HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY
March 24, 2005 Hearing Room 357
1:00 P.M. Tapes 29 – 30
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rep. John Dallum, Chair
Rep. Jerry Krummel, Vice-Chair
MEMBERS EXCUSED: Rep. Chuck Burley
Rep. Brad Witt
Rep. Kelley Wirth, Vice-Chair
STAFF PRESENT: Dallas Weyand, Committee Administrator
Louann Rahmig, Committee Assistant
MEASURES/ISSUES HEARD:
Electronic Health Records Task Force Report–Informational Meeting
These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules. Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words. For complete contents, please refer to the tapes.
TAPE/# |
Speaker |
Comments |
TAPE 29, A |
||
004 |
Chair Dallum |
Calls the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Announces that they will serve as a subcommittee due to Rep. Witt and Rep. Burley traveling and Rep. Wirth being “in transit.” Opens the informational meeting on electronic health records task force report. |
Electronic health records task force report – INFORMATIONAL MEETING |
||
016 |
Gretchen Morley |
Director, Health Policy Commission. Gives history of the Commission. Provides background of the Electronic Health Records Task Force. |
036 |
Jody Pettit |
Internist, Providence Medical Center. Refers to the Oregon Health Policy Commission Electronic Health Records and Data Connectivity report (EXHIBIT A). Explains the goal of the subcommittee which is to improve the quality, safety and efficiency of health care, and the flow of patient information and medical knowledge. |
070 |
Pettit |
Describes the membership of the subcommittee and their charge, which was to make recommendations regarding the role of the state to make Oregonians’ health information available anytime and anywhere. |
093 |
Pettit |
Summarizes the subcommittee’s recommendations, which include the use of national standards. |
120 |
Pettit |
Believes the financing for start-up costs should come from the private sector, ultimately building a financially sustainable model for data exchange. Discusses the Public Employees Benefit Board (PEBB) work on the use of health information technology. Explains that a study has been undertaken to determine who has electronic medical records and the readiness of others to accept the technology. |
152 |
Pettit |
Believes the state should coordinate with the private sector on communication campaigns to promote public awareness of the importance of health information technology. |
173 |
Pettit |
Concludes with a recommendation that the state participate in pilot projects and that a health information technology coordinator be appointed through the Office of Health Policy and Research. |
190 |
Chair Dallum |
Comments that there was a discussion in the interim committee that there would be savings realized if the Oregon Health Plan was moved into a technological setting. Asks if there would be savings. |
197 |
Pettit |
Answers, yes. Explains that there is enormous redundancy with data being collected that has already been collected at some point. States that patient history should be documented only once. |
216 |
Pettit |
Continues that the savings would be in administrative time. |
228 |
Chair Dallum |
Expresses concern with the Oregon Health Plan. Asks if the subcommittee looked at possible savings. |
237 |
Pettit |
Describes a group in Boston called the Center for Information Technology Leadership that did a study which showed a $78 billion saving, and Oregon would be about one percent of that. Continues that was on the “end point.” |
254 |
Chair Dallum |
Inquires if the veterans system offers a model that might work for Oregon Health Plan recipients. |
261 |
Pettit |
Replies that the Veterans Administration is a shining example of health information technology and is a good model. Advises that the software is public domain. |
269 |
Chair Dallum |
Asks for an estimate of time to put a model in place. |
277 |
Pettit |
Responds, several years up to a decade. |
294 |
Rep. Krummel |
Asks if SB 541 (EXHIBIT B) is along the lines of the recommendations. |
302 |
Pettit |
Answers that they didn’t recommend a task force but there is overlap. Believes there would be more impact with a funded, staffed position. |
320 |
Rep. Krummel |
Refers to the Medicare electronic billing process. Asks how to provide incentive for the small clinics. |
359 |
Pettit |
Responds that Medicare is playing a role in demonstration projects trying to align financial incentives. Believes the state could do something similar through the Oregon Health Plan. |
TAPE 30, A |
||
006 |
Rep. Krummel |
