Obama's big idea: Digital health records

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/12/technology/stimulus_health_care/index.htm?postversion=2009011204



How will Obama encourage corporations to train American workers for a project that should remain American due to national security concerns?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28561910/



Never mind we're giving tax incentives so companies CAN offshore, rather than the other way around, but I would rather ask Kerry this:

"What constitutes a real job?"

And I could equally infer all the jobs going outside the country, using Kerry's own statement, that everything going offshore are not real jobs. Do the people studying to work on those apparent non-jobs think they're not doing jobs?

Nothing says "The government really cares about you" than compiling everyone's personal medical history, from STD tests to the use of psychiatric drugs, into a single, vast, easy-to-steal database.

But this is just the sort of Big Brother centralization I am beginning to expect from an Obama administration.

as UNINSURABLE.

Yep -- that's the kind of change we voted for, ain't it? :sarcasm:

Out of necessity, there would be tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of connection points, both to put data in and pull data out. Each of these connection points is a security threat. And then, as others have pointed out, there is the matter of who has access to the data to begin with.

Anything to legitimately help doctors -- one needn't be a brain surgeon to say anything to do to help is a good thing. But web-based ____ is too risky. As is 'Software as a Service', SaaS, which only makes an aSS out of people who use it.

So you have my records and any idiot hacker can know about me? I STILL CAN'T PAY FOR THE MEDS OR THE CARE.

So universal health care is now translated to total intrusion and zero care.

x(

But that's already changed. I've been treated for migraines by the same doctor for over 20 years. He used to be able to leaf through my chart and see what we'd tried in the past, how well it worked, and why we stopped. Now that his clinic uses software for medical records he doesn't have access to anything that goes back further than 2 years, because those old notes were not put in the system. If it were a matter of life and death, I'm sure the notes are somewhere. But they're not accessible during a regular office visit.

Last time I stopped him from putting notes on me into the patient before me's record. I wonder how often that happens.

I was just telling a nurse about this. I have to make sure my medical information is correct every time I go to the doctor. They don't share information, even though they're in the same medical system. The computer isn't doing all that great yet.

seems to have a networked laptop in every room, so that nurses and other personnel can enter patient records and comments.

The admitting nurse in the ER used a laptop to get the initial information on Saturday, and when I went to visit my mom in her room yesterday, the nurse in charge of her care referred to the laptop there to confirm some comments I made.

Computerized records were "the coming thing" 20 years ago.

Saves money - what does that mean? Does this mean that instead of taking home $500 per week, I will be taking home $550 per week? Seriously, who is going to save money, and at what cost to Americans' privacy?

Save money. Because now you've got medical personnel taking all this time to input data, spending less time with patients.

Will it permit health care providers to cut costs and pocket the difference, making patient health records more vulnerable to hacking/wide dissemination in the process while doing nothing to lower end costs to the user? Yes.

Sigh. Another handout to the big boys at the expense of little people. :mad:

If you're in a wreck out of town, the doctor can access your complete medical history and find out that you have bad reactions to certain drugs, or that you need a particular drug, even though you are unconscious and unable to tell him.

I don't want my medical records amassed in some big government database. I think if people DO want that, I'm fine with that. Devil is in the details as they say.

Sarcastic quip about Obama's "change" motto.

To wait and see is divine. :D

to contain costs is to pass HR676, which is extending an improved Medicare for all. It's the private insurance companies and PhRMA that bloat the costs of health care.

:shrug:

Who were the big contributors to his collection in the software and IT industries?

http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/enterpriseapps/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=22104653

As well, Ted Kennedy supports such....
http://ohmygov.com/blogs/general_news/archive/2008/12/05/electronic-health-record-legislation-may-be-tied-to-economic-stimulus-package.aspx


Electronic health records could make care safer and save money. So why aren't more doctors and hospitals using them?
Harvard School of Public Health
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hphr/fall-2008/fall08ehealth.html

to use system. My husband is hopeless with a computer.
He relies on his handwritten notes with his patients.
I am really concerned about access to these records. People tell him about
their infidelities, divorces, problems at home etc and I am concerned he will have to run both a digital and handwritten set of records for those private things no one wants out there on the net.

already been tried in numerous other countries and show to work and bring costs down.

Dunno what will eventually happen.

Until then, I'm going to get healthier. So far I've been good and I'm going to stay that way.

:eyes:

Hillary had been talking about it for ages.

