Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Man Charged £2,000 For Medical Records Stored On Obsolete System

Posted by Soulskill on from the boy-that-costs-a-ton dept.

An anonymous reader writes "In Britain, where it is custom and practice to charge around £10 for a copy of your medical results, a patient has discovered that his copy will cost him £2,000 because the records are stored on an obsolete system that the current IT systems cannot access. Can this be good for patient care if no-one can access records dating back from a previous filing system? Perhaps we need to require all current systems to store data in a way that is vendor independent, and DRM-free, too?"

45 of 368 comments (clear)

  1. Just store it in the cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    That'll fix all the issues. London has fog, too, so the clouds are even easier to access.

    1. Re:Just store it in the cloud by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Will the fish that live in the fog eat this data?

    2. Re:Just store it in the cloud by sconeu · · Score: 2

      Only the sharks.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  2. What a fuckup by nighthawk243 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who the hell decided to not do the format conversion when they phased out the old system?

    1. Re:What a fuckup by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Accountants.
      At least, if it's like any other large conversion I have been through.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:What a fuckup by Kingkaid · · Score: 3

      It is amazingly common to have this kind of thing happen. Healthcare is always strapped for cash and they probabily look at the cost of conversion and someone freaked out. To them it made more sense to keep the old equipment with its old data around in case it needed to be accessed. Over time, everyone forgets how it works and then someone actually needs to access it. And ta-da. Money is a very powerful motivator and to be blunt, the healthcare system in nearly ALL places is so technologically behind, it isn't funny.

    3. Re:What a fuckup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      An unfortunate sideaffect of the publicly funded NHS.

      The NHS gets stuck in the middle with the public wanting free healthcare but without paying higher taxes, and with the costs of healthcare increasing due to larger aging population and the higher costs of newer diagnosis/treatments (MRI machines etc). So politicians can never set their budget as high as they want, because to do so they need to put taxes up.

      But we at least are all guaranteed free healthcare even if circumstances mean we can't afford to pay for it (eg because we're too ill to work).

    4. Re:What a fuckup by garcia · · Score: 2

      In a past life I worked as a manager of a college's records department. We were putting all records onto a document imaging system beginning with more current records (paper -> scanner -> DIS) which kept all files current.

      There was a legacy storage system (microfiche) which, when someone requested records or when we had spare staff/time, was converted adhoc to the new system. We didn't charge previous students for this service even though it was a huge fucking hassle.

      This should be the same thing. The onus is on the organization to do this, not the person requesting their records.

    5. Re:What a fuckup by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Informative

      Healthcare is always strapped for cash...

      Huh, must be a British thing.

      That's what I was thinking. Around here, healthcare spends as much as possible to keep their "non-profit" status.

      Not to mention the insane price gouging that is standard in American healthcare.

      For those who don't know and are too lazy to RTFA, in American healthcare a hospital may charge uninsured patients upwards of 500x more than they would charge an insured patient for the exact same procedure.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    6. Re:What a fuckup by tompaulco · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd take Britain's system over here in the US where paramedics check to see if you have a valid insurance card before they check your pulse
      Saying a thing doesn't make it true.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    7. Re:What a fuckup by ChumpusRex2003 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The old system may not have been phased out completely - only phased out for new data. In fact, this is typically what happened with the older systems. Data was stored on MO discs, and stored on yards and yards of shelves. Although the data on the discs is in an open and standard format, the discs are an obscure and obsolete format.

      When a new system was installed (which after about 2000 would have been networked with data stored on a large server, rather than individual discs/tapes) it would have been too labour intensive to convert the format - and indeed, the existing equipment may not have supported it, or if it did, it may have required expensive configuration on both the image acquisition device and on the server side (to set up a connection from e.g. a CT scanner to an image server is an expensive process - typically configuring the server's IP address in the "image destination" config on the scanner is a manufacturer service call out - $4k+; and there must be a matching entry on the server with the scanner's IP address - again, software vendor only setup + new image source IP address licence - $5k+).

