feds want your medical records
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
clams_casino
> http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87322
I'm not sure what all the concern is about. Our family doctor has
recorded all our records on his laptop / office computer setup for at
least five years. It was quite handy when he was on vacation last year
and I needed to see a substitute doctor last year.
Along that line, I recall all sorts of problems / obviously excessive
costs when my mother had a half dozen doctors some eight years ago in
her last years with excessive medical problems. They had little idea
what each was doing and she was surely not in a position to keep them
all updated.
Electronic records are the only way to significantly reduce medical
costs. Hopefully they will reduce record keeping costs about half has
they have done in most all other industries.
BigDog1
Correct. If electronic records do nothing more than eliminate
unnecessary repetitive tests when a patient changes providers, it will
save millions of dollars a year. And that's just the tip of the
iceberg. To say nothing of the ability to track fraud and abuse in
the system. Long overdue, given the number of years we've been in the
information age.
Of course, there will always be the "big brother is watching" crowd
who will piss and moan; but they're either paranoid or are already
gaming the system and are afraid they'll get caught. Who cares what's
in somebody else's files? I don't!
DLC
I have Kaiser Permanete. All medical records are now online. This
means that when I see another doctor, my files are available.
I really like having online access to my record: doctor visits and
summaries, test results, and prescriptions.
I can also send emails to doctors and schedule appointments online.
NoSpa...@lousyisp.gov
>On Jan 28, 1:38 pm, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
>> >http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87322
>> Electronic records are the only way to significantly reduce medical
>> costs.
The only way? I don't think so. The savings in medical costs are
likely to be trivial. Try reducing end-of-life (especially surgical)
interventions to save the really big bucks.
> Hopefully they will reduce record keeping costs about half has
>> they have done in most all other industries.
And just where do you get the "about half" from? And what are "most
all" other industries? I'd contend that some industries like insurance
and mail order couldn't even function without computerized record
keeping. Others like your local pizza stand have little need.
The real advantage to electronic record keeping is the ease and
accuracy of the process especially in a hospital environment.
>Correct. If electronic records do nothing more than eliminate
>unnecessary repetitive tests when a patient changes providers, it will
>save millions of dollars a year.
Aw, bullshit! I'm trying to work out exactly what axe you have to
grind. Do you sell computers? Medical software?
If a patient changes providers it's likely that the tests, while
perhaps of the same thing, are so that the next provider can see how
the patients condition has changed. It's rare that there's not some
intervening time between the two.
> And that's just the tip of the
>iceberg. To say nothing of the ability to track fraud and abuse in
>the system. Long overdue, given the number of years we've been in the
>information age.
>Of course, there will always be the "big brother is watching" crowd
>who will piss and moan; but they're either paranoid or are already
>gaming the system and are afraid they'll get caught. Who cares what's
>in somebody else's files? I don't!
I guess I fall into the paranoid category. Just what "gaming the
system" do you think would be averted by computerized record keeping?
Remember that things like overuse of schedule II drugs are already
dealt with at the pharmacy level.
Let's see. I'm male and old and I have trouble peeing so I go to my
friendly PCP who says, "BPH, just take these pills and we'll look
again in six months." I'm not too happy with that conclusion and I
want to have another opinion so I go off to some urologist who I want
to start from the beginning. I don't want him to know what the first
guy said (or recorded) because the natural human tendency is to be
influenced by that first decision. I don't want him to have any access
to my records.
He can order another PSA test perhaps even from another lab. A
repetitive test you'd like to cut out? In any event the time between
the PCP test and the urologist test is likely to be a couple of months
and the velocity and quantity of change can be significant.
These two guys might be the greatest MD's since Lister (or whoever you
want to pick) but what about the speed-speaker aka the "wham bam,
thank you ma'am" practitioner? He asks you questions so quickly and
explains so little that nuances that can be significant are lost and
never recorded or are recorded but aren't what you would have said had
you known the significance of them.
