Obama picks Virginia technology leader for CTO post

This post was updated several times after 12:30 PDT with industry reaction.

President Barack Obama, in his weekly address Saturday, announced the appointment of Aneesh Chopra to serve as the nation's first chief technology officer.

Chopra, who is currently Virginia's secretary of technology, "will promote technological innovation to help achieve our most urgent priorities--from creating jobs and reducing health care costs to keeping our nation secure," Obama said.

Aneesh Chopra, Virginia's secretary of technology, is President Obama's pick for the nation's first chief technology officer.

(Credit: Virginia.gov)

At the same time, Obama also announced the appointment of executive and management consultant Jeffery Zients to be the administration's chief performance officer. Zients, along with Chopra "will work closely with our chief information officer, Vivek Kundra, who is responsible for setting technology policy across the government, and using technology to improve security, ensure transparency, and lower costs," the president said.

Chopra has led his commonwealth's "strategy to effectively leverage technology in government reform, to promote Virginia's innovation agenda, and to foster technology-related economic development," according to a White House press release.

Prior to his Virginia post, Chopra was managing director for the Advisory Board Company, where he advised executives on health care operations. That likely prepared him for Obama's proposed health care reforms, which focus heavily on information technology.

At the Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee's State of the Net Conference in Washington earlier this year, Chopra talked of Virginia's initiatives to improve aspects of governance in areas like health care and education.

For example, Virginia was set to debut its physics "flexbook," comprised of Web-based instructional materials that cover areas of physics in which Virginia's traditional curriculum is lacking.

"You can make information more accessible, collaborate more, and people can do more to hold their elected officials more accountable," said Chopra, who was one of a team of volunteers serving on the Obama transition's technology, innovation and government reform police working group.

Although Chopra had reportedly been under consideration for months for a job in the administration and had put in long hours helping Obama's transition team, much of the speculation around the post surrounded candidates with Silicon Valley roots, as TechCrunch points out in a post with the headline, "Obama Spurns Silicon Valley Vets."

Others, like Tim O'Reilly, are praising Chopra as the perfect candidate due to his understanding of how to build a better government with the help of technology.

Mark Rutledge, director at McAfee's public sector business and former CIO for the state of Kentucky, also had strong praise. "Aneesh Chopra is a fantastic pick, he is a visionary and a great communicator. If I was looking for one person to bring change, and create energy he's the pick," he said in a statement

Gary Shapiro, president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association, also commended Obama for his choice. "Chopra is an excellent selection as he served proficiently in Virginia as Secretary of Technology and also has a strong background in the private sector advising the health care industry on technology management issues," he said in a statement. "He will bring to the position real world technology and public policy experience."

[rmva]

Wow! Not a pocket protector in sight.

[James Anderson Merritt]

The problem with the lofty goal of reducing health care costs while increasing security is that it will require the US government to control health care records. Already, under HIPAA, the so-called Health Insurance Portablity and Accountability Act, your health care providers must keep your records secret even from spouses and close family, but must fully disclose them to Uncle Sam on demand, without warrant. They must have a security regimen that can be audited by Uncle Sam on demand. In terms of electronic systems, this means that anyone who can get access to a health records information system must be given explicit permissions to see particular kinds of data, or data belonging to particular patients, and must be automatically denied access to others. As a consequence, each person's activity must be automatically monitored and logged. That is to say, whenever you access a medical information system, Big Brother will be watching you, by law. Future initiatives, of the type this CTO will champion, will almost certainly involve the "secure aggregation" of patient information in federally-specified formats on the servers of federally approved and inspected repositories. To participate in health care in any meaningful way, both the provider and the patient will have to be "plugged into" this system; there won't be a choice.

What isn't being considered, is how to handle and automate health care information and medical records in a way that protects individual privacy EVEN FROM THE GOVERNMENT, or anyone who might be impersonating the government after hacking into their systems. How might we achieve the goals of cost reduction, information security, and speedy access to timely, accurate information, while preserving people's privacy and liberty? That's not the goal of federal policy of course, which is instead the terms under which health care will be available in the US: the infrastructure, the financing, the acceptable procedures, drugs, and providers, etc.

Watch and see if this doesn't become glaringly apparent in the next several years (if it isn't already so). And in case anyone thinks I'm just a sore-loser GOP Obama-basher, no way. First, no GOP for me, and Faux News isn't where I get my info. Second, the HIPAA wave of regulation began after the push for Hillary-care collapsed in the Clinton administration, but it was George W. Bush who, when he had the chance to ameliorate its worst effects, if not quash it outright, fully embraced it. (This surprised a lot of his supporters, and was one of the first signs that Bush wasn't a real, small-government conservative.) The federal takeover of health care is a bipartisan project, and both parties should be held equally responsible for what is coming down the road, as well as for what is already here.

