U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87–789—PDF 2013

S. HRG. 113–264 

HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: 

A BUILDING BLOCK TO QUALITY HEALTH CARE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 17, 2013 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

AMBER COTTLE, Staff Director 

CHRIS CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Baucus, Hon. Max, a U.S. Senator from Montana, chairman, Committee 

on Finance ............................................................................................................ 1 

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from Utah ................................................. 5 

WITNESSES 

Mostashari, Farzad, M.D., ScM, National Coordinator for Health Information 

Technology, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC ... 3 

Conway, Patrick, M.D., MSc, Chief Medical Officer and Director, Center for 

Clinical Standards and Quality, and Acting Director, Center for Medicare 

and Medicaid Innovation, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 6 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL 

Baucus, Hon. Max: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Conway, Patrick, M.D., MSc: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G.: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

Mostashari, Farzad, M.D., ScM: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

Thune, Hon. John: 

‘‘Reboot: Re-examining the Strategies Needed to Successfully Adopt 

Health IT,’’ by Senators Thune, Alexander, Roberts, Burr, Coburn, 

and Enzi, dated April 16, 2013 .................................................................... 78 

COMMUNICATIONS

athenahealth, Inc. .................................................................................................... 109 

Health Record Banking Alliance ............................................................................ 114 

(III) 

(1) 

HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: A 

BUILDING BLOCK TO QUALITY HEALTH CARE 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, Washington, DC. 

The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m., in 

room SD–215, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Max Baucus 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Wyden, Stabenow, Casey, Hatch, Grassley, 

Roberts, and Thune. 

Also present: Democratic Staff: Mac Campbell, General Counsel; 

David Schwartz, Chief Health Counsel; Karen Fisher, Professional 

Staff Member; and Peter Sokolove, Robert Wood Johnson Fellow. 

Republican Staff: Kristin Welsh, Health Policy Advisor. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM MONTANA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order. 

First, I apologize to the witnesses for the delay. We had a vote 

scheduled at 10. Senators are voting, and they will be coming back 

in the next, roughly, 10 minutes or so. 

Senator Hatch, though, did tell me he had an interim conflict. He 

will be here a little bit later, but he had something else that came 

up that he has to take care of. 

Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote, ‘‘Progress is the activity of 

today and the assurance of tomorrow.’’ This committee has held 

several hearings on overhauling the health care system to emphasize value over volume. Today we will discuss a vital tool to assure 

that this mission is completed: health information technology. 

Over the past decade, when you went to the doctor, he or she 

likely kept track of your important health information by handwriting notes onto a paper chart. Then that chart, several inches 

thick, was filed away, often in a storage room, where no other doctor saw it or had access to it. 

If you needed to see a cardiologist or surgeon, that specialty doctor could not see your paper record. Maybe your primary care doctor faxed over your information, but more likely the specialist 

would just ask you the same questions and create their own paper 

record and duplicate the same tests as your primary doctor. 

If you went to the hospital, the situation was about the same. Diagnostic and lab tests were all recorded on paper, and your primary care physician might have no idea what happened during 

your hospital stay. What resulted from this system? Duplicate, 

2 

costly tests, fragmented care, and often dangerous medical errors. 

We needed a better system. Other industries were using information technology to reduce their costs and to improve their service. 

Health care needed to catch up. 

In 2009, Congress passed the Health Information Technology for 

Economic and Clinical Health Act, known as HITECH. Under this 

law, Medicare and Medicaid gives providers financial incentives to 

adopt health information technology and meaningful use. 

‘‘Meaningful use’’ means prescribing medication electronically to 

eliminate errors from scribbled, handwritten notes. It means ordering a different medication when the IT system informs the doctor 

that the patient has a drug allergy. It means sharing information 

electronically among providers so they can coordinate the patient’s 

care. The result is better care at reduced costs. 

In 2009, we allocated $33 billion to help hospitals and physicians 

move to electronic systems. To date, Medicare and Medicaid have 

given out $15 billion. As of this past May, nearly 80 percent of hospitals and half of physicians have received incentive payments because they have invested in health information technology. 

One of our witnesses, Dr. Farzad Mostashari, will tell us that 

3 years ago nearly 93 percent of prescriptions were handwritten. 

Today, that number has dropped to less than half. There are clear 

signs of progress, but we need to learn more and do better. Is the 

2009 law working as intended? Is the money being spent efficiently? How much longer until there is seamless, coordinated care 

for patients? 

We also need to understand why there are disparities between 

rural and urban doctors. Only a third of rural hospitals have a 

health information technology system compared to half of all urban 

hospitals. What can be done to reduce this disparity? I might say 

that I hear it in spades from my hospitals and critical access facilities in Montana. 

Ultimately, technology must become part of the culture of health 

care delivery. New payment models such as Accountable Care Organizations, medical homes, and bundled payments will drive providers to use information technology. 

Providers are being held financially responsible for providing 

high-quality, low-cost care. To succeed, physicians must engage in 

coordinated care, disease prevention, and chronic care management. Health information technology is indispensable to accomplish 

this. Key to this transformation is interoperability. Computers 

must be able to talk to each other so that patients and the providers can access information wherever and whenever they need it. 

We need to know where we are in achieving interoperability, how 

far have we come, what barriers are preventing us from moving 

faster, and how do we overcome these barriers? 

Today we will hear from the administration about all of these 

issues. So let us assess the challenges and opportunities, and, more 

importantly, let us learn how we can best leverage technology to 

achieve better quality and better value for patients. The stakes are 

too high to let this opportunity elude us. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Baucus appears in the appendix.] 

3 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hatch is on his way, and, when he arrives, he will want to make a statement. 

I am pleased to welcome our witnesses. First is Farzad Mostashari, National Coordinator for Health Information Technology at 

the Department of Health and Human Services; next, Patrick 

Conway, who is the Chief Medical Officer and Director of the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, and Acting Director of the 

Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation at the Centers for 

Medicare and Medicaid Services. 

I will just remind you that your statements will automatically be 

included in the record, and I urge you to summarize in about 5 

minutes. You can take a little longer if you want, just whatever 

works. 

Dr. Mostashari? 

STATEMENT OF FARZAD MOSTASHARI, M.D., ScM, NATIONAL 

COORDINATOR FOR HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, WASHINGTON, DC 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. Thank you, Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Hatch, distinguished committee members. Thank you for the 

opportunity to appear today on behalf of the Department of Health 

and Human Services. My name is Dr. Farzad Mostashari. I am the 

National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. 

Building on decades’ worth of bipartisan legislative work, in 2009 

the Congress and President Obama enacted the Health Information 

Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act as part of the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the policies and programs we have implemented to meet the goals of the HITECH legislation and the progress made by America’s health care providers 

in expanding health information technology use. Working in close 

collaboration with our CMS colleagues and our Federal advisory 

committees, we have defined what it means to make meaningful 

use of electronic health records and the key certification criteria 

and standards for those software systems. 

America’s providers and software developers have stepped forward. Throughout the country, 62 regional extension centers have 

signed up more than 147,000 providers in over 30,000 different 

practices. This means that over 40 percent of the Nation’s primary 

care providers have committed to meaningfully using EHRs by 

partnering with their local extension center. 

The financial incentives and the hands-on assistance have contributed to a greater than two-fold increase in the EHR adoption 

among eligible professionals and a five-fold increase among hospitals. 

As described in recent publications, there has also been strong 

progress in the routine use of specific functions that are strongly 

aligned with other policy drivers, including those championed by 

this committee, to help our health care system to become safer and 

more efficient and achieve higher quality. 

For example, computerized provider order entry for medication 

orders, which is a meaningful use requirement, has been shown to 

cut out nearly half of all medication errors. Since HITECH was enVerDate Nov 24 2008 20:48 May 28, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\87789.000 TIMD
4 

acted, the percentage of physicians with CPOE has increased from 

45 to 80 percent. For non-Federal acute care hospitals, the percent 

with CPOE more than doubled between 2008 and 2012, rising from 

27 percent to 72 percent. 

Our aging population and the rise in chronic diseases place a 

premium on population health management, which requires data 

systems that can routinely measure the quality of care delivered, 

provide recommendations for guideline-based care, and reach out to 

patients. As one provider remarked, ‘‘You can’t provide accountable 

care if you can’t count.’’ 

Improved care coordination among providers is another one of 

the goals of the HITECH legislation. Patient information must be 

available when and where it is needed. 

However, much work remains to be done to achieve the full 

promise of meaningful use. While increasing rapidly, adoption still 

lags behind in small practices and critical access hospitals. The 

usability of many of the legacy software products is suboptimal and 

the cause of frustration for many clinicians on the front lines. 

While the digitization of health care is well under way, the complementary and necessary optimization and redesign of practice 

work flows is still in its infancy. Perhaps most importantly, there 

is much work yet to be done to achieve higher levels of interoperability between health care providers who use EHR products from 

different developers. 

As several Senators on this committee have pointed out, it is a 

daunting task to enable secure and private health information exchange among hundreds of thousands of providers using disparate 

systems already in place, while accommodating changes in technology. 

Nevertheless, I believe that through the exercise of multiple policy levers and substantial public/private collaboration, we are on 

the path toward better care coordination through health IT. 

