How do Health Level Seven (HL7) standards facilitate the sharing of clinical data?
Please click on the following hyperlink and let’s discuss how Messaging standards such as Health Level Seven (HL7) enable one computer-based system to process the meaning of a message sent from a different computer-based system (i.e., semantic interoperability) by specifying an agreed-upon structure and semantics (Health Level 7, 2001). For example, what scenarios, standards for messaging are necessary to support the computer-based interactions between a home healthcare RN and the pharmacy and between the RN and the home health agency?
What about all other terms associated with standards? Where do they fit with standardization?
We have only focused on data interoperability – that is, the ability to exchange data between independent applications. Where does integration and certification fit in? What is the CEO’s plan for this.
What questions, issues or answers do you have about standards, interoperability and integration?
What are some of the non-HL7-based standards that are important in healthcare?
What were the issues that HIPAA was to address? How well has it worked thus far?
It is apparent that the United States has a problem, but what are some solutions to to this crisis? Unfortunately, there is no simple solution to this complex problem, but in order to move forward, we propose several methods that may incite change in the current system in place. Historically, pharmaceutical companies dictate pricing with no restrictions from Medicare, Medicaid, or Federal/State governments. The US government (i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, etc.) is the largest buyer of prescription drugs in the world, yet they have no say in the pricing of drugs. Our government also generally issues funds to these pharmaceutical companies for research and development, with substantial investments in the basic science that leads to new drug discoveries. For example, the federal government spent $484 million developing the cancer drug Taxol, which was then taken under agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb in 1993. In 10 years, the manufacturer earned $9 billion in revenue and paid the federal government $35 million in royalties (article). Although 75% of new innovative drugs are supported by federal funding, most consumers and payers are unable to afford these medications due to the unreasonable prices. (article) We propose for the United States government to have the ability to establish delegated sectors to negotiate drug prices. By giving the government some power in dictating cost, this could substantially lower introductory prices, annual costs, and which may reduce out-of-pocket costs for patients. For example, the government may establish a drug’s ceiling price similar to the Federal Ceiling Price program used by the Department of Veteran Affairs. They may also begin use of reference pricing, thus permitting the Department of Health and Human Services to set a benchmark price for clinically comparable drugs that are interchangeable. Though these changes may produce more cost-effective medication, a drawback may be the lack of market diversity. Rather than having one pharmaceutical company dictating the price, the federal government is dictating the price thus creating a lack of competition. Having one body dictate everything may create tensions between pharmaceutical companies and the government; thus, change might not be m>