Printable View
I can't be certain, but what I think he is saying, is that they would analyze the chemical components and then manufacture their own under a different name, and sell at a lesser cost. I don't know that this would be possible tho, since they would be infringing on patent rights and leaving themselves open to a big lawsuit if this was done before the patent time had expired.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomilynn
Just my interpretation of what was said, of course. I could be mistaken.
If you go to Mexico and sit down for a meal, order a Coke and make sure you get it in a bottle-a glass bottle.
The first thing you notice is the bottle is a few years old...no worries there, they recycle glass but do not bust it up and re-melt it, it goes back to the bottler and they re-use it! Pop the top and taste it. You'll notice that it's the same stuff you drank as a kid. Real sugar, no BS fake stuff.
It's the same Coca Cola company except there is no FDA or any of the other regulatory fingers in the pie, so, you get real Coke...... LOL, that is why the Toad from Venezuela doesn't like Coke Zero?;)
It the same with all the med companies-Check out the home pages for the guys who stock your medicine chest and you can be assured they have a Canadian, Mexican and Euro offices.
It's all the politics and regulations we have in our country that make HC so expensive.
They
Oh, I don't like it either. I think it's one of the vilest things I have ever imbibed - and I sent Coke an email about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RICHARD
Not really....most countries including Mexico and Canada have a equivalent to the Food and Drug Administration. In Canada it would be safe to say a more strigent one...yet cheaper drugs. Hmmmm....
And some of us might remember what happens when there is not government oversight of the products companies sell us to put in our bodies.
Can anyone remember thalidomide????
I can, and I can also remember the kids with flippers born to mothers who had taken it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
[QUOTE=RICHARD;2159809...Part of the problems for any electronic info gathering systems is that you are forcing the RNs, LVNs, NPs and other people to waste time trying to log info into the system.
richard, on my job at a columbus hospital system, you are assigned an employee id, there is an audit trail of who goes where in the system, i can only look at radiology stuff...do we have the last digitized mamm films for todays study, did the report on the patient with the broken arm get sent to the family doctor (side note about that coming up). i cannot access what i don't need for my job, so no lab, no surgery notes, no floor nurse notes for me. if i try to look at that section,the yellow block screen comes on. i do 3 different modalities of xray, so i move from area to area and computer to computer. log ins take less then 30 and there is timeout features, so if i'm not using the terminal for 10 minutes, i'm booted off. really good things about EMR....because of the system our hospital uses, the PCP can get stat calls with critical results in 3 minutes...yes dr smith hears about that case of pneumonia in under 5 minutes on the 87yr old patient....in our building, those images are on their results computer before that patient gets back upstairs. if mrs green is a call back mammo from eastside, and she comes to me at the west office, her mamm films are in my computer, so i know exactly what special views to do. the chance of misplaced films is way way down, no more residents "borrowing" films, no more surgeons leaving the original films to melt in their trunk of their car, the radiologist can compare the last 10 chest xrays on patients. while i hated the timeout at first, it's second nature now for me to pick up my xray order, do the patients images, log in, do computer documentation and log out. these are all good things.
Don't you start siding with Hugo Chavez!Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace
Phesina,
Babies were born with flippers beause there was hardly any rules to screen treatments/meds back then.
There was a time when preemie newborns were put into an oxygen tent and no one suspected anything until people found out that the excess O2 caused blindness in the newborns.
JNA,
I hear you. I saw 30 years of people being stupid.
Let us remember of the lazy doc who does not want to be bothered about accessing the system so he gives his nurse, sec't., lab person his ALL ACCESS password so he can doctor and not waste his time on the computer.;)
I know you can do your job well and be responsible, but what about the jerk in the lab, radiology or GYN office that is not paying attention to what they have to do?
I worked in a chart room for years and I will be effed if I say I was on point every day I clocked in.:rolleyes:
You mentioned something very important about 'terminal vigilance'-you get booted after 10 minutes? If you do walk away from a authorized terminal can you promise all you patients that no one else will access that keyboard until you are timed out?
P.S.
If you know what a bunch of F wads the radiologists/docs/residents are with x rays, how can you put trust in them with a computer terminal, logging info into the system and making sure that films are there when needed?
The sys is only as good as the input.
Don't you remember the opening scene in the bottling plant in "The Incredible Hulk?"Quote:
Originally Posted by RICHARD
Another movie to rent!:DQuote:
Originally Posted by catland
None of your arguments say why paper is better than automated. A good doctor, nurse or technician is good whether on a computer or using paper. A not good doctor, nurse or tehcnician is not good whether using paper or a computer.Quote:
Originally Posted by RICHARD
If you walk away from an authorized paper file can you promise all you patients that no one else will access that file until you come back for it?
Same difference. The system is only as good as those using it.
Are Jack in the Box smoothies FDA approved?
I just finished reading an article in this week's TIME magazine - a look at a couple of different approaches to providing medical care.
Interesting comparison among UCLA, Mayo and the Cleveland Clinic. A very convincing argument for computerized medical records and the reduction in errors and costs as a result.
UCLA had the highest costs (by almost half!) and no difference in results.
Mayo uses the computerized records to determine "best" treatments.
Good reading...and so much better than whining!
I can speak a little bit about computerized records and HIPPA compliance. We have several medical offices who are clients. (I am a partner in a IT company that specializes in small business support.) It costs a LOT of money to go EMR and to be fully HIPPA compliant. Secure email, uber strict internet access rules, all the scanning required, training, etc.... I know who pays for it now. Who pays for it when Big Brother is in charge? Because you know it will not become MORE efficient.
I guess what I am saying is I find it silly to think that having Big Brother in charge of our health care will make it cheaper. What does government do that ever gets cheaper?
And ES... Why is it that when anybody disagrees with you, it's "whining"? I used a word to describe you some time ago and you said that "this is why I keep you on ignore." (Yeah, right...) All I can say to that is... Gosh darn it ES, stop showing your true colors! LOL ;) You might be right on the health care thing. But there is a LOT of debate that needs to happen first. But you will get NOWHERE talking down to people. I learned that... So should you.
HIPPA-----Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckstop31
How much grey hair has that caused you?:rolleyes:
You covered everything - It a multi-pronged attack trying to CYA and think of every contingency when systems go online.
Hat's off to you for taking that job on.
Though it has been a few years, I obtained a US prescription for a drug I purchased online through a Canadian pharm company. The doctor from whom I received the script was the one that told me about the Canadian online company. I was very happy with their services and the drug, while the drug was previously manufactured in/for the US, it wasn't for the reason I was prescribed it. It was very inexpensive.
As for tort reform and the lawsuits as the basis for driving up health care costs, that is one side of a story that the insurance companies want the public to believe. Med mal cases are the hardest to prevail upon and the most expensive to litigate. They are few and far between when you consider lawsuits in general. Your run of the mill auto accident cases are much more common and frankly none of us pay close to $1500 a month for auto insurance.
The health insurance companies are one of the most "impressive" lobbying voices in DC. I encourage you to look beyond their story.