In my original article about Microsoft & Kaiser Permanente joining in an effort to store patient records [here], one reader asked a question that I found interesting.

Reader leftystrat states:

I’ve been watching this unfold. We seem to have `progressed’ from the concept of electronic records directly to the debate on which service to use to store them.

We seem, however, to have completely bypassed the debate over WHETHER to use electronic records.

It will surprise no one that I say not to use them at all. To have information available is to have it stolen or misused eventually. Period.

Safely in my forties, I have survived quite well without anyone (including me) having electronic and immediate access to my medical records. Don’t let anyone fool you – an emergency room can treat you without having access – they’ve been doing it as long as there have been emergency rooms.

This is a solution looking for a problem.

Lastly, your records are already in electronic form whether you realize it or not. There are tons of insurers in Hartford, CT. Care to bet there aren’t MANY copies of all your records up there?

GREAT post, Ron.

Well leftystrat,  I believe you have hit the nail on the head. Why is there a need for storing our medical records whether it is by Google, Microsoft and anyone? How secure will the storage of the information be? Who will have access to the information?  What assurances will we have that this information will not be used against us, i.e. using family history to prevent someone from getting medical insurance, or life insurance and so forth?

What do you think?

Comments welcome.