Re: Confidentiality Policies in Dr's Off Site Office

[rj.mills@pti-us.com (Dick Mills)]

  I wrote
     >>Therein lies the reason why we can never get consensus on some of these
     >>issues.  We don't share the same basic values.  I am interested in
  costs but 
     >>not at the sacrifice of *any* of my privacy.  My priorities are
  different than
     >>yours Mr. Lorton.  I would rather forego treatment than risk my privacy in 
     >>certain areas, so it is more than a matter of cost, but also access 
     >>to health care.
  
  Mr Lorton replied.
    >Yes, I agree. I would rather have a hernia than have it examined in Time's
    >Square - the benefit of treatment is too low compared to the loss of
    >privacy.  But I will get routine health care if it only means that my health
    >data will be shared in longitudinal studies to make evidence based medicine
    >better.  There are no absolutes and I just don't buy your absolute
    >willingness to forgo treatment and save your privacy.  
    >Our goal is to make the cost in loss of privacy very low and the return in
    >health care very high so that most people will consider it a good bargain.
  
  You are coming across as very emotional Mr. Lorton.  I wrote originally about
  the inadequacy of normal security. You characterized that as my calling for 
  "perfect security". I said I value my privacy more than treatment in 
  "certain areas"  You characterized that as "absolute willingness to forgo 
  treatment and save your privacy."  Yours is the language of hysteria and 
  extremism Mr. Lorton.
  
  I worry because those "certain areas" of sensitive information are part of the 
  general record.  If the records are exposed, those sensitive parts go with them.
  It matters not that each sensitive fact is bundled with a thousand boring 
  mundane details.
  
  The last thing I want to do is bargain away our citizen's rights of privacy in
  return for anything.  The reason is simple.  This is hardly the last "bargain"
  we will every be offered.  If we make a rational compromise on this one and the
  next one and the next, eventually we give up all our rights.  Erosion is a
  irreversible process.
  
  You do make the perfect antagonist for my arguments Mr. Lorton.  I assure all 
  the other readers that I didn't put him up to it.  If Mr. Lorton's views 
  represent the health care system, we have ample evidence that we do indeed 
  need to be vigilant and participate in opposing the system.
  
  Last night I wondered more about the real purpose of S.1360.  Germany has a
  wonderful
  system for handling prescriptions based on encryption technology.  It not only 
  guards against mistakes and abuse, it even allows anonymity of the patient.  It
  seems reasonable to assume that encryption and other technologies will allow 
  anonymity at all levels of heath care in a few years.  I wonder if S.1360
  isn't a
  forecheck action designed to establish a health-care IT industry before
  anonymity 
  reaches our shores.  Once entrenched, the IT professionals can claim ruinous
  cost 
  increases and massive unemployment in the IT industry if anonymity is
  allowed.  I
  am merely speculating.  Does anyone out there have better information on the
  real motivations of S.1360?
  
  --
  Dick Mills +1(518)395-5154    O-   http://www.pti-us.com
  AKA dmills@albany.net      http://www.albany.net/~dmills