Seven Foods to Keep You Young
The fountain of youth in your grocery cart
by: Peter Jaret | from: AARP The Magazine | October 2009
Recommend (59) Comments (3)ShareThisPrint
Enlarge
Credit: Julia Sander/Getty Images
Related
50 Healthy Foods That Cost Less Than $1 Per Pound. Read
The Dentist's Preferred Food List. Listen
Grading Aphrodisiacs: Frisky Foods That Get You in the Mood. Read
10 Foods that Fight Off the Flu. Watch
Are Fresh Vegetables Better than Frozen? Read
1. Olive oil
Four decades ago, researchers from the Seven Countries Study concluded that the monounsaturated fats in olive oil were largely responsible for the low rates of heart disease and cancer on the Greek island of Crete. Now we know that olive oil also contains polyphenols, powerful antioxidants that may help prevent age-related diseases.
2. Yogurt
In the 1970s, Soviet Georgia was rumored to have more centenarians per capita than any other country. Reports at the time claimed that the secret of their long lives was yogurt, a food ubiquitous in their diets. While the age-defying powers of yogurt never have been proved directly, yogurt is rich in calcium, which helps stave off osteoporosis and contains "good bacteria" that help maintain gut health and diminish the incidence of age-related intestinal illness.
3. Fish
Thirty years ago, researchers began to study why the native Inuits of Alaska were remarkably free of heart disease. The reason, scientists now think, is the extraordinary amount of fish they consume. Fish is an abundant source of omega-3 fats, which help prevent cholesterol buildup in arteries and protect against abnormal heart rhythms.
4. Chocolate
The Kuna people of the San Blas islands, off the coast of Panama, have a rate of heart disease that is nine times less than that of mainland Panamanians. The reason? The Kuna drink plenty of a beverage made with generous proportions of cocoa, which is unusually rich in flavanols that help preserve the healthy function of blood vessels. Maintaining youthful blood vessels lowers risk of high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, kidney disease and dementia.
5. Nuts
Studies of Seventh-Day Adventists (a religious denomination that emphasizes healthy living and a vegetarian diet) show that those who eat nuts gain, on average, an extra two and a half years. Nuts are rich sources of unsaturated fats, so they offer benefits similar to those associated with olive oil. They’re also concentrated sources of vitamins, minerals and other phytochemicals, including antioxidants.
6. Wine
Drinking alcohol in moderation protects against heart disease, diabetes and age-related memory loss. Any kind of alcoholic beverage seems to provide such benefits, but red wine has been the focus of much of the research. Red wine contains resveratrol, a compound that likely contributes to its benefits—and, according to animal studies, may activate genes that slow cellular aging.
7. Blueberries
In a landmark study published in 1999, researchers at Tufts University’s Jean Mayer Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging fed rats blueberry extract for a period of time that in "rat lives" is equivalent to 10 human years. These rats outperformed rats fed regular chow on tests of balance and coordination when they reached old age. Compounds in blueberries (and other berries) mitigate inflammation and oxidative damage, which are associated with age-related deficits in memory and motor function.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Medical records go online, but at what cost to privacy?
Allison Grisham learns how to navigate her medical records with help from Dr. David Seo, a cardiologist at University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.
MARICE COHN BAND / MIAMI HERALD STAFF
In online medical records, worries about privacy breaches
BY FRED TASKER
ftasker@MiamiHerald.com
You're a South Florida resident on vacation in Boise or Bogotá. You suffer stomach pains and visit a local doctor. You whip out your BlackBerry, punch in your access code and show the doctor a list of your medications, allergies, past illnesses, tests, surgeries and advice from your physician back home.
Electronic medical records, or EMRs, are quickly becoming a reality for doctors and hospitals in South Florida and beyond.
If EMRs work, they'll be high-tech marvels -- letting patients access their own medical records on their home computers, helping doctors coordinate tests with each other to avoid duplication, giving medical researchers access to millions of medical records.