Through leadership and support from the States, operational 

health information exchange organizations are increasing in number and in size, now covering over 120,000 health care providers. 

We have worked with industry and experts to achieve hard-fought 

consensus on technical standards for key health care transactions. 

The health care IT marketplace is currently in the process of undergoing more rigorous testing, validation, and certification to meet 

these interoperability standards. 

Stage 2 meaningful use requirements significantly raise the bar 

for actual information exchange when care transitions, and patients, all too often caught in the middle between doctors who do 

not speak to each other, can finally get their own data in structured electronic format to share with whomever they please. 

But perhaps most significant has been the work of this committee and CMS in shifting incentives towards rewarding value 

and discouraging uncoordinated and wasteful care. Readmission 

penalties, value-based purchasing, shared savings programs, and 

bundled payments are all contributing to a sea change in the incentives of health care providers and encouraging greater information 

sharing. 

There is much work yet to be done before we realize the full 

value of health information technology, but, in partnership with 

5 

the Congress and the community of health care providers, software 

developers, patient advocates, and researchers, we are well on our 

way to establishing the foundation for better health and better care 

at lower cost. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doctor, very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Mostashari appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. We are honored to have Senator Hatch join us. 

Senator Hatch, would you like to make a statement? We would certainly like to hear it. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Chairman Baucus. I am sorry 

I was a little late, but I had to go to a press conference. I hate 

press conferences, but I had to do this one. 

But I appreciate you holding this hearing about health information technology, or health IT. This is really an important subject 

and topic, and the chairman has rightly stated that it can help improve the quality of health care in this country. I appreciate the 

witnesses who are here today. 

I have witnessed firsthand the power of using IT to transform 

the delivery of health care. In Utah, Intermountain Healthcare 

System has long been one of the leaders in the field. This transformation did not happen overnight. 

Dr. Homer Warner, a University of Utah cardiologist, helped establish the field of health IT in the 1950s. Now, his work and 

teaching, coupled with that of his colleague, Reed Gardner, inspired generations of clinicians to enter the field of informatics long 

before it became popular. 

The promise of health IT is that it can facilitate evidence-based 

clinical care to decrease the number of errors, which are far too frequent in our complex, fragmented health care system, and allow 

each clinical visit to a health care provider to increase our knowledge base about effective care. 

In preparing for this series of hearings on health information 

technology, we have heard from many providers, both large and 

small, as well as the vendor community. Most have said that they 

believe that the meaningful use program has spurred the investment in technology. Many were already in the process of establishing and purchasing health information technologies, and the 

meaningful use funds that they received simply helped offset the 

costs. 

For others, it was the threat of financial penalty that spurred 

this type of investment. Regardless, I think health IT can be a very 

valuable tool, and its use should be encouraged. However, it is my 

hope that we are not judging the success of this program simply 

on the number of dollars going out the door, but rather by the positive impact on patient care and decreases overall in health care 

costs. 

6 

* The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. 

I also hope that as both CMS and ONC* establish requirements 

for the program, they consider all of the other burdens that providers face. As we have seen time and time again, not all providers 

are created equal. The size, sophistication, and availability of resources vary greatly. 

I am very proud of the work that Intermountain Healthcare has 

done in this area, and their use of health information technology 

should be an example to all. But we have to acknowledge that they 

are really the exception, not the rule. As CMS and ONC develop 

future stages of meaningful use, we need to take into account all 

that we ask of our providers. 

Let me be clear: I do not want to see progress stalled on implementing the use of technologies, but, if we ignore problems along 

the way and simply expect everyone to catch up, we will end up 

in worse shape. 

The Federal Government cannot afford to spend money on programs that do not yield results. At the same time, providers cannot 

afford to invest in systems that do not work or have to be overhauled a year later as requirements change. It would seem to me 

that we have an opportunity to push the ‘‘pause’’ button and make 

sure that the program is working before we continue down a potentially unsustainable path. 

I think many members would agree that we should hold providers and vendors to high standards, and perhaps the meaningful 

use program in its various stages has set the bar too low. In the 

end, I would rather ask more of our providers and vendors, and 

provide them with a reasonable time line to achieve those goals. 

This hearing, along with the one scheduled for next week, is 

being held to allow us to hear from the administration’s leaders in 

health information technology and from the community of vendors 

and providers using health IT and clinical care. It is an opportunity 

to take a mid-course pulse of the ongoing meaningful use incentive 

payments to providers, and to assess the kinds of improvements in 

health care that these funds intended. 

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful that you are holding this hearing, 

and I look forward to hearing from our two witnesses. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hatch appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Let us hear from our other witness. Dr. Conway, 

you are next. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK CONWAY, M.D., MSc, CHIEF MEDICAL 

OFFICER AND DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR CLINICAL STANDARDS AND QUALITY, AND ACTING DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR 

MEDICARE AND MEDICAID INNOVATION, CENTERS FOR 

MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES, WASHINGTON, DC 

Dr. CONWAY. Thank you, Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member 

Hatch, and members of the Finance Committee, for the opportunity 

to speak with you today about CMS’s role in the adoption of health 

information technology. 

7 

When I started practicing medicine, I distinctly remember trying 

to read hand-scrawled notes, struggling to find an X-ray in the 

basement of the hospital, faxing or mailing discharge summaries, 

and going to the lab to track down lab results for patients. It was 

not an efficient or effective system; worse, missed information can 

lead to patient harm. 

Now I practice as an attending physician on weekends, including 

this past weekend, in a hospital with an electronic health record, 

or EHR, networked with other hospitals across the region. With the 

click of a button, I can pull up any lab result, X-ray, or CAT scan. 

I can even show, as I did this past weekend, a radiologic image 

to a worried family on the computer screen and explain the treatment of care. Medication orders are checked for errors, and clinical 

guidelines are encompassed in the computerized order sets. 

When I was at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, I led efforts using 

EHRs to measure quality across our system. We used EHRs as an 

essential tool to transform care. For example, I led quality improvement work that used the EHR as a key driver to rapidly adopt new 

evidence-based practices, as was just noted, across our large system 

in a matter of weeks, leading to better patient outcomes. Health IT 

alone does not make care better, but it is an essential ingredient 

to care improvement. 

It is important to note that health IT has traditionally had bipartisan support, as was just noted, and I personally worked for 

former HHS Secretary Leavitt on health IT initiatives. 

CMS is incentivizing and enabling the use of health IT to improve care for beneficiaries. The Medicare and the Medicaid EHR 

incentive programs provide incentive payments to eligible professionals, hospitals, and critical access hospitals as they adopt, implement, upgrade, and demonstrate meaningful use of certified 

EHR technology. 

The process for becoming a meaningful user of EHRs is staged, 

with increasing requirements for participation. Stage 1 focuses on 

basic use and data capture. Stage 2 focuses on more advanced EHR 

functions, including interoperability, patient engagement, clinical 

decision support, and quality measurement. In Stage 3, we expect 

to focus on increasing interoperability in health information exchange and to focus on improved patient outcomes. 

The incentive programs are achieving their intended result of encouraging and increasing EHR adoption. More than half of all eligible professionals in the U.S. and approximately 80 percent of all eligible hospitals and critical access hospitals have adopted EHRs. 

But incentives alone cannot sustain the transition to EHRs. The 

long-term sustainability of investments in health IT will come as 

a result of the movement away from fragmented fee-for-service care 

and toward value-based, coordinated accountable care models. 

CMS programs like Accountable Care Organizations and hospital 

value-based purchasing, and proposed rules like the recent one for 

complex care management, incentivize well-coordinated care and 

build a business case for providers to sustain their EHR systems 

over time. 

The incentive programs are also helping to improve the quality 

of care for patients. By requiring reporting on quality measures, we 

establish quality benchmarks. We can provide feedback to proVerDate Nov 24 2008 20:48 May 28, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\87789.000 TIMD
8 

viders, and we can focus quality improvement efforts on measures 

that matter most to patients. The incentive programs are also facilitating safer, more efficient care delivery. 

One great example, as was noted, is e-prescribing, which gives 

providers the ability to better manage patient prescriptions and reduce adverse drug events. The EHR incentive programs require the 

use of this technology. 

In the first 2 years of the program, health care providers who 

met meaningful use standards reported sending 190 million electronic prescriptions. The incentive programs are also improving the 

care experience for patients. 

I helped take care of my father, who was a Medicare beneficiary 

with chronic illness, for many years before he passed away. We 

built his own personal health record from scratch, entering data 

from many paper records. No beneficiary or family will ever have 

to do this again, and can access their information electronically. 

Meaningful use Stage 1 requires providers to give patients electronic copies of their diagnostic test results, problem list, and medication list, and the Blue Button initiative allows patients and families to download and use their health information. 

By incentivizing the adoption of EHR, CMS is making a commitment to the health care delivery system of the future, a system 

that values high-quality, well-coordinated care for CMS beneficiaries. Health IT is a foundational building block for delivery system transformation and achieving better health outcomes for all 

Americans. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak with 

you today, and I am happy to answer any questions that you have. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, both of you, very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Conway appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. First, I would like to remind everyone that we 

will have another hearing on this subject. Next week we will hear 

from providers and vendors to get a little bit different perspective 

here. 

