Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to IamZed
Re: Not a good thing at all
I don't think electronic medical records are a bad thing as long as authentication remains properly in place. Let's say that you are on vacation and something happens to you that renders you unconscious. Currently, the emergency room docs won't have your medical history and will have to guess as to what you are allergic to, what medication you are taking, and what medical condition(s) you might have that could have caused this incident. With electronic medical records, they would be able to pull up your medical record, see that just what your medical history is, and make sure that your treatment is adjusted accordingly.
I don't believe insurance companies will have access to these systems any more than they have access to your current medical record. (They can infer things based on types of medications ordered, tests done, etc, but I don't think they have access to your actual medical record.)
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ |
|
LoungeLizard2
join:2003-11-21
Vallejo, CA
| If you're allergic to medication, then you wear a medi-alert bracelet, not post all your medical records on-line. Why should my dentist, or OGBYN know that I went to a psychologist? Also....there are so many mistakes on credit reports, why would I want my medical records to be the same. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| said by LoungeLizard2  :
If you're allergic to medication, then you wear a medi-alert bracelet, not post all your medical records on-line. Why should my dentist, or OGBYN know that I went to a psychologist? Also....there are so many mistakes on credit reports, why would I want my medical records to be the same.
Not everyone who's allergic to medication wears a medi-alert bracelet. My wife is allergic to certain commonly used antibiotics. If she were in the ER (unable to communicate her allergies and without an informed family member handy), she might be given the wrong antibiotic and have a bad, life threatening reaction.
As for them being online, we're not talking about a website. Docs won't log into www.allhealthrecordsarehere.com. Instead, they would have a secure interface to a network that will allow them to view and add to your medical record.
For an analogous situation, look at ATMs. They are connected via a network without being online in the World Wide Web sense of the word. You can't simply edit your balance because you can access your bank account anywhere worldwide.
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ |
|
enOehT
Premium
join:2003-05-17
Langhorne, PA
| reply to LoungeLizard2
said by LoungeLizard2 :
Why should my dentist, or OGBYN know that I went to a psychologist?
What is wrong with seeing a psychologist? The brain is just another organ. You shouldn't attach a stigma to it. This is 2004 right? not 1954?
--
Go see Fahrenheit 9/11! And make sure to vote in November.  |
|
LoungeLizard2
join:2003-11-21
Vallejo, CA
1 edit | Here's a slight misgiving...
Insurance companies are starting to DENY coverage, if they see that you were prescribed anti-depressants. Be afraid, and not for the reasons Tom Ridge gives... |
|
LoungeLizard2
join:2003-11-21
Vallejo, CA | reply to Jason Levine
How has she survived this long?
So what does she do now? If I had a life threatening allergy, I would wear a bracelet, and not wait for the government to protect me, (and violate everyone Else's privacy). |
|
enOehT
Premium
join:2003-05-17
Langhorne, PA
| reply to LoungeLizard2
Re: Here's a slight misgiving...
I am a health care provider, and I deal with insurances on a daily basis, and what you are saying has no merit.
--
Go see Fahrenheit 9/11! And make sure to vote in November. |
|
jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Jason Levine
Re: Not a good thing at all
said by Jason Levine :
I don't think electronic medical records are a bad thing as long as authentication remains properly in place.
Authentication merely establishes membership in a pre-defined group. Healthcare providers, by the nature of their trade, cannot be pre-defined because one cannot forecast needs of a patient by any combination of place, time, provider type, or providing individual.
In other environments a data delivery failure (user lacks permission) is a hassle, an inefficiency for the user. In medicine (and war, I suppose) it's instantly obvious why authentication failures would be intolerable - even at a very, very low rates of incidence. When advocates of widely networked medical records reassure the populace about their ability to secure network distribution of patient records they are lying; there is far, far too much required access.
To ensure that records are *always* present when a patient presents themselves to a provider there are exactly two options:
1) physical records that physically travel around with the patient
or
2) networked records that are visible to all providers at all levels at all times for all patients.
#1, of course, is essentially how it's always been. - with weakness being
--- records often being far away at onset of need
--- time delay in getting records united with patient once both have been identified
--- records are of inconsistent legibility (sounds silly, but it's a huge problem)
--- inefficient means for distributing multiple copies, when desired
But once a patient is united with their physical record it becomes a near-faultless system: everyone treating the patient sees the same info + same format + same emphasis, has unfettered access when the record is most necessary, it is extremely durable, and - most importantly - the owner of the record controls the record and can observe it's use.
#2, (assuming "electronic" means residing on a WAN)
--- multiple copies are a breeze
--- fast reunion of patient & records upon identification of patient only (record id essentially disappears)
But the patient permanently looses all meaningful control of record creation, preservation, distribution, and modification/retraction. It's a huge, knowable loss to the patient with some attractive but highly speculative gains.
It will be interesting to see if our property-rights obsessed society goes the networked route and, if we do, whether it will have opt-in or patient controlled content removal features.
I'd prefer to see two static copies:
1) In patient care in the form of a chip. Physical records also in patient care and providers expected to obtain records from patients. If patients show for non-urgent care appointments without records they don't get served.
2) a central archive maintained by a small group of people. This copy readily available only to the patient and, to a lesser degree pre-determined by the patient, emergency care providers with a (post facto) documented emergency event.
Sound sane?
OKdone. |
|
biochemistry
join:2003-05-09
92361
| reply to LoungeLizard2
"Why should my dentist, or OGBYN know that I went to a psychologist?"
Well just off the top of my head, it may be important for your ob/gyn to monitor for postpartum depression. I doubt dentists would be given access to these records and in fact since psychologists are not doctors, I don't think they would have access either nor would their records be available to MD's.
The VA Hospital system has already gone electronic and the records from one VA hospital are accessible at any other. |
|
MorWired
Premium
join:2001-03-03
clubs: 
| said by biochemistry :
The VA Hospital system has already gone electronic and the records from one VA hospital are accessible at any other.
But the VA is a closed, finite system. Now we're talking about every single hospital, clinic, and doctor's office not only entering data (consistently?!), but also having access to the information -- that's a very, very different (and much scarier) prospect.
--
Get your daily dose of wonder from the Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD).
|
|
enOehT
Premium
join:2003-05-17
Langhorne, PA
1 edit | reply to biochemistry
said by biochemistry :
since psychologists are not doctors
Psychologists have either a Ph.D. or Psy.D., so they are indeed doctors.
--
Go see Fahrenheit 9/11! And make sure to vote in November. |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| said by enOehT :
said by biochemistry :
since psychologists are not doctors
Psychologists had either a Ph.D. or Psy.D., so they are indeed doctors.
Probably meant that psychologist, unlike psychiatrists, are not MDs.
-tom
--
"There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't."
"That's only 2 types of people, moron" |
|
enOehT
Premium
join:2003-05-17
Langhorne, PA
| said by nixen :
Probably meant that psychologist, unlike psychiatrists, are not MDs.
Here is a list of doctors that aren't MDs: PhD, PsyD, EdD, DDS, DMD, DPM, OD, DO, DC, PharmD, JD. All doctors, and not a single one is an MD, lol.
--
Go see Fahrenheit 9/11! And make sure to vote in November. |
|
LoungeLizard2
join:2003-11-21
Vallejo, CA | reply to enOehT
Um....... It's in the Newspaper...
OK, the summary then----Anti-depressants are expensive, insurance companies don't want to spend money on health care, insurance companies deny coverage for people they believe might want anti-depressants. |
|
