PDA

View Full Version : Wired for Health Care Quality Act


crazycoffey
06-27-2007, 12:55 PM
This is up for review in today's senate. The doctor I work for thinks this means we will have a governmental forced electronic health records with no privacy protections (so pharmacutical companies can target or exclude you based on you past health records)

I don't know if it's true or not, I did find the senate schedule and see it's on the agenda for today, but have not read the article yet. I was curious if you all had any thoughts or knowledge to share with me about it.

She seemed to be under the impression that there wouldn't be a public hearing on the matter and wants me to call the senate HELP committee to share her disapproval......

link-

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/committees/b_three_sections_with_teasers/committee_hearings.htm

Wednesday, Jun. 27, 2007
9:30 a.m.
Judiciary
Constitution Subcommittee
To hold an oversight hearing to examine the
federal death penalty.
SD-226

9:30 a.m.
Veterans' Affairs
Business meeting to markup pending legislation;
to be immediately followed by a full committee
hearing to examine the nomination of Charles L.
Hopkins, of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant
Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Operations,
Preparedness, Security and Law Enforcement).
SD-562

10 a.m.
Finance
To hold hearings to examine the Stealth Tax,
focusing on how to stop the alternative minimum
tax from sneaking up on unsuspecting taxpayers.
SD-215

10 a.m.
Environment and Public Works
Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security, and
Water Quality Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine protecting water
quality at America's beaches.
SD-406

10:30 a.m.
Aging
To hold hearings to examine the relationship
between doctors and the drug industry.
SD-106

11 a.m.
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Business meeting to consider S.1695, to amend the
Public Health Service Act to establish a pathway
for the licensure of biosimilar biological
products, to promote innovation in the life
sciences, S.1693, to enhance the adoption of a
nationwide interoperable health information
technology system and to improve the quality and
reduce the costs of health care in the United
States, S.793, to provide for the expansion and
improvement of traumatic brain injury programs,
and S.1011, to change the name of the National
Institute on Drug Abuse to the National Institute
on Diseases of Addiction and to change the name
of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism to the National Institute on Alcohol
Disorders and Health.
S-211, Capitol

noa
06-27-2007, 01:02 PM
Hmmm, the Library Of Congress hasn't received this bill yet, so I can't read the CRS summary. I would want to see what CRS says about it before giving my opinion, because they usually distill all the mumbo jumbo into something I can understand. Must be in the earliest stages right now...

pikesome
06-27-2007, 01:10 PM
This is up for review in today's senate. The doctor I work for thinks this means we will have a governmental forced electronic health records with no privacy protections (so pharmacutical companies can target or exclude you based on you past health records)


I know everyone thinks Big Pharm is evil but this sounds like BS. I'd have to read the text myself but, since the courts can't even get records without cause, I find it hard to believe Congress could get a law through that did. Abuse is always a concern but targeting individuals would be about the worst idea a company could have. It'd be lawsuit city regardless of the bill's text.

crazycoffey
06-27-2007, 01:47 PM
Hmmm, the Library Of Congress hasn't received this bill yet, so I can't read the CRS summary. I would want to see what CRS says about it before giving my opinion, because they usually distill all the mumbo jumbo into something I can understand. Must be in the earliest stages right now...


original brought forth in 2005. Different number but the title reads pretty much the same anyway.....
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.01418:

S.1418
Title: A bill to enhance the adoption of a nationwide inter operable health information technology system and to improve the quality and reduce the costs of health care in the United States

ALL ACTIONS: 7/18/2005: Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S8420-8421 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r109:FLD001:S08421)) 7/18/2005: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (text of measure as introduced: CR S8421-8426 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r109:FLD001:S08422)) 7/20/2005: Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably. 7/27/2005: Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Reported by Senator Enzi with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 109-111 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(sr111):). 7/27/2005: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 178. 11/18/2005: Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR 11/17/2005 S13260-13277 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r109:FLD001:S13261); text of measure as reported in Senate: CR 11/17/2005 S13261-13271 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r109:FLD001:S13262)) 11/18/2005: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. 11/18/2005 10:33am: Received in the House. 11/18/2005: Message on Senate action sent to the House. 11/18/2005: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 12/16/2005: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.

