Epidemiologists tracking the spread of HIV in California will begin using data based on patient names rather than relying on a flawed code-based system under a new law signed Monday by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Biased reporting much? So, the reporter is now letting us know that the system is flawed--apparently Michelle Keller, Times Staff Writer (the author of the article) is an expert in number-based tracking systems and can judge for us that this one is flawed.
Or not...
Anyway, here's more from the article:
The shift will ensure that California continues to receive more than $50 million annually for HIV/AIDS care from the federal government, which has ruled that code-based reporting is unreliable. With at least 38 states already signed on to use patient names, California is one of a handful of states still using alphanumeric codes to identify HIV cases.
Ah, well, that's the fact you include in the first paragraph--that the federal government has decided it's flawed. However, check out how this system is flawed:
The practice of using codes was created to ensure patient confidentiality, but proved to be a bureaucratic nightmare for health officials. County health departments have reported difficulties in exchanging data with doctors and duplication of HIV cases. Sorting out errors, argue proponents of the bill, has proven to be both expensive and time-consuming.
"It's been an incredible waste of energy and resources," said Dr. Douglas Frye, a medical epidemiologist with the Los Angeles County HIV epidemiology program. Frye estimates that the county spends about $1 million per year researching duplicate cases or errors in reporting.
Let me get this straight: the medical industry is having trouble creating a unique code-number for patients suffering from AIDS? This is absurd.
The device you're reading this post on right now has something called a MAC address. A MAC address is a Media Access Control address that gives an absolutely unique number to your networked device. The network card in your computer has one, my PowerBook has one--even my PS2 and my Nintendo DS have one. Now think about all the networked devices in the world. Each one, technically should have a unique number.
NOW, think about the industry trust with our health not being able to handle creating a simple unique number for each patient.
Yeah, pretty worrisome, huh?
Why do I feel we need to use code number instead of just good security on the files that use patients' names? Well, because I have a family member who has AIDS. He was keeping it from us for years but it slipped out when his mom happened to go to the same doctor as this family member. The nurse taking her blood saw the name in common and asked "Oh, are you related to XYZ? We do his blood work."
"What blood work?" his mom asked.
Oh well, so much for my family member's right to privacy.
Accidents happen, but if that nurse didn't have my family-member's real name, she couldn't have slipped up like that. "Oh, are you related to patient 6634-6790-4320-1234?"
"No, but those are my lottery numbers! What are the odds?!?"
No comments:
Post a Comment