Microsoft launched a public relations offensive today as part of the unveiling of its new online health records service, HealthVault. Bill Gates, never one to shy away from a business opportunity, offered the conventional wisdom on the Wall Street Journal's editorial page:
By giving us comprehensive access to our personal medical information, digital technology can make us all agents for change, capable of pushing for the one thing that we all really care about: a medical system that focuses on our lifelong health and prioritizes prevention as much as it does treatment.
But as he pointed out earlier in the piece, "Already, nearly all procedures, test results and prescriptions are recorded in digital form -- that's how health-care providers transmit information to health insurers so they can be paid for their work. But patients never see this data, and doctors are unable to share it." Ditto for Medicare, the biggest insurer of them.
So, then, isn't it a simple task to insist that these electronic medical records be made available upon request to patients and other physicians (with patient approval)? Isn't it a simple task to pass a law that requires all physicians, hospitals and clinics transition to patient-available electronic medical records with portability if they wish to continue collecting fees from Medicare, Medicaid and other government programs, which account for nearly half of all direct health care expenditures?
There would be a front end cost to the transition, of course. But in a country that spends over $6,000 per capita on health, is it unreasonable to budget, say, $100 a record for switching to electronic records? In a country with 300 million people, that's $30 billion. Spread it over five years and the cost is barely noticeable, and significantly below what health insurance companies make in profit every year.
There are interoperability and data reporting standards that have to be resolved. But instead of having every potential vendor reinvent its own wheel, a logical way to proceed would be to universalize the system created by the Veterans Administration, which blazed the trail in electronic recordkeeping.
Strict privacy policies with powerful sanctions for violators must be enacted and enforced. Extra help for making the transition may have to be offered to solo practitioners or health services offered in poor areas. But the surest way to get to universal electronic medical records is to pass a law requiring it. If the nation waits for competing marketplace forces to solve this problem, it will lag behind standards that are already in place in Europe for another generation.
Posted by gooznews at October 5, 2007 08:12 AMPhysicians do NOT transmit complete electronic medical records to insurers.
The procedures, test results and prescriptions that Gates says are recorded in digital form actually are encoded into transaction dataset that would not make sense to patients or any other human being if he/she were actually able to read it. Maybe Bill Gates could read it -- it's just code.
Posted by: John Mack at October 5, 2007 04:45 PMGranted. But doesn't that mean that adding a user-friendly interface that can interpret that data and make it accessible to patients and other physicians is relatively simple? I find it hard to believe that I can change and track my portfolio, download hundreds of stock prices, track all my income and expenditures, download them with a push of the button into tax forms, etc.etc. from home-based personal software, but the health care system can't come up with a program that does the same for my health records, which would provide me with a personal record for tracking my blood pressure, cholesterol levels, blood sugar levels, etc. over time. Absurd.
Posted by: Merrill at October 5, 2007 06:41 PMI went to the Microsoft site which is appologetic because it doesn't work yet. It says the record download won't work with 2003 Microsoft but it will with XP and Vista. I downloaded it and found it did not recognize my XP system. I know its new, but it ought to work better than this. Don't applolgize, when you let someone look at it, make sure it works.
I don't want to have to hire a tech guy from India to allow me to look at my personal information.
I am like the fellow above, why don't we have a system that works. I have worked as a health care provider for over 30 years and except for proprietary systems in very large organizations, EMRs are a mess and not user friendly. We need user friendly, private, records that a patient can have online or on something like an SD card that can be read in any hospital or doctors office or home computer for the benefit of the patient.
Thus far Microsoft's effort is unimpressive and ranks right along with everything else I have used - complex and with a provider quick to shift the blame to someone else if it doesn't work.
I have used the DOD system and with about one hours training was able to record notes, order labs and write prescriptions and send them to an appropriate pharmacy. Come on Microsoft, get with it.