Doctors Worry about Liability as States Push Health IT Bills
State legislatures rushing to finance health IT networks and electronic health record (EHR) systems often don’t think through legal liability issues, a Dept. of Health & Human Services (HHS) advisory board meeting near Washington was told Fri. Speakers warned governors and other State E-Health Alliance members that health IT may offers many benefits but also could pose legal risks for doctors and network providers.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
“Most states are taking” health IT seriously, said attorney Gerry Hinkley. About 1/2 the states are building electronic health record (EHR) networks; at least 20 have executive orders to do so, he said. The past 2 legislative sessions, 37 health IT-related bills are being mulled in 24 states, he said. States are “substantially” supplying seed funding for such projects, he said: “Society will start to view IT as a cost of health care like the cost of doing business.” Ga. “dispensed with the requirement that medical records be maintained in tangible form,” he said.
Rural states are spurring the “telehealth movement,” said Hinkley. Via FCC and other funding, states are including phone consultations, broadband X-ray transmission and other telehealth features as “components of a larger solution,” he said: Ariz. earmarked $850,000 for telehealth; N.Y., $6 million. N.M. wants to set up a “comprehensive telehealth network,” he said.
Contractors are certifying health IT products on behalf of HHS for “baseline” security levels, said Mark Leavitt, chmn.-Certification Commission for Health IT: “When you start passing information through the network to the patients’ family, nursing home” or other place, certification ensures all parties have the same level of security. For states, “certification can reduce the risk of investing in health IT,” he said. It also can ensure that “records and networks are interoperable,” he said: “It’s very easy for that not to happen.”
Despite security advances and states’ enthusiasm for health IT, “doctors are concerned” about “unexpected legal consequences, said Holly Miller, vp-University Hospital & Health System: “As e-health is evolving, medical issues will evolve.” Another complicating factor is a lack of case law in health IT, she said. Doctors accused of malpractice for not responding to emergency e-mails may not be covered fully by insurance, she said. Most malpractice insurers haven’t weighed how health IT can help doctors perform better, said Howard Burde, an attorney with Blank Rome Health professionals: “Studies have shown reductions in errors from the use of IT. Shouldn’t that be reflected?” - Alexis Fabbri