Providing for consideration of H.R. 4157, Health Information Technology Promotion Act of 2006
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4157, HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROMOTION ACT OF 2006 -- (House of Representatives - July 27, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding me time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, every Member of Congress recognizes the importance of health information technology. It holds the potential to save lives by reducing medical errors, and it can make our health care system more efficient by providing better care while keeping costs down.
In short, we could revolutionize the way our health care is delivered. What exactly is the potential? Physicians could have access to every relevant part of a patient's medical history at the precise moment a life-or-death decision needs to be made.
It is the tens of thousands of lives saved because of fewer medical errors. It means the newest ``Physicians Desks Reference'' and the most cutting-edge medical research on a hand-held device that a doctor can have at the patient's bedside.
This is not pie-in-the-sky ambition. Some health care leaders have already begun to adopt these ideas with great success. In the year 2000, the Veterans Administration implemented the most advanced electronic medical records system in the United States.
A recent article in Business Week noted that ``while studies show that 3 to 8 percent of the Nation's prescriptions are filed erroneously, the VA's prescription accuracy rate is greater than 99.99 percent, a level most hospitals only dream about.''
It should not be surprising that while many patients lost their paper medical records in the terrible aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, veterans did not. Veterans living in New Orleans were able to access their medical records at other VA hospitals because of health information technology.
Another example comes from my hometown of Sacramento. The UC Davis Medical Center has a world-renowned telemedicine program which connects patients in 80 rural areas across California to an immense amount of specialty care in Sacramento.
Let me tell you the story of Levi, a child who lives on a ranch in a nine-person town 60 miles north of Sacramento. After accidentally suffering third-degree burns on his leg, his parents took him to the closest hospital. Because of UC Davis's telemedicine program, Levi was treated by one of the few pediatric burn specialists in this country remotely from Sacramento.
Information technology could make this amazing program even better. Widespread adoption of this technology would enhance this expert advice by allowing the rural doctor to send Levi's medical history to the specialists at UC Davis instantly.
UC Davis has begun to implement electronic medical records, but many of these outlying areas cannot afford this technology without seed money.
That is the goal of establishing a national health information infrastructure. But we know such a comprehensive program isn't cheap. It could cost individual hospitals several million dollars and individual physicians $20,000 or $30,000 apiece.
So the issue needs more than Federal guidelines. It needs Federal financial support, seed money in a sense. Unfortunately, the bill we will debate today falls far short. It provides only $40 million in Federal grants. In a $1.3 trillion health care system, this does not even scratch the service.
In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, says the bill, as written, will do almost nothing to encourage health information technology. According to their analysis, it will not significantly influence the rate at which health information technology is adopted, nor will it ensure better quality technology.
Democrats have proposed a more effective proposal, backed by Federal seed money, just like the bipartisan Senate bill does. We would also add new privacy laws to strengthen patient protections. This would prepare us for the health information age.
It would require patients to give their consent before their health information could be shared with other people. It also requires data encryption to protect these health information networks from hackers.
It sides with patients by making sure that everyone, every individual and every health entity, complies with privacy protections.
Unfortunately, late last night the Rules Committee denied the House the opportunity to debate the Democratic alternative on the floor. As a result, I will be urging my colleagues to defeat the previous question and defeat this rule.
Mr. Speaker, information technology will bring our Nation's health care system tremendous benefits, but the devil is often in the details. This technology will not install itself. It will spread only with the right kind of Federal leadership. So, I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute and support the responsible approach to national health information technology.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I believe the Dingell-Rangel substitute offers Members a far better choice than the underlying bill.
This substitute is based on the bipartisan bill that was introduced by Senators Frist, Enzi, Kennedy and Clinton and passed unanimously by the Senate last November. This substitute also contains important privacy protections necessary in this new electronic world.
The Democratic substitute requires the Federal Government to take a leading role in the adoption of standards for technology and adopting technology that will permit providers and others to communicate to each other electronically. This substitute will provide $257 million in grants and loans for providers and regional collaboratives to buy and implement health information technology.
This substitute also provides privacy protections beyond those in current law to ensure that patients' health information is secure. It requires that all individuals and entities with access to personal health information must comply with privacy protections to maintain patient confidentiality. The substitute also requires data encryption to prevent security breaches and the notification of patients in case of a security breach. Finally, it allows patients to seek redress when their privacy is breached.
I want Members to be aware that a ``no'' vote will not stop us from considering H.R. 4157. A ``no'' vote will simply allow the Dingell-Rangel substitute to be considered by this House by an up-or-down vote.
Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can consider this important and responsible substitute.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/