Free EMR Newsletter Want to receive the latest news on EMR, Meaningful Use, ARRA and Healthcare IT sent straight to your email? Join thousands of healthcare pros who subscribe to EMR and HIPAA for FREE!!

The Opportunity for Health Information Exchanges (HIEs) to Untangle Health Records

Posted on February 6, 2018 I Written By

The following is a guest blog by Monica Stout from MedicaSoft

As the government’s Meaningful Use incentive program accelerated the adoption of Electronic Health Records, it also increased the use of patient portals and PHRs to meet MU patient engagement measures. You see this today when you’re offered a portal login at your doctor appointments. Other encouraging trends developed around the same time:

  1. Studies proved that engaged patients tend to exhibit more positive health outcomes at lower costs.
  2. Interest increased among patient populations to be involved in their health and wellness, including a desire to see (and even contribute to) their electronic medical records.
  3. Technology innovations flourished to support health (wearables, health devices, applications, etc.).

Despite these trends and the relative success of MU-driven deployments, the patient portal and personal health record landscape leaves much to be desired for their primary users and audience – patients. Many of these tools were created simply to satisfy MU requirements and while they do this, they don’t completely tie together patients’ complex health histories, include data from multiple providers, or travel with the patient from visit to visit. Instead, patients have many different portals – a different one from every different provider. Who wants 10 different portals? Nobody has time for that!

Patients need help assembling a single view of their health records. HIEs are unique in that they work with many different health systems, hospitals, and providers in their regions. HIEs represent an opportunity to be a true integrator of health information between providers and their patients. This can be a regional solution now, and with efforts like the Patient Centered Data Home (PCDH), there is greater opportunity for HIEs to share data across state and regional lines, further expanding their reach and extending real benefits to patients who want their data in one place.

HIEs can leverage their unique position into a meaningful benefit for patient by first creating a single patient record or universal health record (UHR). This UHR or platform works seamlessly with PHRs. By making PHRs available to providers in their exchange, they can then share health data among every provider they link up with and the connections grow from there when you add in PCDH connections in other regions and states. Once there is a platform in place that is truly interoperable, sharing data between providers, patients can start using PHRs that have useful, relevant health data from all of their providers. HIEs can then start building in other capabilities like analytics, population health, care quality metrics, and more.

A patient’s medical journey involves multiple providers and different physical locations as their lives and health evolve. Their health information – in a single, universal health record – should evolve with them. HIEs can play a significant role in making that happen.

About Monica Stout
Monica is a HIT teleworker in Grand Rapids, Michigan by way of Washington, D.C., who has consulted at several government agencies, including the National Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). She’s currently the Marketing Director at MedicaSoft. Monica can be found on Twitter @MI_turnaround or @MedicaSoftLLC.

About MedicaSoft
MedicaSoft  designs, develops, delivers, and maintains EHR, PHR, and UHR software solutions and HISP services for healthcare providers and patients around the world. MedicaSoft is a proud sponsor of Healthcare Scene. For more information, visit www.medicasoft.us or connect with us on Twitter @MedicaSoftLLC, Facebook, or LinkedIn.

Patient Portals and Chronic Disease Management

Posted on January 16, 2018 I Written By

The following is a guest blog by Monica Stout from MedicaSoft

Half of all U.S. adults, roughly 117 million people, have one or more chronic health conditions. 1 in 4 people have two or more chronic conditions. As a nation, we need some help addressing the chronic disease epidemic. Many patient portals today give patients access to pieces of their health information – lab results, for example – and some will flag upcoming appointments or refill a prescription, but where are the tools and the data in a portal to actually help patients manage chronic conditions, thereby improving their overall health and wellness? Sadly, many patient portals provide a very narrow view, with few opportunities to link data to actions to results in a way that closes the loop between patients and caregivers. Without a complete view of a patient’s health measures, wellness goals, and plans of action – and the tools to manage them – it is very difficult to connect health and wellness to address the whole patient.

