Net Wellness Tips

Over the last few years I have observed conversations and information regarding the need for electronic health information and electronic medical records on a national scale. The information to date has seemed very promising and enabling; however, I am concerned that with the rush to implement, we as a nation may over look some items that I feel are necessary safety and security protocols.

Currently, if a person is the victim of medical identity theft they have a great deal of “proving” to do before anyone will help them, In addition, there is a great deal of existing proof that even after the hospitals and creditors have been satisfied of the remedy, there exists the long term danger of “tainted” information.

When a person is the victim of identity theft medical care is provided, entries are made, and claims are filed with the insurance payer. In an all-electronic world each of these entities would be making entries into a system that is more universal in nature. While this may actually aid in the proper delivery of care, it can also aid in the delivery of improper care that could result in long term injury and death.

There are currently several systems providers that deliver a type of “patient profile” that is based on previous claims data. If the data is compromised between a real patient data and co-mingled with data from the “false patient” [the person who used someone else's insurance information], the provider attempting to deliver no-voice-no-vote care in an emergency situation may actually rely on information that does not accurately represent the person in their emergency room.

Over the last several months I have heard and read where executives from several companies are talking down regarding safety protocols and medical/health records mitigation as nothing more than hurdles and obstacles to improving healthcare information delivery. I believe this to be self-serving and disingenuous for several reasons:

1. Adding safety and records mitigation protocols ensure patient safety as an ongoing concept and practice

2. No industry would be allowed to operate, where the officials in charge of it stated that the market or other bodies would be responsible for creating safety procedures. Can you imagine if the auto industry stated, “we make cars, let the market figure out how to regulate safety”? I doubt that Congress or any other body would consider these people as remotely credible, yet I hear time and time again these statements being made in public and private forums by executives, lobbyists, and even so-called healthcare leaders.

3. For the public and providers to embrace a product that has no regulation, no built-in safeguards, and obviously no importance to safety from the makers of these products, why would Congress expect the American public or health care providers to embrace a product or concept that involves the unregulated risk of injury, death, or staggering liability opportunities, let alone without any hope of remedy or proper relief?

I have a passion for healthcare delivery and believe that people should receive nothing but the best leadership in this matter from all levels of local, state, and federal government, when it comes to our countries best long term interests.

Martin Ethridgehill, BS [Healthcare Quality Consultant]

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Martin_Ethridgehill