| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"NewsToBeRead" |
| Date: |
20 Nov 2007 01:10:26 AM |
| Object: |
Medication errors kill 7000 Americans every year |
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119518213622195332.html
E-Prescriptions
By JOHN KERRY AND NEWT GINGRICH
November 16, 2007; Page A20
In 1799, doctors likely hastened the death of George Washington by
draining a third of his blood to treat a bacterial infection. Bleeding
was a common practice in those days, it dates back to the Greeks and
Romans.
But nowadays, if a doctor used bloodletting he would be barred from
practicing medicine. In the age of the Internet, is it any less
inexcusable that we have yet to modernize and transform our
health-care system?
We have talked long enough about using technology to cut costs and
improve the quality of care. Now is the time to act -- and the place
to start is preventable medication errors.
According to the Institute of Medicine, Americans average one
medication mistake for every day spent in a hospital, accounting for
more than 1.5 million injuries each year. Medication errors will kill
at least 7,000 Americans this year. Of the more than three billion
prescriptions written each year, doctors report nearly one billion
require a follow-up between providers and pharmacies for
clarification. The cost to our health-care system is in the billions.
One reason for this mess is that 95% of prescriptions are transmitted
using 5,000-year-old technology: pen and paper.
That is unacceptable. The deaths and inefficiencies of paper
prescriptions can be nearly entirely eliminated if we use the same
technology we that use in other aspects of our lives. Electronic
prescriptions can replace handwritten, misread and mismatched
prescriptions with online, automated and expert technology.
The benefits are clear and compelling. When a doctor "writes" an
electronic prescription, a computer can warn of potentially dangerous
interactions with other medications or allergies and thereby prevent
thousands of unnecessary hospitalizations each year. E-prescribing can
also let a physician know whether a drug is covered by a patient's
insurance or whether an alternative generic is available at a fraction
of the cost. One initiative led by Chrysler, General Motors and Ford
to encourage doctors to write e-prescriptions in the Detroit region
has generated more than one million prescription alerts that have
saved lives and money.
The benefits of e-prescribing are so important that the Institute of
Medicine has called for every doctor and nurse to prescribe
electronically by the year 2010. Business and labor leaders, health
insurers and consumer advocates are unanimous in their support of this
common-sense initiative.
Doctors also know that e-prescribing is vital for our health-care
system. One recent study of 400 physicians found that 85% of
physicians think e-prescribing is a good idea; 81% say it would reduce
medication errors; and 65% say it would save time. They like a system
that reduces their liability and allows them to focus on providing
care, not filling out paperwork.
The problem is that very few doctors use the technology. Of those 400
physicians polled, only 7% actually transmit prescriptions
electronically. And 63% say implementing the technology is not a
priority. Why? It's not always in their immediate financial interest
to do so.
That must change.
The federal government can lead by requiring that doctors who do
business with Medicare convert to e-prescribing. This can be done by
using market forces and the federal government's purchasing power to
align financial incentives.
First, offer bonus payments to Medicare doctors who already prescribe
electronically or who adopt the technology. Such payments will help
doctors, especially those with small practices without many patients,
to pay for startup costs. Private insurers, like WellPoint, are
already using this strategy to drive adoption of e-prescribing.
If a majority of doctors don't e-prescribe a few years down the road,
the government should require all doctors to adopt e-prescribing or
face financial penalties. E-prescribing should become a condition of
doing business with Medicare. This is no different than the
requirements other suppliers expect to see when they negotiate with
customers.
A new study by the Department of Health and Human Services estimates
that if 18% of doctors in Medicare adopt e-prescribing, the government
will save $4 billion and nearly three million adverse drug events can
be prevented over five years.
This is something Republicans and Democrats can agree on. While we
continue to debate how to cover the uninsured, improve quality, and
lower costs, there is too little being done to modernize health care.
E-prescribing for Medicare is just the beginning of the modernization
and digitization our ailing health-care system urgently needs. A
high-tech, healthier future is within our grasp. We just need creative
leadership bold enough to reach for it.
