Stimulus Bill -- Nationwide System of Medical Records?

[themilesfamily]

I just read the following:

"President Obama has called for the creation of a nationwide system of electronic medical records...Congress has included about $20 billion [in the stimulus plan] to jump-start the initiative."

According to the article, your health records would be put in digital form and sent to the Department of Health and Human Services who would have oversight of these records. Health care agencies that haven't complied with this by 2014 would be fined.

So my question is, what if I don't WANT my medical records to be sent to the government? What if I don't think my medical records are any of the government's damn business? Is it just tough -- the government has a right to anything they want from you -- even the most personal information about your body?

ETA: I know that Ann Coulter had a big rant about this in her column today. And I don't typically like Ann Coulter -- but I don't like this either!!!!

 

[minnie61650]

I do not think you will have a choice.

Anyway I do not think it will be part of the government's records.

It only includes a plan to craft the health IT provisions .

Which means to computerize patient's records and get them ready for an e-file system.

As far I can tell that is all there is in this package.



Take a close look at the following article
and you will that both the house and the senate with the support of three Republicans, thought the health IT provisions were important.

In fact Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of the three Republicans supporting the Obama administration-backed bill, helped craft the health IT provisions of the Senate bill, according to a press release from her office. "This provision will not only result in $10 billion in savings but also further improvements in care and costs as we implement health care reform, while creating over 40,000 new jobs that will endure," Snowe said.

Health IT funds survive in Senate's stimulus bill
By Nancy Ferris
Feb 08, 2009

A majority of the Senate has come to an agreement on a $780 billion economic stimulus bill that preserves most of the $23 billion in health information technology funding approved earlier by Senate committees.

With the support of three Republicans, won over by cutting other sections of the bill, the Senate is expected to approve its version of the stimulus bill Feb. 10, according to news services.

The House and Senate then will begin to reconcile their two bills, which differ in many respects. The House bill calls for about $20 billion in net health IT spending.

Total spending of more than $35 billion would be offset by about $15 billion in savings achieved through the use of health IT, according to an analysis of the House bill by the Congressional Budget Office. Most of the spending would occur in years 2011 through 2024, while the savings would materialize only in 2016 and thereafter.

There appear to be no major controversies between the House and Senate on the health IT provisions. However, there were reports that the Senate bill would eliminate $140 million in IT funding for the Social Security Administration, including funds for retrieving disability applicants’ medical records electronically from hospitals and other records repositories.

Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of the three Republicans supporting the Obama administration-backed bill, helped craft the health IT provisions of the Senate bill, according to a press release from her office. "This provision will not only result in $10 billion in savings but also further improvements in care and costs as we implement health care reform, while creating over 40,000 new jobs that will endure," Snowe said.

The bill would provide financial incentives for doctors and hospitals to use e-medical records, establish in law the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT, strengthen privacy protections for individuals’ health records, require notifications when data is breached, require Medicare providers receiving subsidies to file clinical quality reports and create programs to support education and training of health IT professionals and health IT research and development.

Congressional leaders still hope to deliver a stimulus bill to President Barack Obama by Feb. 16, but Washington observers speculated that it might be delayed because of the number of issues to be resolved in the House-Senate conference.

Link to full article:

http://govhealthit.com/articles/200...e-in-senates-stimulus-bill.aspx?s=GHIT_100209

 

[Muushka]

EMR is the first step of the very slippery slope.

 

[lsyorke]

EMR is the first step of the very slippery slope.

Do you really think this isn't happening right now? Medicare and all major insurance companies have a complete medical record on their subscribers.
The majority of hospitals are already on an EMR system.

 

[Muushka]

I'm aware of the EMR and who uses them. The slippery slope that I speak of has to do with mandatory EMR and how the government will use them.

 

[Charade]

My wife and I were talking about this tonight. We're both not comfortable with such a centralized database and if implemented, would like to have the option to opt-out.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I'm aware of the EMR and who uses them. The slippery slope that I speak of has to do with mandatory EMR and how the government will use them.

This is a first step. The dems are good at doing things in "little baby steps"...until their real agenda can be put in place.

You know, I think this has happened in other countries. Before they knew it, their country had been taken over and their way of life gone....forever.

 

[Geoff_M]

"This provision will not only result in $10 billion in savings but also further improvements in care and costs as we implement health care reform, while creating over 40,000 new jobs that will endure," Snowe said.

The savings are hypothetical, but the costs are real (and hopefully this project won't have the cost overruns that major federal IT projects are notorious for). Also note that the provision would create a significant number of new federal employees that would have to be added to the Federal payrolls for years to come. This is a prime example of something that doesn't belong in a bill designed for "temporary" economic stimulus.