And then there's the correction of errors. My wife had a heart attack
a couple of years ago resulting in lots of testing and costs or so her
insurance company records say. Really she had no heart attack but
another woman of about the same age and exactly the same name did. The
insurance company got its electronic hands crossed. Because the heart
attack victim and my wife both have pay-everything policies it didn't
cost anything but the insurance company now has my wife as a heart
attack victim. We've tried for the last two years to have this
corrected but according to everyone we're allowed to speak to at the
insurance company (various bimbettes who assert that they can't make
any decision themselves) it doesn't matter since we didn't pay
anything. What about prior health care problems if we change
companies? You see the Kafkaesque nightmare computerized records and
non-responsive (that's all of them) companies can create. Sure you
want more computerization?
Cheapo Groovo
> costs. Hopefully they will reduce record keeping costs about half has
> they have done in most all other industries.
>
http://cheapogroovo.vox.com/library/posts/tags/health+care+costs/
JonquilJan
(Medicare/Disability/Age)
JonquilJan
Learn something new every day
As long as you are learning, you are living
When you stop learning, you start dying
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
<NoSpa...@LousyISP.gov> wrote in message
news:so52o4pie0kb7h6i4...@4ax.com...
compiling, who's to say you won't be denied medical care because you're too
expensive? or you only get an allotted lifetime amount of dollars before
you're no longer allowed medical care. that's with nationalized health
care.
or how about employers denying you employment because you'll cause their
rates to rise? they already do that now via age discrimination since
insurance companies base the premiums on the ages of the workers. too many
fertile age females? cost goes up. too many old farts? cost goes up.
that's happening right now. if they could delve into yours and your
family's medical records and discover that you have a child with an
expensive medical condition, do you think you'll get hired?
George
>
>> corrected but according to everyone we're allowed to speak to at the
>> insurance company (various bimbettes who assert that they can't make
>> any decision themselves) it doesn't matter since we didn't pay
>> anything. What about prior health care problems if we change
>> companies? You see the Kafkaesque nightmare computerized records and
>> non-responsive (that's all of them) companies can create. Sure you
>> want more computerization?
>>
> and once all this stuff is in big brother's hands, and available for
> compiling, who's to say you won't be denied medical care because you're
> too expensive? or you only get an allotted lifetime amount of dollars
> before you're no longer allowed medical care. that's with nationalized
> health care.
Exactly, knowledge is power. I for one don't want any more national
databases.
George
Really? They just couldn't be folks who like the idea of personal
liberty and freedom (its an interesting idea and a core reason upon
which our country was founded) and don't care for the idea of a strong
government anything?
BigDog1
Or, they could be whacked out paranoid idiots, who will construct a
conspiracy theory for just about any program their government comes up
with.
If think your government can't already find out everything they want
to about you, including your medical history, you're kidding
yourself. The real question is, why would they care? Got something
to hide?
If I'm on the road a thousand miles from home (which I frequently am),
and have some sort of medical crisis or am involved in an accident and
can't cogently communicate with a care provider, I like the idea that
they could quickly access a database that would allow them to give me
proper treatment.
BigDog1
> BigDog1 <bigdog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 28, 1:38 pm, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> >> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
> >> >http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87322
> >> Electronic records are the only way to significantly reduce medical
> >> costs.
>
> The only way? I don't think so. The savings in medical costs are
> likely to be trivial. Try reducing end-of-life (especially surgical)
> interventions to save the really big bucks.
>
> > Hopefully they will reduce record keeping costs about half has
> >> they have done in most all other industries.
>
> And just where do you get the "about half" from? And what are "most
> all" other industries? I'd contend that some industries like insurance
> and mail order couldn't even function without computerized record
> keeping. Others like your local pizza stand have little need.
>
> The real advantage to electronic record keeping is the ease and
> accuracy of the process especially in a hospital environment.
>
> >Correct. If electronic records do nothing more than eliminate
> >unnecessary repetitive tests when a patient changes providers, it will
> >save millions of dollars a year.
