Matthew Holt

Getting “the CCHIT question” wrong

Matthew Holt

There’s been a lot of blather from one commenter (who may or may not be a front for a group of  malcontents) on the WSJ Health Blog and lots of other blogs about CCHIT and whether it was doing business without a license in Chicago, and/or was a front organization for HIMSS or EHRA. All summarized on Neil Versel’s blog. Indeed I did get a call from one well known blogger telling me that HIMSS’ lawyers had asked for him to take those comments down—not too bright a piece of PR on HIMSS’ part IMHO.

MrHISTalk thankfully did what I certainly could not be bothered to and actually looked into the “CCHIT is not a licensed corporation” situation and figured out that it’s basically being run legitimately. I myself cracked the joke privately that if CCHIT/HIMSS/EHVRA/Leavitt et al had only managed to get $2m (or $7m for that matter) out of the Bush Administration, they needed to go to the Haliburton school of “how to stick it to the taxpayer properly.”

The other wisecrack I’ve heard is that  the way to determine the list of functions an EMR needs to have to get CCHIT certified was to copy the feature set of Allscripts TouchWorks. (Of course you can insert the name of any of the other big EMR vendors here too).

OK, so we’re kidding around here, but underneath this discussion are some serious points. And those serious points have got little to do with what has indeed been a pretty close relationship between the powers that be at HIMSS,EH(V)RA, CCHIT & HITSP.

In any case I assure you that the back room dealings and conflicts of interest are nothing compared to how the rest of the Federal government has colluded with industries it regulates for the last 8 years. The money given from ONC to CCHIT wouldn’t even be a rounding error on what’s been completely lost in Iraq in cash in suitcases. let alone what Blackwater, Halliburton et al have stolen, And there’s no evidence that the Feds didn’t get what they/we paid for from CCHIT, which is a certification process.

So if this is a non-story, what are the actual issues?

1) Part of the justification for a certification process is that there is a great deal of fear and trepidation among physicians who have heard the horror stories about EMR implementations, and are now being bribed (and later to be threatened) by the Federal government into installing EMRs. Given the plethora of vendors out there, and the fact that these providers are more or less Federal contractors who tend not to understand IT, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that the Federal government (or someone) gives authoritative guidance as to what’s a robust system that has the right features and functions. Remember that the nation’s biggest and richest integrated provider organization trashed not one, but two national investments in EMRs before getting it right at try three. Having recalled that it becomes reasonable to agree that most providers need some help. And of course there is some slight protection for the taxpayer if the providers who are about to get their $40K have to do more than just claim that they bought an EMR from Sonny on the corner.

2) Of course once you say that the Federal government will pay out only to those purchasing certified products you then run into two other problems. First, the certification process is going to get somewhat politicized. Despite all the yakking about “volunteers” on all these committees, what we’re talking about is the people with a deep interest in EMRs et al being those “volunteers” and of course they are mostly from the vendor side or users who know the vendors well. I don’t see a way around that unless we really want to develop a civil service that has expertise in health care IT and also is prepared to stay in the job for 30 years like they do in Japan. Second, by its very nature the certification process is likely to run behind the development of technology, which means that vendors building for the certification process are like teachers prepping students for tests, not creating innovations. Again that may not be a terrible thing, but it’s not how innovation works in most other industries. (John Moors at Chilmark has a rather blunter, bleaker assessment of how this might work out)

3) And of course, the reason that you don’t see Federal certification of, say, MP3 players or automobiles is that there’s a somewhat effective market there that means that innovation and user experience gets rewarded. Make a confusing MP3 player, you don’t move the needle much. Figure out how to make it easy and elegant and you’re called Steve Jobs and you sell a gazillion iPods a year. Health care doesn’t have such a market, or even rationally managed incentives from its Federal paymaster.

So I don’t have the answer, but I do have the question. And it’s the same one being posed by the Dogs, in response to the Cats. Can we realistically expect CMS and the rest of the big payers to start rewarding providers for producing the correct outcomes. If we paid for outcomes, providers would change their organizational structure, and their processes, and the technology they use. The ones that worked would succeed and the others would go away. That’s how a market works. And that would create lots of interesting technological innovation of the type that is already happening in the consumer health arena in Health 2.0.

But (beware: run-on sentence coming up so take a deep breath) if we realistically can’t get to some massively enhanced version of pay for performance very soon, and instead are going to insist that providers use EMRs or something like them and the Feds will pay them for it, and we are happy to declare that that solution is as good as we’re going to get while we work on wider health system reform later, then I don’t think that we can complain about the CCHIT process too much. We have to accept that the Feds are going to put a stake in the ground somewhere as to what is an acceptable technology to reward. And those rewards are not going to be market or outcomes-based yet.

