Dataset Information

Information blocking remains prevalent at the start of 21st Century Cures Act: results from a survey of health information exchange organizations.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Recent policy making aims to prevent health systems, lectronic health record (EHR) vendors, and others from blocking the electronic sharing of patient data necessary for clinical care. We sought to assess the prevalence of information blocking prior to enforcement of these rules.

Materials and methods

We conducted a national survey of health information exchange organizations (HIEs) to measure the prevalence of information blocking behaviors observed by these third-party entities. Eighty-nine of 106 HIEs (84%) meeting the inclusion criteria responded.

Results

The majority (55%) of HIEs reported that EHR vendors at least sometimes engage in information blocking, while 30% of HIEs reported the same for health systems. The most common type of information blocking behavior EHR vendors engaged in was setting unreasonably high prices, which 42% of HIEs reported routinely observing. The most common type of information blocking behavior health systems engaged in was refusing to share information, which 14% of HIEs reported routinely observing. Reported levels of vendor information blocking was correlated with regional competition among vendors and information blocking was concentrated in some geographic regions.

Discussion

Our findings are consistent with early reports, revealing persistently high levels of information blocking and important variation by actor, type of behavior, and geography. These trends reflect the observations and experiences of HIEs and their potential biases. Nevertheless, these data serve as a baseline against which to measure the impact of new regulations and to inform policy makers about the most common types of information blocking behaviors.

Conclusion

Enforcement aimed at reducing information blocking should consider variation in prevalence and how to most effectively target efforts.

SUBMITTER: Everson J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7973451 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:There is no good science in bad models. Cell culture is especially prone to artifacts. A number of novel cell culture technologies have become more broadly available in the 21st century, which allow overcoming limitations of traditional culture and are more physiologically relevant. These include the use of stem-cell derived human cells, cocultures of different cell types, scaffolds and extracellular matrices, perfusion platforms (such as microfluidics), 3D culture, organ-on-chip technologies, tissue architecture, and organ functionality. The physiological relevance of such models is further enhanced by the measurement of biomarkers (e.g., key events of pathways), organ specific functionality, and more comprehensive assessment cell responses by high-content methods. These approaches are still rarely combined to create microphysiological systems. The complexity of the combination of these technologies can generate results closer to the in vivo situation but increases the number of parameters to control, bringing some new challenges. In fact, we do not argue that all cell culture needs to be that sophisticated. The efforts taken are determined by the purpose of our experiments and tests. If only a very specific molecular target to cell response is of interest, a very simple model, which reflects this, might be much more suited to allow standardization and high-throughput. However, the less defined the end point of interest and cellular response are, the better we should approximate organ- or tissue-like culture conditions to make physiological responses more probable. Besides these technologic advances, important progress in the quality assurance and reporting on cell cultures as well as the validation of cellular test systems brings the utility of cell cultures to a new level. The advancement and broader implementation of Good Cell Culture Practice (GCCP) is key here. In toxicology, this is a major prerequisite for meaningful and reliable results, ultimately supporting risk assessment and product development decisions.

Project description:BackgroundThe 21st Century Cures Act Interoperability and Information Blocking Rule was created to increase patient access to health information. This federally mandated policy has been met with praise and concern. However, little is known about patient and clinician opinions of this policy within cancer care.MethodsWe conducted a convergent parallel mixed methods study to understand patient and clinician reactions to the Information Blocking Rule in cancer care and what they would like policy makers to consider. Twenty-nine patients and 29 clinicians completed interviews and surveys. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyze the interviews. Interview and survey data were analyzed separately, then linked to generate a full interpretation of the results.ResultsOverall, patients felt more positive about the policy than clinicians. Patients wanted policy makers to understand that patients are unique, and they want to individualize their preferences for receiving health information with their clinicians. Clinicians highlighted the uniqueness of cancer care, due to the highly sensitive information that is shared. Both patients and clinicians were concerned about the impact on clinician workload and stress. Both expressed an urgent need for tailoring implementation of the policy to avoid unintended harm and distress for patients.ConclusionsOur findings provide suggestions for optimizing the implementation of this policy in cancer care. Dissemination strategies to better inform the public about the policy and improve clinician understanding and support are recommended. Patients who have serious illness or diagnoses such as cancer and their clinicians should be included when developing and enacting policies that could have a significant impact on their well-being. Patients with cancer and their cancer care teams want the ability to tailor information release based on individual preferences and goals. Understanding how to tailor implementation of the Information Blocking Rule is essential for retaining its benefits and minimizing unintended harm for patients with cancer.