Consider this:
My practice has been using electronic records for 12 years. It can be "hacked", but you have to get through 2 firewalls with dual level 128 bit encryption then a series of software passwords, and this assumes you know the network architecture. This is about the same as hacking a bank
Prior to Nov 2003, when we had paper records, all you needed to "hack" them was a screwdriver and a crowbar. (And all you needed to destroy them was a match). So what do you think is more secure?

Charging for medical records or records of any kind is SOP for many organizations. The big issue for me is the use of our social security numbers.

I had a procedure done in early 1990's and looked on to the computer screen
to see that my name, address, telephone number, dob, social security number, etc appeared. I asked the doctor why the medical community didn't simply assign a patient number to be used throughout that person's life?

I appreciate the extent to which you have gone to protect your patient's information. Unfortunately I need all my fingers and toes to count the number of times hospitals have had problems since electronic records have been in general use.

Thank you. As I already stated above, we never paid a cent for medical records in Michigan, from Grand Rapids to Muskegon to Ann Arbor to down here.

Trust me, after 34 years practicing medicine, those "problems" were ten times greater with paper records. Just the legibility factor saves thousands of errors. Electronic prescribing eliminates the pharmacist's guess as to what is written on a Rx, physician order entry in hospitals eliminates errors by a unit secretary or nurse, discharge instructions are clearly printed, and office records a legible and easily sent to other physicians. In a lot of ways I also long for "the good old days" in medicine, but electronic records are one aspect that is a clear no-brainer

It's allowed in FL, just as Blueash said, up to $1 per page. You will pay a fee at TVRH if they make copies of your records there. Many doctor's offices charge, as well, as you found out.

[emoji106]🏻

After 40 years of running hospitals and hospital systems I can agree on the benefits you note. However, the loss of medical information has increased dramatically with the figuration and storage of data. I can recall several years ago when a transcription company using workers in Pakistan was held hostage for payment when the workers started posting patient records on the Internet. And every smart device that connects to your medical record system or a hospital's is subject to theft and abuse with patient data retained on that device. Copy/scanning machines now have their own hard drives. When the lease is up a new one is rolled into the facility and the old one is rolled out- chock full of data. Believe me i have seen it all and then some.

If you want to see something scary try to gain access to a medical records department and see firsthand the horrors of forms management. God bless the department head and the assistants. I woud go nuts. Electronic medical records is the future, thank goodness.

Don't get me wrong. I am a fan of EMR systems. What I dislike intensely is the lack of attention paid to every aspect of security. Part of Obamacare involves the establishment of regional EMR data warehouses. All hospitals and physicians will be required to transmit patient information to these centers, and it is underway now. All the regional centers will be connected and the data accessible to many folks at CMS and other agencies. If the Chinese can hack into the Pentagon how secure do you think your personal information will be in another government repository.

Copy charges are the norm for transfer of records. I have 5 doctors records to transfer when I moved to TV. Each one had some sort of charge. I was not surprised...it costs money to have someone make the copies or send the faxes!

Off topic, and I know you know better. The ACA data collection is REQUIRED to have been stripped of patient identification data. It is collected as bulk data and the information cannot be identified by patient. Meaningful use criteria are analyzed by the EMR so see if the practice is practice is providing the services being measured as reflections of quality care, asking about abuse, providing immunizations, doing vital signs, recording allergies. This data is collected by the practices EMR. Insurance companies are also reporting data on utilization of services etc. None of the data reported have your name or your SSN or anything similar. So, no, the ACA is not collecting "your personal information" in the way you have suggested. It is more like the census gives an idea of what numbers and categories of persons live in an area but without names.

You are correct in that meaningful use data, PQRI, and most ACO data is batched reporting. However, the clearinghouses ("warehouses") referred to pass along all transmitted data---this includes personal medical records and even every electronically transmitted prescriptions. Now whether this data is retained or not (a la NSA), is unclear, but db is correct in stating that security needs to me a major concern. Of course, Chinese hackers are far more interested in the Pentagon than they are in anyone's bunions.

Blueash, thanks for your informative posts.

That is going to change soon. One of the thrusts behind the regional centers is to permit the availability of one's complete medical record from one facility to another. So if you live in TV and go to an ER in Virginia, your record can be accessed by the Virginia providers.