U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-26-2008, 12:27 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,111,192 times
Reputation: 908

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by totallyfrazzled View Post
Exactly: NO ONE should be privy to anyone's medical information unless that person (or their legally designated representative) gives permission for that information to be available.

The problem with creating a central database 'with restrictions' is that sooner or later the initial restrictions will be challenged and if not overcome, certainly weakened. The insidious "except if or when...." will inevitably creep in eventually. It may start out with "available only to medical providers" but the health insurance companies must also be included also because they use that info to accept or deny coverage. Then the life insurance companies will sue for access based on "underwriting needs and to prevent fraud". Slowly but surely the list of exceptions (other entities that will be allowed access to the database under a supposed need-to-know basis) will grow. Look at all the private info that we are required to provide nowadays under the Patriot Act to entities that never were previously entitled to demand it. Did we ever think we'd see the day that personal phone records would be made available to the government on demand and without our permission or due process of law? I bet not. Any sort of centralized medical-records database that didn't include giving people the choice of whether to be in it or opt out, would be far more privacy intrusive than the Patriot Act (which IMO is bad enough).

Your answer doesn't hold water.

First of all. .no one likes the Patriot Act.. and hopefully it will be reversed once we get Bush out of office!!

Secondly..there are "restrictions" on who has your medical information now. You have to sign off to any insurance company etc. to give them the ability to access it. There is no difference if it is on paper or digital!

You are all a real paranoid bunch.. that's for sure

And um.. life insurance companies can get access to your records now as part of their application process. They also send a nurse to your home to take your blood to run their own tests on before they insure you!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-26-2008, 12:32 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,357,433 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
Your answer doesn't hold water.

First of all. .no one likes the Patriot Act.. and hopefully it will be reversed once we get Bush out of office!!
The Patriot Act should, and will remain in place. Don't forget - a MAJORITY of Democrats voted for it

As for the records issue - anytime records are on a internet type server - they can be, and often are, accessible by the very people YOU don't want to have access.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2008, 12:33 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,111,192 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
The Patriot Act should, and will remain in place. Don't forget - a MAJORITY of Democrats voted for it

As for the records issue - anytime records are on a internet type server - they can be, and often are, accessible by the very people YOU don't want to have access.

Digitalized records do not always mean that it has to be internet
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2008, 12:56 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,357,433 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
Digitalized records do not always mean that it has to be internet
Obama and McCain WANT THEM internet based.

I would suggest you do some more research
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2008, 03:20 PM
 
Location: NY
1,416 posts, read 4,897,895 times
Reputation: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
Obama and McCain WANT THEM internet based.
Exactly. Both have used the term 'online medical records' or 'online patient database' to describe their proposals.

The whole premise behind both candidates plans is that of WIDELY SHARED INSTANT ACCESSIBILITY. Both always talk about how accessibility by "any medical provider anywhere" would be such a great thing. You can't have that scenario in something that is not INTERNET based.

I have no problem with Dr Jones' staff transcribing the notes from my last visit into their computer instead of keeping it just in the folder full of papers. But I do have a problem with the idea of those notes being accessible by any SPECIFIC third party (meaning ANYONE outside of Dr Jones' practice) without first having my written permission for that to happen.

Nowadays a new patient has to sign something authorizing each medical provider (doctor, hospital, whatever) to release information to their insurance company. If the patient doesn't sign, then by law the doctor cannot release the info. When someone applies for life insurance, again they have to sign a form that gives a particular medical provider PERMISSION to give that info to that particular life insurance company. The control of the flow of information is still legally in the hands of the PATIENT. My medical info never leaves my doctor's office UNLESS I ALLOW IT TO, and only I can authorize where it goes. But if an online database is established whereby it's possible for any entity who either pays for entry into it or manages to hack into it, then I've lost control of where my information can go, and what any other parties can then use it for. The only way to prevent that scenario is to never put information into a situation where it can happen. A good analogy is that the only 100% sure way to make sure you never die in a plane crash is to never travel by air. Thus, I object to the idea that patients mightn't be given the choice as to whether or not to "board" the Online Patient Database "plane".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2008, 03:31 PM
 