Mr. Kerry, a Democrat, is a senator from Massachusetts. Mr. Gingrich,
a Republican, is former speaker of the House and founder of the Center
for Health Transformation. Chrysler, GM, Ford and WellPoint are
members of the center.
.
|
|
| User: "DBM" |
|
| Title: Re: Medication errors kill 7000 Americans every year |
20 Nov 2007 10:10:59 AM |
|
|
Note - This reply may not crosspost to all newsgroups in the original
post...
Quote from post...
"...One reason for this mess is that 95% of prescriptions are transmitted
using 5,000-year-old technology: pen and paper..."
....And what are the 'error' percentages of both types of technology?
What types of 'errors' are there in both systems? Poor handwriting may
cause errors, but so too can poor typing - 'spell checker errors' may result
in the prescription of another pharmaceutical entirely, or in the amounts of
drug prescribed in each pill (have you heard the joke about the man
prescribed enough laxative to cover a 'sixpence', but took enough laxative
to cover 6 individual pennies instead?). .
Are 'paper prescriptions' ANY safer if the Doctor 'checks' the proposed
medicine against say, a paper copy of the 'Merck Manual' (or similar
reference), as opposed to NOT 'checking' at all?
Which leads me to the question, How many 'mis-prescriptions' WERE NOT
'pre-checked' by the prescribing Doctor?
"...The deaths and inefficiencies of paper prescriptions can be nearly
entirely eliminated if we use the same technology we that use in other
aspects of our lives. Electronic prescriptions can replace handwritten,
misread and mismatched prescriptions with online, automated and expert
technology..."
....And how safe will electronic prescriptions be against software 'bugs'
(including 'spell checker' mistakes), power outages, 'national network'
disruptions caused by quake, fire, flood, Terrorist Attack, viruses, hackers
('key-log' Doctor's electronic ID in order to 'prescribe' drugs to order, or
else 'adjust' the system to prescribe 'mentholated muscle liniment' like
'Dencorub' or 'Deep Heat', as suitable substitute to 'Preparation H'
haemorrhoid cream), etc, etc.
"...When a doctor "writes" an electronic prescription, a computer can warn
of potentially dangerous interactions with other medications or allergies
and thereby prevent thousands of unnecessary hospitalizations each year..."
What about having to prescribe without the help of the afore-mentioned
computer program because it ISN'T WORKING, and the patient/s need their meds
NOW? ('Katrina' situation...)
While a CD-Rom, or a 'non-integrated' computer reference (that is,
'physically and electronically independent'), or an on-line reference MAY
provide a better safety net, (the on-line reference would provide the most
up-to-date information) BOTH have extra susceptibilities as detailed above
that may make them USELESS in a disaster situation ('Katrina', etc). In
which case, that 'paper copy' of the Merck Manual (or similar) along with
'due diligence' on the part of the prescribing Doctor may be the difference
between 'Life and Death'...
Rest of article seems to indicate that someone thinks they have a 'good
idea' and now wants everyone else to adopt it, even if such adoption must be
implemented by force and/or fines. However, as I've pointed out above,
there are obvious flaws, and if Doctors are 'forced' onto the new system,
who takes responsibility for any 'unforeseen bugs' in the new system?
....Then again, how LONG would it take for 'contra-indications' to show up on
the on-line version reference once the data becomes known in the 'Real
World'? Pardon my cynicism, but how long did it take for 'smoking
cigarettes' to be proven dangerous? And need I mention Thalidomide (Google
search for full details)?
Quotes from ONE 'Official' Thalidomide website...
http://www.fda.gov/cder/news/thalidomide.htm
"...Do not take this drug if there is any possibility that you are, or may
become, pregnant. Just one dose can cause severe birth defects..."
"...Thalidomide (tha-lid-o-mide) was first marketed in Europe in the late
1950's. It was used as a sleeping pill and to treat morning sickness during
pregnancy. At that time no one knew thalidomide caused birth defects..."
"...In 1961 scientists discovered that the medication stunted the growth of
fetal arms and legs..."
Quote from Wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide
"...It was sold from 1957 to 1961 in almost 50 countries under at least 40
names, including Distaval, Talimol, Nibrol, Sedimide, Quietoplex, Contergan,
Neurosedyn, and Softenon..."