      So, even though the old system has been decommissioned for new use; the discs may still be available, and the workstation still functional, so that the discs can be read and the study examined by a doctor that needs it. However, there may be no way to transfer the data to a new format. E.g. the workstations may not have been fitted with a CD Writer; just the MO drive.

      This means that there is no way for the hospital to get the data off an MO disc and onto a contemporary format (like CD or DVD). The only way to do it, would be to acquire an old external SCSI CD-writer compatible with the old workstation (which may be something obscure like a sparcstation or an SGI indigo II) from a specialist IT supplier - or acquire an MO drive which can be connected to a modern workstation with a CD-Writer, or network access (in fact, even that isn't the end of the story, the old equipment may have been unix/linux based, which means the MO discs might be formatted in ext2 - an MO drive on a Windows workstation won't help with that). It is entirely plausible that this is the first request they have had for the data to be migrated to a new format, and that the equipment and configuration needed would have been expensive.

    8. Re:What a fuckup by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's an American thing too! People see a huge healthcare bill and assume that the healthcare industry is just rolling in cash, but it's not true. Hospitals in the US are always having to cut corners, technology is out date, etc. Ie, they have to keep the ten year old capital purchases because they cost so much initially and it needs to be amortized, unlike rich corporations which routinely give out new computers every 3 years.

    9. Re:What a fuckup by Sir_Sri · · Score: 2

      This.

      health records are probably under the purview of the NHS one way or another. Someone looked at the numbers and figured that it wasn't an effective use of taxpayer money.

      Or this guy was sent 1000 notices for 15 years saying to pick up his records for 10 pounds, didn't, and is now on the hook for a specialist.

    10. Re:What a fuckup by Sir_Sri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      , assuming that they can't work out a payment plan.

      bankruptcy being a more and more common 'payment plan'.

      If I can't afford to pay, the hospital has to write it off as a loss

      You mean what you said

      In which case everybody else has to pay for it.

      Hospitals don't have some magic source of money. They are, ultimately, insured by the government against losses incurred treating people who go to the emergency room. Now the trick here is that they aren't owned by the government (as in the NHS system) so their incentive is to get as much money from you, or from the government as possible. In the NHS system their objective is to do find the optimal balance between spending and demonstrable health outcomes.

      Hospitals in the US are first and foremost interested in their bottom line. Health is a means to make money like any other business, you want to do it just well enough you can get paid, and you do the minimum required for regulatory compliance. The UK system is fundamentally different, because the owners of the hospital (the public) are also their customers, and politicians like an issue they can get behind in the UK as much as in the US, so if you don't have demonstrable benefit for the cost in the UK you're in trouble. In the US as long as you can get paid for a cost, whether it provides any benefit or not is all that matters.

    11. Re:What a fuckup by Sulphur · · Score: 2

      Accountants.
      At least, if it's like any other large conversion I have been through.

      Relax we only want a few simple changes.

    12. Re:What a fuckup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      The ambulance service isn't that expensive unless you live in the middle of nowhere. It's expensive, but it's not really that expensive.

      In Boise, Idaho I had a grand mal seizure a few years ago in my home. My then-wife called for an ambulance because she was scared and I was incoherent. My brain was scrambled for a while after the seizure, you see. I kept yelling, "I don't have a wife! I'm not married!" when the fire fighter guys were talking to us.

      Anyway, to my point: the hospital I went to was literally a mile and a half from where I lived and the ambulance bill for the transport was a little over $800. This confuses me when you say things like "...it's not really that expensive." I didn't live in the middle of nowhere but along two major roadways in a city of about 250,000 people and Boise has an extremely low cost of living. I find 800 bucks in this case to be much more than not really expensive.

    13. Re:What a fuckup by Pieroxy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd take Britain's system over here in the US where paramedics check to see if you have a valid insurance card before they check your pulse

      Saying a thing doesn't make it true.

      I've been in the Stanford Hospital ER when my wife delivered.

