Doctor Retires, Blames Obama

[catcul]

This doctor really has only himself to blame for his non-compliance of the law.

* He admitted that he was getting ready to retire, anyway.
* He admitted that he and his staff were computer illiterate.
* The mandate was a part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 (stimulus package), not the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (commonly known as "Obamacare").
* He had paper files and charts, which probably meant ...
*He did not have extra copies of his patients' charts.
*He did not have off site storage of his patients' charts.
*If a fire, flood, or another catastrophe struck his practice, his patients' charts would be lost forever.

I have no sympathy for this man.

Here’s Why That Kentucky Doctor Is Closing His Practice "Due To The Policies Of Obamacare"

[HYHYBT]

First, the law does not require the use of electronic medical records. It does mean pay is slightly reduced for doctors not using them.

The conversion *is* expensive, and therefore makes no sense for a doctor retiring in the next few years and who is not forced to do it, regardless of computer literacy. I am also told that, even for those now used to the new system, it takes more time, not less, and also makes important points less obvious. (I'm not clear enough on this to say more in a sensible way, though I've had it explained to me at greater length than I really wanted. The impression I got was something like this: if moving from one patient to the next were like a website updating its rules, the paper record would be a message saying "We've reworded Rule X to say Y and added Rule Z," while the electronic version would be the complete edited list with no indication which rules are changed except poring over the entire, lengthy list, *nearly* all of which is the same nearly every time. But I may have misunderstood.)

Backups of the actual charts aren't that big a deal. In the unlikely case of a fire, tornado, etc., the important stuff can largely be recovered by other means, such as the same questionnaire new patients fill out. And it's not in the least like any of that's a new or unusual thing. Most of the rest of what's in there is faxes from labs, other doctors, etc., who still have the originals in the fairly unlikely, even after a fire, event that they're actually needed again.

Really, I don't see why there would be any problem with this at all other than the two lies: that doctors are forced to switch, and that the change is because of Obamacare.

[wolfie]

Not to mention that some patients PREFER a doctor who uses paper records BECAUSE the records are more cumbersome. Paper records are inherently more secure because someone wants to make an unauthorized copy needs to gain physical access, and the resources involved make the costs prohibitive for a "fishing expedition".

Electronic records, on the other hand, can be "slurped" en-masse over an internet connection. As for the systems holding them being protected by "approved for sensitive data such as medical records" security software, having seen news reports of what various government departments have been up to, I'd interpret such approval as meaning "someone using consumer-grade tools to conduct due dilligence won't be able to find the backdoors we included in the security software".

[Peppergirl]

Nothing to add, except that its a small world.

My ex-in laws live in Somerset, KY and this is my ex-MIL's doctor. It was being discussed heatedly on her FB feed.

[s_stabeler]

if I'm guessing corretly about what electronic medical records are, they more or less are an electronic version of the paper records- i.e. each time you get test results, they are included in your paper records, and/or an electronic version is stuck into your electronic records- the advantage is access to information. it is vastly simpler to transfer electronic records than it is paper ones.

Why is this good? well, you know you usually see one particular doctor ( your PCP)? that is because they get an idea of what is normal for you. With paper records, whenever you see a new doctor, you are more or less starting from scratch. With electronic records, they can review your medical history before you see them, which can allow them to more accurately figure out WTF is wrong, or even IF it is something new. ( it could, for example, simply be an existing condition getting worse)

[HYHYBT]

And with paper records, they can call the other doctor and they'll send the needed information.

[Andara Bledin]

One reason for electronic records over paper is so that should an emergency arise, information can be shared far more quickly and easily. The idea is to have everybody's records set up so that they can be accessed by anyone who is authorized to do so.

[HYHYBT]

That is true. It's just that there ARE disadvantages too, and some people want to dismiss those as if they were nothing.

How about the record company calling you with sales pitches in your doctor's name? The one license agreement I read had that snuck into a subparagraph about 3/4 of the way through an otherwise unobjectionable document. From the doctor's point of view, would you rather agree to that (and endure the inevitable and perfectly justified complaints) or stick to paper?

Of course, they may not all be like that.

[s_stabeler]

because that is easy to fix with proper data protection legislation- in the UK, it is illegal to slip in permission for stuff like that. You have to specifically ask if you want data sold on, and get specific permission.

[HYHYBT]

It sure would be nice.

Edit: I am told that wasn't electronic medical records, but electronic prescriptions, though it may be a package. Also that they said, when called, that they don't actually do that, but you know what a phone call is worth against what's in writing.

[Kelmon]

Electronic records, on the other hand, can be "slurped" en-masse over an internet connection.

That's like saying storing your valuables in a safe is very risky, because it's impossible to not put your unlocked safe on your front porch.

There is no reason why a doctor's medical records should be reachable from a remote computer. Can anyone "slurp" my documents from my computer? Of course not.

Done properly, your medical records will be safer from illegal access, theft and destruction in electronic form than they were ever as pieces of paper in a cabinet. The only problem (and yes, a big one) is that a staggering amount of people don't know the first thing about how to achieve this.

[wolfie]

There is no reason why a doctor's medical records should be reachable from a remote computer. Can anyone "slurp" my documents from my computer? Of course not.

One of the big arguments from people in favour of electronic medical records is that if you're brought to hospital halfway across the country (emergency while on vacation), that hospital can easily get your records. If it's outside your doctor's office hours, that can only be done if the computer they're stored on allows "pull" access by remote computers.

Ever heard of keeping an offsite backup of critical data? Doctors aren't IT experts, so an electronic records package that offered automatic backup to the provider's server as part of the monthly fee would be attractive - can't be done if the computer the records are stored on isn't reachable from a remote computer.

[HYHYBT]

...or if they're not actually stored on the doctor's computer at all, but only online at whatever site the software provider uses. Which would probably be safer for any one record than at the office, but when (not if) there *is* a breach, more would be vulnerable. Plus it means that if the internet connection goes down, the doctor can't see your records.

[Gravekeeper]

My doctor has a Star Trek data pad he carries everywhere. The only time I see him touch paper is when he prints off a form or prescription from it. I'm downright impressed someone was still running a doctor's office based entirely on paper.

I'm also impressed he blames Obama. ;p