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

88–063—PDF 2013

S. HRG. 113–290 

HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: 

USING IT TO IMPROVE CARE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 24, 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 ................................................. 3 

WITNESSES 

Marchibroda, Janet M., director, Health Innovation Initiative, Bipartisan Policy Center, Washington, DC ................................................................................ 4 

Glaser, John P., Ph.D., chief executive officer, health services, Siemens 

Healthcare, Malvern, PA ..................................................................................... 6 

Fattig, Marty, administrator and chief executive officer, Nemaha County Hospital, Auburn, NE ................................................................................................ 9 

Banas, Colin, M.D., M.S.H.A., chief medical information officer and associate 

professor, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA ....................... 11 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL 

Banas, Colin, M.D., M.S.H.A.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Baucus, Hon. Max: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Fattig, Marty: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

Glaser, John P., Ph.D.: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G.: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56 

Marchibroda, Janet M.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58 

COMMUNICATIONS

American Hospital Association ............................................................................... 83 

College of Healthcare Information Management Executives (CHIME) .............. 93 

Food Marketing Institute (FMI) ............................................................................. 96 

InterSystems Corporation ....................................................................................... 104 

National Partnership for Women and Families .................................................... 107 

Pierluisi, Hon. Pedro R. ........................................................................................... 110 

Puerto Rico Hospital Association ........................................................................... 112 

Secure ID Coalition ................................................................................................. 117 

(III) 

(1) 

HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: 

USING IT TO IMPROVE CARE 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2013 

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

The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m., in 

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

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Nelson, Carper, Cardin, Casey, Hatch, Enzi, 

Thune, and Toomey. 

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

Karen Fisher, Professional Staff Member; and Peter Sokolove, Robert Wood Johnson Fellow. Republican Staff: Kristin Welsh, Health 

Policy Advisor; and Bryan Hickman, Special Counsel. 

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

FROM MONTANA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order. 

Thomas Edison said that ‘‘vision without execution is hallucination.’’ When it comes to health information technology, or health 

IT, no one knows Edison’s lesson to be true more than providers. 

Dr. Jonathan Griffin from Helena, MT summed it up best by saying, ‘‘If health care is a car, health IT is the navigation system. It 

tells you where you have been, where you are now, and where you 

need to go. It also helps prevent wrong turns and avoid road 

blocks.’’ 

We all agree that health IT is a critical instrument to improving 

health care and reducing costs. Last week, administration leaders 

shared their views and said we have made progress. Medicare and 

Medicaid financial incentives are encouraging providers to use 

health IT, but more work needs to be done. That work should be 

focused in particular on ensuring that all of the various computer 

systems seamlessly share information. 

Today we will hear from the vendors who build the technology 

and the providers who use it. No one knows better than doctors 

how important it is that technology works well. Technology can 

alert doctors to dangerous drug interactions; it can help them avoid 

duplication; and, most importantly, it can help doctors deliver the 

right care at the right time to their patients. 

Health IT has revolutionized the way Dr. Jay Erickson, a family 

practitioner in Whitefish, MT, treats patients who take bloodthinning drugs like Coumadin. These drugs prevent life-threatening blood clots, but the doctor needs to constantly monitor a paVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:25 Jun 24, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\88063.000 TIMD
2 

tient’s dose to get it right. Simple things like the amount of spinach 

a patient eats can throw off the dose. 

The dose must be high enough to prevent clots but not so high 

as to cause a stroke. Achieving the right level requires several 

blood tests a week. Before his practice starting using health IT, Dr. 

Erickson often had to wait a full day for the lab to fax the blood 

test results. 

Then he would call the pharmacy with the prescription or give 

a handwritten script to his patient. The entire process could be repeated up to a dozen times to find a stable level of medication. 

Now, thanks to IT, the lab results are sent to Dr. Erickson instantly. He can quickly send prescriptions to the pharmacy electronically, and the process is faster and it is safer. 

Dr. Erickson is glad he can use this technology, but it has required hard work and a major financial investment. He and the 

nine colleagues in his practice spent significant resources for the 

system and hired two full-time employees to maintain it. 

Under a 2009 law called the HITECH Act, Dr. Erickson received 

incentive payments from Medicare and Medicaid for his use of the 

technology, but the incentive payments do not cover his costs. His 

system still cannot talk to the hospital system, so, when one of his 

patients is hospitalized, Dr. Erickson needs to send charts and 

tests back and forth by fax. 

I have also heard from critical access hospitals that face their 

own unique challenges. They have more trouble than other hospitals getting the up-front capital necessary to install health IT. 

They cannot afford IT staff, and these small rural hospitals have 

trouble getting IT vendors to come to them. 

Hospital-based rural health clinics are also ineligible for incentive payments. Critical access hospitals manage these clinics. Rural 

health clinics are important partners, but they cannot get funding 

for installing the technology they need due to their size and location. We must correct this. 

As we discussed in last week’s hearing, just implementing technology is not the goal. Rather, technology must be used to actually 

improve health care. Vendors need to create the right software so 

that when doctors want quality reports, they get accurate results. 

If the software is not written correctly, it may not recognize drug 

allergies or dangerous interactions. 

Vendors must also create systems that talk to each other, even 

when those systems are not part of the same network. Medicare 

and Medicaid play a role. Their payment policies can help provide 

great incentives to providers to use health IT and for vendors to 

improve quality. 

So, when it comes to IT, the vision is there, but, as our witnesses 

today know, it is the execution that matters. So let us ensure that 

our health IT vision is being executed in a way that lowers costs 

and improves care for all Americans. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hatch? 

3 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing as a follow-on to last week’s IT hearing. It is a good start 

to this conversation. I think we are all better informed of the complexity of the issues involved. 

As I mentioned last week, I have heard from many providers and 

vendors, both large and small, about some of the challenges in becoming ‘‘meaningful users’’ as defined by the Office of the National 

Coordinator, or ONC. 

I am hopeful that leaders at ONC and CMS are paying attention 

to our hearing this morning and that they will consider the 

thoughtful comments made by our witnesses. All too often, Congress creates programs that, despite our good intentions, have unintended consequences for those it seeks to help. 

In this case, Congress passed a law which provided billions of 

dollars in incentive money for providers to purchase health information technology with the hope that it would help transform care, 

increase quality, and lower costs. These are all the right goals, so 

the question becomes, are the incentives well-placed and are they 

making a difference? If not, why not? 

We know that unless you provide people with compelling reasons 

to make changes, changes are not going to occur. For example, 

there has to be a compelling reason for hospitals to want to share 

information among non-affiliated providers. 

Likewise, there has to be a compelling reason for vendors to 

want to create technologies that work across various systems. It 

would seem to me that those reasons do not currently exist. If they 

did, we might not struggle with achieving interoperability. 

Now, this seems to be the elusive Holy Grail of health IT. Everyone is talking about it, and yet it always seems to be out of reach. 

I am most interested in hearing the thoughts of today’s witnesses 

about the timing of the various stages of meaningful use and the 

requirements involved. 

Let me be clear. I think we need to hold people’s feet to the fire 

so that we continue to make strides in delivering high-quality care. 

If that means making the requirements more stringent, then let us 

have that conversation. However, as I said to our witnesses last 

week, we have to give organizations enough time to acquire certified technologies and appropriately train staff to use them. 

Ignoring the question of whether providers have the ability to 

keep up will only hurt the cause. This transformation will not happen overnight, but having the right time-lines in place is nothing 

short of a necessity for success. Providers cannot afford to waste resources on systems that quickly become out of date as CMS and 

ONC change requirements over time, and vendors should be afforded very clear instructions as to what is expected as part of a 

certified system. Indeed, when we are talking about spending millions of dollars on health IT, certainty is a must. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you once again for holding this 

hearing, and I look forward to hearing from especially this panel 

of witnesses, and we will go from there. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

4 

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

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to welcome the witnesses. First is 

Janet Marchibroda, who is the director of the Health Innovation 

Initiative at the Bipartisan Policy Center. Next is John Glaser, 

chief executive officer of health services at Siemens Healthcare; 

Marty Fattig, administrator and chief executive officer of the 

Nemaha County Hospital; and Colin Banas, chief medical information officer and associate professor, Virginia Commonwealth University. 

Thank you all for coming. We really appreciate it. I know you 

spent a lot of time thinking about this hearing and you can tell us 

a lot of things that are pretty important to say, so we appreciate 

it very much. 

Your full statements will be in the record, and I urge you to summarize in about 5 minutes. 

Ms. Marchibroda? 