That's what, FOUR years of Thalidomide being prescribed before
'contra-indications' became publicly known?
Then there are all the 'different' names used Internationally for what is,
essentially the same pharmaceutical. Not a problem to countries with a
'properly documented' electronic database that lists EVERYTHING, but a
potential problem to international travellers in a country WITHOUT the
electronic safety net, especially if they choose (or can only have)
'generic' medicines over 'known name brand' medicines...
A thought... If prescribed ANY drug or medicine, ask the Doctor for an
'information sheet' on the product, and have them go through it with you,
BEFORE taking the medicine. Pharmacists may include info sheets with the
product as a matter of course (even if not required to by law), and you
should read the info sheets, and ask your Doctor/Pharmacist any questions
BEFORE taking the medicine.
Don't get me wrong - the computer program 'sounds good' in theory, but in
practice you'd need a reliable 'back-up' for it. I'd recommend having BOTH
'paper' manuals (printed on plastic paper) AND a CD-Rom on a separate
(physically isolated) computer, IN ADDITION to any 'nationally networked'
system.
Hope this helps...
--
Yours, DBM -
From Somewhere in Australia, the Land of Tree-hugging Funnelwebs...
....Remove inhibitions to reply...
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Medication errors kill 7000 Americans every year |
20 Nov 2007 01:59:08 PM |
|
|
On Nov 20, 5:10 pm, "DBM" <dbmacpher...@uq.net.au> wrote:
Note - This reply may not crosspost to all newsgroups in the original
post...
Quote from post...
"...One reason for this mess is that 95% of prescriptions are transmitted
using 5,000-year-old technology: pen and paper..."
...And what are the 'error' percentages of both types of technology?
What types of 'errors' are there in both systems? Poor handwriting may
cause errors, but so too can poor typing - 'spell checker errors' may result
in the prescription of another pharmaceutical entirely, or in the amounts of
drug prescribed in each pill (have you heard the joke about the man
prescribed enough laxative to cover a 'sixpence', but took enough laxative
to cover 6 individual pennies instead?). .
Are 'paper prescriptions' ANY safer if the Doctor 'checks' the proposed
medicine against say, a paper copy of the 'Merck Manual' (or similar
reference), as opposed to NOT 'checking' at all?
Which leads me to the question, How many 'mis-prescriptions' WERE NOT
'pre-checked' by the prescribing Doctor?
"...The deaths and inefficiencies of paper prescriptions can be nearly
entirely eliminated if we use the same technology we that use in other
aspects of our lives. Electronic prescriptions can replace handwritten,
misread and mismatched prescriptions with online, automated and expert
technology..."
...And how safe will electronic prescriptions be against software 'bugs'
(including 'spell checker' mistakes), power outages, 'national network'
disruptions caused by quake, fire, flood, Terrorist Attack, viruses, hackers
('key-log' Doctor's electronic ID in order to 'prescribe' drugs to order, or
else 'adjust' the system to prescribe 'mentholated muscle liniment' like
'Dencorub' or 'Deep Heat', as suitable substitute to 'Preparation H'
haemorrhoid cream), etc, etc.
"...When a doctor "writes" an electronic prescription, a computer can warn
of potentially dangerous interactions with other medications or allergies
and thereby prevent thousands of unnecessary hospitalizations each year..."
What about having to prescribe without the help of the afore-mentioned
computer program because it ISN'T WORKING, and the patient/s need their meds
NOW? ('Katrina' situation...)
While a CD-Rom, or a 'non-integrated' computer reference (that is,
'physically and electronically independent'), or an on-line reference MAY
provide a better safety net, (the on-line reference would provide the most
up-to-date information) BOTH have extra susceptibilities as detailed above
that may make them USELESS in a disaster situation ('Katrina', etc). In
which case, that 'paper copy' of the Merck Manual (or similar) along with
'due diligence' on the part of the prescribing Doctor may be the difference
between 'Life and Death'...