      I say a mother and her son walk in, the boy was literally covered in blood and dripping blood rapidly. They were promptly taken to the secretary where the boy had to wait patiently for the mother to validate health insurance with the nice lady on the other side of the desk.

      Then, the hospital lady looked somewhere behind her and made a sign. The paramedics rushed in with a stretcher, got the boy and took care of him. Some cleaning dude came in almost instantly after to mop the blood.

      I'm still wondering to this day what would have happened if the mother would have forgotten her insurance papers or anything else. Would they have let the boy die in there? Probably not, but I suspect that it would have been because of the bad PR this could have generated, nothing else.

      --
      Write boring code, not shiny code!
    14. Re:What a fuckup by poolecl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He is looking for a copy of an ultrasound that was done in 2004. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect that records that are only 8 years old remain accessible.

    15. Re:What a fuckup by uglyduckling · · Score: 2

      What he's requesting is unnecessary. He wants copies of the images/videos from his cardiac echo from years ago. It's pretty common not to store that kind of data for very long, only the written report (which he already has). I would think these archive copies have been kept (unfortunately) to avoid litigation in case anyone ever makes a complaint. They're unlikely to be of any relevance to his ongoing healthcare, which is why the hospital trust has asked for this money - it's because they would have to buy the old equipment back again to make the format conversion for information which would likely be of no medical use. That's why they didn't do the format conversion at the time.

  3. He should seek legal advice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's more than the statutory maximums in both the Access to Health Records Act 1990 and Data Protection Act 1998 (as amended), which is £50 (if the records are a combination of computer and paper) or £10 (computer only).

    This is not legal advice, but it is a recommendation that he should seek legal advice.

    1. Re:He should seek legal advice. by Sporkinum · · Score: 3, Informative

      What is the length of time requirement to keep records? In the US, for most medical studies, it's 7 years. He would be outside that here.

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    2. Re:He should seek legal advice. by Shrike+Valeo · · Score: 2

      Had no idea that it became £50, but I am curious on the reaction with such a request and threat of legal action if it's not complied with.

      Legal advice is sound advice, It's no more a standard request than requesting a copy of records from any data controller.. their fault for preventing their own access.. time for them (well, the taxpayer in the end, as always) to pay up

    3. Re:He should seek legal advice. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      No, that's up to the medical provider to track. The patient isn't automatically given those records and much of the information in those records is written only for the doctor. That's gotten doctors in trouble over the years having to explain what the various abbreviations are.

      Part of what you pay for when you go to the doctor's office is for them to keep records. Few patients are in the position to be able to store the documents, let alone understand what they mean. I'd never go to a doctor who was destroying records after only 7 years.

      Then you should stay out of pretty much any clinic in the US. Medical data retention laws are in the book of most, if not all, states. Very, very few clinics keep records longer than necessary. This may change with EHRs since we are finally getting to the point of near universal formats and it's much easier to copy and store digital data as opposed to paper and film, but don't count on it.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:He should seek legal advice. by ChumpusRex2003 · · Score: 2

      In the UK, 7 years from last modification date is generally regarded as the minimum retention period. Up till now, paper records would be destroyed after this point, due to the cost and space constraints of maintaining them. However, some hospitals would have microfilmed them, or scanned them into a document management system prior to destruction, with retention of the microfilm or digital data for a longer period.

      However, although 7 years is the "normal" retention time, there are lots and lots of exceptions; cancer cases , clinical trials, legal cases - 25 years after death; children - at least till age 25 or 7 years after death; the list goes on and on...