STATEMENT OF JANET M. MARCHIBRODA, DIRECTOR, 

HEALTH INNOVATION INITIATIVE, BIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. MARCHIBRODA. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Hatch, and members of the committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name 

is Janet Marchibroda, and I serve as the director of the Health Innovation Initiative at the Bipartisan Policy Center. Founded by 

former Senate Majority Leaders Baker, Daschle, Dole, and Mitchell, BPC is a nonprofit organization that drives principled solutions 

in a number of areas, including economic policy, energy, housing, 

immigration, and, of course, health care. 

Our Health Innovation Initiative conducts a great deal of research and engages stakeholders in promoting improvements to 

health and health care through the use of innovation and health 

IT, and my testimony draws upon about six reports we have released over the last couple of years. 

First, health IT plays a significant role in improving the quality, 

cost-effectiveness, and patient experience of care. Last year we convened a task force, led by former Senate Majority Leaders Tom 

Daschle and Bill Frist, that pulled people together and asked the 

question: what are the attributes of high performance health care, 

new models of care? Then we looked out into the field to look at 

what health IT capabilities are required and where are the gaps. 

Very quickly, I will run through those in my few minutes today. 

First, electronic health records are key. We have seen adoption 

move to more than 40 percent among physicians and hospitals, but 

there still are gaps. Small physician practices lag behind, as do 

small and rural hospitals. Also, there are many providers, such as 

long-term care facilities and behavioral health care providers, that 

do not qualify for the incentives. 

The second, and probably the most important point in my testimony is, in order to improve quality and reduce costs in health 

care, we need information to flow across the settings in which care 

and services are delivered. This is not only needed for care, but 

5 

also to calculate performance measures and to lay the foundation 

for new delivery system and payment models. 

Unfortunately, only 30 percent of hospitals and 10 percent of ambulatory practices are participating in operational exchange efforts. 

In order to achieve information sharing, two things need to happen. 

First of all, those EHR systems need to be interoperable. I am 

pleased to say, as we move from Stage 1 to Stage 2, we have moved 

from a very small five data types to being able to transition fully 

to 23, so I think we are well-positioned with Stage 2 to move forward on interoperability. 

But second, providers need to be able to and willing to share information. Unfortunately, as you mentioned, Senator, the primary 

barrier to information sharing is the lack of a business case for 

such sharing, given our primarily volume-based payment system. If 

there is one message that I can leave with you today, it is that we 

must prioritize electronic health information sharing moving forward, in terms of allocation of resources and focus of Federal agencies, as well as in the industry. We need to merge both the health 

care conversation and the health IT conversation. 

So what is the government’s role? First, do not delay the start 

of Stage 2. Second, align expectations for information sharing with 

payment, both inside and outside of meaningful use. Lead by example. Expand efforts to enable sharing of Medicare data to support 

new models of care. Assure public/private sector development of a 

long-term strategy for data and sharing that meets all health care 

priorities, not just those of meaningful use, and address the patient 

matching issue. 

The third gap area is around effectively engaging patients. The 

world is changing. Since HITECH was passed, 85 percent of Americans use the Internet and 91 percent own a cell phone. We use 

electronic tools for everything else in our country, but not so in 

health care. Fortunately, I see change coming. Stage 2 takes a 

giant step forward in enabling providers to engage with patients 

electronically. 

I will tell you, I have witnessed this firsthand. Just last month, 

my 16-year-old son had knee surgery, and we were up at Johns 

Hopkins in Baltimore. For the first time—they had just installed 

a system—we were able to see his test results online, review his 

prescribed medications, and even securely message with his physician on follow-up questions, without having to drive from Virginia 

to Baltimore to do so. 

It is not just institutions like Hopkins, but also our pediatrician’s 

office, which is in Northern Virginia—pretty small, unaffiliated 

with any large health care system—had installed within the last 

year both an EHR and a patient portal. So, much progress is being 

made with Stage 2. 

One final point as I move to close. Since HITECH was passed in 

2009, we have seen tremendous change in the health care system 

as well as the technology designed to support it. Health IT must 

evolve and change to support rapidly emerging changes in the 

health care system, so future stages of meaningful use should 

prioritize information sharing, number one, but also transition towards the achievement of outcomes, moving away from things such 

6 

as features and functions, and that will offer flexibility as we move 

ahead. 

The Federal Government should also consider carefully, from a 

regulatory standpoint, the actions it takes as it relates to the development of a regulatory framework for health IT under FDASIA, the 

Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act. We hope 

that it will be risk-based, flexible, and one which promotes, not stifles, innovation, and we have done a lot of work in this area. 

In closing, health IT is the necessary and critical foundation for 

higher quality, more cost-effective patient-centered care. We are at 

a critical juncture as we embark on the second stage of this journey, and we look forward to continuing to support your efforts as 

you consider policy in this area. 

Thank you for your leadership, and thank you for the opportunity to share my insights today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Marchibroda. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Marchibroda appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Glaser, you are next. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN P. GLASER, Ph.D., CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HEALTH SERVICES, SIEMENS HEALTHCARE, MALVERN, PA 

Dr. GLASER. Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Hatch, and distinguished members of the committee, it is an honor to testify before you today. 

As was mentioned, I am the chief executive officer of the health 

services’ business of Siemens Healthcare, Siemens being a leading 

medical technology company with a portfolio comprised of medical 

imaging, laboratory diagnostics, and health care IT. 

Health services develops enterprise-level health care IT solutions 

that help providers coordinate care in a variety of settings, including hospitals and physician practices. We are pioneers in the HIT 

industry, having served our customers for over 40 years. Before 

joining Siemens about 3 years ago, for 20 years I was a CIO in a 

large health care system in Boston on the implementation side of 

electronic health records, provider order entry, and interoperability, 

so I have lived those battles and those accomplishments. 

I also spent a year working for David Blumenthal as a senior advisor involved in the early formation of the meaningful use Stage 

1 criteria and the formation of the grant programs that led to 

health information exchanges, the regional extension centers, et 

cetera. 

Now, Siemens applauds the committee for holding this hearing 

to highlight the importance of health care IT as a tool to improve 

the delivery of care. We also appreciate the work of Senators Roberts, Enzi, Thune, and Burr for their published report, ‘‘Reboot: Reexamining the Strategies Needed to Successfully Adopt Health IT.’’ 

Today’s IT solutions, as you know and have heard from the panel 

and cited in your opening comments, have a wide variety of abilities to improve health care, reducing errors, improving the efficiency of the delivery of care, and overall elevating quality, such 

that the care that we deliver to citizens in this country has dramatically and materially improved. 

7 

* The 10th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related 

Health Problems (ICD), a medical classification list by the World Health Organization (WHO). 

We are fully committed to helping our customers achieve the objectives outlined in the EHR incentive program. The program was 

thoughtfully designed and has been quite effective in a number of 

different ways. We all can point to the significant increases in the 

number of hospitals and physicians that have attested to the program, and I am sure that Drs. Mostashari and Conway mentioned 

that and covered that in their commentary last week. 

However, I think the program is reaching an inflection point, and 

these are some comments drawn from the multiple perspectives 

that I have had over my 30-odd years of career here. I think the 

requirements for Stage 2 are more stringent, and there are a number of complicating factors, such as delayed delivery of testing 

tools, confusion over criteria, and inconsistent auditing approaches. 

Optimizing EHR technology is a fundamental element, both in the 

episodic treatment of an individual, and also in the care delivered 

to them over time and over multiple venues. 

Implementing an EHR is a massive undertaking, even for our 

most sophisticated of providers and health systems. For small, 

rural, and critical access hospitals that do not have adequate financial resources and staff resources, it may be on the edge of impossible. So we run the risk of creating and exacerbating a have and 

have-not series of systems and providers, those that are able to use 

the technology and those for which the technology is outside of 

their reach. 

Further compounding this, in the next 15 months health care organizations, in addition to meaningful use Stage 2, are dealing 

with the mandatory, massive overhaul of their systems and operational processes that results from ICD–10,* and in addition to 

their own strategic and operational needs and challenges, must 

prepare themselves for payment reform, new care models, and 

other changes that will be coming in the years ahead. 

We may be creating a perfect storm that has the potential to 

over-burden eligible hospitals and providers of all sizes. Hospitals 

and providers may choose to opt out of the program. There is evidence of this. As more hospitals and providers have indicated, they 

will not attest to Stage 2, and fewer rural and critical access hospitals participate at all. 

We could arrive at a situation in which the participation rates 

that we have seen to date in the Medicare portion of meaningful 

use represent a plateau rather than a point along a greater journey 

of adoption, and we would not regard this a success if we actually 

have, at the end of this program, a minority, a significant minority, 

of participating institutions. 

