Limbaugh repeats health IT falsehood from Bloomberg "commentary" on House recovery bill
SUMMARY: Rush Limbaugh repeated a falsehood in a Bloomberg "commentary" by Betsy McCaughey that claimed that under a provision in the House-passed economic recovery bill, "[o]ne new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and 'guide' your doctor's decisions." In fact, the provisions McCaughey referenced address establishing an electronic records system such that doctors would have information about their patients "to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care."
On February 9, Rush Limbaugh repeated a falsehood from a Bloomberg "commentary" by Betsy McCaughey, headlined "Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan." In the commentary, McCaughey falsely claimed that under provisions in the economic recovery bill passed by House Democrats, "[o]ne new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and 'guide' your doctor's decisions." In fact, the language in the House bill that McCaughey, a former lieutenant governor of New York, referenced does not establish authority to "monitor treatments" or restrict what "your doctor is doing" with regard to patient care, but rather addresses establishing an electronic records system such that doctors would have complete, accurate information about their patients "to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care."
On the February 9 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh repeated McCaughey's falsehood, saying:
LIMBAUGH: Betsy McCaughey has written a column at Bloomberg detailing some of the most onerous provisions in this stimulus bill on health care. And there's a new bureaucracy created, the national coordinator of health information technology. Now, listen to this. The national coordinator of health information technology will monitor treatments that your doctor gives you to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost-effective.
On the conservative blog Wizbang, Kim Priestap also referenced the commentary in a February 9 post:
Read all of Betsy's article and then pass it on to everyone you know. Rush has been all over this today to bring it to people's attention. Call your senators and representatives. Currently, phone calls to Capitol Hill are 100 to 1 against the bill. We need to do more. This is why Barack Obama is going all over the country scaring the American people into believing that our economy could collapse if the bill isn't passed. He wants this made into law before anyone knows that nationalized -- and rationed -- health care will be the result. If you have a loved one with a serious medical condition, this will be detrimental to his or her life. [Emphases in original.]
By 10:40 p.m. ET, the Drudge Report linked to McCaughey's commentary using the headline " 'National Coordinator of Health Information Technology' Slipped in to Stimulus...":
From the bill:
SEC. 3001. OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL COORDINATOR FOR HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.
"(a) Establishment-- There is established within the Department of Health and Human Services an Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (referred to in this section as the 'Office'). The Office shall be headed by a National Coordinator who shall be appointed by the Secretary and shall report directly to the Secretary.
"(b) Purpose-- The National Coordinator shall perform the duties under subsection (c) in a manner consistent with the development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information and that--
"(1) ensures that each patient's health information is secure and protected, in accordance with applicable law;
"(2) improves health care quality, reduces medical errors, reduces health disparities, and advances the delivery of patient-centered medical care;
"(3) reduces health care costs resulting from inefficiency, medical errors, inappropriate care, duplicative care, and incomplete information;
"(4) provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care;
"(5) ensures the inclusion of meaningful public input in such development of such infrastructure;
"(6) improves the coordination of care and information among hospitals, laboratories, physician offices, and other entities through an effective infrastructure for the secure and authorized exchange of health care information;
"(7) improves public health activities and facilitates the early identification and rapid response to public health threats and emergencies, including bioterror events and infectious disease outbreaks;
"(8) facilitates health and clinical research and health care quality;
"(9) promotes prevention of chronic diseases;
"(10) promotes a more effective marketplace, greater competition, greater systems analysis, increased consumer choice, and improved outcomes in health care services; and
"(11) improves efforts to reduce health disparities.
From McCaughey's commentary:
Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama's stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.
Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.
Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).
The bill's health rules will affect "every individual in the United States" (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.
But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and "guide" your doctor's decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis." According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and "learn to operate less like solo practitioners."
Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.
"This is why Barack Obama is going all over the country scaring the American people into believing that our economy could collapse if the bill isn't passed. He wants this made into law before anyone knows that nationalized -- and rationed -- health care will be the result. If you have a loved one with a serious medical condition, this will be detrimental to his or her life." (Italics mine)
You can't make this stuff up. Obama is "scaring" people to get his way, followed by a warning about how this fictional governmental control is going to harm your loved ones.
This reminds me a little of the theory that the magnetic strips in paper bills are put there to monitor people's locations. There are obvious explanations for why those strips are there, so there's no reason to think there's anything nefarious behind the idea. Similarly, an electronic records system has obvious benefits, so there's no reason to believe it's about anything more than efficient and accurate medical care.
Brab,
I'll be doing a 10 page report for school on Single Payer Universal Healthcare, it will be a good contrast to reality having blubbery clowns like him continously making up their version of truth on a daily basis...
Your right... I wonder how many simple minded self proclaimed dittohead Americans believe all this made up crap, like the true nature of the magnetic strips? Of Rush's total listeners... how many think for themselves? Meaning... not spouting off the same garbage he does and looking it up themslves using alternative sources and realizing that Rush's whole show must be some kind of a sick schtick and not in any way meant to be taken for real? Ever!
"This is why Barack Obama is going all over the country scaring the American people......
but it was ok for Bush to scare americans during the election cycles with his terror scares? Gimme a break.
What is ironic is that Limbaugh plays to the paranoid tendencies of people who are cautious about, and inclined to believe the worst posible scenarios of, government intervention...yet these same people mindlessly believe Limbaugh without question or proof. It would appear to me that peole who are warned to be vigilant against lying would be equally cautious in believing what a radio entertainer tells them.
