[billethkid]

Originally Posted by outlaw

It's referred to as "shooting the messenger".

I disagree. When anybody that reads a post is either in doubt or has a question for verification or validation it does not mean they are disagreeing or attacking. It simply means more information is needed.

I for one would immediately ask ....what in the world could possibly take 297 pages for an overnight stay?

Does not mean I disagree or doubt anything. Simply, face value only, means my interest is in what could possibly take 297 pages....no more than that....no less....no in between the lines meaning.....

We all have differing experiences and curiosity levels. I might also add that a disagreement is not intended as an attack (usually).

Far too many folks on forums conclude or are are offended if a question of any kind is asked. And disagreeing is viewed as negative!!

[dbussone]

Billie - the ACA created many new requirements for hospitals and health workers, frequently expanding obligations for practices before the ACA was enacted. For example, a written discharge plan for a patient in 2005 might have been 3-4 pages. After ACA, it could easily run 20+ pages of printed material. While 297 pages seems extreme for an overnight stay, I don't doubt the possibility in a rare circumstance.

[bonrich]

I had a concern for the OP and his post about the 297 pages of his medical records and his concern about some of the entries. All of which could be easily resolved by going back to the hospital and if they have a patient advocate, sit down with that individual and go over the records and get an explanation of the billing and the questionable entries and get them resolved or corrected. Mistakes do happen as it did with my medical record at the Villages Hospital which stated when I was admitted that I had a total knee replacement, which was incorrect, since I had a total hip. EASILY corrected if when I need to.
As for the care, it was excellent!! I can't say enough from the ER to admittance, the nurses care during my stay. The Dr's I had were specialist's and hospitalist's were again the best! If I had to utilize a hospital again, would not hesitate to go back to The Villages Hospital.

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by bonrich

I had a concern for the OP and his post about the 297 pages of his medical records and his concern about some of the entries. All of which could be easily resolved by going back to the hospital and if they have a patient advocate, sit down with that individual and go over the records and get an explanation of the billing and the questionable entries and get them resolved or corrected. Mistakes do happen as it did with my medical record at the Villages Hospital which stated when I was admitted that I had a total knee replacement, which was incorrect, since I had a total hip. EASILY corrected if when I need to.
As for the care, it was excellent!! I can't say enough from the ER to admittance, the nurses care during my stay. The Dr's I had were specialist's and hospitalist's were again the best! If I had to utilize a hospital again, would not hesitate to go back to The Villages Hospital.

Excellent point. And if the hospital, doctor, etc say the entries are correct and accurate, the patient has a right to include his own comments to the contrary. The facility is then obligated, under the law, to include those comments.

[Challenger]

Originally Posted by The O's

I believe this is prime example of why a lot of people don't post on TOTV. The OP does a post and immediately is questioned/attacked about his comments. It appears that there is frustration with TV Hospital. But, now he/she gets attacked here. I don't understand why. Now, I will get questioned because I stood up for the OP. Oh, well.

The OP was not attacked but was questioned when his/her post cast an organization in an unfavorable light. The 297 pages issue may be right but sounds a bit beyond what most of us have experienced. The "false statements"comment will certainly encourage some questioning on a forum like this because it suggest unethical or illegal actions by TVRH .
The OP when making such charges should expect to be to be called to provide further evidence of these or similar serious charges. You cannot just throw a bomb and disappear.

In my opinion if one is unwilling to participate in further dialog and discussion, one should not make unsupported charges in the first instance.

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by Chi-Town

There has been pressure to move to electronic medical records (EMR) for quite some time. Forward thinking hospital networks realized the need to have information readily available for review across the various departments that are involved in a patient's care. They realized that healthcare was one of the only industries that relied on paper records and that needed to change. The government via the ACA has incentivized all hospirals to move to an electronic medical system.

Remember when companies computerized and how many times we heard how life was easier before this turmoil of change? Look how that turned out. EMRs are here to stay. We will enjoy better healthcare becsuse of them.

Not sure I agree about the better care part. Studies have shown that physicians, particularly in the ER, are spending more time looking at a computer screen than the patient.

