Care Redesign

Has the Time Come for a Unique Patient Identifier for the U.S.?

Article · February 21, 2018

Two decades ago, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) required the adoption of a unique health identifier for every individual, employer, health plan, and health care provider. This mandate was subsequently overruled by Congress because of patient privacy concerns. Since then, the U.S. has made the largest capital investment in catalyzing the adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) in history.

Yet that $30+ billion capital investment has not delivered on its promise of higher-quality, more cost-efficient care. Why? One important reason is the lack of a unique patient identifier system and the fact that without one, it’s very difficult to link disparate data to obtain a comprehensive picture of any one patient’s health care experiences. It’s time to revisit Congress’s fears about unique patient identifiers and institute a system that will enable more complete and accurate patient records.

Developing a unique patient identifier system would have many benefits. When accurate information is attached to the right patient, data access is timelier for clinical, administrative, quality improvement, and research purposes; inappropriate care, redundant tests, and medical errors are reduced; and health information exchange becomes easier — within organizations as well as between. Identifiers are also beneficial for patient mobility, allowing information to be linked to patients and following them as they move. And when patients have access to their complete records, they’re better able to advocate for themselves and manage their clinical conditions.

The current U.S. system for identifying patients relies on demographic data such as name and birth date, which sometimes are not unique to individuals. Because of this, it’s possible to link only 90–95% of records uniquely between disparate data sets. The result is high rates of duplicate or split records, posing potential risks to patient safety. For example, information about abnormal test results or medication allergies may reside in records that are not linked to the correct patient and the absence of a comprehensive patient record may result in redundant testing. Sorting out the remaining 5–10% of unmatched records is labor intensive and costly, yet it is often essential, especially in clinical care.

Even though unique patient identifiers have considerable support from the health information technology industry and many providers, they are very controversial in the United States. A highly vocal minority fears patient data will be exploited by governments and/or industry and that privacy might be even harder to protect than it is today. Congress responded to those concerns in 1998 when it prohibited the use of federal funds to investigate or create unique patient identifiers.

Looking to Other Countries

Unique patient identifiers have now been implemented in a number of places, including Ireland, the Nordic countries, and the United Kingdom. Scotland’s Community Health Index (CHI) number and England’s National Health Service (NHS) number allow disparate data sources to be reliably connected to minimize misidentification and catalyze research with linked anonymized data sets.

The NHS number, which does not itself carry any information about a person, allows clinicians to accurately convey information about patients to other health care providers, and simplifies many common tasks: sending discharge summaries to a patient’s primary care physician, making referrals to specialists, linking pathology and other reports to an individual’s records, and delivering prescriptions to pharmacists.

Starting with the States

Despite these advantages and the positive experiences in these countries, there is little appetite in the U.S. for pushing forward with identifiers at the federal level. At the state level, however, the outlook is more promising. Nevada and Minnesota have passed legislation legalizing the use of patient identifiers and can serve as testing grounds for clinical data exchange within their borders.

At the federal level, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology should advocate that Congress lift the 1998 prohibition. The agencies should sponsor cost-benefit analyses and pilots to demonstrate the benefits and identify the challenges associated with introducing identifiers. Strict penalties would need to be established for privacy breaches, identity theft, and other types of abuse. If state-level implementations were successful, a national patient identifier could be reconsidered.

With billions of dollars having been spent on EHR implementation, the health care system must vigorously investigate more efficient ways to connect fragmented patient data, an effort that is increasingly relevant as the U.S. moves from a fee-for-service to a value-based health care system focusing on outcomes and populations.  If pursued, this change needs to be done with a public mandate, strict penalties for breaches of privacy, and an explicit strategy to improve access to comprehensive, longitudinal records to improve patient care, minimize duplicate records, and facilitate secondary uses of these data to support clinical audits, quality improvement, and research.

Call for submissions:

Now inviting expert articles, longform articles, and case studies for peer review

Connect

A weekly email newsletter featuring the latest actionable ideas and practical innovations from NEJM Catalyst.

Learn More »

More From Care Redesign
Mapping a Technology Strategy for Bundled Payment Care Using a Value-Driven Framework

Harnessing Emerging Information Technology for Bundled Payment Care Using a Value-Driven Framework

A four-part framework developed by physicians at Partners HealthCare provides a stepwise process for assessing and integrating technologies to effectively use data through a continuous patient experience.

UCLA Health CKD Risk Stratification and Management

Proactively Catching the Declining Patient

A coordinated effort by UCLA leaders to identify a high-cost population with chronic kidney disease and to modify care processes and personnel has led to improved health and reduced utilization.

Telehealth and remote monitoring are little used and ineffective for chronic disease care

Survey Snapshot: Treating Chronic Disease Proactively

Though survey respondents don’t indicate strong use of telehealth and remote monitoring, NEJM Catalyst Insights Council members discuss the ways they’re using these tools to monitor chronic disease, with good results.

Platforming Health Care Operations - Consumer-Driven Health Care - Business-Minded Optimizations

Platforming Health Care to Transform Care Delivery

Health care leaders need to focus less on ownership and control of the delivery process, and more on outcomes, cost efficiency, and customer experience.

Shah05_ integrated systems innovation pullquote

Build vs. Buy: What Should Health Systems Do?

The consolidation craze continues, but vertical integration has yet to demonstrate real progress toward the Triple Aim. Health care leaders would do well to consider innovative approaches that are working in other industries, including the tech-enabled full stack model.

Diagram Illustrating the COPD Care Pathway at Allegheny General Hospital

End-to-End Care for COPD Patients that Improves Outcomes and Lowers Costs

Allegheny General Hospital created a comprehensive solution for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that led to improved clinical outcomes, reduced hospital admissions and readmissions, and a resultant decrease in the total cost of care.

David Blumenthal and Bob Galvin head shots

Ripe for Disruption: Why and How Big Players in the Private Sector Are Taking on Health Care

For big tech companies like Amazon, Apple, and Google, the health care sector looks ripe for disruption. Two executives working in different parts of the health care ecosystem discuss what this means for patients and doctors, including the positives and unintended consequences.

Top challenges facing chronic disease management care - insufficient time and care coordination

Care Redesign Survey: To Improve Chronic Disease Care, Change the Payment Model

Many health care organizations are reasonably effective in treating chronic diseases, but they are limited from doing better by fee-for-service payment, which remains the predominant payment model in the United States. This report serves as a snapshot in time, showing the intent of health care providers to be proactive in treating chronic disease, but limitations in their ability to address population health.

Nirav Shah head shot Stanford - AI in medicine and team care

What AI Means for Doctors and Doctoring

Physicians must hone the “four Cs” — critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity — when leveraging AI as a new partner in their care teams.

End of Life EOL Palliative Care in the ED for Patients with Advanced Cancer - Process Map - MD Anderson Cancer Center

Patient-Centered Care at the End of Life in the ED

How MD Anderson Cancer Center is improving end-of-life care in an unlikely place: the emergency department.

Connect

A weekly email newsletter featuring the latest actionable ideas and practical innovations from NEJM Catalyst.

Learn More »

Topics

Design Thinking

20 Articles

Taxonomy of the Patient Voice

While health care pursues the important trend of putting patients at the center of care,…

How Artificial Intelligence Is Changing Health…

The development of intelligent machines holds great promise for making health care delivery more accurate,…

Proactively Catching the Declining Patient

A coordinated effort by UCLA leaders to identify a high-cost population with chronic kidney disease…

Insights Council

Have a voice. Join other health care leaders effecting change, shaping tomorrow.

Apply Now