48,519 posts, read 80,998,062 times
Reputation: 17978
I am not sure why anyone woulkd think that doctors and hospitals medcal data bases are secure. Afterall even lawyers find ways to get ploice only information ;many timews from clerks who handle them.In mu opinion when soemthing like this comes up it is just case of alarm that eyes might be watching more. If you have ever read victorian history even the idea that peole would be snooping made many against the idea of detectives in the police force. Data cases that have huamn access are not very secretive IMO especailly when on paper that does not record who looks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2008, 03:08 PM
 
1 posts, read 2,124 times
Reputation: 10
Hi,

This is a really interesting discussion! I want to invite you all to participate in the National Dialogue on Health IT & Privacy happening this week (Oct 27-Nov 3) at [url=http://www.thenationaldialogue.org]Home — The National Dialogue[/url].

As an experiment in utilizing online dialogue to inform public policy, we are bringing together thousands of experts, advocates and citizens together online to answer a single important question: How can we balance the opportunities presented by new technologies with the need to safeguard citizens' privacy?

On the site, you can contribute ideas, and read and rate others' ideas. Watch in real time as the best ideas "rise to the top." Perhaps most importantly, the results of this online dialogue will be compiled into a report to the Federal CIO Council, Office of Management and Budget, and the incoming Administration.

Jump on in at [url=http://www.thenationaldialogue.org]Home — The National Dialogue[/url] or watch these two informative videos: about the dialogue -
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gM58TDfBHk]YouTube - About the National Dialogue[/url] and about the issues -
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbQC9iYZRDc]YouTube - About the Issues: Health IT & Privacy in the National Dialogue[/url].

Hope to see you there,
The National Dialogue Team
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2008, 10:27 PM
 
5,905 posts, read 5,079,972 times
Reputation: 4534
Default A few words from a medical record coder

Like it or not, medical records are moving from paper format to EMR (electronic medical records) all across the country, and throughout the world.

Having worked in Health Information Management for a decade now, in a large variety of facilities, I can attest to the downfalls of the paper format. The loss, or incorrect filing, of records is commonplace. So is accidental damage in the course of use and transfer between staff and between departments.

One poster stated that physicians will never type/transcribe their own notes. This is not true. Many clinics have upgraded their offices with laptops or pc's in each exam room, and physicians input notes in real time during the course of the examination.

Hospitals are increasingly upgrading their systems as well. Harborview Medical Center in Seattle has been using EMR for over 10 years now, and they are a Level I Regional Trauma Center/County Hospital/Teaching Hospital of enormous size.

As a former traveling consultant and present remote coder, I have seen a majority of hospitals moving in the same direction.

As a remote coder, I do indeed have access to medical information, just as I would if I were physically located within a hospital. I, and every other coder/file tech/nurse/pharmacist, am held to the same privacy and confidentiality agreement to protect patient information. While no system is perfect, I do trust each facility's firewall and encryption processes to protect the patients' information while I work.

In cases where a patient is initially seen at Hospital A and requires transfer to Hospital B for further treatment, any reports generated from Hospital A (if available) are usually scanned from original printouts. In many cases, they are illegible or incomplete.

Heaven forbid if a patient is new to a state (or on vacation) and requires admission to a hospital. Quite often, sufficient medical history and records never reach the hospital, and that directly impacts the patient's care, record-keeping, and coding/billing.

If each hospital (or clinic) had EMR--in compatible formats--the sharing and access of that information between the entities would be more efficient, more accessible, and better utilized by all persons involved in that patient's care.

And, for what it's worth, I have never seen or heard of any breach of patient information databases at any of the hospitals I've worked for (approximately 26 facilities in 9 states).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2008, 08:08 AM
 
45 posts, read 188,945 times
Reputation: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by rayneinspain View Post
Like it or not, medical records are moving from paper format to EMR (electronic medical records) all across the country, and throughout the world.

Having worked in Health Information Management for a decade now, in a large variety of facilities, I can attest to the downfalls of the paper format. The loss, or incorrect filing, of records is commonplace. So is accidental damage in the course of use and transfer between staff and between departments.

One poster stated that physicians will never type/transcribe their own notes. This is not true. Many clinics have upgraded their offices with laptops or pc's in each exam room, and physicians input notes in real time during the course of the examination.