By the way, the Feds are now developing huge data warehouses for medical data that the ACA requires be sent to the data warehouses in the name of better care and data portability. I can hardly wait to hear about a huge data hack that involves the release of personal and health information about millions of Americans. The bottom line is that your medical information will no longer be private. That should concern each of us.

[sunnyatlast]

Originally Posted by dbussone

Not sure I agree about the better care part. Studies have shown that physicians, particularly in the ER, are spending more time looking at a computer screen than the patient.

By the way, the Feds are now developing huge data warehouses for medical data that the ACA requires be sent to the data warehouses in the name of better care and data portability. I can hardly wait to hear about a huge data hack that involves the release of personal and health information about millions of Americans. The bottom line is that your medical information will no longer be private. That should concern each of us.

Enter the #1 reason of ten why hospitals and physicians "hate their EMR", from the article I linked above:

1. It doesn’t measure up to paper. Shahid Shah, software analyst and author of the blog Healthcare IT Guy, can’t stand when developers and other IT professionals “assume paper records and medical grade documents aren’t as important as structured data.”

And according to Deborah Peel, MD, a practicing physician and national expert on medical privacy, EMR systems don’t allow patients to control who can see, use, or disclose sensitive health data.

“Today’s EMRs were never build to comply with [patients’] constitutional and ethical rights to privacy,” she said. “This is very different from how paper medical record systems work: where doctors always asked for [patients’] consent before releasing [their] records to anyone.”

And when some argue there are many things EMRs can do that paper records can’t, such as sharing information from doctor to doctor, Twitter user @sixuntilme thinks otherwise. “Every doctor has [an EMR], but none of those records talk to one another,” she tweeted. “We need an EMR cloud.”

And this is just one of a thousand observations like it.

10 things you hate about your EMR | Healthcare IT News

….

[blueash]

Originally Posted by dbussone

Even worse is the fact that ObamaCare requires that all EMRs - hospital, physician, other medical facilities - are merged into a federal database.

I would like some explanation of that statement. Please cite the specific parts of the law if possible and explain what you mean by merged. As you claim some expertise on the ACA and how it has been implemented your words are given some greater authority.
Your statement seems to say that the federal government will have access to all the information in your personal medical record which would seem to violate most people's understanding of HIPAA.

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by blueash

I would like some explanation of that statement. Please cite the specific parts of the law if possible and explain what you mean by merged. As you claim some expertise on the ACA and how it has been implemented your words are given some greater authority.
Your statement seems to say that the federal government will have access to all the information in your personal medical record which would seem to violate most people's understanding of HIPPA.

The last sentence of your post is completely accurate. The Feds can violate HIPPA because they are exempt from it. Let me see what I can dig up for you.

[NotGolfer]

Originally Posted by dbussone

The last sentence of your post is completely accurate. The Feds can violate HIPPA because they are exempt from it. Let me see what I can dig up for you.

THIS statement is a "YIKES" for me! You definately know what you're talking about since you've been in the medical/hospital field.

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by dbussone

The last sentence of your post is completely accurate. The Feds can violate HIPPA because they are exempt from it. Let me see what I can dig up for you.

Getting through the CMS baloney can be difficult. Here is a link to a transcript of a CMS conference call on 5/29/14. It takes time to find some of the interesting pieces, but one section briefly discusses how physician office staff and facilities will be able to upload data to warehouses directly from patient electronic records.

Remember this was started initially for the purpose of improving quality. More and more data points have been added since the initial couple required. Initially no patient identifiable data was to be provided now they are moving to the use of individual patient records as the source.

I'll see if I can find more.. I read some material from CMS earlier this month but am having a time wading through all their releases etc.

[dbussone]

Here is a CMS release from December 2014. Note the use of the words "shared" and "transferred."


Certified EHR Technology
What is a certified EHR?
In order to capture and share patient data efficiently, providers need an EHR that stores data in a structured format. Structured data allows patient information to be easily retrieved and transferred, and it allows the provider to use the EHR in ways that can aid patient care.


CMS and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) have established standards and other criteria for structured data that EHRs must use in order to qualify for this incentive program.


