DEC 1, 2011 9:55am ET

Guns and Patients: We’re Here at the Crossroads

Print
Reprints
Email

A Florida law restricts physicians from talking to patients about guns and firearm safety unless they believe the information is relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety, or the safety of others. And if they do ask, they can’t enter the response into the medical record.

This has been winding its way through the courts (of course) and has also showed up in other state legislatures since the law was passed in June. To me, it’s an indication of the troubling crossroads between data and privacy we find ourselves at, something we wrote about in our October edition from a different but no less important angle.

The idea that a physician has legally defined parameters of how and when they can discuss guns with their patients is, on its face and maybe even a little deeper, patently ridiculous. No matter where you stand on the right to bear arms, when you get down to the objective brass tacks, guns are a significant public health hazard. The American Academy of Pediatrics says that 1 in 25 admissions to pediatric trauma centers are for gunshot wounds. Authors of an article appearing in The American Journal of Preventive Medicine cite data from the CDC that from 1999-2007, nearly 270,000 people were killed by firearms.

In my mind, it would be irresponsible for physicians, especially pediatricians, to not to ask about guns in the home, and I trust their professional judgment about which patients to have a conversation with and how to use that information within the physician/patient relationship.

But here we come to the heart of the matter. I think the National Rifle Association and the Florida legislature and gun owners also by-and-large trust physicians, but they don’t trust the health information infrastructure they’re wired into. Washington as well as state governments are collecting ever more data from EHRs and other sources to support population health and other grand-scale health care initiatives. That information is designated for use for the common good, but many people are nervous about who decides what the common good is: punitive measures aimed at the obese? Intrusive monitoring of diabetics? A new layer of scrutiny for legal gun owners in the name of public health?

Health care providers understand the enormous power good data has for saving and improving their patients’ lives. But many also chafe at the increasingly large amount of data they’re being asked to collect about their patients, question to what purpose that data will be used, and worry it will be used in ways they never intended or imagined when they asked the questions and entered the answers into an information system—a system designed to deposit that electronic data into increasingly vast data warehouses.

At some point, patients are going to say enough is enough, and we will see more damage to the physician/patient relationship that’s already cracking at the foundation. So the question to caregivers and federal overseers: when is enough truly enough? Or have we already passed that point?

 

Comments (4)
Do you honestly believe that the motivation behind this "patently absurd" legislation is that its sponsors and supporters "don't trust the health information infrastructure [physicians] are wired into"? I don;t believe that they even considered for one nano-second whether the patient discussion is documented in an electronic chart vs. a paper chart vs. scratched in the sand. While I agree with your broader point that data protection and privacy as related to HIT and data exchange are bound to become increasingly important to patients and even a matter of concern with regard to physician/patient trust, I think you are stretching to find a relevant example. The sponsors of bills like the one enacted in Florida are simply pandering to their base, which they assume (right or wrong) to be single-issue driven zealots who don't want to know anything at all--certainly not public health statistics concerning firearms, let alone details about data protection and the national HIT infrastructure!
Posted by Andrew R | Thursday, November 10 2011 at 9:21AM ET
I agree w/ Andrew R. about the motivations behind Florida's inane gun discussion law - it is motivated more by single issue politics that larger issues. However, I believe that once the genie is out of the bottle, i.e. once it is recognized that providers are required to collect the data, the "second order" problem of data scrutinization becomes an issue. Not only will the single issue players that initiated the problem focus on the data, but so will every other private or government special interest who believes that the data can somehow advance their cause.
Posted by A D | Sunday, November 13 2011 at 12:56AM ET
Add Your Comments:
You must be registered to post a comment.
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.

Blog Archive for Greg Gillespie

Taking the Sense Out of Incentives
Can This HIT Upheaval Sound Any More Boring?
A Prescription for Failure
‘Damn damn damn’
HIPPA

More from Greg Gillespie »

Blog Index »

Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn

Unlike some other major industries, health care incorporates geospatial data only sparingly. But that could change quickly with population health a priority.

Login  |  My Account  |  White Papers  |  Web Seminars  |  Events |  Newsletters |  eBooks
Already a subscriber? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.