On Wednesday, officials at Vermont Information Technology Leaders told state lawmakers they support legislatively mandated funding and medical claims fees to help every Vermont physician obtain an electronic health record system within five to 10 years, the Burlington Free Press reports.
Cyrus Jordan, chair of the VITL board of directors, said the board supports a bill that would create a health IT fund with money raised by a fee or surcharge on medical claims, which would include raising money from commercial insurance companies and self-insured programs.
VITL previously opposed a fee or surcharge, arguing that it preferred to raise money through voluntary contributions from hospitals, physicians and insurers.
Fee Rate for Funding
On Wednesday, the Vermont House Health Care Committee agreed to reduce the fee rate from 0.5% to 0.33% of medical claims, which would generate $33 million over five years to fund the program.
The proposed rate would allow grants of up to 75% of the cost of the EHR systems, or a maximum of $45,000 per physician, and provide enough funding to help all independent primary care physicians in the state adopt EHRs over five years.
House Health Care Committee Chair Steve Maier (D) said the Legislature's fiscal analysts found that the $33 million investment would generate a savings of $112 million over five years.
The Health Care Committee said that if the 0.33% rate meets resistance, it would agree to reduce the rate to as low as 0.12%, which would stretch the project to 10 years, the Free Press reports.
Opposition
Gov. Jim Douglas' (D) administration says it supports the increased use of IT in medicine but does not support the bill, Secretary of Administration Michael Smith said Wednesday.
Duane Marsh, president of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce, said he opposed requiring health care purchasers to fund EHRs that would save physicians money. Marsh recommended instituting a loan program.
David Sichel of the Vermont League of Cities and Towns also said he objected to the financing plan because private insurers would pay for the systems, but all insurers, including government and state programs, would benefit (Remsen, Burlington Free Press, 3/27).