As for the privacy concerns, I'm not terribly worried about privacy concerns as I'm sure that HIPAA-type rules will apply. However, I question the assertion that my insurance company now has copies of my "full" medical records. From what I've read that if you have an individual health policy you likely will have authorized the insurance company to be able to request information from your records, but its not so certain if you're part of a group plan.

 

[manning]

This is a first step. The dems are good at doing things in "little baby steps"...until their real agenda can be put in place.

You know, I think this has happened in other countries. Before they knew it, their country had been taken over and their way of life gone....forever.

Sad for us but the flip side is when those who are in favor wake up one day and say what they never thought they would.....WHAT HAPPENED??

 

[honugirl]

As for the privacy concerns, I'm not terribly worried about privacy concerns as I'm sure that HIPAA-type rules will apply. However, I question the assertion that my insurance company now has copies of my "full" medical records. From what I've read that if you have an individual health policy you likely will have authorized the insurance company to be able to request information from your records, but its not so certain if you're part of a group plan.

Insurance companies do not have "full" medical records. Mine does not have copies of any of my lab tests, those belong to the lab company, I can barely get copies of them, I have to beg and plead and they're my results. I'm not sure how much of my records that they do have, I'm guessing not very much, only the orders for what's being done.

 

[bicker]

I don't have a problem with there being a separate system for folks who wish to opt-out of the medical records system, as long as that separate system is wholly self-funded, i.e., neither taxpayers nor insurance premium-payers from within the national system should have to pay one penny because some people want to remain outside the medical records system. That safeguards the cost savings that are the entire point of the medical records system.

To capitalize on the cost savings, figure that all federal and state medical benefits, and employer- or association-provided medical insurance, will be dispensed solely within the national system (unless someone decides to underwrite insurance that is, itself, wholly self-funded, with no recourse to go back to the government for assistance). So, if you're really serious about remaining outside the medical records system, then you're opting-out of all those possible resources. How many of you really-truly would choose to pay all your medical expenses from your own bank accounts just to keep your medical records outside the national medical records system? Seriously?

 

[honugirl]

I don't have a problem with there being a separate system for folks who wish to opt-out of the medical records system, as long as that separate system is wholly self-funded, i.e., neither taxpayers nor insurance premium-payers from within the national system should have to pay one penny because some people want to remain outside the medical records system. That safeguards the cost savings that are the entire point of the medical records system.

To capitalize on the cost savings, figure that all federal and state medical benefits, and employer- or association-provided medical insurance, will be dispensed solely within the national system (unless someone decides to underwrite insurance that is, itself, wholly self-funded, with no recourse to go back to the government for assistance). So, if you're really serious about remaining outside the medical records system, then you're opting-out of all those possible resources. How many of you really-truly would choose to pay all your medical expenses from your own bank accounts just to keep your medical records outside the national medical records system? Seriously?

Honestly, in my situation, if I had the resources to, I probably would pay OOP for medical care, especially if we went to socialized medicine. There's a reason why people from Canada pay OOP to come down to the states and why many people with my disease choose to come over here from Europe. Some people with my disease are freaking out because if this comes to fruition, it's going to be very scary times for us. Because of the nature of my disease and how it's diagnosed, many people in this new system would never see a diagnosis or a cure.

 

[LaraK]

An opt out system is neither practical nor safe. This provision will not save a penny unless massive tort reform accompanies it. Unless, of course, this does take us down the road towards a nationalized healthcare system and this information will be used to deny care to people who don't qualify. Ironic, huh?

 

[bicker]

As honugirl pointed out, a type of opt-out system already operates, with Canadians paying OOP for American health care. However, I agree that it isn't practical, for the reasons I alluded to (too few people would really be interested in foregoing federal and state benefits, and employer- and association-sponsored insurance). Safety? There is always going to be a cost to opting-out of something that society offers for your protection.

However, this provision will save a penny -- lots of them -- without tort reform. Tort reform will save more money. The two things are not necessarily related.

 

[minnie61650]

Computerizing records will help prevent a lot of repeat tests.

For example:
The records of past xrays etc will be availible if you had them done in the past and you see a new specialist the new Doctor could pull up your records with your permission and may not need a whole new set of xrays etc.

Doctors could get a complete list of medications you have been given in the past and the list of reactions you may had to any of those meds which is extreamly helpful but even more so if you arrive at a hospital
unconscious.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[honugirl]

One of the reasons I would opt out is that once they get into my records they could see that I have a brain tumor and a rare disease. What if someone somehow was able to get a hold of that info and denied me access to jobs and other things because my tumor may reoccur? Right now, as it is, an employer can not see what's in there, but with a national database, you never know what might happen. Ever seen the movie Gattaca? If you haven't, you might want to see it...

