EHRs not only are transforming how healthcare is performed, they're also on the cusp of reshaping the law surrounding that care. Are they the right changes? Or do we need to take a step back and reassess them?
Telemedicine has been receiving a lot of media attention recently, with initiatives in Congress, the Federation of State Medical Board's Interstate Licensure Compact now ready to launch, and more health insurers than ever paying for it. So I'm a bit surprised that a recent proposal published in Telemedicine and e-Health has garnered so little attention, positive or negative.
Why is there still such as disconnect between the Meaningful Use program's vision of interoperability and its use in the real world?
Electronic health record research is typically scientific, evidence-based, reliable and authoritative. But sometimes a study seems to miss the mark. Case in point: the venerable Journal of the American College of Cardiology has just published a new study that found that EHR-using hospitals did not have higher quality of care for Ischemic stroke patients than hospitals using paper records.
There is no doubt that different stakeholders will have varying views about the proposed rule implementing Stage 3 of the Meaningful Use program. But ironically, the rule, which is intended to further align two particular groups of stakeholders--physicians and hospitals--may actually drive them away from each other.
Assuming Stage 3 is even needed, what happens when it's over? Does the government pack up its health IT bags and go home?