J Bean was among the commenters who took offense at the line of argument in Steven McKinney’s “Response to Doctors Raise Doubts on Digital Health Data.”
“I guess I have to admit that the EMR industry seems to have hit on a really unique marketing angle. “We have a crappy, overpriced product that would make the buyer’s life worse rather than better, but if they don’t want to buy it, it’s only because they have a psychological hang up. Why wouldn’t that work? Perhaps GM could give it a try too. Of course,
while GM’s cars used to suck, they’ve actually worked to make their
product better. Now they just have to overcome their bad reputation …”
Meanwhile, “Whose Data is it anyway?” Doug Klinger’s post on the issues surrounding the ownership of patient data provoked an interesting thread. Dr. Johnson writes:
In Wisconsin, the law states what I believe should be a universal
principle: the medical provider and the patient jointly share ownership
of the medical record, of which the provider has possession. The
patient has the right of access to every word in the record.
2: Nearly all the entries in the record are chaff to the provider on
later visits; the detail is of “interest” only to litigators and
payors. The provider needs to be able to know the data regarding
permanent changes in health status, especially histologic reports of
surgical specimens, radiologic interpretation of abnormal images,
abnormal laboratory values and subsequent normals, and the specifics of
medication allergies and intolerances, physical observations and tests
that are abnormal, accurate family history, accurate social history,
accurate medication history, and diagnoses with lasting implications.
Nearly everything else is noise.