Plugged In

By Elizabeth R

April 26, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this

The problem with electronic records is HIPAA gave just about every federal agency access to the patients’ medical records. Patients and doctors don’t want snooping around by those who don’t necessarily have the patient’s best interest at heart and doctors don’t want to be penalized by insurance rating entities for using treatments and surgeries that eschew toxic drug treatments. For many, the benefit of having records avialable online is not worth the risk of losing privacy autonomy and protection from discrimination. — Elizabeth Richards, Austin

By Paul Silver

April 26, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this

How can we find out which are the Austin Physicians or clinics adapting to digital records? Does the Texas Medical Association know? Perhaps this calls for another article?

By snorby

April 26, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this

My doctor uses both. However, I’m still uncomfortable with the fact that my entire physical history is floating around in cyberspace for anyone with an evil mind to hack into. Personally, I would prefer doctors stick to PAPER files, but the government and sheer workload probably doesn’t permit that.

By Violet Hues

April 26, 2008 6:19 PM | Link to this

You cattlepeople deserve to have your private records put online. It’s some of your ‘look the other way at other peoples misfortunes at the hands of the communists’ evil coming back at you.

By Dr. Daniels

April 27, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this

Most non physicians don’t understand the barrier is cost. There is cost of the software and just as important is training of the staff. Most experts estimates it takes 6 to 12 months to make these changes at a cost of $30000 or so. These are times when reimbursement is declining and paper work increasing, other things to worry about. If the government believes in the cost so much why don’t they pay for it. D

By snorby

April 27, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this

I think Ms. Hues is living in another place and time. Her reference to “communism”, and indeed her total comment, is completely out of line. I suggest she go for psychiatric counseling - - SOON!!

By bradley beckman, m.d.

April 27, 2008 6:13 PM | Link to this

hey paul, the Quality of your doctor’s care has NOTHING to do with whether they are digitilized or not —-it is a buisness decision and has NOTHING to do with quality of care—-

By txaslim

April 27, 2008 7:30 PM | Link to this

dr. daniels — i hope you are better at doctoring than you are at business or government. remember that old phrase, “we the people”? when you write, let the government pay — you overlook out of either ignorance or perhaps on purpose — that the government is us, me and you and all the other folks who posted comments and many, many other good citizens. likewise, if cost is a barrier to your changing to electronic record-keeping, why do you also complain that the paperwork is increasing. you can’t have it both ways and complain about both methods of record-keeping. but the real question is, why don’t you just pass the costs through like you do on all other costs of doing business — to the patient and third party payer (like state government, employer plans, insurance companies, etc.)

by the way, doc, now that the weather’s cleared up beautifully, what’s our tee time tomorrow?

By James

April 28, 2008 2:26 AM | Link to this

Paper kills. Every day, information that could have prevented a duplicate test, highlighted drug allergy, or flagged an unneeded medical procedure sits unused in a file cabinet. If you hit an ER unable to speak, the paper medical records in the regular doc’s office are useless if the ER doc can’t access them.

Paper records contribute to thousands of preventable deaths and billions in addition costs. Hey, would anybody want to go back to paper-based banking? I thought not…

Just remember: paper kills.

By keith

April 28, 2008 8:15 AM | Link to this

As a patient, I don’t particularly care to have my medical records floating around in cyber space. Yeah HIPAA is in place, but that won’t stop someone out there to try and get my records and use it as just another source to steal my identity. Yeah they won’t have my symptoms to anything I’m suffering from, but there is still data there that will allow them to commit a fraudulent act.

While I’m not much of a fan of doctors, I think they should fight or decline going electronic. Soon we will have everything done electronically and computers will crash, then where will we be??? We’ll be screwed cause we cannot get to our data, our bank accounts, etc. Think about it….

By critter doc

April 29, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this

There’s a lot of ill-informed opinion and ignorance in these comments. Too bad there is no cure in sight for that…

Dr. Daniels’ comment regarding the cost of electronic medical records pertinent and informed. Txaslim’s comments reveal an appalling ignorance of medicine, business, and government.

Medicine in this country is operated as a business. Changing over to a new record-keeping system is an expensive, on-going business cost. It is not a one-time expense. It comes at a time when many physician’s salaries are declining significantly due to reductions in insurance reimbursements. The cost cannot simply be “passed along” to insurance companies because the insurance companies decide what they will reimburse. It cannot be easily passed along to patients: most are barely able to pay as it is. If electronic medical records are government mandated, why then shouldn’t the cost of the transition be at least partly subsidized? Here’s an even better idea: mandate that the cost be subsidized by the health insurance industry, since it is the health insurance industry that is the biggest user of medical records and the sector of the health industry that enjoys the largest portion of health industry profits.

Here’s an idea: Next time you are ill, or need urgent health care, don’t go to your doctor; make an appointment with your health care insurer or your congressman. See if that doesn’t make you feel better!

This is a problem that will get much worse in this country before it gets better. Health care in the United States is headed in the direction of the third world because no one, from the citizenry to the political “leadership”, will step up to the plate and make the tough, rational decisions regarding the allocation and expenditure of our health care dollars. They are leaving it to “market forces”, and by now you should all know what that means: the ability of greed to be self-regulating.

By txaslim

April 29, 2008 1:42 PM | Link to this

critter doc — you’re the funniest vet since eddie murphy played dr. dolittle. glad you’re a critter doc and not a human doc, too.

let’s look at two not-so-little facts about the way a government “universal health care” system is working. current government projections are that the massachusetts health care reforms will cover 342,000 people in 2011 at a total cost of $5.5 billion. translate that cost into covering texas 5.5 million uninsured people and you get a tab of 21 Billion (with a B), 171 million dollars a year. texas current medicaid costs are now about $21-22 billion a year and we can’t afford that. keep in mind — the Mass plan is GOVERNMENT run, government paid, government everything. insurance companies ADMINISTER the plan but the risk is transferred solely to the taxpayers of massachusetts.

okay, at that expensive cost, is it working any better? nope, not according to physicians there. here’s a recent NY Times article, “In Massachusetts, Universal Coverage Strains Care”: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/05doctors .html?_r=1&sq=In+Massachusetts%2C+Universal+ Coverage+Strains+Care&st=nyt&oref=slogin

stick to dogs and cats. they can’t talk back.