      One of the things with digital data storage, especially server based storage is that it is now so cheap that there is much less pressure to destroy data. I was recently involved in purchasing a PACS system (digital X-ray/CT/MRI storage/viewing solution). One of the things that I asked the vendors was do they offer a method to destroy old data to free up space on the discs. (the previous system was subject to an insane markup on the cost of the SAN, and not only that, the system didn't support tiered storage, so the only storage upgrade option that the solution vendor would support was another EMC box of 15k drives with a 200% markup on top). Out of 8 vendors, 7 stated that they do not support automated data destruction; the answers basically came back "we sell this software in 53 countries. We have never had this request outside of the UK. Bearing in mind that we are only charging you $500/TB for archive storage on SATA arrays, realistically, why would you ever want to delete anything when the cost is that low, and only set to drop further if you purchase an upgrade at a later date?".

      While current guidelines do recommend data destruction when the data is sufficiently old, and with the cost of storage continuing to drop, have decided that it is better to hoard it just-in-case.

  4. Single Payer Cost Board Says "No" by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    >> A statement from the trust (Britain's single payer health care system) said: "The trust does have the visual data on file but the cost of generating an image from what is now obsolete technology is not a cost effective use of public money.

    Good thing there's no chance of the US going to a single-payer system...er...am I right?

    1. Re:Single Payer Cost Board Says "No" by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So 1 person has some trouble getting some old files vs our current system where we let folks with cancer die.

      Yeah, what a terrible tradeoff.

    2. Re:Single Payer Cost Board Says "No" by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      So 1 person has some trouble getting some old files vs our current system where we let folks with cancer die.

      Yeah, what a terrible tradeoff.

      You know, after they died they certainly will not ask for old pictures. Problem solved.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:Single Payer Cost Board Says "No" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You've failed to mention that both systems will let folks with cancer die. Socialist medicine has proven to fail (Canada), and the steps we've taken towards it in USA have failed (Obamacare is causing all small and medium sized hospitals to go bankrupt - mine only survived because it is the largest one within a few hundred miles). People will die no matter what - it's just a matter of how much free stuff we give to people who don't work for it before they die. Somebody has to pay for it (before you say "government", where does gov't get its money? That's right, it's your money and my money).

    4. Re:Single Payer Cost Board Says "No" by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I disagree with your claim that it has failed in Canada.
      It appears to be working fine, for an good example check out life expectancies.

      People always die, selecting who lives based on who has the most money is immoral.

      I pay my taxes happily, in the knowledge that they buy me the civilization I expect. That is the entire point.

    5. Re:Single Payer Cost Board Says "No" by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      See, this is the sort of BS we have to deal with in the USA.

      We have an entire political party that makes the claims that jackass spouted.

    6. Re:Single Payer Cost Board Says "No" by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, and don't forget that the government tax load in Canada is more like 70% of your income. That is what it is going to take here as well, if not more. With the local taxes and state taxes added in you may find yourself getting 10% of your gross pay as take-home.

      I was with you up until here.

      http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

      So worst case scenario (where you're making over $150,000/yr in Nova Scotia -- where you can live comfortably on $50,000/yr), you're paying around 36% total in income taxes and 10% sales tax. Most people are paying closer to 28% income tax and 12% sales tax.

      Even if you had to pay sales tax on everything you earned/payed out and were the richest Canadian living in the worst possible location, you'd only be paying 60% of your money to the government -- and this implies you're making 4 figures or more (hint, you likely have enough money to have a team of accountants find you all sorts of tax dodges so you don't have to pay more than around 28%).

      After deferred savings/donations/various rebates, I think 25% is a more average actual taxation level in Canada 1/4 of income, not 3/4 to 9/10.

      And yet the medical system still functions. The only reason people think it's failing is that all the baby boomers are getting old and dying, so both the US and Canada are suddenly losing a significant portion of the population controlling the wealth of the nations year-over-year.

      Hey... I have family members happily living healthy productive lives in their 90's thanks to Canadian Medicare, as well as relatives who are dealing with conditions that would have impoverished them had they lived in the US -- and they're still giving back to society through both taxes and increasing GDP.

