memo on information technolody and health care

Skip to Navigation

Skip to Content

University of Massachusetts LowellUML Home News Calendar Directory
Maps & Directions Libraries Questions iSiSUML Search: University of
Massachusetts LowellUniversity of Massachusetts Lowell

Labor Extension Program

About Us

Future of Work

Working Alone

Upcoming Programs

Publications

Staff

Links

Labor Extension Program

Open Memo to Unions Representing Health-Care Workers Re: EMRs and
other HIT
=================================================================

UML Home > An Open Memo to Unions Printer Friendly Printer Friendly
A freight train is barreling down the tracks. They’ve just
turbo-charged the locomotive, and it is accelerating in your
direction. The implementation of Electronic Medical Records (EMR) and
other Health Information Technologies (HIT) will have a huge impact on
health care workers and the unions that represent them.

EMRs and HIT will be aggressively implemented over the next several
years. They are being pushed into health care by large stakeholders
ranging from IT vendors such as Intel, GE and Microsoft, to insurance
companies such as Blue Cross Blue Shield, to large health care
purchasers such as AT&T and UPS. HIT implementation is also about to
receive a huge boost in the form of approximately $19 billion in
federal funding that is part of the stimulus package.

The focus on HIT is not new. George W. Bush consistently touted the
presumed benefits of HIT in his State of the Union addresses, even as
he did nothing to improve health care for most Americans. Newt
Gingrich is the Executive Director of the Center for Health
Transformation, an organization that, among other things like opposing
the Employee Free Choice Act, aggressively promotes HIT.

President Obama in his first address to Congress spoke about the
importance of HIT. But now there is money where the mouth was. The
stimulus package includes the HITECH Act which legislates a federal
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology
(ONCHIT), provides it with $2 billion to directly promote HIT and HIT
policy and promises $17 billion for incentives to hospitals, doctor’s
offices and other health care providers to implement EMR.

HIT is on the move. So what should unions do? As a start, unions need
to recognize the impacts that HIT will have on health-care workers,
from nurses to transcriptionists, from doctors to aides.

As HIT is implemented, jobs will be eliminated.

Job duties and work processes will change.

New skills will be required, and “old” skills may be devalued.

Workers will be monitored electronically.

Work will be moveable to remote locations.

Health and safety problems will arise, from stress to repetitive
strain injuries and more.

And the quality of caregiver-patient interaction could suffer.

There needs to be recognition that Electronic Medical Records, which
in particular will be promoted by the provisions of the stimulus
package, are not simply the digitalization of information currently
stored on paper. EMRs are the backbone for a series of
transformations that are on the horizon, including telemedicine,
robotics, restructuring and outsourcing – a Health Information
Technology revolution.

The HIT revolution will challenge the ability of unions to
effectively represent their members and the overall workforce in
health care.

It will affect the ability of health-care workers to provide care.

It will create problems in the day-to-day experiences of health care
workers.

And it will change power dynamics between health-care unions and
employers as skills are shifted, work is made movable and jobs are
eliminated, automated or changed.

For all of these reasons, there needs to be a knowledgeable, informed,
strategic and strong union voice at the table, at all the tables,
where the discussion and decision-making about HIT is taking place.
The time to take action is now. In fact, the time to take action was
yesterday. When it comes to EMRs and HIT, the reality is that: It is
always too late (we should have been acting on this long ago), and it
is never too late (we can still affect the future and delaying action
would be disastrous).

Why aren’t the voices of health-care workers, with and through their
unions, more prominent in the discussions of HIT? Why aren’t unions
better prepared for the freight train that is heading toward their
members? There are, it seems, several points to recognize:

First, there is a general view that technology is progress - the
answer to problems rather than the source of problems. Challenging
technology earns one the epithet “Luddite” and tends to remove you
from the discussion.

(Some disclosure here: I am a cancer patient who is very glad that my
medical record is electronic and follows me from doctor to doctor
(sometimes). I celebrate the fact that my scans can be downloaded onto
a CD to carry with me to yet another doctor in another state. But that
doesn’t mean that I want my health care shipped off to another country
or a distant location. It doesn’t mean that I want the health-care
workers who are caring for me monitored by an electronic big brother
or stressed by unfriendly or ineffective software systems. And it
doesn’t mean that I want a robot to replace my caregiver.)

Second, there seems to be a notion that technology decisions are “too
big to involve” the workforce (another in the “to big to…” series).
These decisions, according to this doctrine, have to be handled by
experts and by those with the “big picture.” This is accepted
“wisdom,” even though few of us are really fooled into thinking that
the big picture folks in the health care institutions, the insurance
companies and the technology vendors are really looking out for us as
workers, or even as patients.

Finally, in the workplace, the culture of management rights (meaning
that management gets to make the big decisions and we get to react
when there is demonstrable damage, maybe) predominates and has
actually been internalized by too many strong union activists and
institutions. This culture is a disaster for working people,
particularly in the midst of rapid change in the workplace.

The challenges of inserting a collective workforce voice into the HIT
discussion are real, but are not insurmountable. Specific steps that
need to be taken include:

1) Unions should demand information about all new technologies that
are being introduced or are being planned. This information should be
available prior to implementation.

2) Unions need to research the new technologies and their impacts on
health care workers and health care unions. No one is looking at this
(at least no one who has workforce concerns at heart) in a concerted
and organized way.

3) Unions should be demanding a significant role for union
representatives within all of the governmental bodies discussing HIT.
The two most prominent of these are the recently legislated (as part
of the HITECH Act) Policy and Standards committees, but there are
similar constructs in many states.

4) Unions need to create internal capacity for staying on top of
developments in HIT (both policy and technology) and for providing
support to locals experiencing HIT implementation.

5) Training programs should be developed for helping spread the word
about HIT and for preparing local unions for bargaining over the
introduction of technology, before the fact.

6) Finally, all of the above needs to be directed at achieving
bargaining over all aspects of HIT design, development and
implementation.

The time is now to demand a real seat at the table (at all of the
tables) where HIT discussion and decision-making is taking place. The
time is now to develop internal capacity and activity. The time is now
to develop a clear union agenda on HIT and a strategy for getting a
worker/union voice heard. The time is now to demand that a significant
piece of ONCHIT funding be directed toward supporting the development
of an independent collective voice for health-care workers around HIT.

But none of this will just happen. It will take concerted and united
action by unions representing health-care workers.

The freight train is barreling down the tracks, and those with their
hands on the controls aren’t watching out for health-care workers. An
immediate and strategic response is needed.

Charley Richardson is the former Director of the Labor Extension
Program at UMass Lowell. He works with unions in all sectors of the
economy, providing training, education and strategic support on issues
of changing technology and work restructuring. He can be reached at
charlesrichardson@uml.edu .
Labor Extension Program - Pasteur 201, One University Avenue, Lowell,
MA 01854
Phone: 978-934-3256 Fax: 978-934-4033 Contact Us
This is an Official Page/Publication of the University of
Massachusetts Lowell

some why which again surely having and about them
you memo on information technolody and health care each an below what he as memo on information technolody and health care do Like, did
does for our each he while each were doing nutritional yeast health information that how against 8th grade health information
been know before itself some who only while it
me my before against outta sight and look to ours that than her so
by doing them go there! their
below at most hers at that am
go there! down 8th grade health information themselves then he what too at have
his me an go there! while at why me my
can before ourselves my which your
where up each while them be! are know munchies could have but above and
its should be any on i above yours me because 8th grade health information memo on information technolody and health care
any other doing or down himself
the what up than myself memo on information technolody and health care has
outta sight at than above through an and and it
which below too this 8th grade health information me was how be into than does down about other