February 2011

Now is the time for Congress and the Obama Administration to tackle cybersecurity

[Commentary] 2010 was another watershed year for cybersecurity. One of the most significant threats to our national security is the danger posed by hackers, organized crime syndicates and foreign powers operating in cyberspace. Events, from WikiLeaks' Cablegate to the Stuxnet computer worm have pushed cybersecurity deeper into the public's consciousness than perhaps ever before. The progress made hasn't been nearly enough, however. Our national response to these and other potential threats remains far below what is needed, and we remain drastically underprepared for the challenges we face. Many of the cyber threats that have taken root and grown beyond the headlines continue to fester due to a lack of attention from the legislative and executive branches and the private sector. The utilities that operate our critical infrastructure are unable to address what are seen as only "perceived" threats to our power grid. Our government continues to operate with vulnerable and outdated computers and there is no structure that governs coordination among our own federal agencies, much less our allies and partners overseas.

Today, our nation stands largely unprepared to deal with the very real threats against not just our financial markets, power grids and military, but on our civil liberties and privacy as well. There are many passionate and smart voices, inside government and outside, that are committed to seeing the United States remain strong and secure as the digital domain increasingly shapes our reality. Two years ago President Obama made cybersecurity a priority. Now is the time for the administration and Congress to follow through. With legislative groundwork laid last year, the White House and leaders in the House and Senate have an opportunity to work in a bipartisan manner to bring our nation in line with the technological realities facing us online. We hope we can all rise to the challenge presented to us and pledge to work toward a more secure tomorrow.

[Reps. James R. Langevin (D-RI) and Michael T. McCaul (R-TX) served as co-chairmen of the Center for Strategic and International Security's Commission on Cybersecurity]

Louisiana fast tracks a statewide HIE

The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology has approved the Louisiana Health Care Quality Forum’s (LHCQF) strategic and operational plan for the Louisiana Health Information Exchange (LaHIE), paving the way for the organization to move forward quickly in its efforts to develop a statewide health information network.

The LHCQF, a non-profit entity that is the state’s point organization for initiatives to improve health care quality, received a $10.6 million federal grant through the HITECH Act in March 2010, as well as a grant to run the state’s regional extension center. LHCQF issued a request for proposal in December so, with the ONC’s go-ahead, officials are now free to pursue the original implementation schedule. Jenny Smith, HIE program manager for LHCQF, said that she and other officials have already begun reviewing proposals and will select a vendor and a technical infrastructure by mid-April and begin building the new system in May. The overarching technology model for the LaHIE is decentralized and will leverage existing HIEs, including the Louisiana Rural Health Information Exchange (LaRHIX) and the Louisiana Southwest Health Information Exchange (LaSWIX), Medicaid systems and numerous hospital, provider group and public health IT initiatives.

HHS funds seven state insurance exchange IT designs

The Health and Human Services Department has awarded $241 million in grants to seven individual states and one cluster of states to design and set up the computer systems and networks necessary to operate state health insurance exchanges, which are called for in the health reform law.

The states will share the insurance exchange IT models that they develop with other states. The insurance exchanges will be designed as a single destination where consumers and small businesses can shop for, compare and purchase health insurance plans in 2014. Like airline, banking and other consumer e-commerce systems, health insurance exchange systems will need to be creative, cost effective and easy to use by consumers navigating the maze of qualification and enrollment information necessary for making health insurance choices. The “early innovator” awards went to Kansas, Maryland, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Wisconsin, and a consortium of New England states, according to a Feb. 16 HHS announcement. The states offer different methods that will be valuable to all states as they work to set up their exchanges. The grantees represent different regions of the country, as well as different exchange governance structures and information systems, said Dr. Donald Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

GAO: CMS should reconcile e-prescribing, EHR incentive reporting

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services should reduce the duplicate requirements in its two programs that pay incentives to healthcare providers who use health information technology. It should also reconcile areas in the two programs that are similar but inconsistent to relieve some of the reporting burden for participating physicians, according to the Government Accountability Office.

CMS administers two programs, for electronic prescribing and electronic health records, which pay incentives to eligible Medicare providers who adopt and use health IT, and imposes penalties on those who do not use the digital tools after several years. In 2009, the first year the e-prescribing program disbursed incentive payments, CMS paid out $148 million to about 8 percent of the about 600,000 Medicare providers who were eligible. From 2012 through 2014, CMS will decrease the amount of payments for claims to providers who do not establish e-prescribing, said GAO in a report published Feb. 17. CMS will start paying incentives under the EHR program to qualifying Medicare providers this year. Although GAO found similarities in the technology and reporting requirements for both programs, the auditor said that the requirements of the two programs are inconsistent in several areas.