Nearly every major South Florida hospital and many doctors are joining a push by the Obama administration to spend $19.2 billion in federal stimulus money to help create a national EMR system by 2014.
Allison Grisham of Miami Beach just got her own EMR from her doctor at University of Miami Hospital, which is spending $100 million on a new Epic brand system. She hopes it can help end medical errors like one she barely avoided a few years ago.
``I was in a hospital once and the nurse tried to give me the wrong medication. We only stopped it because my mother and I refused to let her put it in the IV,'' she said. ``It could have been serious.''
There are drawbacks. Patient advocates worry that EMRs could pose a threat to privacy. Doctors and hospitals say they're not being given enough time to set up the complex electronic systems or enough financial help to pay for them. The systems can cost $50 million to $100 million for hospitals and $15,000 to $50,000 for private doctors.
But the potential pluses outweigh those complaints, many doctors and hospitals believe. The new systems are voluntary, but federal financial incentives for using them and penalties for failing to do so have most medical officials at least resigned to making the change.
Here's what else EMRs will do:
You're a university medical researcher and you suspect a popular diabetes drug is causing heart problems. On your PC, you study the records -- with patient permission, and without their names -- of all the millions of people taking the suspect drug and compare them to those who aren't.
``A researcher could access the records of nearly every patient in the country and solve problems quickly,'' said Dr. Pascal Goldschmidt, dean of the UM Medical School.
Or you're a hospital CEO, and EMRs help you communicate better and faster with other hospitals and doctors around the country -- something most hospitals can't do today even if they have older, simpler electronic medical records.
DUPLICATION
``That would eliminate a lot of duplication,'' said Linda Quick, president of the South Florida Hospital & Healthcare Association. She cited an example: an acquaintance had an EKG from his private doctor, was sent to the hospital next door for follow-up and was given another EKG 90 minutes later.
``Patients will take control of their own records. Exchange of information will be very fluid,'' said Tom Gomez, head of a Florida International University initiative promoting hospital information sharing.
``When we have the whole system, it will be as easy as using an ATM card,'' said Quick.
Still, experts predict years of hard work getting all the new EMR systems -- Epic, Cerner, Seimens and other brands -- to communicate with each other.
``This is going to be complicated,'' says Gomez. ``And we're in the very early stages. It's probably 10 years away.'' There are problems. Private doctors, especially in small practices, say they lack the money and technical staff to implement EMRs -- buying computers, hiring techs to run and repair them, taking time for the training to operate them.
``It's the wave of the future, fortunately or unfortunately,'' says Dr. Tony Prieto, a sole-practitioner family medicine physician in Plantation. ``I agree it's needed. I'm not saying I can afford it.''
Even some big hospitals say the program is moving too fast.
``The goal is noble, but the timeline is unrealistic,'' said Mimi Taylor, Baptist Health South Florida's vice president for IT. ``You have to give hospitals time to do it right.''
Baptist Health's six-hospital, 2,000-doctor system will spend $96 million by 2013 to install a Siemens Soarian system to meet the new federal requirements. An informal Miami Herald survey of 26 South Florida hospitals found every one is putting in a new system or upgrading an old one. In addition to UM Hospital and Baptist Health, hospitals installing new or upgraded systems include Broward's six-hospital Memorial Healthcare System, Tenet's 10-hospital chain, Miami Children's Hospital and Mount Sinai Medical Center.
At UM Hospital, six clinics already have begun offering patients a personal electronic medical record called MyUHealthChart. By July, all clinics on the Miller School campus are to have them. By December, patients will be able to schedule appointments and pay their bills electronically. Even Jackson Health System, with its financial woes, is upgrading its current Cerner EMR system as part of the federal push.
``We have to do it to remain competitive,'' said Fernando Martinez, Jackson's chief information officer.
The Obama administration is using both carrots and sticks to persuade hospitals and doctors to put in EMRs. The president set aside $19.2 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to subsidize the systems. Doctors who start implementing EMRs by 2011 can get up to $44,000 in extra reimbursements from Medicare or $63,000 from Medicaid.