Rest of article seems to indicate that someone thinks they have a 'good
idea' and now wants everyone else to adopt it, even if such adoption must be
implemented by force and/or fines. However, as I've pointed out above,
there are obvious flaws, and if Doctors are 'forced' onto the new system,
who takes responsibility for any 'unforeseen bugs' in the new system?
...Then again, how LONG would it take for 'contra-indications' to show up on
the on-line version reference once the data becomes known in the 'Real
World'? Pardon my cynicism, but how long did it take for 'smoking
cigarettes' to be proven dangerous? And need I mention Thalidomide (Google
search for full details)?
Quotes from ONE 'Official' Thalidomide website...http://www.fda.gov/cder/news/thalidomide.htm
"...Do not take this drug if there is any possibility that you are, or may
become, pregnant. Just one dose can cause severe birth defects..."
"...Thalidomide (tha-lid-o-mide) was first marketed in Europe in the late
1950's. It was used as a sleeping pill and to treat morning sickness during
pregnancy. At that time no one knew thalidomide caused birth defects..."
"...In 1961 scientists discovered that the medication stunted the growth of
fetal arms and legs..."
Quote from Wikipedia...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide
"...It was sold from 1957 to 1961 in almost 50 countries under at least 40
names, including Distaval, Talimol, Nibrol, Sedimide, Quietoplex, Contergan,
Neurosedyn, and Softenon..."
That's what, FOUR years of Thalidomide being prescribed before
'contra-indications' became publicly known?
Then there are all the 'different' names used Internationally for what is,
essentially the same pharmaceutical. Not a problem to countries with a
'properly documented' electronic database that lists EVERYTHING, but a
potential problem to international travellers in a country WITHOUT the
electronic safety net, especially if they choose (or can only have)
'generic' medicines over 'known name brand' medicines...
A thought... If prescribed ANY drug or medicine, ask the Doctor for an
'information sheet' on the product, and have them go through it with you,
BEFORE taking the medicine. Pharmacists may include info sheets with the
product as a matter of course (even if not required to by law), and you
should read the info sheets, and ask your Doctor/Pharmacist any questions
BEFORE taking the medicine.
Don't get me wrong - the computer program 'sounds good' in theory, but in
practice you'd need a reliable 'back-up' for it. I'd recommend having BOTH
'paper' manuals (printed on plastic paper) AND a CD-Rom on a separate
(physically isolated) computer, IN ADDITION to any 'nationally networked'
system.
Hope this helps...
--
Yours, DBM -
From Somewhere in Australia, the Land of Tree-hugging Funnelwebs...
...Remove inhibitions to reply...
Those are valid points!!
Let me tell you: Bill Gates did it. But he wasn't alone.
It was all the microsofties who worshiped him for shipping shitty
software and calling "operation"
As if "operation" should be something that depends on what Billy
likes.
A few days ago I was wondering what would happen to the Internet if
America stopped existing for example. Sure Americans think they are
more important then anyone else but what would things look like? How
much technology would be lost or at least be made inaccessible?
Would the rest of the world be able to move aid to the US without
electronic infrastructure? I think we would have quite different
things on our mind?
Imagine post nuclear winter, where are you going to validate your
windows cd key? You tell me that. I assume the box will be sitting
there doing nothing?
What if some one would hack your electronic prescription system? Billy
is not going to help you. for Microsoft it's beneficial to have
everything run as sloppy as possible. It's what the customer wants. No
space age, no medical development, not even a decent communication
medium. All by choice.
Billy was just there for peeps when they wanted him to be.
Anyway,
Just like with voting, the electronic subscription should leave a
paper trail at both ends.
A doc should punch his "illness" > "subscription" into a validation
and get some educative advice on his decision. Such software should
eventually advice him to close his business. This should be the choice
of the doctor himself.
The electronics may only assist not take over decisions. Specially not
in the current state they cant.
As soon as a pc has the reliability of a pocket calculator or a
toaster we can start thinking about doing it 100% electronically.
This is still 100 years away it seems further away now we have so much
nonessential technological revolution. (read nonsense)
What we can make today is a database where a doctor can see related
subscriptions in a way that is leaving medical expert anonymous.
If "person>illness>medication>result" are all fully documented it
would make things a lot easier.
