This is another highly expensive central planning boondoggle that proves why the federal government is more often the problem than the solution and it's really simple to explain why. Doctors really, really don't like it.

Bottom line is that most doctors now understand this is another way for the government to deny payment to the docs. And doctors, like everyone else, like to be paid for their work. Sadly, the current incarnation gives the government lots of ways to trip up docs if they get something wrong on the form's format.

And even the doctors who put up with it will be distracted. They will be more focused on immaterial technicalities of a form that get them paid than actually grating their patient. And I don't know about you, but I want my doctor's full attention when something is wrong.

Prediction, we will spend many tens of billions more before we admit it's a failure. Along the way, many more doctors will stop taking new Medicare patients.

Barak Hussien Obama. Mmmmm, Mmmmm, Mmmmm.

What "highly expensive central planning boondoggle"?

Electronic medical records are long past due. They'd help cut the cost of medicine, make medical practice safer and more effective. In fact, I'm of the opinion that it's governmental interference in the medical industry that's slowed the use of electronic medical records.

So what exactly are you referring too?

I would have thought electronic medical records would be more efficient and cost effective...

I love it.  My records and results are there faster for me to see,  I have my information readily available to pull up and track myself.  It has been a real bonus for me to have this kind of information available at the touch of my fingers.  I have a lot of blood work done on a regular basis so the tracking and graphs it provides me have proven helpful.

It is not changed how my doctor interacts with me.  We have our little one on one and then she goes to the computer to update and even confirms with me on the spot what she is putting in....

I don't see a downside....

I work with a lot of doctors and i don't know a single doc who likes it. It makes it more awkward for them to document. And like I said, if they don't follow the procedural format correctly then they don't get paid. Doctors seeing 30 or 40 people in a day have one more thing to think about while attempting to treat you.

Yes guys, the idea of medical records is a wonderful idea just like the idea of socialism is very sweet too. Both lose something, however, when you actually put them into practice.

Like I said, talk to a few physicians if you don't believe me and specifically ask them how it will make it tougher for them to get paid for their work.

I think there's something being left unsaid here.

Pretty much everywhere I've ever heard of electronic records are superior to paper records in just about every regard. Cost, accessibility, searchability and a few "ibilities" it's too early for me to think of.

The only reason, beyond the usual self-involvement of doctors, and most other human beings, to object to electronic records is because it's being forced on them by someone/something that can ignore the shortcomings of the format/execution of the electronic records system. That doctors are getting a system that creates greater burdens without some offsetting value.

You guys really are talking about an abstraction and not the real situation.

1. Doctors don't like to not be paid for their work.
2. Doctors don't like to have others tell them how to practice medicine.
3. When doctors put that white coat on they really don't want to be told to do anything whether it be a good idea or not.

Talking about how wonderful things would be if we could force doctors to go against their nature and passively accept something they do not want is like talking about how many angels we could fit on the head of a pin. Until you can find a solution that doctors accept and buy into then this whole discussion is about a fantasy.

I like the idea.  If I travel and get sick, then my records are readily availiable at any time.  It certainly helps the doc who has never seen me before.  I think I get better treatment, at least in that situation.

The same thing can be accomplished with a medic alert bracelet that has a little flash drive attached. On that flash drive you could easily scan the images of your medical records.

Once again, nice abstract thoughts aren't realistic until you guys figure out how to get doctors to buy into the process. And that was the point of my original post that no one seems to be addressing. How do you get doctors to buy into a system that makes it harder for them to get paid and creates, at least in their minds, an unnecessary distraction to their practicing medicine?

This attitude of imposing onerous operating procedures by politicians is exactly how you end up with a doctor shortage. This is just how we got so many people out of community banking back in the 80s too. You can't impose a solution on doctors they don't agree with and not think there will be a negative consequence. The world just doesn't work that way people.

Dan is talking about one thing and evryone else is talking about another.  I'll explain when I get to my laptop...

Quote from: arpad on October 16, 2010, 05:27:17 PM
What "highly expensive central planning boondoggle"?

Electronic medical records are long past due. They'd help cut the cost of medicine, make medical practice safer and more effective. In fact, I'm of the opinion that it's governmental interference in the medical industry that's slowed the use of electronic medical records.

So what exactly are you referring too?

Imagine how fast a candidate's history of psychiatric counseling would surface, the fewer safeguards there are.

If you want a curious doctor's receptionist pawing through your record, or an insurance company selling data to, say, a pharmaceutical company in search of test subjects for a given malady, then consolidated on-line records are OK.

I prefer medical privacy.

Quote from: taxed on October 17, 2010, 05:07:54 AM
Dan is talking about one thing and evryone else is talking about another.  I'll explain when I get to my laptop...

Bingo! Its like if I had said Obama's policy to give everyone a pony was a bad idea and then everyone decides to talk about how much they wish they had a pony. Not the practicality of having a pony or the the trade offs that come with Obama's free pony policy.

Quote from: quiller on October 17, 2010, 05:23:59 AM
Imagine how fast a candidate's history of psychiatric counseling would surface, the fewer safeguards there are.

If you want a curious doctor's receptionist pawing through your record, or an insurance company selling data to, say, a pharmaceutical company in search of test subjects for a given malady, then consolidated on-line records are OK.

I prefer medical privacy.

You do have a point on that although that is what the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) laws are for, plus if the receptionist wanted to see my records she would have already pulled my paper file.... :) :)

As to doctors not appreciating being told what to do - I would think that in this case, electronic records, it would be more an age based problem.  Older physicians more set in their ways would fight this.  Younger doctors would probably see this as a convenience. :-X :-X

Joe the Plumber ring any bells about privacy of records, when Democrats are involved?

It is a bad idea to put this data on-line. Safeguards are meaningless.