Population Health Care
I recently stumbled upon two alarming intertwined initiatives. One is “One Health,” described in more detail later. The other is published by the Obama Administration. Called the National Strategy for Biosurviellance, it specifically states,
“A well-integrated, national biosurveillance enterprise is a national security imperative.”
October 1 is a phony deadline. Ignore it. Nobody has to sign up for Obamacare. Absolutely nothing has to happen on October 1. Instead, October 1 is the first day to refuse to enroll in Obama's exchanges (refuse2enroll.org). In six days, you can begin your own personal Obamacare resistance campaign. Our motto: Resist. Repeal. Reclaim.
CCHF has release a new Policy Insights Report: "Patient Privacy and Public Trust: How Health Surveillance Systems Are Undermining Both" Written by Twila Brase, President of CCHF, it reveals the scope and hidden nature of state government health surveillance systems. Using a variety of methods over eight years, CCHF gathered data from all 50 states and D.C. on four major government patient-tracking systems. This data has now been published by CCHF to alert the public to government surveillance and to urge state legislative action to protect individual privacy and consent rights.
Do conservative organizations all sing the same health care tune? No, writes John Goodman at the National Center for Policy Analysis. In fact, I'd argue that sometime they are singing in complete dissonance.
Specifically, a Tennessen Warning requirement [to tell individual how their data would be used by the Dept., whether they have to provide it, etc.] would not be workable for the reporting of communicable diseases or related specimens or for the collection of many other types of public health data or specimens. There may be other privacy protections or some sort of modified Tennessen Warning, but they would have to be tailored to balance MDH's responsibility to protect public health with the individual's privacy. The goal would be to maximize public health protections while minimizing any intrusion on personal privacy.
In response to the “2009 Genetic Information Report – DRAFT Version Two,” this report was submitted to Commissioner Dana Badgerow, Minnesota Department of Administration by Twila Brase, RN, PHN, Member of the Minnesota Genetic Information Work Group and President of Citizens’ Council on Health Care, January 2009
Newborn screening advocates often refer to the newborn PKU (phenylketonuria) test as evidence of the benefit of screening—and as a rationale for compulsory testing of newborns nationwide. However, a brief look into the history of PKU testing challenges these assertions. Inaccurate test results, harmed children, untested treatments, and an increase in mental retardation mark the untold PKU story.
Genetic privacy, parent consent and individual self-determination rights are at stake with the U.S. Senate’s recent passage of S. 1858, the ‘Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007.’ This paper outlines five key issues of concern.
17% - said it is ethically acceptable to use financial incentives to encourage limits on medical treatment
81% - said undivided loyalty to the patient had decreased over the past 10 years.
51% - said their own patients' trust in them had diminished during the past 5 years.