REIMBURSEMENTS
Hospitals will get bigger reimbursements, although their financial officers can't say how much yet. Local administrators estimate federal subsidies will repay 20 percent to 50 percent of the cost of an EMR system.
The problem, said Prieto, the Plantation physician, is that the expense is up front for the EMR system, but the reimbursement is after the fact.
``I have 26,000 patient charts. I can't imagine what that will cost me.''
The reimbursement ``won't even be close'' to the expense, he said.
``If you're a solo practitioner, you have to go out and buy a new system and educate your staff to use it,'' said Cynthia Peterson, head of the Broward Medical Association. The stick: Doctors and hospitals that don't comply by 2015 will see their Medicare and Medicaid payments reduced by 1 percent in 2015, 2 percent in 2016 and 3 percent in subsequent years.
A Congressional Budget Office report predicts 90 percent of hospitals and doctors will have EMRs by 2019.
Join the discussion
The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. In order to post comments, you must be a registered user of MiamiHerald.com. Your username will show along with the comments you post. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
Comments (12)
|
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
Comments: 12 Showing: Oldest first Newest first Most-recommended first Least-recommended first
doc77 wrote on 07/06/2010 07:34:25 PM:
who cares? now is too late. EMR's are like HMO's, are here to stay. Did you know that a close friend of our president owns an EMR company in Chicago?
Reply to this Comment Recommend (0) Report abuse
lenny1 wrote on 07/06/2010 06:40:52 PM:
A friend, who is now retired from medical practise, was also my physician. When he closed down his practice, he had to keep medical files for years. (I think he kept them 10 years, but it was much longer than he required to). When he gave me my medical files, I was advised that most patients are not aware of the actual ownership of those records. They are your records, and if a doctor wants, he can make another copy of them for himself. Still, it is a leap of faith that things will turn out as intended. Wherever there is new technology, there are also opportunities for poorly intended people.
Reply to this Comment Recommend (0) Report abuse
Vinmoe6878 wrote on 07/06/2010 05:37:11 PM:
I was just informed by my old insurance company that they had two computers stolen and my whole families personal information was on them........
Reply to this Comment Recommend (0) Report abuse
MedSecurityGuru wrote on 07/06/2010 02:28:34 PM:
Replying to BHarrison (07/06/2010 01:31:53 PM):
"And once yourmedical records go on-line, the insurance companies will wind up (legally or illegally) having the information to decline coverage based upon "prior existing conditions".
As most people are now coming to realize, the NHC - national Health Care program is NOT going to reduce...":@BHarrison....Don't confuse the Electronic Health Care (EHR) issue with NHC...the two are not related.
The correct use of EHR could actually help lower the cost of any healthcare plan.
Putting EHR's on the Internet does not mean that they are open for all to see. That is why I said in my original statement that security of medical records is paramount. You will see a lot of "Mom and Pop" data centers popping up, so doctors need someone to help they work through that quagmire.
Reply to this Comment Recommend (0) Report abuse
BHarrison wrote on 07/06/2010 01:31:53 PM:
And once yourmedical records go on-line, the insurance companies will wind up (legally or illegally) having the information to decline coverage based upon "prior existing conditions".
As most people are now coming to realize, the NHC - national Health Care program is NOT going to reduce costs; but it IS going to reduce the quality of care. The reality of the NHC is it is a political farce, in an election year, to penalize the vast majority of Americans to subsidize the health care for the poor and indiginat, who wre receing care under government or tax subsidized services (for the services that they received but did not pay for).
The vast, VAST MAJORITY of Americans re NOT going to benefit from the NHC programs ... we're all just going to pay more for health care. Meanwhile the Federal government ahve failed to regulate and to rein in the exorbitant profits of the pharmaceutical and medical insurance industries, who have realized respective profit margins of 25% (Phar. Ind.) and 5% to 6% (insurance ind.). They are allowing these industries to continue to exploit the American people. Where is the common sense in any of this?
