My theme in a talk entitled "Critical Thinking on Building Trusted, Transformative Medical Information: Improving Health IT as the First Step" was health IT trust and safety. I was actually invited in 2011 but could not attend; I was helping care for my mother, who was severely injured due to a HIT-related mishap in 2010. Her death in 2011 allowed me to attend now on re-invitation.
More on my presentation later.
 |
| A beautiful view of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House, taken with a mere Canon SX110IS. Click to enlarge. |
In the meantime, I returned to the U.S. to find that the defense attorney for the hospital where my mother was severely injured, and then died as a result, is once again raising an absurd issue in objections to the medical malpractice Complaint that was refiled within the Statute of Limitations for technical reasons. The President Judge of the county where the case is filed had dismissed this complaint (among many others) some time ago:
(ii) Plaintiffs Software Design Defect Claims are Preempted by the Federal HITECH Act
... To the extent Plaintiff attempts to bring a common law product liability claim against [name redacted] Hospital for required use of EMR software, such a claim is barred due to Federal Preemption of this area with the passage of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act. 42 U.S.C. 201, 300, et seq.
Specifically, the design, manufacture, specification, certification and sale of EMR in the United States is a highly regulated industry under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The HHS draws its statutory authority to design and certify EMR as safe and effective under the HITECH act as amended. Id.
The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, article VI, clause 2, preempts any state law that conflicts with the exercise of federal power. Fid. Fed. Say. & Loan Ass’n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 102 S. Ct. 3014 (1982). “Pre-emption may be either express or implied, and ‘is compelled whether Congress’ command is explicitly stated in the statute’s language or implicitly contained in its structure and purpose.” Matter of Calun Elec. Power Co-op., Inc., 109 F.3d 248, 254 (5th Cir. 1997) citing Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.s. 519, 525 (1977).
In this case, to impose common law liability upon [name redacted] Hospital for using certified EHR technology, which was in compliance with federal law and regulations for Health Information Technology, would directly conflict with Congress’ statutory scheme for fostering and promoting the implementation and use of EHR
I really don't think Congress intended HIT to maim and kill patients with impunity. In any case, this assertion was thrown out in its entirety several months ago, but here it is again in a new set of objections. I find its reappearance remarkable. I also wonder if the industry is behind it.
As per numerous posts in this blog, such assertions are false - and likely knowingly so in this situation. (In that case, this would be an even more serious matter.)
For example as I pointed out at my Feb. 2012 post Hospitals and Doctors Use Health IT at Their Own Risk - Even if "Certified", ONC-Authorized Testing and Certification Bodies (ATCB's) answered my questions about safety, legal indemnification etc. Their work has nothing to do with certifying HIT as safe by their own admission.
Also, as in my April 2011 post FDA Decides Regulating Implantable Defibrillator Medical Devices a "Political Hot Potato"; Demurs and my Nov. 2011 post IOM Report - "Health IT and Patient Safety: Building Safer Systems for Better Care, the HIT industry is unregulated.
On the HIT regulation issue, IOM has itself stated in no uncertain terms that HIT is non-regulated (not "a highly regulated industry") in their report to HHS. For instance, in the aforementioned 2012 report they state (as one example):
... If the Secretary [of HHS] deems it necessary for the FDA to regulate EHRs and other currently nonregulated health IT products, clear determinations will need to be made about whether all health IT products classify as medical devices for the purposes of regulation. If FDA regulation is deemed necessary, the FDA will need to commit sufficient resources and add capacity and expertise to be effective.
I won't even address the claim that the HITECH Act represents or intended to represent Federal pre-emption of state common law rights. It's without merit, and actually absurd.
Worst of all, statements in legal dockets that "HHS draws its statutory authority to design and certify EMR as safe and effective under the HITECH Act" (in reality, private non-governmental ONC-Authorized Testing and Certification Bodies or ATCB's are appointed by ONC to "certify" HIT features and functionality to be compliant with "Meaningful Use" guidelines and do not test for safety or efficacy) potentially puts those private ATCB's at risk for being named defendants in lawsuits where HIT was found unsafe and/or ineffective if upheld.
I am sure the ATCB's and ONC would not be happy about that.
-- SS
Keep up the fight, Dr. Silverstein. You are up against corporate America which does not give a hoot about anything but money!
ReplyDeleteThe defense lawyers are blowing smoke. They appear to have been duped, just like the US Congress, into thinking that "certification" means that the devices are safe and efficacious.
ReplyDeleteThese devices have not been determined to be safe, efficacious, or usable. That is the point.