Hospitals are increasingly upgrading their systems as well. Harborview Medical Center in Seattle has been using EMR for over 10 years now, and they are a Level I Regional Trauma Center/County Hospital/Teaching Hospital of enormous size.

As a former traveling consultant and present remote coder, I have seen a majority of hospitals moving in the same direction.

As a remote coder, I do indeed have access to medical information, just as I would if I were physically located within a hospital. I, and every other coder/file tech/nurse/pharmacist, am held to the same privacy and confidentiality agreement to protect patient information. While no system is perfect, I do trust each facility's firewall and encryption processes to protect the patients' information while I work.

In cases where a patient is initially seen at Hospital A and requires transfer to Hospital B for further treatment, any reports generated from Hospital A (if available) are usually scanned from original printouts. In many cases, they are illegible or incomplete.

Heaven forbid if a patient is new to a state (or on vacation) and requires admission to a hospital. Quite often, sufficient medical history and records never reach the hospital, and that directly impacts the patient's care, record-keeping, and coding/billing.

If each hospital (or clinic) had EMR--in compatible formats--the sharing and access of that information between the entities would be more efficient, more accessible, and better utilized by all persons involved in that patient's care.

And, for what it's worth, I have never seen or heard of any breach of patient information databases at any of the hospitals I've worked for (approximately 26 facilities in 9 states).
Well said from one medical coder to another!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2013, 03:04 PM
 
Location: New Orleans
2 posts, read 1,451 times
Reputation: 10
Obviously I had to much time on my hands.... sorry if I got off topic.... but all indirectly related me thinks

After reading some of the post it shows just how complicated we have allowed the government to make our lives. It takes an average person weeks to collect data and do their own income tax return, It can take weeks to begin to fully understand and choose a health care plan under Medicare. Both are way to complicated and could be avoided. We need a flat sales tax/flat income tax plan that would require no time or brains to complete, and we need a more streamline simplistic healthcare system.

A healthcare patient DATABASE is a perfect tool for helping to improve a patient's treatment. We would be foolish not to use it. (par for course) It would save money and lives. There must be some way that a SECURE database could be created. Maybe involving some patient input before it could be activated each time. (Maybe it could be activated with our pee sample)

I am looking over Medicare options these days. Why can’t we do away with all of these INSANE health plans!!! They are as INSAINE as our tax code! Choosing one is nothing less than a crap shoot by trying to pick out the right plan while not knowing what kind of health problems you might have in the future!

Maybe one idea would be for everyone to start out with the same free healthcare coverage. If you use it up with to many medical visits, and you do not have enough money to afford a deluxe plan, you are then put into a "no-frills" plan. You should NOT have to be dead broke and loose your house and everything else just to get into the "no-frills" plan.... you simple have to settle for a less fancy hospital, and maybe having more med students and nursing students doing much of the routine medical treatments. The very old or sick would agree to participate in clinical trials and donate body parts for science (preferably AFTER dead) in exchange for this FREE “no frills” medical care. Perhaps charity donations could be assigned by some type of criteria such as age or circumstances. IF the RICH wish to DONATE, they could be encouraged to do it here. This way we are not DEMANDING that the RICH pay for some lazy bum’s steak dinner or some highway to nowhere.... and it should make the RICH feel good about “spreading their wealth“ to LEGITIMATELY ill people.

For what it is worth, I believe that SOCIALISM is the RIGHT approach for health care since it seems more mechanically suitable for the task than is CAPITALISM. Taking the huge profits OUT of healthcare is totally necessary! It has been proven in other countries. I am NOT an Obama fan, but obviously any new healthcare system will need substantial tweaking over several years to work properly. We HAD to start SOMEWHERE and probably were better off without to much compromising of ideas. Compromising a plan like this with to many opposing ideas may have created a Frankenstein Plan that would have been worst than the Obama Plan might be. Just like you can not use 2 nice colors to dye an Easter egg or usually you end up with one U GLY egg.

Lets get that dam medical database cranked up. Just make it SECURE as we can,. How embarrassed could anyone be by it? We all have human parts.... or DOOOO we? Obama is watchin you!

 

Last edited by Pallins; 03-22-2013 at 03:12 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top