Moreover, many hospitals and providers are rushing into their 

implementations. They are trying to say, I have 15 months to get 

this, and I also have to do ICD–10, I have to do this, that, and the 

other, and I am going to get it in and get my check, and in the 

process of that they are short-changing a lot of the process, reengineering, and clinical engagement work that needs to occur. 

The result can be that we will look back on the $19 billion or 

whatever we wind up spending on this program and say, what did 

8 

we get in terms of care improvement, and be quite disappointed 

with the results, because the time needed to change the health care 

system was not taken, because there was no time to go off and do 

that. 

Similarly, we could wind up in unsafe conditions where, because 

of hurriedness, the workflow changes were not done as well as they 

should have been, nor was the training done as well as it should 

have been. Therefore, I propose a couple of recommendations. 

The first is, I would give hospitals and providers the time needed 

to properly and effectively implement electronic health record systems. It is a complicated task that involves every aspect of care in 

every department in the hospital and in the outpatient setting. It 

takes a lot of work and a lot of reengineering. 

I would recommend that you extend this Stage 2 deadline until 

October 1, 2015. Those who can take advantage of it in the time 

frame of 2014, fair enough. Those who need more time, give them 

the time to do it right. This would give them the time to accomplish what we want them to accomplish. 

The second is, I would modify the program to be less proscriptive 

and more flexible by, for example, providing a menu of requirements with a minimal set that must be met rather than all of the 

current 16 requirements of Stage 2. The ones that I would keep 

would focus on interoperability and give more latitude regarding 

the remaining set. This would allow providers to select those requirements that reflect their own strategic and operational objectives in terms of improving their care, their quality, and the service 

that they provide to their community. 

The third thing that I would do is have the Stage 3 meaningful 

use requirements support the transition to new care models and reimbursement by placing less emphasis on future function and more 

emphasis on our true goal, improving care outcomes. 

Fourth, we should consider provisions for rural and critical access hospitals, such as grants, loans, and advanced payment of incentive monies, to enable them to better finance the undertaking 

of the journey that we would like them all to engage in. 

Then last but not least, we should strengthen the program to 

focus with more vigor and more force on the interoperability, to 

achieve the development of standards and the enforcement of the 

standards. I realize, as mentioned by Janet, that a lot this involves 

the business case. That being said, we can be more aggressive and 

more effective at getting the standards in to the industry and ensuring that they are complied with. 

I have run out of time. I have a brilliant closing, but I will not 

use that at this point. We will save that for the comments. [Laughter.] 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Glaser. We look forward to your 

brilliant closing. [Laughter.] 

You have put a lot of pressure on yourself. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fattig? 

9 

STATEMENT OF MARTY FATTIG, ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NEMAHA COUNTY HOSPITAL, AUBURN, NE 

Mr. FATTIG. Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Hatch, members of the committee, thank you for holding this hearing and inviting me to testify. 

My name is Marty Fattig, and I am the chief executive officer of 

Nemaha County Hospital, a 20-bed critical access hospital in Auburn, NE. In addition, I also serve as an appointed member of the 

Meaningful Use Workgroup of the HIT Policy Committee, and I am 

proud to represent small and rural hospitals on this group. 

I would like to say at the outset that I believe policymakers will 

need to make changes to the meaningful use program to narrow 

the digital divide and ensure that small and rural hospitals are not 

left behind as we make transitions to Stage 2 of meaningful use, 

and as the positive incentives quickly turn to significant payment 

penalties. 

Our hospital went live with our EHR in January of 2004. We 

have been recognized as one of the most wired hospitals in America 

7 of the last 8 years. We are also one of 15 site visit hospitals for 

our HIT vendor, which means that they bring potential customers 

to our hospital to show them how their software works in the live 

environment. 

As I look beyond my own experience to that of my rural colleagues, I see a strong commitment to provide the highest quality 

care to their communities, including the use of EHRs. Progress is 

being made, but the digital divide between urban and rural hospitals persists, and most rural hospitals have yet to meet Stage 1. 

All the critical access hospitals in Nebraska have had a computer 

system for some time, but very few have had an EHR before 2009. 

Some are now discovering that the EHR provided by their current 

vendor will not meet their needs, so they are changing vendors. Another group of 33 hospitals in our State all use the same vendor, 

and they are extremely concerned that it will not be certified for 

Stage 2 by the time these hospitals need to be utilizing it. 

Rural hospitals often find it more difficult to get timely attention 

from vendors. For instance, our vendor has over 600 hospitals that 

all need some software upgrade in order to meet the Stage 2 objectives. This is an extremely difficult task if there are no problems. 

If bugs are discovered in the software, it becomes impossible. 

We purchased a piece of software from our vendor in May that 

we will need for Stage 2, and we were told that it would be 9 

months before they would be able to complete the install because 

they are so busy. So, based on my experience and that of my colleagues, I do not believe HHS has provided sufficient time for the 

transition to Stage 2. 

In 2014, all providers will have to install a new version of their 

EHRs, regardless of where they are. In addition, the 2-year cycle 

is too short for us to move beyond simply installing the required 

elements to improving patient care. 

The 2014 time crunch also raises concerns about patient safety. 

One of the main reasons that we installed our EHR when we did 

was to improve patient safety, and it has done just that. Our 

closed-loop medication administration system has all but elimiVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:25 Jun 24, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\88063.000 TIMD
10 

nated medication errors in our hospital. However, these systems, 

especially when they are upgraded under severe time constraints, 

can, and unfortunately do, introduce risks that things can go 

wrong. 

We installed a software upgrade some time ago, and all the allergies listed in our patient record disappeared. We were able to catch 

this problem before the patients were harmed, but this is the kind 

of thing that can happen. Combine this with a mandate to transition to ICD–10 by October 1st of 2014 and the changes created by 

the Affordable Care Act, and the challenge to maintain a safe patient environment becomes even more difficult. 

I believe that the administration could, and should, take steps to 

provide more flexibility in the transition to Stage 2 and address the 

challenges faced by small and rural hospitals. If done correctly, the 

changes can alleviate the time crunch but still keep the program 

moving forward. 

The establishment of a reliable mechanism for health information exchange is key to the future progress. In Nebraska, we have 

one health information exchange, and that is working quite well. 

My concerns are that I do not think we will be able to connect to 

the State to report the public health measures by the time the hospital is required to do so, and I am also worried about its financial 

sustainability. 

When the grant money is exhausted, will they remain financially 

viable through subscription fees alone? It is my belief that we need 

to reassess the program in light of the reasons that Congress chose 

to support the adoption of electronic health records. The first goal 

was to have an electronic record, the second goal was to ensure 

that we could share data, and the last thing was to build on the 

system to make it more and more robust. 

We are making great progress on the first two goals, but we have 

yet to fully achieve them. It is my opinion that we are trying to 

make the system more robust before the first two steps are anywhere near complete. We should re-focus our efforts on achieving 

widespread adoption and efficient information exchange before 

rushing ahead. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in today’s 

hearing. I look forward to working with the committee and all who 

are committed to the shared goal of widespread adoption of EHRs, 

whether they live in the largest city in America or the smallest 

rural community. Together, we can achieve the triple aim of better 

health, better health care, and lower costs for all Americans. Thank 

you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Fattig. I appreciate 

that. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fattig appears in the appendix.] 

Dr. BANAS. I want it noted that I believe in technology so much 

that I am going to try to do this entirely without paper. 

The CHAIRMAN. I hope it works! [Laughter.] 

11 

STATEMENT OF COLIN BANAS, M.D., M.S.H.A., CHIEF MEDICAL 

INFORMATION OFFICER AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY, RICHMOND, VA 

Dr. BANAS. Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Hatch, and 

members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work at the Virginia Commonwealth University Medical 

Center in Richmond, VA related to our successes in the arena of 

health information technology. 

I am the chief medical information officer for the VC Medical 

Center, an actively practicing internal medicine hospitalist, and an 

associate professor of medicine. In my career, I have been fortunate 

to experience the care of my patients using a multitude of health 

information systems, including paper-based, electronic vendorbased, hybrid, and even the federally created Veterans Administration system. To be clear, I would never go back to paper. 

The VC Medical Center has a proud history of leveraging health 

information technology to improve patient care that spans decades. 

We benefit from near 100-percent computerized physician order 

entry or CPOE adoption in our hospital, and fully electronic clinical 

documentation for all providers, including nurses and physicians, 

in our outpatient and inpatient settings. We are proud to have successfully attested for almost 500 eligible providers, as well as our 

hospital, for the first year of meaningful use. 

