Your medical records

Discussion in 'Political Action Forum' started by The Other David, Jul 16, 2010.

  1. WoodieSC

    WoodieSC North/South Carolina Flyway Forum Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    19,581
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2000
    Location:
    SC
    There you go attempting to sound all self-righteous again... :rolleyes:

    The issue isn't "electronic records", since, as you've stated, most facilities already have them. The issue is the connectivity/accessibility of all records between entities.

    Right now today, the doctor in his office is not allowed to access the hospital records of the same patient, and vice versa. There is some level of inefficiency in that, but at least there's a chasm/firewall of sorts. Should everything become linked and cross-accessible, I have no doubt we'll begin to hear all sorts of sordid tales of mismanagement of data security. It would be inevitable.
     
  2. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    Either of them talking about 'saving' is indeed comical.
     
  3. jaeger19

    jaeger19 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,499
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Location:
    Parma idaho
    All "self righteous"?:z:nutz..

    I merely pointed out that its nothing new... if I have a "tone" its because I get annoyed that Obama and Bush and whoever, talk about "electronic medical records" and how much money it will save and so on and so forth... when its the insurance companies, states and federal government that make us keep paper records and submit paper.

    As far as
    Thats absolutely not true... nor do you want it to be true... Take a look at the paperwork you sign when you go see a medical provider... there should be a medical disclosure paper along with your privacy rights... it gives us the ability to access your medical records from other physicians, communicate with your other providers to provide coordinated care and yes. it allows us to bill your insurance...

    There are stringent rules I have to follow and boy they have teeth (can you say major fines) if I screw up... but it protects the patient while allowing us to provide better care...

    Because you WANT me to have access to your medical records.. you want me to see your surgery report.. you want me to see that your hernia surgery years ago was done with mesh versus no mesh.. You want me to know you have a history of osteoporosis or at least you are on the edge...

    All that allows me to provide better, safer, and more efficient care.. and quite frankly few if any patients are able to give me the detail that is needed...

    And the same goes for other providers...you want Okie to see your med history so that he can see drug interactions etc etc...

    Thats whats funny.. the government entities keep talking about medical records and coordination of care... and quite frankly,, most providers do that (or at least the ones that give a darn) as the records are already there. And this mandate isn't going to change a thing for the ones that don't because having access isn't going to make providers USE it if they don't care to.
     
  4. jaeger19

    jaeger19 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,499
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Location:
    Parma idaho
    Yes.... its nothing new...

    Yes.... from the post... it was clear that they thought this was something new.

    As you point out.. you aren't claiming its the same... I didn't ignore any of the point of the thread...
    and as I just pointed out to Woodie.. I can access his records if I care too (as long as he is my patient etc etc)

    By the way.. the government already has been collecting individual data and outcomes and than has been going on since about 1990 ... in fact in some cases, providers can be reimbursed more for participation in these outcome measures.
     
  5. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    He may want it (and he should) but I don't see such.....not unless you fill everything at one place. Sham deals like Walmart $4, docs running their mouth about things they don't know about, and mandated mail order all encourage and/or require patients getting multiple meds at multiple pharmacies.......asking for a trainwreck. To say that med histories are seen/available to pharmacists is not true. You use one pharmacy and one only? Yes. Is that often the case? Not hardly.

    What prior legislation mandated e-records for all and by x date? Furthermore, if such has occured it would by default eliminate it from being happening now.:doh

    Wasn't to me. Take it up with them I guess.:D

    Identical and applicable are not the same thing. You'll go with not identical in order to ignore applicable. No worries, I'm used to it.

    Can dimwit susie with the department of less obesity?

    As you point out.. you aren't claiming its the same.......or are you?
     
  6. DR CABELA

    DR CABELA Banned

    Messages:
    9,722
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Location:
    owensboro,KY
    true..... HIPPA violations are a b***h

    funny though......they were meant to protect AIDS/cancer pts

    not turn into what they hv turned into

    providers hv always had access to a pts records.....its usually some of the first paperwork a pt will sign
     
  7. WoodieSC

    WoodieSC North/South Carolina Flyway Forum Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    19,581
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2000
    Location:
    SC
    The issue of data security is going to be the stumbling block... and personal integrity of the various staffs.
     
  8. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    Nope. But 'need' and reality are not always the same.
    Inseperable actually....but we've got a long way to go as a society in our views on such.

    X condition, no med history for it.

    Doc writes y, it puts you in the hospital (or worse) due to x condition......you want 'em separate now?

    I see provider interaction and govt databases as two distinct issues here....but at the end of the day it gets back to who is paying the bill, as I mentioned.
     
  9. WoodieSC

    WoodieSC North/South Carolina Flyway Forum Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    19,581
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2000
    Location:
    SC
    My point being that my pharmacist should, IMO, only have access to the medicine portion of my records, not the complete doctor's record.

    Show me where I'm wrong and why I would want every Tom, Dick, and Harry Pharmacist poking through my medical file?
     
  10. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    .........I thought I gave a pretty clear example. Doc may very well write you something that could kill you due to a condition you have. That condition may not require medication thus negating a med history for such. (I certainly won't have one if you use more than one pharmacy). Tom, Dick, Harry, or Okie MAY consult with you in a manner where such happens to come up in conversation. Then again you may just send your wife or kid to pick up your rx.

    Regardless, if I see in your records where you have x condition, I very well could save you an ER trip or worse by consulting with the doc for a different med, no med, different treatment option etc....

    Things like this are largely ignored as are the dangers in using multiple docs that don't interact and also multiple pharmacies---maybe a med filled yesterday at Walmart coupled with the one filled today at CVS equal bye bye for Woodie.......it does happen, usually the effects are far less severe than death or a hospital stay, but sometimes not.

    As I said, distinct issues here.
     

Share This Page