WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Sanity -> WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/24/2010 5:49:53 PM)



Sometimes I feel as though we're becoming as mere cattle:


quote:

Your Medical Records Aren't Secure


The president says electronic systems will reduce costs and improve quality, but they could undermine good care if people are afraid to confide in their doctors.

I learned about the lack of health privacy when I hung out my shingle as a psychiatrist. Patients asked if I could keep their records private if they paid for care themselves. They had lost jobs or reputations because what they said in the doctor's office didn't always stay in the doctor's office. That was 35 years ago, in the age of paper. In today's digital world the problem has only grown worse.

A patient's sensitive information should not be shared without his consent. But this is not the case now, as the country moves toward a system of electronic medical records.


In 2002, under President George W. Bush, the right of a patient to control his most sensitive personal data—from prescriptions to DNA—was eliminated by federal regulators implementing the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Those privacy notices you sign in doctors' offices do not actually give you any control over your personal data; they merely describe how the data will be used and disclosed.

In a January 2009 speech, President Barack Obama said that his administration wants every American to have an electronic health record by 2014, and last year's stimulus bill allocated over $36 billion to build electronic record systems. Meanwhile, the Senate health-care bill just approved by the House of Representatives on Sunday requires certain kinds of research and reporting to be done using electronic health records. Electronic records, Mr. Obama said in his 2009 speech, "will cut waste, eliminate red tape and reduce the need to repeat expensive medical tests [and] save lives by reducing the deadly but preventable medical errors that pervade our health-care system."

But electronic medical records won't accomplish any of these goals if patients fear sharing information with doctors because they know it isn't private. When patients realize they can't control who sees their electronic health records, they will be far less likely to tell their doctors about drinking problems, feelings of depression, sexual problems, or exposure to sexually transmitted diseases. In 2005, a California Healthcare Foundation poll found that one in eight Americans avoided seeing a regular doctor, asked a doctor to alter a diagnosis, paid privately for a test, or avoided tests altogether due to privacy concerns.


Today our lab test results are disclosed to insurance companies before we even know the results. Prescriptions are data-mined by pharmacies, pharmaceutical technology vendors, hospitals and are sold to insurers, drug companies, employers and others willing to pay for the information to use in making decisions about you, your job or your treatments, or for research. Self-insured employers can access employees' entire health records, including medications. And in the past five years, according to the nonprofit Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, more than 45 million electronic health records were either lost, stolen by insiders (hospital or government-agency employees, health IT vendors, etc.), or hacked from outside.


Full article at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580904575132111888664060.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion



Moo




thornhappy -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/24/2010 5:55:08 PM)

I think JCAHO's been pushing EMRs as a way to reduce errors, too.

I just don't think it's practical from an implementation standpoint.  I could see it working within a doc's office or within a hospital, but not in some universally accessible database.




Sanity -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/24/2010 6:08:19 PM)


If we could have control over it as individuals, but when people can essentially Google you and come up with the time you went through rehab or the time you or your loved one had an abortion, etc, thats not good medicine.




zephyroftheNorth -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/24/2010 6:16:29 PM)

If it's the same kind of system used here, the info can't be accessed via the innernet.  Access is limited to those who have a certain program and have a username and password.  So Googling a person's name won't give them access to that person's medical records.

zeph




Sanity -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/24/2010 6:27:31 PM)

Again,

quote:

Today our lab test results are disclosed to insurance companies before we even know the results. Prescriptions are data-mined by pharmacies, pharmaceutical technology vendors, hospitals and are sold to insurers, drug companies, employers and others willing to pay for the information to use in making decisions about you, your job or your treatments, or for research. Self-insured employers can access employees' entire health records, including medications. And in the past five years, according to the nonprofit Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, more than 45 million electronic health records were either lost, stolen by insiders (hospital or government-agency employees, health IT vendors, etc.), or hacked from outside.


Imagine the nightmare of trying to keep your records secret if you're a celebrity or a politician.




zephyroftheNorth -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/24/2010 6:34:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Again,

quote:

Today our lab test results are disclosed to insurance companies before we even know the results. Prescriptions are data-mined by pharmacies, pharmaceutical technology vendors, hospitals and are sold to insurers, drug companies, employers and others willing to pay for the information to use in making decisions about you, your job or your treatments, or for research. Self-insured employers can access employees' entire health records, including medications. And in the past five years, according to the nonprofit Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, more than 45 million electronic health records were either lost, stolen by insiders (hospital or government-agency employees, health IT vendors, etc.), or hacked from outside.


Imagine the nightmare of trying to keep your records secret if you're a celebrity or a politician.



Doubtful. How are they supposed to get access? As someone who works in Healthcare...it just isn't that easy. I can see insurance companies having access to results of tests they ordered but not the whole patient health record.




Sanity -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/24/2010 6:41:52 PM)


Its as if you didn't even read the article that I posted. Its all there - it's Obama's stated goal to have all our records gathered into one searchable database, and he is making significant progress towards that end. The stated reasons are noble but there are troubling aspects that haven't been addressed or answered to the satisfaction of a lot of us who value our privacy, freedom and dignity.




servantforuse -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/24/2010 6:45:42 PM)

It is very clear. The federal government via the IRS will now have access to everyones health care records.




Smutmonger -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/24/2010 6:47:54 PM)

Cool,we can be just like cuba soon,and eradicate the spread of AIDS by sending everyone diagnosed with it to gulags.

Did you know that Hitler's Germany was good with keeping meticulous records on everyone too?




Sanity -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/24/2010 6:50:25 PM)


Some things are best left decentralized, in my opinion. I'd like to keep my privacy thank you, warts and all.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Smutmonger

Cool,we can be just like cuba soon,and eradicate the spread of AIDS by sending everyone diagnosed with it to gulags.