>
> Aw, bullshit! I'm trying to work out exactly what axe you have to
> grind. Do you sell computers? Medical software?
Neither. Nor am am I in any way connected with any health care
delivery or support business. Don't know why you'd make such an
assumption. Paranoid?
>
> If a patient changes providers it's likely that the tests, while
> perhaps of the same thing, are so that the next provider can see how
> the patients condition has changed. It's rare that there's not some
> intervening time between the two.
>
That, as you like to say, is BULLSHIT! I have a life long chronic
health problem. Not life threatening so long as I'm careful with my
medication, and get my semi-annual tests to keep them balanced. I've
had occasion to change jobs and health care providers twice in the
past 8 years. No time lags of any kind. Both times my new primary
care provider put me through the full series of very expensive
diagnostic tests, as if I was a patient who walked in with symptoms
and no idea what was causing them. For "confirmation" as they said.
A comprehensive computer database would have avoided that; saved two
insurance companies lots of money; and me a lot of time and
discomfort. My requests that they simply ask my prior provider for
copies of my records fell on deaf ears.
That's a serious, and I'm sure very frustrating situation. But it has
nothing to do with the fact the records are electronic. They're being
maintained by idiots. If it's truly as simple as you claim (same name
- different patients), and you can't get it fixed, you're talking to
the wrong people, or saying the wrong things to them.
Yes, I want everything computerized!!!!
George
Your argument would be a lot more effective if it wasn't ad hominem.
Essentially you are saying "If I don't agree with someone's thinking
they must be an idiot..."
>
> If think your government can't already find out everything they want
> to about you, including your medical history, you're kidding
> yourself. The real question is, why would they care? Got something
> to hide?
>
> If I'm on the road a thousand miles from home (which I frequently am),
> and have some sort of medical crisis or am involved in an accident and
> can't cogently communicate with a care provider, I like the idea that
> they could quickly access a database that would allow them to give me
> proper treatment.
Perhaps you would want to look at getting one of those medical ID tags?
BigDog1
Nothing ad hominem about it. In fact it's the conspiracy theorists
whose arguments are ad hominen. They live in a hazy world full of
mights, what ifs, and maybes. Fueled by stories of anecdotal
incidents of questionable veracity, generally from unverifiable
sources.
>
>
>
> > If think your government can't already find out everything they want
> > to about you, including your medical history, you're kidding
> > yourself. The real question is, why would they care? Got something
> > to hide?
>
> > If I'm on the road a thousand miles from home (which I frequently am),
> > and have some sort of medical crisis or am involved in an accident and
> > can't cogently communicate with a care provider, I like the idea that
> > they could quickly access a database that would allow them to give me
> > proper treatment.
>
> Perhaps you would want to look at getting one of those medical ID tags?
I already have one. It's, at best, a poor substitute for a
comprehensive database that's automatically updated every time a care
giver makes and entry in my record, or I fill a prescription.
George
As I said, I think your observation is skewed because you are declaring
people are nuts because they don't agree with you or you don't agree
with them. I know lots of literate and very sensible folks who simply
don't want an even bigger government and/or even less privacy in their
lives.
>>
>>
>>> If think your government can't already find out everything they want
>>> to about you, including your medical history, you're kidding
>>> yourself. The real question is, why would they care? Got something
>>> to hide?
>>> If I'm on the road a thousand miles from home (which I frequently am),
>>> and have some sort of medical crisis or am involved in an accident and
>>> can't cogently communicate with a care provider, I like the idea that
>>> they could quickly access a database that would allow them to give me
>>> proper treatment.
>> Perhaps you would want to look at getting one of those medical ID tags?
>
> I already have one. It's, at best, a poor substitute for a
> comprehensive database that's automatically updated every time a care
> giver makes and entry in my record, or I fill a prescription.
Sounds like a business opportunity for you. Why ask for us (thats where
the government gets their money) to pay for something that many don't want?