Last night before I went to bed I looked at the Sean Hannity forum (a perverse pleasure of mine) just to see what kind of nutty reaction President Obama's press conference had generated there. In one thread a woman and another poster insisted that the President's stimulus package contained over $4 billion for ACORN. Another frustrated poster kept telling them that the bill contained no such provision and nowhere in the bill is ACORN mentioned. However, as proof that ACORN was in the bill, the two pro-Hannity posters, who refused to look up the bill themselves, kept pasting right wing news accounts of grandstanding Republican politicians denouncing ACORN's alleged inclusion in the bill. Finally, the woman poster said that Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and the Republican politicians were all saying that ACORN was included in the bill...so therefore she believed that it had to be true.
It continues to amaze me how people cannot think for themselves and, like children, believe everything they are told by Limbaugh, et als.
The people who can't think for themselves and mindlessly repeat the nonsense they hear on talk radio are usually those closest to poverty. Too bad that this guy will still be wealthy after they've lost their jobs and their homes but not their trust in so called men like Limbaugh and Hannity.
Aren't these the same people who still believe that we found WMDs in Iraq?
RUsh's dittoheads still believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the 9/11 attacks.....
What's even scarier is these dittoheads try to brainwash their kids in to believing this crap too. Then we'll have another generation of even more ignorant people to deal with.
That's an excellent point. Not only is it helpful to the medical community, but for many families as well.
We're never going to have an honest dialogue like this, where even the most common-sense measures are screeched at by conservatives. If Republicans in Congress have any interest in "bipartisan" behavior, they need to denounce people like Limbaugh. You can't embrace this sort of person as your unofficial leader and then act as if you have any interest in having a rational dialogue or making compromises.
I could be wrong, but I think Walgreens has been doing this for years. I think they can access your prescription records from any other Walgreens in the country. It just makes sense. And, like you said, it will create new jobs.
My doctors and the hospitals can and should have access to my records.
The federal government can't and should NOThave that access under any circumstances. Makes perfect sense.
We don't need a government agency to serve as a warehouse for our medical records. It's no business of theirs
Where does the bill say that it is no longer necessary for the patient to sign a HPPA consent form for the release of his records to any entity?
are you kidding me? Since the government would be dictating if treatments are necessary and prudent (in this scenario) then who do you think you would have to sign records to? I guess you could forgo signing, but you wouldn't get care anymore. Kind of like if you don't sign a HIPAA form for your insurance now, they won't pay for any of your treatments.
Wow. The irrational paranoia. Do you see bugs crawling under your skin?
Have you seen the movie "Bug"?
Which one? the one from 1975 or the recent one?
I will state without fear of contradiction that Betsy McCaughey is a paid paranoid ditz. She either just arrived on the healthcare technology front, or is paid for disseminating disinformation. Perhaps both?
The government IS NOT serving as a warehouse for medical records - except for VA medical records. Sad to say, in my opinion, private enterprises are seeking to hold your electronic medical records with no ability for you to control them once you sign a HIPAA waiver. But that's a discussion for another day.
The goal of the funding in the stimulus bill is to standardize the data formats so that they avoid the "tower of babel" syndrome where proprietary systems can't communicate with each other or share information. It's similar to the way the US government assigned a group to set basic standards for the Internet - rules for URLs, top level domains, address name servers, MAC addresses, arbitrating disputes, etc. (I have had a very bad experience with ICANN too, but I'll leave that for another day.)
We have some existing electronic healthcae standards, but not enough for a robust system THAT SAVES MONEY in duplication, confusion and rework. Ms. McCaughey obviously has low reading comprehension or knowledge of computers.
Examples are Medicare which uses a 5 digit payment coding model call ICD-9CM the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems which are in the public domain (free).
The American Medical Association (AMA) has a set of procedures called CPT-4 or Current Procedural Terminology 4th Edition which codifies clinical practice. The CPT is trademarked and a royalty is paid to the AMA for its use.
As noted there are also similar methods for coding pharmaceuticals and other health related products and services.
Compensation from your insurance firm to your doctor (what is now called a healthcare provider) requires a combination of CPT-4 code and matching ICD-9 code that your insurance policy approves. If the numbers don't match, they don't pay the doc, and she has to resubmit the bill with new codes ad infinitum.
I've done systems analysis for medical payment technologies and am working on a new patented medical device.
Where in the bill does it say the government will "warehouse" medical records? All it will do is allow secure access to records at other medical facilities.
You should probably lighten up on your dose of Limbaugh. Your ignorance is starting to show.
You think the federal government shouldn't have access to your medical records. Just out of curiosity, where do you stand on abortion? Were you for or against the government's intervention in the Terry Schiavo case? What about assisted suicide? For that matter, do you think suicide should be legal or illegal? What about veteran's medical records, should the government have access to them?
For that matter, where do you stand on the government's domestic spying program?
Since when is this guy an expert on everything?
I've noticed that he's a draft dodger with a penchant for war. A serial divorcee who preaches family values. A dope fiend who argues that all dope fiends be jailed. And now he's a guy who's never had a real job doing anything except mouthing off who knows every minute detail of the medical, financial and technology fields.
Rush Goebbels is nothing more than the GOP Propaganda Minister.
Thing that gets me the most, is NOW they're worried about the government intruding on our privacy. Never under Bush, where actual intrustions were happening, but now they're worried about something that "might" happen? Jeesh...
Someday I hope a psychologist or sociologist writes a definitive book about the Right Wing Talk Radio phenomenon, in particular the Rush Limbaugh scam.
