It’s already been a busy and contentious couple weeks in Washington, with battles across a wide array of government and policy fronts in the early going of the second Trump Administration. Soon, we’ll be learning a lot more about how healthcare and health IT policy will be taking shape going forward.
Robert F. Kennedy, Trump’s pick to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has not been confirmed yet, but he inched one step closer with a party-line Finance Committee vote on Feb. 4.
If RFK Jr. clears a final vote in the Senate, many questions about the future direction of health IT policy – among many others – may be answered soon.
We connected recently with Leigh Burchell, VP of policy & public affairs for Altera Digital Health, and incoming chair of the EHR Association, to hear what she expects to see in the weeks and months ahead for health IT at the federal level, and learn what she’s hearing from some of her conversations in D.C.
Q. Among President Trump’s first-week flurry of dozens of executive orders, one of the first was to immediately rescind the Biden administration’s executive order on artificial intelligence, which had many provisions related to AI in healthcare. What do you predict that means for guardrails going? Will states step in to take a larger role? What will it mean for IT vendors?
A. I would predict less of a focus from the Trump administration on the obstacles AI can pose to equitable care delivery and more emphasis, instead, on competing globally in AI development. I do expect the rapid pace of state-level legislating and regulating that we have seen in the last year will continue in the absence of a strong national framework for AI in healthcare, and that patchwork approach will present a challenge to software developers and those provider organizations who operate in more than one state.
Q. The HHS issued an agency-wide pause in outward communication. How damaging will that be, even if it’s lifted in February? If it extends, what does it augur for collaboration among providers and public health agencies, all that work that was pursued with TEFCA these past few years?
A. To date, the communications lockdown has meant that government stakeholders have not been participating in many industry meetings as they normally do, but if the order expires in early February as stated, it won’t have a significant impact. However, it’s possible, based on stated areas of focus from the new administration, that some agencies will be allowed to return to normal order sooner than others, with those focused on public health perhaps being later to resume their normal communications and engagement.
Q. Have you heard anything more recently about what might be happening with the new National Coordinator for Health IT or at ASTP? Do you get the feeling they’re on the new admin’s radar screen?
A. I have heard a number of names that are being circulated, so it’s clear that identifying the new health IT leader is on the radar of the transition team. They have to find the right person who will work for a federal salary, possibly stepping away from a private sector role, and who is also prepared to be in the office five days a week.
Q. Could we see ASTP’s work at risk, given what we’ve seen at other agencies since January 20? Or can we expect to see continued progress on TEFCA, HTI rules, etc.?
A. Health IT has always been a nonpartisan area for policymakers, so I expect that will largely remain the case. However, ASTP will likely be subject to the same deregulatory forces and decreased budget as other Federal agencies, and I do expect that we may see some constriction in the scope and volume of work from that team in the coming years.
Q. What else have you been hearing, in Washington or elsewhere, that health IT leaders might want to be aware of or planning for?
A. Looking through a health IT lens, Congress is interested in AI and cybersecurity, and may take action there this year once the flurry of nominations and budgeting wraps up. Senate leadership is also focused on protecting rural care delivery and taking steps to ensure that a gap in technology doesn’t mean a gap in the quality of care being received by the patients.
On a separate note, it’s going to be interesting to see how the focus on avoidance and better management of chronic diseases that have been emphasized by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Dr. Mehmet Oz – if they are confirmed – will affect requirements they put forward in regulations, and especially as it relates to quality measurement.
To better manage chronic diseases, you need to better understand how people are doing, the care they receive, and which treatments are most effective, so that might mean an increased focus on value-based care efforts and particularly outcomes measurement.
Mike Miliard is executive editor of Healthcare IT News
Email the writer: mike.miliard@himssmedia.com
Healthcare IT News is a HIMSS publication.
