The final element of the future WISHIN list goes to the “shared responsibility for care management” of “service providers and service providers who work separately”. It seems to be a reference to other areas where the pay office of the WISHIN network is added.
It is mentioned
Accessing WISHIN’s motivation will be a reality in Q1-2018
I have written a brief note on this topic in the article with a single link. In this article he emphasized that the method is possible for many purposes, including the purpose of “payment” for use. So technology can not get in the way.
Care of Care is a collective sport.
I think the point of this article is that paying employees for what will happen to the patients they cover will improve the outcome. It is controversial and, in fact, most privacy theory only uses this scenario as a warning against bad things. These stories say that if the insurance company receives a lot of information about the patient, it will increase the cost of insurance and reduce support for the type of medical problem the patient experiences. I will not deal with this point. I fully admit that this is possible.
I think it’s possible to have a positive outlook. First we use “Privacy by Design” to point out that an insurance company can only enter if the patient has approved it. It is not absolutely necessary, especially in the USA. Law Under the HIPAA Act; HIPAA also allows “full treatment, payment and normal operation”. However, we want to emphasize that a great step in privacy design is that the insurance company only gets access to HIE with the patient’s consent. It may not be mandatory, but it will definitely ease the anxiety. I also believe that a large number of patients will be eligible, sufficient for the concept of “care management” to include a “payer” in a good way.
The second thing is privacy through design, I want to see transparency. I’ve discussed it many times, a feature where the patient identifies each time he or she accesses his data no matter what. In this way, the patient is seen when a driver makes the driveway and therefore feels that the positive result is improving. You can also see negative results when this happens. Transparency also helps to show that motivation should be documented and the result is desirable not only for motivation, but also for the patient.
Do not provide unpaid pays for all patient information. It is a motivation that should be limited to patients with a legitimate relationship that exists. The alternative is the HIE Hatch Payment for rich and healthy patients so they can go to sales. The legitimate relationship is somewhat difficult, what is the authority of this conservative legal relationship? One solution is the “patient’s consent” I gave earlier. Still a bit slow. I can not have a solution, but I’m worried about the danger.
What are the benefits?
I think Payer has great data on how to lose money through poor patient behavior. You can see things, like many doctors without better testing, like a thinner. Things like finding drugs with many doctors. I’m sure there are so many things I can not understand, and I can not figure out how patients pay taxpayers. All this is not the only way Bayer is bolted, and we are worried. The money lost in a way should be found in other ways.
Patients do not always do what a clinician says. I blame myself. The problem with nonconformity is that it leads to suboptimal recovery. The best recovery means that future injuries in this area are easier and cause more damage. Therefore, it is in the patient’s interest to follow clinician’s instructions, but sometimes it does not happen.