Asks about the possibility of using a “smart card” that would create a health savings account type of system within the Oregon Health Plan. |
024 |
Pettit |
Replies that there are vendors developing that technology. Continues that people forget to bring information so the record probably needs to reside somewhere, perhaps on the internet. Goes on that there is a concept for health records banks which would store data. |
050 |
Rep. Krummel |
Asks about practice management software becoming all-inclusive to allow for upgrades. |
081 |
Pettit |
Advises that there are a number of practice management vendors that have an electronic health record component but they vary in the degree of interface. |
102 |
Chair Dallum |
Asks if a pilot program will be a result of this health care committee. |
113 |
Pettit |
Responds that in other states there has been a public/private collaborative model where the state works with the private sector. Sees the pilot evolving in that way. |
121 |
Chair Dallum |
Expresses a sense of urgency to increase the number of people served or improving the quality of service. |
130 |
Pettit |
Comments that health care issues are paramount and the focus of the pilot should be on the uninsured and underinsured. |
148 |
Chair Dallum |
States that a way to pick up the pace of the project would be to put the savings back into the system at the beginning. |
164 |
Rep. Krummel |
Comments that the standards that are set need to have involvement of the state. Refers to the action plan in EXHIBIT A. Asks if we should encourage our insurance carriers to contract only with providers who utilize electronic medical records. |
191 |
Morley |
Advises that PEBB built into a recent request for proposal process more quality measures, looking for plans that would be vesting in activities that would improve the quality of care. |
203 |
Pettit |
Concludes with comments that health care is an issue that affects every one, and while monetary gains are there, it takes faith to streamline the system. |
216 |
Dallas Weyand |
Committee administrator. Asks if any legislation is being drafted to implement the action plan. |
220 |
Pettit |
Replies that they have been working on SB 541 and there will be modifications. |
228 |
Chair Dallum |
Closes the informational meeting on electronic health records task force report. |
229 |
Chair Dallum |
Announces a planned road trip to Fossil, Oregon, on April 7, 2005, and outlines the proposed schedule. |
313 |
Chair Dallum |
Adjourns the meeting at 1:50 p.m. |
EXHIBIT SUMMARY
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY
March 15, 2005 Hearing Room 357
1:00 P.M. Tapes 25 - 26
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rep. John Dallum, Chair
Rep. Jerry Krummel, Vice-Chair
Rep. Kelley Wirth, Vice-Chair
Rep. Chuck Burley
Rep. Brad Witt
STAFF PRESENT: Dallas Weyand, Committee Administrator
Louann Rahmig, Committee Assistant
MEASURES/ISSUES HEARD:
High Performance Computing Briefing – Informational Meeting
These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules. Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words. For complete contents, please refer to the tapes.
TAPE/# |
Speaker |
Comments |
TAPE 25, A |
||
003 |
Chair Dallum |
Calls the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. Introduces the high school students from Mitchell, Oregon, attending the committee meeting as guests. Opens the informational meeting on high performance computing briefing. |
HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING BRIEFING – INFORMATIONAL MEETING |
||
015 |
Brian Wornath |
LCN Media & Consulting Group. Announces that he represents the Oregon High Performance Computing Consortium. Distributes hard copy of General Proposal for Establishing an Oregon High Performance Computing Infrastructure PowerPoint presentation (EXHIBIT A). Begins the presentation with an overview and the goals of developing a supercomputing resource in Oregon. |
055 |
Wornath |
Provides an explanation of supercomputing and who would use it. |
074 |
Wornath |
Describes the old-style, traditional, single-purpose computer called a “monolith.” |
088 |
Wornath |
Discusses types of supercomputers. Refers to case studies in EXHIBIT A, Page 14. |
117 |
Wornath |
Discusses how much unused computing time is available after regular office hours, creating an affordable and powerful computing “grid.” |
149 |
Wornath |
Continues with justification to develop affordable high performance computing resources within Oregon. |
184 |
Wornath |
Proposes to create a state resource that markets the unused capacity and the accompanying consulting services, offering “one-stop shopping” for high-performance computing. |