Let's watch!

[monkeyfun14]

Make yourself a tin hat and it will be all okay.

[James Anderson Merritt]

Monkeyfun, I worked in Healthcare Informatics for ten years and I watched this all develop, firsthand, from the inside. You mock me and try to marginalize me with the "tin hat" comment, but that is just shallow and glib. I will bet you haven't been there; you haven't seen; you have no idea. One thing perhaps you CAN appreciate is that the federal mandates to switch into that all-encompassing electronic system I mentioned above will create all kinds of make-work -- for people converting data from old systems to the new, approved ones; for inspectors and auditors; for company "information security officers" -- and will entail millions and perhaps billions of dollars of expense, as health care providers, insurance agencies, and anyone else in the health care sector's orbit scramble to purchase and install new, compliant systems. Most of that will come out of your pocket, one way or another -- through taxes or medical charges. Will you be healthier or more likely to get adequate care as a result of this expense? Of course those behind the proposals will say "yes," but ask your doctor. There is already a lot of grumbling about the first (HIPAA-era) wave of information regulations -- their cumbersomeness, expensiveness, and general irrelevancy to the goal of improving health care -- among health care providers. Many doctors have thrown in with corporations or large groups, abandoning private practice because of the expense and bother of the paperwork. Some have left the profession altogether. What's coming will be more of the same, and worse. Medicine will be a "government job."

Why is it that anyone who cares about cost and intrusiveness of government, who just wants people to be free to tend to their business and live their lives without smothering regulation, oversight, or surveillance by some more-or-less pervasive and unaccountable "authority," is immediately attacked with "tin hat" comments? (And by the way, the original expression is "tin foil hat." I suppose if you can't even get that right, the quality of your criticism is made evident.)

[monkeyfun14]

Alot of people are just really sick of the government conspiracy type crap when it is really unrealistic.
If you can't have any faith in your countries government then how can you have faith in your internet company or insurance or anyone who needs personal information.

[mbenedict]

You *claim* you've worked in healthcare informatics but your postings are full of FUD.

E.g., you say that providers must "fully disclose [health information] to Uncle Sam on demand, without warrant. "

This is patently false. The government does NOT have any more access to your health information post-HIPAA than prior to it. Access to PHI by law enforcement agencies, for example, still require a court order, grand-jury subpoena, etc., as before. HIPAA does NOT change the 4th Amendment to the Constitution on Search and Seizure. HIPAA does NOT allow government employees to "snoop" on anyone's private health information.

Limited PHI may be released to public health authorities without your express authorization (e.g., to the CDC to stop an outbreak of highly-contagious diseases) or government oversight agencies (e.g., for audit purposes) -- but again this is no different than anytime before HIPAA, even during fully paper-record days.

If anything, *patients* now have right-to-audit under HIPAA. As a patient you can demand to be informed of who had access to your records and under law the provider must supply this information to you.

The HIPAA's Privacy and Security rules have unquestionably made patient health care information more secure.

[BtmnHatesRbn]

Where in the Constitution is this called for? Specially. NOWHERE!

[open-mind]

Monkey4fun, the framers of the US Constitution would probably disagree with you. They knew that blind trust in government is a dangerous thing that can easily be abused, and that's why freedom of speech (including the freedom to question/criticize our government) is part of the Constitution.

[lsabato]

I worked for Chopra for 2 years before I left in frustration. I can't think of a person less competent at getting things done--he's a self-absorbed, scatterbrained, temper-tantrum-prone prima donna. When told by other parts of Virginia government that he couldn't whatever he felt like doing with Virginia's money, he had a hissy fit and convinced Kaine to set up a technology fund that was outside normal governance. Virginia is now in the process of holding Chopra and his minions accountable for that money. That Chopra is being touted for 'governance' actions is a cruel joke. In short, Chopra was not at all concerned with what was good for Virginia citizens or Virginia government: instead he was intensely focused on promoting himself and doing whatever he needed to do to get a good headline. Good riddance.

[jabberwolf]

Couldn't he have picked someone from California?
Virginia?

Why not pick someone for water conservation from Alaska.. or beach maintenance from Nebraska?!
Tech czar from Virginia... REALLY?

Sorry but havent we learned from the previous president to place better qualified people in positions and not your "friends" and political allies!!??