It would make it possible to create government funding for a lot of
illnesses.
I the context of some illnesses we are all part of the same body.
So at least the standard checkup should be free in order to stop
epidemics. Say you have 1% who doesn't get any medical advice, the
epidemic would continue to grow.
Seems to me it's worth it to pay even for the most egocentric people.
or no?
____
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Lippschitz" |
|
| Title: Re: Medication errors kill 7000 Americans every year |
21 Nov 2007 12:29:46 AM |
|
|
<gdewilde@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a771bbd0-8e08-433c-9e1b-ecd2d35cf28a@41g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 20, 5:10 pm, "DBM" <dbmacpher...@uq.net.au> wrote:
Note - This reply may not crosspost to all newsgroups in the original
post...
Quote from post...
"...One reason for this mess is that 95% of prescriptions are transmitted
using 5,000-year-old technology: pen and paper..."
Actually, instructions were almost always oral and that was the problem.
When a Paki is trying to tell a Yiddish speaking jew doctor or nurse from
NY some instructions, there can only be misunderstandings. This is why for
the past 10 years ot so everything must be in writing. The problem is
"multiculturalism" and mass illegal immigration.
...And what are the 'error' percentages of both types of technology?
What types of 'errors' are there in both systems? Poor handwriting may
cause errors, but so too can poor typing - 'spell checker errors' may
result
in the prescription of another pharmaceutical entirely, or in the amounts
of
drug prescribed in each pill (have you heard the joke about the man
prescribed enough laxative to cover a 'sixpence', but took enough
laxative
to cover 6 individual pennies instead?). .
Are 'paper prescriptions' ANY safer if the Doctor 'checks' the proposed
medicine against say, a paper copy of the 'Merck Manual' (or similar
reference), as opposed to NOT 'checking' at all?
Which leads me to the question, How many 'mis-prescriptions' WERE NOT
'pre-checked' by the prescribing Doctor?
"...The deaths and inefficiencies of paper prescriptions can be nearly
entirely eliminated if we use the same technology we that use in other
aspects of our lives. Electronic prescriptions can replace handwritten,
misread and mismatched prescriptions with online, automated and expert
technology..."
...And how safe will electronic prescriptions be against software 'bugs'
(including 'spell checker' mistakes), power outages, 'national network'
disruptions caused by quake, fire, flood, Terrorist Attack, viruses,
hackers
('key-log' Doctor's electronic ID in order to 'prescribe' drugs to order,
or
else 'adjust' the system to prescribe 'mentholated muscle liniment' like
'Dencorub' or 'Deep Heat', as suitable substitute to 'Preparation H'
haemorrhoid cream), etc, etc.
"...When a doctor "writes" an electronic prescription, a computer can
warn
of potentially dangerous interactions with other medications or allergies
and thereby prevent thousands of unnecessary hospitalizations each
year..."
What about having to prescribe without the help of the afore-mentioned
computer program because it ISN'T WORKING, and the patient/s need their
meds
NOW? ('Katrina' situation...)
While a CD-Rom, or a 'non-integrated' computer reference (that is,
'physically and electronically independent'), or an on-line reference MAY
provide a better safety net, (the on-line reference would provide the
most
up-to-date information) BOTH have extra susceptibilities as detailed
above
that may make them USELESS in a disaster situation ('Katrina', etc). In
which case, that 'paper copy' of the Merck Manual (or similar) along with
'due diligence' on the part of the prescribing Doctor may be the
difference
between 'Life and Death'...
Rest of article seems to indicate that someone thinks they have a 'good
idea' and now wants everyone else to adopt it, even if such adoption must
be
implemented by force and/or fines. However, as I've pointed out above,
there are obvious flaws, and if Doctors are 'forced' onto the new system,
who takes responsibility for any 'unforeseen bugs' in the new system?
...Then again, how LONG would it take for 'contra-indications' to show up
on
the on-line version reference once the data becomes known in the 'Real
World'? Pardon my cynicism, but how long did it take for 'smoking
cigarettes' to be proven dangerous? And need I mention Thalidomide
(Google
search for full details)?