I would like to ask two questions. One is about the various 

stages. Would you modify them at all? How are they working out? 

For example, it is my understanding that in Stage 1 there are eligible professionals who must meet about 15 core objectives and 5 of 

10 menu objectives. Eligible hospitals and CAHs must meet 14 core 

objectives and 5 to 10 menu objectives. In Stage 2, there are 17 

core objectives, and 3 of 6 menu objectives must be met, and eligible hospitals, CAHs, must meet 16 core objectives and 3 of 6 menu 

objectives. Stage 3 requirements will be determined a little bit 

later. 

Does that all make sense to you, those core objectives and those 

menus? How would you modify them, if at all, or do we need to 

worry about that? 

Dr. CONWAY. I will start, and Dr. Mostashari may build on. I 

think the concept behind the core objectives was to require the core 

objective aspects of electronic health records and functionality that 

we thought were critical to coordinate care. With the menu objectives, the principle was to allow flexibility with selection of the 

menu objectives. 

9 

We also removed some core objectives and added some additional 

core objectives to raise the bar from Stage 1 to Stage 2. With Stage 

3, we are evaluating that approach versus other approaches, based 

on stakeholder feedback. With that, I will turn it over to my colleague, Dr. Mostashari. 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. As Dr. Conway said, the structure that was recommended to us by the Health IT Policy Committee has this feature for flexibility. As noted, all providers are not the same, and 

they do not all do the same things. Some of those menu objectives 

may not be applicable to all. 

So, by providing the flexibility, we can say, if you report to a professional registry, that can count; but not everybody does. If you access imaging results a lot in part of your day, that can count; but 

not everybody does that. So it provides flexibility. It also provides 

the ability for us to introduce and signal functionality that is on 

its way, but it may be too soon to require everybody to be able to 

step up to it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, there are $15 billion in payments. Are the 

dollars just paid, or is it paid under conditions, such as the providers meeting certain conditions? 

Dr. CONWAY. I can start, if that is all right, and Dr. Mostashari 

can build on. So, they do have to meet requirements to receive payments, and you mentioned the core and menu objectives which are 

a significant portion of that requirement and the functional measures, if you will, for electronic health records. They also have to attest to electronic clinical quality measurement. In 2014, with Stage 

2, they will be electronically submitting, either as individuals or 

batch reporting for groups, on those functional measures and the 

electronic clinical quality measure. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are you on track? The administration delayed a 

floor mandate for various reasons, probably because they were not 

quite ready. How are we doing here? Are we on track? Have there 

been any delays? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. We are finishing Stage 1, and we have had, I 

think, good results in terms of participation and achievement of the 

standards for Stage 1. We are working, in 2013, on implementation 

of Stage 2, which is going to be a big step forward, particularly 

around patient engagement and interoperability. We are going to 

continually monitor where we are, how we are doing, how things 

are going, and react and adapt as needed. 

The CHAIRMAN. This committee wants to help, so let us know. 

Just do not blind-side us with a telephone call one day that says, 

uh-oh, we are not doing this. Rather, let us know if there are some 

problems that we can help with, because clearly I do not know a 

Senator who does not believe in better health IT as a critical component. 

About rural providers. 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. Yes? 

The CHAIRMAN. How are we going to help rural providers? It is 

harder for the smaller hospitals in a rural setting. 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. It is. It is much more difficult. There are providers who live in areas where EHR vendors will not come out to 

demonstrate the system for them. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. 

10 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. Workforce is a major limitation for them to be 

able to do it themselves. Critical access hospitals have, on average, 

0.8 FTEs working on IT. The same person is often in charge of 

maintenance as well as IT. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. So they face unique challenges. One of the approaches that we have taken is to target rural providers, rural 

health clinics, critical access hospitals, for extra assistance through 

the Regional Extension Center program. The majority of rural primary care providers are working with an extension program modeled after the agricultural extension program that rural providers 

are familiar with. I think that has contributed to rural eligible professionals not falling behind in terms of the adoption rate. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think it has contributed enough? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. We can always do more. The one area where 

we are working is on better collaboration between all the different 

Federal programs that touch rural providers. In Iowa, we recently 

did a pilot where we worked with the USDA to encourage them to 

look at the rural health care providers for the grant programs, the 

loan programs, that are available through the FCC Rural Utility 

Service. There are many programs that target rural providers, 

rural settings, and we need to bring all of our forces to bear in a 

coordinated way. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Hatch? 

Senator HATCH. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield to Senator 

Grassley, who has a conflict and needs to leave. 

The CHAIRMAN. I do not know if we can do that. [Laughter.] 

Senator Grassley? 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Senator Hatch, Mr. Chairman. 

I have just one question for both of you, but I want to lead up 

to that question, so please listen. The purpose of our investment in 

health information technology is to make it possible to quickly capture, store, and share data. 

It was our belief when we first started legislating in this area 

that quicker and more accurate data-sharing would lead to better 

care coordination and improve outcomes for patients, as well as 

savings to the Medicare program. 

I recently introduced a bill with Senator Wyden that would advance the idea of data-sharing. The Medicare Data Act would require the Secretary of HHS to create a searchable database of all 

Medicare claims and payments made to providers. Last Congress, 

we saw increasing support for our bill and a broadening belief that 

more data transparency in the Medicare program is a good thing. 

I applaud recent efforts taken by CMS to release Medicare hospital data for a limited set of procedures. Despite its limited fashion, I take the action to mean CMS recognizes the value of transparency in this area. The Grassley-Wyden bill goes even further by 

making public all Medicare claims and payments made by all participating Medicare providers. 

Taxpayers deserve to know where their hard-earned dollars are 

going. More transparency also means more provider accountability 

to communities they serve and other professionals they work with. 

11 

So here is my question. You have described how health information technology will improve communication between providers and 

promote care coordination. Could a searchable claims database be 

used to complement these efforts by making providers more accountable to their peers and the public? 

Dr. CONWAY. So, I will start, and then Dr. Mostashari can build 

on. First, we would welcome the chance to work with you and provide technical assistance on this legislation. As you noted, CMS is 

committed to transparency, committed to transparency both on performance and quality information, as well as cost data. We are 

committed to utilizing data to drive improved quality and decrease 

costs. 

We have a number of mechanisms now where we are sharing 

data, both, as you noted, public use files for the public, and also 

our various compare sites which are run out of my center in CMS, 

both with data on the compare sites, downloadable data. We would 

welcome the opportunity to expand the ability to utilize CMS data 

to drive improvements and to work with the Congress on that. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Dr. Mostashari, I would like to hear from 

you. 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. We believe in the power of data for better 

decision-making and open data to the extent possible, given privacy 

concerns and operational realities. We have been, I think, strong 

supporters of making available data sets as part of meaningful use, 

making part of our certification products available, and working 

with the developer community to make good use of that open data. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, folks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Wyden? 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you very much. I want to thank Senator 

Grassley for the chance to work with him on that important bill, 

and I look forward to working with our colleagues on it. 

Dr. Mostashari, let me start with you because, as you know, we 

are asking a lot of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

in the days ahead, and we are obviously talking about medical 

records today. Just talking with Senator Stabenow, sometimes you 

feel, in discussing these issues, that it does not resemble English, 

that, if you parachuted in, you would be trying to figure out what 

in the world we are talking about. 

So let me start with a question for you, Dr. Mostashari. How 

would you assess the quality of the computers today at the Centers 

for Medicare and Medicaid Services? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. I do not think that I have enough experience 

with computer systems at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 

Services to be able to answer that question. I do not know if Dr. 

Conway would—— 

Senator WYDEN. Well, I wanted to ask you, because it is kind of 

a lead-up, and maybe we will get into some other areas that would 

shed some light on it. Now, you mentioned that you are ‘‘encouraging institutions that have health data to make it easier for patients to gain easy electronic access to their data and to use that 

information in ways that improve their health and health care.’’ 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. Yes. 

12 

Senator WYDEN. Do you believe that CMS is one of those institutions? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. In fact, I believe that CMS is a key institution 

for doing so. My mom, whom I have health care proxy for, downloaded 3 years of every claim submitted on her behalf and paid on 

her behalf from Medicare, and that information on her smartphone 

and on my smartphone has actually been really revolutionary in 

terms of us being able to manage her care better. So I think 

CMS—— 

Senator WYDEN. That would be a statement that the CMS computers are not exactly in the Dark Ages. Would that be fair to say? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. They have done a great job allowing the CMS 

Medicare Blue Button to be available to all 37 million Medicare 

beneficiaries. 

Senator WYDEN. All right. So we have made some headway on 

the patient side, and I think that is clearly a plus. We also are 

hearing continually from providers that they are waiting for their 

data, that they are having problems getting it. We touched on this 

a little bit at our hearing last week. This is a hugely important 

point, as you know, because right at the heart of the bill is the concept of shared savings. 

What we want to be able to say to providers all over the country 

is—and there is great bipartisan interest in this—that when you do 

well, when you are able to give good-quality care at more affordable 

prices, you will in fact get to share in the savings. It is locking in 

a set of incentives that has not traditionally been available in feefor-service. 