:eyes:

A large fraction of the 16% of Gross Domestic Product that we spend on health care goes into the adminstrative costs of doctors' offices, clinics, medical labs, medical suppliers, hospitals, etc to deal with the claims and payments processes of a large array of health insurance and health care plans (plus the government Medicare plans).

What is needed is to standardize the digital language that is used over networks between the information systems of all these organizations in order to get rid of the old "print out, compile, translate, augment, and reenter" approach to interfaces. The use of a standard digital language also enables better implementation of automated decisioning of routine payments, as well as better statistical analysis to determine policy compliance and detect fraud.

Converting doctors' handwritten notes to electronic form is probably not too worthwhile, although it might be necessary for legal record keeping purposes, given the malpractice lawsuit environment. Having doctors enter prescriptions into handheld devices has been shown to reduce errors in giving medicines, so that would be a good thing.

Or give this a priority on their wish list? Clearly, patient health records will be less private. I don't like that at all. You throw out that 16% of costs' number, but what does that mean? Does that mean I will be paying 16% less dollars for health care than I do now? Or will health care providers and bureaucracies simply pocket that 16%?

Without a centralized database, Single Payer Health Care is virtually impossible.

I think the way that it will eventually go is that Single Payer Health Care will one day be a reality......and we would have gotten there by backing into it instead of scrapping what we have in place and starting all over. Part of Obama's plan of putting those without access to insurance into a plan similar to the Fed Plan is also one of the steps backing into Single Health coverage.


Is Obama's health reform plan a back door to single payer?
The health plan touted by President-elect Obama during his campaign is not a single payer, Canadian-style, national health insurance plan. Yet, there are some who worry - and others fervently hope - that it will end up being the back door entry way to a single payer system.
snip
...But the Obama plan also grows government's role. Obama proposes to expand enrollment in government-run (public) plans like Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

And, in addition to giving subsidies to individuals to choose from hundreds of private insurers, he would give them the choice of enrolling in a public plan, similar to Medicare. Robert Pear reports in yesterday's New York Times that the public plan, according to HHS Secretary-designee Tom Daschle, would be "modeled after Medicare" and would have "tremendous clout to bargain for the lowest prices" from health care providers.
snip
....enrollment in the public plan would grow over time, while private insurance enrollment would contract.

This - coupled with the planned expansion of Medicaid, SCHIP, and the inevitable growth of Medicare associated with an aging population - could get the country to a single payer system, or something close to it.

It wouldn't be a single payer system created by legislative fiat, but one that comes from "competition" (fair or unfair as it may be) between private insurance and public coverage.
http://blogs.acponline.org/advocacy/2008/12/is-obamas-health-reform-plan-back-door.html

In Canada in 1999, health care administrative costs were $307 per capita.

With the growth of more "privatization" options during the Bush adminstration the efficiency has undoubtedly gotten worse.

In 1999, 27.3% of the health care workforce in the US was in adminstrative/clerical positions, while in Canada it was 19.1% in 1996. But both figures exclude health insurance company personnel.

The less we spend on administrative overhead and staff, the more we can either reduce costs or increase spending on doctors, nurses, and other direct care staff.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/349/8/768

The 16% figure that I quoted as the percentage of gross domestic product that is spent on health care was not accurate. Actual figures on GDP are available at http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2008/pdf/gdp308f.pdf

For the 3rd quarter of 2008, the seasonally adjusted annual rate of spending on health care was $1,769 billion, and the total spending on personal expenditures was $10,164 billion. So medical care was 17.4% of personal expenditures.

Total GDP was $14,413 billion, so medical care was 12.3% of total GDP.

By way of comparison, spending on food was $1,416 billion and spending on housing was $1,521 billion. So medical expenses exceed those for either food or housing.

It looks more like a call for a fat, no bid contract, and an invitation to rip off the medical histories of people even more efficiently than happens currently.

Hmm, hey Obama, you want real change? Do what the majority of people in this country want you to do, institute single payer, universal health care.

Digital medical records make for easier access in emergency situations. When it's a matter of someone's life to determine if they're allergic to certain meds, have serious medical conditions, what medications they're taking this is the kind of thing that can make a real difference in treating patients.

I can't count the times we've had to scramble to find out what drugs patients were taking. One wrong medication could mean killing someone.

Of course, there are downsides which have to be addressed, but the good means saving lives.

the small percentage of people in the situation you are speaking of does not justify the expense nor the chance such a database will be hacked. I am saying this as a retired nurse.