In some ways, I guess it's no mystery; history is peppered with examples of weak minded people succumbing to groupthink, often with tragic consequences.
Listening in on terrorists is good. You just have to show some evidence that they're a terrorist. You can't listen in on just anyone, with no oversight, and then claim you were eavesdropping on "terrorists". That's the problem.
That's no problem. You just torture them until they admit being a terrorist.
Show us exactly where the bill states, not some drug addled draft dodger, that the government will have access to your medical records.
How many of the phone calls made by soldiers serving in Iraq, speaking to loved ones, does it take for your kind to see that it's not just terrorists whose privacy was invaded, but those who signed up to fight and possibly die, to protect these freedoms as well?
So, how is it any worse for a government bureaucrat to have access to your medical records than an Insurance Company bureaucrat having access to it?
I am a little confused about one thing. The release of a patient's medical records to anyone, even another health care provider, requires the consent of the patient in the form of his/her signature on a HPPA form, which is universally accepted from state to state. Someone please show me where the bill in question in any way supercedes the requirement for the patient's consent for the release of his/her medical records. My take on the bill is that it merely simplifies the storage of and access to one's medical records by maintaining them electronically...but I don't see where the HPPA consent form for release of records has been abrogated. I will stand corrected if that is not the case, and, maybe I missed it, but I don't see that addressed.
Maybe Rush is worried that Obama will use bush's executive order on eavsdropping to hack into his records for some nefareous reason?
Rush is worried that HIS electronic medical records will show that no less than 17 doctors prescribed oxycontin for him all at the same time...
Irony, you nailed it in one.
Now go take some oxycontin and you'll see how it looks in Bizarro world.
And your utter idiocy never ceases to entertain the rest of us in here!
Are you posting about magnolia's reply to worrierking? That is not what he said...
What he said was that NOW Rush and the rightwing/corporate interests are worried about the government listening in or knowing anything about us under Obama and the Dems... but under Bush/Cheney.... near total silence or non-stop defending of the Republican government stepping on all our 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendment rights on the off chance of a terrorist's phone call being overheard!
The hypocrisy and/or cluelessness of boneheads like you is whats so damn amazing!
DICK, I finally believe the phrase...
LIMBAUGH LIES, BRAIN CELLS DIE. DICK, you cannot be believed. You make no sense. You cannot be taken serious. You make no sense. Thanks for you posting...You are the new RESUME of the Right...not believable and nonsensical.
P.S. you always try to change a thread...but these posters play with you for fun.
When did the right discover privacy?
January 20, 2009....the same day they lost their right to govern. This is going to become comical with the Repubums claiming privacy. 60-40 or BUST.
Do you really believe that the US government hasn't been able to get your personal medical records if they really wanted them?
My God, we have laws protecting our privacy, against torture and unwarranted searches, yet the government has been doing what it pleases for eight years.
Where were you then?
King, these people believe in only what they are told. They aren't like them thar libruls. The Republicans NEED the Limbaugh Leadership Program and the Hannity Conservative Underground Movement to give them info. And since there is no liberal radio, how can libruls know so much? Is it just common sense thinking or researching information?
Imagine being a mind-prisoner of these two moneygrabbing dolts.
Just an offhand observation:
Hannity's Underground Conservative Movement was a natural progression. Once one's head is buried in the sand, the rest of the body is bound to follow.
Exactly. Most of our personal information is keyed to what number? Yes, Social Security. Who has access to our SS#? The U.S. Government. They can find out whatever they want to find out about us already.
The last eight years for the Republicans are the "Forgotten Years". The Congressmen act as if they weren't there. Actually, they weren't. They listened to a guy named George Bush. How sad they must feel about that.
P.S. Thanx Prez for showing the world how people speak. What would Bushs' answers have sounded like? Mind boggling.
The last eight years for the Republicans are the "Forgotten Years". The Congressmen act as if they weren't there. Actually, they weren't. They listened to a guy named George Bush. How sad they must feel about that.
P.S. Thanx Prez for showing the world how people speak. What would Bushs' answers have sounded like? Mind boggling.
We've always been at war with Eastasia.
"We should not be so eager to give up our privacy rights in the name of "efficiency.""
But giving it up in the name of fighting "turrists" is our patriotic duty, right?
egarbett3762,
I could not be in more agreement with you about the government having unnecessary access to my infomation... but I'm curious...
Where was your anger and venom when the Bush/Cheney crime families were undermining all our Constitutional rights the last eight years?
You do know that they were already listening in on millions of phone calls without warrants literally from the first moment of Bush taking his lie...er oath of office back in early 2001. So the idea that it was about fighting terror is a joke all its own!
While it can be somewhat understandable (only in the context of getting to the bottom of 9/11) about these clowns maybe doing what they did (although I find it hard to accept) to keep us safe.
But the fact is... the Bush regime had to have known that 9/11 was going to happen. Either really incompetent or complicit. Nearly, if not every move they made not only undermined We the People, but the safety of the entire planet!
Your anger toward the needless invasion of Iraq? Where is/was it? Bin Laden may still be alive? Your anger toward that?
What do you think the USAPATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions act, and the Defense Authorization bills were? Do you really think these were enacted to simply keep us safe? Or to keep us from protesting in the streets? Or too scared to do much to stop those neanderthals?
And your worried now about an Obama led government having access to our medical records? I have news for ya....
Because of the three listed laws that were enacted by BUSH/CHENEY and the REPUBLICANS.... Obama already does and then some!
