Computer-Based Patient Records: VA and DOD Efforts to Exchange Health Data Could Benefit from Improved Planning and Project Management
Released: 2004-07-07T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Since 1998 VA and DOD have been trying to achieve the capability to share patient health care data electronically. The original effort—the government computer-based patient record (GCPR) project—included the Indian Health Service (IHS) and was envisioned as an electronic interface that would allow physicians and other authorized users at VA, DOD, and IHS health facilities to access data from any of the other agencies’ health information systems. The interface was expected to compile requested patient information in a virtual record that could be displayed on a user’s computer screen.

Our prior reviews of the GCPR project determined that the lack of a lead entity, clear mission, and detailed planning to achieve that mission made it difficult to monitor progress, identify project risks, and develop appropriate contingency plans. Accordingly, reporting on this project in April 2001 and again in June 2002, we made several recommendations to help strengthen the management and oversight of GCPR. Specifically, in 2001 we recommended that the participating agencies (1) designate a lead entity with final decision-making authority and establish a clear line of authority for the GCPR project, and (2) create comprehensive and coordinated plans that included an agreed-upon mission and clear goals, objectives, and performance measures, to ensure that the agencies could share comprehensive, meaningful, accurate, and secure patient health care data. In 2002, we recommended that the participating agencies revise the original goals and objectives of the project to align with their current strategy, commit the executive support necessary to adequately manage the project, and ensure that it followed sound project management principles. VA and DOD took specific measures in response to our recommendations for enhancing overall management and accountability of the project.

By July 2002, VA and DOD had revised their strategy and had made some progress toward electronically sharing patient health data. The two departments had renamed the project the Federal Health Information Exchange (FHIE) program and, consistent with our prior recommendation, had finalized a memorandum of agreement designating VA as the lead entity for implementing the program. This agreement also established FHIE as a joint effort that would allow the exchange of health care information in two phases. The first phase, completed in mid-July 2002, enabled the one-way transfer of data from DOD’s existing health information system to a separate database that VA clinicians could access. A second phase, finalized this past March, completed VA’s and DOD’s efforts to add to the base of patient health information available to VA clinicians via this one-way sharing capability. The departments reported total GCPR/FHIE costs of about $85 million through fiscal year 2003.

The revised strategy also envisioned the pursuit of a longer term, two-way exchange of health information between DOD and VA. Known as HealthePeople (Federal), this initiative is premised upon the departments’ development of a common health information architecture comprising standardized data, communications, security, and high-performance health information systems. The joint effort is expected to result in the secured sharing of health data required by VA’s and DOD’s health care providers between systems that each department is currently developing—DOD’s Composite Health Care System (CHCS) II and VA’s HealtheVet VistA.

DOD began developing CHCS II in 1997 and has completed the development of its associated clinical data repository—a key component for the planned electronic interface. The department expects to complete deployment of all of its major system capabilities by September 2008. It reported expenditures of about $464 million for the system through fiscal year 2003. VA began work on HealtheVet VistA and its associated health data repository in 2001, and expects to complete all six initiatives comprising this system in 2012. VA reported spending about $120 million on HealtheVet VistA through fiscal year 2003.

Under the HealthePeople (Federal) initiative, VA and DOD envision that, upon entering military service, a health record for the service member will be created and stored in DOD’s CHCS II clinical data repository. The record will be updated as the service member receives medical care. When the individual separates from active duty and, if eligible, seeks medical care at a VA facility, VA will then create a medical record for the individual, which will be stored in its health data repository. Upon viewing the medical record, the VA clinician would be alerted and provided access to the individual’s clinical information residing in DOD’s repository. In the same manner, when a veteran seeks medical care at a military treatment facility, the attending DOD clinician would be alerted and provided with access to the health information in VA’s repository. According to the departments, this planned approach would make virtual medical records displaying all available patient health information from the two repositories accessible to both departments’ clinicians. VA officials have stated that they anticipate being able to exchange some degree of health information through an interface of their health data repository with DOD’s clinical data repository by the end of calendar year 2005.