Did you know that Hitler's Germany was good with keeping meticulous records on everyone too?




barelynangel -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/24/2010 6:54:06 PM)

Okay i don't know how this works but if it means that for medical records all i have to do is request records from ONE place with a patient's authorization or a subpoena, it will make my job a whole lot easier.

I just ent out bloody 28 medical records requests to medical providers for one of our clients, and 1) so far 7 doctor's office for all their intelligence can't read and follow the concept of CERTIFIED records, 2) they for some reason can't read the BOLDED and CAPPED portion of the lettr that says it includes bills. And i don't know if most people know this but some of the top hospitals are a bitch to get records from even when we have a compliant authorization, so instead of trying to get the releases signed we end up having to issue a subpoena lol. Lordy its a lot of work especially in multi-million dollar cases. Oh and what's more the Dr. Office's departments can't talk to each other so if they have a separate medical record and billing department, instead of simply copying the letter and authorization and giving it to the other department, they conveniently ignore the request for bills until i call and ask why they didn't send them and then they say -- ohh you need to send a request to that person. argh!

SO YES PLEASE lol if this means i will only need to send one request or one subpoena to obtain records that people WANT us to have due to a lawsuit.

Don't hate me because i am tired of fighting with medical providers to provide me records of patients who have authorized same lol.

angel




zephyroftheNorth -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/24/2010 6:55:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Its as if you didn't even read the article that I posted. Its all there - it's Obama's stated goal to have all our records gathered into one searchable database, and he is making significant progress towards that end. The stated reasons are noble but there are troubling aspects that haven't been addressed or answered to the satisfaction of a lot of us who value our privacy, freedom and dignity.



And you didn't read what I wrote. Yes searchable BY DOCTORS AND OTHER MEDICAL STAFF. It doesn't mean out on the net it means in hospitals accessable by those who have the program and a password. Medical records cannot be put on the internet, it violates doctor/patient confidentiality. Geez Sanity I thought you had more common sense than that!




thornhappy -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/24/2010 6:56:07 PM)

That solution to AIDS was proposed back in the '80s.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Smutmonger

Cool,we can be just like cuba soon,and eradicate the spread of AIDS by sending everyone diagnosed with it to gulags.

Did you know that Hitler's Germany was good with keeping meticulous records on everyone too?




zephyroftheNorth -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/24/2010 6:57:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

It is very clear. The federal government via the IRS will now have access to everyones health care records.


How the FUCK do you figure the IRS has your medical records?




Sanity -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/24/2010 7:04:52 PM)


If the governments paying the bills whats to keep government officials at various levels  from seeing the records. Same with the insurance companies, which already have access. They make you sign a waiver these days, if you're not paying privately, allowing your records to be shared.

I have a feeling that (judging by the way government always works) with the expanding powers of the Federal Government over our health care that those who feel they need to know will form into an ever growing circle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth

And you didn't read what I wrote. Yes searchable BY DOCTORS AND OTHER MEDICAL STAFF. It doesn't mean out on the net it means in hospitals accessable by those who have the program and a password. Medical records cannot be put on the internet, it violates doctor/patient confidentiality. Geez Sanity I thought you had more common sense than that!





Sanity -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/24/2010 7:06:07 PM)


The IRS is going to be the enforcer for the insurance companies under Obamacare.


quote:

ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

It is very clear. The federal government via the IRS will now have access to everyones health care records.


How the FUCK do you figure the IRS has your medical records?





servantforuse -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/24/2010 7:09:57 PM)

Do you think that it is just a coinsidence that the IRS is hiring 16,500 new agents as this bill is being signed ? Part of this bill is to force everyone to buy insurance, ( or be fined ) . The federal government will now have access to your insurance records and medical records. That is what this is all about..Read Popeye's thread.." now this is scary".. He is a senior democrat and this is their mindset..




LaTigresse -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/24/2010 7:12:52 PM)

I am heartily for centralization of medical records.

Just as an example...

I rarely go to the doctor. A doctor I went to several times in Cedar Rapids Iowa closed his office. A chiropractor I went to, disappeared. Several years went by and I decided I should be more proactive with my health and went to get a complete physical, all the female crap, schmush and schmear as we call it.

Years went by, I got bit by a deer tick. Went to a doctor in Iowa City. He wanted my medical records..... well fuck me. I don't have my medical records, don't remember the doctor that gave me the schmush and schmear, nothing. So, new doctor cannot give me the in depth care he wants to give because he has no previous information.

Well guess what..........several hundred dollars later........I am fine. But do you think I can remember the name of the doctor I saw last? Helllllllllll no. What if I am traveling and need to see a doctor? What if I had a serious medical condition and the doctor where I am, has no idea and treats me without that information........putting me in danger?

Forget ridiculous conspiracy theories.........centralize medical records.

FYI.......it's already a work in progress. People are working on the software and investing in creating companies to enter medical records.




pahunkboy -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/24/2010 7:16:15 PM)

It is nice to be able to email my DR.

Tho- I dont like this new medical bill.




slvemike4u -> RE: WSJ: Your Medical Records Aren't Secure (3/24/2010 7:17:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

It is very clear. The federal government via the IRS will now have access to everyones health care records.


How the FUCK do you figure the IRS has your medical records?

How the FUCK do you figure he figures anything at all...don't you pay attention at all?
By the way with systems like this not only would one need a acess to the system a password and all....each and every time your records are acessed a "footprint" would be left....detailing just who and when your records were pulled.
I guess some peoples paranoia would mean all of these failsafes weren't enough.....but lets be serious is there really any way ,in this modern world,to make these people comfortable....Short of putting the Republicans back in charge of course.




Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875