Reply to this Comment Recommend (1) Report abuse
MedSecurityGuru wrote on 07/06/2010 01:14:09 PM:
EHR's have been around for several years. Some are good and some not so good. Doctors now have to face the task of deciding which one is right for me AND has it met the requirements set forth by the Department of Health and Human Services? Right now there over 9,000 different makes of EHR software.
Also how does this EHR software handle medical imaging and files from support groups like labs, etc?
Now lets add something else to consider. Does the data center in which I store my medical records have the right level of security to house and share medical records. All Data Centers are not created equal!
Does the data center have redundant engress and egress so that should the need arise the record might be shared with two or more physicians?
If you don't know what to ask and can't decipher what someone tells you, you need to ask someone who knows the answers.
Reply to this Comment Recommend (2) Report abuse
CooperCity wrote on 07/06/2010 11:53:06 AM:
Information sharing is the way to go. Accessing any sensitive information by mobile devices is a very bad idea. It should only be done with wired computers with great firewalls. You think doctors will spend the money to safeguard your personal info? Think again.
Reply to this Comment Recommend (1) Report abuse
brainsprain wrote on 07/06/2010 11:07:39 AM:
The positives outweigh the negatives. Yes, it is expensive, but how expensive is it for a nurse, clerk whatever to sit and ask the same questions over and over again because one happens to be in a different doctors office or hospital. Faxing is also quite expensive as is shipping. The conflicts in systems could be easily overcome, look at all the info that is available online because the info is web based in some way or the other.
The medical folk at the top want not only to protect my privacy, they want to hold the information as if were theirs. That is the only reason these various companies cannot set up the systems to interact fluidly. It's the money.
As for privacy, most of our information that should be private is not. Do I really care that the world knows I had a physical or was treated for cancer. Oh, that's right the insurance company may raise my rate or exclude me for a condition. Solution was Obama Care that makes it illegal for them to do so. All one needs to do is check their credit rating and they discover that what we need kept private most (financial info) is available to any Joe or Jill who will pay for it. They don't even need our permission.
We can protect our medical privacy far more easily than we can protect our financial, our tax returns or retirement fund accounts if the system is set up right.
But no system is flawless. At this point anyone who wants can view your medical records just by going into a doctor's office. There is always a way.
Reply to this Comment Recommend (1) Report abuse
shotman wrote on 07/06/2010 10:15:01 AM:
This won't reduce costs. Take the EKG example, even though it was done 90 minutes earlier in a doctor's office, an EKG is a point in time look at the heart's electrical system and if there is a change in condition, it should be repeated. Plus hospitals won't take the risk of a lawsuit to save the cost of an EKG. They don't know if the doctor's office EKG is calibrated or working correctly. Also do you think that EKG was inputted into the EMR immediately? No doctor's offices take days or even weeks for them to be entered. Same goes for lab work.
Reply to this Comment Recommend (1) Report abuse
andrejk wrote on 07/06/2010 09:38:55 AM:
Damocles sword. Wow-- few controversies with so many obvious and profound pros and cons at the same time. The potential abuse of privacy is huge. On the other hand, the convenience, efficiencies and research potential and long run savings are fantastic. Obviously, we'll have to take the plunge at some point. Since we are doing this, what dismays me is the shocking fact that there are multiple systems?! I think the AMA and the CDC and the insurance companies should take this transitional opportunnity to MANDATE highly detaile dand STANDARDIZED medical record forms for EVERYTHING. An invoice, report, or record from hospital in Fairbankis should look EXACTLY the same as one from Key West down to the dianosis and billing codes and font type
.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/06/v-fullstory/1716657/medical-records-go-online-but.html#ixzz0sxGDhRMo
MARICE COHN BAND / MIAMI HERALD STAFF
In online medical records, worries about privacy breaches
BY FRED TASKER
ftasker@MiamiHerald.com
You're a South Florida resident on vacation in Boise or Bogotá. You suffer stomach pains and visit a local doctor. You whip out your BlackBerry, punch in your access code and show the doctor a list of your medications, allergies, past illnesses, tests, surgeries and advice from your physician back home.