It is pretty hard to tap the potential of shared savings if the providers keep reporting to us and our various staffs that they cannot 

get their data. So what is your take on that, Doctor, and what do 

you think we can do to make sure that the providers can also get 

their data in a timely kind of fashion? 

You have told me something that I think is plenty useful this 

morning. You said your mom essentially got a lot of useful data in 

a fashion that was helpful to her, but I am still getting complaints 

and concerns from providers. So what is your take about how we 

turn that around? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. Well, I will allow Dr. Conway to answer, but 

providers are now getting more data from Medicare than they ever 

have before, through the shared savings programs, the new CMMI 

programs, and also through, I think, the important measure in section 10322 for qualified entities to receive Medicare data for the 

purpose of benchmarking and providing assistance to providers. 

So I think the Affordable Care Act provided important enablers 

of better data-sharing, and it is much improved compared to where 

it has been. I am sure that there are ways to improve, but it is better than it ever has been, I believe. 

Dr. CONWAY. And just briefly, to build on that, through our various payment models, we do have monthly data feeds now. For example, in the Medicare shared savings program, Pioneer ACOs, 

and a number of payment models, that is much better in terms of 

frequency than previously, as you may have heard. 

To build on the previous point on technical assistance, I think we 

would welcome the opportunity to provide technical assistance for 

13 

what level of resources we would be able to achieve, what level of 

data feed, to what percentage of providers in America. So we would 

welcome the opportunity to work with you on this critical issue. 

Senator WYDEN. My time is up. I am going to ask you to get back 

to me on the record, Dr. Conway, about a statement in your testimony. You make a point with respect to the vendors sharing information, because we obviously have to hold the vendors accountable. 

You state, ‘‘We recognize that some providers and electronic health 

record vendors may not have a business imperative to share health 

information across providers and settings of care.’’ 

Now, that is a pretty troubling statement, because taxpayers 

have spent billions of dollars to make this work, and the vendors 

have seen enormous growth since 2009. I think we need to know 

more, and specifically I would like to hear, in writing, how you are 

holding these vendors accountable, because that money is out the 

door. As Chairman Baucus talked about, it is huge sums. So can 

you get back to us, say, within a week on that, Dr. Conway? 

Dr. CONWAY. We can commit to working with the Office of the 

National Coordinator to get back to you, and we will try to meet 

that time frame. 

Senator WYDEN. Great. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. And send that to the committee. 

Senator WYDEN. Yes. That is what I meant. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hatch? 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Mostashari, I do not think I can get mad at somebody who 

would wear a bow tie like that, I just have to tell you. [Laughter.] 

It is a beauty. I am kind of envious, to be honest with you. 

Now, Dr. Mostashari, do you believe that a pause in meaningful 

use payments to hospitals and eligible providers would allow us to 

evaluate progress and readjust, if necessary, to get the return on 

investment that we have searched for with the electronic health 

record incentive program? Should a pause also coincide with a 

delay in penalties for the non-adopters? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. No, sir. I believe that a pause in the program 

would stall the progress that has been hard-fought. Given the 

movement that we have accomplished through Stage 1, we need to 

give Stage 2 a chance to move ahead and to meet the urgency of 

the moment in providing support for coordinated care, for the 

transformation in health care, and I believe that a pause would 

take momentum away from progress. 

Senator HATCH. All right. 

Dr. Conway, in your testimony you recognized the changes that 

providers experience in trying to comply with multiple, and each 

slightly different, quality measure reporting outcomes. Now, my 

constituents would agree. When can we expect all of these measures to be ‘‘harmonized’’ and, more importantly, reportable as an 

automated function from within the EHR itself? 

Dr. CONWAY. Thank you for the question, Senator Hatch. So we 

have made significant progress in the last 2 years on this issue in 

my tenure as Chief Medical Officer. Specifically, we just proposed, 

in the physician fee schedule rule, the ability, for 2014, for groups 

of clinicians to report once and receive credit for all applicable proVerDate Nov 24 2008 20:48 May 28, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\87789.000 TIMD
14 

grams, so the meaningful use program, PQRS—the Physician Quality Reporting System—physician value-based modifier, and, if they 

are an ACO, the ACO program. This is a very different place than 

we were a year or 2 years ago, so we are accepting comments on 

that rule, but we look to finalize it to meet your vision of reporting 

once on an aligned set of measures. 

For hospitals, likewise, they now can, with this proposal—which 

we have comments coming back on, and look to finalize by August 

1st—report once and receive credit for all hospital programs: inpatient quality reporting, hospital value-based purchasing, and the 

meaningful use program. 

So it is a critical point. I used to manage reporting on quality 

measures for my health system in Cincinnati, and we have now 

met that goal of an aligned set of measures to allow people to report once and receive credit for all programs. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you. 

Dr. Mostashari, I have heard from providers that significant obstacles to interoperability still exist. Do you share this perspective? 

If so, what are these obstacles, and how can we resolve them? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. The obstacles include technical standards, nonproprietary open standards, for sharing information that there is 

consensus around. 

Another obstacle is the business case for information sharing on 

the part of providers, which this committee has done really important work towards resolving. 

Third, trust. Many health care providers feel that they are entrusted with the patient’s information, and they are much more 

comfortable sharing as part of their normal delivery patterns of 

care than with remote individuals whom they are not on a firstname basis with. We are making progress on all three of those. 

We heard testimony from Marc Probst, CIO of Intermountain 

Healthcare, at the House hearing last fall, that more could be 

done—and we are pushing on the standards—but that there has 

been clear progress toward the interoperability standards. Stage 2 

of meaningful use and the 2014 certification criteria that the vendors are testing now, are taking a big step ahead. If you would like, 

I can describe a little bit what is on the pathway here. 

Senator HATCH. All right. 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. The standards that we are working on are in 

three domains. The first is around language, so terminologies, vocabularies, so that one person’s medication list can be compared to 

and added to another person’s medication list. We have never had 

a single standard for comparing medication lists. We do now as 

part of the 2014 certification criteria. 

There are single vocabularies for immunizations, there is a single 

vocabulary for clinical diagnoses, there is a single vocabulary for 

procedures. So these are important to make sure that we reduce 

the cost and, frankly, safety problems when two different institutions try to compare local codes and local words and local maps. 

Laboratory results is another. 

The second area we have made progress on is, for the first time 

in our Nation’s history, we have consensus—hard-fought consensus—on a single standard for packaging patient information in 

an electronic format, so we move beyond PDFs and text files to acVerDate Nov 24 2008 20:48 May 28, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\87789.000 TIMD
15 

tual structured data, where you know where the data elements are 

and you can reduce the cost of those interfaces between different 

systems. That is the consolidated Clinical Document Architecture 

which is part of the 2014 certification criteria. 

Finally, we have, for the first time, agreement on what protocols 

to use when sending health information over the Internet in a way 

that can be secure and encrypted. So the combination of those 

building blocks are in the 2014 certification criteria, and, when 

they take effect, I believe we will see a measurable improvement 

in the ability of organizations to talk to each other. 

Senator HATCH. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Thune, you are next. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

and Senator Hatch for holding this hearing. This is a hearing that 

I had written to you and requested a year ago, and I appreciate the 

fact that we are having a couple of hearings on what I think is a 

very important topic. 

Earlier this spring, I worked with a number of my colleagues, including some on this committee, on a white paper that explored 

issues I hope we address today. I would like, if it is all right with 

you, Mr. Chairman, to submit it. It is called ‘‘Reboot: Re-examining 

the Strategies Needed to Successfully Adopt Health IT.’’ I would 

submit it for the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The white paper appears in the appendix on page 78.] 

Senator THUNE. I want to start by thanking Dr. Mostashari for 

the efforts that he has made in responding to questions posed to 

the administration as part of that ‘‘Reboot’’ report. We received a 

response last week, and I appreciate the substance of that response. 

I want to ask a question. I am really concerned about the argument that we need to make sure that there is a sufficient business 

case for continued progress on interoperability and exchange of 

data between unaffiliated providers. At some point the ability for 

the Federal Government to provide sufficient carrot and stick incentives is limited by the resource constraints and an appropriate 

level of financial penalties. 

So I am curious to know what you are doing to encourage the use 

of real market forces, not just government incentives and penalties, 

to create the business case for continued progress. I also wish to 

know what role the anti-kickback statute plays in constraining the 

types of market incentives that could be used to help make that 

business case. 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. Absolutely. And to clarify, we believe that it is 

important for government to be part of, along with the States, 

along with commercial payers and purchasers, changing the context in terms of how the market operates. 

We are not suggesting that we need more incentives akin to the 

health IT incentive program—paying people per transaction to create a business case for information exchange. It is more creating 

the context. 

16 

The readmission adjustments have had a market effect on hospitals’ interests in coordinating care once they discharge their patients. They just have. We see that every day. The vendors now are 

much more interested in having interoperability because their customers are saying to them, the market is working. 

Their customers are saying to them, when I discharge a patient 

to a nursing home, I want that nursing home to be able to get this 

information electronically. I want the primary care provider to get 

the discharge summary. If someone shows up in another emergency 

room, I want to hear about it, because I do not want them readmitted. That is what we mean by creating the business case for 

information exchange. It is really the business case for care coordination, which is what this committee is taking such important 

steps on. 