Chronic disease management represents one of the best opportunities for a personal health record to link both wellness and healthcare together to affect positive health outcomes. What does it take to improve and maintain wellness? First, you need patient engagement. You need motivated patients who want to do a good job of actively tracking their conditions and working toward wellness goals. How do you convince a chronically ill patient to do this? Start by offering a tool that’s easy for them to track their data – complete with a workflow and user interface that makes it a breeze to enter and distill information at a glance and when they are on the go. Use technology similar to what patients use in their daily lives on their smart phones and laptops. Give patients tools to understand their health and take action based on how they are doing and what their health goals are! Provide a portal that allows the integration of popular wearable devices and lets the patient decide who should have access (Spouses? Caregivers?) to help them enter and manage their information.

Effectively managing chronic disease requires changing poor habits and forming good habits. Sometimes people need a gentle nudge or a push outside of the exam room. A platform that can send out reminders, gamify the experience, and even call a patient can go a long way in helping steer chronic disease patients in a more positive wellness direction. It’s not all about reminders, either. Texts and calls informing patients when they are doing a good job managing their daily wellness habits can also help.

Beyond helping patients, there’s an added benefit to coupling wellness capabilities with a PHR for providers – it has the ability to not only affect chronic disease factors, but to collect the data providers need to participate in the Quality Payment Program; the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA). To quickly review, the Quality Payment Program allows clinicians to be rewarded financially for providing high-quality and high value care through Advanced Alternate Payment Models (APMs) or MIPS that are based on various measures. These measures can be integrated into the PHR, allowing physicians to track their patient populations, run reports, submit information to the Quality Payment Program, and receive merit payments.

What are your thoughts? Would you use a PHR to manage a chronic condition you are experiencing? Would you encourage your loved ones to use one? As a provider, how do you feel about a PHR making it easier for you to track MIPS/MACRA measures?

About Monica Stout
Monica is a HIT teleworker in Grand Rapids, Michigan by way of Washington, D.C., who has consulted at several government agencies, including the National Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). She’s currently the Marketing Director at MedicaSoft. Monica can be found on Twitter @MI_turnaround or @MedicaSoftLLC.

About MedicaSoft
MedicaSoft  designs, develops, delivers, and maintains EHR, PHR, and UHR software solutions and HISP services for healthcare providers and patients around the world. MedicaSoft is a proud sponsor of Healthcare Scene. For more information, visit www.medicasoft.us or connect with us on Twitter @MedicaSoftLLC, Facebook, or LinkedIn.

Key Articles in Health IT from 2017 (Part 1 of 2)

Posted on January 2, 2018 I Written By

Andy Oram is an editor at O'Reilly Media, a highly respected book publisher and technology information provider. An employee of the company since 1992, Andy currently specializes in open source, software engineering, and health IT, but his editorial output has ranged from a legal guide covering intellectual property to a graphic novel about teenage hackers. His articles have appeared often on EMR & EHR and other blogs in the health IT space. Andy also writes often for O'Reilly's Radar site (http://oreilly.com/) and other publications on policy issues related to the Internet and on trends affecting technical innovation and its effects on society. Print publications where his work has appeared include The Economist, Communications of the ACM, Copyright World, the Journal of Information Technology & Politics, Vanguardia Dossier, and Internet Law and Business. Conferences where he has presented talks include O'Reilly's Open Source Convention, FISL (Brazil), FOSDEM, and DebConf.

This article provides a retrospective of 2017 in Health It–but a retrospective from an unusual perspective. I will highlight interesting articles I’ve read from the year as pointers to trends we should follow up on in the upcoming years.

Indubitably, 2017 is a unique year due to political events that threw the field of health care into wild uncertainty and speculation, exemplified most recently by the attempts to censor the use of precise and accurate language at the Centers for Disease Control (an act of political interference that could not be disguised even by those who tried to explain it away). Threats to replace the Affordable Care Act (another banned phrase) drove many institutions, which had formerly focused on improving communications or implementing risk sharing health care costs, to fall back into a lower level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, obsessing over whether insurance payments would cease and patients would stop coming. News about health IT was also drowned out by more general health topics such as drug pricing, the opiate crisis, and revenue pressures that close hospitals.

Key issues

But let’s start our retrospective on an upbeat note. A brief study summary from January 4 reported lower costs for some surgeries when hospitals participated in a modest bundled payment program sponsored by CMS. This suggests that fee-for-value could be required more widely by payers, even in the absence of sophisticated analytics and care coordination. Because only a small percentage of clinicians choose bold risk-sharing reimbursement models, this news is important.

