Posted on 02/08/2009 1:37:36 PM PST by george76
President Obama has proposed spending about $20 billion in the economic-stimulus bill to computerize medical records within five years.
Most experts agree this could add jobs, improve treatment and reduce costs. But at issue is privacy. Consumer groups worry that without adequate safeguards, information could be stolen or misused, while other groups fear that too many restrictions would hurt efficiency.
Technology "is a significant part of the solution" to problems with medical records, ... "But there's a tension between protecting privacy and still allowing the transmission of data when it's appropriate."
Consumer groups worry that without adequate safeguards, the information could be misused and there would be more medical identity theft. In recent years, security lapses have resulted in the release of personal information on thousands of patients.
The lapses have the potential to be far worse with electronic records "because of the ease of dissemination," ...
"If you've given your health-care information to a doctor at a clinic, the last thing in a patient's mind is that it would be sold," .
"The worse case is the infusion of money going to this technology without the infusion of privacy protection."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
.
And you lifted a term you heard on talk radio.
Couldn't you come up with one of your own?
That is very sad.
The same party that was sooooooo unhinged about the government possibly listening into your phone calls or reading your library list will, predictably, have absolutely no problem with the massive fedgov having access to all our medical files because, after all, with socialized medicine, they’ll have to know what your medical condition is in order to pay for your health care.
And, of course, there’s absolutely no way the Democrats won’t then use this for operation research the way they leaked Joe the Plumber’s tax records for political purposes.
This is rediculous. A person that might be taking an anti-depressant or other heart medicines, etc. might be denied a job; the ramifications of this are frightening.
It isn’t about your records being sold.
Going electronic gives government easy access to your healthcare records.
And ridiculous as well.
OOPS!
“A person that might be taking an anti-depressant or other heart medicines, etc. might be denied a job; the ramifications of this are frightening.”
Absolutely.
Also, the lobbies pushing this for several years have been insurance companies. Instant access to deny policies, and maximize profits by only insuring those who need it the least. All paid for and hastened by the American taxpayer.
They take your money and then tie you in knots with it.
A doctor I know said that these computerized medical records will allow the insurance companies to more easily check up on what doctors are doing. Doctors already have huge hassles from insurers and the government, from what I’ve heard, and this will only make it worse, I suppose.
If the government nationalizes all of health care, then it will be doing the checking, not insurance companies. Medicaid and Medicare, of course, are already run by huge government bureaucracies.
Actually, the vast majority of medical records are already electronic. The missing Rosetta Stone is a universal patient id that would allow your medical records, which may be spread over the multiple computerized systems of your providers each with it’s own flavor of patient id, to be tied together and cross-referenced.
Since the SSN cannot by law be used for this purpose, chip implants here we come.
Privacy has NOTHING to do with people stealing data.
Your medical data will be made available for open sale, to anyone with a little money.
As it is, most insurers can buy your complete Rx drug history, for $15. It shows up with a helpful “credit-score” showing your projected future medical claims cost.
HIPAA is absurd. The more available your data is, the less privacy and choices you will have in employment, insurance, benefits, everything.
thanks, bfl
There is NO way EMR as they are today will work for me( and I suspect alot of physicians except a few specialists). Number one is it takes too much time to put the data in. I can not spend 5 min. per patient putting in dats ( and it takes longer) That is 250 additional minutes a day. Not gonna happen. I can dictate all 50 charts in 15 to 20 minutes. Plus these computer generated charts are almost useless. I can not stand to read the ones I get cause I know it is just computergenerated garbage. My didtation I can read and picture the patient and the vist it my mind even a year later at times. I can tell by the way I said things what was going on and what I thought about it. Reading a generated (not in my words) report is again almost useless. That is the problems I have.
Recordkeeping is not a major part of healthcare costs. I daresay that if records are made more widely available because they are electronic-ized, healthcare costs will increase because doctors will have to be more careful and there will be more lawsuit possibilities, not to mention the billions that our government wants to throw at recordkeeping.
It angers me when more efficient recordkeeping is put forth as though it’s significant. It just diverts our attention from the real money gobblers.
I don’t know a workable way to reduce healthcare costs because my ideas would cause healthcare providers to receive less money, and that will happen over their dead bodies.
But at issue is privacy. Consumer groups worry that without adequate safeguards, information could be stolen or misused, while other groups fear that too many restrictions would hurt efficiency.Thanks geo.
Hmmmm... Says here you were prescribed such and such medicine back in 1976. That drug can be used to treat depression besides what your Doctor prescribed for you as a sleep aid.
Sorry, No guns (or CCW) for YOU!
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.