Try Practice Fusion’s free EHR
Calling All VCs, Entrepreneurs, Developers, and HIT devotees: Submit Public Comments on the Future Regulation of Health IT.
As health IT has evolved to address the challenges and opportunities in healthcare delivery, questions about patient safety, risk, and quality of technology have likewise emerged. So too, the ability of innovation in health IT to improve healthcare and the patient experience has been highlighted.
In order to balance those concerns with the continued promotion of innovation while avoiding regulatory confusion, Congress passed legislation that charged the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to conduct an 18-month study in partnership with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) to develop a risk-based regulatory framework for health IT.
As a result of that legislation, the FDA Safety and Innovation Act or FDASIA (pronounced “Fah-Day-Jah”), the three agencies convened a workgroup within the HIT Policy Committee to gain feedback from diverse stakeholders in the industry. The nearly 30 members represent EHR and mobile app developers, academic researchers, venture capitalists, health systems, legal and FDA experts, and providers and patients. The workgroup has established three subgroups—Taxonomy, Innovation and Risk Assessment, and Regulations—and will produce recommendations to advise the agencies’ report by August 2013.
To augment the feedback provided by the workgroup, a request for public comment (RFC) has been published to the Federal Register by the agencies. While the RFC will remain on the Federal Register until August 31, 2013, comments submitted by June 30, 2013 will be taken into account by the workgroup and are highly encouraged. You can join upcoming meetings of the FDASIA workgroup by going here and you can submit comments online at http://www.regulations.gov.
For first-time commenters, here are a few pointers:
- Address the document to the ONC (Attn: Steve Posnack) and reference the title of the rule
- Identify yourself /your organization, who/what you are and any relevant interests you represent (e.g. “we provide technology to doctors”), and why you are commenting (e.g. “experience developing x” or “experience with y regulatory process”)
- Comments are public, so make sure you are comfortable with the content being widely available
- You can respond to the specific questions posed in the RFC and/or provide additional feedback structured as you choose
- Highlight ideas that you support as well as ideas that you oppose
- Provide as many specific examples, real world insights, or data points as you can to support your opinions
- Include details that the government may have little to no insight into:
- Your processes, your challenges and opportunities, your experiences with government and understanding the regulatory process,
- The impact of regulation or lack thereof,
- How you think about developing/investing/policy-making,
- What innovation means to you and how to promote it, what risk means to you and how you mitigate it
- How you interact with providers and consumers, feedback you’ve received from them
- New ideas for regulation, non-regulatory pathways
Your feedback is incredibly important to inform the future of health IT regulation! Don’t be intimidated by the process and if you need help, you can always reach out to me @laurenfifield on Twitter or by commenting on this post.
An increasing amount of attention is being focused on Personal Health Records (PHRs), and how these relate to Electronic Health Records (EHRs). Australia, for example, has set a goal for every citizen to have a PHR by 2012. With a myriad of terms being used in the press around elements of health IT, it might be useful to review what they are, and how they are related.The terms EMR (Electronic Medical Records) and EHR are often used synonymously, but many… read more >
Just weeks after the IOM released its“Top 100” list of agenda items it hopes will drive the Feds’ $1.1 billion comparative effectiveness program, Stanford scientists have weighed in on the matter as well.In a JAMA editorial, Randall Stafford and colleagues suggest that if comparative effectiveness research is to realize its potential to improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of care, it must focus not just on drugs and devices, but on health-delivery processes and lifestyle practices as well.Examples of the latter… read more >
Robert X. Cringley – author, former InfoWorld columnist and tech guru – has an excellent post about medical data up on his blog. He covers the opportunities and concerns surrounding the future of electronic health records. I recommend reading the whole thing, but here’s a quick excerpt: There are lots of advantages to computerizing health records. A couple of years ago I visited the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, to discuss this very issue. Mayo has been in the forefront… read more >
As the measurement of clinical quality has evolved, an observation has emerged that practice size matters. In an article published by the AMA in November, 2007, the multiple pros and cons of large group practice vs. smaller or solo practice are discussed. However, according to a study reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2006, larger groups outperformed smaller practices on a number of clinical quality metrics.Why is this the case? Looking into the details of these reports, the… read more >
A treatment program in which nephrologists used an EMR to remotely monitor the care of patients with mild to moderate kidney disease has reduced by two-thirds the number of specialist referrals that took place too late in the course of the disease. Brian Lee, a Kaiser nephrologist based in Hawaii, published these findings in the British Medical Journal.Lee and associates used Kaiser’s HealthConnect system to track progress of patients having elevated serum creatinine levels to assure they received care consistent… read more >