Uncategorized

The Health Internet vs. the NHIN — A Matter of Control, Cost, and Timing

David KibbeThere is growing tension within the Obama administration’s health team over who will control health data exchange: everyone (including consumers and their doctors), or just large provider organizations. The public debate will be framed in terms of privacy, security, and the adequacy of current exchange standards. But what really matters is who gets to make decisions about where health data resides, how it can be accessed, how much exchange will cost, and how long it will take for exchange to become routine.

Now is a good time to re-visit the plans for a National Health Information Network (NHIN), since we can finally observe and compare different health data sharing and exchange models in the marketplace. NHINs represent an older model that tries to use regional health information organizations (RHIOs) to establish secure networks, privately owned and operated by large provider organizations, mostly hospitals and health systems. The idea was that, over time, each private regional network would develop a gateway to other networks, creating a “network of networks” that would allow Stanford to talk to Partners Health, or Kaiser to Mayo. This communications model was enterprise/provider-centric. Patients/consumers were relegated to depending upon each RHIO’s policies for access to their health information. It was also a massively expensive and time consuming – think decades – way to build a health data network.

Suppose a RHIO is in your area. Your health data from hospitals, outpatient clinics, and other settings associated with Health System A, are collected and combined with health data stored in similar settings in Health System B. Possibly Health Systems C, D, and E have also collaborated with A and B in this RHIO. Most RHIOs have cost or will cost many millions of dollars to build and operate. They were greatly encouraged by the Office of the National Coordinator under the Bush Administration, and have received additional support and funding under the ARRA/HITECH provisions that establish Health Information
Exchanges (HIEs). They generally create large database management systems housed in large data centers. They typically run on proprietary software, creating closed networks that may or may not permit access onto and off the Internet.

As an individual, you probably don’t have direct access to the RHIO data; only doctors and nurses are authorized to access your information. In most RHIOs, if you request access to your health information you must make the request the same way you would to your physician’s medical practice, and often you will receive the results on paper. Transfer of these medical records to another institution or to a new provider outside the RHIO is not possible in most cases, although some RHIOs and HIEs now permit patient accounts and viewing of selected data.

By contrast, the Health Internet is a more current model, centered on the patient/consumer. As the name implies, the Health Internet leverages the Web’s physical network and its open protocols and standards for health data exchange controlled by patients (and/or patient agents, like doctors, through authorized web services). The idea is to develop mechanisms that allow health information to pass easily across institutional and business boundaries, to anywhere it’s needed. The Health Internet builds on the same Internet infrastructure and conventions that under-gird the transactions of major industry sectors like banking, e-commerce, retail sales, home mortgage business, and media and entertainment. Because this infrastructure is largely already in place, although little-used by health care entities now, the Health Internet could grow and scale rapidly at very little cost.

You can already see how the Health Internet is developing. You go to a CVS MinuteClinic, or to a handful of doctors, hospitals, labs, or pharmacies that offer you a personal health record account that lets you transfer your data in machine-readable format at will. You also create a Google Health account (or Microsoft HealthVault, Keas, or any number of personal health record platform websites) which allows you to upload your machine-readable, structured health data to them.

Next, you give your Google Health account permission to transfer your summary health data: to a doctor in anticipation of a visit; to a family member who is helping look after you; to a service that offers decision support based on your information to help you solve some of your health/wellness problems; or to a service that will organize your health data into folders categorized by date, or provider, or episode of illness. The important thing here is that you, the individual, are deciding when, why, and where your health information is going.

The Health Internet example we’ve described above is performing the foundational transactions required of a national health information exchange network, and is doing so today. There are many examples, and they are growing organically, without government support, without new and complex standards, and at very low cost.

Even so, the Health Internet’s growth is constrained mainly by the limited data available to patients and consumers from their doctors and hospitals, who continue to resist the idea that individuals ought to control their own data. They are also inhibited by patients’ reluctance to challenge their doctors and hospitals on this point.

These and other barriers also make the Health Internet an imperfect solution to the goals of secure and efficient interoperable health data transfer. For example, current coding and classification systems remain a complex stumbling block to any model of health data exchange. Various coding systems are in use. Some are proprietary and require pay-for-use, and others need to be extended and gain industry consensus to be truly useful.

But it is no coincidence that the British government is investigating using both Google Health and Microsoft HealthVault for personal health data exchange, moving away from its own National Health Service program, after the latter spent billions on a national information network that doesn’t appear to work. The NHIN “network of networks” model in this country is beginning to flounder, too, and may never achieve its future potential as a national system. The reasons are partly political, economic, and technological. An NHIN system’s triple burdens – smoothing over competitive markets, enormous cost, and proprietary complexity – created so that large systems like the VA and the DOD, Kaiser and Geisinger, can exchange data without having to reach the Internet, will likely sink this ship even before the British program runs aground.

The Health Internet, on the other hand, has the obvious advantage of not “re-inventing the wheel.”  As former Intel CEO Craig Barrett famously said, “We already have a network for health data, it’s called the Internet.”  Proponents of the Health Internet argue that, while health data and privacy and security are very important, the data themselves are inherently no different from financial data or the kinds of personal information routinely — and very securely — transported over the Internet using fair market encryption and other security technologies to protect it from intrusion, capture, or breach.  So why go backwards to create the equivalent of Prodigy or AOL in every state?  It could take forever.

We want to give credit to David Blumenthal, the Obama health team members and the folks at HHS who are taking a hard look at how best to create a secure and efficient method for health data transfer in this country.

David C. Kibbe MD MBA and Brian Klepper PhD write together on health care market dynamics, technology, policy and innovation.

