Keith last wrote:
> Ok,  Everyone has good security until someone does something like
> take a disk home or there is a break in and the server gets
> stolen... or there is a hack.

Of course, thieves can break into doctors' offices and steal medical
records (as was done in the case of some of Nixon;s dirty
tricksters) when that is exactly what happened.

And as has already been pointed out everyone's personal medical
history records already exist in databases with medicare and in
insurance records, etc.  So the only difference with a PHR is that
with a PHR one gains access to and can consolidate one's own medical
records for oneself and one's own physicians ... which those other
existing databases do not permit.

So what exactly is the increased risk?  If anything a well chosen
PHR undoubtedly has better security than all the government and
insurance records that already exist.

> I understand you want a simpler life. 

It is not merely a "simpler" life that I am seeking.  I just want
access to my own records (which I do not currently have), and I want
any doctors or specialists that I may use to have the same access
that I have to the same complete information instead of just bits
and pieces of information that they individually collect scattered
to dozens of different non-reconciled places.

> I also understand that some
> are willing to give up their rights to feel safer. 

It is not a matter of "giving up their rights" ... but rather it is
a matter of *acquiring* the right to access my own medical records
and *acquiring* the right to
control my own medical records data.

> I disagree with both. 

Certainly that is your choice.

> Anytime you add your information to a database, no matter
> what the database, you are subject to it being compromised
> and your data being made public, as in my example. 

Again, all the information already exists in various scattered
databases among multiple doctors, insurance carriers, government
agencies, etc.  So what is the difference and how is risk increased
if one simply consolidates one's own information in a PHR for one's
own use and for the use of those (doctors) one specifically
authorizes to view?

> An I understand it is a personal choice.  Until it is required
> by law I will not put any of my medical info anywhere. 

You don't have to.  As has been pointed out, the information is
already there and you cannot stop it from being there if you use
*any* physician, *any* pharmacy, or *any* insurance carrier.

So, I think your only option might be to file a lawsuit and get some
kind of injunction or order to require every doctor you have ever
seen, every pharmacy you have ever used, every med-test lab report
ever done, and every insurance carrier you have ever used to destroy
any and all records that s/he might have on you. Good luck with
that.

No contentiousness intended here, Keith.  Just sharing my view of
the benefits that I see (which you asked for), and the facts (as I
understand them) regarding the impracticality of trying to avoid
having anyone's medical history from already existing in multiple
databases ... and mainly trying to get an answer to my original
question. ;)



---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss