Topic: New PHR framework to enhance public trust
HIM Connection, July 8, 2008
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to HIM Connection!
Several technology companies, healthcare providers, insurers, and consumers groups endorsed a personal health record (PHR) framework that would increase privacy and consumer control, according to a press release by Connecting for Health, a public-private collaboration that developed the framework with the help of the Markle Foundation.
The framework includes four overviews and 14 specific technology and policy approaches for consumers to perform the following functions:
- Access health services
- Obtain and control copies of personal health information
- Authorize sharing of personal health information with others
- Review sound privacy and security practices
“This collaboration lays out specific practices that all PHRs and related services can use, whether they are covered by federal privacy rules or not, so they can enhance public trust,” said Steve Findlay, a health care analyst for Consumers Union, in the press release.
The framework was released with a survey that indicates that four out of every five U.S. adults believe that electronic PHRs would help people:
- Check for errors in their medical records (87%)
- Track health-related expenses (87%)
- Avoid duplicated tests and procedures (86%)
- Keep their doctors informed of their health status (86%)
- Move more easily from doctor to doctor (86%)
- Manage the health of loved ones (82%)
- Get treatments tailored to health needs. (81%)
- Manage their own health and lifestyle (79%)
To view the press release, visit www.connectingforhealth.org/news/pressrelease_062508.html.
To view the framework, visit www.connectingforhealth.org/phti/#guide.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to HIM Connection!
Comments
0 comments on “Topic: New PHR framework to enhance public trust ”
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Identify potential Medicaid RAC target areas
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- E-mailed
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Q&A: Follow CMS' coding guidelines when using modifier -25
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- CMS has reformulated payments for some bilateral procedures
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Q/A. One injection code or two?
- ED-to-inpatient transfers are flawed with safety gaps
- Searched