I attended the HIMSS (Health Information Management Systems Society) conference in Chicago earlier this month, along with upwards of 20,000 other people. Most of them are involved in the sales and procurement process, representing thousands of vendor companies and the health systems, hospitals, clinics, governments, etc., that use their products and services.

I’d never been to HIMSS before and it’s overwhelming.  There are hundreds of exhibitors, some of whom have exhibits broken down into two, three, or four “theaters” for their different products or solutions.  That makes for upwards of 2,000 products and solutions being offered (maybe more).  I guess I expected showcases of awesome gadgets and super-cool space-age technologies—not sure exactly what those would be, but maybe something like a Smartphone that is also a brain scanner.  Or a wristwatch that performs the Heimlich maneuver when needed.  Kind of like when you go to the auto show and the manufacturers whet your appetite with concept cars whose features won’t be available for several years.  I expected that these innovative technologies, largely dependent on IP and huge amounts of R&D, to be the focus of the show.

But it wasn’t.  The focus there was on records management—electronic health records, patient health records, workflow management, and the various considerations within these solutions—and interoperability.  It made me wonder if we’ve gotten to the point that technology and innovation in healthcare has surpassed our ability to fully utilize it.  I mean, if we have all sorts of new HIT innovations and tools but they can’t be passed from doctor to doctor, or integrated into a hospital’s records management, then the technology’s usefulness isn’t being fully realized.

And that’s why interoperability is such a huge issue in the HIT community—interoperability is critically important to improving health and medical care worldwide.  The majority of people’s experience with interoperability is being sent a WordPerfect document that they’re unable to open, but there are dozens of online tools that take care of converting in minutes (if not seconds). 

But in the healthcare world, interoperability means (among a plethora of other things) being able to move to electronic records, share that information with patients and providers around the world, integrate the appropriate information into insurance and billing systems, and provide public health information without sacrificing flexibility, accuracy, privacy and security, all with the goal of providing better care.

We’ve been involved in many issues over the years involving interoperability. When looked at it through the healthcare prism, I finally saw its true value.  If we can’t come up with some interop solutions in healthcare, it’ll end up having a negative effect on innovation. If new innovations in healthcare can’t be widely deployed, what’s the point of spending the time and money on creating new IP?

We should keep in mind that interoperability can be achieved in many ways and doesn’t just magically happen on its own.  It takes smart people creating innovative answers to problems, which means that IP can (and will) play an important role in developing sound interoperability solutions that will flourish throughout the healthcare industry. 

And a note to you innovators: take a look at how your current/in development products and solutions can be applied to healthcare.  Healthcare is one of only two segments of the economy currently growing (the other is government, and they’re closely connected at many points), and is not solely the playground of the big guys.

Over at the Innovators Network—ACT’s project that focuses on intellectual property and entrepreneurs—our pal Andre Carter has a post about that Carnegie Institute conference this week. (Morgan wrote about aspects of it here.)  I think that Andre’s piece is particularly important because it drives home the points that we’re always trying to make: a) that policy is important, and 2) if you don’t pay attention, people who know little about the real world implications of their decisions end up having a disproportionate amount of say in the matter.

Andre points out that at a conference focusing on intellectual property rights (IPR), the panelists at this particular panel agreed that IPR are a problem for small business. According to them, because there have been a couple of outrageously bad patents issued over time, all patents should be invalidated. 

There were just a few voices at the panel arguing that IPR are important to small business, and that a standards process that neglects IP is a standards process that neglects small business. And that’s why, as Andre points out, it’s important for people to be involved, either directly or through participation in trade groups.

P.S.  This is unrelated and probably doesn’t garner its own post, but seriously… Is this not the most important news in technology these days?  Perhaps the only thing more exciting and useful, IMHO, would be a spelling- and grammar-check feature for Twitter and Facebook status updates.