For years now, CCHIT has been the only certification game in town.
Pre-HITECH, the organization both created certification criteria and tested
vendors against that criteria. Post-HITECH, everything has changed. Recommendations
from the federal HIT Policy Committee indicate that CCHIT will not be able to
perform its dual roles, leaving it to only handle the testing function. The committee
also encouraged others to get into the testing game, injecting market dynamics and
competition into this new niche of healthcare IT. After a few months of silence,
CCHIT’s first competitor has emerged – the Austin, Texas-based Drummond Group. Recently, HCI
Editor-in-Chief Anthony Guerra had a chance to chat with CEO Rik Drummond about
his decision to enter this evolving market.
GUERRA: Could
you give me a brief overview of your company, and some context as to why
you are qualified to test EHRs against the certification criteria HHS creates?
DRUMMOND: Well,
we’re new coming to this area with
respect to the HL7 part of things, even though we’ve been involved in that off and on since 2000. We were the original
people helping the early groups that actually looked at ways to transport the documents around in a secure
manner, but we’ve been tracking this
for 10 years off and on.
Our company focuses on interoperability for all
sorts of different software, to ensure the information flows appropriately back
and forth between different entities in a secure private manner. We usually do about
10 different standards a year, and we do a lot in retail, automotive, consumer
packaged goods. Right now, we’re probably one of the key leaders in doing the
same sort of thing we’re talking about right here for the North American Power
Grid, which is another one of Obama’s key focuses coming out of ARRA Title IV.
GUERRA: You
said you’ve been approached by numerous EHR software and services companies
that need to be certified. Can you just expand on that, even if you’re not
willing to name the companies?
DRUMMOND: Since
we’re neutral, we never name companies unless we have appropriate release on that,
so I really can’t name them. A lot of companies – those who look like they’re
focused on the doctors’ offices and smaller hospitals, outpatient, ambulatory
type stuff – have been coming to us for the last six or seven months asking if we
can help them get certified, asking if we can get involved in this.
My read
would be they seemed to feel like they’re being left out of the current
certification regime. I’m not completely sure in all detail why that is but,
because of that, because we do certification in such broad areas for
interoperability, we decided now is the time to enter this market, especially
since the ARRA Act Title IV threw a lot more resources at this area. 2011 is
approaching very rapidly, and people have to start moving this way if they want
to achieve meaningful use.
So we figured it was probably time. If we look at
other supply chains, which we do a lot of work in, we see that about 80 to 90
percent of all the people participating in the information flow in the supply
chain are small or medium vendors, are small or medium companies. The same is
happening here, and my read would be that some of the smaller ones don’t think
they’re being taken care of. I don’t know if that’s key or not because I’ve
looked at the CCHIT stuff and it looks like they’re doing a pretty decent job of putting together the stakeholder groups and putting together the
testing regimes.
GUERRA: So
you don’t have a better sense of whether they feel the current pricing is too high
or if the certification process is too long? You’re not getting a more definite
sense of what it is they’re coming to you for?
DRUMMOND: We’ve
been kind of overwhelmed with a lot of this for the last three or four weeks,
so we’re going back to interview some of them just to see what the
actual problem is. I should know more in probably three or four weeks.
I expect that this is like normal testing where pricing
is always an issue. Every test that
anyone does, people think it’s too high because it’s one more cost to add in
the end. The flipside is we find that once people understand what pricing
gives them – it’s almost the last part of their software cycle – they see the
cost is not nearly as high as they would anticipate, because it’s a cost of shifting
from internal testing to external testing, and it also gives them a big
marketing boon because someone is stamping their seal of approval on you,
you’ve met these conditions. And that marketing boon is worth anything, you pay
for that sort of thing.
GUERRA: Why
did you decide to get into this business when there are so many questions
around how everything will actually work?
DRUMMOND: What’s
going on is focused on how you’re going to use EHRs to make life better for the
patient from a hospital sharing information, to privacy and security, and how
you communicate information to public health agencies. But a key part of that
is those are procedural type issues and like-it-ought-to-be type issues. You
have to go through and say, “Did you meet this as an end user?” But a key part
of that is they have to buy certified products that meet conditions, and the
conditions are those that you get from use
cases like, “I want to go do ambulatory care, I want to go do emergency room
type things, and I want to do e-prescription.”
Those are part of this set of things that you’ll have to go implement to
start meeting this overall meaningful use definition. And that’s a very bounded
technical area which talks about how you guarantee that they conform to the
specifications, how you guarantee they conform to their requirements, how you
guarantee Vendor A can talk to Vendor B, which is a very, very hard thing to do
quite often, especially if you have 50 or 60 or 70 vendors doing this sort of
thing. That’s the area we do very, very
well. We’re very, very neutral. Our clients range from IBM to Microsoft. We do
this worldwide, so we’re very comfortable doing that.
GUERRA: Is
there any startup money in this for you from the government?
DRUMMOND: We
haven’t looked for that yet. That’s the next thing we’re going to be doing. Most
of our tests are either sponsored by a third party – which might be the
government (we call it scholarships) – or paid for by the people who are having
their own products tested. It’s those people who usually pay because the
benefit they get is in debugging their software and also major marketing clout.
So right now we have to wait for what CMS is going
to do with the federal registry notice. We have about a month and a half before
we start seeing where they’re going in this whole area. So we’re just looking
into that. We’re very coupled to the technology part. Now the other issue is
making sure we put all the rest of the procedural parts together, and that
looks very doable also.
GUERRA: Why
announce this now?
DRUMMOND: We’ve
been talking about it and thinking about it for several months and now is when
it popped, so we released it.
GUERRA: Did
you have any conversations with people on the Policy or Standards Committees?
DRUMMOND: We
got most of our feedback from a lot of these vendors who were calling us over
the last six or seven months. We’re well-known for certification in several
industries, and that’s where many of these vendors found us. For example, we do
auditing for the DEA regarding controlled substances. So people found us
through those links and they’ve been talking to us about doing this. That
started our whole research in this area. And we have really not gone up the
ladder all the way to the top yet because it looks like it’s just evolving too
fast to really start throwing a lot of effort at that right now.
Our focus really is the technical part of
things regarding how you test products so they are conformant to what you want,
so they’re very interoperable and you can buy them off the shelf. I’m talking
about COTS – commercial off the shelf products. You know those are going to
work without additional effort. That’s our focus, to make those things work.
We have worked with stakeholder groups in many
industries, and we often find it’s best if the testing agency is completely
neutral. Even though they talk to the stakeholder groups, they are neutral from
the stakeholder groups.
GUERRA: How
closely have you investigated CCHIT’s methods, model and structure? This will
be, at least for awhile, your main competitor.
DRUMMOND: We
think it’s very important to keep the stakeholder groups who define the
requirement areas distinct from the testing parts, if at all possible. That
doesn’t mean it can’t be the same organization, but it means you have to
have some really clear boundaries. So CCHIT has both of those combined, and we
always try to avoid having those two combined very closely.
Our focus
would be very much on working with CCHIT, our working in parallel with them,
but we all have to use exactly the same test criteria to make this whole thing
work. So it has to be defined somehow so that happens. We need to focus on
the technical aspects in making everything come together appropriately, so that
when people go buy these products they can say, “Well, I’m one step into
meaningful use. I have one key component in place. Now, I have to show how I
use it to get the rest of it.”
GUERRA: The
government is essentially forcing the separation of establishing the criteria
from the testing. So that’s going to happen to CCHIT.
DRUMMOND: That’s
very smart. That’s what we’re doing actually in this smart grid; we’re making
those things distinct because they have to be that way.
Part II
|