Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on May 10, 2011, 10:29:47 PM
-
Good. I hope more states do the same. Hopefully the Governor will sign.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/10/florida-outlaws-asking-patients-guns-awaits-governors-signature/
-
How is it good? Why shouldn't doctors be allowed to ask? If you don't like it, can't you find another doctor?
-
How is it good? Why shouldn't doctors be allowed to ask? If you don't like it, can't you find another doctor?
#1 - Obamacare mandates certain forms of information gathering and sharing with the government.
#2 - Most "Master IM" intake documents involve standardized surveys of patient health and environment. Guns is a standard item in at least one of the dominant medical records enterprise management suites out there, called "NextGen."
The choice of "go to another doctor" is on the verge of being taken away.
-
How is it good? Why shouldn't doctors be allowed to ask? If you don't like it, can't you find another doctor?
Lemme turn that around on you. How is asking good?
Where is the correlation between my guns and my health? Even if we look at the "for the children" perspective, what does this have to do with a child's health? You could argue safety, but when has home safety been within the purview of doctors? If it is, why don't they ask about seatbelts and cell phones and cracks in the driveway and big untrimmed trees and if the porch light is burnt out or not?
-
Lemme turn that around on you. How is asking good?
Well you can't turn it around on me, since I'm not asking for it to be mandated by law.
AZRedhawk, thanks for the answer.
-
How is it good? Why shouldn't doctors be allowed to ask?
Because it's none of their *expletive deleted* *expletive deleted* *expletive deleted* business. When I go to the doc, I want to be treated for either an illness or injury, or I just want a standard checkup. The only business the doc has is what goes on inside their office. My personal life outside? Nope. They can feel free to advise me to stop doing actions that make me sick (i.e., drinking, smoking, eatting junk food) that has something to do with my problem, but it is none of their business what I do outside of their office.
-
I don't think it needs to be legally forbidden - at least as long as we CAN still say "MYO(F)B" and/or find a less-intrusive doc.
Which should ALWAYS be an option.
-
Lemme turn that around on you. How is asking good?
Where is the correlation between my guns and my health? Even if we look at the "for the children" perspective, what does this have to do with a child's health? You could argue safety, but when has home safety been within the purview of doctors? If it is, why don't they ask about seatbelts and cell phones and cracks in the driveway and big untrimmed trees and if the porch light is burnt out or not?
Years ago, when we were with Kaiser Permanente, the question got asked by my daughter's pediatrician. Curious as to what would transpire, I answered truthfully. He then asked if they were locked up, to which I replied that they were. He made no comment, and moved onto other questions about safety (car seats, chemicals, etc). Treatment (medical and personal) didn't change and the subject was never brought up again. Since then, we've changed insurance carriers twice and doctors once. We've never been asked again.
I don't appreciate the intrusion, but I do want to normalize the concept of owning guns. I want it to be just like owning a set of golf clubs, so I don't generally hide that I'm a shooter or hunter. I don't broadcast it, but I treat it like any other part of my life. It's not enough to win legislatively, you have to win their hearts and minds. The only way to do that is to project an aura of normality. If you look like the unhinged gun nut, always afraid of your shadow and who might know your dirty little secret, it'll be that much easier to be marginalized.
Chris
-
#1 - Obamacare mandates certain forms of information gathering and sharing with the government.
#2 - Most "Master IM" intake documents involve standardized surveys of patient health and environment. Guns is a standard item in at least one of the dominant medical records enterprise management suites out there, called "NextGen."
The choice of "go to another doctor" is on the verge of being taken away.
Speaking as a healthcare administrator, the tinfoil is strong with this one. And by the way, I am familiar with pretty much all of the major ambulatory EMR systems, such as Epic, Mckesson, Nextgen, Centricity, AllScripts and the like, and all of them in their pediatric questionnaires, ask about guns and other safety hazards.
I am sure you have sources about how asking about safety hazards for children is going to be shared with the government and your ability to choose physicians is going to be taken away by the government. I would love to see them.
-
How is it good? Why shouldn't doctors be allowed to ask? If you don't like it, can't you find another doctor?
If you know your history you know that the medical profession hasn't always had an estimable record. You know the expression "blinded by science?" It happened in the first half of the 20th century as medical science found its dark side in collaboration with "progressivism." Beware of the people who have our best interests at heart regardless of what we ourselves think.