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

Categories: Uncategorized

Tagged as: , , , ,

22
Leave a Reply

22 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
16 Comment authors
Richard BerlinSilvio S CornelioLucilakevinJohn McLamb, MSIA Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Richard Berlin
Guest
Richard Berlin

Look at http://france.angloinfo.com/countries/france/healthterms.asp for information on the Carte Vitale. Many people seem to believe patient’s medical records are being stored directly on the card, but it’s not actually feasible to do that, because the cards don’t have very much storage. (And what would happen to your lifetime’s worth of medical hsitory if you lose the card?) The Carte Vitale is a common “smart card” which is being used as a secure credential; what it carries is the information that a provider needs in order to access the bearer’s medical records and bill for whatever care they provide. The actual medical… Read more »

Silvio S Cornelio
Guest
Silvio S Cornelio

Plans for the National Health Information Network (Nhin), Organizations Regional Health Information (RHIOs) can be compared to large patent discoveries: few know, many needs and interests are conflicting. Health data available in small or large networks, should be a matter of common sense and not an act of obligation. Everyone needs, everyone can use at some point in their lives the data belonging to other groups. Important whether it is available!
Dr. Silvio Sandro Cornelio – BRAZIL

Lucila
Guest

Hello I was looking at your blog and I find very interesting and entertaining, especially if the information is detailed and accurate, I hope you continue posting more items for report and comment.
Greetings.

kevin
Guest
kevin

what about the role of the payor organizations . How should they be brought along

John McLamb, MSIA
Guest
John McLamb, MSIA

I also would to clarify something by the first post for this article. I think the first post that mention “PHIN” may be confusing in that the PHIN is a “public network” and refers to a technology method or using the Internet as the health network instead of a privately run network. There is actually a define architecture called “PHIN” or the national Public Health Information Network as in population health and the 10 core services that public health –nation, state, local, tribal government entities provide to the general population. i.e., Early Event Detection, Health Alerting, Countermeasures/Response (vaccinations), surveillance for… Read more »

John McLamb, MSIA
Guest
John McLamb, MSIA

I think this discussion of the NHIN RHIO model vs. a “Health Network” ( Centralized vs. Federated model) points to a very important principle in IT and Interoperable, that is, “policy should precede technology”.

Jonathan
Guest

I have provided a graphical view of the NHIN vs Health Internet, here:
http://gershater.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/health-internet-vs-nhin-in-pictures/

Gary Lampman
Guest
Gary Lampman

Record keeping is purposefully placed out of reach of consumers and as a measure to restrict consumers from gaining information. Copies of records come at 35 cents a Page. Who’s records are they? While Hospitals and Doctors are going to electronic Data and HIPPA has Set Barriers that some call protections. The Consumer hasn’t been given access to their own Data.Private Electronic accounts should be afforded to individuals to check and verify the Information is Correct. This would in most cases prevent medical Error and by providing the option to refute inaccuracies would provide greater control to the Patient. After… Read more »

Steve Beller, PhD
Guest

Agreed!

Margalit Gur-Arie
Guest
Margalit Gur-Arie

Dr. Beller,
I am not at all saying that it’s impossible to create secure and complete access to medical records.
[I don’t really know what is meant by “control”. My experience in this industry has been that every time someone wants to give you “control” or “empower” you in some way, the net results are that you pay more and/or work more, usually for someone else’s benefit.]
I am only suggesting that whatever other considerations may come into play, simplicity and ease of access have to be at the top of the list. That goes for both patients and doctors.

Steve Beller, PhD
Guest

Margalit, Are you saying that is isn’t possible for simple data privacy mechanisms to be created that give consumers control over their personal health information? It seems to me that with a little creativity and adequate field testing, PHRs can accomplish all that’s required. Although I can’t imagine how to deal with the complexity you noted using a purely centralized, monolithic cyber-infrastructure, I can envision how to do it via simple P2P pub/sub node networks. Let’s take the medical home model, for example. Every PCP (GP) establishes a community of referral, i.e., specialists to whom s/he refers patients as needed.… Read more »

me
Guest

This is a demo of the first e-health service (see http://www.senscare.com ) that really measures your physiological signals. It uses your webcam and transform it into a health sensor. Based on optical propagation in biological tissues, it captures skin reflected light to extract hemoglobin variations and thus cardiovascular activity.

Merle Bushkin
Guest

Dear David, I’m all for Internet users in rural Montana, or Vermont where I live, having access “to information and knowledge on the human body and mind, health and wellness, and how to treat conditions and illnesses.” Indeed, the Internet is a wonderful source of information and knowledge. But it’s not a panacea. In my opinion, using the Internet to share individuals’ medical records is the wrong solution to what we all agree is an urgent problem. The risks are too great. Fortunately, there is no need to take them. We can accomplish the same ends more easily and cheaply… Read more »

Margalit Gur-Arie
Guest
Margalit Gur-Arie

I think everybody can agree that patients have a right to see all their medical data and a right to decide who can see what portions of it and be notified of all disclosures of their medical records. I also think that HIPAA already mandates this. The implementation is of course spotty at best. My pain point with these new proposals is very simple. It is way too complicated. We are trying to replace a paper system, which today accomplishes all this data sharing by fax or copier and from a patient and doctor perspective it’s a very simple process.… Read more »

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

Dear Colleagues: Thanks for your thoughtful comments. This is a topic that gets people excited, and wanting to express their ideas, because I think we sense that health care can be less a commercial venture and more a cooperative endeavor. The Internet user in rural Montana has greater access to information and knowledge on the human body and mind, health and wellness, and how to treat conditions and illnesses, than anybody living in the 1960’s ever did. And more than most doctors today. What Internet users don’t have, generally, is acces to their OWN personal health data. This is because… Read more »