So again.... I ask you... and I ask Cheney2012 as well..... where was all this anger toward Bush and Cheney as they were undermining our freedoms then??
And you may wonder why people like me in here consider people like you two fools!
Better run and hide... the black helicopters are hovering over your house.
You are beyond clueless.
Ms. McCaughey is grossly disinforming you.
"It is not so unbelievable that this is part of the President's agenda."
What? IT IS UNBELIEVABLE!
I am what the US Patent Office describes a "one skilled in the art" of inventing and using this kind of technology. I also work with encryption technologies. You seem unaware the under Bush & Cheney the NSA has been monitoring your MEDICAL INFORMATION for nearly 8 years. Every call you made to your doctor, dentist, pharmacist, therapist, etc. has been captured, digitized and indexed by origination point and end point.
I could ask the questions, "Why does the government want to monitor YOUR treatments? What do you have to hide, hmmm? Is your medical condition related to your illicit drug use? If you're using heroin isn't it 75% likely it came from Afghanistan and therefore you are funding the Taleban and al Qaeda? Isn't that prima facie proof that you fund terrorists and hate America?"
I'll have to suggest that benefit to el Rushbo tomorrow.
I had forgotten about the revelation that the wiretaps started before 9/11. Whatever happened to that story? You'd think the "liberal media" would be all over such an obvious abuse of executive power, but I'm pretty sure that Tom Daschle's tax snafu got more coverage.
OT, but Lindsey Graham just threatened Obama with a call to obstruct anything Obama tries to pass. Poor little lindsey got his feelings hurt because nasty mean ol Barack tried to reach out to him, he refused, so Barack said "fine, I'll get someone else to play ball with". What a bunch of little sissies republicans turned out to be.
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/lindsey-graham-threatens-president-obam
Speaking of McCain's entourage, I saw Joe Liebermann on Morning Joe, and he was sounding like a good Democrat again... supporting the Stimulus Bill. Obama supported Liebermann when the Liberals wanted his head on a spike.... I guess Liebermann is paying his debt.
Apparently, one of Rush's functions for the GOP is to test new talking points and propaganda. I don't know if he has any authorship of this nonsense, but he's usually one of the first to puke it into the public arena.
It could be that the Troglodytes realize they've lost their battle to kill the stimulus bill, so this may signal a preemptive strike against any kind of healthcare reform.
They will characterize it as a massive Government intrusion into our privacy and medical care... they'll tell us that we won't be able to choose our own doctors... that we'll have to wait six months for a flu shot... that we will become like.....ugh....FRANCE!
If you think the fight over the stimulus bill has been ugly, wait until the Democrats try healthcare again.
They must have already signed the new Free Health Bill last night..Called my doctor to get an appointment. He said 4-6 weeks. I told him I have the same Health Insurance as Dick Cheney. He said he'd be right over.
Is Lindsay Graham getting a little sissified lately? And wasn't he sitting on McCains' knee during the election? Well Lindsay, you want to take on this Administration for future votes for yourself, be our guest..but sit in the back of the room until you are called upon.
I guess the other Republicans took Lindsay into the broom closet and showed him the error of his foolish bi-partisan ways. His latest tirades on the Senate floor have sounded like all the other lying Troglodytes.... and he used to be so nice and reasonable.
Upon further review, after watching this Republican Leadership, I am convince that Rush Limbaugh IS the new leader of the Republican Party. At least the most effective. Yesterday when Hannity was talking to Spector about his vote on the bill, SeannieBoy said that he would have liked to have been at the negotiating table...Spector told him 'get yourself elected to the Senate'. Sort of puts SeanniesBoys world in prospective.
SeannieBoy said that he would have liked to have been at the negotiating table...
The Audacity of Stupidity...
I think the republicans ask him for their talking points. Limbaugh coined porkulus, now I hear republicans on tv calling it porkulus. Maulkin calls it the generational theft act of 2009, now I hear republicans calling it that too. Amazing, part of our government is now run by talk radio.
Correction, Snoop...the government is not being run by talk radio, just the Republican Party is. And they seem to be okay with that, too...
No wonder republicans want to limit the right to vote. They'd be content just letting talk radio make their decisions for them!
There would be no need for elections because there is already a concensus of opinion among real Americans...according to talk radio. Elections would be unnecessary formalities. Right wing politicians would simply apply to President Rush for appointment to office...and removed at his will. Because Rush speaks for the people... ;>)
Now there's a scary thought. I could just see that dirtbag appointing and removing at will, like a king. Now there's some irony...
We laugh about it but go to Hannity's forum and read the idiotic (but serious) posts about either Limbaugh or Hannity becoming President in 2012. In realy it's far-fetched...but, in concept, there are followers of right wing talk radio who think it's a good idea. But, consider this...if you read the views of neoconservative writers in the nineties espousing pre-emptive wars you might have been inclined to be thankful that, because these views were so nutty, these people would never be in a position of power to implement them. And then Geroge W. Bush was elected and the same neocons found homes in the Pentagon and the White House. It's a cautionary tale.
I hate to toot my own horn, but, as i predicted, the Republiterd pundits on cable news last night were repeating the charge that Obama was continuing the Bush spending spree. They even admitted that Bush doubled the deficit. I guess defending Bush is no longer politically expedient.
I don't claim any prescient powers or insight.... it's just that these douchebags have become so pathetically predictable.
Who admitted Bush doubled the federal debt? I want the quote.
I can't get any republican supporter to admit Bush ran up over $5 TRILLION in deficits.
