 
elias
Premium,VIP
join:2000-07-24
Miami, FL
clubs:  | Like in the Movies Where the characters have all their medical records on a card/chip.
-- Elias
--
Crunching the Midnight Oil | |
|  | 
Swingerhead
Premium
join:2004-04-06
Richmond, VA | Re: Like in the Movies Except that this is each dr keeping their own digital records and having them be accessable to whoever needs them. Can you imagine the authentication issues with this? | |
| | | | | | | 
jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Like in the Movies said by elias  :
Insurance companies have a system they can access, sort of like the credit bureau, but for health-related things. I believe it's called the MIB (Medical Information Bureau). They can look-up pretty much anyone, and see certain things about them.
Good parallel issue. MIB maintains their own DB and my understanding is their sole source of personal health records is their member insurers. In 1999 I took an interest in the MIB and researched them with some detail. I'll write here what I can recall, though no guarantees on accuracy.
Patient info is submitted to the MIB when an insurer conjects that a policy holder of theirs has a health condition likely to affect risk exposure to future insurers. So, yes, it's *ostensive* function is similar to a credit reporting bureau - as long as you overlook that it's about access to healthcare, not cash.
So what value the MIB in a land with laws that ensure acceptance to coverage and rates are set by age, sex, and other normalized, non-personal criteria? As far as I can see two things: after-the-fact court arguments to minimize coverage payouts and after-the-fact discovery of provider fraud (eg: insurer-X paid $28k to providers-Y for patient-Z's spine surgery + rehab. 5 years later patient-Z applies for coverage from another provider & states s/he's never had major surgery)).
The MIB's function, IMO, is only improper because it's built upon active concealment from the public & individual patients about who has what information about them. Legally patients own & have 100% control over their health records (good joke, eh?) and the insurance industry is only permitted access to patient data to the extent required to authenticate a provider billing. The MIB stretches that concept way thin by archiving patient healthcare records for later sale to any other insurance company willing to pay for it.
The industry knows the MIB is playing fast & loose with confidentiality laws, but it's one of those "everyone inside benefits" dynamics that supresses talk about (and challenges to) the MIB. Regulators ought to force disclosure at policy application, policy onset, *and* whenever an insurer ships a file off to the MIB for life-long, industry-wide consumption - but they don't. Perhaps the MIB has done well at minimizing and/or concealing abuse of their DB and thus not raised the ire of watchdog organizations, I don't know.
You can obtain a copy of your MIB entry - if one exists. I feel obligated to balance elias 's statement of "They can look-up pretty much anyone, and see certain things about them." with a "perhaps not". In 1999 I initiated requests for MIB data on 16 persons and they had files on only 1. How much the MIB has since grown their DB I haven't a clue. Would be interesting to hear if anyone has that info.
The practice of the medical community maintaining patient records on the behalf of patients has, for most, obvious benefits. But post electronification it will simply be impossible for a patient (the owner) to secure or control their own health records. The MIB serves as an example of patients loosing control of their own records even when records were almost entirely paper-based. That doesn't bode well. | |
| | | | | 
dotditdot
@trw.com
| Why do you mention like in the movies? In Europe everybody has a card the size of a credit card, with a chip built into it (the exact same type of chip that SIM cards have in GSM phones).
The card contains all of your billing/policy information in it. Its really practical. They're already expanding the use to contain medical records as well. The privacy laws in Europe are much stronger, and health insurance is much more regulated, which permits such a system to function easily without worries of getting screwed by the companies. | |
| 
IamZed
Premium
join:2001-01-10
Dayton, OH
| Not a good thing at all The insurance companies will love this. Get a cold? Your rates go up. Have anything seriously wrong with you? No insurance for you. I wonder who is backing this initiate the most.