Next, a note on security. Maybe we should reprioritize clinicians’ defenses against the electronic record breaches we’ve been hearing so much about. An analysis found that the most common reason for an unauthorized release of data was an attack by an insiders (43 percent). This contrasts with 26.8 percent from outside intruders. (The article doesn’t say how many records were compromised by each breach, though–if they had, the importance of outside intruders might have skyrocketed.) In any case, watch your audit logs and don’t trust your employees.

In a bracing and rare moment of candor, President Obama and Vice President Biden (remember them?) sharply criticized current EHRs for lack of interoperability. Other articles during the year showed that the political leaders were on target, as interoperability–an odd health care term for what other industries call “data exchange”–continues to be just as elusive as ever. Only 30% of hospitals were able to exchange data (although the situation has probably improved since the 2015 data used in the study). Advances in interoperability were called “theoretical” and the problem was placed into larger issues of poor communication. The Harvard Business Review weighed in too, chiding doctors for spending so much money on systems that don’t communicate.

The controversy sharpened as fraud charges were brought against a major EHR vendor for gaming the certification for Meaningful Use. A couple months later, strangely, the ONC weakened its certification process and announced it would rely more on the vendors to police themselves.

A long article provided some historical background on the reasons for incompatibility among EHRS.

Patients, as always, are left out of the loop: an ONC report finds improvements but many remaining barriers to attempts by patients to obtain the medical records that are theirs by law. And should the manufacturers of medical devices share the data they collect with patients? One would think it an elementary right of patients, but guidance released this year by the FDA was remarkably timid, pointing out the benefits of sharing but leaving it as merely a recommendation and offering big loopholes.

The continued failure to exchange data–which frustrates all attempts to improve treatments and cut costs–has led to the question: do EHR vendors and clinicians deliberately introduce technical measures for “information blocking”? Many leading health IT experts say no. But a study found that explicit information blocking measures are real.

Failures in interoperability and patient engagement were cited in another paper.

And we can’t leave interoperability without acknowledging the hope provided by FHIR. A paper on the use of FHIR with the older Direct-based interoperability protocols was released.

We’ll make our way through the rest of year and look at some specific technologies in the next part of the article.

PHRs at Work

Posted on December 20, 2017 I Written By

The following is a guest blog by Monica Stout from MedicaSoft

We live in an age when our employers can offer a myriad of employee benefits – from pet insurance to wellness incentives. There is no shortage in what employers can offer as a benefit to their employees. Some employers, such as the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), are offering Personal Health Records (PHRs) to their employees as part of a package of health and wellness benefits.

Why offer a PHR to employees? PHRs can help people better gather all of their health information in one place – records from doctors and hospitals, lab results, data from personal devices (like FitBit) and apps, etc. They can help people understand what’s in their health records, manage their own health information, share it with people they trust, and plan for an emergency or for when future health needs arise.

All of this is done in one place that is completely under the employee’s control. Employee-owned PHRs can also allow patients to review their health information for accuracy and share information with trusted healthcare providers. Additionally, employer-hosted, patient-controlled PHRs can help employees or patients aggregate and consolidate the portals and health information they have spanning each doctor’s office, hospital, or health system they’ve visited so that all of their information resides in one place.

A common concern or barrier to employee adoption of PHRs is the fear that employers will look at an employee’s private health information. Fret not. Though it is natural to fear that your employer may look at your information, privacy safeguards are in place to prevent that from happening. PHRs like HealthCenter and USPS Health Connect let you control who sees your information, and provide monitoring to track all access.

What do you think? Would you like a PHR offered to you at work? How would it help you better manage your health or the health of your dependents or loved ones?

About Monica Stout
Monica is a HIT teleworker in Grand Rapids, Michigan by way of Washington, D.C., who has consulted at several government agencies, including the National Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). She’s currently the Marketing Director at MedicaSoft. Monica can be found on Twitter @MI_turnaround or LinkedIn.

About MedicaSoft
MedicaSoft designs, develops, delivers, and maintains EHR, PHR, and UHR software solutions and HISP services for healthcare providers and patients around the world. MedicaSoft is a proud sponsor of Healthcare Scene. For more information, visit www.medicasoft.us or connect with us on Twitter @MedicaSoftLLC, Facebook, or LinkedIn.

