I am going to make the first post on this topic and will continue to post more information as it becomes available. Under the "meaningful use" regulations that Physicians and Hospitals EHR systems must follow inorder to receive the EHR incentives that will provide them higher reimbursements; they must submit patient information that meets certain criteria. We were having problems with points being awarded based on our submissions. The information physicians are asked to submit is likely to be in many cases medical information that the patient would rather not be submitted to the Government data base and could have further implications for that Patient. Such as being watched by the DEA, local law enforcement and other agencies. A patient seeking treatment for psycological/mental problems; drug and alcohol addiction should have the right to keep this information private between the health care provider and themselves and not feel they may be subjected to criminal prosecution. I will be looking into to the right of patients to stop this information from be submitted to HHS, Medicare and Medicaid. I was told(but have not yet verified) that physicians and hospitals would receive incentives under "meaningful use" for providing medical data on patients that have a criminal record. If this is true, patients right to privacy when seeking medical treatment is being compromised under the EHR, Meaningful Use, and physician reimbursement incentives rules and regulations and it must be stopped. I will continue to post information as our office investigates with HHS, CMS and medical associations.
This sounds similar to national submissions NHS Trusts make in the UK, used for funding and statistical analysis. In either case, the data submitted is anonymous and more often than not summarised at an early stage. I'd be surprised if the same wasn't true of what you're talking about. Personally, I'd be more concerned about the data as held by the private hospitals and insurance companies than anything they pass to government organisations.
France stores all medical records in a database one one card which seems not to upset anyone, the government needs data for the program to make it better thats all which requires statistics.
I think I can attribute the few replies to the fact that most people have no idea what "meaningful use" under Obama care means and the implications of this portion of the law on the cost of medical care and health insurance and privacy of their medical information including their criminal record if any.
On the basis of your OP, neither do you. Maybe you could post some of this "further" information you talk about and we can discuss more than general speculation.
OK I have verified the information that I was attempting to make public. Doctors such as my husband have to submit all identifying information on "every" Medicare patient they see under the "meaningful use" guidlelines which determine how much they are reimbursed by Medicare, percentage wise. BUT, they only earn 1 of the 20 points they need to meet meaningful use in regards to submitting I.D. information on every patient if atleast "one"(1) patient submitted has a criminal record; such as pedifile, covicted of a felony and so on. They can submit thousands of patients information but unless they submit information on a patient previously convicted of a felony, they will not earn the one point available per year. There are other ways they earn meaningful use points. Other ways they can earn the 20 points needed per year. One huge problem is that neither patients or physicians can easily find the "meaningful use" criteria and a list of ways to earn the required points. Often they must hire an outside agency to guide them. Why? Shouldn't this information be upfront, available to both patients and physicians. Why is it hidden within various websites of the Federal Government. Perhaps because if the physicians fail to earn the 20 yearly points they need to meet "meaningful use" and get paid what they deserve to be paid; it will benefit the Federal Government?
I've looked in to meaningful use and the US EHR regulation and I can't find a single reference to patient criminal records in any of the requirements. What you describe made no logical sense in general and makes no sense in the context of the meaningful use requirements. I honestly think there is a misunderstanding somewhere (on your part or whoever you're getting your information from) and I think you need to identify your source if you really want to discuss and clarify this. On the second point, you can hardly call something on a public website "hidden". I found the information very easily and thought the it was relatively well presented, both to the layman patient and from a professional point of view. It looks a lot like the kind of documentation I have to work in here and while this kind of thing can be difficult to get your head around even if it's your professional field, it really doesn't look bad to me. Edit: I primarily used this site - http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/Meaningful_Use.html
Posted by HonestJoe. "I've looked in to meaningful use and the US EHR regulation and I can't find a single reference to patient criminal records in any of the requirements. What you describe made no logical sense in general and makes no sense in the context of the meaningful use requirements. I honestly think there is a misunderstanding somewhere (on your part or whoever you're getting your information from) and I think you need to identify your source if you really want to discuss and clarify this". Our Office Manager could not find "a single reference to patient criminal records either" when we established our EHR program and began to attempt to meet the "Meaningful Use" guidelines. As usual the guidelines are not easily found or listed in one location on HHS, CMS or IT website. And those listed lack a complete explanation. Nothing new when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid. We have been dealing with this for over 30 years. Even if you call those offices in charge you will never get the same information or answer to your questions twice. Here is what I know to be a fact(based on what our office was told when we phoned those responsible for the "meaningful use" administration; we must submit identifying data on all patients we see under the medicare program but we will not receive the credit for meeting this requirement toward meeting "meaningful use"(1 point) until atleast one of the patients we submit has a criminal record, they specifically mentioned sex offender and a patient convicted of a felony. I as you believed my husbands office staff had to be wrong. So, I questioned my husband again and he said that it was his understanding that the patient information he submitted was be cross-referenced with other State and Federal data basis. His understanding is based on information provided by Medicare staff, our EHR providers staff and information physicians he knows provided. Let me ask you this, why under meaningful use would physicians be required to submit only the usual Patient Identifying data? Not required to submit any actual medical information. What purpose does that serve when determining "meaningful use"? I as a patient don't want any information submitted to Medicare or Medicaid other than that information needed for them to process my "claim" for payment. Also, I believe allowing the Government access to my medical history including whether I smoke, drink, have a drug addiction, psychological disorder or history of such; is the Business of the Federal Government. Patients will begin to leave out this important information when they document their history for their doctor or asked by their physician. This information is important to providing a proper diagnosis and determining the proper treatment and prescriptions. Patients leaving out this information may not receive the treatment they need. It is a total breach of the Doctor-Patient privacy law. If this is true as we believe it to be, it is a huge intrusion into our patients right to confidentiality". I have been trying to find out if patients have a right to "opt-out" of their information being transmitted to State or Federal Government when it has no bearing on their diagnosis or treatment. In other words, for no other reason then the Federal Government creating a data base for non-medical use.
What are you referring to? The only data providers submit under meaningful use pertains to certain clinical quality measures. But that's not individually identifiable information. In fact, the rules for the next iteration of meaningful use, State 2, were finalized a few months ago and they emphasized that State 2 will also not require the submission of any individually identifiable data. I think you're a little confused on this. This stuff about criminal records and "all identifying information" about Medicare patients just isn't grounded in anything. My advice would be starting with the website for that program: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/index.html Chock full of information.
This isn't the ACA. It's the HITECH Act, a component of the much-maligned stimulus package from 2009.
I was just trying to be sure to get your attention so that you would answer the question I posed on another thread.
Presenting a guideline never means that we are not at all conscious about the quality or work procedure. It is just a simple means through which a new comer can start surviving in his profession.
Mebbe we should do like dey do in So. Africa... Electronic Records Aid Hospitals, Patients March 15, 2013 - For all of the money Americans spend on health care, electronic medical records are still far from universal in the United States. See also: IRS facing class action suit for medical record breach March 14, 2013 - A HIPAA-covered entity of the Southern District of California announced today that it is suing 15 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agents for an unlawful search and seizure conducted on March 11, 2011. Though the surrounding details of the health data breach and pending class action lawsuit are minimal, Courthousenews.com reports that IRS agents have been accused of improperly accessing and taking 10 million medical records, such as the personal health records of all California state judges.
