Dr. Chip writes:
What is needed is to show how dangerous EHR technology is when it is in the hands of the government and big business. PROOF.
EHR is not dangerous when all the technology is kept in house with the physician, just like records used to be. Access to de-personalized data can be up loaded to research facilities etc with much less risk to individuals and less risk to physicians for letting personal information be hacked or stolen.
Transporting data to a hospital could easily be done with current technology if the physician was the person doing the admitting and he or she imported the data needed to the hospital record “as an officer protecting the privacy of the data” for the patient. Hospitals could work with exactly the same model, collecting data but only sharing de-personalized data with any other agency, if a significant reason were stead clearly and on the record. Secure VPN encrypted channels can send data from one hospital to another without much fear of hacking and data streams would be limited to a handful of patient in transfers daily rather than risking entire data storage facilities that obviously can’t protect the data they store.
Cutting out insurance, government and third party access to private personal data is the only way the government can support its own HIPAA laws designed to protect personal data. Business plans can very successfully navigate depersonalized data for profit without the added unnecessary advantage of holding the individual hostage to their own personal data.
How we generate that de-personalized data should never be determined by third parties for us and the data itself should never be allowed to be used to undermine the safety and security of the physician/patient relationship.
The current technology in EHR is not safe, nor is it stable. It is largely untested in its promise to improve care and though it clearly has potential to do so, it will only do that if that technology is protected as a tool that physicians can use to improve their diagnostics, clarity of decision making and details in memory. If it is used as a tool to capture physicians in regulatory manner it will ultimately do damage to the patients by taking way decision making, instead of assisting in the process of people taking care of people.
There is far more money to be made by keeping people healthy and strong as consumers than there is by keeping everyone a little sick, out of work, and enforcing the utilization of a system designed to do just that.
This paradigm shift is also predicated on shifting the primary dollar spent to another arena, away from chronic illness and catastrophic recovery care, toward health maintenance through prevention and support of education for fun and for profit, leisure, sports and entertainment activities.
All great civilizations came to an end when achieving a state of power, money and data control that became so centralized that corruption became a routine and acceptable part of the cost of doing business.
Reversing that trend often required revolution or mass transformation of the societies.
Many are ready for such a change now. Are we at a critical mass yet?