Tami Flu

A few days after the University of California Medical Center in Irvine went live with its new electronic medical record system, a letter arrived on the desk of the hospital administrator.

"I think the person who chose the [EMR] system should be shot first and then fired," the note read.

Pamela Griffith, RN, director of applications for the UC Medical Center, displayed the note at the annual conference of the Health Information and Management Systems Society in Orlando, Fla., in late February, where a lot of discussion focused on how to get physicians to use technology.

Only a few years ago, many of the chief technology officers, vendors, hospital administrators and others who attended HIMSS thought that as technology became more pervasive, physicians would have no choice but to adapt. It turned out that assumption was false. Griffith presented the angry doctor's note as evidence of the backlash her hospital failed to anticipate.

She and others shared success stories, as well as lessons learned, of implementing new technology. The common thread was the realization that for major IT projects to be successful, physicians need to be on board, early and often. The solution, many found, was engaging doctors in leadership roles before implementation.

Sometimes it's the reluctant ones who make good leaders, said William McClatchey, MD, chief medical information officer of the Atlanta-based Piedmont Hospital system. He found involving physicians who are opposed to the technology gave the IT staff and hospital administrators a better sense of the backlash they could anticipate, and hopefully prevent, at go-live time.

[...]

In an attempt to make its personal health records more interactive, Aetna announced last month the launch of Smart Source, a personalized search engine from which members can access medical information specific to their conditions and demographics.

While Aetna claims the system is a way to help its members make more informed decisions regarding their health, others fear insurer-run systems could create a way for health information to be used against members and physicians.

Aetna partnered with Healthline, a health information technology company based in San Francisco, to make searches through SmartSource relevant to each user's profile. The system takes into account the user's gender, age, ZIP code, health plan and employer in addition to information stored in the PHR to produce search results specific to that user.

Information includes basic health educational materials, commonly used medications and treatments for specific conditions, estimated health care costs, doctors in specific plans and information on Aetna programs that the member might be eligible for.

PHRs recently released by Microsoft and Google also allow users to link their records with relevant Web-based research. Those two systems allow the patient to control who can add to or view their records.

Edward L. Langston, MD, chair of the American Medical Association Board of Trustees, said while the AMA believes PHRs are "an important service" for patients, "[W]e are concerned that granting access to PHRs to a health insurer may have harmful implications for both patients and physicians.

[...]

A survey shows hospital executives nationwide have some negative opinions of health plans, but no health plan is more roundly disliked than UnitedHealthcare.

The survey, released in March by California-based Davies Public Affairs, finds 91% of hospital executives have a somewhat or very unfavorable opinion of United. The company is the most ubiquitous -- it's contracted with 96% of the hospitals represented in the survey -- but its negative rating is nearly twice the 47% of Cigna, which was represented in 93% of the surveyed hospitals.

United also was No. 1 -- at 64% -- in being rated the most difficult company with which to negotiate. United was rated worst in timeliness of payment, reimbursement rates, honesty and candor in negotiations, denial of claims, dealings with hospitals and dealings with physicians.

"I think what the survey results show very clearly is that the reason United was rated very poorly was because they behave in a way that deserves to be rated poorly," said Brandon Edwards, who manages Davies' health care segment.

United spokesman Tyler Mason said the Davies firm used questionable methods in collecting its data, and said the survey appeared to be motivated to single out United specifically. Davies' client list includes hospitals. This "is a poorly disguised PR stunt conducted by a PR firm with a questionable reputation," Mason said in an e-mailed statement.

[...]

Says Barbara Ellen in The Observer:

Single jab vaccines were (still are) completely unregulated. It was not possible to buy them from the NHS, so one had to trawl the internet. In the end, the person who injected my daughter sat in an office rented for the morning, with an open suitcase full of vaccine. As he plunged the needle into her little arm, I felt sick - this so-called vaccine could be anything.

Such was the hysteria of the times that we just accepted the unsettling ‘back of a lorry’ feel to the situation, though since then, the mood seems to have changed. Most parents I speak to go straight for the triple vaccine. Worryingly, many others opt not to have their children vaccinated at all, which, in herd-immunity terms, is a disaster. Measles can kill - I dread the day there is an epidemic, the news that a child has died.

One cannot believe that Wakefield meant any harm. One also sympathises with those parents of autistic children, who grab at anything that could illuminate the darkness surrounding their child’s condition. However, for a while back there, what was happening around MMR felt like urban voodoo, with snake-oil merchants seizing the opportunity to exploit gullible, panicking parents (guilty). My daughter is having her follow-up booster in the triple vaccine form, but I have a feeling that this mess isn’t over yet.

From Max Dunbar’s review of Damian Thompson’s excellent little book Counterknowledge:

Imagine being a 9/11 Truther or a believer in homeopathy. You have unearthed a vast, hidden conspiracy that most of the world has completely missed. Either it is the conspiracy of PNAC engineering the Twin Towers demolitions as a pretext to declare war against the Middle East, or a secret plan by the medical/scientific/pharmaceutical establishment to cover up the healing powers of alternative medicine so they can carry on selling useless drug treatments.

You can dismiss the testimony of most doctors, scientists, physicists or engineers because their very experience and qualifications show that they are part of the elite and therefore have an interest in covering up the scam. Indeed, any contradictory evidence can be ignored - it will have been planted. Your own lack of evidence doesn’t bother you; obviously, the conspirators are going to cover their tracks. The absence of proof is proof. Ignorance is the smoking gun.

Most people reject your explanations because they are brainwashed by the corporate media. Only you, and a handful of fellow Truthers, are smart enough to see through the lies. What a boost! And presumably, when the conspiracy is found out, your greater intelligence and heroism will be recognised and you will be given the power and rewards such qualities accord you.