When is he not...?
Good point.
From the bill:
"(6) improves the coordination of care and information among hospitals, laboratories, physician offices, and other entities through an effective infrastructure for the secure and authorized exchange of health care information;"
Can anyone tell me who the "other entities" are? Or who they could be?
Is it farfetched to suggest that a governmental entity could insert itself in the process through a backdoor -defining itself as an "other entity"?
That sort of language is common simply because any entities that should be involved might be excluded otherwise. Note the phrase "secure and authorized exchange" that follows. That would suggest it's secure and available to those authorized.
you didn't answer his question at all on what specifically those other entities could be. You just defended and expanded on its vagueness even more.
The whole purpose of such phrases is that the other entities are not known, so of course it's "vague". Any others that should qualify but that weren't thought of at the time are included. It's just like "including but not limited to" or "etc". It's not unusual language at all, and shouldn't raise any eyebrows.
The "authorized" language is also no more vague than the language that allows law enforcement to enter and search ones house.
I wonder... was it the PATRIOT act that made conservatives more aware of governement abuse of authority?
Thank you for your answer.
"That would suggest it's secure and available to those authorized."
Mistakes happen. Remember back in 2006? ...."Electronic data containing the personal information of as many as 26.5 million veterans has been stolen from the home of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employee who violated agency policy by leaving the office with the information."
The creation of this new position/dept. is not inherently bad but it does create another opportunity for another mistake on a scale far worse than the VA example.
That's easy....
The Illuminati, the Bilderberg Group, the Free Masons, the Council on Foreign Relations, the U.N. and the ACLU. How else are they going to track that computer chip implanted in your skull?
Hey nerzog--that information should be given out on a 'need to know' basis only. Now MrZ is onto the dummy entities George Soros uses to launder the money he pays us to post on this site. On second thought maybe he just isn't that smart. By the way have you noticed that the new skull chips don't give you the migraines?
And mine picks up Air America.
Mine just played the Howdy Dowdy Show? I need a new battery or I've got to get down to the FACTORY for a new implant. jamesB, need a lift I'm headed that way. I cna get you in. THEY already have all of your information.
That's a secret code. Decode the message here.
How about Insurers? They aren't enumerated in that sentence and might hold pertinent records. Or maybe pharmacists? Nah, must be a "secret" Dem Big Government plot to make citizens eat their veggies and quit smoking.
Hamas and Hezbolla.
Happy now?
Other entities could be nursing homes, therapy centres, hospices, clinics, EMT's in the field...
Try reading the item without the 'and other entities part. A rational response would be "why only hospitals, labs and physicians' offices?' It's not only standard legislative language, it makes sense. And it addresses your concern in the sentence itself: "secure and authorized exchange."
I work for a startup that is "another entity." We move data between medical devices and doctors. By default we're "another entity." It means we have a standard of care for the data just like the others in the chain.
Example is credit card information that represents monetary value, or could represent monetary if stolen. You want everyone in the chain of custody to maintain a high level of standard of care.
Jeez, are you people stupid or what?
The hilarious thing is that our financial information is already zipped all over the inernet and transferred through the air, easy to intercept by someone with the technological knowhow.
And these goobers are hysterical over the thought of some low-level bureaucrat seeing the results of their colonoscopy.
well, I'll let you be the judge of hillarity. If digitizing medical records is such a worrisome issue for these liars, then why do my customers pay me thousands and thousands of dollars to comply with ridicuously stringent federal rules regarding the handling of electronic medical records? All that is being proposed is to have a governing body come up with a standard that can be adopted VOLUNTARILY. Much like the international standards for email. For instance, a Squirrel mail server in Estonia and an Exchange server in LA can send mail back and forth if both adhere to international standards. The governing body cannot see or read the emails, they just provide a forum for the creation of standards.
BIngo.
An intelligent post. I'm shocked.
Whatever you think about the merits of having a National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, Betsy McCaughey is correct that this bill adds a whole new bureacracy to the government.
The logistics of creating a database this big is incredible.
Who is going to pay for the scanning of all those billions and billions of pages of patients medical histories that are in paper files? That alone will be prohibitive. What programs are going to be available to match up healthcare providers with the proper patients? How will security be enforced? Who will be able to see a person's private medical records? Who determines who can see which pieces of information?
There is an unwritten rule in IT that whatever the estimated costs are, double it, and double it again. My guess is that on this level you would double it a few more times to get into the ballpark of the true costs.
Just think of all the jobs that would create.... oh, wait.... government can't create "jobs".
But, seriously, data entry could be performed by clerical workers already employed by doctors, hospitals, etc. Would it really be any more than they're already doing for insurance companies and Medicare? It might be a pain up front, but would save time and money down the road.
I really don't think the software would be a huge problem. Something probably already exists that could be adapted for the purpose.
nerzog,
Apparently you do not work in either the healthcare industry or IT.
I found it funny that you refute your own snark about creating jobs when you say you think data entry would be performed by existing clerical workers. What you do not seem to understand is that whatever is required, that data entry would be adde to the existing data entry worker's workload. Where does that time and money come from to do that? You also ignore the fact that old records would have to be brought up to date. There are no doubt billions of pieces of information out there that are not online in patient records. Who puts that online? How do they do it? What hardware is needed to accomplish this? Are doctor's offices staffed to this? You also are ignorant that there are many systems out there that are not compatible. Just saying some program already exists is woefully simplistic not to mention unrealistic. Some programs can handle thousands of records cannot handle millions. Even so who writes the crosswalk programs to make the data compatible? Who decides? What about the millions of records out there that are not compatible housed in various insurance company computers, state agency computers, medicare and medicaid computers, hospitals, urgent care facilities, doctor offices, health clinics, women's clinics, etc.?
