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.

New call for submissions ­to NEJM Catalyst

Now inviting longform articles

Connect

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

Learn More »

More From Care Redesign
Coffey02_pullquote family-centered care in medical and surgical procedures

What If Family-Centered Care Were Extended to Medical and Surgical Procedures?

Though the concerns are valid, early experiences suggest that family member engagement may be an effective tool for improving the value of care.

Evidence Needed for Health Systems Change to Address Social Determinants of Health and Obesity and Diet-Related Diseases in Turn

Better Clinical Care for Obesity and Diet-Related Diseases Requires a Focus on Social Determinants of Health

To more effectively treat the problems of obesity and diet-related conditions, health systems need to restructure the traditional medical model of care delivery to address the social determinants of health.

People Living with Dementia Around the World - Value-Based Chronic Illness and Dementia Care

Value-Based Care Must Strengthen Focus on Chronic Illnesses

To effectively control costs and improve value, new models must address our increasingly older patients and chronic care patients, especially those with Alzheimer’s and related dementias.

The Barriers to Excellent Care Vary Widely Across Geographic Regions - both Rural Health Care and Urban Health Care

Survey Snapshot: Rural Health Innovations Born from Challenges

According to NEJM Catalyst Insights Council members, every health system has to develop its own definition of what is meant by “rural” health.

Same-Day Breast Biopsy Workflow at Baylor College of Medicine

How Care Redesign and Process Improvement Can Reduce Patient Fear

Seeing how clinicians take care of their own when they are in frightening situations was the epiphany that led to a same-day breast biopsy program.

Rural Health Care Is Rated Comparable or Worse Across Quadruple Aim Aspects

Care Redesign Survey: Lessons Learned from and for Rural Health

Although care delivery models in rural and urban/suburban areas are distinct, by virtue of geographic density and resource availability, each locale affords lessons for the other.

Comprehensive Intervention Review at Lurie Childrens Hospital - improving patient flow and length of stay

Reducing Length of Stay in the ED

A comprehensive redesign of triage and ED care.

Pumonary Nurse Post-Discharge Follow-Up Note for Patients with COPD

TOPS: Telephonic Outreach in the Pulmonary Service at VA Boston Healthcare System

A nurse-directed intervention targeting veterans who had been hospitalized for COPD resulted in improved access to ambulatory care and a reduced rate of readmissions.

Health Care Quality Improvement Prioritization - Keeping the Focus on the Union of Mission and Externalities

Mission and Externalities: The Imperative for Prioritization

Well-meaning providers will fail to improve the quality of care until they focus on what’s important: setting priorities and dealing with the consequences of external factors.

RumballSmith03_pullquote personalized hospital ratings

Personalized Hospital Ratings — Transparency for the Internet Age

Patient user-determined weights could become a highly desirable feature of future hospital ratings.

Connect

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

Learn More »

Topics

Social Needs

88 Articles

Better Clinical Care for Obesity and…

To more effectively treat the problems of obesity and diet-related conditions, health systems need to…

Online “Superusers” as Allies of the…

Three proposed steps for integrating peer-driven online health communities with traditional services to improve health…

Coordinated Care

129 Articles

The Evolution of Primary Care: Embracing…

Primary care must leverage disruptive innovations to ensure that patients receive first-access, comprehensive, coordinated, continuous…

Insights Council

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

Apply Now