I'm glad to see that some folks are waking up to the stunning gap between what Washington expects out of Health Information Technology and what HIT is currently able to deliver.
There's a nice article in today's New York Times describing the gap and the very good odds that pouring $20B into current HIT - correctly described as "pre-internet software" - will cement these expensive unresponsive, uncommunicative legacy systems in place.
Policy makers are rightfully asking for information technology systems that enable seamless communication between office practices, labs, hospitals, etc. This vision is a mirage in a desert of false interoperability. Current vendors chant the catechism of interoperability while creating interface hurdles and expenses that make true interoperability only a pipe dream.
While I'm glad to see some of the real story getting out, I'm saddened to see that the White House has appointed a hospital-based academic as National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. Maybe this guy understands what it takes to achieve care coordination with good health IT, but I worry that his background will lead him to pursue a hospital-as-center-of-the-HIT-universe strategy. The track record of hospital centric systems and their ability to integrate with good office practice systems is not good.
So here's to hoping that he's spent some time checking out high performing office practices and uncovering what enables the high level of patient-centered care and seamless coordination.
I'd really hate to see more of the same old pre-internet legacy systems cemented in place with the guild-like mentality of CCHIT.
Gordon
Comments