In terms of the Stark law and the anti-kickback statute, we 

worked with CMS and the Department of Justice on a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking on that, and I will let Dr. Conway speak to 

that. But it was clearly one of the policy issues that we could use 

as a lever to make sure that if information systems and software 

are donated, that we also get the expectation out of them that they 

will not be used to lock in patient data to a given institution. 

Dr. CONWAY. So, as Dr. Mostashari said, we have proposed a regulatory change that we think addresses some of those issues. Obviously, there are additional statutory changes you or other Senators 

are interested in. We would work with you on that. Just to amplify 

what Farzad said about the incentive structure, I have worked in 

delivery systems that migrated their contract models away from 

fee-for-service to accountable care models, and it does shift your incentives in a private market setting to incentivize sharing of information and coordination of care. 

So, whether it is a readmissions program or new payment models, our goal is to incentivize those models that enable providers in 

the private market to achieve better health outcomes at lower cost. 

Senator THUNE. I want to come back to something that Chairman Baucus talked about earlier. I am concerned about the digital 

divide that may only get larger as rural hospitals are expected to 

take a leap into the more rigorous requirements of Stage 2. They 

have already expressed grave concerns about Stage 2. 

I am of the view that ONC and CMS ought to develop a way for 

rural hospitals to have more time to achieve Stage 2, while allowing the more advanced health care systems and providers to move 

on to Stage 3 if they are ready. So the question would be, will you 

commit to giving rural providers more time to achieve Stage 2? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. We meet with the rural providers, and we hear 

from them. Marty Fattig, whom you will hear from next week, is 

on our advisory group, and we have been, I think, quite open to 

dialogue with the rural community in terms of how we can help 

them achieve success and not necessarily accept that they are 

going to be further behind. 

I think the Regional Extension Centers have helped now. We set 

a goal of getting a thousand critical access hospitals to meaningful 

use by the end of 2014. We are going to revise that goal to get a 

thousand critical access hospitals to meaningful use by the end of 

this year. 

17 

We think that we are making good progress with those hospitals 

through the technical assistance and through the coordination that 

is possible, so we are open to dialogue. But I would much rather 

see the rural hospitals be able to keep up rather than acknowledge 

that they are going to fall behind. 

Senator THUNE. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you, Senator, very much. 

Senator Casey? 

Senator CASEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Dr. Mostashari and Dr. Conway, thank you for your testimony 

and your public service. When medical doctors and people with 

your education and experience are dedicating their time to helping 

all of us with regard to health care in the Federal Government, implementing the Affordable Care Act and all the work that you do, 

that is of great significance, so we are appreciative of your work. 

I wanted to try to explore maybe two issues, but the principal 

focus that I will have in my questions will be with regard to children and pediatrics. Dr. Conway, you have spent a lot of years laboring in the vineyards of children’s hospitals and working with 

kids, I know both in Cincinnati and in Philadelphia. How many 

years, one versus the other? 

Dr. CONWAY. Approximately 21⁄2 years in Philadelphia and 5 

total in Cincinnati. 

Senator CASEY. We want you to increase that Pennsylvania number. [Laughter.] 

Dr. CONWAY. I am sorry; I will work on that. 

Senator CASEY. I wanted to ask you in particular, when you focus 

on where we hope we are in Stage 3, when you are measuring quality more than you are in the earlier stages, tell us a little bit about 

how you measure quality, but in particular how you measure it as 

it relates to children. 

Because, as you know, as you have, I am sure, said and the advocates tell us all the time, children are not small adults, so how you 

measure for adults will differ from children. But tell us about that, 

how you are beginning to implement it and how you hope it works 

in Stage 3. 

Dr. CONWAY. Thank you for the question, Senator Casey. There 

are a couple of ways we are trying to address that issue, and it is 

a critical issue, as you mentioned. One, especially for Stage 2, we 

actually ensured that we had sufficient measures covering pediatric 

care so that, if you are a pediatric provider, you can report on 

measures relevant to your practice. 

Two, we had had the concept of an adult-recommended core set 

of quality measures previously. We actually also did a recommended set of pediatric core measures to report on. Also, working 

with our colleagues at the Agency for Healthcare Research and 

Quality and Medicaid, we have worked on initiatives related to 

standardized electronic health records, working with vendors to 

make sure that there are electronic health records that meet the 

pediatric population needs. 

In addition, through the CHIPRA funding, the Children’s Health 

Insurance Program reauthorization, as you know, there was funding for pediatric measurement development. We are working with 

our colleagues on developing measures that I think will be the next 

18 

generation of pediatric measures, everything from safety measures 

to care coordination to dental health, a wide spectrum of pediatric 

measures that will really put us in a much better place to make 

sure we are ensuring that we are measuring quality robustly for 

pediatric patients. 

Senator CASEY. Dr. Mostashari, would you like to add anything 

on this in terms of your work? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. I would just agree with Patrick that there has 

been a lot of work to move measurement from many of the process 

measures, of which we have lots, to more outcome-based measures, 

measures that are more parsimonious, more broad-based, and more 

designed from the ground up to be used with electronic health 

records, instead of re-tooling measures that are meant for chart reviews, for which the data elements can often not be found or only 

found with difficulty with an electronic health record. 

There was a recent article published last week out of Kaiser that 

found that they reduced the cost of chart review for quality measures by half. They cut it in half based on being able to extract information from the electronic health record. But it is still not good 

enough. 

There are still too many quality measures that are re-tooled, that 

require elements that just do not make sense within the electronic 

health record context, and we are working in close collaboration 

with CMS to build new measures from the ground up that actually 

matter and that work. 

Senator CASEY. And also, with regard to children, the development of databases, both regional and national—can you tell us 

about that? 

Dr. CONWAY. I will start, and Dr. Mostashari may add on. I think 

we are working with our Medicaid office, for example, on the 

CHIPRA quality measures, working with States on quality reporting. In terms of database development, we are actually working 

across the Federal Government, from the National Institutes of 

Health to the Administrative Resource Center to others, on what 

would be the infrastructure to collect data to inform care for children. 

I currently care for mainly children in the hospital with multiple 

chronic conditions who are hospitalized, and that is a population 

where we often do not have the data and the evidence necessary 

to guide their care as best we can. Prior to coming to the Federal 

Government, I was part of an effort that actually linked children’s 

hospitals on an electronic platform, both for improving care quality 

and also research to inform that next stage of care delivery. 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. One thing I will add is that the pediatric community has actually been great at working together in collaboratives, whether it is around cancer or cystic fibrosis, and is a real 

model. If you look at the improvements in the death rates from 

childhood cancers and the number of children who end up in clinical trials, it is really a model for what we hope to be able to do 

for adults. 

It is one of the goals, I think: not having a single centralized 

database of patient information, but rather having networks of organizations and institutions that can collaborate together. We are 

working on the standards for that to be able to share that informaVerDate Nov 24 2008 20:48 May 28, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\87789.000 TIMD
19 

tion, and working with the Patient Centered Outcomes Research 

Institute to create that data infrastructure for distributed research 

as opposed to combining information in one database. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Enzi, you are next. 

Senator ENZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having 

this hearing. I am also pleased that next week we are going to 

have one with the private technology industry so that we can learn 

more about their involvement, as well as Federal impediments. I 

think that will be very helpful. 

Dr. Mostashari, I have heard concerns from the Wyoming Health 

Information Exchange that the requirements for data exchange in 

Stage 2 of the meaningful use program represent a step backwards 

for the program. In particular, representatives from the health information exchange have informed me that the secure data exchange requirements are limited to e-mails and text messages, 

when their system has a much more advanced capability already. 

Can you tell me how ONC is coordinating with States like Wyoming to ensure that the meaningful use program is not hindering 

State progress in deploying HIT? What is being done to ensure that 

these innovative approaches are not hamstrung by current Federal 

rules? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. Absolutely. We are working very closely with 

all of our grantees on the State health information exchange 

grants. We have health IT coordinators in every State funded 

through the program and designed by the Governors to coordinate 

with their local needs, their local resources. 

The different models in different States are different. What happens in Texas and the approach taken there is different from the 

approach taken in Maryland. We do work with them to make sure 

that the plans that they have are in alignment with the national 

standards and have a path to sustainability. 

Senator ENZI. Are you currently just doing the e-mails and the 

text messages? What about the other advanced capability? That is 

the main part of the question. 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. Sure. No, sir. The requirements, both for meaningful use, the certification of electronic health records, and for the 

health information exchanges, are not limited. They are a floor, not 

a ceiling. We are supporting the States in development of more 

complex, more comprehensive query systems, even as we are also 

supporting the more directed messaging, which, to clarify, is not 

text or PDF, it is actually exchange of structured, codified electronic information through direct messaging. 

Let me give you an example of a rural provider in Wyoming who 

has an independent practice in a small town. 

Senator ENZI. That would be Dr. Gee. I talk to him all the time, 

so you do not need to answer any questions in regard to that. He 

is my authority. 

Dr. Conway, a recent news article noted that more than 10,000 

providers who participated in 2011 did not do so in 2012. Does this 

trouble you, as these providers are subject to penalties if they do 

not meet the Medicare meaningful use requirements year-on-year? 

