1. | 11/12/2007 7:52:00 PM | Don't know, time-consuming and not necessarily updated |
2. | 11/12/2007 8:57:00 PM | possibly |
3. | 11/13/2007 3:07:00 AM | do not agree that EMR improves care or reduces costs |
4. | 11/14/2007 5:19:00 PM | because it would pay for other costs needed to run the EMR |
5. | 11/14/2007 7:48:00 PM | please do not change MD into money addict secretary.... patient has to do it him/herself, for free or not (not my problem) |
6. | 11/14/2007 8:49:00 PM | It has cost our medium sized multispecialty group $millions to start up and maintinance for hardware, software. trining everyone upgradestemporay unavailability,etc,etc.This is not a financial burden that can be added onto pactitioners and the current reimburement systems do no accomodate such costs even if one were willing to pass them on to Patients. |
7. | 11/15/2007 1:37:00 AM | Why would they give money for records ? Are they somehow utilizing them for data banks for others ? |
8. | 11/15/2007 11:45:00 PM | not for my own patients |
9. | 11/16/2007 4:18:00 AM | likely |
10. | 11/17/2007 8:59:00 PM | i would want to recoup what it costs for me to print out the record and to pay an employee to fax them |
11. | 11/19/2007 2:00:00 PM | I would have to seek legal advice. |
12. | 11/19/2007 7:01:00 PM | yes, if we had patient's consent |
13. | 11/19/2007 10:40:00 PM | Maybe - if remuneration covered expenses |
14. | 11/20/2007 5:36:00 AM | Not until ethical guidelines of this were well clarified with my patients colleages and the College of Physicians and Surgeons |
15. | 11/20/2007 3:14:00 PM | Not sure Maybe to cover costs I would |
16. | 11/20/2007 8:39:00 PM | Only if it was necessary to pay extra personnel to do it. I would not accept personal remuneration. |
17. | 11/22/2007 4:41:00 PM | not sure |
18. | 11/22/2007 5:04:00 PM | depends on how much time it takes for me or my staff |
19. | 11/22/2007 5:16:00 PM | We still prefer a paper office |
20. | 11/22/2007 5:39:00 PM | assuming the money compensated for the time needed to transfer the records |
21. | 11/22/2007 5:40:00 PM | need more info for decision |
22. | 11/22/2007 5:44:00 PM | n/a |
23. | 11/22/2007 5:48:00 PM | I would only accept enough to cover any additional costs to me of using the service, and would explain that to my patients. |
24. | 11/22/2007 5:55:00 PM | with patient permission |
25. | 11/22/2007 5:59:00 PM | need to know more |
26. | 11/22/2007 6:01:00 PM | Would consider, depending on amount. Our records are written--costs of converting to online EMR might be pretty high. |
27. | 11/22/2007 6:05:00 PM | this is not ethical |
28. | 11/22/2007 6:28:00 PM | We would have to discuss the specifics..not the money, but the use of the information...first. |
29. | 11/22/2007 6:37:00 PM | do not know. Need more information |
30. | 11/22/2007 7:06:00 PM | maybe |
31. | 11/22/2007 7:20:00 PM | work= time = expenses why should we not be conpensated |
32. | 11/22/2007 7:21:00 PM | yes because this entails a huge amount of work and resources |
33. | 11/22/2007 7:23:00 PM | don't know |
34. | 11/22/2007 8:01:00 PM | ONLY if the the amount of money was significant for the first time upload, there was an interface created and paid for by Microsoft and I got an monthly AND annual stipend for maintaining records, critical in Primary care that is already severely underpaid and overworked to not have Family Physicians do even more for the same or less. |
35. | 11/22/2007 8:40:00 PM | Again, the information is the patient's, so we would comply. But we would have our Enterprise Record as our source of truth. We would potentially update, after validation with patient, our enterprise record with data that was reviewed from Health Vault., |
36. | 11/22/2007 9:19:00 PM | only with the patient's agreement |
37. | 11/22/2007 9:36:00 PM | maybe |
38. | 11/22/2007 11:04:00 PM | Only to cover the costs of doing so. |
39. | 11/22/2007 11:37:00 PM | The first sentence is yet an assumption, a good one, but as yet unproved. Storing paper electronically is not an EMR |
40. | 11/23/2007 12:08:00 AM | maybe |
41. | 11/23/2007 12:29:00 AM | Maybe--but what strings are attached? |
42. | 11/23/2007 12:49:00 AM | This idea is a scary one. What's the motivation, what use for this information does Microsoft have in mind that they're not disclosing? |
43. | 11/23/2007 1:04:00 AM | only if forced to do so |
44. | 11/23/2007 1:09:00 AM | I don't know if that is appropriate |
45. | 11/23/2007 1:20:00 AM | possibly, I need more information |
46. | 11/23/2007 2:15:00 AM | uncertain. the uploading of paper files is time consuming |
47. | 11/23/2007 2:36:00 AM | I think this would be considered a kick back and illegal |
48. | 11/23/2007 3:40:00 AM | b/c the contract would now **require** Microsoft to maintain the records, not just permit them to do so. |
49. | 11/23/2007 4:01:00 AM | not applicable - we have no paper charts |
50. | 11/23/2007 1:04:00 PM | Yes, I would be inclined to do so, however, physicians must be cautious about accepting rebates because of how it appears and what it infers (that we are not acting biased) |
51. | 11/23/2007 1:30:00 PM | not sure |
