This Kaiser Family Foundation article reports on defining “meaningful use” of health IT:

HHS soon will issue guidance and specifications on the definition of “meaningful use” of health information technology, National Coordinator for Health IT David Blumenthal said on Friday, CongressDaily reports (Noyes, CongressDaily, 5/8).  “Meaningful use is very much on our mind,” he said, adding, “We hope to provide a direction and some specifications in the late spring, early summer” (Goldstein, “Health Blog,” Wall Street Journal, 5/8).

What do you think is meaningful use of health IT (something that doctors and hospitals should get incentive payments for)?  How should that be decided?

In this Health Affairs perspective, Michael D. Greenberg, M. Susan Ridgely and Richard J. Hillestad examine patient privacy issues in the context of the Nationwide Health Information Network:

In 2009, privacy continues to be a major driver of health care policy, in the shadow of the emerging national network. We suggest that the current framework of privacy laws is fundamentally ill-suited for regulating a transformed health care system, in which computer networks begin to supersede conventional communications.

How do we balance the push toward an interoperable, accessible health IT system with the protection of patient privacy?  Who should have primary responsibility for protecting patient information?

In this NEJM study, Dr. Ashish Jha et al. examine the low rate of health IT adoption in U.S. hospitals.

We found that less than 2% of acute care hospitals have a comprehensive electronic-records system . . . However, many institutions have parts of an electronic-records system in place, suggesting that policy interventions could increase the prevalence of electronic health records in U.S. hospitals faster than our low adoption levels might suggest. Critical strategies for policymakers hoping to promote the adoption of electronic health records by U.S. hospitals should focus on financial support, interoperability, and training of information technology support staff.

What challenges have you encountered in implementing health IT?  What strategies should policymakers employ to make it easier for doctors and hospitals to adopt health IT?

In a perspective written for Health Affairs, Stephen Parente and Jeffrey McCullough examine whether health IT improves patient saftey.

Although an extensive literature shows the value of health IT at leading academic institutions, its broader value remains unknown. We sought to estimate IT’s effect on key patient safety measures in a national sample. Using four years of Medicare inpatient data, we found that electronic medical records have a small, positive effect on patient safety.

What has your experience been?  Beyond just patient saftey, how has health IT affected the delivery of care in systems you’ve worked in?

In this NEJM perspective, Drs. Paul Tang and Thomas Lee consider how much access a patient should have to information

But unlike the stand-alone models, integrated PHRs are essentially portals into the EHRs of patients’ health care providers.² They can offer patients as much access to data, scheduling resources, and communication among members of the health care team as providers are willing to permit. Some physicians are wary of letting patients see laboratory results and book their own appointments, but provider groups around the country are pushing the envelope and giving patients access to information and the ability to share it with others.

They see systems that involve the patient in a patient-provider partnership as key to influencing health related behaviors.

Should the Obama administration be pushing for more than just interoperable EMRs?  What else should a Health IT system be asked to do?