--
[url=www.flyingpuppet.com/shock/legato.htm]relax[/url] | |
| | 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| 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
| Re: Not a good thing at all 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
| Re: Not a good thing at all 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/ | |
| | | | | LoungeLizard2
join:2003-11-21
Vallejo, CA | 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). | |
| | | | | | | | | 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... | |
| | | | | | 
enOehT
Premium
join:2003-05-17
Langhorne, PA
| 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.  | |
| | | | | | | LoungeLizard2
join:2003-11-21
Vallejo, CA | 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. | |
| | | | biochemistry
join:2003-05-09
92361
| "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. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
enOehT
Premium
join:2003-05-17
Langhorne, PA
| Re: Not a good thing at all 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. | |
| | |
jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
·RoadRunner Cable
| 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. | |
| | 
TheGiant
Next Year Is Here.
join:2001-03-28
Augusta, GA
1 edit | I think my medical records should be kept by me. When I go to the doctor I could bring them in Paper or digital format. The doctor could update them and I would be on my way. To many chances for abuse with such a database.
A standsrd format that the whole Health care industry can agree on would be helpful. That would cut the learning cure down for Health care professionals that tend to move from Job to job. It might also reduce the chance for errors in the records.
--
Keep America safe Bush 2004
»www.georgewbush.com/KerryMediaCenter/ | |
| | | 
coxta
Ultramundane
Premium
join:2000-07-15
LALALALALALA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Not a good thing at all When you need your medical records in an emergency, are you going to have them on hand? There are many advantages to having records available at a moments notice through a central clearing house.
Safety and privacy? Take a look at HIPAA regulations. They are extremely strigent. Much more so than laws concerning your personal financial records.
--
Religion is for people who have not yet had a spiritual experience. | |
| | | |
TheGiant
Next Year Is Here.
join:2001-03-28
Augusta, GA
| Re: Not a good thing at all said by coxta :
When you need your medical records in an emergency, are you going to have them on hand? There are many advantages to having records available at a moments notice through a central clearing house.
Safety and privacy? Take a look at HIPAA regulations. They are extremely stringent. Much more so than laws concerning your personal financial records.
Where is the teeth in HIPPA sure it sounds good but in practice it is very lax. i know I regularly inform Doctors that this and that is against HIPPA and they say I can't be bothered with that. Keeping personal Medical records would be a chore but one that I would be willing to do and would not recommend for everyone. Yes I would keep backups and I would have them on me always with a usb keychain drive that could have a medic alert symbol on it. It could be done.
--
Keep America safe Bush 2004 »www.georgewbush.com/KerryMediaCenter/ | |
| | | | | 
P Ness
You'Ve Forgotten 9-11 Already
Premium
join:2001-08-29
Mineola, NY
clubs:
| Re: Not a good thing at all said by TheGiant :
financial records.
Where is the teeth in HIPPA sure it sounds good but in practice it is very lax. i know I regularly inform Doctors that this and that is against HIPPA and they say I can't be bothered with that. Keeping personal Medical records would be a chore but one that I would be willing to do and would not recommend for everyone. Yes I would keep backups and I would have them on me always with a usb keychain drive that could have a medic alert symbol on it. It could be done.
Did you read it? Do you know that you also loose your job since most companies imposed such strict rules one infraction GONE!....
"(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the Secretary shall impose on any person who violates a provision of this part a penalty of not more than $100 for each such violation, except that the total amount imposed on the person for all violations of an identical requirement or prohibition during a calendar year may not exceed $25,000.
"(1) be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both;
"(2) if the offense is committed under false pretenses, be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both; and
"(3) if the offense is committed with intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm, be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
--
www.stopfcc.comI do not think the government needs to restrict free speech especially on a device that has an off knob. | |
| | | | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| See P Ness's post. HIPPA has teeth. Those docs that "can't be bothered" with HIPPA are risking fines and jail time. I work for a health care network and before we roll out a new application that even remotely touches on patient data, we ask our lawyers whether it runs afoul of HIPPA. If it does (or falls into a gray area), we modify it until it's good to go. In fact, a good way to give a health care lawyer a heart attack is to suggest doing something that flagrantly violates HIPPA. 
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | 
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| said by Jason Levine :
HIPPA has teeth.
Let me ask what qualifications do you use to determine who should have access to a patients medical records? Often times the only thing someone needs to provide to prove involvement in a patients care is the patients name, address, and phone number. The passwords to get past the protections HIPPA provides are all printed in the Fsking phone book. It's the equivalent of encrypting files with the best available encryption but using the word "password" as the password.