The Power of Combining Clinical & Claims Data

Posted on November 16, 2017 I Written By

The following is a guest blog by Monica Stout from MedicaSoft

Whether the goal is to improve outcomes or increase efficiency, the healthcare industry finds itself searching for more and better data to support its efforts. Clinical data provides substantial details on patient encounters, but it is often difficult to assemble and integrate data from more than one healthcare provider. Claims data is better at following a patient across multiple care providers, but lacks information on patient health status and outcomes. Individually, both sets of data tell helpful stories, from chronicling the cost of care to reflecting how medicine is practiced. Together, clinical and claims data provide a fuller picture of a patient’s interactions with health care systems, the costs involved, and the results achieved. This larger picture provides the information that healthcare providers and insurers can use to guide their actions.

Assembling this data and making it available in a useful framework remains challenging. Data is not always available from providers and payers. When data is available, it is often not standardized (a particular issue with clinical data), making analysis difficult. So, how do organizations avoid investing time and money in efforts that fail to produce meaningful results? How do you make the data useful and improve patient satisfaction, care quality, and drive down system costs?

  1. Better data sharing agreements. Both providers and payers need more stringent data sharing agreements in place as well as insistence that they receive good data from plans.
  2. Address data quality issues head-on. Use real experts armed with specific tools to address any data quality issues within an organization.
  3. Use technology to help. Clinical data platforms can aggregate and integrate data into clinically relevant patient records, and claims data platforms extract relevant information from the complexity of the underlying claims data. Further, new advanced platforms help integrate clinical and claims data to support meaningful analytics.

Bringing together clinical data and claims data in a form that supports a variety of tools and analytics is key to the efforts of both healthcare providers and payers to improve outcomes, quality, and cost. This integrated data approach will yield better results than can be achieved with clinical or claims data alone. Stakeholders can and should leverage both policy and technology to develop solutions that produce meaningful results.

Are you combining clinical and claims data in your organization? What value have you gotten out of doing so? Why aren’t you doing it if you’re not?

About Monica Stout
Monica is a HIT teleworker in Grand Rapids, Michigan by way of Washington, D.C., who has consulted at several government agencies, including the National Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). She’s currently the Marketing Director at MedicaSoft. Monica can be found on Twitter @MI_turnaround or LinkedIn.

About MedicaSoft
MedicaSoft designs, develops, delivers, and maintains EHR, PHR, and UHR software solutions and HISP services for healthcare providers and patients around the world. MedicaSoft is a proud sponsor of Healthcare Scene. For more information, visit www.medicasoft.us or connect with us on Twitter @MedicaSoftLLC, Facebook, or LinkedIn.

Is It Time To Redefine Interoperability?

Posted on October 26, 2017 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

Recently, an article appearing in healthcare journal HealthAffairs argued that hospitals’ progress toward interoperability has been modest to date. The article, which looked at the extent to which hospitals found, sent, received and integrated information from outside providers in 2015, found that they’d made few gains across all four categories.

Researchers found that the percent of hospitals engaging in all four activities rose to 29.7% that year, up from 24.5% in 2014. The two activities that grew the most in frequency were sending (growing 8.1%) and receiving (8.4%). Despite this expansion, only 18.7% of hospitals reported that they used this data often. The extent to which hospitals integrated the information they received didn’t change from 2014 to 2015.

Interesting, isn’t it, how these stats fail to align with what we know of hospitals’ priorities?  Not only did the rate hospitals sent and received data increase slowly between those two years, hospitals don’t seem to be making any advances in integrating (and presumably, using) shared data. This doesn’t make sense given hospitals’ intense efforts to make interoperability happen.

The question is, are hospitals still limping along in their efforts, or are we failing to measure their progress effectively? For years now, looking at the extent to which they sent/received/found/integrated data has been the accepted yardstick most quarters. To my knowledge, though, those metrics haven’t been validated by formal research as being the best way to define and capture levels of interoperability.