52. | 11/23/2007 2:05:00 PM | Actually, this statement is false, EMR may be improving healthcare in some aspects but may also be incresing errors elsewhere. Also, there is no good scientific proof that EMRs save any money. THis has been an assumption and not reality when the total costs have been looked at. |
53. | 11/23/2007 2:11:00 PM | Probably; need to account for Stark issues, obviously. (Nb: Virtually every healthcare authority agrees that EMR systems will improve healthcare and reduce costs TO THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. It's therefore beneficial TO THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, NOT NECESSARILY TO ME AS AN INDIVIDUAL PRACTITIONER, to rapidly convert paper medical records into EMR as soon as possible.IN FACT, AS AN INDIVIDUAL CLINICIAN IT'S MORE LIKELY TO COST THAN SAVE.) |
54. | 11/23/2007 2:15:00 PM | see #16 |
55. | 11/23/2007 2:20:00 PM | I also think a charge for this could be included in the patient's bill |
56. | 11/23/2007 2:24:00 PM | Only if Healthvault met my speciality specific needs. |
57. | 11/23/2007 2:30:00 PM | with the full knowledge and consent of the patient concerning the issues raised above |
58. | 11/23/2007 3:31:00 PM | I ALSO REJECT THE PREMISE- EMR IS COSTLY AND TIME CONSUMING, AND THUS FAR HAS SAVED NOTHING, IT HAS ADDED COSTS, REDUCED EFFICIENCY |
59. | 11/23/2007 3:43:00 PM | not sure |
60. | 11/23/2007 3:57:00 PM | However, it is my experience in our hospital that the existence of an EMR actually INCREASES paper consumption. |
61. | 11/23/2007 4:27:00 PM | if I decided it was worthwhile |
62. | 11/23/2007 5:01:00 PM | Possibly |
63. | 11/23/2007 6:00:00 PM | yes (the money would go for staff time to input the information) |
64. | 11/23/2007 6:59:00 PM | Possibly--would need to evaluate the whole agreement to answer this |
65. | 11/23/2007 7:30:00 PM | The compensation must be commensurate to the effort and cost of switching. |
66. | 11/23/2007 8:41:00 PM | I have some concerns about the ethics of above |
67. | 11/23/2007 8:56:00 PM | I don't know |
68. | 11/23/2007 9:59:00 PM | Alredy are doing that with my vendor |
69. | 11/23/2007 10:59:00 PM | Quite frankly, there should be a national system, not piecemeal like you propose. |
70. | 11/24/2007 12:39:00 AM | I would not personally accept remuneration; but I would have no objection to the hospital's acceptance, if it was allowed by the O.I.G. of C.M.S. |
71. | 11/24/2007 5:37:00 AM | Although I disagree with these so-called authorities. Again, the devil is in the details. |
72. | 11/24/2007 6:58:00 AM | IT WOULD HAVE TO BE AWFULLY GOOD REMUNIRATION. A TOKEN AMOUNT WOULD NOT BE WORTH THE TROUBLE. YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE DOCTORS WORK EASIER AND ADD TO THE QUALITY OF MEDICINE AS WELL AS THE QUALITY OF THE DOCTOR PATIENT RELATIONSHIP AND THE DOCTOR'S LIFE IN GENERAL. |
73. | 11/24/2007 3:03:00 PM | For Costs Only |
74. | 11/24/2007 7:12:00 PM | Probably |
75. | 11/24/2007 9:17:00 PM | unsure |
76. | 11/24/2007 10:34:00 PM | To cover the office costs of personnel and time. |
77. | 11/25/2007 12:48:00 AM | There is evidence to suggest that EMR does NOT improve patient care. |
78. | 11/25/2007 1:37:00 AM | Not sure. |
79. | 11/25/2007 1:55:00 AM | Possibly, but only if the patient specifically requested we do so. |
80. | 11/25/2007 2:53:00 AM | if it is enough |
81. | 11/25/2007 7:08:00 PM | i already have emr. |
82. | 11/26/2007 2:04:00 AM | If the security and data access issues are resolved |
83. | 11/26/2007 3:03:00 AM | ONLY health-care PAYORS want EMR. Significant research shows EMR does NOT improve quality of care for the patient |
84. | 11/26/2007 11:04:00 AM | in theory; however, in reality i work for a large healthcare entity and would not be able to accept remuneration for the above described scenario |
85. | 11/26/2007 2:28:00 PM | It might be needed to support the personnel to enter the data into the new electronic system |
86. | 11/26/2007 9:42:00 PM | I would consider that. |
87. | 11/27/2007 1:16:00 AM | maybe |
88. | 11/27/2007 2:13:00 AM | I work for Los Angeles County health system--they would have to make that decision. |
89. | 11/27/2007 3:55:00 AM | There are privacy laws. I am sure most patients would not agree to online medical records |
90. | 11/27/2007 1:06:00 PM | converting charts to EMR is time consuming! |
91. | 11/27/2007 3:30:00 PM | our hospital controls all these issues |
92. | 11/27/2007 8:20:00 PM | COMPENSATION FOR TIME AND EFFORT |
93. | 11/27/2007 10:17:00 PM | I disagree with your assertion that EMRs are the answer for every problem. There is evidence that quality is not improved and our system costs us more money not less. |
94. | 11/28/2007 2:55:00 PM | Again, the Medical Center would decide. |
95. | 11/28/2007 9:02:00 PM | if it could be documented that the money was directly paying for the costof the transfer of info. |
96. | 11/29/2007 9:17:00 PM | See #9 |
97. | 11/29/2007 11:05:00 PM | Uncertain |
98. | 11/30/2007 12:13:00 AM | if the patient wanted it |
99. | 11/30/2007 1:51:00 PM | Depends on the TIME it takes to use the EMR. The most valuable commodity in the office is my TIME - if the EMR takes longer to chart than paper with check off boxes or a scribe, then it is too expensive even if it is free. |