I spent many years programming everything from cash registers to main frame computer systems, your info is not totally safe anywhere...not the motor vehicle system, not the IRS, not retail stores, no one can guarantee your datas' security these days so why obsess on the medical records system which can help you more than financial systems that get hacked every day? You give just as much 'dangerous' info when you open a store credit card.

I am not paranoid by nature, but if I had a condition that could affect future employment or the government would be interested in tracking for whatever reason I would prefer it not be so readily available. My social security, number, address, phone, buying habits are public information - I prefer something as personal as my health record not be.

You really want your health care, which can be life and death stuff, represented by a marketing gimmick?! Well, you're entitled, but I sure don't!

Exactly. Following surgery and after Medicare and the secondary insurance had paid I still owed a balance to the surgeon. His office said that the secondary insurance co. didn't think that particular surgery was worth as much as Medicare allowed, so they only paid a partial amount of their 20% and I was responsible for the remainder. That's one reason we stick with original Medicare and not a Medicare Advantage program run by an insurance co.

Whoops. You responded to me thinking I responded to the issue of records being made available on the internet and I was referring to someone who said Marcus Welby was a marketing gimmick.

Actually, I am for records being available through the computer. We have some very unusual health conditions in our collective family that are not seen often, so having them available on line in an emergency would be to our benefit.

I can understand people wanting privacy but when you have some unusual genetic stuff like we have...folks who aren't up on it need to see the records...STAT.

I would want it for us. It outweighs someone acting on a job. It is a life and death issue.

Everyone should be able to decide for themselves.

For me, the cost/benefit ratio of electronic records is worth it. I've had a spate of bad medical luck in the last couple months and ended up at the hospital in Leesburg and in The Villages, plus ER visits and multiple doctors in both cities, and all of them were able to pull up my charts and test results. For me, the continuity of care is more important and the chance of privacy violations less so.

Admittedly, since I'm still working and covered by group medical, the possibility of being turned down by insurance companies or by a potential employer don't apply to me, but I agree those are legitimate concerns about the system.

In general, I care about my SSN and financial records but don't shred prescription bottles or scrape the labels off before recycling because it doesn't worry me if some random stranger at the sorting plant can see that some random person with the same name as me takes omeprazole.

Tugging the privacy topic sideways a bit -- I do very much wonder how all the online tracking and monitoring is going to come back and bite us. I was trying to set up a free Android phone app recently and never could get it to work so uninstalled it. I then noticed a charge from Google Voice for $25 on my credit card. On my active credit card (I only keep one), which I had not given the app people. I suppose at some point I used Google checkout for online shopping and boy, they saved that info.

That raises a big red flag to me. Anyone else see it?

IF you cared that much about the dermatologist using PA's then WHY did you allow it to happen in the first place? Did you know he/she was a PA? If you knew and allowed it then how can you sue? What happened?

Curious, and this is said in a very mild tone in my head -- why is that a red flag? My inclination as a patient is to trust and put my faith in the training and experience of all medical staff until I have a reason not to. I've seen wonderful PAs before and one that wasn't. But I don't know that going in.

They said that they're sueing them BECAUSE they USE PA's. Not because of the care received. Their words not mine.

Yes, I agree completly about PAs. Many are great.

Why would you sue a Dr. that uses PAs ? What did they do to you ? You had to know it wasn't the Dr. If you didn't want a PA you could have just left.

the 'Dr.' took the biopsy, the lab said it was negative, the PA that I saw the next 2 visits insisted it was OK since the biopsy was negative, however, I showed him that it continued to grow, it was circular with raised edges and a scaly surface. He wouldn't freeze it off since it was 'negative'. It started to ulcerate so I immediately made an appointment elsewhere and wound up in the hospital having surgery that should not have been necessary and complicated by the fact that I am a transplant patient with APS as well.....so what do you think Russ? Oh and on each occasion the PA was accompanied by a female Dr. who stood in the background and never introduced herself.

tell that to the people who don't think a perspective employer would look them up on facebook. and , by the way, if you have a serious health issue and discussed it on any forum anywhere any perspective employer can find that out when they google you!

As I said and I'll say it again. Why sue the practice for using PA's? Why not sue the lab for saying it was negative? All PA's pass all their cases and care onto the doctor for approval and treatment options. If your mole was positive for cancer then sue the lab and doctor - PA had nothing to do with it IMHO.

And of course I wish you well but lawsuits are not the way to better health.

I see at least 20% of my patients who 'chase' cures when there is none to be had. They spend their last years on earth going from doc to doc since they didn't like the most recent prognosis. "There's always a better doctor" is what I hear. But sometimes even that 'better' doc has the same opinion.

That's a shame, but what does that have to do with the PA ? I would think that's the lab's fault.

My guess is that the mole was pre-cancerous and thus negative from the lab. I have seen dermatologists (I worked for two of them up north) who take a 'cautious waiting' treatment option. In other words, keep and eye on it every few months and then treat if necessary. They certainly didn't remove every irregular mole they saw.