Slashdot Mirror
Your Medical Treatment History Is For Sale
PizzaFace writes "The Washington Post reports on the booming business of selling your medical treatment records. Today these are mainly records of your prescriptions, but the data warehouses will soon have records of your lab tests, too. The companies selling these records make it easy for insurance companies to avoid risk by assigning each person a health score, similar to a credit score, or by flagging items in each person's history that suggest chronic or potentially expensive health problems. It's not just for insurers, either; employers who check applicants' credit scores will surely be interested in their health scores as well."
Looks to me like this is an excellent time to read up on alternative treatment methods, as the barabaric, for-profit US "healthcare system" appears hell-bent on becoming less and less available to those of us with imperfect health and fewer than several gazillions of dollars.
Here you can RTFA all on one page.
Caveat Utilitor
Sell my medical records and my lawyer will be in touch with your lawyer. See Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
This is a difficult discussion to have:
Car insurance knows how many accidents you've had. Home insurance knows what claims you've made. All the insurance companies know your criminal record.
Health records may be private - you don't particularly want your neighbors to know about it. But the company that is insuring you certainly has a right to know what type of risk they're insuring - and just like auto insurance your cost should reflect it.
At the same time, health care is something that is a necessity. So if they price it out of range, how do you protect yourself? Removing preventive care due to cost and substituting emergency care in it's place is a horrible solution, but if it's priced out of range, that is what may happen.
This is why the government is going to have to step into health care in some way. It's in the Health Insurance company's best interests to not insurance people that are high risk. In a free market, those people will end up being uninsured.
I hate government intervention in any market, but I don't see any way around it. You can walk to the store and work. You can't perform an appendectomy on yourself.
No, it is your fault, you liberal hippie. If you would stop being lazy, you could get your physician's license and cure your own problems instead of depending on others to help you. Ron Paul 4ever!
I don't know why anyone would be surprised that an organization the goal of which is to maximize profits would do its best to cut costs (paying for your medical care) and maximize income (acquiring the money of you, your employer and the government i.e. other taxpayers as health-care premiums). You'd have to fail Logic 101 to think things would be otherwise.
On the other hand, what the Washington Post will suggest is the "solution" to this nonsense is even more illogical: you should give all your health-care money to another organization, Congress, which is also most interested in something other than your health -- namely, keeping political power. What do you suppose will influence Congressmen when they decide what to do with your health-care money, and how to provide you with health-care? Altruism? Your actual happiness? Using your money most efficiently? Hmmm. Is that how it works now, when Congress debates how copyright should work in the Digital Age, or whether it makes sense to subsidize turning corn into ethanol (instead of food)?
Once again, we're confronted with the nasty little fact o' life that the only agent that will ever have only your interests at heart is you. Given that, which of these three options makes sense?
(A) Give your money to a big insurance company, run by strangers with Harvard MBAs seeking to maximize profits for shareholders, then ask for some of it back when you want some health care.
(B) Give your money to Congress, run by smooth-talking lawyers seeking to maximize their terms in office through maintaining access to the massive amounts of cash necessary for perennial re-election, then ask for some of it back when you want some health care.
(C) Keep your money, and spend it on health care when and where you choose.
Strangely enough, people keep choosing (A) and (B), under the amazing delusion that somehow if you make all the transactions really complicated -- shuffle the dollar bills around fast enough -- we can receive more value in health care than we pay out in actual money. Proof that the bitter lesson of TANSTAAFL has not been learned by most adults.
Healthcare rationing! Long waiting lists! Socialism!
Of course, healthcare in the US is already rationed (just according to your ability to pay for it) and you already have to wait for procedures and tests (like the week and a half it took my wife to get the insurance company and various doctors involved to schedule an MRI that everyone agreed she needed).
Insurance companies are probably the worst type of organization to have making healthcare decisions.
wrong.
wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
repeat after me; wrong.
why, you wonder, are you wrong? in a system where market participants place performance, or more properly, are bound by law to place performance, above all other measures of success it is plain that the welfare of the consumer is not considered unless also mandated by law, and even then will be considered less important than the business's performance if there are not sufficiently dissuasive penalties.
for further reference see RailTrack.
...vividly encapsulates that post-Watergate/pre-punk/coked-up moment when you could trust no one, least of all yourself.
Nothing wrong with a little selective breading. Make that part of the insurance policy. We'll treat you for your known, genetic conditions that will most likely be passed on to any children, if you agree to be sterilized. It's either that or start repopulating major cities with large carnivors to take care of the slow and the week.
It would take care of the obsesity problem and protect endangered species all at the same time!
for a national health care. they are SO predatory, SO villainous, SO phony that they make worst nationalized health care system look like out of heaven.
Read radical news here
"thus the only way to increase their income is to get more and more patients"
Not really.. they can go work in a private clinic, or they can work in another country (as you already pointed out). Thank goodness there's many doctors who don't particularly care about increasing their income - who got into the job because they can genuinely help fellow man and all that sort of altruistic stuff that we, as a society, are far too eager to write off and laugh at. These are doctors who will give treatment for free if needed (and sometimes if not*), instead of some doctors only giving free treatment while on a P.R. trip to a poor country (not dissing the gesture, just dissing the motives).
And, let's be honest, they don't really -need- the higher income because they don't have to worry about multi-million dollar malpractice suits looming around every single corner and the insurance that goes with it.
I'm not saying that 'socialized' healthcare is panacea.. far from it.. but that "happy medium where everyone wins" should not be led by the desire to make more money - focus instead on reducing or eliminating the negatives you mentioned.
