Re: [openhealth] Google Health
Well there *is* a way to add a date, but it's not at all obvious. The UI is really rather poor. On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Mark Spohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > They also have 'Flu shot' plus various 'Influenza vaccines'. > Also... no way to indicate the dates of these immunizations which is > necessary for revaccination. > > Oh well... hope they get it cleaned up. > > .Mark > > On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Tim Cook <[EMAIL > PROTECTED] > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Mark, > > > > On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 13:42 +0200, Mark Spohr wrote: > > > Sorry Tim, I can't figure out what vaccine list you are commenting > > > on... > > > > > > Is this in reference to Clear Health (prior message), Google Health or > > > something else? > > > > > > > I was referring to the Google Health PHR public launch. > > > > https://www.google.com/health > > > > Sorry if I confused the two issues. I was in no way referring to the > > fine work by the folks on the ClearHealth project. > > > > --Tim > > > > > > > > -- > > Timothy Cook, MSc > > Health Informatics Research & Development Services > > LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook > > Skype ID == timothy.cook > > ** > > *You may get my Public GPG key from popular keyservers or * > > *from this link http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home* > > ** > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > -- > Mark Spohr, MD > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [openhealth] Suppressing Sensitive Info From Free Text
Will The only acceptable answer would be Maury's option 3. The patient decides. Anything else would be be inappropriate. And not just HIV status. The patient, and only the patient, should have the right to determine who has access to anything that the patient might consider sensitive. And only the patient can determine what is or is not sensitive. 80n On 3/2/07, Will Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm looking for a tool to suppress sensitive information (e.g., HIV > status, etc.) from free text clinical notes prior to allowing the > notes to be published from a protected, physician-only area into > general circulation patient records for the clinic. What existing > FOSS solutions are available? > > With best regards, > > [wr] > > - - - - - - - - > > will ross > chief information officer > mendocino health records exchange > 216 west perkins street, suite 206 > ukiah, california 95482 usa > 707.462.6369 [office] > 707.462.5015 [fax] > www.mendocinohre.org > > - - - - - - - - > > "Getting people to adopt common standards is impeded by patents." > Sir Tim Berners-Lee, BCS, 2006 > > - - - - - - - - > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [openhealth] Re: list of diagnoses and procedures
Is it doable to create new descriptions from just the codes. Unless the meaning of each code is common knowledge then you have to make recourse to the original description, which makes your description a derived work at the very least. Is there any clean-room way of arriving at a description that could not be construed to have been derived from the AMA's original description? Presumably the patient has the right to see the actual codes that are used on his medical record. He also has knowledge (one would hope) of the procedures performed. But he has not seen the CPT list, and so can create a workable description that is not tainted by any copyrightable link to the original codes, nor by any other contractual relationship with the AMA. 80n On 12/12/06, Karsten Hilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 10:54:32PM -0800, Rod Roark wrote: > > > Even absent the political ramifications, the resulting new system > > will have useful applications. A billing service accepting the new > > codes would still need CPT licensing, > You guys need to keep straight what you are talking about. > At least it gets me confused. > > One side suggests "writing new *descriptions*" for the > *existing* CPT codes. In that case *there are no new > codes* which would need any sort of acceptance by a billing > service or even CPT licensing. > > The other party speaks about creating a whole different set > of codes alltogether and trying to bring them into use for > billing. > > Adrian Midgley proposes, as usual, the pragmatic solution: > > First, create new descriptions for the existing CPT codes > and introduce those into use. This ought to be doable > without interference by anyone. After all, the government > cannot force me to use the AMA's descriptions. I can work > with the codes alone (without *any* descriptions) if I so want > - which is for all practical purposes exactly the same thing > as working with alternate descriptions because the payor > will never see those. > > Second, expand upon that established user base to introduce > more codes for more purposes. > > I agree the first part seems doable. I am dubious about the > second. > > Karsten > -- > GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net > E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [openhealth] Re: list of diagnoses and procedures
This reminds me of a similar situation in the UK with postcodes (their equivalent of zip codes). Unlike the US where zip codes are in the public domain, the British Post Office owns the postcode database and protects it agressively. An enterprising group of people recently started an initiative at www.FreeThePostcode.org to "reverse engineer" the postcode database by getting people to record their own postcode and geographic location on the web-site. So far they have not been closed down by the post office. I'm wondering if anything like a similar approach could work with CPT codes? 80n On 12/9/06, mspohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The AMA CPT codes have a tortuous history and are currently in a > legally ambiguous place supported by aggressive AMA lawyers. It is > similar to the legally tenuous position of the RIAA that they can > control what you can do with the music you have purchased. > > A short history. > In testimony before congress in 1997, T. Reginald Harris, Chairman of > the AMA CPT Editorial Board stated: "The AMA has taken additional > steps to make CPT available over the Internet and is expected to > complete an agreement with the HCFA in the very near future. Under the > agreement, complete public access to HCFA data files containing CPT > will be available, free of charge, both domestically and internationally." > Congress then passed legislation mandating use of the CPT codes for > medical billing. > However, the AMA did not make the codes freely available domestically > and internationally. Instead, they have been selling the codes under > very restrictive licensing agreements and in fact earn tens of > millions of dollars a year from these fees. > > The AMA has been very aggressively policing "misuse" of the codes (for > example, taking legal action against people who have made the codes > "freely available on the Internet"). Their legal position is tenuous > and has never been tested fully in court. Instead, they have relied > on the intimidation of their lawyers to produce compliance. Similar > cases such as Feist v. Rural Telephone and DrewTech v. SAE have > produced results which would seem to prohibit the AMA from charging > for the codes. > > That said, it is probably best not to challenge the AMA. Our corrupt > politicians should address the problem but of course, they will not go > against a big contributor. > > You can buy the codes for use (under their restrictive license) from > the AMA and that is probably the best course of action. > > /Mark > > > Alex Caldwell wrote: > > > > --- In openhealth@yahoogroups.com , Tim > Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Alex Caldwell wrote: > > > The way I interpret the agreement on > > > > the site, I believe it is OK to do this as long as you just do it > > > > just for yourself for your own internal use, but you are not allowed > > > > to re-distribute them. So perhaps it would be OK to distribute the > > > > Open Source EMR minus these codes, but include instructions for the > > > > user for downloading this file and importing the codes themselves > > > > into their own personal copy of the EMR: > > > > > > DISCLAIMER: IANAL but > > > > > > "Grant and Limitations. You, as an individual, are authorized to use > > > CPT only as contained in the CPT(r)/Medicare Relative Value Payment File > > > (the "File") solely for your own personal information and only within > > > the United States." > > > > > > specifically EXCLUDES any use outside of the (Excel) file and any use > > > outside the US. It goes on to say that you are prohibited for using > > > them in place of purchasing the CPT book or creating any derivative > > > work. > > > > > > When we licensed CPTs for use in FreePM the AMA was very attentive to > > > the distribution and we had to submit quarterly audits to them. I > > > suggest you ensure you adhere to their licensing restrictions I > > > understand they are very aggressive in pursuing their copyright on > > > their government granted monopoly. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > -- > > > Timothy (Tim) Cook, MSc > > > > Thanks Tim, > > > > I was going by the agreement on this page on the CMS site which links > > to the download for the Excel file: > > > > > > http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/ama/license.asp?file=http://new.cms.hhs.gov/apps/ama/report_xyz.pdf > > > > It did not seem to me as restrictive as what you are quoting there. I > > notice many
