The Hill prints some truly idiotic ideas from DC people sometimes. Every single proponent of "health care reform" agrees that better patient record-keeping is a good idea. It's a centerpiece of every presidential candidate's proposal, as if digital health records are some kind of magic way to cut costs. As expected, everyone wants to get in on this next federally mandated gravy train. I've already written about Google Health in these pages, and Microsoft has introduced their HealthVault software, but did you know that Steve Case, the man who built AOL (and watched it become worthless) has his own great idea for keeping your most intimate information in a computer?
On the other hand, in the "I told you so" department, these personal health records are not going to replace the records that doctors are legally required to keep:
So, these things are pretty much useless except from a data mining point of view. Your doctor is going to have to keep his own records, so why would you give them to Google or Microsoft, or anyone, for that matter? Keep in mind that these third-party companies are not covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Once you give them your records, you've given them your records. Their rights are defined by terms of service. Of course, they'll tell you that they have no reason to hurt your privacy, that there is a "market force" behind keeping your data secret.The vice president of the American College of Physicians , Michael Barr, agreed that the government still has a role to play even as these companies are positioning themselves in the market for electronic medical records.
Uniform standards for sharing medical information still need to be established because healthcare providers are responsible for maintaining complete "medical legal records" for their patients, Barr said. "They're working on one end of it and not the other," he said of Google, Microsoft and the other technology companies.
While useful to patients, "these [personal health records] that Microsoft and Google are providing will not replace the medical charts ... for documentation purposes," Barr added.
Dr. Debra Peel, who lost a court case against the government over HIPAA, has created an organization that will "audit" health care software and vouch for any privacy bona fides, for a fee, of course. Dr. Peel, who has already inked a deal with Microsoft for such an "audit" and will likely extort the same from Google, or any other software company, says that "The vendors need to compete on the basis of privacy."
Yeah. Let the "market" decide, as long as the "market" pays you for a seal of approval, right? Did I mention that PPR's board is packed full of insurance and health care lobbyists?
On the other hand, there is a market force for "suggesting" medications, too. There's also a "market" for prosecutors who put pain doctors in prison for prescribing too much medicine. Would such a system automatically trigger a red flag if you got more than the DEA decides is your fair share? Would your doctor get in trouble for "off-label" prescriptions if the computer flags him? No wonder the "real" health care IT pros are skeptical:
The Health Information Trust Alliance, a private cooperative led by representatives of healthcare and technology companies, released a survey of health IT executives on Monday showing widespread concern about the absence of a uniform, HIPAA-compliant information security framework that medical providers and companies can employ.
I'm no student of Latin, but the more I read about this stuff, the more I remember two phrases:
Cui Bono? Caveat Emptor.
Leave a comment