The only effect HIPPA has had is to make it a pain in the butt for everyone involved in a patients care(doctors, pharmacy's, patients, insurance companies, and assistance programs) to do their jobs. This would be ok except for the fact that it is totally ineffective.
HIPPA is a perfect example of defective legislature whose only true purpose was to win political points for those who passed it.
--
Windmills do not work that way! Good Night! | |
| | | |
coxta
Ultramundane
Premium
join:2000-07-15
LALALALALALA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Times are changing and so does information storage and the size of medical records. A USB keyring wouldn't hold all your medical records. A single imaging study would consume far more memory than that. This isn't just about a paper chart in your doctor's office, but having records available in a hospital in which you would be transferred from department to department or many other scenarios.
Here is a spot from one of the world's premier medical instituion:
quote:
The Mayo Clinic in Rochester announced Friday that the paper trail ended for outpatients. From now on, the medical records resulting from nearly 1.5 million outpatient visits per year will be created and stored electronically.
It's also about consolidation of the medical community and the creation of centers of excellence. Remove the community hospital and have everyone sent to a specialty hospital.
Healthcare is the second largest expenditure for the US government outside of the defense budget. Anything that might increase the efficiency of medical care could have the potential for decreasing the financial costs. I'm sure you could still maintain your own medical records, but don't expect Medicare, Medcaid, or your Insurance company to assist you.
--
Religion is for people who have not yet had a spiritual experience. | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Mullberry
@royal-usa.net
| It can be a good thing Having you maintain your own health records seems like a bad idea to me. What if you lose or damage them? Do you have backups? That are up to date? Given the fact that when most home PC users lose a hard drive, the lose most of their info because of no backups, that just sounds like trouble. If they're paper, same issues - the dog ate em, lost in the shuffle, etc.
I think an electronic system has so many more advantages over paper. Not as likely to contain errors, Doctors/nurses can spot trends easier with graphing instead of reading columns of numbers from each visit, instant alerts when there may be a possible medication reaction based on other prescriptions, more accurate details on your current needs and history (do you always check off the right boxes and list all current meds?), instant sharing of info between doctors instead of waiting on a courier, etc. | |
| | | | BizFinancing
Premium
join:2003-01-10
Port Orchard, WA
| Re: It can be a good thing I agree, the electronic route would be best to efficiently handle your personal medical records especially in the case of an emergency. Also it helps to reduce the hassles of transporting your records, reducing time and eliminating redundant forms for you to fill out at each new doctor's office.
The drug interaction issues is another good point, this will eliminate or reduce and chances for errors that could be fatal especially if you are not in a condition to tell ER staff what meds you are on.
The only area of concern that I would have is using the public internet as the means to access these records.
Unfortunately as history has shown us, no matter how good the encryption is, there is always a chance that it has some sort of flaw that a hacker/cracker can take advantage of.
My best recommendation would be to create a separate, private network to interconnect all participating medical offices, pharmacies and insurance companies. | |
| | | | LoungeLizard2
join:2003-11-21
Vallejo, CA
| Yep...those privacy laws are going to protect us......Until they offshore the work. Linda in Saudi Arabia, doesn't give a F*** about our laws. Has everyone forgotten the Lady in India that blackmailed an American HMO? She threatened to post patient medical records on the Internet, if she didn't get her back pay. Just to show she was serious, she faxed them a few pages of Patient information. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR PRIVACY. Don't expect the government to protect you or your information.
Either wake up, or keep drinking the Kool-aid, and believing everything the government/media tells you. | |
| | | | LoungeLizard2
join:2003-11-21
Vallejo, CA
1 edit | Not as likely to contain errors....WTF Where in the heck did you come up with that? If anything you will introduce more error. Data entry is a sure route for transcribing errors. I'm sure that the $2/hr Data entry tech in India is going to check your file for errors with a fine tooth comb. | |
| | | | |
IamZed
Premium
join:2001-01-10
Dayton, OH | Re: Not a good thing at all That is a good point P Ness. I retract my bitch. | |
| | | | davebenham
join:2002-01-31
Round Lake, IL
| legal questions? How are they going to guarantee records haven't been modified? Pen on paper, photographic x-ray, cat scan, all this would be hard for the average person to modify. Now, you have your last cat scan or ultrasound in jpg format, or some other record in a pdf, what would stop a person from going in and modifying information for one reason of another?