-
Speaking as a healthcare administrator, the tinfoil is strong with this one. And by the way, I am familiar with pretty much all of the major ambulatory EMR systems, such as Epic, Mckesson, Nextgen, Centricity, AllScripts and the like, and all of them in their pediatric questionnaires, ask about guns and other safety hazards.
I am sure you have sources about how asking about safety hazards for children is going to be shared with the government and your ability to choose physicians is going to be taken away by the government. I would love to see them.
I've moved on from being a NextGen database administrator for an ASP that hosted about 50 practices, but I still get contacted by my previous employer for consultation on systems architecture.
Practices are being enticed with government money to provide back-door interfaces to the government. The keyword being used is "meaningful use." They implement read-only access to the practice's database and are able to search based upon the SSN of the patient they're interested in.
They (the practices) wouldn't be implementing this government back-door to medical records unless there was financial motive to do so. And my former employer doesn't release ANYTHING to ANYONE without consent from the practice and reams and reams of contracts with whomever receives the data.
http://healthit.hhs.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=2996&mode=2
The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act provides HHS with the authority to establish programs to improve health care quality, safety, and efficiency through the promotion of health information technology (HIT), including electronic health records and private and secure electronic health information exchange.
Under HITECH, eligible health care professionals and hospitals can qualify for Medicare and Medicaid incentive payments when they adopt certified EHR technology and use it to achieve specified objectives.
Right now, the only interest I assume they (HHS) have in EHR systems is to correlate diagnosis codes (ICD9) to procedure/treatment codes (CPT4) and analyze for efficiency or disparities between practices to unify treatments (i.e. take away doctor initiative to treat as they see best).
However, once the interface is in place it is open to further exploits.
-
Oh, I know very well about meaningful use and the incentives thereto. I give lectures on this subject, albeit usually in the context of the risk management implications of EMR.
Ostensibly, one of the primary rationales behind this type of information sharing is to use data mining of de-identified data in large populations to help determine the most safe, useful and cost-effective means of treatment for a given condition, and reduce the wide variability in treatment. I personally am in favor of this from the standpoint of using evidence-based medicine more widely.
I would point out that the insurance companies have already been doing this for a couple of decades, and I have far more concern over the privacy implications of Blue Cross getting this data than I do the government. Especially as genetic testing becomes more common, and we can do a better job of identifying your chances of getting a certain disease in the future, will the insurance companies use this information to deny you coverage or charge you more? If I, through no fault of my own, have a genetic predisposition towards, say, diabetes, should I pay more for my healthcare coverage?
If you ever look at the paperwork for signing up with your insurance company, you are already giving permission for them to access pretty much anything they want in your health records, that is, if you want them to pay for it. The Medical Insurance Bureau has been collecting and storing information about all of us for quite a while now. http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs8-med.htm is an interesting read on medical privacy issues. People here would be astonished as to how many fingers are in your medical records.
-
A doctor that asks that kind of question does not deserve a truthful answer - "Just Say No."
-
I've been waiting for this to come up with our Ped, and it just has not. She has asked about carseats and smoke detectors and carbon monoxide alarms, though.
-
In the eyes of the State, we are ALL children.
-
If I, through no fault of my own, have a genetic predisposition towards, say, diabetes, should I pay more for my healthcare coverage?
Therein lies the problem. "Insurance" no longer is interested in spreading risk as it is in isolating risk. But I guess that is the kind of thing that happens when a society opts for single payer healthcare.
-
I want it to be just like owning a set of golf clubs
So, do doctors ask if you own golf clubs ???
-
Therein lies the problem. "Insurance" no longer is interested in spreading risk as it is in isolating risk. But I guess that is the kind of thing that happens when a society opts for single payer healthcare.
Huh?
-
If you know your history you know that the medical profession hasn't always had an estimable record. You know the expression "blinded by science?" It happened in the first half of the 20th century as medical science found its dark side in collaboration with "progressivism." Beware of the people who have our best interests at heart regardless of what we ourselves think.
Ayup.
-
Sorry guys, but in my opinion, as a covered health care professional under HIPAA, this law is pointless, useless, and makes gun owners look very uninformed.
The circumstances under which the government can ask for info out of a chart are very specific.
Furthermore, even if they did ask, I really doubt any doctor is going to risk his ass, and his practice by revealing patient information willy nilly.
It's a non-issue.