Yes, hospital health data interoperability may be moving as slowly as the HealthAffairs article suggests. After all, I hardly have to tell readers like you how difficult it has been to foster interoperability in any form, and how challenging it has been to achieve any kind of consensus on data staring standards. If someone tells progress toward health data exchange between hospitals hasn’t reached robust levels yet, it probably won’t surprise you in the least.

Still, before we draw the sweeping conclusions about something as important as interoperability, it probably wouldn’t hurt to double-check that we’re asking the right questions.

For example, is the extent to which providers send data to outside organizations as important as the extent to which they receive such data?  I know, in theory, that health data exchanges would be just that, a back and forth between parties on both sides. Certainly, such arrangements are probably better for the industry as a whole long term. But does that mean we should discount the importance of one side or the other of the process?

Perhaps more importantly, at least in my book, is the degree to which hospitals integrate the data into their own systems a good proxy for measuring who’s making interoperability progress? And should be assumed that if they integrate the data, they’re likely to use it to improve outcomes or streamline care?

Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not suggesting that the existing metrics are useless. However, it would be nice to know whether they actually measure what we want them to measure. We need to validate our tools if we want use them to make important judgments about care delivery. Otherwise, why bother with measurements in the first place?

Patient Portal Use Rising Rapidly

Posted on October 25, 2017 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

A new study has concluded that patient portal use has shot up over the past few years, with a substantial majority of patients reporting that they use provider portals if possible.

The purpose of the study, results of which was published in Perspectives in Health Information Management, was to examine how healthcare consumers saw their interactions with provider portals, their use of personal health records and their take on the process of releasing health data.

According to a 2015 study cited by the article’s authors, 53% of HIM professionals reported charging consumers for both electronic and paper copies of their health information. Thirty-eight percent said they had a patient portal, but less than 5% of patients were using it.

Over the last two years, however, the picture has changed a great deal. Researchers conducting the current study found that only 10% of consumers were charged for their health information. In addition, 49% reported that they maintained a personal health record. Eighty-three percent of respondents said that their providers had portals, and 82% said that they were taking advantage of their provider’s portal where available.

Patient uses for portals included viewing lab results (35%), requesting medication refills (19%), requesting appointments (22%), secure messaging (19%) and other (5%). Among portal users, 53% were very satisfied and 38% were satisfied with their experiences.

Meanwhile, 49% of respondents said they maintained PHRs, with top record format being combined paper and electronic (46%), followed by paper only (35%), electronic only (18%) and other (1%).

It’s important to note that the study population was especially healthcare-savvy. Participants chosen were campus-based and online students enrolled in a College of Health Professions course, alumni of BA programs in HIM at the researchers’ university, local AHIMA members and the researchers’ family and friends.

The article argues that because the participants were all current healthcare consumers, they were qualified participants. That may be so, but the high concentration of HIM-friendly respondents probably stacked the deck somewhat. (To be fair, the authors admit this.)

That being said, even these relatively sophisticated respondents weren’t completely comfortable with the health data access they had. Complaints cited by consumers included a lack of interoperability between physicians’ offices and electronic PHI, as well as the difficulty of getting data into the portal or updated when already present. Others reported having concerns about health data security.

All told, it looks like the hoped-for growth in patient health data use is taking place over time. I suspect that a direct comparison between less-informed consumers from 2015 and today would show less pronounced changes, though.

 

HIT for HIEs

Posted on October 17, 2017 I Written By

The following is a guest blog by Mike O’Neill, CEO at MedicaSoft. This is the third blog in a three-part sponsored blog post series focused on new HIT for integration. Each month, a different MedicaSoft expert will share insights on new and innovative technology and its applications in healthcare.

Health Information Exchanges (HIEs) have been in the news lately, and for good reason. With major hurricanes devastating Texas, Florida, the British Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico, accessibility of patient health information rapidly became a major concern. Electronic Health Record adoption has led to most patient data being in electronic form, but it hasn’t necessarily made that data available when and where care is delivered. HIEs can help make that data available; during the recent storms two HIEs were able to spring to action to help clinicians provide care for patients. The ability of the Houston and San Antonio-area HIEs (Greater Houston Healthconnect (GHHC) and Healthcare Access San Antonio (HASA) to exchange information allowed patient records to be accessed remotely – which was absolutely critical during this natural disaster.