It would be a nightmare and billions would be spent on this new bureaucracy while at the same time reducing benefits patients currently enjoy.
I think you underestimate the ingenuity of computer geeks.
I don't know how old you are, but credit card information wasn't always transmitted by computer. As you may remember, the card number was imprinted via carbon paper onto a piece of cardboard, which had to be physically mailed to the credit card company.
That system has been computerized, the post office has been computerized. Federal Express and UPS are computerized. Amazon.com shows me books from my favorite categories when I go to their website, BEFORE I log in.
Don't tell me that simple data transfer and retrieval is somehow too complex for us to figure out. The memory required to store that kind of data is miniscule to what was used to create one Star Wars movie.
I'm not an IT guy, but I work with computers daily, and the software I work with is much more sophisticated than what you're describing.
Yes, somebody would have to program it, and yes, some doctors might have to hire extra staff, or the government might have to hire people to send in. A bureaucracy would have to be created, but I don't really believe it would be the impossible task that you've imagined.
Nerzog,
Below is an example of the problems governments have trying to build massive computer based databases. The example below is from England.
Among the biggest drains on the public purse in recent years have been big IT projects, such as the NHS national computer system.
The sheer scale and complexity of this project, thought to be the world's largest civilian IT project, means it is already years behind schedule and £6bn over budget, according to the National Audit Office.
The Home Office's decision last year to scrap plans for a giant new computer system to manage the national identity card scheme was, perhaps, the first sign that the government is losing faith in big IT projects
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6210708.stm
Just because the Brits cocked it up doesn't mean that it cannot be done, or that it shouldn't be done.
We put people on the moon; I think we can figure this out.
Ner, don't worry , us geeks have ALREADY perfected the data bases. Sheez, data bases were the first function of computers way back in the 40's. Again, the records are already mostly digital! All we need is some stadardization. AA, check out how the internet works some time, millions of disparate data networks all communicating with each other using a STANDARD. So what is the key word for today? Everyone: STANDARD
pit,
Again you are mistaken. The first function of of computers was not for databases. Look up Eniac.
The concept of relational databases was first described by Edgar Frank Codd (almost exclusively referenced as E. F. Codd in technical literature) in the IBM research report RJ599, dated August 19th, 1969.1 However, the article that is usually considered the cornerstone of this technology is "A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks," published in Communications of the ACM(Vol. 13, No. 6, June 1970, pp. 377-87). Only the first part of the article is available online.
http://www.15seconds.com/Issue/020522.htm
I am very familiar with TCP/IP protocols. Are you? You seem to conflate the standards set up for transmitting web pages with the standards needed and effort it takes to make different databases talk to each other. In many cases they can't. Standards are fine going forward, but those standards do not take care of the billions of existing historical medical records and the variety of ways they are stored, both digitally and paper based.
You do know what xml is don't you?
It's an interesting challenge, to be sure. That's why we need standards body much as ICANN was for Internet.
National Insecurity,
I know of XML but do not code in it.
I am not arguing the need for standards. I am simply pointing out that the new bureaucracy will have almost insurmountable difficulties, in a variety of areas, to making medical records available for all interested parties. Even if new standards are approved, there is the problem of incompatible existing records, not to mention those that are paper based.
Nerzog:
As usual, Rush is displaying his ignorance, but I think it's important to realize that there are NO good studies showing that electronic medical records either save money or prevent medical mistakes. The most conving data comes from the University of Pittsburgh pediatric ICU, where there was an otherwise unexplanable increase in deaths during the year after the installation of electronic charting. What seems to happen is that nurses and doctors start paying more intention to the computor and its needs, rather than the patient.
The main push for electronic records is coming from the large insurance companies. When you choose (or your employer chooses for you) a new policy, the waiver you sign will give the insurance company access to every doctor's visit and lab test you have had in your life. They will then have a field day denying claims because of pre-existing conditions, etc. Not a pleasant thought.
Can you link the Pitt study?
Also, under Obama's plan, insurers will not be allowed to deny claims based on preexisting conditions.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/116/6/1506)
The study doesn't show causation. Furthermore, a more recent study at the same hospital shows no increase in mortality.
Safety concerns can be addressed. The upside of full implementation is huge.
Yes, you're correct, causation was not demonstrated. But I find your reference ("Notre Dame Expert Believes Electronic Records Will Save Lives") even less convincing.
I've worked with both paper records and electronic records for many years. I feel like I pay more attention to the patient, am more efficient, and am a better doctor with paper records. But that's purely anecdotal.
I do feel that the possible benefits of electronic records are being hugely exaggerated, relying on "beliefs" without any supporting evidence.
If Newt Gingrich is so enthusiastic about them they can't be that good!
Just my two cents.
I suggest that this is much as some people of a certain age will only read emails if they are printed, and others will only read newspapers on, well, paper.
The challenge is real. But the problem my startup uncovered in our systems analysis is that much medical data is either mis-recorded, misplaced or lost.
We also found tremendous rework in the medical billing process. I met pediatricians who were compensated for barely 50% of their work due to conflicting ICD-9 and CPT-4 coding problems. General Practicioners had slightly better compensation, but similar problems due to the wide variety of conditions in their patients. Specialists had the best ratios because their specialty had little variation and consistent billing codes.
