The doctor's office called me yesterday, wanting to know why I didn't have a mammogram last year...

[Contrary1]

Interesting, since I had one cancerous breast removed in '97, and the other two years later as a precautionary measure. (Turned out to be a very good decision, per lab results.)

Anyway, after the poor woman quit stammering, she explained to me that she had been updating the "data base that is now required by the government", and had been notified that my records were incomplete.

What the hell is going on? Why would the government mandate that all medical records be available to them in one easy to access database? My primary physician told me a few months back that they had to convert from paper to electronic records, or face extra fees.

I'm not stupid enough to think that all my info isn't out there for the picking, so it's not so much a privacy issue for me, as to :wtf:
Maybe someone here can explain the reasoning for all this to me.

[Fearless]

1. I believe that the "mandate" is that they are electronically kept

Not necessarily so they can access them but so that doctors can.

[dflprincess]

3. I think you are correct.

Electronic records are cost effective and, if you need to see someone outside your usual clinic, it makes it easier for you to get copies to that provider.

The clinic I go to has used them for several years & it allows me to access my own records on line. It's nice as I get an email whenever I've had a test & my chart has been updated with results. No waiting for the doctor to call (though I imagine he still would if the news is less than good) or for the mail. And it sends me reminders when I'm coming due for something.

[Contrary1]

5. OK, let's assume that is the reason, and not necessarily a bad one...

How can the government require this, and assign an extra fee, if not complied with? Is a doctor's practice not a private business?

[immoderate]

6. Simple. They pass a law.

--imm

[Sgent]

7. Medicare

The government has a set of carrots and sticks to require implementation... grants for the expense of purchasing the records, and cuts in reimbursement if they are not implemented.

[Recursion]

9. You might not have noticed, but there was recently a law passed...

...impacting almost all areas of health care and greatly increasing the government's oversight of almost all areas of health care.

[ThomCat]

12. Yes, but this is yet another mandated cash cow

because even the health care centers that were at the forefront of making all the records digital have stated that it should be a gradual process, and that it was a very costly process.

There is a hell of a lot of money involved. Whenever anything in required, it is because there is a lot of money to be made managing the changes, selling the equipment, running and the training.

I've heard anecdotally that Insurance companies apparently already have some kind of universal database of all of us, but don't allow it be expanded and used for actual health care purposes. But I don't know how much truth there is in that, or how much personal information they keep in it. There is certainly the potential for insurance companies to have quite a lot of our information.

If it exists, they probably use it to streamline denials of service. Saving money becomes a snap when you already know everyone's medical history.

Actual Positive uses for a database like that would be astounding! Instant access to everyone's medical records in the E.R, for example. But it would never happen because of privacy concerns.

[truedelphi]

14. The dirty little secret about this "electronic digitization of records"

is that circa 2005, every hospital in California was going tohave to "upgrade" and get software programs and all that.

The hospital s in the Sutter chain let their communities know that since they were on the forefront of doing all things of a cutting edge technology, they woul dbe doing this. Their price tag: $ 300,000 per hospital.

i didn't think this was outrageous till a friend pointed out to me that since these hopitals are one chain, it is fraud being perpetuated on the communities. Why does each and every hospital have to spend $ 300K on software developers? They aren't!

The first Sutter hospital that did this, with Corporate HQ's blessing, simply handed the proprietary software over to the other member hospitals. So each community is having this billing happen, and it is needless, fraudulent expense.

[ThomCat]

15. Exacty right. These chains would save a hell of a lot

of money by writing the software themselves and distributing the cost. But instead they pay for the full cost over and over and over again.

[truedelphi]

16. ThomCat, I share your frustrration,

But you are missing the point.

The Sutter hospitals are NOT paying the software developers over and over again.

They are telling the communities that that is what they are doing, when what they are doing is NOTHING.

The first hospital to develop the code has simply handed it over to every other hospital. While the Executives at Sutter are passing the profit of the 300K per hospital along to themselves.

[truedelphi]

2. I am too confounded by my own experiences

to know what to tell you.

My new doctor explained to me that she was requiring my having a mammogram before she would see me again.

i called and arranged for the appointment over at the radiology group.

They gave me a date. I lost the date. I called back a few days later and asked when the appointment was. They said it was Friday January 28th.

I have had problems with this radiology dept before, so I deliberately called 48 hours prior to my visit to make sure that the visit was indeed scheduled. They looked up in their electronic records, and told me, yes it was.

I went in on Fri the 28th. And guess what? There was no record of me having an appointment. I refused to leave the building till someone in Administration told me what was going on.

Well, the person who told me I had an appointment on the 28th meant that I had HAD an appointment last January 28th! A whole year earlier.

So much for electronic records helping hospital personnel keep things straight.

I am only too happy this mix up was not about replacing my hip or amputating a breast. Should I ever need major surgery, I will indeed be using magic marker to pen in what needs to happen on the physical portion of my body that requires the surgery.

[CountAllVotes]

11. these electronic records are filled w/errors fyi

I found out the hard way. It says I have Cron's (sic) disease in my medical records which is not the case!

Other "mistakes" are too numerous to even attempt to address.

Bottom line is this: Get copies of your medical records and read them carefully. Point out any/all errors to the doctor.

P.S. Good luck getting these mistakes corrected! :grr:

[truedelphi]

13. And I really hated how the blood I donated

For Kerry ended up (through electronic record malfeasance,) going to Bush!

:hug:

[haele]

4. She may be confusing her databases -

My insurance company tracks my "regular procedures" like OB-GYN visits, mammograms, colonoscopies, etc as part of their billing requirements to insure, I guess, that the doctor isn't performing some "cosmetic" procedure on me and billing the insurance for a regularly covered procedure. I'm pretty sure that there was a requirement in the HCR bill that passed that insurance companies are required to keep better records to standardize and simplify processes; and justify their actions when it comes to patients and payment to doctors, so that might be a reason there to update the databases. And of course, if the companies charge the doctors if they have to hire more people to deal with paper records...
On top of that, government has been encouraging (with incentives, of course) medical practices to use electronic records "in a meaningful use" and to create a database over 2011 and 2012. A government database of patient health care isn't a regulation, and there's not even a "yet" in sight for to indicate those incentives will become a regulation.
Now, pharmaceuticals and prescriptions are being required to be tracked on an electronic database that the government has, to prevent "doctor-shopping".

I suspect your doctor's office is a bit confused as to who is ordering what. Which is understandable; especially since the insurance companies are notorious for kicking legitimate costs of doing business they should be shouldering down to their suppliers and customers to keep their profit line where they want it.

Haele

[seabeyond]

8. my insurance calls me yearly to tell me to get one, and sends in mail. i keep forgetting

gotta get on it

[JoePhilly]

10. My insurance company continues to make my doctor, year after year ...

confirm that I still have a condition that never goes away.

They continue to send me nonsense mailers that suggest approaches for dealing with conditions that I don't have because the meds I take are also used for those conditions.

I've had to go from one doctor to the next carrying my various "scans" in huge envelopes.

The point of getting all your records in a sharable database, is to that doctors can share it.

Having said that, there are some basic procedures that they try to track for everyone, but some folks, don't need them because of other treatments they get.

Ultimately, going fully electronic will help, because they will be able to (a) see you did not have some treatment, and (b) also see alternative treatments that you had that made the other treatment/procedure unnecessary.