The Two-Way Exchange Could Benefit from Improved Planning and Project Management

While VA and DOD are making progress in agreeing to and adopting standards for clinical data, they continue to face significant challenges in providing a virtual medical record based on the two-way exchange of data as part of their HealthePeople (Federal) initiative. Specifically, VA and DOD do not have an explicit architecture that provides details on what specific technologies they will use to achieve the exchange capability; a fully established project management structure that will ensure the necessary day-to-day guidance of and accountability for the departments’ investment in and implementation of the exchange; and a project management plan describing the specific responsibilities of each department in developing, testing, and deploying the interface and addressing security requirements.

System Architecture Not Developed

VA’s and DOD’s ability to exchange data between their separate health information systems is crucial to achieving the goals of HealthePeople (Federal). Yet, successfully sharing health data between the departments via a secure electronic interface between each of their data repositories can be complex and challenging, and depends significantly on the departments’ having a clearly articulated architecture, or blueprint, defining how specific technologies will be used to achieve the interface. Developing, maintaining, and using an architecture is a best practice in engineering information systems and other technological solutions. An architecture would articulate, for example, the system requirements and design specifications, database descriptions, and software descriptions that define the manner in which the departments will electronically store, update, and transmit their data.

VA and DOD lack an explicit architecture that provides details on what specific technologies they will use to achieve the exchange capability, or just what they will be able to exchange by the end of 2005—their projected date for having this capability operational. While VA officials stated that they recognize the importance of a clearly defined architecture, they acknowledged that the departments’ actions were continuing to be driven by the less specific, high-level strategy that has been in place since September 2002.

Officials in both departments stated that a planned pharmacy prototype initiative, begun this past March in response to requirements of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2003, would assist them in defining the electronic interface technology needed to exchange patient health information. The act mandated that VA and DOD develop a real-time interface, data exchange, and capability to check prescription drug data for outpatients by October 1, 2004. In late February, VA hired a contractor to develop the planned prototype but the departments had not yet fully determined the approach or requirements for it. DOD officials stated that the contractor was expected to more fully define the technical requirements for the prototype. In late April, the departments reported approval of the contractor’s requirements and technical design for the prototype.

While the pharmacy prototype may help define a technical solution for the two-way exchange of health information between the two departments’ existing systems, there is no assurance that this same solution can be used to interface the new systems under development. Because the departments’ new health information systems—major components of HealthePeople (Federal)—are scheduled for completion over the next 4 to 9 years, the prototype may only test the ability to exchange data in VA’s and DOD’s existing health systems. Thus, given the uncertainties regarding what capabilities the pharmacy prototype will demonstrate, it is difficult to predict how or whether the prototype initiative will contribute to defining the architecture and technological solution for the two-way exchange of patient health information for the HealthePeople (Federal) initiative.

Fully Established Project Management Structure Not in Place

Industry best practices and information technology project management principles stress the importance of accountability and sound planning for any project, particularly an interagency effort of the magnitude and complexity of HealthePeople (Federal). Based on our past work, we have found that a project management structure should establish relationships between managing entities with each entity’s roles and responsibilities clearly articulated. Further, it is important to establish final decision- making authority with one entity.

However, VA and DOD have not fully established a project management structure that will ensure the necessary day-to-day guidance of and accountability for the departments’ investment in and implementation of the two-way capability. According to officials in both departments a joint working group and oversight by the Joint Executive Council and VA/DOD Health Executive Council has provided the collaboration necessary for HealthePeople (Federal). However, this oversight by the executive councils is at a very high level, occurs either bimonthly or quarterly, and encompasses all of the joint coordination and sharing efforts for health services and resources. Since a lead entity has not been designated, neither department has had the authority to make final project decisions binding on the other. Further, the roles and responsibilities for each department have not been clearly articulated. Without a clearly defined project management structure, accountability and a means to monitor progress are difficult to establish.

