Comment Re:broad overview. (Score 1) 233
Yes, this has been a concern for a while but it is likely lawsuits will continue to be blamed solely on the providers and their organizations.
One could draw a parallel between medical insurers (like BC/BS) and staff model HMOs. Insurers have been protected for a variety of reasons, and although that shows some signs of eroding, constructing a case versus the individual provider is much easier.
The medical record is a tool, and without it, the provider should still be able to provide adequate care (as so many do now without such records). Thus, negligence is still aimed at the provider even if the system goes down.
Some have argued software should be considered a 'medical device' and thus should be regulated by the FDA; thus, it would have to go through safety and efficacy trials to make it safe for patients. Arguments against this is how do you define the fixed device - does every new release constituent a new device? - and that the software never actually touches the patient. Again, any misinformation should be interpreted by the physician.
All good and valid points, for sure. Nonetheless, there are several companies that gross in excess of $100 million (I'm not saying they could pay for such an award; rather, they are interested in getting into such a business and have stayed in it despite the risks).
One could draw a parallel between medical insurers (like BC/BS) and staff model HMOs. Insurers have been protected for a variety of reasons, and although that shows some signs of eroding, constructing a case versus the individual provider is much easier.
The medical record is a tool, and without it, the provider should still be able to provide adequate care (as so many do now without such records). Thus, negligence is still aimed at the provider even if the system goes down.
Some have argued software should be considered a 'medical device' and thus should be regulated by the FDA; thus, it would have to go through safety and efficacy trials to make it safe for patients. Arguments against this is how do you define the fixed device - does every new release constituent a new device? - and that the software never actually touches the patient. Again, any misinformation should be interpreted by the physician.
All good and valid points, for sure. Nonetheless, there are several companies that gross in excess of $100 million (I'm not saying they could pay for such an award; rather, they are interested in getting into such a business and have stayed in it despite the risks).
