UC-Davis Health System To Lead Statewide Data-Sharing Program

The UC-Davis Health System recently signed a $17.5 million agreement with state and federal officials to lead an initiative to electronically link California hospitals, emergency departments and physicians by 2014, the Sacramento Business Journal reports (Robertson, Sacramento Business Journal, 9/25).

Details of Initiative

The initiative -- called the California Health eQuality program -- seeks to boost health care quality and coordination by improving data sharing among health care providers.

Kenneth Kizer -- director of the Institute for Population Health Improvement -- will lead the initiative (UC-Davis Health System release, 9/25).

The project received a four-year, $38.8 million grant in 2010 through the federal economic stimulus package. Officials plan to identify other funding sources to maintain and expand the program after 2014.

On Nov. 1 and Nov. 2, state health officials and CHeQ officials plan to hold a stakeholder summit on health data exchange in Sacramento (Sacramento Business Journal, 9/25).


In a release, Kizer said, "We want care-related information to flow safely and quickly between and among health care providers. No more printing, scanning and faxing laboratory and X-ray results." He added, "Through CHeQ, we are committed to advancing use of secure electronic exchanges of information so that care for the patient is better, and the job of providing high-quality care is easier for the caregiver."

Pamela Lane -- deputy secretary for health information exchange at the California Health and Human Services Agency -- said, "CHeQ's work will help California accelerate progress toward making critical patient information available when and where it is needed for care" (UC-Davis Health System release, 9/25).
Robert Forster
EMI, you do not understand the implications of a centralized/federalized data base on all Americans. They tell us they need it for syndromic surveillance, nationwide care programs and Quality control of the provision of care and a myriad of other wishful thinking. The data is supposed to be de-identified, but just think of the # of data breeches we hear about almost daily., This is less about the consumer and more about governmental control of your data.
Emi Kaneshiro
Well, as a consumer, it has been one big nightmare to get information from one system to another. To put a wrench in this pat on the back data sharing, I want to make a suggestion: I think that the patient, the consumer keep and transport his own records and present it when needed. In this digital age this is possible.
Robert Forster
Just what we need is another bureaucratic organization pursuing the same goals that have been pursued by Cal eHealth and other only to stall from lack of a realistic business model (especially for individual primary physicians) and almost unsurmountable privacy issues (along with a cadre of non productive community organizations with powerful stakeholders). I am totally impressed and have been re: Ken Kizer and his optimism, but federal funding (tax payer money) from the start has been inadequate for the designs being contemplated--there is no "less is more" rationale in California. Furthermore I agree care may be improved (what metric do we use and who measures it is critical) but EHR will hot have measureable impact on medical cost trends no matter what the consultants say. Educational level is still the primary driver of longevity--the only credible quality measure used by the Westernized world. Good luck Ken where many have failed over the past 15 years.
Colin Bell
Just a quick comment on Andrea Rosen's comment as to why PCPs don't have up-to-date info on their own patients in the EHR. Simply put, its because no health care system has been able to map all their data (ambulatory, inpatient, labs, and pharmacy) into a single data repository. To date, the tensions between medical groups and IT departments have been insurmoutable, and with no relief in sight. PCPs are caught between providing the best care they can and an EHR system that barely functions. Sadly, even multi-billion dollar investments have not solved this mess, and its rarely if ever publically acknowledged. No one has a vested interest in fixing the mess either, especially the IT professionals that made a deal with the devil when they began *cooking* their reports to their own leadership regarding EHR implementation.
Andrea Rosen
I find this ironic that UC Davis was awarded this contract. I've been with their PCP group for many years and whenever we are referred to a UCD specialist, the specialist has no clue as to what's in the EHR system used by the PCPs. Why don't they start by getting their own act together?

to share your thoughts on this article.