Quotes from ONE 'Official' Thalidomide
website...http://www.fda.gov/cder/news/thalidomide.htm
"...Do not take this drug if there is any possibility that you are, or
may
become, pregnant. Just one dose can cause severe birth defects..."
"...Thalidomide (tha-lid-o-mide) was first marketed in Europe in the late
1950's. It was used as a sleeping pill and to treat morning sickness
during
pregnancy. At that time no one knew thalidomide caused birth defects..."
"...In 1961 scientists discovered that the medication stunted the growth
of
fetal arms and legs..."
Quote from Wikipedia...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide
"...It was sold from 1957 to 1961 in almost 50 countries under at least
40
names, including Distaval, Talimol, Nibrol, Sedimide, Quietoplex,
Contergan,
Neurosedyn, and Softenon..."
That's what, FOUR years of Thalidomide being prescribed before
'contra-indications' became publicly known?
Then there are all the 'different' names used Internationally for what
is,
essentially the same pharmaceutical. Not a problem to countries with a
'properly documented' electronic database that lists EVERYTHING, but a
potential problem to international travellers in a country WITHOUT the
electronic safety net, especially if they choose (or can only have)
'generic' medicines over 'known name brand' medicines...
A thought... If prescribed ANY drug or medicine, ask the Doctor for an
'information sheet' on the product, and have them go through it with you,
BEFORE taking the medicine. Pharmacists may include info sheets with the
product as a matter of course (even if not required to by law), and you
should read the info sheets, and ask your Doctor/Pharmacist any questions
BEFORE taking the medicine.
Don't get me wrong - the computer program 'sounds good' in theory, but in
practice you'd need a reliable 'back-up' for it. I'd recommend having
BOTH
'paper' manuals (printed on plastic paper) AND a CD-Rom on a separate
(physically isolated) computer, IN ADDITION to any 'nationally networked'
system.
Hope this helps...
--
Yours, DBM -
From Somewhere in Australia, the Land of Tree-hugging Funnelwebs...
...Remove inhibitions to reply...
Those are valid points!!
Let me tell you: Bill Gates did it. But he wasn't alone.
It was all the microsofties who worshiped him for shipping shitty
software and calling "operation"
As if "operation" should be something that depends on what Billy
likes.
A few days ago I was wondering what would happen to the Internet if
America stopped existing for example. Sure Americans think they are
more important then anyone else but what would things look like? How
much technology would be lost or at least be made inaccessible?
Would the rest of the world be able to move aid to the US without
electronic infrastructure? I think we would have quite different
things on our mind?
Imagine post nuclear winter, where are you going to validate your
windows cd key? You tell me that. I assume the box will be sitting
there doing nothing?
What if some one would hack your electronic prescription system? Billy
is not going to help you. for Microsoft it's beneficial to have
everything run as sloppy as possible. It's what the customer wants. No
space age, no medical development, not even a decent communication
medium. All by choice.
Billy was just there for peeps when they wanted him to be.
Anyway,
Just like with voting, the electronic subscription should leave a
paper trail at both ends.
A doc should punch his "illness" > "subscription" into a validation
and get some educative advice on his decision. Such software should
eventually advice him to close his business. This should be the choice
of the doctor himself.
The electronics may only assist not take over decisions. Specially not
in the current state they cant.
As soon as a pc has the reliability of a pocket calculator or a
toaster we can start thinking about doing it 100% electronically.
This is still 100 years away it seems further away now we have so much
nonessential technological revolution. (read nonsense)
What we can make today is a database where a doctor can see related
subscriptions in a way that is leaving medical expert anonymous.
If "person>illness>medication>result" are all fully documented it
would make things a lot easier.
It would make it possible to create government funding for a lot of
illnesses.
I the context of some illnesses we are all part of the same body.
So at least the standard checkup should be free in order to stop
epidemics. Say you have 1% who doesn't get any medical advice, the
epidemic would continue to grow.
Seems to me it's worth it to pay even for the most egocentric people.
or no?