So the ultimate question, is what’s the time-scale for junking our stupid current health care incentives and finance system? And the answer is, not in the next 2–3 years.

Which means that if we’re paying directly for technology (which we are as the law is now passed), a certification process is a necessary evil to help providers and to make sure that the tax payer isn’t being defrauded (see we’re back to Iraq again!).

Of course, this doesn’t mean that the certifiers shouldn’t be made to appear to be (as we;; as actually be) completely above board and be watched like hawks to make sure that they’re not putting too many restrictions on smaller companies or discriminating against them. And maybe that kind of oversight demands that we see greater separation between the HIMSS/EHRA/CCHIT/HITSP/ AHIMA players, which would fit in with Obama’s “no lobbyists in the Administration” line.

But I can’t see that this is an issue for anyone to go to the barricades about. And in the end if CCHIT helps providers get better tools than they have now, it’s probably a net positive—even if it may prevent greater innovation happening faster.

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

Leave a Reply

8 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
7 Comment authors
JOHNRandall Oates, M.D.Margalit Gur-ArieCassie Harman, Nuesoft TechnologiesRobert Rowley, MD Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted

I developed my own EHR which I used in the eighties until now. It is obvious to me that the main problem is getting a system to be universally compatible, i.e. able to be accessed by others without too much hassle. Otherwise, the technical details are seemingly straightforward. Having companies without appropriate expertise in software in charge of the coordination is not a good idea. Physician input must be supported. Why bother to charge for this coordination? Answer: Physicians are usually easy marks.


Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Volume 22, Number 1 Fall 2008 FINDING A CURE: THE CASE FOR REGULATION AND OVERSIGHT OF ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD SYSTEMS Sharona Hoffman & Andy Podgurski p. 132 3. The Current Oversight System: CCHIT To its credit, the HIT industry has engaged in an effort to selfregulate, particularly through the Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology (“CCHIT”).181 However, this initiative falls far short of providing comprehensive oversight for EHR systems. CCHIT, a private-sector organization, was created in 2004 and is composed of three HIT industry associations: the American Health Information Management Association; the Healthcare Information… Read more »

Randall Oates, M.D.

I agree with the need and support CCHIT. Health care is desperately In need of change. You can’t change what can’t be measured. Without true information exchange, there can be no change. What I disagree with is the current CCHIT process allowing OPINIONS held by representatives of a minority of a subset of the community to make decisions for the majority. An evidence-based approach would ideally be applied to each required, functional element. It is often pointed-out that it would be very difficult, and take too much time, to collect the evidence as to the benefits of this or that… Read more »

Margalit Gur-Arie

I don’t think we are getting the CCHIT question wrong. I think we are getting the certification question wrong. EMRs are software applications that are meant to aid physician practices in their daily work. Goes without saying that they need to be effective, flexible, user friendly and affordable for every physician. This is not something you can “certify”. What one physician regards as user friendly, another may regard as a hindrance. For a fast typist, an EMR that requires a lot of typing would be user friendly. For me, it would be a nightmare, since I cannot type very well;… Read more »

Cassie Harman, Nuesoft Technologies

The idea of a certification process for EMR and EHR is a sound one; it’s just a shame that CCHIT certification doesn’t measure ease of implementation, which is one aspect of an EMR or EHR that is hugely influential in determining whether it is successful in streamlining clinical operations and increasing a practice’s revenue or whether it ends up being a painfully expensive experiment that the practice has to shelve after just a couple of months. The “stake in the ground” approach that you mention is all very well – but even without considering patient outcomes, there are ways of… Read more »

Robert Rowley, MD

CCHIT has developed a feature set that tries to get other EHRs to “look like me” (read that: Allscripts, NextGen, or any of the other client/server template-oriented EHRs). By focusing on the criteria domains of (1) functionality (features), (2) interoperability, and (3) security, and by charging a substantial fee for EHRs to undergo certification testing, the CCHIT certification effort has resulted in what we have today – expensive, entrenched systems with very low adoption rates across the landscape. What I would propose is an alternative set of certification criteria: (1) Usability, (2) Interoperability, and (3) Affordability. I believe that Usability… Read more »


CCHIT – dissolved involuntarily in April 2008 for failure to file annual report required under laws of the state of Illinois

healthcare  Gury

The amount of money being allocated for EMR is obscene. If done propertly, the EMRs can be developed and implemented in less than 1 billion USD. In the times of economic crisis and so much going on in wall street, these types of short sighted waste is unbecoming to our government and corporations.
Can they not find smarter people to do more productive work? EMR success lies in mapping the future, creating the standard definitions and program managing the development. Are we creating another SAP/Oracle which costs in millions to touch?