Each time a member of my family needs any type of medical care I'm frustrated. (The image is from the good people at Tympanitis.com, fighting the good fight against otitis media, and is used here completely out of context.)
Mainly I'm frustrated by paperwork and waste. I'm frustrated with filling out forms, and dealing with bureaucratic clerks.
I'm frustrated because it's all so expensive, and all so unnecessary. There are technologies available today that will cure this problem, solutions that can be implemented now.
If big insurers gave clients smart cards, and insisted that all members of their networks take smart card readers, it would be a big start. Entire medical histories, and biometric identification, could be mounted on the cards cheaply. Read the card and the doctor's network automatically knows what it needs to do, about the patient and the billing.
Why hasn't this happened yet? In a word, privacy.
Privacy advocates have slipped into Luddism. Each time a new, stronger identification method is proposed, or a new data sharing system, the privacy advocates jump all over it.
Can't be done. Won't work. Bad guys would compromise it. Government would abuse it.
The result is nothing happens.
The plain fact is that every method you can devise for stronger privacy, and for sharing data, has drawbacks. But those challenges pale in comparison to the horrors we face today when we try to get care. And privacy advocates have allowed themselves to let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
It is possible to get good care and be treated like a person. I was amazed last year, when my daughter needed some blood work done, at how quickly I was in-and-out of the Egleston Childrens' Hospital. It took 15 minutes. They knew how to charge, and what to do, before we walked in. This gave everyone time and space to treat my child, and me, like people. It was real glorious. (Best of all, my daughter was all-better within a few days.)
What is the difference between that hospital experience and what patients face every day? It's information transfer. Our pediatrician passed data to the hospital, which was in every worker's computer before we arrived.
With smart cards, and smart networks, that's possible for front line caregivers too. But it must be implemented. It can be implemented, if insurance companies invest in it, and the payback period on such investment would be very short indeed.
But watch what happens the first time a major insurance carrier proposes biometrics and smart card networks. Watch who objects first, and loudest. Listen to their objections closely.
They're excuses.
Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for over 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the "Interactive Age Daily" for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age, and dozens of other publications over the years.
1. Bob Kelly on August 13, 2004 07:25 PM writes...
You're right on the mark here, Dana. I'm fortunate to receive my medical care in the Veterans' Administration system. They have a comprehensive automated system in place. When we moved here to Florida from New Hampshire at the end of May, my new doctor was able to review my entire record from the last two years in NH.
The VA system is a good one for me. Despite the cuts made by the Bush Administration in the VA's budget, the care I get continues to be excellent. As a Category Seven client -- the lowest category, reserved for those who do not have a service-connected condition, I nevertheless receive excellent care, for things that I would otherwise leave untreated, and at an affordable price in co-pays. I never feel rushed during an appointment, and I am always treated with utmost courtesy.
So, maybe the government does know how to do something well. I can't help but wonder if the VA model would scale to a universal health care system.
Permalink to Comment