IMHO the problem is not government, it is, and has been for 15 years+ the "insurance" firms. I've heard this from my kids' pediatrician, my dermatologist, a cardiologist neighbor and pharmacist. I know a huge insurance firm board member who is oblivious to the complaints of real people.
"If Newt Gingrich is so enthusiastic about them they can't be that good!"
And if Nancy Reagan thinks stem-cell research for finding a cure to Alzheimer's is a worthy cause, it must not be. I don't believe anyone is inherently and automatically wrong about every single possible thing.
The Notre Dame professor is just a recent example. There is widespread agreement that computerizing medical records will save money and improve care, including from analysts at RAND.
And computerizing medical records definitely makes more sense than Gingrich's diagnostic chair.
Ignore him Nerzog. His unwritten law about IT costs doubling and doubling has been overridden by a new law that says if you don't hold up your end of the contract, you don't get paid. This is the law that most successful IT companies live by.
And the healthcare industry is already partially computerized. I've worked in IT and my wife works teaches in the IT Department of her healthcare company. She and I say the Barney is once again just looking for info online that backs up his closed mindedness.
Technology, when applied in the real world, has worked pretty well so far. To hell with the flatearthers.
"Technology, when applied in the real world, has worked pretty well so far."
Technology, when applied in the real world, has not always worked out pretty well.
Nuclear fission to produce bombs to kill people, not so good.
Nuclear fission to produce electricity, really good.
anotheramerican,
There is a typographical character you might want to learn about called quotation marks ("). On many keyboards, it is the upper case character directly to the left of the Enter key. It is useful in distinguishing the words of other people (i.e., quotes) from your own words.
Here is an example how to use quotation marks, taking quotes from the same article you linked above.
"Politicians are always under pressure to come up with a single headline figure - and the lower the better. This pressure feeds through to the accountants and planners in charge of working out the costs, leading to what Prof Power calls 'optimism bias' - the tendency for the initial estimates to be unrealistically small."
That is an interesting observation. I bet this bias also explains unrealistical project schedules. There's more.
"[Dr Will Jennings] believes the public need to be more 'mature' in their attitude, accepting a certain amount of cost-over run as a price worth paying for something, such as the 2012 Olympics, that will bring social and economic benefits."
A mature attitude from the public. Imagine that.
See how I have used the quotation marks character (") to separate the quotes from the BBC News article from my own thoughts? Doesn't that make my comment clearer and easier to read? I hope you will consider using quotation marks going forward.
Or better yet, just provide the link without quotes, and let us read the article, as the Col. recently suggested.
Craig,
My apologies. I thought it easily discernable that the paragraph in question, followed by the link, would be understood as a quote from that source. I'll try to do better.
Thanks, AA. I really would appreciate it.
Day in and day out this uneducated Fool continues to make up ALL KINDS of scenarios about this Stimulus Package.....Why would a man with no training in anything except divisiveness be taken seriously? After all, he is only a radio commentator! He is not trained in finance...he is not trained in sociology...he has never worked with poor people, EVER! Let's just ignore this IDIOT!
So what will Obama do with healthcare? Is he planning on socialized medicine like in Europe and Canada. I've heard terrible things about government-run healthcare. I remember when I was probably 10 years old, one of my friends' family had come from Ireland. Her mother was very homesick and so they decided to go back. Less than a year later, they moved back to the US. I asked her why and she said that it would take them a year to get a dentist appointment. That was probably 30 some years ago, so I don't know if it has changed. Where does Obama stand? Thanks.
Here is the information you wanted, baffled.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
Wow, you actually got this right. I am a Rush fan, but he is wrong. Of course, that doesn't change my opinion that this has no place in a Stimulus bill. These electronic systems are already developed, so that won't create jobs and the hospitals already have IT folks who will handle the transitions, so that won't create jobs. It is a nice project, and possibly worth giving some money to, but not in this stimulus plan.
No, they're not already developed, that's the point!
The goal is not to build the systems (which is left to commercial enterprises like mine), but to set standards that we can aim to satisfy.
Think internet standards for medical information.
I like your name. It must be a play on the whole GITMO thing and how our country is less secure now, thanks to Obama. But, I digress.
Electronic medical records systems are already developed. There are several hospitals and clinics that are "paperless". Secure internet pathways to transfer information are also already developed. This may create some jobs for companies like yours, but not enough to make it a worthy stimulus project. This is obviously one of those "payback" projects to reward Obama voters who want universal healthcare and is a starting point for ultimate government control of the healthcare industry.
You also spew ignorant nonsense, but I, also, digress.
eagle,
I don't think we'll get any "stimulus money" as our technology is far from shovel ready (maybe can be keyboard ready?).
You are not one "skilled in the art". Spend 10 minutes analyzing the market and you'll see conflicting and incompatible electronic records systems. Microsoft, Google, Aetna and Anthem have different approaches, some of which are barely compatible in an uneconomic kludgey manner.
Were you technologically aware before the creation of graphical browsers? If so, you may be aware of the rapid innovation they launched. Those didn't merely create new software development jobs, but enabled a broad range of innovation.
As to "ultimate government control of healthcare" you are obviously not well informed of the way the world works.
Does Rush have his own connection to the GOP, like "Deep Throat"? Is there a secret tunnel from his place to the back room of the party? How many meetings a week do they have? Is there a buurka big enough to hide his identity? Where will he sit after he takes his place in the Senate? IN the aisle? Is there such a title as "Honorary Economist"?
He gets blast-faxes from the RNC.
