Comments on: Getting real about fixing health care

By: Andy Stones

Andy Stones — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:59:16 +0000

Doc
I agree with the you. Yes the recording of medical record will definitely helps in near future and moving of the record would be very easy. Let say as soon as the test reports are out of the lab doctors are immediately notified alongwith the patient about the report. It will save alot of time and money. EMR if applied corectly is the future of medical sector.

By: Autistic Blogger

Autistic Blogger — Wed, 06 May 2009 15:12:16 +0000

As someone with a disability I oppose government run health care as well – as I would be seen as less important then any of the other people. http://www.aspieweb.net/universal-health-care-disabled/

By: Electronic Health Records – Calling for Security and Authentication « The Power of Proof

Mon, 04 May 2009 17:25:21 +0000

[...] corrections to medical records and e-prescription forgery. In order to address areas of potential risk and remain compliant with medical organizations must adopt policies and procedures that are [...]

By: Doc Searls

Doc Searls — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:04:01 +0000

Brett, I agree. That’s where it goes. And where it needs to go.

As long as risk of exposure remains a cornerstone of health care calculations (by freaking everybody), we remain irretrievably fucked.

As somewhat of a libertarian, I have always been opposed in principle to government-run health care. But the private system we have is broken behind hope. It cannot be improved and remain private. There is too much data that is either tainted or absent for fear of lawsuit, exposure of prior conditions and so on.

The only way to fix it is to get rid of worry about that exposure, and the only way to do that is with a single payer system.

IMHO.

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 00:46:02 +0000

Doc, you’re missing another serious danger of EHR. With EHR, an insurance company can look through your entire medical history — back to birth, if necessary — to find some “pre-existing condition” to use to disqualify you from coverage or deny you reimbursement for treatment. If comprehensive EHR is to become a reality, we also need a single payer, cradle to grave health care system.

By: Doc Searls

Doc Searls — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:30:11 +0000

Did anybody here say connectivity would solve all our problems? Or any problems?

The mess is terribly complex, which is why I’ve mostly avoided it. Good people, far more interested and involved than I, are on the case.

Still, I gotta ask… Are we going to improve health care without better record keeping and data exchange than we have now? Is there a way to do that without digital involvement?

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:28:11 +0000

If we think we are going to fix healthcare just with “connectivity” and sharing of information, we are a long way off. Healthcare information already has standards such as HIE, HL7 where systems can communicate to one another effectively. These standards have been in place for years but “people” get involve and then the privacy issue gets beaten to death. Look at the Financial System. It has been “connected” for years and look at the mess it is in.
Payers (HMOs) want to make the least amount of payments, Physicians want to charge the most amount, hospitals want the most re-imbursement, so when you think about it, everyone is working on different corporate goals. I don’t think connectivity will solve all of our problems

By: Daily Digest for 2009-04-22 | Joe Spake - Memphis Real Estate

Daily Digest for 2009-04-22 | Joe Spake - Memphis Real Estate — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:26:39 +0000

[...] Shared a link on Google Reader. Getting real about fixing health care [...]

By: Bob Boynton

Bob Boynton — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 03:39:58 +0000

Privacy: it needs to be as good as your bank. Anyone who wants their health records more fully protected than their financial records is not thinking very clearly. There are already institutions that can do that well — banks, for example.

For the consumer: building the ‘backend’ is fine, but it will not be used unless it is as easy to use as your credit card. Carry the identifying information around in your wallet, and give it to the receptionist of the doctor/hospital to access the records for diagnosis and reporting. Retail establishments and credit card companies have no difficulty with similar transactions. It seems like it should not be impossible to do it for health care.

Someone needs to do it. Banks charge us very little because they make money with the money we have them ‘hold’ for us. Credit card companies make money when we do not pay on time. Someone in the health care system needs to be identified who will find it to their advantage to do the record processing. I doubt if that is the federal government. They are a monopoly and they often get by with lousy service because we elect representatives who get themselves elected by promising to cut our taxes without bothering to say what that will do to the roads, sewers, etc. And it is not likely to be health insurers who would be delighted to charge based on all the information they have about you — making it something other than ‘insurance.’

It would be nice to save lives.

By: Bruce Fryer

Bruce Fryer — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:45:57 +0000

Doc,

You’ve described what I’m building for the new company. NIH has some nice open-source standards they’re encouraging adoption as a framework (SAML et al). It’s policy based access to the information. It’s up to the patient to decide who gets access to what information, when. And they can retract it at any time. Persistence is out. Just in time access is in.

And that is a solution that works for everyone involved.