Electronic medical records, or EMRs, are quickly becoming a reality for doctors and hospitals in South Florida and beyond.
If EMRs work, they'll be high-tech marvels -- letting patients access their own medical records on their home computers, helping doctors coordinate tests with each other to avoid duplication, giving medical researchers access to millions of medical records.
Nearly every major South Florida hospital and many doctors are joining a push by the Obama administration to spend $19.2 billion in federal stimulus money to help create a national EMR system by 2014.
Allison Grisham of Miami Beach just got her own EMR from her doctor at University of Miami Hospital, which is spending $100 million on a new Epic brand system. She hopes it can help end medical errors like one she barely avoided a few years ago.
``I was in a hospital once and the nurse tried to give me the wrong medication. We only stopped it because my mother and I refused to let her put it in the IV,'' she said. ``It could have been serious.''
There are drawbacks. Patient advocates worry that EMRs could pose a threat to privacy. Doctors and hospitals say they're not being given enough time to set up the complex electronic systems or enough financial help to pay for them. The systems can cost $50 million to $100 million for hospitals and $15,000 to $50,000 for private doctors.
But the potential pluses outweigh those complaints, many doctors and hospitals believe. The new systems are voluntary, but federal financial incentives for using them and penalties for failing to do so have most medical officials at least resigned to making the change.
Here's what else EMRs will do:
You're a university medical researcher and you suspect a popular diabetes drug is causing heart problems. On your PC, you study the records -- with patient permission, and without their names -- of all the millions of people taking the suspect drug and compare them to those who aren't.
``A researcher could access the records of nearly every patient in the country and solve problems quickly,'' said Dr. Pascal Goldschmidt, dean of the UM Medical School.
Or you're a hospital CEO, and EMRs help you communicate better and faster with other hospitals and doctors around the country -- something most hospitals can't do today even if they have older, simpler electronic medical records.
DUPLICATION
``That would eliminate a lot of duplication,'' said Linda Quick, president of the South Florida Hospital & Healthcare Association. She cited an example: an acquaintance had an EKG from his private doctor, was sent to the hospital next door for follow-up and was given another EKG 90 minutes later.
``Patients will take control of their own records. Exchange of information will be very fluid,'' said Tom Gomez, head of a Florida International University initiative promoting hospital information sharing.
``When we have the whole system, it will be as easy as using an ATM card,'' said Quick.
Still, experts predict years of hard work getting all the new EMR systems -- Epic, Cerner, Seimens and other brands -- to communicate with each other.
``This is going to be complicated,'' says Gomez. ``And we're in the very early stages. It's probably 10 years away.'' There are problems. Private doctors, especially in small practices, say they lack the money and technical staff to implement EMRs -- buying computers, hiring techs to run and repair them, taking time for the training to operate them.
``It's the wave of the future, fortunately or unfortunately,'' says Dr. Tony Prieto, a sole-practitioner family medicine physician in Plantation. ``I agree it's needed. I'm not saying I can afford it.''
Even some big hospitals say the program is moving too fast.
``The goal is noble, but the timeline is unrealistic,'' said Mimi Taylor, Baptist Health South Florida's vice president for IT. ``You have to give hospitals time to do it right.''
Baptist Health's six-hospital, 2,000-doctor system will spend $96 million by 2013 to install a Siemens Soarian system to meet the new federal requirements. An informal Miami Herald survey of 26 South Florida hospitals found every one is putting in a new system or upgrading an old one. In addition to UM Hospital and Baptist Health, hospitals installing new or upgraded systems include Broward's six-hospital Memorial Healthcare System, Tenet's 10-hospital chain, Miami Children's Hospital and Mount Sinai Medical Center.
At UM Hospital, six clinics already have begun offering patients a personal electronic medical record called MyUHealthChart. By July, all clinics on the Miller School campus are to have them. By December, patients will be able to schedule appointments and pay their bills electronically. Even Jackson Health System, with its financial woes, is upgrading its current Cerner EMR system as part of the federal push.