In early March, VA officials stated that the departments had designated a program manager for the planned pharmacy prototype and were establishing roles and responsibilities for managing the joint initiative to develop an electronic interface. Just this month, officials from both departments told us that this individual would be the program manager for the electronic interface. However, they had not yet designated a lead entity or provided documentation for the project management structure or their roles and responsibilities for the HealthePeople (Federal) initiative.

Project Management Plan Lacking

An equally important component necessary for guiding the development of the electronic interface is a project management plan. Information technology project management principles and industry best practices emphasize that a project management plan is needed to define the technical and managerial processes necessary to satisfy project requirements. Specifically, the plan should include, among other things, the authority and responsibility of each organizational unit; a work breakdown structure for all of the tasks to be performed in developing, testing, and deploying the software, along with schedules associated with the tasks; and a security policy.

However, the departments are currently operating without a project management plan for HealthePeople (Federal) that describes the specific responsibilities of each department in developing, testing, and deploying the interface and addressing security requirements. This month, officials from both departments stated that a pharmacy prototype project management plan that includes a work breakdown structure and schedule was developed in mid-March. They further stated that a work group that reports to the integrated project team has been given responsibility for the development of security and information assurance provisions. While these actions should prove useful in guiding the development of the prototype, they do not address the larger issue of how the departments will develop and implement an interface to exchange health care information between their systems by 2005.

Without a project management plan, VA and DOD lack assurance that they can successfully develop and implement an electronic interface and the associated capability for exchanging health information within the time frames that they have established. VA and DOD officials stated that they have begun discussions to establish an overall project plan.

Conclusions

Achieving an electronic interface that will enable VA and DOD to exchange patient medical records is an important goal, with substantial implications for improving the quality of health care and disability claims processing for the nation’s military members and veterans. In seeking a virtual medical record based on the two-way exchange of data between their separate health information systems, VA and DOD have chosen a complex and challenging approach that necessitates the highest levels of project discipline, including a well-defined architecture for describing the interface for a common health information exchange; an established project management structure to guide the investment in and implementation of this electronic capability; and a project management plan that defines the technical and managerial processes necessary to satisfy project requirements. These critical components are currently lacking; thus, the departments risk investing in a capability that could fall short of expectations. The continued absence of these components elevates concerns about exactly what capabilities VA and DOD will achieve—and when.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To encourage significant progress on achieving the two-way exchange of health information, we recommend that the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs and Defense instruct the Acting Chief Information Officer for Health and the Chief Information Officer for the Military Health System, respectively, to develop an architecture for the electronic interface between their health systems that includes system requirements, design specifications, and software descriptions; select a lead entity with final decision-making authority for the initiative; establish a project management structure to provide day-to-day guidance of and accountability for their investments in and implementation of the interface capability; and create and implement a comprehensive and coordinated project management plan for the electronic interface that defines the technical and managerial processes necessary to satisfy project requirements and includes (1) the authority and responsibility of each organizational unit; (2) a work breakdown structure for all of the tasks to be performed in developing, testing, and implementing the software, along with schedules associated with the tasks; and (3) a security policy.

Agency Comments

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs provided written comments on a draft of this report and we received comments via e-mail from DOD’s Interagency Program Integration and External Liaison for Health Affairs; both concurred with the recommendations. Each department’s comments are reprinted in their entirety as appendixes I and II, respectively. In their comments, the officials also provided information on actions taken or underway that, in their view, address our recommendations.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs and Defense and to the Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will also be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at www.gao.gov.

Should you have any question on matters contained in this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6240, or Barbara Oliver, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-9396. We can also be reached by e-mail at koontzl@gao.gov and oliverb@gao.gov, respectively. Other key contributors to this report were Michael P. Fruitman, Valerie C. Melvin, J. Michael Resser, and Eric L. Trout.

Appendix I: Comments from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs

Appendix II: Comments from the Director, Interagency Program Integration & External Liaison for Health Affairs