Uncategorized

An Open Letter to the New National Coordinator for Health IT: Part 2 – Opening the Aperture of Innovation

6a00d8341c909d53ef01157012476e970b-pi

One of the important decisions before Dr. Blumenthal and his colleagues at ONC and HHS is whether the national health information network will be one of closed appliances that bundle together proprietary hardware, software, and networking technology, or one of open data exchange and management platforms in which the component parts required to do medical computing can be assembled from different sources. If the former direction is chosen, power and control will be concentrated in the hands of a very few companies.  If the latter, we could see an unprecedented burst of disruptive innovation as new products and services are developed to
create the next generation of e-health services in this country.

Separating the data from the devices and applications, and maintaining a certain degree of independence of both from the networks used for transmission, is far more than a technical quibble. It can determine the economics of technology in stunning ways.

A familiar example may help here.  On April 10, 2009, BusinessWeek reported that Apple was approaching a milestone:  one billion iPhone Apps downloaded.  This is an amazing number in that it occurred in less than a year, but even more surprising because it might never have happened at all.  Prior to July, 2008, the Apple iPhone was a closed appliance
that could only offer up applications developed for the iPhone by Apple; for example, the iPhone offers a calendar and contact management app, but these are Apple products.  Third-party developers and programmers had no way to make their apps run on the iPhone, and Apple might have kept it this way.

Then, in the summer of 2008, Apple released an upgrade of the software that runs the iPhone and iTouch which included an SDK (software development kit) that allows third-party developers to create software that can be downloaded and run on the iPhone and iTouch; some of these apps are free and others cost up to a few dollars. Whamo! Suddenly the iPhone
became the hottest development platform on the planet. As the New York Times technology blog observed, “Fizzy pints of virtual beer, lightsaber simulators and ancient flutelike instruments [and several health and medically related applications] all have one thing in common: they’re flying off the digital shelves of Apple’s App Store for the iPhone and iPod Touch.” Apple has created a website with a counter showing the actual numbers of apps as they download, and a list of the top 20 most popular apps at the iTunes store.  No one knows for sure what has been the size of the economic stimulation that resulted from opening up Apple’s iPhone platform to third-party development, but it must be many hundreds of millions of dollars and perhaps even billions, and certainly thousands of jobs have been created.

*****

It is not coincidental that the Internet itself was made possible by several legal cases that lost AT&T its monopoly position mandating the use of a specific device – an AT&T telephone – to handle voice data, on AT&T’s private network. As Jonathan L. Zittrain writes in his remarkable book “The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It” —

These [legal] decisions [against AT&T] paved the way for advances invented and distributed by third parties, advances that were the exceptions to the comparative innovation desert of the telephone system. Outsiders introduced devices such as the answering machine, the fax machine, and the cordless phone that were rapidly adopted. The most important advance, however, was the dial-up modem, a crucial piece of hardware bridging consumer information processors and the world of computer networks, whether proprietary or the Internet. With
the advent of the modem, people could acquire plain terminals or PCs and connect them to central servers over a telephone line. Users could dial up whichever service they wanted: a call to the bank’s network for banking, followed by a call to a more generic “information service” for interactive weather and news.

The separation of devices that might utilize data, from the data itself, eventually made it possible for millions of computers of all kinds, makes and configurations to connect with one another over the Internet. Today, audio data in many different formats travel freely over the Internet, and these are consumed, interpreted and put to use by many thousands of devices and the applications running on those devices. If we send you an MP3 file of a song or a conference recording, we don’t need to specify the device or application you will use to decode and “play” that file. If we call you on the phone today, you might answer on a cellular phone, a land line-connected phone, or a computer running Skype.  Each of these needs to “understand” the data in great detail: no one dictates which device the consumer has to use.

*****

What do these examples have to do with health IT and HITECH? Just about everything. They illustrate the layers of standards that operate on a digital network: physical wires/cables (or wireless) components of the network; devices connected to the network; applications running on the devices; data of various kinds created and used by the applications; and finally and most importantly, the social interaction based upon the content – that is, the purpose and meaning – of the whole by users.

The future of today’s health care IT systems seems to be converging on a handful of enterprise-run networks that do not interconnect, and a dozen or so health IT applications from companies that have the power to decide who can connect, what tasks they can accomplish, under what terms, and at what cost. The irony here is that while Microsoft and Google appear eminently capable of finding ways to exchange health data securely over the Internet in partnerships with New York Presbyterian Hospital and CVS Pharmacy, among others (see “Patient Records Inch Into 21st Century,” New York Times, April 5, 2009 , and “CVS joins Google Health Rx network: millions can access medication records online,”
April 6, 2009), the traditional health IT industry seems to be declaring itself unable to free the data from its proprietary
applications and devices quite so easily. Instead, they want a certification process to attach to the software applications from a select group of vendors BEFORE we get interoperability, based on the products’ features and functions, only one of which is the ability to handle the data layer.  In the process, we believe they are acting more like the old AT&T than the new Apple iPhone.