What will you do to simplify the program, and were these providers 

20 

more rural or urban providers, or located in a particular type of 

practice or area of the country? Who is it who dropped out? 

Dr. CONWAY. So it is important to note that it was a relatively 

small percentage who dropped out of the program. However, it is 

an important question to look into the reason for it, so we have 

started. 

Senator ENZI. Ten thousand is a small number? 

Dr. CONWAY. What I mean by that is, if you think of the 300,000 

participating providers, 10,000 is a significant number that we did 

look into. I just mean, as a percentage basis, it is a small percentage. We did, though, investigate this and look into the reasons. It 

was a mix of factors: people who were retiring, often people who 

were switching practices to a new or a different practice setting. 

For some, there was education outreach. They did not realize you 

needed to come back in every year, so now we are doing some reeducation and outreach, working with physicians and especially societies to make sure people understand it is an annual update program. So there were a host of other reasons—they wanted to switch 

vendors, for example. So there were a host of reasons. In terms of 

the program burden, we always look to find the right balance of 

moving the program forward but minimizing burden and eliminating unnecessary burden on providers. 

Senator ENZI. Thank you. Because we have to work with these 

people one-on-one, even though it is 10,000. 

Dr. CONWAY. Yes, sir. 

Senator ENZI. And it is a small percentage, but each one of them 

has a major concern. 

I have another question, I think along those lines. CMS stated 

it is increasingly incorporating the electronic quality measurements 

into payment systems. How are you going to assure providers that 

their performance is being fairly and accurately represented in the 

data submitted to CMS as part of that meaningful use program? 

What is your time line and plan for improving the integration of 

the quality measurement, especially the outcomes-based measurement, into the electronic health records? 

Dr. CONWAY. Thank you for that question. We are aligning measurement programs. As I mentioned briefly, we have proposed, for 

this year’s physician fee schedule rule, to enable providers to report 

once and receive credit for all applicable reporting programs: the 

EHR incentive program, PQRS, physician value-based modifier, 

and, if they are an ACO, the ACO program. 

In terms of the validity and the reliability of the measures, we 

also work with the Office of the National Coordinator on certification criteria to attempt to ensure that electronic health records 

are capturing and reporting the data reliably. 

Also, for Stage 2 we are enabling data intermediaries, enabling 

a private market for data intermediaries, to serve both for frequent 

feedback to clinicians and for standardized reporting to CMS, and, 

similar to what we have done in the hospital program, our goal is 

to provide feedback to providers and to ensure that we have valid 

and reliable electronic clinical quality measures. 

Senator ENZI. I have to talk to my doctors to see if they can understand what you just said, because I had a little difficulty with 

21 

it. I will have more specific questions on all those acronyms that 

you mentioned. My time has expired; I apologize. 

The CHAIRMAN. No problem, Senator. 

Senator Stabenow? 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This 

is a very important hearing. Let me just start by saying we have 

given you a massive task. When I think about where we started 

a few years ago with a number of us working on this for a long 

time and talking about going from a paper-based system to a digital, electronically based system, it is just amazing. So I know there 

is a lot of work to do. 

I have a lot of concerns about specifics, but I just want to say 

in the beginning that we should at first recognize the fact that 50 

percent of eligible providers, 80 percent of eligible hospitals, have 

gotten incentives to move to electronic health records, and, overall, 

adoption has more than doubled for physicians and quadrupled for 

hospitals. 

So we have done a lot of important work, I think, together on the 

committee, as a Congress, working with all of you. The fact that 

participating provider practices have increased from 45 percent to 

80 percent from 2008 to 2012, in terms of electronic health records, 

is very significant. We need to get it done, and we need to get it 

done right. As the chairman said, I do not know anyone who does 

not think this is absolutely necessary to do. 

Given that, let me associate myself with Senator Hatch, who 

asked about health IT and quality measures, and just reiterate 

that. Dr. Mostashari, we are in a situation where I know that you 

are focused on streamlining measures, and we have all kinds of examples. I have hospitals in some cases reporting the same information twice in two different formats. We have to address that if this 

is going to be successful. 

Let me talk about vendors and interoperability. I know that Senator Wyden and our chairman have expressed interest and asked 

you to respond for the record, but I would like to ask you to just 

talk about it for a moment, because I am hearing a lot of frustrations from hospitals and physicians. 

They are purchasing systems that are unable to communicate 

with other systems. There is not enough information exchange infrastructure. The costs of products are overwhelming. In some 

cases, they are being sold products that are not interoperable and 

told, if they want them to be interoperable, it is going to cost them 

more money. 

So what are we going to do about this? I mean, we see situations 

where some vendors form contracts that block the exchange of information. Certainly the vendors are very important, but this 

seems like it is a real problem, so I am wondering, Dr. Mostashari, 

if you would speak to that. 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. Yes. Absolutely. There needs to be action on 

multiple fronts. We need to exert the regulatory levers judiciously, 

to not take too heavy of a hand, but not rely entirely on the invisible hand either. So, in our certification program, for example, we 

have required transparency from the vendors in terms of their pricing. 

22 

If a module is going to cost you extra, in addition, you need to 

be transparent about that with the customers. You have to be 

transparent about how you passed the certification test. We still 

hear providers saying, I do not understand how this product got 

certified. We indeed have pulled the certification for a vendor who 

did not respond to repeated questions about whether they in fact 

were doing what they were supposed to be doing. We also have requirements around user-centered design so that, particularly 

around safety issues, they meet those needs. 

Senator STABENOW. I was just going to jump in and ask, do you 

think you have enough authority from a regulatory standpoint—— 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. Yes. 

Senator STABENOW [continuing]. Or do we need to change the 

law? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. No. No. We have authority from a regulatory 

standpoint. The question is, the judicious exercise of that authority. 

We also need the market, the invisible hand, to work too. The customers need to be demanding and tough customers, and they need 

to ask for interoperability. We have regional extension centers 

helping the smallest practices with better vendor contracts, better 

negotiations, and so forth. 

But in between the market competition and regulation there is 

something else, and that is kind of professional business norms and 

the social norms among the vendors. We have asked them to step 

up on that, and, in fact, the vendor association did just recently 

come out with a code of conduct, which I was very glad to see, 

where the vendor is saying there is actually a code of good conduct 

for electronic health record vendors that includes things like not 

blocking information. So I do think we are making progress on 

that. We need to continue to be vigilant. 

Senator STABENOW. Let me just say, as my time is up, that also 

related to interoperability, of course, particularly in rural areas, is 

tele-health, which has such an important impact. We have a lot of 

leaders in Michigan, in what we call the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Marquette General Hospital has received a lot of recognition 

for what they are doing. So I hope that we are using what we are 

doing in terms of leveraging tele-health with the interoperability 

standards that we are putting together. Particularly for rural 

areas, that is very, very important. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. Thank you very much. 

Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I am 

riding drag on this posse. I want to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Enzi and the distinguished chairman and ranking member. Senator Stabenow pretty well summed it up with regards to the word getting out to all of our rural health care providers, and for that matter any health care provider. Who are you 

meeting with this Friday, or a week from Friday, in terms of the 

rural providers? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. We actually meet weekly. Our staff meets 

weekly with—— 

Senator ROBERTS. Who are these folks? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. It is the National Rural Healthcare Association. 

23 

Senator ROBERTS. All right. 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. It is critical access hospitals, it is—— 

Senator ROBERTS. How many of them are there? Five, 10, 20? 

What? Three? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. I am sorry? 

Senator ROBERTS. How many are there? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. Oh, I would have to get back to you on that. 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, my concern is, I do not think we are getting the word west of Highway 81 in Kansas, or for that matter, 

what was it, Ten Sleep in Wyoming? That is 250 people. They have 

to go 40 miles to even see a doctor. 

But I am worried about these folks, because it is a lot like Paul 

Harvey used to be with Page 1 and Page 2. You know, Page 1, and 

I will be back in just a minute. Well, you have Phase 1 and Phase 

2. If we could just pause and make sure that most of the rural providers know what is going on, because I get two sides of the story. 

I talked with the folks in Topeka, our capital. They say everything 

is going as best as it possibly can. I get a lot of calls from providers 

saying this is the proverbial wet horse blanket. 

Let me just ask a specific question. Well, my suggestion would 

be to take this show on the road, to go out to places. I would recommend probably Hays, KS, or Dodge City, KS. That is my hometown. I am not sure I would recommend wearing the bow tie in 

Dodge City, KS. But at any rate, we will let you do that. It would 

be easy. I could say, I cannot answer that question; ask the guy 

with the bow tie. I am not trying to pick on you here. [Laughter.] 

But if you could go out and sort of take this, what, digital show 

on the road, I think that might be helpful, or maybe have these 

folks come in. That might be a better thing, because I know you 

are extremely busy. By the way, thank you for coming by and visiting with me. 

You have stated that providers will also be required to communicate with patients through secure messaging, like encrypted 

e-mail, and make patients’ health record information available to 

them electronically. Now, we have not seen any details on this, and 

this is probably premature, but how will this work for patients in 

physicians’ offices who do not have sophisticated access to a computer or the Internet? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. So, Senator Roberts, I did find the numbers for 

you. We are working, through our Regional Extension Centers that 

are in the field, modeled after the agricultural extension program, 

with 23,650 rural primary care providers and 1,025 critical access 

hospitals, boots on the ground, helping them understand what the 

program is about and to be successful at the transition. 