I would like to share a number of health IT success stories 

framed in three categories of next-order benefits: clinical decision 

support, handoffs, and innovations, all of which are made possible 

by the foundation of data ubiquity. These represent years of effort 

in improving people and process workflows. It was only after the 

processes had been refined that the application of technology became the secret sauce to improving outcomes. 

In fact, I have also experienced the premature application of 

technology, causing very detrimental results which can harm and 

erode the trust of both patients and providers. 

VCU employs a number of clinical decision support methodologies to support patient care. We have over 650 rules and alerts to 

help promote delivery of best practice. For example, in the arena 

of core measures, we have improved our compliance rate with the 

timely removal of urinary catheters to prevent hospital-acquired infections for our surgical patients. Our EMR now recognizes urinary 

catheters which are placed in the operating room and schedules 

their removal automatically in concert with physician guidance. 

Years of education in process improvement could only yield compliance in the 80-percent range. It was the thoughtful and actionable integration of technology that finally pushed us above 98 percent. I cannot stress this enough. It is the triad of people, process, 

and then technology that proves to be the recipe for success. 

VCU launched its patient portal in December of 2012, and, in 

just 7 months, we have already enrolled 11,000 patients who now 

have access to core elements of their electronic medical record. Inefficient phone tag has been replaced by an e-exchange between patients and providers, and we have only started to scratch the surface of this technology. 

While the patient portal was always an institutional vision on 

our health IT planning road map, it was the meaningful use proVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:25 Jun 24, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\88063.000 TIMD
12 

gram that gave it the much-needed activation energy and directional framework for success. 

We have created innovative and custom dashboards to augment 

our patient population management strategy by repainting large 

sums of data into easy-to-consume graphical and interactive formats. We help our providers deal with the information overload 

that has become common as the data stored in the electronic medical record grows. 

The most recent and exciting example of innovation is our homegrown medical early warning system dashboard. This gives our 

rapid-response team a real-time monitoring system that continuously measures patient acuity and severity. The dashboard has 

been adopted by the team as their compass to guide them to the 

bedside of our most sick patients. 

The team no longer waits to get a call from a nurse or doctor 

with a patient in distress. Instead, they are accessing the dashboard on mobile devices and arriving at the bedside to assess and 

intervene, sometimes ahead of the primary team and nurse. Since 

launching this dashboard, our analysis has shown a 5-percent reduction in in-house mortality and a significant reduction in cardiopulmonary arrests outside of the intensive care unit. 

The landscape and requirements for health IT are constantly and 

rapidly changing. We are drowning in a sea of competing priorities 

and clinical needs to ensure that the EMR remains usable and 

meaningful. The combined tsunami of the ICD–10 mandate collides 

precisely with our medical center’s need to attest for the first year 

of meaningful use Stage 2. 

The talent pool for this mountain of work that faces our industry 

has become sparse. For the first time, I am noticing a legitimate 

inability to onboard the talent requisite to make these initiatives 

successful. I believe there is a creative opportunity to be thoughtful 

about the timing of the meaningful use program, especially the impending penalties, while preserving the momentum we have 

worked so hard to achieve. 

The examples offered here are emblematic of the power of health 

IT and data fluidity. VCU purposely pursued internal data ubiquity 

as a preliminary strategic goal. There were immediate and tangible 

results from simple data availability. Only once this was achieved 

were we then able to pursue the next order of benefits described 

here. 

I believe the VCU experience is relatable to the true power of 

even the most basic health care data interoperability, a benefit that 

is echoed by many of my colleagues who recommend a higher focus 

for these measures within the meaningful use program. 

I do wish to applaud the ONC and the meaningful use program 

for the successes to date. I credit the program with helping to provide our industry a shared vision and road map, as well as providing the activation energy to help accelerate the journey. A sincere ‘‘thank you’’ for their leadership is indeed warranted and offered here. 

I am proud to be a part of the training of the next generation 

of care providers who do not know a non-digital health care world. 

There are students and residents who have never written an illegiVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:25 Jun 24, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\88063.000 TIMD
13 

ble paper prescription or scrawled onto paper the chicken scratch 

progress note. 

The next generation has come to expect and demand a safer digital health care world and will prove to be a valuable asset in continuing to push the industry and our Nation forward into digital 

success. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. VCU 

Medical Center stands ready to serve as a resource and work with 

this committee and all members of Congress to improve the quality 

of health care in this Nation. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doctor. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to get your reaction, the four of you, 

on what we can do to give hospitals and providers the business incentives to provide the technology. My sense is that health is way 

behind, and has been. It is not new. Everybody knows it is way behind others in the private sector. Some private sector businesses 

know the value of technology and have pursued it almost ruthlessly, to be efficient, to help their bottom line, et cetera. In health, 

it has been very slow because the incentives are just not lined up. 

So how can we help providers build a better business model to 

want to implement more HIT and more quickly? Any thoughts? Or 

on the other hand, CMS could require them to do it, with penalties 

if they do not. That seems like a backwards way. You would think 

that companies, the providers, would understand for their businesses, for themselves, this is a great thing to do, and they should 

do it. So what can we do to help make that happen? Anybody? Dr. 

Glaser, this is your chance to do your closing. [Laughter.] 

Dr. GLASER. We will have a little session after for the brilliant 

closing. I think it is a fair question. You are right: when you see 

it happen in other industries, it is because the business incentives 

are quite strong, and they will make investments, the vendors will 

be supportive, et cetera. 

I think there are three parts to this. One is that the payment 

method must change to reward quality and efficiency and safety in 

a material way. It does not have to be 100 percent of your payments, but it has to be more of a percent of your revenue than it 

currently is today. It does not have to be for all patients, because 

quality measures are harder in some areas than in others. It is 

harder to have quality measures in, for example, emergency care 

than it is in management of people with asthma. So I think that 

it is the continued movement, perhaps more aggressive movement, 

to changes in the payment system, that folks will respond to. They 

will respond with the IT needed to thrive in that environment, including the interoperability. So that is part A. 

Part B is to realize that all markets have failures, and motivations that are purely economic will not work. So the contribution 

of data to public health will not necessarily work because of payment methods, and there may need to be a regulatory mechanism 

that says you have to contribute to the public health mechanisms 

of the world because we have a public interest here that occurs. So 

the regulation will be a critical counterpart to that. 

The third part is, as we get smarter and industry gets better, 

that the energy required and the hurdles required to get to it are 

14 

lowered, such that it will still be work, it will be work on big organizations and small organizations, but we will help with that. Regional extension centers are an example of helping providers get 

choices of vendors, get implementations, et cetera. So the third part 

is to work on it with the industry, but also government, to say, are 

there things that we can do to make the path easier, knowing that 

it will not be trivial to accomplish this thing, but nonetheless to 

make it less daunting, less problematic, than it currently is. 

The CHAIRMAN. Anyone else? Mr. Fattig? 

Mr. FATTIG. Yes. I would certainly like to address this. First of 

all, I thank you for the question, because I think it is imperative 

that we get this right. First of all, I think we should consider that 

a health information exchange network can be very similar to our 

interstate highway system. 

We need to do this at a national level; we need to have national 

standards. We need to be able to set something up so that all these 

highways connect, as they do in the interstate system. We need to 

do that digitally for health information technology. 

The other things that I think are coming—I think there are some 

financial incentives that are in place that will help drive this, if in 

fact we get the network in place. As we move toward participating 

in community health initiatives where we are responsible for the 

health of our community and not just providing care when someone 

is sick, I think we will have a motivation to collect all that data 

from the clinics and the pharmacies, from public health, from the 

tertiary care providers, as well as from the critical access hospitals. 

Another thing that is coming in is, of course, what we call clinical 

care coordination, where we are going to be more responsible for 

the entire care of patients. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask another question. My time is 

expiring. 

Mr. FATTIG. Sure. 

The CHAIRMAN. Last week, this committee met with government 

witnesses on this subject, and I asked them, I said, we are going 

to have a hearing the following week with a bunch of private folks. 

They are going to be vendors and so forth. What are they going to 

say, and what is your response to what they are going to say? They 

said, well, they are going to say slow down, too much, too fast. I 

have heard a lot of that today. Someone mentioned the potential 

perfect storm; someone else mentioned how you just cannot do it 

at all, and you have to do it right the first time, so slow down. 

So my question then is, people tend to like to slow down sometimes, so what assurances are there that the slow-down is not just 

an excuse for not doing what needs to be done? First of all, how 

much should be slowed down, and second, how do you reassure everybody here that we are going to get this better and right in addition to just words? 

