VA’s mission is to promote the health, welfare, and dignity of all veterans in recognition of their service to the nation by ensuring they receive medical care, benefits, social support, and lasting memorials. The information technology programs that I will be discussing today are primary concerns of two of VA’s major components: the Veterans Health Administration, which manages one of the largest health care systems in the United States, with 157 hospitals nationwide, and the Veterans Benefits Administration, which provides benefits and services to veterans and their dependents that include compensation and pension, educat guaranty, and insurance. In 1998, following a presidential call for VA and DOD to start developing a “comprehensive, life-long medical record for eac service member,” the two departments began a joint course of action aimed at achieving the capability to share patient health h information for active duty military personnel and veterans. Their first initiative, undertaken in that year, was known as the Government Computer-Based Patient Record (GCPR) project; the goal of this project was an electronic interface that would allow physicians and other authorized users at VA and DOD health facilities to access data from any of the other agency’s 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. In our reviews of the GCPR project, we 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. In April 2001 and in June 2002, we made recommendations to help strengthen the management and oversight of the project. 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 progress toward being able to electronically share patient health data. The two departments had refocused the project and named it 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 activity that would allow the transfer from DOD to VA 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 (the Composite Health Care System or CHCS) to a separate database that VA clinicians could access. ● A second phase, finalized in March 2004, 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. According to the December 2004 VA/DOD Joint Executive Council Annual Report, FHIE was fully operational, and providers at all VA medical centers and clinics nationwide had access to data on separated service members. According to the report, the FHIE data repository at that time contained historical clinical health data on 2.3 million unique patients from 1989 on, and the repository made a significant contribution to the delivery and continuity of care and adjudication of disability claims of separated service members as they transitioned to veteran status. The departments reported total GCPR/FHIE costs of about $85 million through fiscal year 2003. In addition, officials stated that in December 2004, the departments began to plan for using the FHIE framework to transfer pre- and postdeployment health assessment data from DOD to VA. According to these officials, transferring of this information began in July 2005, and VA has now received about 1.3 million of these records on more than 560,000 separated service members. However, not all DOD medical information is captured in CHCS. For example, according to DOD officials, as of September 2005, 1.7 million patient stay records were stored in the Clinical Information System (a commercial product customized for DOD). In addition, many Air Force facilities use a system called the Integrated Clinical Database for their medical information. The revised DOD/VA strategy also envisioned achieving a longer term, two-way exchange of health information between DOD and VA, which may also address systems outside of CHCS. Known as HealthePeople (Federal), this initiative is premised on 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 hea between the new systems that each department is currently developing and beginning to implement—DOD’s AHLTA and VA’s HealtheVet VistA. DOD began developing AHLTA in 1997. component for the planned electronic interface—its Clinical Data Repository, and it expects to complete deployment of all of its major system capabilities by 2011. (When we reported in June 2004, this deployment was expected in September 2008.) DOD expects to spend about $783 million for the system through fiscal year 2006. At that time it was known as CHCS II. In November 2005, DOD renamed CHCS II the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA). million on initiatives that comprise HealtheVet VistA through fiscal year 2005. Under the HealthePeople (Federal) initiative, VA and DOD envision that, on entering military service, a health record for the service member would be created and stored in DOD’s Clinical Data Repository. The record would be updated as the service member receives medical care. When the individual separated from activeduty and, if eligible, sought medical care at a VA facility, VA w then create a medical record for the individual, which would be stored in its Health Data Repository. On viewing the medical recor the VA clinician would be alerted and provided with access to the individual’s clinical information residing in DOD’s repository. In same manner, when a veteran sought medical care at a military treatment facility, the attending DOD clinician would be alerted an provided with access to the health information in VA’s repository. According to the departments, this planned approach would mak e virtual medical records displaying all available patient health information from the two repositories accessible to both departments’ clinicians. December 2004 VA and DOD Joint Strategic Plan. Developing the two repositories, populating them with data, a linking them through the CHDR interface would be important steps toward the two departments’ long-term goals as envisioned in HealthePeople (Federal). Achieving these goals would then depend on completing the development and deployment of the associated health information systems—HealtheVet VistA and AHLTA. In a review of the CHDR program in June 2004, we reported that the efforts of DOD and VA in this area demonstrated a number of management weaknesses. Among these were the lack of a well- defined architecture for describing the interface for a common health information exchange; an established project management lead entity and structure to guide the investment in the interface a its implementation; and a project management plan defining thetechnical and managerial processes necessary to satisfy project requirements. With these critical components missing, VA and DOD increased the risk that they would not achieve their goals. Accordingly, we recommended that the departments 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 establish a project management structure to provide day-to guidance of and accountability for their inv estments in and implementation of the interface capability; and create and 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 o the tasks to be performed in developing, testing, and implemen the software, along with schedules associated with the tasks; and (3) a security policy. implement a comprehensive and coordinated project f ting In September 2005, we testified that VA and DOD had made progress in the electronic sharing of patient health data in their near-term demonstration projects. We noted that with regard to their long-term goals, the departments had improved the management of the CHDR program, but that this program continued to face significant challenges—in particular, developing a project management plan of sufficient specificity to be an effective guide for the program. Besides pursuing their long-term goals for future systems through the HealthePeople (Federal) strategy, the departments are working on two demonstration projects that focus on exchanging information between existing systems: (1) Bidirectional Health Information Exchange, a project to exchange health information on shared patients, and (2) Laboratory Data Sharing Interface, an application used to transfer laboratory work orders and results. These demonstration projects were planned in response to provisions of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act of 2003, which mandated that VA and DOD conduct demonstration projects that included medical information and information technology systems to be used as a test for evaluating the feasibi advantages, and disadvantages of measures and programs designed to improve the sharing and coordination of health care and health care resources between the departments. Figure 1 is a time line showing initiation points for the VA and DOD efforts discussed here, including strategies, major programs, and the recent demonstration projects.