Doctor misses something on an xray, all he needs to do is go in and edit the xray to remove what he missed and he's in the clear. Patient wants to commit insurance fraud, he just goes into a document and do a quick update.
I think the digitization of medical records across the board involves a lot more than just buying hospitals a bunch of high resolution scanners. | |
| | BarneyBadAss
Badasses Fight For Freedom
Premium
join:2004-05-07
00001
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: legal questions? But it is possible for the files to be locked when loaded... such that they can't be modified... sure.. it costs a fair about of $$$ to accomplish this task.. but it is possible.. data file chaining could easily be accomplished... such that when you open someones' file.. if you intend to "ammend" or "annotate" it in some way.. it makes a copy of the original file, and then allows the annotation to be made to the copy.. preserving the initial data.... at the end of the day; each updated record burned to say a DVD disk; with a disk catalog and record contents for each DVD associated with it.. is it costly.. sure is... can it be done.. of course.. the real questions are of access... and if a disk gets' damaged.. how do they recover it... ???
I can see many benifits from such a tool.. there are the downside possibilities too...
One of the possible downsides is that of entering the data into a PDA, then uploading that data.. who's to say someone doesn't get thier hands on the PDA and enters thier own data???? that could be a real problem too...
Also... should we consider digitizing the conversations in a surgical room and having those conversations recorded as part of the records as well?
If you have a phone conversation with your Dr's office, should it be recorded and burned???
What about the possibility of remote / robotic procedures.. should that data from the robot be stored as well?
Like I said.. I can certainly see a lot of really good things from this... perhaps the answer is we, as a society, aren't just quite ready for this... or perhaps, all the pitfalls haven't been thought of yet...
As for being "web-based".. if it's all kept on one server; and it gets sick or the DNS doesn't work.. then what???
It's likely everyone would need to be in via a VPN; with tons of encryption and verification...
Then there's the question about who in a Dr's office / insurance office should / would have a legimate need to view the patients records???
And if our data is "Off-shored" what assurance can be applied such that our data is indeed safe???
These are just lots of questions with no answers, well.. at least I can't answer them right off the cuff of my shirt..
Please notice.. I didn't say I'm not for it.. actually quite the contrary.. it's the parameters I'm a little.. no.. leme correct that.. a lot fuzzy on...
---Barney | |
| |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Authentication, authorization, and tracking. HIPPA is very stringent as to who sees medical information for what purposes. I work for a health care organization and I run into HIPPA concerns constantly. If I were to merely look at a medical record that I wasn't supposed to be looking at, I could (and probably would) get fired. If a nurse leaves a computer station without logging out (thus leaving the possibility open that someone could gain access to sensitive patient info), that nurse can and will be fired immediately. Any medical organization without proper authentication, authorization, and tracking systems in place face steep fines under HIPPA.
In addition, modern medical equipment more and more comes with the ability to interface with a hospital's computer systems. So that X-Ray wouldn't be scanned into the computer, it will get placed there by the machine itself.
You'll never get a "fraud-proof" system, but the advantages of an electronic medical record outway the risks.
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ | |
| | | BarneyBadAss
Badasses Fight For Freedom
Premium
join:2004-05-07
00001
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: legal questions? _________________________________________________
You'll never get a "fraud-proof" system, but the advantages of an electronic medical record outway the risks.
_________________________________________________
On the surface, I agree.. like I indicated before.. what are the parameters of what data is to be collected.. there are a lot of possible data sources as it pertains to somoeone's health records if we want it to be a complete record... and each and every one needs to be considered for many reasons.
We do need to start somewhere.. although I'm not certain where it is we should start.. and yes.. upgrades to systems are almost always in the works... the hard part is always trying to shoe-horn something into the system when it was never designed to accomidate that particular support. | |
| indysz
Premium
join:2003-07-26
Valparaiso, IN
·Verizon Online DSL
| Very nice I think it's nice, and digital prescriptions proved to be helpful, and more cost efficent. I think as we move into the next decade we are going to look back and say "paper"? lol, the only paper needed will be rolling papers :]
--
----------
Indy SZ
Network Admin.