Dr. BANAS. I think the assurance that we will get it right comes 

from the fact that there is still a stick at the end of this carrot. 

I think slowing down is prudent, simply because I think literature 

and experience have shown that these things take time. Nine 

women cannot have nine babies in one month, that sort of thing. 

That is the analogy that our CEO sometimes uses. I think that the 

15 

fact that there will be a stick at the end of this program provides 

the much-needed motivation that follows the carrot. 

The CHAIRMAN. By asking the question, I do not mean to imply 

that we should slow down, but I do hear concerns. My time has expired, but I think it is a fundamental question that has to be addressed. That is, you guys want to slow down a little bit. I do not 

know if you all do. Maybe you do not, Ms. Marchibroda, but others 

seem to suggest that we should slow down slightly. It is a basic 

question that we are going to have to figure out an answer to. 

Senator Hatch? 

Senator HATCH. Well, I have appreciated your testimony here 

today. Accurate and efficient matching of individual patients to 

their health records across settings is a wonderful thing if we can 

do it right. Enabling a clinician to view a comprehensive picture of 

the patient does require accuracy and efficient matching. 

Now, incorrectly matching a patient to a health record may have 

patient safety, privacy, and security implications, such as disclosing confidential information to the wrong patient or wrong doctor, even. 

Dr. Banas, what do you think are the obstacles in solving this 

problem of patient matching? I might add, as a former medical liability defense lawyer, I can see all kinds of problems that might 

arise if this is not done right. 

Dr. BANAS. Yes. I think it is difficult when we lack a single identifier. I know that is a hot topic. But there are intensive algorithms 

that are matching on a variety of data points to get it near a 100- 

percent success rate. So I think, in the balance between patient privacy in the form of a national identifier and these intensive algorithms, something has to give. I think if you can accept that it is 

a difficult thing to match without such a unique identifier, than 

you will understand the results that we are seeing thus far. 

Senator HATCH. Dr. Glaser, let me just ask you this. In light of 

the current expectation that almost every eligible professional and 

hospital will need to upgrade in order to comply with Stage 2 requirements, is the vendor community adequately resourced to meet 

this unprecedented demand for assistance, and are smaller community hospitals and professionals, many of whom are located in rural 

communities, getting adequate attention from the vendor community? 

Dr. GLASER. Yes. I think the industry overall is challenged to address the demands of Stage 1, 2, and 3, so the vendors are challenged with staff, as are a lot of the providers. One of the key elements initially of the grant program under HITECH was the workforce development to sort of create all the centers. 

Particularly in the case of Stage 2, one of the challenges is the 

October 1, 2014 deadline—you have to have it done by then—and 

then the time required to actually solidify the requirements, to get 

the testing tools, took longer and longer, and all of a sudden there 

is a very compressed window in which a lot has to happen. The 

software has to be developed, the software has to be certified, the 

implementations have to occur, and whatever workflow changes are 

necessary have to occur. 

So, in a way, there are resources, but at some point you cannot 

resource if the window gets too narrow. It is a challenge for the 

16 

vendors, but it is also a challenge for those who are providing care. 

Plus, they have ICD–10 to resource and a variety of other things. 

I think it is one of the fundamental reasons why—my concern anyway—the delay by a year is a critical thing to do because of the 

late start in being ready for Stage 2. 

I think, increasingly, organizations of the vendors are addressing 

the smaller community hospitals. There is still a little ways to go. 

I think we are being helped as a vendor community by the advent 

of cloud technology, which means that you can deliver software 

services to organizations and not require a computer room on their 

part, or IT staff on their part. 

The vendors are increasingly getting better at implementation 

methods that are shorter, less intense, and hence do not require 

this amazing consumption of the resources that are often scarce in 

the community hospitals. 

So we, for example, at Siemens have customers who have 17 

beds, 25 beds, 43 beds, and we are not alone in terms of the vendor 

community getting better there. There is still a ways to go to where 

we can deliver it efficiently, but also deliver it over distances that 

recognize this dispersal of caregivers across the country. 

Senator HATCH. All right. Thank you. 

Ms. Marchibroda, you advocate, it seems to me, a risk-based regulatory approach in the area of mobile medical devices in particular. Which agency or governmental entity should be charged 

with doing this type of work? 

Ms. MARCHIBRODA. Senator, back in February we released recommendations for the principles of how this oversight framework 

would be developed. We recommended that it leverage existing patient safety and quality organizations where we have accreditation 

today, so that it reflects shared responsibility. 

We did say that the current medical device regulation as it exists 

today is not appropriate for a majority of health IT; however, we 

did not state which agency—we did not gain agreement on your 

question, but laid out a set of principles. 

Senator HATCH. You will let us know as soon as you get some 

sort of consensus on that? 

Ms. MARCHIBRODA. Certainly. 

Senator HATCH. We would just like to know a little bit more 

about it. 

Ms. MARCHIBRODA. Thank you. 

Senator HATCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Enzi? 

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

this hearing. 

Last week, I noted that more than 10,000 providers that participated in 2011 did not do so in 2012, and the government witnesses 

last week considered that a small number. 

Mr. Fattig, in your testimony you wrote that policymakers will 

need to make changes to the meaningful use program to ensure 

that small and rural hospitals are not left behind. I am from Wyoming. We have small and rural hospitals. 

So can you please explain in more detail why these providers are 

being left behind by the current program and what changes could 

17 

be made to immediately improve the program, and does that have 

anything to do with the 10,000 dropping out? 

Mr. FATTIG. It may have something to do with the 10,000 dropping out. In my understanding, in working with small and rural 

hospitals across the Nation, a number of things come into play. 

One of the reasons they are left behind is a pure lack of resources, 

financial resources, to begin with. It costs a lot of money to install 

an electronic health record. The last figure I heard was about 

$67,000 a bed. That is a lot of money, regardless the size of your 

hospital. 

The second thing is the lack of human resources. For instance, 

our health care informaticist in our hospital serves in that position 

2 days a week, and she serves as a staff nurse the other 3 days 

of the week, so we have limited time that this person can actually 

do this. 

The other thing is, of course, the vendor supply. There are a lot 

more small hospitals than there are large hospitals, but there are 

less small vendors that market to small hospitals than there are 

those that market to large hospitals. So you have a large number 

of hospitals with a small number of vendors, and you end up with 

this backup of capacity. It is not the vendor’s fault, it is not the 

hospital’s fault, it is just the way things are. We need more time. 

Senator ENZI. Thank you. 

Dr. Glaser, you noted in your testimony that the administration 

should offer providers greater flexibility in adopting the requirements, and you suggested a delay of some of Stage 2’s requirements. Why, in your opinion, were these problems not anticipated 

by the administration at the start of the program, and what can 

Congress and the administration do better to ensure a smoother 

roll-out? 

Dr. GLASER. I think we should recognize—and I am sure that you 

do—a number of things here. One is, the individuals who are working on the meaningful use program, both at ONC and CMS, and 

the wide variety of volunteers who support that—my colleague 

being one of those—are smart and working hard to get this thing 

right. But this is an undertaking which has certainly no parallel 

in the health care IT industry, in which you are trying to aggressively move a broad swatch, a very complex industry, into the 21st 

century with IT. 

So I think we are going to get some things right and some things 

wrong as we go along here, and the prudent thing to do is understand that, as smart as one is and as inclusive as one is and as 

transparent as one is, we need to have conversations like this from 

time to time, to let us take a look and see where we are, what 

needs tuning, what needs correcting, et cetera. 

So I think, going back to at least the time when I was there in 

the summer of 2009, I do not know that anybody really knew 

where we would be on the adoption. There was a lot of estimating 

about where that would be or what the barriers would be at that 

point in time. 

Some were anticipated, hence regional extension centers, hence 

state health information exchange grants, but a lot of things were 

not. So these kinds of committee conversations, other conversations, that let us step back, take stock, keep the program moving 

18 

but tune where we need to tune, are the right thing to do as we 

go forward. 

I do think one of the things that I would advise my government 

colleagues on is that the Stage 2 requirements ought to sort of migrate from being a feature/function prescription to saying, let us 

move to the outcomes. That is why we are here. We are not here 

for meaningful use per se; we are here to improve care. 

So let us move into more centricity on the outcome, that which 

we are after, and move into more focus on the interoperability, and 

worry less about whether this feature is present or that function 

is present, where we are in this sort of inertia of over-engineering 

the electronic health record and in a way forgetting why we are 

here, which is to improve care. 

