FC NOW: The Fast Company Weblog
February 24, 2005
Private Healthcare?
An article in the Sunday New York Times caught my eye. It talked about a possible government mandate to standardize computerized health records, if the industry doesn't come up with a set of technical standards on its own. The benefit of electronic records outlined in the article is undeniable: A predicted $170 billion cost savings from redundant paperwork and tests, plus a sharp reduction in medical errors, which account for more deaths (45,000 to 98,000 annually) than breast cancer or motor vehicle accidents. Not to mention "other data mining possibilities" like national health research.
Privacy arguments aside, electronic health records will become standard. We live in a digital age and we have a health care system desperately in need of an overhaul.
But then today I read another NYT article and suddenly the vision wasn't so rosy. This article was about a privacy breach by the data collection agency ChoicePoint. It outlined the problem of current laws not keeping pace with the emergence of powerful data miners, who "amass and distribute vast digital dossiers on ordinary citizens." Basically, these dossiers are readily available not only to banks and potential employers, but also to insurance agencies, private investigators, and even the U.S. Government.
I'm not normally one to gripe about Big Brother, having given in to the privacy-is-bunk theory years ago. And I would personally be thrilled to have all of my extraneous health records compiled into one electronic file that can be accessed by doctors and hospitals nationwide. But the combination of these two articles gave me pause. What do you think?
(Free registration required to access articles on nytimes.com)
Posted by Lynn Moloney at February 24, 2005 6:36 PM | Category: healthcare + medicine |
3 Comments
ADVERTISEMENT
FC NOW MENU
NEWSLETTERS
FC NOW CATEGORIES
FC READS
Computer data security doesn't have to be lax. Companies storing confidential data should take a look at the technology they choose to use for both storing and accessing that data. They should also look at the quality of their firewalls. This data doesn't have to be easy to get, and Congress can certainly pass tough laws regarding data mining that involves bypassing security measures.
Having worked in the business end of healthcare for some years, it is evident to most in this field that the benefits from electronic health records will be huge. I do not believe they will save the cited 45,000 to 98,000 lives, which come from a landmark report completed by the venerable Institute of Medicine. Healthcare truly has many issues to resolve, including waste, needless redundancy, errors, inappropriate use of services, etc. An electronic health record will support a fix in some of these areas but not all.
If achieving this end involves some form of massive centralization of digital information, then appropriate safeguards and regulations could limit access by legitimate entities (e.g., health insurance companies). Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, we must anticipate that illegitimate parties may also access this data, even with the best of controls. The best that can be done is to provide for a secure structure that mitigates illegitimate use of patient data.
With this in mind, and without question, this is a goal that is still worth pursuing. It is of enough significance that it could, and probably should, be supported by government funding and oversight. The perceived, and yet unrecognized, benefits of an electronic health record are simply too great.
Health department was working to ensure supply of quality medical drug for the consumptions of general public but we have no receive any better service in these matter.