Tagging Alzheimer's Patients?

A very serious debate is occurring down in Florida (yes, again). The issue now: embedding Alzheimer's patients at an adult-care facility with an identity chip that contains the patient's medical records which can be scanned should they be taken to the emergency room.

Aside from the risk (the chips need to be embedded into the person's skin and one risk would be the body's adverse reaction to it), many are questioning whether it is ethically correct.

According to the article "Do Chip Implants Protect or Violate Privacy?," the facility seeks the permission of family members or the patients themselves, if they are deemed competent, before they embed the chip. However, many are concerned that the patients will be enrolled in a "potentially risky study without their consent". And that may be the problem at the heart of it - embedding this particular chip is still an experiment - one that has not been reviewed by a review board yet.

As one person pointed out, there are other less invasive methods of taking your medical records with you.

Imagine a paperless health care world

The Washington Post had a terrific article "VA Takes the Lead in Paperless Care" earlier this week on the Department of Veterans Affairs health system -- one of the few and largest health system that is almost completely paperless. Every patient's record is computerized such that any VA hospital, clinic, nursing home, rehab center can see a patient's record (and the VA system is extensive -- "155 hospitals, 881 clinics, 135 nursing homes and 45 rehabilitation centers … With 5.3 million patients."

According to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),"one-quarter of American physicians use some sort of electronic record-keeping in their practices. But less than 10 percent have systems that store all necessary data, allow electronic ordering of tests and provide clinical reminders. Only 5 percent of the country's 6,000 hospitals have computerized ordering of drugs and tests, and even fewer have a fully integrated system like the VA's."

Considering it is estimated that electronic records could potentially save American medical care $162 billion/year (and not to mention countless lives due to medical error), why don't more doctors and hospitals store patient's records electronically? Yes, the upfront investment can be steep -- ranging from a few million to upwards of 60 million; but perhaps the government can step in to reimburse such costs? In addition, according to this article, the software the VA uses which was developed over years by many people (including clinicians) is "free to anyone who wants to get it through the Freedom of Information Act." In fact, many versions are already in use (and not just in the US). So then, what's the excuse?

Perhaps health care needs a company like Google to jumpstart this and bring it to the forefront?

Update: Lost records found

The CD containing the unencrypted medical and personal information of approx 75,000 members of Wellpoint was found --- It had been delivered “by mistake to a resident in the Philadelphia area.”

This is utterly and completely ridiculous, especially considering the information was exchanged between two subcontractors without adequate security protection --- which is strictly prohibited by privacy laws.

As mentioned in yesterday's entry, a Magellan spokesperson stated the company would, in the future, transmit information electronically.

As you can see, sending information electronically is more secure than sending it the old-fashioned way --- via hard copies.