Congress in its wisdom attached incentive payments to the social interaction layer of the network: “meaningful uses” are by definition the outcomes of the deployment of networked technologies and data exchanges, not necessarily referable to specific applications and devices themselves.  This is real progress.  Having done that, the next layer down, the data
layer, is where attention ought to be paid in order for successful and widespread meaningful uses to proceed and economic stimulus to be unleashed in the health IT economy.

The government can and should facilitate the private sector’s arrival at agreement about the content of clinical data that it wants to become accessible to providers and patients over the network;  it can also decide in what structures those data elements are formatted or packaged; and it can certainly set expectations and specifications for the protection of
privacy of the packages and their contents, whether coded data, text, images, audio, or video.   With a limited set of available and well tested standards, this could be done quickly and easily, and would immediately be seen as advancing implementation of the “meaningful uses” that Congress and HSS wish to see.

Here is where the Gordian knot of HITECH needs to be untied.  There is no need for ONC to regulate the next layers, the applications, device layers or networks, or to link its specifications for the data to specifications for those products and
services that will use the data.  They need to know when to stop tying the knot, in other words.

*****

Here’s the risk:  limiting the kinds of devices and software applications that can handle standardized health care data to a few government (or government agent)-certified products would dramatically stifle innovation and utility while raising
(or at least maintaining) costs. Imagine if the government told consumers they had to buy a Dell computer to connect to the Internet, or an iPod to listen to digital music recordings, or computers running Microsoft Vista to use email.  Worse still, imagine we all had to use a modern-day version of the private network Prodigy in order to exchange health data of any kind.  By locking in the use of data to a specific product/device/application or even a specific class of products/devices/applications, consumers suffer by not having the choice that an open market permits. Nor do they benefit from innovation and competition that arise from comparisons of service, features, usability, and price.  And society doesn’t get the economic stimulus, or, rather, it goes to a few large corporations only.

Physicians are, generally speaking, fearful that they will see their EHR choices limited to the expensive and difficult to-implement products that CCHIT now certifies. David Blumenthal is quite right to worry that doctors will “rebel” if given only the choice of a small number of products that are notoriously not “user-friendly” and not designed to meet the goals of “meaningful use” set by Congress.

But we don’t believe that the deeper problem is CCHIT or the dubious politics of hiring a vendor-run organization to certify the vendors’ products. That real or apparent conflict of interest is an issue, but it’s not the major one. Rather, it is the potential linkage of incentive payments to a certification process that would require specific applications to manage health data. That is the root of the the dilemma that Dr. Blumenthal et al. now face; this is the Gordian knot that needs to be undone.

David C. Kibbe MD MBA is a Family Physician and Senior Advisor to the American Academy of Family Physicians who consults on healthcare professional and consumer technologies. Brian Klepper PhD is a health care market analyst and a Founding Principal of Health 2.0 Advisors, Inc.

Click here to read Part 1 of the Kibbe & Klepper series: An Open Letter to the New National Coordinator for Health IT – Untying HITECH’s Gordian Knot

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

21
Leave a Reply

21 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
15 Comment authors
Evan Earl Dussia, II, MD FACOGDavidDavid DohertyDavid Kempner, Ph.D.Tom Leith Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Evan Earl Dussia, II, MD FACOG
Guest
Evan Earl Dussia, II, MD FACOG

I think it is interesting that the Federal Government is willing to give me, a physician, what amounts to a passthrough payment to the vendor of their choice(the ones who are on the CCHIT board)and call it a “stimulus”. These same vendors who supply the docs with off-the-shelf products that they can “customize” and have never figured out what it is the doctors need. Most doctors in the US practice in 1-6 doctor offices. What the vendors offer is front office and back office automation services–I call it electrifying the mess of the local office. What the doctors need is… Read more »

David
Guest

Highly informative article on “Opening the Aperture of Innovation” related to health care.Please refer the following article.
http://ctrenaissance.blogspot.com/2009/05/clinical-trials-paper-based-to-computer.html

David Doherty
Guest

Whilst i agree with your point i think the iPhone example – whilst a popular concept – actually makes a pretty poor analogy… Third-party developers and programmers still have no way to make their apps run on the iPhone except through the Apple Store. Except with the Jailbroken handsets the software developed by third-party developers MUST be paid for and downloaded from Apple. Contrary to the point you’re making Apple (and AT&T to an extent) dictate exactly which device the consumer has to use and how they must pay for it. In this instance Apple have forced everyone to use… Read more »

Steve Beller, PhD
Guest

Tom is right that the translation of global data standards to local ones is a tricky business. Nevertheless, it is something we ought to strive to achieve. I have ideas about how to start doing it, such as mapping terminology to a provider’s specialty. The problem I have with forcing everyone to adopt a particular technology (e.g., messaging) standard is that it can drive our radical innovation. What if, say, someone invented a way to pack a lifetime of detailed cross-disciplinary personal health information for each person into a tiny file (i.e., each personal health record is its own file).… Read more »

