HL7 finalizing PHR standards

Health data standards group Health Level Seven (HL7) has begun accepting votes on whether or not to approve its Personal Health Record Functional Model (PHR-S), an interesting development given that health plans, employers and providers still don't seem to have agreed upon what content a PHR should actually contain. Both members and non-members of HL7 can vote on the standards, though non-members must pay an administrative fee to participate. If approved, the HL7 standards will become a draft standard, and will be refined for two years until they comply with ANSI requirements.

HL7's standards define what functions a PHR and security features are common in existing PHR platforms, and offers ideas on how to share between PHRs or from PHR to EMRs. PHR-S may be the first industry standard defining core functions for PHRs, according to the group's statement.

Health IT is now a consumer buzzword

The pre-HIMSS show excitement has started building. I think this should be one of the most vibrant--and overwhelming--shows in the history of HIMSS itself. Why? Well, in part, it's because this has to be one of the first times in any of our professional lives when health IT went from the concern of group practice administrators and hospital leaders a topic that seems to interest everyone but my grandma. On the other hand, I'm not sure I like where this is going. Let me explain...

One of the most obvious indicators that health IT has gone public that there are bills and proposals directly affecting the industry mounting up daily. These days e-prescribing, PHRs, EMRs and health information exchanges are on the lips of elected officials who could barely use their own Blackberry otherwise. While President Bush has encouraged much of this, if the Democrats seize the White House, I don't think that's going to change. Health IT has moved from esoteric to a matter of mainstream discussion, and that's that.

This is something of a problem. After all, while legislators may be well-intentioned, they're usually not subject-matter experts, so they may not have a realistic picture of what problems you face. Besides, while they have to win some ill-defined popularity contest--if EMR is the flavor of the week in the mainstream press, well, then, everyone should have one--you just want to make sure your organization keeps delivering good care. We're talking a slight conflict of interests here.

I don't know about you, but when I'm at HIMSS, I'm usually more interested in talking with vendors who are solving non-trendy problems in a sensible way than listening to rah-rah new stuff. That's particularly true now that consumer interest has seeped into the industry and begun influencing how products are developed, sold and presented to you.

But hey, I don't want to be too cynical. Maybe there's some things that are both praised by the vox populi and worthy of being implemented. All I know is, when I'm at HIMSS, I'm planning to keep my trendiness quotient to a minimum

What's a PHR?

One view comes from America's Health Insurance Plans: "The industry model personal health record (PHR) is a private, secure web-based tool maintained by an insurer that contains claims and administrative information." Makes sense if you're a health plan, definitely.

Or what about AHIMA's take: "A PHR is an electronic, universally available, lifelong resource of health information maintained and owned by the individual." Should calm the nerves of the privacy advocates, no?

The HIMSS definition takes us in a slightly different direction: "To enable the goals of reducing medical errors, improving quality of care, and improving the validity of information available to care providers, Personal Health Records (PHRs) function to consolidate an individual's medical information in one place." This one doesn't dwell on a patient's rights so much as the comprehensiveness of the data, which is of course a wrinkle worth considering.

Yes, I think it's pretty clear what the intent of various employer- and healthplan-driven PHRs is (cheaper, better care), but that's not enough. You can know that you want to ride from Phoenix to Denver without knowing what parts are needed to build a car.

I'm taking up this issue again, in part, because that the indefatigable folks at HL7 are voting on a functional PHR model over the next few weeks. While I'm delighted to see some consensus building on key PHR functions (such as wellness reminders or prompts to look at lab results), that still begs the question of what the ultimate goal of a PHR is. Quick: tell me in one sentence what your PHR effort is trying to accomplish. Not so easy, is it?

When it comes to PHR content, some key unanswered questions include:

* What is the core clinical data set a PHR must contain to deserve the name? Patient medical history, drug allergies, care plans, genetic data, what?
* Does the name "personal health record" imply that it's largely or entirely maintained by consumers, or are consumers merely its custodians?
* What's the benefit of maintaining a PHR? (No, I don't agree that the answer to this is obvious.)
* What is the minimum amount of data a PHR must contain to be useful?

Yes, I realize that health plans, employers, software vendors, standards groups and even consumers will have to do a lot more talking before they arrive at a shared conclusion on these issues--and that technology never moves ahead without some fuzzy logic in between--but in my view things are still too fuzzy. As I see it, it's critical to get bit more clarity on core issues like, say, whether a PHR should be populated by claims data, consumer self-reporting, EMR data or a mix before more dollars are spent. In the mean time, let's not put the cart before the horse, shall we?

HIMSS08: Google unveils details of PHR

So, the Google boys have marched into town with their own PHR, which they demonstrated last week for a marveling crowd at HIMSS08. At a modest booth on a side alley at the exhibition, Google was premiering a simple PHR interface consisting of only few text links, including a link to a feature allowing users to search for doctors, and another accessing Google Scholar to search for medical information. The PHR's key function was a link to a utility allowing users to import records from varied provider systems, then store the records online. Of course, Google CEO Eric Schmidt has been making the rounds assuring privacy advocates that the search giant won't share these records without the patient's consent, but as I understand it, since Google's not a provider they're not required to meet HIPAA standards unless they feel like it. How long that will last, particularly if competitors like Microsoft and Revolution Health begin to loosen their standards?

As we've previously noted, the records will be accessible through the same name/password combination consumers use to access other Google features, such as Calendar and Gmail. OK, readers, I'm sure you know far more than me on this front, but isn't that a fairly weak security method to store extremely private information? When I asked one of the young Google-ites manning the booth this question, he brushed it away. I don't know about you, but that didn't impress me much.

Microsoft kicks off PHR initiative

Microsoft launched a free PHR last week, working in cooperation with a wide variety of partners whose role it will be to help populate the record with useful medical data. The move puts Microsoft into competition for mindshare in an increasingly hot industry sector already peopled by technology rivals like Google and the massive employer-backed PHR effort Dossia. However, in lining up clinical partners, Microsoft is arguably ahead of its competitors, who are still largely at the talking stage in their efforts.

Partners in the PHR effort, HealthVault, include the American Heart Association, Johnson & Johnson LifeScan, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, the Mayo Clinic and MedStar Health. Rather than waiting for consumers to enter their own health information, Microsoft is counting on these partners to provide at least some of the content. For example, New York-Presbyterian has agreed to begin populating HealthVault PHRs automatically with basic patient data. Johnson & Johnson LifeScan, for its part, wants to enable its blood glucose monitors to feed readings into HealthVault accounts.