So relaxation of requirements is intended partly to shift into the 

outcomes orientation, partly to give those who are making decisions 

about whether to participate or not, and to participate effectively, 

greater flexibility in bringing these technologies in. And all of this 

is a recognition that, collectively as a country and as a industry, 

we are learning as we go forward about what is working, what is 

not, and what needs to be tuned. 

Senator ENZI. I know that the outcome that we had envisioned— 

speaking of the committee and under Senator Baucus’s leadership 

when we were working on health care reform—was to eventually 

have some kind of a card that everybody could carry that would 

have their entire medical history on it, so, if they are from Wyoming, and they come out here and they get in an accident and they 

break their leg, they can just put in a code and release all of the 

information to their doctor so it would be possible to treat them. 

I think that is where we wanted to go. So the interoperability question is a really important one, and I will be submitting that in writing for each of you because I think that is the real key to it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator, very much. 

Senator Casey? 

Senator CASEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I want to 

thank our panel for being with us today. I apologize I was not here 

earlier for your testimony. If you would permit me a home State 

courtesy, Doctor, I probably will focus a question on you first, and 

I will try to get to your colleagues, but I have to be Pennsylvaniafocused for this question. I know you do not mind that. 

Dr. GLASER. Not at all. I look forward to that. 

Senator CASEY. And I know some of what I will ask about might 

be by way of reiteration or repetition, but around here it is important to repeat ourselves, so it will not hurt. 

We have had, under the chairman’s leadership, a number of 

health care hearings this year about implementation, and a repeat 

visitor has been Jonathan Blum from CMS. He has said on a number of occasions that if we can continue what I think is already a 

strategy that has been implemented to reduce hospital-acquired infections and reduce readmissions, we can save, by his estimate, according to his testimony, 65,000 lives. 

I know in your testimony, on page 2, you talk about the Chester 

County Hospital in Westchester in our home State, and you say 

that this Chester County Hospital ‘‘has used our solutions and our 

19 

clinical workflow technology to reduce hospital-acquired MRSA by 

60 percent,’’ and then you go on to say MRSA infections are identified by CMS as a preventable ‘‘never event.’’ 

I know you have already probably addressed this, but, in addition to what is happening right now, what additional steps can we 

take to ensure that there are more hospitals like that or more examples like that across the country? You also mentioned the 

MedCentral Health System in Mansfield, OH. So, if you could expand upon that. 

Dr. GLASER. Certainly, Senator. I appreciate the home field nod. 

I think there are a couple of things. Those are examples, and there 

are lots of those, of both the people who buy the technology from 

us, but also buy from others. Certainly when I was a CIO years 

ago, I saw those often in the organization that I served. 

So I think there are a couple of things. You say you would like 

to see that broadly. So what do we do to make sure that that is 

a common occurrence and not particularly noteworthy? Everybody 

ought to be doing that, and it should not be an exception. I think 

there are a number of things, some of which we are doing. 

One is to continue the programs that encourage the adoption, so 

we just have to get the fundamental systems in place and used effectively. A number of folks, and certainly I do, believe that we 

ought to give them a little more time, but we have to lay the foundation that has to occur here. 

We also ought to encourage, although they will do a lot of this 

on their own, that those who deliver care talk to their colleagues 

and say, how did you do that? So there should be colleagues talking 

to colleagues, often supported by associations, such as the American Hospital Association, to encourage this discussion so people 

learn from each other. 

The third part would be, as mentioned in a couple of the comments, the continued movement of the payment system, such as 

the payment system reward, so that Chester County sees a revenue 

increase, and, hence, whatever costs were incurred in making that 

happen, they have a means to recover, because they still have a 

margin target that they need to fulfill in order to continue to deliver on the mission that they are obligated to deliver to their community. 

So I think it is a variety of things. It is to make sure we lay the 

foundation effectively, encourage the natural conversations between colleagues where they teach each other, and continue to 

work on a payment system, as complicated as that is, that continues to incent and reward those kinds of behaviors and outcomes 

across the board. 

None of those is necessarily easy, and none of those is necessarily 

accomplished in a very brief period of time. They will take time 

across the board. So, in a way, it sounds very simple. Those are the 

three things that we have to do, but, as we all know, those are 

complicated things to do and not easy to carry out. 

Senator CASEY. I want to invite anyone else on the panel, if you 

want to comment on this particular question about this strategy. 

Anyone else? 

Dr. BANAS. I think the VCU experience is very similar, in that 

we spent many years laying the foundation before we could start 

20 

to really enjoy a lot of the successes that I displayed in my testimony. 

I would echo the importance of sharing and organizations like 

the AHA or AMDIS, the Association of Medical Directors of Information Systems. Those collegial relationships that are formed in 

those venues have proved vital to sharing successes and strategies. 

As our vendors mature, they are starting to pick up on best practices and hopefully starting to apply them from the top down so 

that we all do not have to reinvent the wheel 15 different times. 

Senator CASEY. Thanks very much. My time is up. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Thune? 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, panel. Nice 

to have you here. Thanks for your answers to our questions. I want 

to direct this to Mr. Glaser and Mr. Fattig. I want to mention your 

testimonies, that you had talked about the need for extending 

Stage 2. I think last week we had an IT hearing with the administration where I asked them about extending Stage 2 to give more 

time to address some of the very issues that you raise in your testimonies. 

The administration would not commit to it at the time, and I am 

concerned that they do not have a realistic view of the problems 

that are facing this program, particularly in rural areas. So my 

question is, do you think there is a way to design such an extension 

to give some providers and hospitals additional time in Stage 2 

while allowing more advanced providers and hospitals to be able to 

move on to Stage 3? 

Dr. GLASER. When I was a chief information officer, in my 22 

years of being a chief information officer, I implemented provider 

order entry 11 times and did the inventory record for 4,000-plus 

physicians across the board. That has taught me to have an extraordinarily healthy respect for the challenges of implementing 

these systems. 

These are hard; these are difficult. You have to be careful with 

them. You have to bring the medical staff along and be thoughtful 

about the workflow, have a healthy respect. So, Senator Baucus, 

back to one of your comments, I think I would hold feet to the fire. 

I might give them more time, but we have to recognize this is really difficult to do, and we want them to do it right in lots of ways. 

So what I would do is say, if you want the additional year, take 

the additional year, but that is it. It is not 5 additional years, it 

is 1 additional year. If you are ready and on course and things are 

going well and this, that, and the other, terrific. Go ahead and 

meet the deadline and carry forward and move on to Stage 3. But 

for those who need the extra time, let us give it to them, respecting 

the magnitude of the challenge that they have and the criticality 

of getting it right in a lot of ways here. 

I think my colleagues are right, there is going to be a special set 

of considerations for the rural, the critical access hospitals, and, in 

addition to time, they might need some resource help. It is not just 

a question of time, it is a question of whether it is people, or 

money, or whatever. So, even with the extra year, they can stay on 

course and make the care improvements that have been cited a 

couple of times during our comments today. 

21 

Senator THUNE. All right. 

Mr. FATTIG. Thank you for the question. I think it is critical that, 

first of all, we stretch out the time-line to 3 years at each stage regardless of which stage it is, because all hospitals and all the vendors need at least 3 years at each stage so that we can do this 

right. 

I do not believe we just need an extension at Stage 2, I think we 

need an extension at Stage 1 so that those hospitals that have not 

met Stage 1 objectives can meet them. Sixty-five of the hospitals 

in Nebraska are critical access hospitals. 

If we are going to have an electronic record that includes all the 

data on these patients, we have to move the vast majority of those 

65 critical access hospitals forward and not leave them behind with 

this digital divide. Stretching out Stage 1 so that those hospitals 

that have attested in 2012 have an additional year to get Stage 1 

right before they move on to Stage 2, I think would be very, very 

helpful. 

Also, maybe we need a grant program or a loan program for 

these programs, something so hospitals have the resources to get 

the initial investment so that they can move forward and help increase the compatibility of all these records across the Nation. 

Senator THUNE. A lot of those critical access hospitals in Nebraska are like the ones in South Dakota that I am thinking of 

when asking this question. This, I would direct to anybody who 

would like to take a shot at it. But Stage 1 of meaningful use required that there was no actual cross-platform exchange of information. Stage 2 requires only one instance of information sharing, 

and that can be with a dummy server set up by the government. 

Do you think the administration puts sufficient pressure on vendors through the certification process to advance cross-platform exchange of data? A follow-up to that would be, what else could the 

administration be doing to encourage vendors to exchange data? 

Dr. GLASER. I think there should be more pressure on the vendors to do this, and I count myself as one, to show that we can 

meet the standards, comply with the standards, and are certified 

relative to the standards. So I think that is part A. 