David Kempner, Ph.D.
Guest
David Kempner, Ph.D.

have skimmed the posts and read the original article. I think the development of electronic records with a standard is critical for innumerable reasons. For one, ultimately associations never thought of will appear. I am very concerned about anything done over the internet, including current transmission of lab data. We all are, or should be concerned over security to protect financial information and there have been enough instances of identity theft which while eventually perhaps solvable with return of cash are still a nightmare. Just spend some time talking with someone who has had a credit card number stolen. The… Read more »

David C. Kibbe, MD MBA
Guest
David C. Kibbe, MD MBA

Dear Tom and Margolit: Thanks for your opinions. I know there is a growing chorus of people who would prefer to change the law and remove the certification requirements. Who knows? Stranger things have happened. DCK

Tom Leith
Guest
Tom Leith

Steve Beller says: > while setting arbitrary global standards for health- > related terms is one way to foster widespread > communications, the serious downside to eliminating > the local standards people rely upon includes loss of > important information due to reduced semantic > precision and nuance. Bracketing the perjorative “arbitrary” disignation, this is Virgil Slee’s point, except he says (more or less) that the proper local standard is “whatever terminology the doctor recorded in his notes, probably longhand”. In his view, this is the REAL medical record, and coding, no matter how granular or sophisticated, amounts to a… Read more »

Mike Ahmadi
Guest

Wow! Great article. I am going to Tweet it right now and I am also going to post it in my LinkedIn Group – iPhone Healthcare (http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1893202). As much as I love developing for the iPhone and as much as I think it is a great device for healtcare workers, I AGREE WITH YOU 100% that any device for the healthcare industry that becomes a hit (I am paraphrasing) needs to be removed from monopolistic strangleholds (at least that is what I think you are saying). I am going to write a blog posting about that right now on my… Read more »

MD as HELL
Guest
MD as HELL

Just don’t make the doc work in real time with whatever beast is wrought. It will crush productivity.

Wendell Murray
Guest

“the web browser platform” Most systems are or any can be made available on an ASP basis which automatically means that they are accessible through any web browser. Too much is made in any case of “web-accessible” versus software installed on a LAN. A LAN needless to say is a component of the Internet which is obviously the encompassing network of all these subnetworks. Margalit Gur-Arie’s comments could be mine. The “certification” issue was inserted in the bill, now law, to restrict offerings to those software developers who go through the unnecessary hoops imposed by the certification process. Restriction of… Read more »

Margalit Gur-Arie
Guest

David, I suspect the certification obligation imposed by the law was included there based on input from current “certification authorities”. If Dr. Blumenthal takes a fresh look at the goals of ARRA, I don’t see how he concludes that “certifying something” is in any way advancing those goals.
Laws can be amended and changed. I personally don’t see any reason to spend money and effort in certifying something just so we can say that we certified something.

David C. Kibbe, MD MBA
Guest
David C. Kibbe, MD MBA

Margolit: I don’t think there’s any disagreement between us. The question is really this: the ARRA is statute that requires “certification” of “EHR technology.” Unless the law is changed, this is a fixed obligation for Dr. Blumenthal et al. So, what will be “certified?”
Our point in this blog post is to “do this right” if you must certify something. At least understand the basics of network architecture, and don’t tie knots that will lead to strangling innovation.
Kind regards, DCK

Nancy Richardson XEROX
Guest

This is a needed exchange, as I’m curious as to the pending “Big Bang” of ICD-10. As the ARRA opens the floodgates for incentives relative to EMR, being the USA’s collective investment to go digital in Healthcare, what will happen as investments may go into systems that are not able to meet the October 2013 requirements for ICD-10?
Perhaps the opportunity is to consider the ARRA incentives and timeline relative to ICD-10 requirements, as all resouces required for the ARRA alone could be at risk. I understand no extentions will be considered.
Thoughts?

Margalit Gur-Arie
Guest

Parley, I may have not been very clear. I am not talking about the EMR market. I am talking about a variety of payers, reference labs and the vast majority of pharmacies. These entities adopted the X12, HL7 and NCPDP standards without any mandates from the government and in turn forced EMRs and other portal applications to communicate with them using these standards and they complied because the consumer demanded that. As to EMRs, for the last 4 years CCHIT has been trying to “standardize” and certify a collection of irrelevant functionality in a semi-federal capacity. That is not my… Read more »

Parley
Guest
Parley

“…I share Dr. Beller’s concerns about having the government define data standards. Why should it? There are millions of healthcare transactions over the internet every day, that are very “meaningful” – labs and medications. The data standards were NOT defined or enforced by the government. They sprung from the free market because they provide real value to those using them.” – Margalit Please. Data standards have miraculously sprung up from the “free market”? You mean, just like how the free market has miraculously given us a sensible, inexpensive, and very efficient health care system with incomparably better outcomes? Yes, we’re… Read more »