I am not against registries at all as they are very useful and 8 years ago I built on in the EMR I wrote so no argument there at all however, a “Big Frigging Data” registry like this? Heck no. This is a flat out burden and big groups like Kaiser Permanente are doing good things with their registries and you don’t need big data here as smaller data works. Kaiser is pretty big data in itself and is a great resource and they have done some great things there. This massive government project as suggested here is just some more Congressional Algo Duping taking place. Best practices are already being established. This is just more IT money to be spent that’s all.
I agree with the AMA on this one as it would be cumbersome, especially since we are still stupefied on exchanging electronic medical records. Damn I wish those folks in Congress would re-establish the Office of Technology Assessment. That agency would be an invaluable tool and if were in Congress I would want it. I just can’t figure that one out as we live in the most complex times ever and they can’t see the forest for the trees. You get folks that are non data mechanic logics wise and they all think building big data bases solves everything (grin). Seriously, look at Richard Cordray, same thing over there, and what a disappointment he is.
Bill To Restore Office of Technology Assessment Was Defeated Again This Year As Congress Chooses to Remain In the Dark With Technology At A Time When Private Industry Is Doing Just the Opposite - “The Grays” Live On…
Even if this type of monstrosity were created, who’s going to have time? The other day, the ONC was looking for doctors to be fellows, well they don’t have time for that either. Regional or Health System registries do a fine job and we don’t need another monster IT project right now and again at least Congressman Waxman can see the light on this one. Just because you can query data and create the data bases doesn’t mean we need every single one created. BD
Draft legislation in the House Energy and Commerce Committee would require the Department of Health and Human Services to publish recommendations for development of clinical data registries to improve patient care.
The bill, introduced by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Tex.), calls for specific recommendations from the HHS Secretary “for a set of standards that, if adopted, would allow for the bidirectional, interoperable exchange of information between the electronic health records of the reporting clinicians and such registries.” The proposed legislation directs HHS to come up with recommendations on how clinical registries, including outcomes-based registries, may be developed and used to evaluate the impact of care models and methods on the management of chronic diseases based on clinical practice guidelines and best practices--such as A1C, blood pressure, and cholesterol levels in the case of diabetes.
How clinical registries can be used to reduce the risk of chronic diseases, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, is of particular interest, according to the bill. Ostensibly, HHS would recommend how data from such registries may be used to inform physicians and other healthcare professionals regarding clinical practices for the prevention of diseases, as well as the “appropriate methods for the dissemination of clinical practice support tools and other educational resources that may be derived from registry data.”
However, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), ranking member of the committee, noted that the American Medical Association opposes the bill “because they think it’s over-burdensome and may have the opposite effect, making it more difficult to create the registries.” Waxman said he wants to explore AMA opposition in a congressional hearing.