Monday, April 2, 2018
Q. OF THE WEEK NO. 11
Healthcare providers are moving to a system of electronic health records where an individual's entire medical history, diagnoses, treatments, medications, and other health information are maintained in a digital form. The digitization of medical records significantly increases efficiency and results in individuals receiving better care, more timely care and care at a more affordable cost. Should physicians and other healthcare providers be able to freely access and share this information with each other without a patient's express consent?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that they should have to obtain the patients consent one time and after that they can feel free to share information. All health care professionals do have to undergo HIPAA training and hospitals or other employers take patient confidentiality very seriously. However, at the end of the day if a doctor needs to consult a coworker in order to best treat a patient wouldn't it be in the patient's best interest to allow them to communicate without them having to ask every time they want to bring up any part of their medical record. This system would still give the patients their privacy, but also by not allowing the health care providers to share information they are hindering their own ability to obtain the most effective treatment possible.
ReplyDeleteWow this is perfectly stated. What exactly does once mean? Also with the term once when and how old would they be asked? If the parents approved It would they need the Childs consent as well?
DeletePhysicians and other healthcare providers should need to obtain the express consent of the patient every time they decide to share it with a previously "unauthorized" party. However, I recognize the validity of Cole's comment about consent potentially slowing a diagnosis or barring access to important information, and as a solution patient's should have an option to give consent once (and have it apply until expressly revoked), or to require consent each time. Regardless of the option, it would be nice to see healthcare providers inform the patient each time the information is shared or have an easily accessible place where the patient can see how their data is used.
ReplyDeleteNo. I believe that medical information of any kind, transmitted or shared in any way, should be subject of Doctor/Patient confidentiality. Assuming my knowledge of HIPAA is correct, I believe you can share de-identified medical information. I believe the current HIPAA policies regarding the need of consent for identified information no matter how that information is shared should apply. Consent is a must.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion is similar to Cole's. I don't think that physicians should have to obtain a patient's consent for each and every time they want to share information with each other, but perhaps just once, or perhaps once a year, given the quick rate at which medical technologies and processes change and improves. Anyway, I think consent should be required from a patient because any medical information or record on a patient is (or at least, should be) the property of the patient.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I don't necessarily think that healthcare providers and physicians have nefarious intent behind the sharing of medical info, my biggest concern is with insurers gaining access to this data, which could be used to increase premiums or discriminate against customers. Like I said, I don't think that healthcare providers necessarily have a nefarious intent to share information with insurers, but for example, My healthcare provider, like many Utahn's is Intermountain Healthcare, and my insurer through my parents is SelectHealth, which is owned by Intermountain. I would be very concerned if my own medical information was shared between the two services for purposes which may work against me.
No, I don't think healthcare providers should be able to access and share a patient's information with each other freely unless the patient gives express consent. Other than opening the door for potential breaches of privacy and misuse of the information, I think patients have the right to choose who knows information about them and as a result, who influences their healthcare. When people are patients, they are in a state of vulnerability and so they should be as protected as possible. My one concern would be in the case where a patient is incapable of giving consent, such as being unconscious, and that state can't be changed without decisions being made (so not if they are under temporary anesthesia). I'm not sure what rules are currently in place about their information in that case, but I would be okay with information being shared with necessary physicians, but still not sharing it freely.
ReplyDeleteCole's statement was extremely solid. I do like the idea of having consent once a year or once every 5 years and so on. I believe that doctors communicating could only help the performance of healthcare and not hinder It. Doctors are extremely smart and careful when It comes to HIPPA because It can cost them their job and jail time. So I one hundred percent believe It would only be between doctors for health advice and for the sake of better health care.
ReplyDeleteI believe doctors and health care providers should require consent before sharing information with other professionals. The information gained from appointments and examinations is extremely valuable and could be dangerous in the wrong hands. If a doctor needs help treating a patient, the doctor should get the patient's permission before talking to other professionals. Requiring consent whenever the doctor wants to share information can take a lot of time, however, which defeats the purpose of the digitization of medical records. To stay efficient, I agree with Cole that consent should not be required during every instance. I would say Doctors should require consent every time the medical record is updated, so that way a person can decide based on new information whether they want others to know about their health.
ReplyDeleteI believe that physicians and other should require consent from patient about the disclosing of information to other healthcare providers, when they are first treated. I don’t believe that they should have to continually have to ask for consent to consult with other healthcare providers. This should be delay treatment, as Cole had also previously stated. That said the information being disclosed should be used in the best interest of the patient, and health care providers should take measures to insure that information isn’t disclosed for unnecessary parties.
ReplyDeleteConsent is a must. I think when doctors share medical information their needs to be patient consent. I agree with Cole that after consent is given it doesn’t have to be given to the same entity again. I do see issues around how long your consent should last. For example, if you give consent for another organization to have access to your medical record when you are 18, I don’t think they should have access to your records when you are 45. Consent should only last for a 10-year period.
ReplyDeleteI think that consent should be required from the patient every time the information is accessed by a new doctor/medical professional if the patient's name is attached to the information. If a doctor/medical professional wants to share patient's medical information with another doctor/medical professional a second opinion or research purposes, there is no reason that the patient's name needs to be attached to that information, in which case, I don't think that the patient needs to give consent.
ReplyDeleteI believe that health care providers should be able to share this information with other physicians without express consent from the patient, but while preserving the patients anonymity. That is, the information should not be linked to a patient's name. This would allow physicians to consult each other freely and hopefully provide better healthcare outcomes for patients. Patients should, however, be informed about the information sharing and be able to opt out.
ReplyDelete