----------
Loves comcast 4.1/379
| |
| 
MorWired
Premium
join:2001-03-03
clubs:
| Great potential -- for good AND for bad. Centralized records, consistent and available in emergency situations, this sounds like any patient's and physician's dream.
But, privacy issues, data entry errors, system reliability and uptime -- these sound like a bureaucrat's nightmare of epic proportions.
All innovation must start somewhere, but how willing are we to chance our health and privacy? We've all heard about someone who stopped receiving benefits or was denied services because somehow they were in the system as being deceased, and it's clearly just a simple clerical error. What kinds of mechanisms could be put in place so that mistaken identities, incorrect diagnoses, or incorrect medications aren't potentially jeopardizing our lives?
As for privacy, right now we go to this doctor for this, and that doctor for that, the likelihood of anyone being able to put together a complete picture of our lives is pretty slim. But how comfortable will we be knowing that there's a centralized database where an unscrupulous employee or a skilled hacker could have access to a complete snapshot of our lives, everything from substance abuse treatment to STDs to mental health to a terminated or adopted pregnancy -- all there, in one place. The potential for disaster is really quite frightening.
It all boils down to a risk/benefit ratio, and how much trust do we have for the system. And will this be an opt-in sort of thing? or will it be a fait accompli, and how we feel about it will really be irrelevant? There is a lot of room for discussion here, it will be interesting to see how the program develops.
--
Get your daily dose of wonder from the Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD).
| |
| hedyd4u
Premium
join:2003-12-16
Schenectady, NY
| Proposed by the US dept of health No good can come of this the government is behind it. Somewhere somehow this will become a nightmare. Look at the track record of the government what has been done for the estimated cost and done well. This is being backed by someone with a vested interest and the consumer is not the vested interest. | |
|
P Ness
You'Ve Forgotten 9-11 Already
Premium
join:2001-08-29
Mineola, NY
clubs: | gotten SO BAD its gotten so bad its now "illegal" in my company to even bring a cell phone into work that has a camera!!
LOL | |
| | BarneyBadAss
Badasses Fight For Freedom
Premium
join:2004-05-07
00001
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: gotten SO BAD ___________________________________________________
its gotten so bad its now "illegal" in my company to even bring a cell phone into work that has a camera!!
Yeah... it's this way at many comanies.. not just yours.. I don't mind one litte bit.. of course.. my cell won't take pics.. so I don't tend to give half a rats tail...
Hmmm... wada they have to say about USB key drives?? 
---Barney | |
| 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
3 edits | The VA The Department of Veteran's affairs has had most of their medical records digitized for years. We started the transition in 1994, it is an on-going process. They reside
on our own network which has no connection to the Internet.
It is very nice to have a Vet walk in from another VA and
have most of his medical records available on the work station in front of you. It is also helpful with our drug
abusers. These insults to other Veterans go from VA to VA
to get drugs, Ativan, Methadone, Valium, etc. We had one
such creep who would get a 'script for Methadone he would then go to a local high school and sell the pills to
high schoolers for money to maintain his heroin/booze budget. He walked in and tried this with us and we saw a notation in
his digital record from another VA to this effect. Next thing he knew there was an FBI agent visiting with him. This bum is now doing hard time in a federal prison somewhere.
--
»www.gobpl.com | |
| | 
93254336
Weapons Of Masturbation
Premium
join:2001-10-20
1 edit | Re: The VA said by Transmaster :
The Department of Veteran's affairs has had most of their medical records digitized for years. We started the transition in 1994, it is an on-going process.
Yes, the VA's CPRS/VISTA system is by far the best medical information system I have used, certainly far superior in most respects when compared to paper records.
said by Transmaster :
They reside on our own network which has no connection to the Internet.
Well, that's not completely true... through a VPN tunnel (and of course with the proper authentication) I can gain access to CPRS/VISTA from home via a gateway. I can even write orders "remotely."
- Dan | |
| 
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs: | GeeWhizBang It's all sooooooooooo grrrrrrrrrrrroooovy. No mention however how or IF these digitized records will be secured or whether it's HIPAA compliant. | |
| | | |
|
|
High Speed Health Care