    7. Re:Single Payer Cost Board Says "No" by sdguero · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think your statement is accurate about uninsured cancer patients. My roommate is a cardiologist (obviously he doesn't treat cancer patients very often but I believe this still applies) and he is adamant that patients in the current system (at least at UCSD medical center in San Diego, a very nice hospital system) receive the same care independent of their insurance status. It may destroy the patients finances and force them into bankruptcy, but not having health insurance doesn't mean hospitals won't treat you. Now if a cancer patient doesn't have insurance, and doesn't want to lose their house for their treatment, they may choose to go the painkiller route (having seen friends and family go through cancer treatment, this is the route I would likely choose), but they can certainly choose to bury themselves in debt before they die if they want too.

      I think the "non-treatment" fallacy is a big mis-truth that supporters of public healthcare covet and really don't understand... Just because you don't have insurance doesn't mean you won't be treated for your problem. In my limited experience, the quality of care is more dependent on the facility than whether or not the patent is insured. And in many cases, uninsured patients may actually pay less due to their financial situation than an insured patients pays for a deductible.

      Since this post is getting long I might as well say that I think lawyers are the problem, not privatized healthcare. Something like 50% of the private practice expenses go to malpractice insurance, hospitals pay an amazing amount of money towards it as well. Limiting the amount of money people could sue hospitals and doctors for (say $500,000 or something more more reasonable than the current infinity dollars) would go a long way to reducing the cost of health care and insurance. Unfortunately the lawyers that litigate those cases hold a lot of sway in the US political system. They are chomping at the bit to start suing the government backed/regulated/mandated insurance schemes that are coming into effect with obamacare.

    8. Re:Single Payer Cost Board Says "No" by Formalin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh, and don't forget that the government tax load in Canada is more like 70% of your income. That is what it is going to take here as well, if not more. With the local taxes and state taxes added in you may find yourself getting 10% of your gross pay as take-home.

      -5, completely fucking wrong.

    9. Re:Single Payer Cost Board Says "No" by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Nice start. You lost it at "50% of the private practices expenses go to malpractice insurance". A total overhead of 50% of gross receipts would be an excellent rate of return for a private practice. But that would include ALL overhead - salaries, equipment, real estate and malpractice. Most practices probably run around a 40% ROR - it will vary depending on the specialty and location but it's not all malpractice, not by a long shot.

      Nobody really knows how much the American malpractice system costs everyone. Estimates are typically in the 10-20% of total expenditures range. Still a lot.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  5. Why should the patient have to pay? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why should the patient have to pay 200 times as much money to access records when the difficulty isn't his fault?

    The company that was incompetent and stored things in an inefficient manner should cover the cost. Charging this incompetence to the patient shouldn't be legal.

    1. Re:Why should the patient have to pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I work for a large company that develops medical record database software, so this is kinda my thing.

      We refuse to allow even qualified local database/IT consultants touch anything in the database. A single update or delete statement ran on the live database invalidates their support contact if we wish. That's not to say the whole .db file is proprietary, we (begrudgingly) allow third party companies to access the database to pull email/reminder information. Or, in the case of the pharmaceutical companies: Client Name, address, phone number, invoices and prescriptions. Because you know, marketing. Ironically, it was this step - selling data to other companies, that finally put our division in the black. It's kinda nice not having to worry about HIPAA (veterinary industry).

      We provide the conversions from almost all of our competitors and our legacy products. Conversion costs depend on what is converted, such as ONLY medical records, or billing history too? Images? Reminders? Inventory history? It can get pricey, sure, but that is the cost of the switch. Most of the time, conversions is only a small part of the cost of transitioning, the cost of retraining the staff is usually more than the software and hardware itself.

  6. Other than "You have terminal cancer," by MoonRabbit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The last thing I want to hear at my doctor's office is "we're getting a new computer system."

  7. An inspiring new way to raise funds! by InvisibleClergy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So instead of having migration costs, just charge your customers for your migration! Think about it - if you go to the bank, the teller tells you that it will cost you $2,000 to withdraw money because the system in which they store your account info is still on Windows ME! It sounds glorious. I am doing this immediately.

    Oh, wait, no. I only work on ancient systems. Whoops.

