Just to be clear, you can be just as "insecure" with SQL (mysql, mssql, oracle) as you are with FMP. Anyone with access to the data and/or server, is anyone with the ability to be do harm.
Beverly On 2/5/09 8:26 AM, "Hans Gunnarsson" <[email protected]> wrote in whole or in part: > It is my experience that as soon as the government decides to > centralize anything it is out Filemaker and in Microsoft SQL and > sometimes Oracle. > > But over here MS SQL seems to be the winner. Everything else seems to > be slowly but surely pushed aside. > > Kind regards > Hans > > > On 23.1.2009, at 03:34, Jay Erlebacher wrote: > >> My two cents on EMR and Filemaker: >> >> People are acting as if the most important factor in an EMR is >> privacy, security etc. >> There is no doubt that there are legal mandates in this area, but >> that is not the primary reason practices get benefit from an EMR. >> These are sideshows to the real action. >> >> The essential role of an EMR is to improve patient care and >> physician effectivenesss/productivity. >> I have an FMPro EMR solution that my 5 man cardiology practice has >> been using for over ten years. >> It is constantly being tweaked and fine tuned to our needs so that >> there can't possibly be a commercial solution that would match it. >> >> Unfortunately, the problem with Congress getting involved is that >> this beautiful little solution will probably never get certified by >> Medicare at a cost that would make it worth doing. >> It's likely that all the custom made Filemaker EMR solutions will >> dry up and go away (along with the thousands of hours of effort >> that went into them) once EMRs are mandated. >> Think about this before you embark on a FMP EMR project. >> >> Jay Erlebacher MD >> >> >> On Jan 22, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Richard S. Russell wrote: >> >>> We recently had a discussion on this forum about developing an FMP >>> solution for a small clinic, with particular attention to the >>> privacy of medical records. This topic is now starting to loom >>> large on the national stage as well, and I thot those interested >>> in the subject would profit from the following comments from >>> computer-privacy expert Lauren Weinstein, appearing in the latest >>> edition of the "Computer Risks" newsletter: >>> >>> = = = = = = >>> >>> >>> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 12:25:51 -0800 (PST) >>> From: Lauren Weinstein <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Electronic Medical Records, Google, and Microsoft >>> >>> Lauren Weinstein's Blog Update, 19 Jan 2009 >>> http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000497.html >>> >>> Greetings. It's well known that a significant portion of the Obama >>> administration's stimulus plans will likely be a major thrust toward >>> electronic medical records. These are touted as reducing errors, >>> creating >>> jobs, and saving money -- though it's arguable if medical >>> consumers are the >>> ones who actually pocket the savings in most cases. >>> >>> But there are serious concerns about these systems as well -- >>> reminding us >>> that exactly the same sorts of problems that tend to plague our other >>> computer-based ecosystems could now start hitting people's medical >>> records >>> in pretty much the same ways. >>> >>> *The New York Times* (19 Jan 2008) had an excellent story about >>> privacy and >>> security issues associated with electronic medical records -- and the >>> medical industry heavyweights who are trying to water down related >>> provisions in associated and upcoming legislation. >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/18/us/politics/18health.html >>> >>> A few days ago, AP reported on a range of potentially serious >>> medical errors >>> *created* by the Veterans Administration's new electronic medical >>> records >>> system. >>> http://www.tampabay.com/news/military/veterans/article967778.ece >>> >>> Both Google and Microsoft have unveiled electronic medical records >>> systems >>> for users, and are actively seeking partnerships with major medical >>> treatment organizations. While they both promise comprehensive >>> privacy and >>> control by users -- in some ways that exceed those mandated by >>> HIPAA privacy >>> requirements, these systems are explicitly not actually covered by >>> HIPAA -- >>> though my hunch is that this status is likely to change in the >>> near future. >>> >>> The key concern with such non-HIPAA medical records systems isn't >>> their >>> privacy and security at the moment -- which as I noted appear to >>> be good at >>> present. Rather, an important aspect of HIPAA is that it >>> represents a set >>> of rules that cannot be arbitrarily changed by the organizations >>> involved. >>> Consumers need to know that the "rules of the game" when it comes >>> to their >>> medical records will not be subject to unilateral alterations on >>> the basis >>> of business conditions or management changes, outside the realm of >>> legislated national rules. >>> >>> My belief is that electronic medical records in general, and the >>> services >>> like those from Google and MS in particular, have the potential for >>> significant benefits. I also believe that a massive rush into any >>> of these >>> environments could end up creating a whole new range of problems >>> that could >>> waste money, risk privacy, and in the worst case even cost lives. >>> >>> I trust that Congress will move with deliberate speed, but not be >>> pressured, >>> in the area of electronic medical health records implementation, >>> and that >>> they will put patients' rights to privacy, accuracy, security, >>> control, and >>> choice at the top of agenda. A stampede to electronic medical >>> records >>> without due consideration and care would be a very dangerous >>> prescription >>> indeed. >>> >>> >>> = = = = = = >>> Richard S. Russell, a Bright (http://the-brights.net) >>> 2642 Kendall Av. #2, Madison WI 53705-3736 >>> 608+233-5640 [email protected] >>> http://richardsrussell.livejournal.com/ >>> >>> = = = = = = >>> For any given complex, expensive, time-consuming problem there >>> exists at least one simple, cheap, easy wrong answer. >> >