``We have to do it to remain competitive,'' said Fernando Martinez, Jackson's chief information officer.
The Obama administration is using both carrots and sticks to persuade hospitals and doctors to put in EMRs. The president set aside $19.2 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to subsidize the systems. Doctors who start implementing EMRs by 2011 can get up to $44,000 in extra reimbursements from Medicare or $63,000 from Medicaid.
REIMBURSEMENTS
Hospitals will get bigger reimbursements, although their financial officers can't say how much yet. Local administrators estimate federal subsidies will repay 20 percent to 50 percent of the cost of an EMR system.
The problem, said Prieto, the Plantation physician, is that the expense is up front for the EMR system, but the reimbursement is after the fact.
``I have 26,000 patient charts. I can't imagine what that will cost me.''
The reimbursement ``won't even be close'' to the expense, he said.
``If you're a solo practitioner, you have to go out and buy a new system and educate your staff to use it,'' said Cynthia Peterson, head of the Broward Medical Association. The stick: Doctors and hospitals that don't comply by 2015 will see their Medicare and Medicaid payments reduced by 1 percent in 2015, 2 percent in 2016 and 3 percent in subsequent years.
A Congressional Budget Office report predicts 90 percent of hospitals and doctors will have EMRs by 2019.
Join the discussion
The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. In order to post comments, you must be a registered user of MiamiHerald.com. Your username will show along with the comments you post. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
Comments (12)
|
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
Comments: 12 Showing: Oldest first Newest first Most-recommended first Least-recommended first
doc77 wrote on 07/06/2010 07:34:25 PM:
who cares? now is too late. EMR's are like HMO's, are here to stay. Did you know that a close friend of our president owns an EMR company in Chicago?
Reply to this Comment Recommend (0) Report abuse
lenny1 wrote on 07/06/2010 06:40:52 PM:
A friend, who is now retired from medical practise, was also my physician. When he closed down his practice, he had to keep medical files for years. (I think he kept them 10 years, but it was much longer than he required to). When he gave me my medical files, I was advised that most patients are not aware of the actual ownership of those records. They are your records, and if a doctor wants, he can make another copy of them for himself. Still, it is a leap of faith that things will turn out as intended. Wherever there is new technology, there are also opportunities for poorly intended people.
Reply to this Comment Recommend (0) Report abuse
Vinmoe6878 wrote on 07/06/2010 05:37:11 PM:
I was just informed by my old insurance company that they had two computers stolen and my whole families personal information was on them........
Reply to this Comment Recommend (0) Report abuse
MedSecurityGuru wrote on 07/06/2010 02:28:34 PM:
Replying to BHarrison (07/06/2010 01:31:53 PM):
"And once yourmedical records go on-line, the insurance companies will wind up (legally or illegally) having the information to decline coverage based upon "prior existing conditions".
As most people are now coming to realize, the NHC - national Health Care program is NOT going to reduce...":@BHarrison....Don't confuse the Electronic Health Care (EHR) issue with NHC...the two are not related.
The correct use of EHR could actually help lower the cost of any healthcare plan.
Putting EHR's on the Internet does not mean that they are open for all to see. That is why I said in my original statement that security of medical records is paramount. You will see a lot of "Mom and Pop" data centers popping up, so doctors need someone to help they work through that quagmire.
Reply to this Comment Recommend (0) Report abuse
BHarrison wrote on 07/06/2010 01:31:53 PM:
And once yourmedical records go on-line, the insurance companies will wind up (legally or illegally) having the information to decline coverage based upon "prior existing conditions".
As most people are now coming to realize, the NHC - national Health Care program is NOT going to reduce costs; but it IS going to reduce the quality of care. The reality of the NHC is it is a political farce, in an election year, to penalize the vast majority of Americans to subsidize the health care for the poor and indiginat, who wre receing care under government or tax subsidized services (for the services that they received but did not pay for).
