Posted on 02/13/2014 9:02:55 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
Over the past 2 decades, Republican and Democrat Administrations have joined forces to require the use by physicians and hospitals of government-certified, interoperable electronic medical records systems, or EMRs. These online record keeping systems will send personal patient information collected by all participating providers directly to the centralized Office of the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, a newly created government agency whose job is making the medical records of the American people “inter-operable–” that is, instantly accessible to any “qualified” agency or agent.
For example, if the patient of a New Jersey physician should become the victim of a medical emergency in Nevada, stored medical information will be instantly available to a Las Vegas surgeon. Expensive and time consuming testing may be
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Of course, the real purpose of electronic medical records was always to give them to the government.
You still think we live in a free country?
If you never go to the doctor, there’s not much for them to keep track of.
Eventually you will be black-mailed by the information in the health records the government has on you. Count on it.
hippa laws were shadow laws that provided YOUR information to any health group or agency or insurance group at any time..
Ergo, their movements, correspondence, phone calls, - every minute of their lives - could not be tracked, documented and free to anyone who wanted it.
They never worked for anyone else - made their living and provided their needs.
They didn't have bills coming in - living on a 4th generation farm - no mortgage, no phone bill, no electric bill, no fuel bill, no water bill, no insurance bills, no credit card cards bills (cc’s didn't exist. They made their spring/fall orders from the big old Sears catalog - where you could even buy a HOUSE.
They answered to no one, but for a small ‘poll tax’ to vote, and town tax,
They provided their own heat, hot water, food, and other necessitates. They weren't ‘rich’ monetarily, but very rich in freedom and independence.
From today, that looks better every day.
This will never be used for nefarious purposes. “So Mr. Smith it would be a shame if news of your substance abuse treatment were to get out to the public. I’m sure we can count on your support.”
We can trust the affirmative action hires, felon employees, and “agents” of the government. Obama is in charge.
I doubt there will be any major movement to no records clinics, in the US. All state medical boards require doctors keep medical records, and failure to do so will result in sanctions, or loss of license. Furthermore, to protect against litigation, doctors must document.
However, there is a move to “third party free” clinics where patients self-pay at the time of service, and concierge medicine, where patients pre-pay a fee to a specified level of services.
The good thing with self-pay, is that physicians will typically use paper charts instead of electronic records. As long as an insurance company is not involved, these records are still private. However, there are some potential backdoors if you get a prescription filled and go to a large pharmacy chain such as CVS or Walgreens. This can be somewhat mitigated if you find an independent pharmacist. If you are on a controlled substance however (opiates, sedatives), your name will be in a state database even if you go to a small pharmacy and pay cash.
bkmk
Patients can sign the form NOT giving their doctor the right to share records.
Some doctors are going back to paper records.
Monkeywrench, thy name is Ed Snowden...
You have a great dream Main-iac.
“Patients can sign the form NOT giving their doctor the right to share records.”
An option too onerous to exercise is no option at all. In this case a patient has to make a choice between not signing an Assignment of Benefits or agreeing to share the medical records by signing the Assignment of Benefits.
If the patient refuses to sign the Assignment of Benefits, the patient must pay the healthcare provider for the full amount of the bill and then submit their own insurance claim to the healthcare insurer. Unfortunately for the patient, the large discounts to the healthcare provider’s bill are often not offered or available when not using the Assignment of Benefits. So, a bill of $1,000 is paid by the patient, and no discounts are received. With the Assignment of Benefits, the insurance contract results in the bill being discounted by a substantial amount, such as $400 in one example. With such large differences in the billings, the choice between the two alternatives is not an economical choice at all.
I grew up on that farm - and I visit the town (Plantation) evry year.
They have power now - and all that goes with it - but I’m not sure that’s an improvement? Not with how the corrupt gov’t is using it to take over our lives.
I’d rather be ‘poor’ and independent, off in the williwacks and left alone - possessing nothing to the point of others wanting it or control over me or mine.
I do have privacy now, with forest around me, have my wood stove, well and K-lamps...all of which come in handy during power outages.....So I’m part way ‘there’ :o) -
“And the meek shall inherit...?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.