Virtual Mentor. March 2011, Volume 13, Number 3: 176-180.
Ethical Dimensions of Meaningful Use Requirements for Electronic Health Records
If it is to be ethical, the expenditure of public funds for EHR systems must have a favorable outcome for the public as a whole.
Stephen T. Miller, MD, and Alastair MacGregor, MB ChB, MRCGP
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)  will stimulate medicine to adopt and “meaningfully” use electronic health records (EHR) within and across health organizations  to improve patient outcomes and accountability, aid in coordination of care, promote effective health management across organizations, and align incentives with good patient and population outcomes—in short, for reasons that appear to be in line with ethical principles. But what does ethical “meaningful use” look like?
To qualify as a “meaningful user” of electronic health records and become eligible for incentive payments and continued Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, physicians in private practice and hospitals must meet measures for each of three stages of EHR system implementation and process upgrades. These measures derive from projected quality and safety improvements that could result from widespread adoption of EHR, interorganization communication, clinical decision support, and analysis and reporting of patient care. The requirements for physician practices and larger health care organizations differ slightly, but in general, two-thirds of the Stage 1 criteria are mandatory, and the other one-third are to be chosen from a “menu” of 10 additional choices [3, 4].
Medical record keeping has a robust history of promoting patient care . For adoption of EHRs to be an ethical act, patients’ need for optimal health outcomes—not a fascination with technology or incentive-seeking—should be the driving force behind it .
The next step in meaningful use is the attestation of attainment of Stage 1 goals. At this juncture, electronic reporting will not yet be required, and attestation will occur in more difficult-to-verify written form. Though it would be possible to falsify or fudge paper reporting, health care personnel must avoid any inclination to game the rules or view attestation as a means to a financial end. Not only would such falsification violate the moral imperative against lying—not to mention opening the organization and its senior officers to audits, fraud charges, and reclamation of funds under the False Claims Act  and the Deficit Reduction Act —the ethical principle of distributive justice requires that health care facilities support the greater good.
Now we turn to the ethical implications of specific criteria for meaningful use. We have sorted the rules into three categories based on purpose:
In category A, electronic extensions of basic charting, we place the rules that require:
The need to bring clinical charting traditions into the electronic format is obvious. Anyone who works in a clinical setting knows that retrieving information from an outdated or otherwise separate chart is burdensome and inefficient. Having that information in a structured, easily retrievable format is a great boon to both health care professionals and patients.
In category B, the safety category, we place the rules that require:
Although many of these safety rules have already been implemented in paper form, with varying levels of success, electronic recordkeeping will greatly increase the speed, accuracy, and ease of analysis of safety data. Adoption of EHR should improve patient safety by making patient information available across delivery sites, bringing clinical decision support to more points of care, and allowing easy and detailed measurement of variations in care, leading to more standardization (generally considered to be an expression of justice and equal opportunity for patients).
Medical ethics has long understood the value of public-health-oriented surveillance , also expressed in modern notions about “the tragedy of the commons” . Those who wish for complete independence in matters of health and safety can put others in danger—for example, those who refuse vaccination can lower herd immunity and put the community as a whole at risk, and though declining to wear a motorcycle helmet  can be justified as an expression of individual rights, recklessness with one’s health or safety can incur costs which are partially borne by public dollars. There is a tension here between ethical imperatives—to uphold the respect for individual autonomy and protect the community as a whole.
In category C, the patient-centered rules category, we place:
It is in category C that the ethical discussion gets interesting. In addition to the unsurprising emphasis on preserving patient confidentiality by ensuring data security, which dictates that institutions should deal severely with breaches to protect patients (and to ward off outcry from electronic medical records skeptics), there is a notable enhancement of patient empowerment and self-sufficiency: patients must now be given access to their electronic information.
It may seem peculiar to nonclinicians that patient care information has not traditionally been open-access. Banks, those other keepers of sensitive personal information, do not hide financial data, require the filing of release forms, or charge extra for access to information about one’s own accounts. Although they own that information, they share it enthusiastically—and electronically. Many clinicians and health care staff, on the other hand, get nervous when patients want to see their medical records. Does the request indicate a lack of trust? Is a lawsuit soon to follow? Will patients misunderstand or misinterpret information if they read it without a medical professional to interpret it? Will the clinician be deluged with questions about why this laboratory test is one unit above the “laboratory normal” and why the radiologist did not dictate an unequivocal reading? Does the record contain unprofessional and inappropriate remarks?
But there is no turning back. It is time to reevaluate some long-held conventions in patient records, as enshrined, for example, in the American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics, which contains an opinion asserting that “notes made in treating a patient are primarily for the physician’s own use and constitute his or her personal property” . Patients’ access to their own health information is now not only possible , it will be a must, and recording habits will change accordingly.
Meaningful use will also necessitate changes in the ethics of EHR vendors. The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology’s certification process for vendors’ EHRs will not create a level playing field because vendors may not disclose all costs. Compared to acute care health organizations, many ambulatory health care groups are newcomers to EHR systems. Until the vendor community demonstrates the ethical backbone it takes to offer similar and readily comparable contracts (including details about interface costs, support services, and change management services) to different clients, both health organizations and ambulatory providers should avail themselves of independent third-party reports that use existing client feedback to assess EHRs and related services.
Free-market enthusiasts will point out that our category B, the administrative requirements for meaningful use, contains the largest number of objectives. Critics will ask, “Is meaningful use relevant to clinical practice, or is it an excessive bureaucratic requirement to spend public dollars on doctors’ computer systems?” The answer to this question resides in the ethical principle of justice for all. If it is to be ethical, the expenditure of public funds for EHR systems must have a favorable outcome for the public as a whole. Safer prescribing, prevention of medication errors, disease tracking for public health, and public error reporting are goals that justify meaningful use rules.
Stephen T. Miller, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center and senior vice president of medical education and research at Methodist LeBonheur Healthcare in Memphis, Tennessee. Formerly, he was program director for an internal medicine residency program.
Alastair MacGregor, MB ChB, MRCGP, is senior vice president and chief medical information officer at Methodist LeBonheur Healthcare in Memphis, Tennessee.
Dr. Miller receives support from the National Institute of Aging (NIH: 1 R01 AG033005). No funds from that grant were used in the in the preparation, review, or approval of this manuscript.
Dr. MacGregor holds common stock in Cerner Corporation and is a nonfunded member of the KLAS Advisory Board. Neither organization had a role in the preparation, review, or approval of this manuscript.
Related in VM
The viewpoints expressed on this site are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the AMA.
© 2011 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.