 

[minnie61650]

One of the reasons I would opt out is that once they get into my records they could see that I have a brain tumor and a rare disease. What if someone somehow was able to get a hold of that info and denied me access to jobs and other things because my tumor may reoccur? Right now, as it is, an employer can not see what's in there, but with a national database, you never know what might happen. Ever seen the movie Gattaca? If you haven't, you might want to see it...

I can understand your concerns.

Your employer should not be able to see any of your medical records without your permission.

The bill would provide financial incentives for doctors and hospitals to use e-medical records, establish in law the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT, strengthen privacy protections for individuals’ health records, require notifications when data is breached, require Medicare providers receiving subsidies to file clinical quality reports and create programs to support education and training of health IT professionals and health IT research and development.

 

[tink_n_pooh]

I am in favor of a centralized system in, and only in, the idea that you and yoru healthcare providers will have access to all test results & medical history no matter where you go. It's hard enough to get that info passed along when you are at home, forget if you are away on vacation and need emergency care. I would have no problem being able to opt-in and even pay out of pocket for a system like that.

No for the rest of it, I don't like it one bit. Why does the government need to know what tests my doctor is ordering? So some medical Czar can come back and tell him/me it's not necessary (to who's standards I wonder)? So someone else can decide on my medical care?

 

[minnie61650]

Prsident Obama's plan is not a National health care plan.

Under the plan, if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year. If you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of new, affordable health insurance options.




From the Change.Gov website:

The Obama-Biden Plan
On health care reform, the American people are too often offered two extremes -- government-run health care with higher taxes or letting the insurance companies operate without rules. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe both of these extremes are wrong, and that’s why they’ve proposed a plan that strengthens employer coverage, makes insurance companies accountable and ensures patient choice of doctor and care without government interference.

The Obama-Biden plan provides affordable, accessible health care for all Americans, builds on the existing health care system, and uses existing providers, doctors, and plans. Under the Obama-Biden plan, patients will be able to make health care decisions with their doctors, instead of being blocked by insurance company bureaucrats.

Under the plan, if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year. If you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of new, affordable health insurance options.

Make Health Insurance Work for People and Businesses -- Not Just Insurance and Drug Companies.

Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums.

Create a new Small Business Health Tax Credit to help small businesses provide affordable health insurance to their employees.

Lower costs for businesses by covering a portion of the catastrophic health costs they pay in return for lower premiums for employees.

Prevent insurers from overcharging doctors for their malpractice insurance and invest in proven strategies to reduce preventable medical errors.

Make employer contributions more fair by requiring large employers that do not offer coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees' health care.

Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage.

Ensure everyone who needs it will receive a tax credit for their premiums.

Reduce Costs and Save a Typical American Family up to $2,500 as reforms phase in:
Lower drug costs by allowing the importation of safe medicines from other developed countries, increasing the use of generic drugs in public programs, and taking on drug companies that block cheaper generic medicines from the market.

Require hospitals to collect and report health care cost and quality data.

Reduce the costs of catastrophic illnesses for employers and their employees.

Reform the insurance market to increase competition by taking on anticompetitive activity that drives up prices without improving quality of care.

The Obama-Biden plan will promote public health. It will require coverage of preventive services, including cancer screenings, and increase state and local preparedness for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

A Commitment to Fiscal Responsibility: Barack Obama will pay for his $50 - $65 billion health care reform effort by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000 per year and retaining the estate tax at its 2009 level.

 

[Charade]

I don't have a problem with there being a separate system for folks who wish to opt-out of the medical records system, as long as that separate system is wholly self-funded, i.e., neither taxpayers nor insurance premium-payers from within the national system should have to pay one penny because some people want to remain outside the medical records system. That safeguards the cost savings that are the entire point of the medical records system.

To capitalize on the cost savings, figure that all federal and state medical benefits, and employer- or association-provided medical insurance, will be dispensed solely within the national system (unless someone decides to underwrite insurance that is, itself, wholly self-funded, with no recourse to go back to the government for assistance). So, if you're really serious about remaining outside the medical records system, then you're opting-out of all those possible resources. How many of you really-truly would choose to pay all your medical expenses from your own bank accounts just to keep your medical records outside the national medical records system? Seriously?

I disagree that there will be any difference in cost because the Dr. already keeps records at no extra cost to me (it's built in). The only thing that they will have to do is uncheck the "add to national database" check box to opt-out.