The vast, VAST MAJORITY of Americans re NOT going to benefit from the NHC programs ... we're all just going to pay more for health care. Meanwhile the Federal government ahve failed to regulate and to rein in the exorbitant profits of the pharmaceutical and medical insurance industries, who have realized respective profit margins of 25% (Phar. Ind.) and 5% to 6% (insurance ind.). They are allowing these industries to continue to exploit the American people. Where is the common sense in any of this?
Reply to this Comment Recommend (1) Report abuse
MedSecurityGuru wrote on 07/06/2010 01:14:09 PM:
EHR's have been around for several years. Some are good and some not so good. Doctors now have to face the task of deciding which one is right for me AND has it met the requirements set forth by the Department of Health and Human Services? Right now there over 9,000 different makes of EHR software.
Also how does this EHR software handle medical imaging and files from support groups like labs, etc?
Now lets add something else to consider. Does the data center in which I store my medical records have the right level of security to house and share medical records. All Data Centers are not created equal!
Does the data center have redundant engress and egress so that should the need arise the record might be shared with two or more physicians?
If you don't know what to ask and can't decipher what someone tells you, you need to ask someone who knows the answers.
Reply to this Comment Recommend (2) Report abuse
CooperCity wrote on 07/06/2010 11:53:06 AM:
Information sharing is the way to go. Accessing any sensitive information by mobile devices is a very bad idea. It should only be done with wired computers with great firewalls. You think doctors will spend the money to safeguard your personal info? Think again.
Reply to this Comment Recommend (1) Report abuse
brainsprain wrote on 07/06/2010 11:07:39 AM:
The positives outweigh the negatives. Yes, it is expensive, but how expensive is it for a nurse, clerk whatever to sit and ask the same questions over and over again because one happens to be in a different doctors office or hospital. Faxing is also quite expensive as is shipping. The conflicts in systems could be easily overcome, look at all the info that is available online because the info is web based in some way or the other.
The medical folk at the top want not only to protect my privacy, they want to hold the information as if were theirs. That is the only reason these various companies cannot set up the systems to interact fluidly. It's the money.
As for privacy, most of our information that should be private is not. Do I really care that the world knows I had a physical or was treated for cancer. Oh, that's right the insurance company may raise my rate or exclude me for a condition. Solution was Obama Care that makes it illegal for them to do so. All one needs to do is check their credit rating and they discover that what we need kept private most (financial info) is available to any Joe or Jill who will pay for it. They don't even need our permission.
We can protect our medical privacy far more easily than we can protect our financial, our tax returns or retirement fund accounts if the system is set up right.
But no system is flawless. At this point anyone who wants can view your medical records just by going into a doctor's office. There is always a way.
Reply to this Comment Recommend (1) Report abuse
shotman wrote on 07/06/2010 10:15:01 AM:
This won't reduce costs. Take the EKG example, even though it was done 90 minutes earlier in a doctor's office, an EKG is a point in time look at the heart's electrical system and if there is a change in condition, it should be repeated. Plus hospitals won't take the risk of a lawsuit to save the cost of an EKG. They don't know if the doctor's office EKG is calibrated or working correctly. Also do you think that EKG was inputted into the EMR immediately? No doctor's offices take days or even weeks for them to be entered. Same goes for lab work.
Reply to this Comment Recommend (1) Report abuse
andrejk wrote on 07/06/2010 09:38:55 AM:
Damocles sword. Wow-- few controversies with so many obvious and profound pros and cons at the same time. The potential abuse of privacy is huge. On the other hand, the convenience, efficiencies and research potential and long run savings are fantastic. Obviously, we'll have to take the plunge at some point. Since we are doing this, what dismays me is the shocking fact that there are multiple systems?! I think the AMA and the CDC and the insurance companies should take this transitional opportunnity to MANDATE highly detaile dand STANDARDIZED medical record forms for EVERYTHING. An invoice, report, or record from hospital in Fairbankis should look EXACTLY the same as one from Key West down to the dianosis and billing codes and font type
.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/06/v-fullstory/1716657/medical-records-go-online-but.html#ixzz0sxGDhRMo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)