I I ADVISORS Complete Electronic Patient Information Stakeholder cooperation Financial Sustainability Public Trust Components of a Community Health Information Infrastructure

3 3 3 © 2006 NH I I ADVISORS Complete Electronic Patient Information n Most information is already electronic: Labs, Medications, Images, Hospital Records n Outpatient records are mostly paper l Only 10-15% of physicians have EHRs l Business case for outpatient EHRs weak n For outpatient information to be electronic, need financial incentives to ensure that physicians acquire and use EHRs n Requirement #1: Financial incentives to create good business case for outpatient EHRs

4 4 4 © 2006 NH I I ADVISORS Complete Electronic Patient Information n Need single access point for electronic information n Option 1: Gather data when needed (scattered model) l Pro: 1) data stays in current location; 2) no duplication of storage l Con: 1) all systems must be available for query 24/7/365; 2) each system incurs added costs of queries (initial & ongoing); 3) slow response time; 4) searching not practical; 5) huge interoperability challenge (entire U.S.); 6) records only complete if every possible data source is operational

5 5 5 © 2006 NH I I ADVISORS Complete Electronic Patient Information n Need single access point for electronic information n Option 2: Central repository l Pro: fast response time, no interoperability between communities, easy searching, reliability depends only on central system, security can be controlled in one location, completeness of record assured, low cost l Con: public trust challenging, duplicate storage (but storage is inexpensive)

6 6 6 © 2006 NH I I ADVISORS Complete Electronic Patient Information n Need single access point for electronic information n Requirement #2: Central repository for storage

7 7 7 © 2006 NH I I ADVISORS n Voluntary Impractical n Financial incentives l Where find $$$$$? n Mandates l New Impractical l Existing – HIPAA requires information to be provided on patient request n Requirement #3: Patients must request their own information Stakeholder cooperation

8 8 8 © 2006 NH I I ADVISORS n Funding options l Government – Federal: unlikely – State: unlikely – Startup funds at best l Healthcare Stakeholders – Paid for giving care – New investments or transaction costs difficult l Payers/Purchasers – Skeptical about benefits – Free rider/first mover effects l Consumers – 72% support electronic records – 52% willing to pay >=$5/month n Requirement #4: Solution must appeal to consumers so they will pay Financial Sustainability

9 9 9 © 2006 NH I I ADVISORS A.Public Trust = Patient Control of Information n Requirement #5: Patients must control all access to their information Public Trust

10 10 © 2006 NH I I ADVISORS B.Trusted Institution  Via regulation (like banks) impractical  Self-regulated  Community-owned non-profit  Board with all key stakeholders  Independent privacy oversight  Open & transparent  Requirement #6: Governing institution must be self-regulating community- owned non-profit Public Trust

11 11 © 2006 NH I I ADVISORS C.Trustworthy Technical Architecture  Prevent large-scale information loss  Searchable database offline  Carefully screen all employees  Prevent inappropriate access to individual records  State-of-the-art computer security  Strong authentication  No searching capability  Secure operating system  Easier to secure central repository: efforts focus on one place  Requirement #7: Technical architecture must prevent information loss and misuse Public Trust

12 12 © 2006 NH I I ADVISORS Health Record Banking Model n All information for a patient stored in Health Record Bank (HRB) account n Patient (or designee) controls all access to account information [copies of original records held elsewhere] n Each HRB has three interfaces: l Withdrawal window - record access l Deposit window - receives new info l Search window - authorized requests n When care received, new records sent to HRB for deposit in patient’s account n All data sources contribute at patient request (per HIPAA) n All information for a patient stored in Health Record Bank (HRB) account n Patient (or designee) controls all access to account information [copies of original records held elsewhere] n Each HRB has three interfaces: l Withdrawal window - record access l Deposit window - receives new info l Search window - authorized requests n When care received, new records sent to HRB for deposit in patient’s account n All data sources contribute at patient request (per HIPAA)

13 13 © 2006 NH I I ADVISORS Clinical Encounter Health Record Bank Clinician EHR System Encounter Data Entered in EHR Encounter data sent to Health Record Bank Patient Permission? NO DATA NOT SENT Clinician Inquiry Patient data delivered to Clinician YES Optional payment Clinician’s Bank Secure patient health data files Health Record Banking

14 14 © 2006 NH I I ADVISORS Questions? William A. Yasnoff, MD, PhD, FACMI 703/ For more information:


Download ppt "Rationale for Independent Health Record Banks William A. Yasnoff, MD, PhD, FACMI Managing Partner, NHII Advisors William A. Yasnoff, MD, PhD, FACMI Managing."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google