Here are the results of the poll.
Do You Believe The MBS and PBS Data Held By The DHS Is Very Valuable And Should Be Made Available Commercial Use?
Yes 3% (4)No 96% (124)
I Have No Idea 1% (1)
Total votes: 129
Looks like most are pretty wary of commercial use of PBS and MBS Data.
Any insights welcome as a comment, as usual. Sorry, in advance, that the question was a little confusing but I think most were responding to the threat of commercial use etc.
A really, really great turnout of votes!
It must have been an easy question as just 1 reader was not sure what the appropriate answer was.
Again, many, many thanks to all those that voted!
David.
3 comments:
David,
re this week's Poll.
A question.
Why are test results being put into myhr? It is supposed to be a summary record. (My answer is because NEHTA failed to address the ineteroperability problem).
The government says:
"My Health Record will not replace existing medical records. It is an additional tool that brings together a summary of an individual’s significant health information that is important to their ongoing care.
Healthcare providers will continue to take and review clinical notes. It is important to remember that the My Health Record system is not intended to be a communication tool – it will not replace the need to communicate important health information directly to individuals or other healthcare providers treating them."
Under "What will happen to already existing medical record"
https://myhealthrecord.gov.au/internet/mhr/publishing.nsf/Content/healthcare-providers-faqs
If myhr has "Clear Explanations Of Their Meaning And A Contact Number For Concerned Patients?" it is being used as a communications tool, which the government says is a no-no.
ADHA is struggling to find relevance for myhr, and is distorting its use. myhr doesn't do what it was supposed to (it isn't much of a summary health record) and they are trying to make it do things it wasn't designed to do.
Who is equipped to provide a "clear explanation"? Certainly not the institution doing the tests, they don't have the context or probably the expertise and they could potentially leave themselves exposed to litigation if they get it wrong (IANAL so don't rely on that being a valid statement).
GPs? Does anyone really expect GPs to examine a patient's myhr and add a "clear explanation" to every set of test results? Apart from the system not being designed to do it, IMHO it is totally impracticable from the workflow perspective. Their workload will increase even more than uploading SHSs, which is not a simple or quick process.
But the techos who designed myhr never did address workflow consequences, most of which are very negative and ADHA are trying to make worse. Just another reason it's doomed to fail. IMHO.
It does appear the GovHR is going in every possible direction, perhaps hoping something will stick, perhaps the aim is to overtime do away with local systems and have one big government cloud (due to cost blowout the silver lining was removed from scope).
It is getting messy and very confusing.
In Defense of techies, maybe the workflows were simply ignored by others
The traditional PBS & MBS data are billing data. This means that:
1) many MBS items cover groups of treatments or tests whereby you loose specificity;
2) some actions are more than set limits so cannot be claimed eg. no more than 3 pathology items per patient so the cheapest are dropped off the claim;
3) some age groups and socio-economic backgrounds have higher representation due to uneven payments (eg. a $10 script is subsidised and recorded for those with a HCC vs working adults who can't claim PBS subsidy for it);
4) the reason for the medication/treatment/test is not recorded in the claim.
Medicare started getting more information from pharmacies regarding non-PBS meds but it's still limited.
The data from the BEACH studies showed much greater benefit for measuring activity but failed to get funding to extend to longitudinal based projects. BEACH data has been considered as best available for some National (Dept. Health; WAMTC) and international comparisons see Bindman et. al. (PubMedID=17504790), Irving et. al (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/10/e017902.info).
Post a Comment