noa
06-27-2007, 01:53 PM
original brought forth in 2005. Different number but the title reads pretty much the same anyway.....
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.01418:

S.1418
Title: A bill to enhance the adoption of a nationwide inter operable health information technology system and to improve the quality and reduce the costs of health care in the United States

ALL ACTIONS: 7/18/2005: Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S8420-8421 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r109:FLD001:S08421)) 7/18/2005: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (text of measure as introduced: CR S8421-8426 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r109:FLD001:S08422)) 7/20/2005: Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably. 7/27/2005: Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Reported by Senator Enzi with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 109-111 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(sr111):). 7/27/2005: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 178. 11/18/2005: Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR 11/17/2005 S13260-13277 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r109:FLD001:S13261); text of measure as reported in Senate: CR 11/17/2005 S13261-13271 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r109:FLD001:S13262)) 11/18/2005: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. 11/18/2005 10:33am: Received in the House. 11/18/2005: Message on Senate action sent to the House. 11/18/2005: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 12/16/2005: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.


Thanks, I'll read the CRS summary for that bill when I have a bit more time.

crazycoffey
06-27-2007, 01:53 PM
I know everyone thinks Big Pharm is evil but this sounds like BS. I'd have to read the text myself but, since the courts can't even get records without cause, I find it hard to believe Congress could get a law through that did. Abuse is always a concern but targeting individuals would be about the worst idea a company could have. It'd be lawsuit city regardless of the bill's text.



I understand the Doctor's thinking, but I agree more with you on this.

Her point to me first the fact of possible passing this without a public hearing, after all it will affect a large percentage of the public and second that people should be able to control thier records without worry of risk to them.

I think she sees it similar to telemarketers, and the annoyance that can come from this. "Your records show you have asthma, would you like to try this revolutionary new drug, we'll send you a sample." without any medical review if that drug would even be appropriate, etc etc. And I can see that, more so than the "Gattaca effect" (America becoming like the movie)

pikesome
06-27-2007, 08:40 PM
This isn't about this bill but look at the idea and it's authors...fuggin scary.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070626/hl_afp/ushealthsciencetechnology&printer=1;_ylt=Anze1hkToJhcWOFDsYvi9QiKOrgF)
Doctors could soon be storing essential medical information under the skin of their patients, the American Medical Association says.

Devices the size of a grain of rice that are implanted with a needle could give emergency room doctors quick access to the records of chronically ill patients, the nation's largest doctors group said in a report.

The association adopted a policy Monday stating that the devices can improve the "safety and efficiency of patient care" by helping to identify patients and enabling secure access to clinical information.

These radio frequency identification tags (RFIDs) are already used by Wal-Mart and other businesses to speed up their shipping systems by sending out small signals that can be scanned more easily than bar codes.

Implanting them in people "can improve the continuity and coordination of care with resulting reductions in adverse drug events and other medical errors," said the report prepared by the association's ethics committee.

But the devices "also may pose some physical risks, compromise patient privacy, or present other social hazards."

The main concern is protecting the privacy of the information stored on the devices.

There are also health concerns.

While the devices are removable and designed to stay in place, their small size could allow them to move to other parts of a person's body.

They may also cause interference with electrical devices like defibrillators and it has not been determined what impact they would have on prescription drugs.

The report concluded that it is "likely that utilization of RFID devices for medical purposes will expand."

The US Food and Drug Administration has so far only approved "passive" tags for human implantation which cannot be altered once inserted and have a limited capacity and transmission range.

The devices are also only allowed to contain a unique identification code in order to protect patient privacy.

The FDA may eventually approve "active" devices which contain internal batteries and can be updated as a patient's condition changes.

The association warned of "potential social consequences" such as using the devices for surveillance which could be an infringement on individual liberties.

It recommended that the devices not be implanted without the informed consent of patients and that doctors monitor their use.

Adept Havelock
06-27-2007, 08:48 PM
IMO, It's just another step in the wrong direction.

