Coordinating Medical Care

I see the need for some sort of electronic medical record system. In
coordinating the care for others, having a central location that allows
for review of all the notes, records, measurements, and suggested
solutions is valuable. It's clear that doctors cannot coordinate between
themselves, even within the same medical system. Something like the
[Danish Health
Record](http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1891209,00.html)
system sounds fantastic. I see the value and the possible gains,
mistakes avoided, and overall benefits of such a system. Should the
government or commercial entities control the record? I worry that
putting into the hands of commercial entities can only go poorly over
the long haul. See
Onstar
or [Google
Health](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Google_Health) as
examples of why over time, the patient will lose. I argue that who
maintains the core system is irrelevant, it's the patient that should
control the data at all times. Think of a bank with safety deposit
boxes. Now think of one where only the patient has access to this data,
and controls all releases and access to it. The patient has the ability
to audit all such changes to their records. Perhaps like an escrow
service except the control is in the patient, not the escrow provider.

The patient, and their family, have a vested interest in keeping the
records secure, private, and accurate. Doctors may whine that they will
be inundated with questions and overload their already busy schedules.
I suggest that this is a symptom of the current system, but not a reason
for denying the patient control of their records.

I bring up this situation because I'm running into it in real life.
[Electronic health
records](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Electronic_health_record)
can't come fast enough.

originally published at wiki.lewman.is