In the aftermath of Dr. Blumenthal’s departure announcement, he has received abundant praise for his accomplishments, his leadership, and his commitment to EHR adoption. There is a general consensus that the groundwork has been laid and that sufficient organizational structures are in place to move the EHR adoption program forward smoothly, despite the upcoming change in command at ONC.
Most writers have attributed Blumenthal’s departure to his need to return to Harvard—which had granted him its standard two-year leave of absence—since his option to retain a tenured position expires at the end of that period. According to Secretary Sebelius, this schedule was incorporated in the HHS plan from the outset.
Some people are more cynical regarding Blumenthal’s reasons for departing, like one of the commenters on last week’s EMR Straight Talk post, who suggested that he is getting out “before the roof collapses.” They cite recent studies that question the link between EHRs and quality of care, the loss of confidence among some providers regarding their ability to meet the meaningful use requirements, and the recent (albeit unsuccessful) attempt by House Republicans to repeal unspent funding that would have included the EHR incentive program. These commenters express doubt as to whether the momentum toward health IT adoption will continue.
Others say new leadership will be a good thing. John Moore of Chilmark Research posits that the EHR program is at a turning point—and that as it transitions from the development phase into the operational phase, it should be led by someone with operational experience rather than by an academician.
No doubt, top PR people were involved in the orchestration of the Blumenthal announcement. What still concerns me is why it was not accompanied by the naming of his replacement—a sentiment that has been echoed by many industry pundits, (Ken Terry, for example). This begs the question: What does it really mean? Time will tell.