Maybe I'm paranoid, but I fully expect to see HMO's and such denying coverage based off genetic predispositions for various illnesses in the next couple of decades. If it takes that long.

pikesome
06-27-2007, 08:50 PM
IMO, It's just another step in the wrong direction.

Maybe I'm paranoid, but I fully expect to see HMO's and such denying coverage based off genetic predispostions for various illnesses in the next couple of decades. If it takes that long.

We'll have laws against denying coverage and a jump in premiums "to make up" for the new laws.

Adept Havelock
06-27-2007, 08:52 PM
We'll have laws against denying coverage and a jump in premiums "to make up" for the new laws.


I wish I shared your confidence, but considering the HMO/Big Pharm lobbys, I just can't.

I'm sure there will be plenty of folks who would claim a government law prohibiting "genetic profiling" is nothing more than restraint of trade, or unfair intrusion on the business sector. Between them and those that can only villify Big Pharm/HMO's (they actually do a little good now and then, IMO) and want to embrace a system like Canada or Englands, I don't see much getting done to protect the average person.

Baby Lee
06-27-2007, 08:55 PM
As a work comp functionary who has spent his share of wasted time either trying to decipher xeroxes of xeroxes of xeroxes of some mouldy records, or jumping through BS hoops to get records we are statutorily entitled to, I would love this development.

pikesome
06-27-2007, 09:00 PM
I wish I shared your confidence, but considering the HMO/Big Pharm lobbys, I just can't.

I'm sure there will be plenty of folks who would claim a government law prohibiting "genetic profiling" is nothing more than restraint of trade, or unfair intrusion on the business sector. Between them and those that can only villify Big Pharm/HMO's (they actually do a little good now and then, IMO) and want to embrace a system like Canada or Englands, I don't see much getting done to protect the average person.

Businesses aren't stupid, if it ever got out that they denied coverage on genetic there'd be a shit-storm. The smart way to handle it is to support the laws banning it and then jack up premiums. That's the American way, make the consumer pay for government regulation whether those regulations are good or not.

Adept Havelock
06-27-2007, 09:52 PM
Businesses aren't stupid, if it ever got out that they denied coverage on genetic there'd be a shit-storm. The smart way to handle it is to support the laws banning it and then jack up premiums. That's the American way, make the consumer pay for government regulation whether those regulations are good or not.


You may be right. I hope you are. Good point about payment for the regs, good or not.

crazycoffey
06-28-2007, 09:10 AM
Businesses aren't stupid, if it ever got out that they denied coverage on genetic there'd be a shit-storm. The smart way to handle it is to support the laws banning it and then jack up premiums. That's the American way, make the consumer pay for government regulation whether those regulations are good or not.



Right, just like it would be a shit storm if it got out that said business was preventing a promotion due to skin color or sexual orientation.

Good thing we have laws to prevent that!

pikesome
06-28-2007, 09:30 AM
Right, just like it would be a shit storm if it got out that said business was preventing a promotion due to skin color or sexual orientation.

Good thing we have laws to prevent that!

And it happens far less than it used to. You can't get rid of things like this completely but the laws do work. Corps are cautious because failure to live up to the regs can kill your business (insurance companies have to be licensed to operate I believe). I'm not saying that they wouldn't want to do it but there are far easier ways to use the situation to make money than denying coverage outright. If you don't cover someone you get no money from them.

crazycoffey
06-28-2007, 10:47 AM
And it happens far less than it used to. You can't get rid of things like this completely but the laws do work. Corps are cautious because failure to live up to the regs can kill your business (insurance companies have to be licensed to operate I believe). I'm not saying that they wouldn't want to do it but there are far easier ways to use the situation to make money than denying coverage outright. If you don't cover someone you get no money from them.


sorry, I was a bit hyped up from the other conversation, playing devils advocate on that post, I'm on you side of this issue, or at least more on your side. I disagree with almost everything the Doctor here stands for (politically speaking) but was trying to understand it more by posting this here to hear all the different views the planet can provide.