Quote:
Originally Posted by formerroadie
Thanks for the link. I will have a listen. Anyway, in terms of debate, our system wouldn't be the same. Part of that has to do with the idea of a central database. That is the main issue there. For example: a person comes to a doc with flu symptoms. That doc says you have the flu. That persons goes for a second opinion. Then they go for a third. They don't have a way to track how many doctors people have gone to (I sat with a Canadian doctor on a plane to BC once and asked him what he thought was most problematic about the system. That was his answer.). This can be remedied by a central computer system that allows doctors anywhere to access your data (as long as there are strict security measures and it is not hooked up to the internet. It needs to be self-contained) or you charge a small co-pay, which would hinder a lot of people form going doc to doc. I think we, as Americans, can do that  . |
Not sure if I'm misunderstanding your idea. I'm not sure having a central database is doable at all. I work at a non profit healthcare company and we constantly struggle with putting different sets of data together from different physician offices. To be honest its just impossible. And mind you, this is just ONE healthcare group. Imagine when you want to expand it throughout the country....crazy/wrong/useless healthcare data will be flowing around the "database".
Of course, I agree that having such a database would help a lot, at least we wont have 10 sets of data from the same freaking patient. There are too many electronic health records in the US that its just impossible to implement such a central database idea.