We should realize that that, in and of itself, is not sufficient. 

What also should be occurring across the board is continued movement of the payment model which will incent, not only the fact that 

you can technically do it, but that you can clinically do it, so there 

is motive to go off and to do those kinds of things, et cetera. So I 

think there is continued movement on the reform efforts broadly 

speaking, to change the payment mechanisms to reward quality 

and efficiency. 

Third, and I realize this can be tricky, is to give ONC and CMS 

more authority to move on the standards. At times they are stuck 

in a consensus process. I would give them more clout to call it a 

day, because sometimes they have to stop short of full, definite 

standards and leave too much ambiguity, or are unable to call it 

and say, you need to do this. 

So I would think there are three points: first, pressure on us as 

vendors; second, working with the payment model so that there are 

reasons for the organizations to comply—and it is not just connecting things, there is workflow that has to be changed, and who 

22 

does it, who deals with the data, how do they do this, and how do 

they do that, et cetera; and third, giving my colleagues at ONC and 

CMS more authority to further the standards development and 

codification process. 

Senator THUNE. Do you think that there is a sufficient business 

case for continued progress on interoperability and exchange of 

data between unaffiliated providers? I mean, is there something 

else that can be done to ensure that there is, from a hospital standpoint and from a provider standpoint, a sufficient business case to 

do this? I mean, apart from the government incentives. Do you 

know what I am saying? 

Mr. FATTIG. I believe there is. I believe there is, especially with 

the changes that are coming down with the Affordable Care Act. 

When we form our ACOs or value-based purchasing groups or our 

clinical collaboration, we are going to have to be able to share data 

in order to meet those models. So the business sense is growing as 

we speak. 

Senator THUNE. Ms. Marchibroda? 

Ms. MARCHIBRODA. I would agree. I think the private sector is 

already moving forward considerably on these new accountable 

care arrangements, and they are already needing to share information. So aligning those information sharing conversations and 

methods with what we are seeing here in meaningful use would be 

very important. 

Even as we wait for those to take broader hold, hopefully 

through the Medicare program, through all of the performance 

measures that are being used today, I think there are opportunities 

to improve the use of electronic data that comes from electronic 

health records in order to populate those. So, there are other ways 

to incentivize this in the system. 

Dr. GLASER. Yes. I think you do see it now, so I might say, as 

a health provider, I want to work with you two to form a clinical 

affiliation to deliver cancer care, or whatever it might happen to 

be, and with your two separate organizations in my community, 

and we need to set up an exchange in order to manage this population. So you will see that clinical affiliations and relationships 

will lead to this. 

You see health systems that say, I need to fill my beds, and so 

I am going to have connections out to this doctor and that doctor 

to facilitate the admission process, and I want them to use my lab 

and radiology department, so I am going to get results back out 

there. So clearly there is an exchange going on, and in fact the 

health information exchange market, if you just look at sales of 

these things, is really growing quite rapidly. 

The problem with it is that it is idiosyncratic, it is patchwork. 

So I have worked with you two, but I have not dealt with you guys 

because I do not have a clinical relationship with you, and one of 

your patients might arrive here. It beats me what went on there. 

The CHAIRMAN. So what do you do about that? 

Dr. GLASER. Well, I think right now it is about the motives. It 

goes back to the motivational structure. So I think part of what you 

do is you say, listen, I am going to change payment, whether it is 

accountable care, et cetera, so it covers all of this stuff. It is not 

just this cancer arrangement, it is the broad coverage of care and 

23 

accountability for care that occurs. So I would move market incentives that increase the broader value to adoption and bringing people in here. 

The CHAIRMAN. And what would those incentives be? 

Dr. GLASER. Well, I think it is like a lot of what is being experienced. It is accountable care, and I am going to hold you accountable for the population. Even if they go there, there, and there, you 

are still accountable for the quality, you are still accountable for 

the costs, and that will motivate you to do the exchange in addition 

to whatever you might do for a targeted cancer arrangement. 

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead, John, if you have more questions. 

Senator THUNE. No, I am done. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. It dawned on me during this hearing today the 

degree to which, besides going to Stage 1, 2, and 3, you start at 

3, trying to figure out what you want the outcomes to be and how 

to measure the outcomes, and then go back to 2 and 1. You mentioned, Dr. Glaser, that you might want to push 3 into 2 or something like that, if I understood you correctly. 

But to your point about how we are not just doing this for the 

sake of technology, we are doing this for the sake of patients, are 

we giving enough emphasis on what 3 is, that is, outcomes? Maybe 

it is ACOs, maybe it is sharing, maybe it is patient-centered care. 

But as we go back and work on Stage 1 and Stage 2, I am just curious if you have any reaction to that off-the-wall observation. 

Dr. GLASER. I do not think it is off-the-wall. Even if I did, I 

would not say it publicly. [Laughter.] 

But nonetheless, I think it is a fair part of it, and ONC and the 

policy committees are working on that. I think it is appropriate to 

have a philosophy regarding Stage 3, which is to say it ought to 

be outcomes-oriented, it ought to be focused on interoperability, 

less focused on future function. So those are guidelines about how 

to frame it that need to occur here. 

So I think it is important to begin to really crystallize for the industry, what is 3? One is that it makes sure that we are continuing 

along the journey that we would like to continue, and the other is 

that both vendors and those whom they serve want some level of 

road map so they can say, we see where we are heading. Even if 

Stage 3 is 2015, 2016, whatever the timing is, at least I have a 

game plan and a road map. So I think that that conversation is a 

very important one, an important one for you all on this committee 

to have, to make sure you understand it and are contributing to 

and guiding it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you feel comfortable that we know how to 

measure outcomes in Stage 3, and if not, what do we have to do? 

Mr. FATTIG. I believe we do. I am the eternal optimist and the 

idealist and joust with windmills all the time, so I do believe that 

we do know what the outcomes should look like. I also believe that 

it would be vital for all of us to engage the private sector in this, 

because I think big business is going to drive this as much as government as we move forward. They are going to demand better outcomes from us, and we are going to have to have the data to show 

them that we are doing the right thing. So I think it is there. 

The CHAIRMAN. There is a little bit of a sense among three panelists maybe to slow down a little bit, maybe at the rural level, 

24 

maybe at Stage 2. But, Ms. Marchibroda, do you agree or disagree 

with that? 

Ms. MARCHIBRODA. So this is the thing. Stage 2, as we have discussed, advances considerably engagement of patients and electronic information sharing. You do not see that much of it in Stage 

1. It is hardly there. The information sharing is the primary driver 

of reduction in costs that we will see through investments in health 

IT, and we recognize and have reported about how difficult it is to 

move this forward. 

So we need to find a way—and I think John described a way— 

to let those, particularly the many, many organizations that are coordinating care and moving forward on these accountable care arrangements, be able to have the interoperable systems that Stage 

2 provides as a foundation for interoperability and sharing, while 

perhaps providing more room for those that need it. But I would 

hate to see us not benefit from those important patient engagement 

and information sharing requirements in Stage 2 as soon as we 

can. 

The CHAIRMAN. There might be some hospitals and providers 

that might see a real advantage in being aggressive in their business model with their patients, et cetera. For the four of you, very, 

very briefly, drilling down a little bit, where can we urge the administration to speed up a little bit, where not, where are we going 

about the right speed, and where maybe should we slow down a little bit? I mean, more separately instead of just generally. 

Dr. BANAS. In terms of the meaningful use program? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Dr. BANAS. I think everyone is echoing that the interoperability 

patient engagement piece is by far the most important piece contained in Stage 2, and it is a piece I can get behind, and it is a piece 

that I can comfortably implement and advance in my organization. 

The pieces that become more difficult are de novo new technologies 

that I have to put in, such as bar code meta-administration for a 

hospital. That could take us 1 to 2 years to do and might miss the 

time-line. 

Full order entry in the outpatient clinics—we do very well with 

e-prescribing. There is a great benefit to reducing adverse drug 

events from e-prescribing, but now we are having to throw on laboratory and radiology testing, which gets into an entire spaghetti 

of scheduling and future orders and things of that nature. 

So patient engagement, interoperability, as I testified, we have 

a portal. I would love to be able to focus even more energies into 

that portal to the benefit of our patients and as a by-product to our 

community. 

The CHAIRMAN. Anyone else? 

Mr. FATTIG. I would encourage speeding up and redoubling our 

efforts on interoperability, but I still think it is very, very important that we bring the late bloomers, those small rural hospitals 

that have not implemented a complete EHR and attested to Stage 

1, to bring them along so that we do not leave them in the dust. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I think Dr. Glaser suggested we bring them 

along by giving them a little more time and more resources. 