Senator ROBERTS. Now, I have 83 of those critical access hospitals in my State. I am not sure. You are saying you have been 

out there to visit with these folks? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. Not me personally, but we have—— 

Senator ROBERTS. Well, not you. I understand that. 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. We have funded the Regional Extension Center 

in Kansas to work with them, and they are working with 207 providers who are working in critical access hospitals in Kansas. 

Senator ROBERTS. I appreciate that. Thank you. 

24 

I want to go to a more specific question. I am running out of time 

here, so I will try to be brief. I have heard a lot from providers, 

more specifically, a radiologist, a pathologist, an anesthesiologist, 

that they fall subject to penalties for not participating in the requirements of an office-based program where they would simply be 

collecting data to report to the government to avoid a penalty. 

Do we have any plans to improve the flexibility for these specialists? It seems a little ridiculous to me that, if we are just going to 

collect data that they would not otherwise gather in their practice, 

that would not be necessary. 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. Yes, Senator. That is feedback that we heard 

from Stage 1 of meaningful use. Many of those specialists were 

originally classified as hospital-based providers, and there was a 

legislative change to include them as eligible professionals, which 

meant that they would be potentially eligible for the penalties as 

well. But we are now hearing about the difficulties they may face 

as users of the hospital-based system in meeting some of those requirements. 

So we have, in Stage 2, in the final rule that CMS promulgated, 

provided for the opportunity for exceptions for hospitalists like anesthesiologists, pathologists, and radiologists, whose systems are 

the hospital systems that they use. 

Senator ROBERTS. What is the length of the comment period on 

the final rule? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. I can get back to you. I think it is 60 days. 

Senator ROBERTS. This is not an interim final rule where you 

have 30 days and then, bingo, you are—— 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. We had a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and 

we received, I think, a few thousand comments on that, and we did 

a final rule after 60 days of comment. 

Senator ROBERTS. Is there any comment period after the final 

rule? I mean, is final final? 

Dr. CONWAY. Once it is finalized, the rule is final. We always 

welcome comment to inform future stages of rulemaking, if there 

are any adjustments that we can make on a subregulatory basis. 

This is an important community that we are trying to work with 

to make sure the program works for them. 

Senator ROBERTS. I appreciate that. Thank you for your answer, 

and thank you for coming. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Gentlemen, as you know, we are having another hearing with 

vendors and others. What will they tell us; what will their complaints be? What will their concerns be, and what is your response? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. I think you are going to hear different things, 

Senator, depending on whom you ask. There will be some who will 

say that we are not moving fast enough, not moving hard enough. 

There are others who will say it is too fast and the standards are 

too rigorous. 

The CHAIRMAN. So what category is going to say ‘‘not fast 

enough,’’ and what is the category that is going to say ‘‘too fast’’? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. Making broad generalizations in terms of the 

comments that we received from the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the consumer community believes and has written to us 

25 

about needing to keep up the pressure, with purchasers and payers 

included in that group. 

Some of the smaller, more nimble software companies feel that 

this is not that difficult to step up to the next stage of certification. 

On the other hand, the bulk of the larger vendors and some of 

those who have to deal with hundreds or thousands of separate—— 

The CHAIRMAN. So what is going to be the most legitimate complaint? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. Well, they are all legitimate, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. I said ‘‘most legitimate.’’ 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. I think one of the lessons that we have learned, 

and one of the ways in which we need to continue to evolve the program, continue to make forward progress on the program, is going 

to be moving more towards outcomes, not just in our quality measures but also in the program, and aligning the program ever more 

tightly with the needs of delivery reform and payment reform. 

So our goal is for this health IT to be truly a foundation for your 

work, to be able to create a higher quality, safer, more costeffective health care system. The greater the alignment we can 

bring between the health IT and the payment and delivery reforms, 

the more successful both will be. 

Dr. CONWAY. If I might build on that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. Go ahead. 

Dr. CONWAY. You named one of the groups earlier that I think 

about a lot—and we need to make sure we address the issue sufficiently—and that is rural providers, small practice, small-town providers. By way of context, I grew up in a small town in Texas with 

a solo practitioner family medicine doctor. Many of my family are 

in small practices across the Midwest, including my sister, who is 

a solo practitioner specialist in the Midwest. 

Farzad mentioned a lot of the Regional Extension Center work 

that we are doing that is terrific, but I think we need to continue 

that work, and we need to make sure that the program meets the 

needs of the rural and small practice providers. We also need to 

think about what support looks like in future years beyond the Regional Extension Centers. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that. But boy, I urge you to get out. 

That is, out of your offices and get out to rural America and see 

it, smell it, and taste it, and know what it is. It is one thing to conceptualize it; it is something else to experience it. I mentioned to 

you, Dr. Mostashari, I do not know, but I sense you are a Philadelphia guy, or now you are an eastern guy, a big city guy, and there 

is a huge difference. 

Eighty percent of life is showing up, just getting out there, just 

being there and seeing it. Get out from behind your desk. It is well 

worth it. You are going to make fewer mistakes with respect to 

rural providers if you get out and see what they experience. 

Montana, for example. Let me put it this way. I forgot what the 

new data are, but the population density, I think, in New Jersey, 

is over 1,000 people per square mile. In Montana, it is about six. 

There are just huge distances. It is very small operations. You 

mentioned it, that somebody who is doing IT is also the person who 

is maybe the janitor, or might be doing something else. So, just get 

out there, talk to them, feel them, taste them. 

26 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. With the bow tie. [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. With the bow tie. I do not care. With or without, 

it makes no difference. Just ask the right questions, because people 

will want to work with you. 

Dr. CONWAY. I will come to Montana anytime. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want you both to go to Montana. I brought Bill 

Roper out when he was CMS Administrator a few years ago. Unfortunately, it was during a blizzard. He flew into a small town, 

Lewistown, MT. As we were flying out, he was literally whiteknuckled. He was scared to death. It worked. We got a little bumpup in reimbursement, I suppose. [Laughter.] 

He saw what we are going through. 

My time has expired. Senator Thune, go ahead. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

When you go to Montana, I think the bow tie is all right as long 

as you are wearing cowboy boots. That will be the ultimate equalizer. 

Without beating this to death—and we have covered it a lot—I 

understand the aspiration you have to have all the rural providers 

being able to participate in this and to move along at the same rate 

as some of those in more urban areas, but as a practical matter, 

that is just probably an unrealistic thing to hope for. So I guess the 

only thing I would say is, I think we need to really carefully balance accommodating those rural needs, while not holding back 

those who are ready for a more advanced data exchange. 

So I guess the only thing I would say in response to your earlier 

response, when I asked the question about whether or not you 

could give rural providers more time, is that you really should take 

a realistic approach to accommodating those needs, because I 

think, just practically speaking, the area that the chairman represents and the area that I represent are very remote, very rural, 

and these things are just, practically speaking, going to take a little bit more time. 

Stage 1 of the meaningful use required no actual cross-platform 

exchange of information. Stage 2 requires one instance of information sharing, and that can be with a dummy server set up by the 

government. In 2013, how is it possible to meaningfully use information technology without actually sharing information outside of 

a proprietary network? So the question really is, has the bar really 

not been set too low for those who are ready for an advanced level 

of exchange? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. We do have, I think—again, listening to the 

community and everybody who is affected by this, including some 

rural providers who said that they do not have means of exchanging information, I think the challenge that you raised is exactly 

right. How do we not hold back those who want to be the trailblazers and yet make accommodations for the diversity that we 

have in our country? 

The other observation that we have had with setting thresholds, 

Senator, is, we fight a lot and have a lot of discussions about what 

the threshold should be, and what we actually find is that, when 

the data comes in, when the providers actually do the workflow 

changes, they do not just do it for 10 percent or 20 percent or 30 

percent of their patients. They do it consistently. 

27 

There was just a paper published this week that found that, 

whatever the threshold was, the actual median level of accomplishment on the part of hospitals was between 92 and 100 percent of 

the threshold. So for me, one of the lessons has been to focus a little bit less on fighting over the threshold and to just get folks to 

begin making that transition. 

I think the menu items, the menu optional approach, was one 

way that we allowed for people in Stage 1 who were ahead to get 

credit for information exchange use, and for Stage 2 we said, now 

everybody has to be able to do it. So I would love to continue to 

work with you and with the committee on how we can continue to 

keep the pressure on interoperability and care coordination while 

accommodating the diversity we have in our country. 

Senator THUNE. The Stage 3 rules have not been written. I am 

wondering how we achieve those goals that you have laid out between now and the end of Stage 3 in a reasonable way. I am also 

wondering what your plans are for after Stage 3. Are you planning 

future stages? If so, what do those stages look like? 

Dr. CONWAY. Maybe I will start, and then Dr. Mostashari can 

build on. We plan to write the Stage 3 rule in 2014. To the previous question on interoperability, we put out a Request for Information on how we push interoperability forward, so we are taking 

that input in, both for Stage 3 rulemaking and for any other 

changes outside of meaningful use rulemaking. So we plan to propose Stage 3 in 2014. 

