<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: HEALTH IT: Apostles Divided On Privacy, Privatization</title>
	<atom:link href="http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2007/06/28/health-it-apostles-divided-on-privacy-privatization/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2007/06/28/health-it-apostles-divided-on-privacy-privatization/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=health-it-apostles-divided-on-privacy-privatization</link>
	<description>The Policy Journal of the Health Sphere</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 07:58:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Health Affairs Blog</title>
		<link>http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2007/06/28/health-it-apostles-divided-on-privacy-privatization/comment-page-1/#comment-12813</link>
		<dc:creator>Health Affairs Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:09:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2007/06/28/health-it-apostles-divided-on-privacy-privatization/#comment-12813</guid>
		<description>[...] Sharp debate surfaced at the Markle meeting over privacy policy, for example, echoing arguments last spring in the Department of Health and Human Services’ policy-setting body, the awkwardly-titled American Health Information Community (AHIC). Privacy advocates worry that that protections in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) &#8212; imperfect as they are &#8212; don’t even apply to the new players in the PHR space. But developers of new tools and products fear that HIPAA-like regulations will stifle innovation. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Sharp debate surfaced at the Markle meeting over privacy policy, for example, echoing arguments last spring in the Department of Health and Human Services’ policy-setting body, the awkwardly-titled American Health Information Community (AHIC). Privacy advocates worry that that protections in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) &#8212; imperfect as they are &#8212; don’t even apply to the new players in the PHR space. But developers of new tools and products fear that HIPAA-like regulations will stifle innovation. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Health From A New Blogging Perspective &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Dosage Calculations.</title>
		<link>http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2007/06/28/health-it-apostles-divided-on-privacy-privatization/comment-page-1/#comment-9087</link>
		<dc:creator>Health From A New Blogging Perspective &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Dosage Calculations.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:52:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2007/06/28/health-it-apostles-divided-on-privacy-privatization/#comment-9087</guid>
		<description>[...] &lt;b&gt;HEALTH&lt;/b&gt; IT: Apostles Divided On Privacy, Privatization [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] &lt;b&gt;HEALTH&lt;/b&gt; IT: Apostles Divided On Privacy, Privatization [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken Terry</title>
		<link>http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2007/06/28/health-it-apostles-divided-on-privacy-privatization/comment-page-1/#comment-6040</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken Terry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2007 18:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2007/06/28/health-it-apostles-divided-on-privacy-privatization/#comment-6040</guid>
		<description>It might make sense to keep the American Health Information Community under the government&#039;s wing, if only to ensure that the momentum it has achieved thus far continues. But some other parts of the Wired for Health Care Quality Act could be counterproductive.

For example, the bill would require the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to designate an organization to certify electronic health records and health data exchanges. That organization might or might not be the Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology, which is now in the second year of its three-year contract with HHS. CCHIT, formed by three private-sector associations, has done an outstanding job of gaining market acceptance for ambulatory EHR certification, and is now embarking on certification of electronic records in hospitals, ERs and other care settings to break down the silos that prevent health care providers from communicating with each other online. To cut off CCHIT&#039;s work just as it&#039;s gaining traction would be a tragic waste and a political mistake. 

It has also been reported that some of the work being done by the Health IT Standards Panel--a private-sector advisory panel to AHIC--would be handed over to a new, government-sponsored organization if this bill becomes law. Again, HITSPE has made a lot of progress in harmonizing standards, and it defies logic to have its vital work interrupted at a key stage.

Democratic legislators are right to question the priorities of many government health-care initiatives in the last six years. But they should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It might make sense to keep the American Health Information Community under the government&#8217;s wing, if only to ensure that the momentum it has achieved thus far continues. But some other parts of the Wired for Health Care Quality Act could be counterproductive.</p>
<p>For example, the bill would require the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to designate an organization to certify electronic health records and health data exchanges. That organization might or might not be the Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology, which is now in the second year of its three-year contract with HHS. CCHIT, formed by three private-sector associations, has done an outstanding job of gaining market acceptance for ambulatory EHR certification, and is now embarking on certification of electronic records in hospitals, ERs and other care settings to break down the silos that prevent health care providers from communicating with each other online. To cut off CCHIT&#8217;s work just as it&#8217;s gaining traction would be a tragic waste and a political mistake. </p>
<p>It has also been reported that some of the work being done by the Health IT Standards Panel&#8211;a private-sector advisory panel to AHIC&#8211;would be handed over to a new, government-sponsored organization if this bill becomes law. Again, HITSPE has made a lot of progress in harmonizing standards, and it defies logic to have its vital work interrupted at a key stage.</p>
<p>Democratic legislators are right to question the priorities of many government health-care initiatives in the last six years. But they should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