____
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Benj" |
|
| Title: Re: Medication errors kill 7000 Americans every year |
20 Nov 2007 05:14:09 PM |
|
|
On Nov 20, 2:59 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
What we can make today is a database where a doctor can see related
subscriptions in a way that is leaving medical expert anonymous.
If "person>illness>medication>result" are all fully documented it
would make things a lot easier.
It would make it possible to create government funding for a lot of
illnesses.
I the context of some illnesses we are all part of the same body.
So at least the standard checkup should be free in order to stop
epidemics. Say you have 1% who doesn't get any medical advice, the
epidemic would continue to grow.
Seems to me it's worth it to pay even for the most egocentric people.
or no?
NO!
Well isn't this SPECIAL?
I sure make a pretty *****-poor Nazi. I'm worried about a government
prescription database and the Nazis are WAY ahead of me. They want
MANDATORY medical exams with a TOTAL medical records database of each
cow, er, excuse me "person" in the country. And of course this doesn't
apply to those in power including the examining doctors who remain
anonymous! WOW! If only ONE child is saved, these police state
measures are worth it, right?
I believe the concept goes like this:
Public lying to police = a felony
Police lying to public = standard procedure
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Medication errors kill 7000 Americans every year |
20 Nov 2007 09:05:40 PM |
|
|
On Nov 21, 12:14 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
On Nov 20, 2:59 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
What we can make today is a database where a doctor can see related
subscriptions in a way that is leaving medical expert anonymous.
If "person>illness>medication>result" are all fully documented it
would make things a lot easier.
It would make it possible to create government funding for a lot of
illnesses.
I the context of some illnesses we are all part of the same body.
So at least the standard checkup should be free in order to stop
epidemics. Say you have 1% who doesn't get any medical advice, the
epidemic would continue to grow.
Seems to me it's worth it to pay even for the most egocentric people.
or no?
NO!
Well isn't this SPECIAL?
I sure make a pretty *****-poor Nazi. I'm worried about a government
prescription database and the Nazis are WAY ahead of me. They want
MANDATORY medical exams with a TOTAL medical records database of each
cow, er, excuse me "person" in the country. And of course this doesn't
apply to those in power including the examining doctors who remain
anonymous! WOW! If only ONE child is saved, these police state
measures are worth it, right?
I believe the concept goes like this:
Public lying to police = a felony
Police lying to public = standard procedure
I didn't pick the right words again. O dear.
I attempted to suggest keeping both the patient and the doctor
anonymous. A database with the description of the medical condition,
the chosen medication and the results (success rate) should present an
excellent resource for validation. Make it a bit more humane and
constructive as just: "Doctors who ordered this product also bought."
For the data it should not matter that much if the person lived in
2007 or in 2060 or what his name was.
Just make the doc punch in the prescription before he gets to see what
others prescribed. As long as it's not the main tool of diagnosis I
think it beats not having a clue?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Benj" |
|
| Title: Re: Medication errors kill 7000 Americans every year |
20 Nov 2007 11:03:17 AM |
|
|
On Nov 20, 2:10 am, NewsToBeRead <NewsToBeR...@yahoo.com> wrote:
According to the Institute of Medicine, Americans average one
medication mistake for every day spent in a hospital, accounting for
more than 1.5 million injuries each year. Medication errors will kill
at least 7,000 Americans this year. Of the more than three billion
prescriptions written each year, doctors report nearly one billion
require a follow-up between providers and pharmacies for
clarification. The cost to our health-care system is in the billions.
7000? That has to be GROSSLY underestimated! Studies by Harvard and
other show that deaths from ALL medical mistakes number in the range
of 100,000-300,000 per year. While it isn't clear just which of those
are due to medication errors it's likely that a large percentage are!
This make medical doctors more dangerous than guns!
One reason for this mess is that 95% of prescriptions are transmitted
using 5,000-year-old technology: pen and paper.
That is unacceptable. The deaths and inefficiencies of paper
prescriptions can be nearly entirely eliminated if we use the same
technology we that use in other aspects of our lives. Electronic
prescriptions can replace handwritten, misread and mismatched
prescriptions with online, automated and expert technology.