Mr. FATTIG. Yes, more time and resources. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

25 

Dr. Glaser? 

Dr. GLASER. Just one other comment, if I may. I would go back 

to one of the points you made, which is that I would like to see 

more movement on how it is we are going to move from the current 

Stage 1 and 2 to the outcomes. So tell me what that path looks 

like. It is not just the definition in the form of Stage 3, it is, if I 

need to help these folks, how long will that go on and in what 

form? So what does that pathway look like? We need to get some 

clarity to make sure it is taking us in the direction that we would 

all like it to take us. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Marchibroda? 

Ms. MARCHIBRODA. I would concur. As noted in our testimony, 

that focus on interoperability and patient engagement is critical 

and needs to maintain its current pace with Stage 2, and it ties in 

with your question about outcomes and do we know what they are. 

I think a couple of weeks ago, 3 weeks ago, you had a hearing 

on quality. We have a number of outcomes. One of the problems 

is that there are so many different measures. I think beginning to 

move these things together and aligning them with health IT will 

be important as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you all very much. 

Senator Carper has joined us. He and I are due at the same location very soon. 

Senator CARPER. Maybe we should just have lunch here; what do 

you think? 

The CHAIRMAN. We should. 

Senator CARPER. We could eat, they could talk. 

The CHAIRMAN. Exactly. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much. Each of us serves, as you 

know, on several different committees. I have been trying to do the 

other part of my day job, and I appreciate you all being here and 

the chance, Mr. Chairman, to ask a question or two. 

One of our main objectives, really one of my main objectives in 

the Affordable Care Act, was to try to reorient our Nation’s health 

care system so that we would reward quality over just quantity and 

try to improve health care outcomes while trying to get better outcomes for less money. 

With Accountable Care Organizations, with medical homes, and 

penalties for unnecessary hospital readmissions, we are, I think, 

moving in a direction of paying hospitals and doctors based, hopefully, more on performance instead of the number of procedures 

that are performed. 

But I would like to say we cannot manage what we cannot measure. For 4 years after we created this incentive-based program for 

increasing the use of health IT, I am concerned that we still do not 

have the right public health indicators and quality measures in our 

health IT systems to evaluate the performance of our health care 

system. 

So, with that as a prelude, let me just ask a question. This could 

be for the whole panel, but do existing quality indicators and reporting requirements have credibility with doctors and health care 

providers on your staffs? A follow-up to that would be, do health 

IT systems in your hospitals capture quality measures and public 

26 

health indicators, such as obesity and smoking rates, accurately 

and in a meaningful way? Those two questions. 

Dr. BANAS. So, to your first question, I think the quality measures that have been chosen are certainly clinically valid. Where I 

lose buy-in from my physician and clinician population is that they 

are not easily capturable in the current state of workflow for our 

clinicians. So, the EMR vendors need to catch up with what I like 

to term ‘‘usability,’’ to make it sort of seamless in how I do my job. 

A lot of these clinical quality indicators result in me creating 

more check-the-box phenomena in order to capture this data somehow. That is where I lose my physicians. That is where they start 

to turn on the EMR, if you will: wow, you are making me check 

another box. 

So I think the quality measures that have been chosen to date 

are very aggressive, and there are a lot of them, and there are a 

lot of different quality programs that do not necessarily align, 

which also causes a little confusion. I think there are steps being 

made to rectify that, but clinical quality measurement is one of the 

things that also has me worried simply for the phenomenon I have 

just described. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Fattig, please. Do you agree with anything he said? 

Mr. FATTIG. I do. I agree with everything he said. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Mr. FATTIG. Imagine that! 

Our sizes are entirely different, our scopes are entirely different, 

but the problems are the same. The clinical quality measures that 

are there have been collected for years, and our physicians agree 

with them. They are mostly process measures; they are not outcome measures, but we have determined that these processes give 

you better outcomes. 

The problem is that we have for years extracted this data manually, and now we are into an electronic extraction, and that creates 

a whole different set of problems about where the data is entered, 

and does it pull directly to the numerator and denominator of the 

calculation to make sure that these measures are accurate now and 

that we are getting credit for what we are actually doing. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. Dr. Glaser? 

Dr. GLASER. In addition to Janet’s earlier comment about the 

plethora of measures—and there is a need to rationalize those—I 

think the challenge is that the standards, while good, and measures, while good and important and critical in lots of ways, impose 

a cost to collect. Who bears that cost? Sometimes you turn it over 

to the doctors. 

They enter four or five more things and say, geez, you are killing 

me. You are adding time, I am already busy, et cetera. Sometimes 

we say, oh, we are not going to do that, we are going to pay some 

army to go extract it, either from the chart or from the records. So 

there is an organization that bears the cost to collect those things. 

So I think the basic point is, if we are going to capture additional 

data, there is a cost somehow, and how do you distribute that, 

through the doctors, or this, that, or the other. We can make things 

faster, more usable, but I do not think we can finesse the issue and 

make it a non-existent cost. 

27 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Last word, Ms. Marchibroda. 

Ms. MARCHIBRODA. Yes. The Bipartisan Policy Center released a 

report back in April and referenced quality measures in that report, sort of echoing—there are a number of them. They are creating a lot of burden. They are not derived from where care is delivered. So getting agreement or alignment across States, even Federal agency programs and the private sector, is important. 

In terms of, does health IT support these measures, I think actually this is an area that needs significant review and improvement. 

I think as we make this journey—and I think about the comments 

made earlier about the value of health IT—clinicians and providers 

would like nothing better than to be able to generate these measures coming out of the systems, but we are just not there yet. Specifications are developed very quickly. They need to be tested before 

being implemented, so that is a great area of review in the coming 

months. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Ms. MARCHIBRODA. And it will help to create the business case. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you all. 

Mr. Chairman, I would just say in closing that, in Delaware, one 

of the last things we did in my second term as Governor was, we 

stood up and we said, why don’t we create a Delaware health information network? 

The idea was to create a health information exchange that doctors’ offices, hospitals, nursing homes, medical labs, and so forth, 

would provide information to and then from which information 

could be drawn to provide a continuum here and a collaborative delivery of health care in our State. In a little State like Delaware, 

it is actually working. 

When I was in the National Governors Association, we had a 

clearinghouse for good ideas within the National Governors Association, and this was just one of those good ideas. We are hopeful 

that other people will take heart and maybe take a look to see 

what we have done, and maybe do it even better going forward. 

Thank you so much. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for that good idea. I appreciate that. 

Thanks, everybody, very much. The good news here is, we all 

tend to agree on the goal. The question is just the execution, how 

do we do it right. But thanks very much. You have been very helpful. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the hearing was concluded.] 

(29) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD


88063001.eps
30 


88063.002
31 


88063.003
32 


88063.004
33 


88063.005
34 


88063.006
35 


88063.007
36 


88063.008
37 


88063.009
38 


88063.010
39 


88063.011
40 


88063.012
41 


88063013.eps
42 


88063.014
43 


88063.015
44 


88063.016
45 


88063.017
46 


88063.018
47 


88063.019
48 


88063020.eps
49 


88063.021
50 


88063.022
51 


88063.023
52 


88063.024
53 


88063.025
54 


88063.026
55 


88063.027
56 


88063.028
57 


88063.029
58 


88063.030
59 


88063.031
60 


88063.032
61 


88063.033
62 


88063.034
63 


88063.035
64 


88063.036
65 


88063.037
66 


88063.038
67 


88063.039
68 


88063.040
69 


88063.041
70 


88063.042
71 


88063.043
72 


88063.044
73 


88063.045
74 


88063.046
75 


88063.047
76 


88063.048
77 


88063.049
78 


88063.050
79 


88063.051
80 


88063.052
81 


88063.053
82 


88063.054
(83) 

COMMUNICATIONS


88063055.eps
84 


88063.056
85 


88063.057
86 


88063.058
87 


88063.059
88 


88063.060
89 


88063.061
90 


88063.062
91 


88063.063
92 


88063.064
93 


88063.065
94 


88063.066
95 


88063.067
96 


88063.068
97 


88063.069
98 


88063.070
99 


88063.071
100 


88063.072
101 


88063.073
102 


88063.074
103 


88063.075
104 


88063.076
105 


88063.077
106 


88063.078
107 


88063.079
108 


88063.080
109 


88063.081
110 


88063.082
111 


88063.083
112 


88063.084
113 


88063.085
114 


88063.086
115 


88063.087
116 


88063.088
117 


88063.089
118 


88063.090
119 

Æ 


88063091.eps