216 |
Wornath |
Outlines sources for general initial capitalization. States that earnings from operations would come from leasing affordable high-performance computing time. |
237 |
Wornath |
Shows comparison of estimated financial scenarios (EXHIBIT A). |
313 |
Wornath |
Discusses the percentage of return and cost per year of operating a computer grid. |
381 |
Wornath |
Suggests implementing a pilot project to determine the best technical solution. Displays the estimated pilot profitability. |
TAPE 26, A |
||
019 |
Wornath |
Discusses a possible organizational structure similar to an Oregon high-performance computing consortium. Continues with explanation of challenges. |
069 |
Wornath |
Has spoken with Chief Information Officers around the state, who believe the concept is good. |
083 |
Wornath |
Summarizes by stating that the technology is proven, can easily be applied to numerous applications and uses, and is easily expandable. |
121 |
Chair Dallum |
Asks about the “down side.” |
125 |
Wornath |
Responds that information technology people will say this is a very specialized area. Believes that ideally the universities and the state would co-develop a pilot program. |
148 |
Chair Dallum |
Inquires if this concept is attractive to private enterprise. |
155 |
Wornath |
Replies, it is. Continues that there are certain niches that don’t have the financial resources to take on a project such as this. Cites examples of researchers who believe they can use. |
192 |
Chair Dallum |
Asks what proposed legislation should look like. |
196 |
Wornath |
Answers that funding for a pilot project could be requested. |
227 |
Rep. Burley |
Inquires what is preventing us from using this now. |
233 |
Wornath |
Responds, nothing. Indicates from a financial standpoint, it is best to consolidate and not have many small clusters. |
261 |
Rep. Burley |
Refers to the case studies in EXHIBIT A that were mostly done by private corporations. Comments that if we were going to use public resources, that is a different set of circumstances particularly since we are concerned with security issues. |
270 |
Wornath |
Agrees. Offers to provide more up-to-date information. Reports on other states that are doing this for economic development. |
313 |
Rep. Burley |
States that the corporate environment is more controlled than ours as we have computers all across the state. Asks how we would insure security. |
323 |
Wornath |
Agrees that some environments are better suited than others. |
329 |
Rep. Krummel |
Asks if setting something like this up in the new data center might generate the dollars to pay for it. |
338 |
Wornath |
Replies, absolutely. Reports that high performance computing is being done on a limited basis at the Oregon State University Oceanic School. |
404 |
Rep. Krummel |
Asks if there have been discussions with the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) or other privately owned data centers to see if there is an interest. |
416 |
Wornath |
Has spoken with DAS and some small companies affiliated with academics. |
439 |
Rep. Witt |
Inquires if one has to be a participant in the network to be able to utilize supercomputing capacity. |
TAPE 25, B |
|
|
011 |
Wornath |
Responds, yes, for security reasons. States that the criteria needs to be identified in the business model. |
020 |
Rep. Witt |
Asks if he is aware of any claims in other states that there is not equal access. |
025 |
Wornath |
Answers that he has not heard of any. |
027 |
Rep. Wirth |
Inquires if anyone has expressed an interest in helping finance a pilot study. |
032 |
Wornath |
Replies, absolutely. |
038 |
Rep. Wirth |
Asks how much private money might be available. |
046 |
Wornath |
Replies that there is interest, and some medical schools are trying to lure grants. Believes discussions with interested parties to determine how much money is available would be needed. |
069 |
Rep. Wirth |
Inquires if other states have included some public financing, and how far along they are in the process. |
077 |
Wornath |
Answers, it varies. |
089 |
Wanda Brennan |
High School Science Teacher, Mitchell, Oregon. Cites problems of areas with limited internet access. Asks how high-performance computing will benefit them. |
096 |
Wornath |
Responds that not all rural areas will receive the same amount of benefit; however, areas with community colleges perhaps can provide access. |
140 |
Chair Dallum |
Closes the informational meeting on high performance computing and adjourns the meeting at 2:08 p.m. |
EXHIBIT SUMMARY