Bill Overview
Title: Improving DATA in Public Health Act
Description: This bill addresses the collection and reporting of public health data with a particular focus on electronic health information. Specifically, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) must designate data and technology standards for public health data systems no later than two years after enactment of this act. These standards must, among other requirements, align with standards designated by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). In addition, the ONC must study matters concerning the use of standards for certain laboratory information. Further, the CDC may require, subject to some limits, additional reporting of public health and health care data by health care providers, health departments, and other entities for public health surveillance. The CDC must establish a committee to advise on the implementation of this reporting. Additionally, the bill addresses agreements regarding access to, exchange of, and use of public health data, including for public health preparedness and response activities. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) must develop or update interagency agreements while the CDC and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response may develop and update agreements with health departments and other nonfederal entities. The bill also requires HHS to award grants and other support for developing and disseminating best practices to collect electronic health information. Entities eligible for the awards include state, tribal, and local governments; health care providers; and nonprofits.
Sponsors: Rep. Underwood, Lauren [D-IL-14]
Target Audience
Population: People worldwide who interact with public health systems or are impacted by public health surveillance
Estimated Size: 332000000
- The act focuses on improving public health data collection and reporting, implying an impact on public health systems worldwide.
- Public health officials and health departments globally will be required to adopt new standards, impacting their operations.
- The act includes provisions that affect health care providers, who are present in all countries, thus impacting a global workforce.
- Patients globally will eventually be impacted through changes to healthcare operations and improvements in public health surveillance, though their direct impact is less immediate and tangible.
Reasoning
- The key demographic impacted by the Improving DATA in Public Health Act includes health professionals such as health department officials, hospital administrators, and IT staff responsible for data management and reporting. Individuals in these roles will likely have increased workloads in the initial implementation phase but may experience streamlined operations in the long term.
- Patients with frequent interactions with healthcare systems, especially those with chronic conditions, might notice improved care coordination over time due to better data sharing practices.
- The policy's budget suggests significant investment in infrastructure, training, and compliance measures, which might initially stress lower-resourced health departments or small healthcare providers.
- Not all US citizens will feel the policy's impact directly; it is more likely felt by those whose work involves healthcare data or by patients whose care might benefit from improved data practices.
- The indirect benefits in terms of public health preparedness may be appreciated by a broader audience, though precise measurement of this impact is challenging.
Simulated Interviews
Public Health Official (Detroit, MI)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will streamline data-sharing processes, ultimately benefitting public health.
- Initial implementation could be challenging due to updates required across our systems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Healthcare IT Specialist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The transition to new standards can initially cause some disruption.
- In the long run, these standards will help in maintaining high data quality.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Patient with Chronic Illness (New York, NY)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better data integration will reduce paperwork and errors in my treatment.
- Privacy is a major concern with more data sharing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Data Analyst in Health Tech (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- New standards align with what we've been advocating for years.
- The policy could boost innovation and interoperability in health tech.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
General Practitioner (Rural Kansas)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It will be tough to meet new data requirements with my limited resources.
- Grants could potentially help, but I worry about access and eligibility.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Hospital Administrator (Chicago, IL)
Age: 43 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy provides a clear direction on compliance, which is welcome.
- The initial phase might be resource-intensive in training and system updates.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Software Developer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act is a step forward for data interoperability which aligns with our goals.
- Concerns remain about the adoption speed across different sectors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
CDC Researcher (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhanced data accessibility will greatly improve public health monitoring and response.
- The challenge lies in coordinating among diverse stakeholders with varying capacities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Pharmaceutical Data Analyst (Boston, MA)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Streamlined data access will enhance our ability to deploy rapid responses in public health crises.
- I worry about the increasing complexity of data privacy regulations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Retired Nurse (Orlando, FL)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I'm retired, I see the clear benefits this policy could bring in patient care continuity.
- The implementation phase might be tricky, but it's a necessary change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $180000000, High: $220000000)
Year 2: $250000000 (Low: $220000000, High: $280000000)
Year 3: $300000000 (Low: $270000000, High: $330000000)
Year 5: $400000000 (Low: $360000000, High: $440000000)
Year 10: $500000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $550000000)
Year 100: $1000000000 (Low: $900000000, High: $1100000000)
Key Considerations
- The exact cost or savings magnitude might vary based on implementation efficiency and technological developments.
- Long-term public health benefits can be substantial but are difficult to quantify in monetary terms.
- Potential for improved disease outbreak responses, indirectly influencing broader economic stability.