And while it is probably too much to expect Limbaugh to know what happened four days ago, let along four years ago, overhauling the nation's medical records system was a pet project of Hillary Clinton and Newt Gingrich back in 2005. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/24299.php
No idea how that information would be digested by Rush's fan base, but most neurologists would recommend that you stay behind a durable plexiglass barrier when the information reaches the average listener's cerebral cortex.
Why does it matter that Hillary and Newt worked on such a project? Just because Newt might have been involved doesn't mean Rush or any other conservative agreed with it. Rush was one of the biggest opponents of several of Bush's policies and spoke out against John McCain on several occasions. This may be foreign to you, but some people actually look at the issues and make up their own mind of how they feel about them regardless of political affilitiation.
Yes. Not "Dittoheads" however, which was Henry's point.
It's fascinating that the main problem associated with healthcare IT is the fact that some of you believe that the govt will then be in control of your healthcare choices. My husband is a family practitioner who cannot afford to install EMR because of low reimbursement rates of insurances and because of a high number of his patients who do not have any health insurance at all. Not a day goes by that his office doesn't receive at least two dozen requests for him to justify a patient receiving this medication or another. He can see the insurance co. doing this once, but it is a monthly ritual. He has one extra employee that deals only with insurances, approvals, and denials. Our current private plans are spending large amounts of the health care premium and using up larger amounts of physician staff in a system designed to slow down payment for health care. There are many, many patients who are not on the medication he feels is the best for the patient, but the patient cannot pay for the medicine on their own, so a substandard substitute is chosen by the patient. And don't think he only prescribes brand-new high-cost medications - he prescribes generics as much as possible and is very aware of cost to his patients. To be more clear, private health insurers are already making these decisions about your personal health care with goal of refusing payment. We need national health care NOW!
Amen.
Even if I agreed with you (which I don't), why does this belong in an emergency economic stimulus package? This may be a fine project, but it doesn't belong here.
A new study by the non-partisan Information Technology and Innovation Foundation found that the high-tech spending in the economic recovery plan (medical records, electrical grid, and high-speed internet) could create 900,000 jobs in the first year.
From the NY Times: "Beyond creating jobs, advocates say, government investment in these technology fields holds the promise of laying a lasting foundation for more business innovation and efficiency, while helping to create new digital industries."
That's why.
O.k., you just posted a study from the IT and Innovation Foundation. Are you serious? Non-partisan? You don't think they would have everything in the world to gain from this IT plan passing? Second, I respect anything that comes from the NY Times about as much as you respect reports from Fox News. Try again.
Unless you can show the errors in their methodology, I will accept that their analysis is non-partisan.
I assume you are not actually disagreeing with the NY Times in this instance, but with what they report that the advocates say about the benifits of the investment. Perhaps if the American people ever decide to that they want to return to the type of failed governance we've had in the recent past, your disagreement will mean something.
Here is a little snipet for you from an article that I read. I'm not claiming it to be bi-partisan, but you don't seem to care about things like that.
"Furthermore, these IT jobs--in serious professions requiring real expertise and years of training--would do little to improve the short-term job prospects of people laid off from other industries. The idea that increased health IT spending will result in a permanent increase in jobs in the IT sector is a red herring. If health IT will reduce health care costs in the long run, then those new jobs in the technology sector will be more than offset by money saved--that is, jobs "lost"--in other sectors. There will be less need for file clerks and office staff and perhaps even nurses. To argue that health IT is both a good stimulus and a way to reduce health care costs is in effect arguing that it is good because it creates (technology) jobs but also good because it destroys even more (health care) jobs."
I hope none of you are nurses or work as an admins in a healthcare office.
Please link to the source of your quotes so that the article as a whole can be evaluated. This is from the Heritage Foundation and entitled The Fallacy of Health Care Reform as Economic Stimulus by University of Chicago economist Robert A Book (also affiliated with George Mason University and National Defense University).
I simply can't buy the argument that formulation of a national system of health information technology won't be stimulative, especially considering the numerous small office practices that have nothing but paper records because of the cost. I believe there would be people hired to WORK at a JOB that help formulate the software necessary for the transition. I imagine there would also be JOBS created because of installation of hardware. If we have to spend the money (and I believe we do), then we might as well spend it on worthwhile ventures.
I read all the sections on this subject and it just sounds like a preliminary requirements of a complex computer system with some artificail intelligence to it. This will let doctors query symptoms in a national database to provide effective and quick treatment. Where anyone gets off saying some yokel is gonna sit there and monitor treatment is just plain wrong and is more conservative spin. I just do not see those words in the legislation. Do you know what a pain in the butt it is to have to continually fill out paperwork for every new doctor you go to. with this they punch in your ID and they have your history.
If this electronic medical record keeping system is soooo gooood, why hasn't a private enterprize jumped at this opportunity??? There would be a huge profit potential, kind of like the credit score big 3.
To the Bush and Republican bashers: If more Government intervention/spending is the answer to Our Nations problems, How many more States will wind up being like California??? They can't even return state tax refunds to their people. Don't even blame it on the Gov or Bush. and before you answer, Remmember that: They are the highest taxed State in the Union and are supposed to be the model for the rest of the States.
I want to congratulate whom ever passed the e-mail stating: "2 million people managed to get to DC in 2 days on their own for the Inauguration and in an orderly fashion, while 80,000 people couldn't get out of New Orleans with 4 days notice thus requiring Government help" I guess The People had their priorities in the right order, just depends on the historic event and what they stand to personally benefit from it.