The ‘Subscription Economy’ Is Growing, And It’s Bigger Than Just Media

[Commentary] We are seeing a larger shift to a subscription economy that means a lot not just for publishers but for all companies.

More and more, our lives are wrapped around subscriptions, and that’s not just in online media. You can now subscribe to software (e.g. salesforce.com), entertainment (e.g. Netflix, cars (e.g. Zipcar), computing power and storage (e.g. Amazon)—you name it. The relationship between people and businesses, and the products and services they use, is no longer a one-time event. The implications of this shift—from an economy based largely on one-time purchases to one based ever more on subscriptions—are profound and ultimately stand to benefit both businesses and consumers. The 20th-century economy was rooted in manufacturing: companies were focused squarely on making and shipping as many tangible goods as possible. Car companies, for example, were measured on how many cars they ship in a quarter. In contrast, modern companies focus on their customers, and focus on building long-term relationships with customers through a set of services.

Acceptable Use Policies in Web 2.0 & Mobile Era

The Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) released a new guide aimed at assisting district leaders develop, rethink or revise Internet policies to address the growing use of mobile devices and Web 2.0. The CoSN Policy Guide was developed as part of a grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation’s Digital Media and Learning Initiative, and is designed for superintendents, principals, chief technology/information officers (CTOs/CIOs) and curriculum directors.

North Carolina lawmaker launches another community broadband ban bill

North Carolina State Rep. Marilyn Avila (R-Wake County) has introduced a new bill to fight pioneering municipal broadband efforts. Mainly supported by the state's large incumbent service providers -- AT&T, CenturyLink and Time Warner Cable -- the new bill is the fourth effort in recent years to put a ban on community fiber-based network efforts. Similar efforts, however, by North Carolina's Senate Finance Committee have not been able to stop municipal broadband service networks from going live in Salisbury.

Wisconsin's stimulus rejection: Too many strings, or too much scrutiny?

[Commentary] Wisconsin is the first state to return broadband stimulus funds, although it likely won't be the last if other states have similar issues.

The problem here is that at the end of the day, the schools and libraries of Wisconsin still have nothing. And that's not five years down the road; that's today. Stimulus funds that were meant to boost connection speeds for 385 libraries and 82 schools in communities across the state are no longer available. There's no changing their mind on this one; the returned funds will be distributed to another state. The schools and libraries aren't entirely without options, however. They can renew their contract with AT&T for BadgerNet and hope improvements in broadband over copper wire will be enough over that period. Wisconsin communities can hope that the free market certain Washington pundits keep touting will spur buildout of fiber infrastructure sometime within this decade.

Wealthy suburbs get best broadband deals; DC, rural areas lag behind

People who live in low-income areas of the District of Columbia on average get less for their broadband dollar than those who live in the wealthy suburbs — and subscribers in rural areas get the worst deals of all, according to a new study.

The Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University analyzed customer speed tests and surveys around the nation’s eighth-largest metropolitan statistical area, which has a population of about 5.4 million. The data — 4,294 records — offer a rare glimpse into broadband service performance and pricing on a local level. Such information is closely guarded by providers and is not available from the government. The pricing data were compiled by network diagnostics firm Ookla, which is one of two providers of connection speed tests featured on the Federal Communications Commission’s website. Only subscribers to stand-alone broadband service were included in the analysis. Connection speeds are determined by how fast a piece of data travels over the Internet in a single second. To measure value, the most popular method is to divide the monthly cost of service by the connection speed. The result is the average cost per megabit, per second (Mbps). This measure might show that a subscriber's monthly bill may be low, but not worth it because the connection speed is so slow.

Cable winning broadband wars, but is competition at risk?

People love to hate the cable guy, but when it comes to delivering the best value, high-speed Internet connections in the Washington (DC) region, he’s the man to see.

Comcast Corp. costs about $2 per month more for its service on average than rival Verizon Communications Inc., but it charges about half as much per megabit, per second of data, according to an analysis by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University. The connection speed advantage that cable companies have over traditional telecommunications providers —which still rely largely on aging digital subscriber line (DSL) technology — is significant enough to raise questions about whether the high-speed Internet market will devolve from a telecom- and cable-dominated duopoly to a cable monopoly. Increasingly, broadband customers are looking for faster connection speeds when shopping for Internet service so they can watch movies, television shows and video clips online without waiting hours for files to download.

Benton

Search