The Debates Are Set

A Commentary on “Lawmakers Consider Statewide Medical Database”

There is no doubt that accurate medical records are essential in providing quality health service for the physician and the patient alike. Patient analyses and treatments rely to it to a great extent. These facts are undisputed; however, the influx of arguments begin where data-sharing comes into view.

The main issue revolves on the issue of how much patient data can be disclosed. This further branches into sub issues on what entities will take charge of these pertinent data, how much will this cost, and which data should be included.

On one end are the advocates of privacy, pushing for patient confidentiality. They are promoting the view that healthcare providers should be mindful of security concerns and regulations regarding medical data records. Their allies in Congress have been consistently upholding their thrust to the point of vetoing bills which seek to propel sharing of medical data. Their main argument is that medical data-sharing infringes on a person’s right to privacy. Other issues that they sustain include the high cost involved in the centralization of these operations and the risk of record mismanagement on the end of the prospective service providers. These aside from existing statutes on some states are deemed to bar progress of EMRs in legislation.

On the other end are the proponents of interactive-sharing of data electronic records. They submit to the promise of greater patient safety, more efficiency and reduced healthcare costs for consumers. They opine that much medical progress can be achieved through this data-sharing, although to what extent of the data will be covered is still subject to discussion.

This is yet another subject that thrives on a rather gray area. In considering this matter for legislation, the guidelines used in observing the right to privacy of individuals may be useful to discern the extent the sort of data to be shared. It comes in easy terms: (1) it should be in accordance with existing laws; (2) must serve the interests of legitimate objectives; and (3) it must be of such nature that creates a necessity for the whole society. Expect a long and tiresome debate among legislators trying to outdo each other on the floor. But at the end of the day, it all settles to the fact that these may well have to be resolved through sound discretion and tactful medical professional handling.

Burden of Proof

A business law service posted an article regarding the risk of employee blogs to business. It discussed concerns regarding personal homepages (blogs) posing as potential “legal minefields” if not addressed properly. The issue revolves on employees working on their personal blogs before, during or after office hours (or perhaps when the boss isn’t looking). It enumerates the possible threats when employees disclose work, insolent co-workers, or share company/trade secrets through these channels.

A number of large businesses have experienced problems with these kinds of blogs and it is inevitable from the influx of technology that the internet is a favorable channel by which to serve as avenue for redress of grievances. Instead of mainly dismissing these as petty complaints, the company should rather view these as an outlet of criticism from the employees. Rather than deciding on when to fire blogger employees, the best action is to deal with the their pressing concerns.

Owners of large businesses should no longer be surprised in this technological trend. It is rather lack of insight on the part of the Management to believe that the internet is solely a tool to promote effective weblogs for communicating with customers and to merely propel marketing strategies to prospective customers. It is far more than that, boss.

This is most significantly true when you’ve given your employees good reason to despise an imaginary, slave-driver CEO or a supervisor with no balls. Employees are not primarily concern with revealing trade secrets, when there is actually none to divulge in the first place. Their main topics of interest concern their affairs, also known as “gripes” – the work load, salary, bloody damn officemates, slave-driving Management, lack of organizational structure, etc… That is the key step in understanding how these blogs work.

However, on a precautionary note, these schemes also raise the issue of how far an employer can dictate on the private life of their employees. It is one thing to regulate employee activities during working hours and definitely another issue when the actions take place out of working hours.

This paragraph is intended to boost the morale of the fearing employee regarding legal queries on blogging: It is the burden of the employers to prove that they have suffered loss as a consequence of an employee posting information on a blog than to take a defense of justifying dismissal due to it. Whether employers have a policy regarding this or not, a provision should clearly exist in their Employee Guidelines that constitute violation of such and such. Otherwise, it will be difficult for the company to justify their cause on these grounds claiming potential stance such as defamation.

It would be of interest to note for the employers that to post a blog, it does not need a deadline. On the contrary, it is rather available, up and running, ANYTIME.

Academic Musings

The first wave of students to face top-up fees starts college this school year. Although the increase is set at a 300% per unit,many students are expected to decline their entry to the University if only to get their degree at some technologically-wanting institution. Will they get value for their money?

The government had originally hoped that the new system of top-up fees would create a 'market' among universities. This means students should be paying even greater attention to what they are getting for their fees. Even if they aren't being especially vigilant, their parents, who are most likely to foot the bill for the increased costs of a university education, will be keeping a gimlet eye on what their child's university is offering for their money. But how can value for money be measured in pursuit of higher education?

Sadly, anyone searching for an improvement in academic services could be disappointed, as universities say the money from top-up fees is required simply to cover services that students are already receiving. All state universities have been going through an overhaul of their pay structures, and this has incurred additional cost, and was one of the reasons the government promoted the introduction of fees in the first place,' while some universities are responding to top-up fees by improving facilities and updating computational services in campus.

Some students may be tempted to compare hours of contact with their professors as a way of assessing value for money. Although of course, contact hours are not an indication of quality of teaching. Why would the Board of Regents want to take away the state-funded education? The cost of running a university is going up. Competing on a global scale, universities need to offer the facilities and resources for cutting-edge research and studies in order to attract and pay top-notch faculty and students. As being a research institution becomes more important for prestige in a competitive education market, the existing system of being largely state-funded and lacking long-term "endowment" simply can't foot the bill. With the government increasing taxes, education must compete with services. The result is a funding gap, which the government has decided to fill with student fees.

This was met, however, with a strong response from the students. Massive protests were put on, and anybody wandering through the University is faced by the regular spectacle of obsessive people aggressively waving petitions demanding government retraction.

Complaints come from a different perspective: We never used to have to pay much, and as a result, higher education was available to anyone who has the potential for it. Since the changes, there has been a decrease in the number of students who are not willing or able to meet the fees.
Interestingly however, at the same time as the government has been pushing the higher fees, they have also been pushing to increase the number of university and further-education graduates. However, we are lacking academic preparation for the life in the University, no thanks to the strain on the high school education standards. But the University students are now facing an amusing conundrum: The education is more expensive, yet at the same time the value of the qualification has gone down. If everyone has it, then to set yourself apart you have to pursue a higher degree and pay more money. If money is a concern to you, then chances are you won't bother. Your average domestic master's is becoming expensive as well. At any rate, higher degrees are a considerable extra expense beyond undergraduate education.

So the democratizing intention at the core of the government's initial thought is lost, since only the rich will be able or inclined to pay the extra pounds for the extra qualification to elevate themselves above the hoi polloi brandishing their now worthless bachelor's degrees. In fact the only material benefit to them will be to lump them with a debt they did not necessarily need to incur in the first place.

So what is to be done? The government has never said that it is going to back down and suddenly make university free again. Quite the opposite; they will continue to gradually raise fees as the result of this. The protesters initially got a great deal of support, but as the public and media gradually got accustomed to the notion of paying for school, the subject slipped from the public eye. The situation has devolved to the point that the protest has melted into the general corpus complaints that occupy the mind and time of the average student.

At this point, I am already paying for my postgraduate degree. Given the rate of my course, I am not entirely sure I am getting my value for money. I'll start saving for my Ph.D. now, in the hope that I will be an astronaut with a Law Degree.