If you were on the fence about “the cloud,” this is the perfect case study in its effectiveness. More than ever, HIEs are called upon to assist by making health records available during critical care encounters. HIEs need modern technology to best serve their communities in these instances, going beyond basic connectivity and interoperability to deliver tangible value using the wealth of data they collect –

  1. Organize the data into meaningful health records. HIEs often have access to years of raw data. They may need help organizing it into a clinical data repository, matching patients, and providing a health record that is clinically useful. This is one way we assist HIEs in using the data they’ve collected.
  2. Provide valuable alerts & notifications. These are useful, especially in a crisis, to locate patients, but they can also give patients notice on events they need to follow-up on. This is another layer we build onto HIEs’ data foundation.

Health records that are useful go a long way – beyond individual hospitals, and regions and state lines. To be useful, health records must go where the patients go, wherever that may be.

An emerging approach to meet this need is the Strategic Health Information Exchange Collaborative (SHIEC’s) Patient-Centered Data Home (PCDH) concept among HIEs. PCDH helps providers access real-time health information across regional and state lines, wherever the patient is seeking care. Regardless of where the clinical data originates, it becomes part of the patient’s longitudinal patient record – the PCDH – giving patients control of their data.

About Mike O’Neill
Mike is the CEO at MedicaSoft. He came to MedicaSoft from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) where he was a Senior Advisor and member of the founding team of the VA Center for Innovation. Mike serves as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Open Source Electronic Health Record Alliance (OSEHRA). Prior to VA, Mike was involved in the commercialization of new products and technology in startups and large companies. He is a die-hard Virginia Tech Hokie.  

About MedicaSoft
MedicaSoft designs, develops, delivers, and maintains EHR, PHR, and UHR software solutions and HISP services for healthcare providers and patients around the world. For more information, visit www.medicasoft.us or connect with us on Twitter @MedicaSoftLLC, Facebook, or LinkedIn.

Health Data Standardization Project Proposes “One Record Per Person” Model

Posted on October 13, 2017 I Written By

Anne Zieger is a healthcare journalist who has written about the industry for 30 years. Her work has appeared in all of the leading healthcare industry publications, and she's served as editor in chief of several healthcare B2B sites.

When we sit around the ol’ HIT campfire and swap interoperability stories, many of us have little to do but gripe.

Is FHIR going to solve all of our interoperability problems? Definitely not right away, and who knows if it ever will? Can we get the big EMR vendors to share and share alike? They’ll try, but there’s always a catch. And so on. There’s always a major catch involved.

I don’t know if the following offers a better story than any of the others, but at least it’s new one, or at least new to me. Folks, I’m talking about the Standard Health Record, an approach to health data sharing doesn’t fall precisely any of the other buckets I’m aware of.

SHR is based at The MITRE Corporation, which also hosts virtual patient generator Synthea. Rather than paraphrase, let’s let the MITRE people behind SHR tell you what they’re trying to accomplish:

The Standard Health Record (SHR) provides a high quality, computable source of patient information by establishing a single target for health data standardization… Enabled through open source technology, the SHR is designed by, and for, its users to support communication across homes and healthcare systems.

Generalities aside, what is an SHR? According to the project website, the SHR specification will contain all information critical to patient identification, emergency care and primary care along with background on social determinants of health. In the future, the group expects the SHR to support genomics, microbiomics and precision medicine.

Before we dismiss this as another me-too project, it’s worth giving the collaborative’s rationale a look:

The fundamental problem is that today’s health IT systems contain semantically incompatible information. Because of the great variety of the data models of EMR/EHR systems, transferring information from one health IT system to another frequently results in the distortion or loss of information, blocking of critical details, or introduction of erroneous data. This is unacceptable in healthcare.

The approach of the Standard Health Record (SHR) is to standardize the health record and health data itself, rather than focusing on exchange standards.

As a less-technical person, I’m not qualified to say whether this can be done in a way that will be widely accepted, but the idea certainly seems intuitive.

In any event, no one is suggesting that the SHR will change the world overnight. The project seems to be at the beginning stages, with collaborators currently prototyping health record specifications leveraging existing medical record models. (The current SHR spec can be found here.)

Still, I’d love for this to work, because it is at least a fairly straightforward idea. Creating a single source of health data truth seems like it might work.