  8. Won't happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    They may have asked him for £2,000 but he won't have to pay it:

    From the UK Information Commissioner's Office:

    http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_the_public/personal_information.aspx
    You have the right to get a copy of the information that is held about you. This is known as a subject access request...Organisations may charge a fee of up to £10 (£2 if it is a request to a credit reference agency for information about your financial standing only).There are special rules that apply to fees for paper based health records (the maximum fee is currently £50) and education records (a sliding scale from £1 to £50 depending on the number of pages provided).

  9. Mis-use of the term DRM by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

    and DRM-free, too?"

    Do you understand what "DRM" and "DRM-free" would equate to when it comes to your medical records?

  10. Learning the hard way by BeanThere · · Score: 2

    You and ultimately only you are responsible for managing your own health. I learned a similar lesson when I left the only copies I had of an expensive MRI of my back, showing my back problems, at a doctor's office, and some time later requested them only to learn that "we threw them out, sorry, nothing we can do". The fact is that nobody is going to care about your own health like you are going to, so if any medical documents are important to you, keep records of them. This is your life, take responsibility for it .. it sucks, but he really should have made copies when it was still in an easily accessible format. I know, 20/20 hindsight. Young 'uns, learn from the mistakes of others.

    Using force to compel every doctor or hospital to keep every record ever in a conveniently accessible way would be ridiculous, it's not only immoral, it would cause already overpriced healthcare to dramatically rise further in price, and we'd all have to pay higher costs so that all the doctors and hospitals could keep records that aren't actually important or will never be accessed.

    1. Re:Learning the hard way by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      It is immoral to force doctors to live up to some sort of standard?

      Then what do you think of medical licensing or even education?

      Storing a png of this record costs near nothing.

    2. Re:Learning the hard way by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      It is immoral to force doctors to live up to some sort of standard?

      That depends on what that "some sort of" standard is, now doesn't it?

      I mean, apparently, based on your previous comments, your standard is "never 'let' anyone with cancer die", which is, unfortunately, an impossible standard and would thus be immoral to try to enforce. Depending on the penalties for failure, you'd have a mass exodus from the field of oncology and nobody with cancer would be able to get treatment. Kinda like the high price of malpractice insurance limiting the availability of OBs.

      If the standard is "goes to school to learn how to be a doctor and passes some exams to show a minimum level of knowledge", then that's not sush a high standard that it cannot be met and wouldn't be immoral to enforce.

      Storing a png of this record costs near nothing.

      Yes, but getting it into a PNG format might cost something, depending on the original format. A paper EKG, for example, would have a non-zero cost being converted, especially considering the expense of quality control on the process. Google can scan old books relatively cheaply because nobody will die if they have bad scans included in a book (and they have a lot of them).

      The summary of this article is typically off-kilter. Obsolete formats don't have anything to do with DRM or "vendor independence". As just one example, floppies, for most people, are an obsolete format, and the data they contain is likely not DRMd nor is it vendor specific. I have a drawer of optical disks that are unreadable today, yet back when they were, they would fit in any industry standard magnetooptical drive, and the data they contain is, in large part, jpegs.

  11. Re:isn't that....a database? by Qzukk · · Score: 2

    But... but.. it's thousands of records! THOUSANDS!

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  12. He doesn't actually need the images! by DoctorOz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Let me preface this by saying I'm a medical practitioner, and I read the story He has a written report of he cardiac ultrasound, and he has a written report of it. The data he wants are the 'still images' of his ultrasound. An ultrasound is a live, dynamic test that looks at the heart as it moves, its not like an xray or CT where a single image gives you the data you want. While single images are often recorded (mostly medico-legially I believe), at the end of the day, he wants to compare some still images from his cardiac ultrasound taken 10 years ago to the images taken recently. Not worth doing, exceeding rare that 'any' useful comparison could be made. I agree there is no need to store TB's of data for ultrasounds, though the fact that they still have it is interesting in itself!