To get an incentive payment, you must use an EHR that is certified specifically for the EHR Incentive Programs. Certified EHR technology gives assurance to purchasers and other users that an EHR system or module offers the necessary technological capability, functionality, and security to help them meet the meaningful use criteria. Certification also helps providers and patients be confident that the electronic health IT products and systems they use are secure, can maintain data confidentially, and can work with other systems to share information.


Please Note: EHRs certified or qualified for other Medicare incentive programs may not be certified for this program. Also, if you already own an EHR, it may not be certified for use in the EHR Incentive Programs.


To learn which EHR systems and modules are certified for the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs, please visit the Certified Health IT Product List (CHPL) on the ONC website here.

Electronic Health Record (EHR) or Electronic Medical Record (EMR)?

Sometimes people use the terms "Electronic Medical Record" or "EMR" when talking about Electronic Health Record (EHR) technology. Very often an Electronic Medical Record or EMR is just another way to describe an Electronic Health Record or EHR, and both providers and vendors sometimes use the terms interchangeably. For the purposes of the Medicare and Medicaid Incentive Programs, eligible professionals, eligible hospitals and critical access hospitals (CAHs) must use certified EHR technology.



What is the CMS EHR Certification ID?
During attestation, CMS requires each eligible professional, eligible hospital and critical access hospital to provide a CMS EHR Certification ID that identifies the certified EHR technology being used to demonstrate meaningful use. This unique CMS EHR Certification ID or Number can be obtained by entering your certified EHR technology product information at the Certified Health IT Product List (CHPL) on the ONC website here.


NOTE: The ONC CHPL Product Number issued to your vendor for each certified technology is different than the CMS EHR Certification ID. Only a CMS EHR Certification ID obtained through the CHPL will be accepted at attestation

Eligible professionals, eligible hospitals and critical access hospitals can obtain a CMS EHR Certification ID by following these steps:

Go to the ONC CHPL website: here
Select your practice type by selecting the Ambulatory or Inpatient buttons.
Search for EHR Products by browsing all products, searching by product name or searching by criteria met.
Add product(s) to your cart to determine if your product(s) meet 100% of the CMS required criteria.
Request a CMS EHR Certification ID for CMS attestation. The CMS EHR Certification ID contains 15 alphanumeric characters.
NOTE: The “Get CMS EHR Certification ID” button will not be activated until the products in your cart meet 100% of the CMS required criteria. If the EHR product(s) do not meet 100% of the CMS required criteria to demonstrate Meaningful Use, a CMS EHR Certification ID will not be issued.

Related Links
HHS Office of National Coordinator Health IT Web Site
Health IT/Standards and Certification
Page last Modified: 12/15/2014 10:18 AM
Help with File Formats and Plug-Ins
HomeA federal government website managed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244

[bimmertl]

If you are on Medicare and bills, diagnostic codes, doctors names, treatments etc are submitted to CMS for payment under your name and SS number, of course they have your private medical information. How would CMS make payments to providers without this information?

Any private insurance carriers would also require the same information. They also need your records to approve future treatments in many instances.

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by bimmertl

If you are on Medicare and bills, diagnostic codes, doctors names, treatments etc are submitted to CMS for payment under your name and SS number, of course they have your private medical information. How would CMS make payments to providers without this information?

Any private insurance carriers would also require the same information. They also need your records to approve future treatments in many instances.

Yes, yes. But they would never use it in an inappropriate way. 😉😉

Until now they have only wanted some information. Now the expectation is that they want it all. EVERYTHING that goes into any facility, physician, or hospital record will become part of the data the Feds will have at some time in the future. I know some physicians, including a fairly large group who have decided not to go to electronic records. They believe a record with personal and confidential information cannot remain so when EHR data is shared and transferred.

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by dbussone

Yes, yes. But they would never use it in an inappropriate way. 😉😉

Until now they have only wanted some information. Now the expectation is that they want it all. EVERYTHING that goes into any facility, physician, or hospital record will become part of the data the Feds will have at some time in the future. I know some physicians, including a fairly large group who have decided not to go to electronic records. They believe a record with personal and confidential information cannot remain so when EHR data is shared and transferred.

Think about it. If a politician would use IRS confidential information for whatever nefarious purpose, why wouldn't some do the same with your medical information.