Gosh, when the "if only one life is saved" trash gets trotted out, you
can bet there is a political agenda involved. And what would be the
one here? Oh yeah, the government really needs to have all your
medical records in a nice computer database so that under the
provisions of the so-called "PATRIOT" act, any minor bureaucrat in any
government office can call up your complete file to check on you and
use that information to further political ends. Yes, sure, this is
just one SWELL, CARING idea!
Anyone notice that "privacy bill" that Congress passed and now your
doctor forces you to sign and refuses to treat you if you decide to
"opt out", really is YOUR agreement, that you have no privacy. IT
clearly gives your permission for the government to use your medical
records for any (legal) purpose they choose. Swell!
The Big Brother noose is tightening around our necks and clearly John
Kerry and Newt Gingrich are tugging on the rope!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Medication errors kill 7000 Americans every year |
23 Nov 2007 04:34:41 AM |
|
|
On Nov 20, 6:03 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
On Nov 20, 2:10 am, NewsToBeRead <NewsToBeR...@yahoo.com> wrote:
According to the Institute of Medicine, Americans average one
medication mistake for every day spent in a hospital, accounting for
more than 1.5 million injuries each year. Medication errors will kill
at least 7,000 Americans this year. Of the more than three billion
prescriptions written each year, doctors report nearly one billion
require a follow-up between providers and pharmacies for
clarification. The cost to our health-care system is in the billions.
7000? That has to be GROSSLY underestimated! Studies by Harvard and
other show that deaths from ALL medical mistakes number in the range
of 100,000-300,000 per year. While it isn't clear just which of those
are due to medication errors it's likely that a large percentage are!
This make medical doctors more dangerous than guns!
One reason for this mess is that 95% of prescriptions are transmitted
using 5,000-year-old technology: pen and paper.
That is unacceptable. The deaths and inefficiencies of paper
prescriptions can be nearly entirely eliminated if we use the same
technology we that use in other aspects of our lives. Electronic
prescriptions can replace handwritten, misread and mismatched
prescriptions with online, automated and expert technology.
Gosh, when the "if only one life is saved" trash gets trotted out, you
can bet there is a political agenda involved. And what would be the
one here? Oh yeah, the government really needs to have all your
medical records in a nice computer database so that under the
provisions of the so-called "PATRIOT" act, any minor bureaucrat in any
government office can call up your complete file to check on you and
use that information to further political ends. Yes, sure, this is
just one SWELL, CARING idea!
Anyone notice that "privacy bill" that Congress passed and now your
doctor forces you to sign and refuses to treat you if you decide to
"opt out", really is YOUR agreement, that you have no privacy. IT
clearly gives your permission for the government to use your medical
records for any (legal) purpose they choose. Swell!
The Big Brother noose is tightening around our necks and clearly John
Kerry and Newt Gingrich are tugging on the rope!
I've come to the great understanding that potentially evil things like
such medical database should in fact be created by the people who hate
it the most.
It's just like people who refuse to think about starting their own
business because they hate capitalism.
I have news for you, you are not doing anything to prevent "progress"
from happening so that makes you the resource that is most needed in
this.
You have withdrawn exactly that what you claimed was missing!
It means that if all atheists would join a church and just make the
best of it they would naturally focus on the more realistic things
automatically making the whole religion more realistic. (Most sound
like they need a hug but thats beyond the scope of this posting.)
Big business didn't like rules of government so it became government.
Having a bit of personal data documented is not the problem in this.
The problem is in who is using it.
So if the people who are against such system would develop it chances
are much better the final product wouldn't allow for abuse.
If we have good paper trails the government official may be able to
access the information, he should also get locked up as soon as he
doesn't have any reason to be looking at it. Locking up people who
stick their nose where it doesn't belong should in fact be just as
automatable as the prescription. lol
Such system should be operational long after a government goes
corrupt.
The impeachment system still works right?
http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer
Sure it works, you silly peeps just didn't bother to fill out the
form... ok.....now I feel stupid for writing this.....
Here...
<a href="http://www.impeachbush.org"><img src="http://
secure2.convio.net/pepib/images/content/pagebuilder/10192.gif"
border=0></a>
That's more sensible language. :P
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
