Health records seem to be the one thing people don’t want others to know about. Nobody wants their friends or coworkers to know what kind of health issues they have. These issues are personal. In the editorial in The New York Times, “Give up Your Data to Cure Disease”, David B. Agus, a physician and Professor of Medicine, describes how health problems can be solved with the help of mass data from patients. He conveys his message that the public should allow doctors to use their medical data so they can find cures for diseases through a variety of rhetorical devices.
David Agus begins his editorial by using the rhetorical question “How far would you go to protect your health records?”(1). He uses this to get his audience to start thinking about the situation he is presenting right away. His audience is adults since adults handle health records. After this question, he states his main idea that “mass data can inform medicine… and save countless lives” to get his audience to think of how by giving their health records out, even if they don’t want to, they can make a difference in people’s lives.
Agus continues by sharing an opposing viewpoint about sharing electronic health records. He states, “Doctors complain about the time it takes to update digital records, while patients worry about
…show more content…
The phrase that he repeats the most starts with “we” followed by some sort of imperative sentence. These phrases include: “We need to move past that”, “We also must block attempts”, and “We need to get over it”. By using imperative sentences, he is demanding that all adults, including himself, have to act on and change the way they have been sharing their health data. By repeating “we”, the author is emphasizing that it is vital that everyone shares their health information in order to get the best outcome for medical cures. This repetition also reassures the reader that Agus is one of them and needs to do these things as
...). Privacy and Health Information Technology. Journal of Law Medicine, 37(2), 121-149. Retrieved January 28, 2011 from CINAHL database
Friedman, D. J., Parrish, G., & Ross, D. A. (2013). Electronic Health Records and US Public Health: Current Realities and Future Promise. American Journal of Public Health, 103(9), 1560-1567
Savel, R. H., & Munro, C. L. (2013, November). Promise and pitfalls of the electronic health
The debate over public disclosure often pits consumers, insurance carriers, and health maintenance organizations (the payers) against healthcare providers. The payers want performance data made available so that they can be better purchasers of healthcare services. Healthcare providers are concerned that the data may be flawed and misleading. Personnel at healthcare institutions also are concerned about the additional cost for resources that will have to be expended to collect the required data. The stakes may be even higher because results of these analyses conceivably can be used by health plans to choose among competing providers or incorporated into the reimbursement process (pay for performance). [Nevertheless,] support comes from consumer advocates/advocacy groups arguing for publicly available data, on the basis of a right to know,/who argue the public has the right to be informed, and from others who view HAI as preventable and hope public disclosure will delivers an incentive to healthcare providers and institutions to improve their
Unfortunately, the quality of health care in America is flawed. Information technology (IT) offers the potential to address the industry’s most pressing dilemmas: care fragmentation, medical errors, and rising costs. The leading example of this is the electronic health record (EHR). An EHR, as explained by HealthIT.gov (n.d.), is a digital version of a patient’s paper chart. It includes, but is not limited to, medical history, diagnoses, medications, and treatment plans. The EHR, then, serves as a resource that aids clinicians in decision-making by providing comprehensive patient information.
With today's use of electronic medical records software, information discussed in confidence with your doctor(s) will be recorded into electronic data files. The obvious concern is the potential for your records to be seen by hundreds of strangers who work in health care, the insurance industry, and a host of businesses associated with medical organizations. Fortunately, this catastrophic scenario will likely be avoided. Congress addressed growing public concern about privacy and security of personal health data, and in 1996 passed “The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act” (HIPAA). HIPAA sets the national standard for electronic transfers of health data.
Robertson, L. (2008). Who’s looking at your medical records? [Electronic version] Saturday Evening Post, 280.3, 54-92, Consumer Health Complete.
2. When should the patient be advised of the existence of computerized databases containing medical information about the patient?
Advances in technology have influences our society at home, work and in our health care. It all started with online banking, atm cards, and availability of children’s grades online, and buying tickets for social outings. There was nothing electronic about going the doctor’s office. Health care cost has been rising and medical errors resulting in loss of life cried for change. As technologies advanced, the process to reduce medical errors and protect important health care information was evolving. In January 2004, President Bush announced in the State of the Union address the plan to launch an electronic health record (EHR) within the next ten years (American Healthtech, 2012).
Doctors, hospitals and other care providers dispute that they should have access to the medical records and other health information of any patient citing that they need this information to provide the best possible treatment for proper planning. Insurers on the other hand claim they must have personal health information in order to properly process claims and pay for the care. They also insist that this will provide protection against fraud. Government authorities make the same arguments saying that in providing taxpayer-funded coverage to its citizens, it has the right to know what it is paying for and to protect against fraud and abuse. Researchers both medical and none nonmedical have the same argument saying that they need access to these information so as to improve the quality of care, conduct studies that will make healthcare more effective and produce new products and therapies (Easthope 2005).
The purpose of this paper is to discuss how Electronic Medical Records (EMR), affects healthcare delivery. I will discuss the positives and negatives this issue has on healthcare and how it effects the cost and quality for healthcare services. In addition, I will identify any potential trade-offs to cost or quality. Lastly, I will discuss how the EMR affects my job as well as any challenges or opportunities this issue presents.
...explains and clarifies key provisions of the medical privacy regulation, this is a reliable source of information which was published last December (HIPAA, 1996). Guaranteeing the accuracy, security and protecting the privacy of all medical information is crucial and an ongoing challenge for many organizations.
Also, these studies question those who are effected; in this case, those who are most effected, is everyone. Doctors and nurses spend the most time working within these systems, but the information that is put into these systems effects every individual in America, because it is their information. Because nurses are often considered “both coordinators and providers of patient care” and they “attend to the whole patient,” their opinion is highly regarded (Otieno, Toyama, Asonuma, Kanai-Pak, & Naitoh, 2007, p. 210). It is clear that the use of these new systems is much debated, and many people have their own, individualized opinion. This information suggests that when there is a problem in the medical field, those who address it attempt to gather opinions from everyone who is involved before proceeding. It has been proven by multiple studies that this system of record keeping does in fact have potential to significantly improve patient health through efficiency, and it is because of this that the majority of hospitals have already completed, or begun the transfer from paperless to electronic (Otieno, Toyama, Asonuma, Kanai-Pak, & Naitoh,
The purpose of the Electronic Health Record is to provide a comprehensive, standardized and universal digital version of a patient 's health records. The availability of a patient 's digital health record provides health information and data for critical thinking and evidence based decision-making, aggregates patient data for quality assurance and research. The Electronic Health Record has been, "identified as a strategy for effectively and efficiently coordinating and maintaining documentation of patients health histories and as a secure method of providing more informed clinical decision making" (MNA, 2006).
Health care and research are no longer two different paths, but instead because the emphasis on reducing cost and increasing quality outcomes they are converging to make a LHCS. With the introduction of LHCS’s, research and treatment will converge into a new way of managing patient data. Expansion of technology and increased patient involvement in their health care will continue to create the need to reassess what privacy and confidentiality look like to the patient, researcher, practitioner, health plan and other business