Senator THUNE. Go ahead. 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. In terms of the road map for meaningful use, 

I think I was just visiting Virginia Commonwealth University last 

week with Patrick and Jon Blum. Their journey is very similar, I 

think, to what many other providers are facing, where their first 

priority was making sure that within their practice, within their 

hospitals, all across their different sites and specialties, they can 

share the information and the information is available when they 

need it. That is kind of Stage 1, and that was their first priority 

the first few years of their journey. 

The next priority for them was, now how do we reach out to our 

affiliated providers that we work closely with all the time? How do 

we make sure those referrals get to them, get back and forth, the 

laboratory results are getting where they need to go, the EKG results are going where they need to go? That is Stage 2, and much 

of what we have in place will support that sort of local coordination 

of care: planned care referral exchange, laboratory exchange, public 

health exchange, pharmacy exchange, the network of providers 

that are within your local community that you exchange information with. 

For Stage 3, and where they are not quite there yet is, how do 

I allow someone else to query my system? There are lots of concerns that providers have before allowing that to happen. They are 

technical issues, but they are also issues of, how do I know that 

you are authorized to do this query? How do I know that you are 

going to get the right patient? What if I release information on the 

wrong patient? How do I know to trust you? 

I think, if we look at the road map for where we are going in 

interoperability, the goal is always the same. The goal is that paVerDate Nov 24 2008 20:48 May 28, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\87789.000 TIMD
28 

tient information is available when and where it is needed, but the 

staged approach accounts for the realities of where we are and 

where individual providers will be in their progression: first, let me 

get my own house in order; next, let me exchange information with 

those I talk to all the time in my local community; and then the 

next stage will be enabling what we all hope for, that, wherever we 

are, if we have a problem, our information can be accessed. 

I will say that the other thing that Stage 2 permits is this: Stage 

2 permits every patient, every family member, every caregiver who 

chooses to accept more responsibility and be empowered with their 

own information, to get their own information and share it with 

whomever they want to share it with. I believe this is going to be 

a major step forward, if health care providers also embrace that relationship, that new relationship, with the patient. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, gentlemen. 

The CHAIRMAN. What happens when someone tries to access 

John Smith’s record but there are a million John Smiths? How do 

you handle that? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. That is one of the barriers toward enabling the 

sort of exchange that we hope to see. I was at Metro Health in 

Cleveland, and I saw a patient sitting next to a doctor who said, 

I got my care at Cleveland Clinic. 

They went and they queried Cleveland Clinic, and they got the 

patient’s records back, because it was not a query to the world asking, does anyone have information on the patient? The patient told 

them his records were at Cleveland Clinic. So they only asked 

Cleveland Clinic, and the universe of potential wrong matches is 

dramatically lower if you know who you are asking and they know 

whom you are responding to. 

The CHAIRMAN. And if you do not? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. If you do not, it is much more challenging. 

The CHAIRMAN. So what is the solution? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. We are going to continue to work on finding 

ways to improve the quality of patient matching, improve the data 

quality that is used to do that matching, and have guidance on 

what constitutes an adequate match and what are, frankly, the liability issues and protections in the case of incorrect matches. 

The CHAIRMAN. So how do you build in trust? You mentioned 

some providers may not want to divulge information. They do not 

know if they can trust the person making the query. 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. Correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. How do you develop trust? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. So trust builds up, I think, over time in the 

people whom you work with, in sharing care for patients. That is 

first-name-basis trust. But we can also create institutional supports for that trust. 

So one of the things that we are funding and working with are 

governance entities that can say, let us all agree to a common set 

of rules of the road in terms of how to treat patient information, 

how we authenticate the users, whether we get patient consent and 

how. Having different organizations that follow the same rules of 

29 

the road can increase that trust, but it is no substitute for actual 

experience. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I am not nearly sufficiently technical to 

know how to ask the next question, but it is basically, what is the 

goal here? Is the goal here that all patients, all providers, will be 

able to access records? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. It is a staged approach, and our goal after 

Stage 2—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Is that the goal? Is that the end goal here? 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. The end goal is that every patient care setting 

makes use of all the world’s knowledge in taking care of that patient, and that that patient encounter then contributes to the 

world’s knowledge. That is the end goal. How we get there is going 

to be an interactive process. 

It is going to take time to get there. But we should start with 

just making sure that patient information is available within a 

practice, within a hospital, within an ACO, within a community, 

and work towards resolving the significant technical and policy 

barriers to the ultimate solution. 

Dr. CONWAY. Sorry. May I—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. Sure. 

Dr. CONWAY. So, to try to build on that and sort of drill down 

to specifics, I think our health system’s end goal is better health, 

better care, and lower cost. Underneath that I think you have 

measures of health care and cost. Underneath that, I think health 

IT is a foundational building block, but it is hard to get there without health IT. If you are my boss, Administrator Tavenner or Secretary Sebelius, I think our focus, as Farzad knows and is a key 

part of, is a focus on how we improve health outcomes for all Americans. 

The CHAIRMAN. How can all this be gamed? There are a lot of 

nefarious people out there. Most are good people, but there are a 

few who are not. So, if you are a bad guy, put yourself in the shoes 

of somebody who wants to game this thing, make money he or she 

should not make off the system. How do you do it? How are you 

protecting against it? 

Dr. CONWAY. I think we at CMS are always concerned about the 

potential for gaming or improper payments. Let me tell you what 

we are doing to date on that. One, based on feedback we got on the 

program, we have now instituted, not just pre-verification but also 

pre-payment audits, especially when there is abnormal data and 

random audits. So, pre-payment audits will try to ensure that we 

are not improperly paying. 

We also have post-payment audits to focus on and try to eliminate any improper payments or gaming of the system. As you move 

to submitting data, we also will have actual data to analyze coming 

in in 2014, which will increase our ability to detect fraud and gaming of the system. 

The CHAIRMAN. What about hackers? When you are building this 

up, I assume you design systems that tend to prevent or minimize 

hacking. 

Dr. MOSTASHARI. The HITECH legislation gives eight responsibilities to the National Coordinator. The first one is to protect the priVerDate Nov 24 2008 20:48 May 28, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\87789.000 TIMD
30 

vacy and security of the health information infrastructure, and it 

is one that I take very seriously. 

The HITECH legislation also created the Chief Privacy Officer 

for ONC, Joy Pritts, who makes sure that we bake privacy and security into everything we do, and we coordinate with the Office of 

Civil Rights, which has undertaken a much more aggressive measurement of audits and enforcement, as well as education for providers. It is a shared responsibility. 

One of the biggest security problems we have is health care providers, small and large, not paying enough attention to the security 

in the local setting: whether they encrypt the laptop, whether they 

put things on a thumb drive, whether they put passwords on a 

sticky note, whether they lock the server room. So it starts there, 

and patients need to be able to trust their providers to keep their 

information secure. You do not need to have a hacker get in if you 

can just steal a laptop from a car and have all those breaches. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. But a day does not go by these days where 

you do not see some new article about some hacking somewhere. 

There was an article in one of today’s papers about hacking in the 

university systems. I know you are doing your best, but I would 

just urge you to think really carefully. 

You are doing a good job, both of you. Clearly you are working 

as hard as you can; clearly you are very competent and have your 

hearts in the right place. We want to help. So, thank you very 

much for your service. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the hearing was concluded.] 

(31) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD


87789001.eps
32 


87789.002
33 


87789.003
34 


87789.004
35 


87789.005
36 


87789.006
37 


87789.007
38 


87789.008
39 


87789.009
40 


87789.010
41 


87789.011
42 


87789.012
43 


87789.013
44 


87789.014
45 


87789.015
46 


87789.016
47 


87789.017
48 


87789.018
49 


87789.019
50 


87789.020
51 


87789.021
52 


87789.022
53 


87789.023
54 


87789.024
55 


87789.025
56 


87789.026
57 


87789.027
58 


87789.028
59 


87789.029
60 


87789.030
61 


87789.031
62 


87789.032
63 


87789.033
64 


87789.034
65 


87789.035
66 


87789.036
67 


87789.037
68 


87789.038
69 


87789.039
70 


87789.040
71 


87789.041
72 


87789.042
73 


87789.043
74 


87789.044
75 


87789.045
76 


87789.046
77 


87789.047
78 


87789.048
79 


87789.049
80 


87789.050
81 


87789.051
82 


87789.052
83 


87789.053
84 


87789.054
85 


87789.055
86 


87789.056
87 


87789.057
88 


87789.058
89 


87789.059
90 


87789.060
91 


87789.061
92 


87789.062
93 


87789.063
94 


87789.064
95 


87789.065
96 


87789.066
97 


87789.067
98 


87789.068
99 


87789.069
100 


87789.070
101 


87789.071
102 


87789.072
103 


87789.073
104 


87789.074
105 


87789.075
106 


87789.076
107 


87789.077
(109) 

COMMUNICATIONS


87789078.eps
110 


87789.079
111 


87789.080
112 


87789.081
113 


87789.082
114 


87789.083
115 


87789.084
116 


87789.085
117 


87789.086
118 


87789.087
119 


87789.088
120 


87789.089
121 


87789.090
122 


87789.091
123 

Æ 


87789092.eps