* I had a nasty bruised-looking toe - walked (well, semi-hopped) straight into the hospital (hadn't registered for a GP yet after moving), got to see a doc in 10 minutes who had an x-ray made 5 minutes later 'just to be safe', determined that it was indeed broken as he suspected, got me a splint, had a nurse put it on while he moved on to another patient, came back to do a quick check to make sure it was on right, and sent me on my way. That's it. Didn't send me past administration for my insurance info on my way out, and certainly not on my way in.. I was a guy with a nasty bruised-looking toe who needed to have a look at it done by a doc and that's all they cared about. Thanks, MCH. I know this is anecdotal, and I'm all too familiar with waiting lists as well, but it's not nearly as bad as some make it out to be. Being on a waiting list for an organ, however, does suck - but that seems to be the case regardless of medical system; short of countries where there's a lively 'grey'/black market in organs. Yikes.
Sounds reasonable at first, but think for a minute: why would your doctor order a blood test to see if you have cholesterol problems if he or she had already put you on cholesterol medication because he or she knew you had cholesterol problems? Even if you switched doctors, your new doctor should know the results of that test, and at the very least you need to tell him you're on the medication. In other words: your doctor is going to know already.
At best this is a flimsy excuse to invade your privacy and raise your insurance premiums: "By reducing wasteful testing your doctor orders because he/she is an idiot, we save you money, so don't worry about invasions of privacy or your rates going up
But there's another issue that this seems to raise: accountants at your HMO second guessing your doctors. Lets say in the example above your doctor wants to test your cholesterol to see how effective it is or if you actually should still be taking it. Your HMO says "Hey, no, we're not paying for that, we know he has high cholesterol because he's on cholesterol medication, we don't need a test!"
It seems like this could be sorted out with common sense, and like the insurance agencies would have some idea of what's reasonable and what's wasteful, but they don't always. The article mentions that often medications that can be perscribed for two or more different purposes, and the insurance agencies often have a hard time understanding something that simple, denying the woman life insurance because they were convinced she was depressed, when she was actually taking prozac for hot flashes.
If they don't belive the doctor that she was postmenopausal instead of depressed, can we really expect them to use information NOT coming from the doctor correctly, in our best interests?
Alarmism
Far from it, look at the credit score mess and where it has gotten us.
What's a credit score? It's a score about how much you love being in debt, you get in debt and pay to get more debt and pay on time to get even more debt, etc. How is that relevant to you being able to get a job? It's beyond me.
What makes you think this system won't be abused exactly like the FICO score if not even worse?
Can you imagine identity theft in this scenario? Oh boy oh boy, someone steals your identity and all of the sudden you lose your life insurance, the doctor _won't_ see you now because you lost your health insurance, and all of that is because someone bought a heart medication with your info and your insurers dropped you immediately.
Isn't that similar to how credit scores work? Someone steals your identity messing up your score and all of the sudden _you_ are the criminal, universal default on all of your accounts, collector calls who won't believe you, etc.
The whole "insurance" thing is a form of measured "gambling"/risk industry, that is: "I bet you won't die in 30 years", "I bet you won't get sick so much this year" or "I bet you won't get in a car accident".
Things like this health score significantly reduces that gambling element and turns it almost into "I'll insure you if and only if you don't need the insurance", which just smells bad.
Finally, on a privacy stand point, the idea of even more of my information being thrown about out there doesn't sound that appealing to me.
What's the solution? I don't know. Maybe one day the system will collapse on its own weight or someone will come up with a better idea, but until that day comes, we'll be in this weird relationship with these middle-men characters.
If you can't mod them join them.
But if you're so good with money that you never use credit cards or take loans, then you have no credit score at all, and this is considered 'bad' credit.
As someone with a very painful, debilitating chronic health condition (very active Crohn's Disease), you should assist in paying for my health care because you're part of a society that has made euthanasia illegal and severely demonized suicide (indeed, were I to attempt it, I would likely be institutionalized). Hence, as society has taken away my only alternatives, it has an obligation to provide me with access to the requisite medical procedures and drugs.
I am not an Actuary... but my first programming job (COBOL!) was for a health insurer.
From the American Academy of Actuaries:
Principles of Insurance -- Gambling vs. Insurance
- Gambling creates a risk that did not previously exist
- Insurance transfers the financial consequences of an existing risk for a known dollar amount (premium)
If our society were based on blugeoning each other with clubs, this would be a relevant argument. We'd need the specific quality of physical strength and resilience to survive. But the fact is that people who are "sickly" (to use your word) can make important contributions to society exactly because the aspects of the person that is required to make those contributions is often unrelated to the health issue they may confront. Look at Stephen Hawking for example. Nothing wrong with his brain, so as long as the essential aspects of his body are functionally maintained, he can continue to make his contribution. And even when reasoning in some sort of cold/mercenary way, the cost of maintaining such a person may be much less than the cost of losing such a person's potential contribution.
Besides, natural selection is intensely focused on the high order bit--whether people survive to breeding age at all. It's not very concerned with selecting for good writers, philosphers, mathematicians, teachers, etc. Nor does it appear to care a whole lot about diseases that come up after breeding age. So the argument about the gene pool being affected by caring for the so-called "sickly" seems bogus given that a lot of people who we care for are older than breeding age and do not, at that point, contribute to the gene pool.
Natural selection isn't creating some noble super-race. It favors the strong, but also the violent and the crafty. It looks only at outcome; it doesn't moralize about tactics. And its measure of outcome seems, by modern theory, limited narrowly to "has offspring ready to play the game anew". That's a possible theory of "good", but not the only possible theory. It seems just a little limiting, in fact. Which is why society tries to circumvent it through conscious thought and group policy, for better or worse.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer