Obamacare pushing doctors, hospitals to check spending habits, credit cards of patients

a reply to: Dianec

So, in regard to your first 5 paragraphs, . . . why is that a bad thing? Seems you just outlined a reason why someone should support this practice, not be opposed.

As far as the DEA . . . I'm sure they "could" track everyone filling subscriptions. However, I think the evidence shows differently. If they were "tracking" this . . . then the illegal sale and distribution of legal (but, highly potent and addictive) pharmaceuticals would not be at the epidemic levels we see now. I know a pharmacist and his biggest frustration is that the onus is completely on him to stop such activity. Whether by reporting the individual to the authorities or simply refusing to fill the prescription when he thinks something stinks. Yet, time and time again the same people come in because the authorities don't do anything or the actual doctor calls in and complains that their patient "needs their meds".

"Loyalty Cards" don't store much of anything in the system, really. They use name, phone, and addy to sell to marketers for direct mail and how many times the UPC of the card is used, amount spent, and at what location. Even if they store a "copy of the receipt" . . . who cares . . . unless you lie to your doctors about what you eat or having an alcohol or tobacco addiction. But, as I said, a doctor can easily find all that info out with simple blood or urine work. That said, I have a "loyalty" card at the two supermarket chains nearest my home . . . They are under "Jimmy Page . . . (xxx) 312-0070 . . . xxxx Zepplin Ln. . . . Phoenix, AZ 85001". Good luck marketing to that guy . . . Heck, I don't even mind saying that "on-line" . . . that's how worried I am about any "evil intent" or collusion between supermarkets, healthcare, and our government.


ETA - NONE of the above "personal information" is real, for those that do not know who Jimmy Page is . . . neither is the phone #, address, or zip.

a reply to: solomons path

Apologies for my lengthy previous post. I know this bothers some people.

I don't support these ideas at all. I was attempting to show how they will be justified. I can dream up more justifications for keeping a database of details of our lives. This doesn't make me a supporter of it. On the contrary.

Most of us have a SS#, several numbers to link us to our vehicles, bank acct numbers, numbers for our homes, etc.. Any one of my identifying numbers can help someone find the other numbers, and any of them lead back to me. That is what I mean by being put into a database and cross referencing, and how it can become the norm. My local FBI agent can pull up my life's history, to an extent this very day. They don't have to interview me to know about me. We are all used to this, but long ago we may not have dreamt of such a system.

I'm choosing to think about it so I can explore whether technology will stop where we are now with our personal information being uploaded into databases. I do not foresee it stopping. Why would it? I'm not concerned or paranoid. I am simply trying to step back and think of how expansion of these databases will be justified.

As a side note:

The DEA in my state tracks doctors prescribing habits. I doubt they track the patients habits, unless perhaps an audit is done. I know this because I'm close with my doctor and some of his associates. Maybe it's a State thing.

a reply to: solomons path

So basically 'Life is but a dream'...and that's why we shouldn't worry about just giving away everything about ourselves like gifts on Christmas?

Naww..... I don't just hand over everything about myself and quite a bit can be deduced from what the thread is talking about. (They can work for my details) This is all a part of forensic accounting though and whole courses are taught on this very thing and how to use it to further an investigation.

However, health providers should have no business with anything like it, any more than they have any business asking about firearms in the home or other personal information they're being encouraged to seek in a "whole picture" approach to patient care.

Someone seems to have crossed health with life as a whole and figured one should required access to the other. That sums up the garbage and nonsense I've been seeing and reading for a long time now, while trying to understand the reams upon reams of regulation and bureaucracy this has all created. I doubt ANY single person truly understands all of what this does as a "package". It's too big, complex and layered at this stage.

So, the idea this might be happening doesn't surprise me in the least anymore. I'm sure there is far worse we haven't heard about yet. There is plenty for it to be lost in.

a reply to: Dianec

No worries on length . . . I'm a bit long winded too.

I didn't catch on that you were trying to rationalize the need for such info . . . sorry. But, I think you have come up with a good justification . . . maybe you shouldn't have posted it online and given "them" any ideas! LOL.

And, I agree. Once something starts (in the way of government intrusion) it doesn't go away, it only progresses.

I also agree with the DEA and keeping tabs on doctors. I'm certain they have programs to look into docs that have been reported to be a little free with the scripts. I'm just going by the pharmacist I know and what his frustrations are. I do know he has reported possible abuse by two docs and he claims nothing was done, as he still sees patients of their's way too often.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: solomons path

So basically 'Life is but a dream'...and that's why we shouldn't worry about just giving away everything about ourselves like gifts on Christmas?

Naww..... I don't just hand over everything about myself and quite a bit can be deduced from what the thread is talking about. (They can work for my details) This is all a part of forensic accounting though and whole courses are taught on this very thing and how to use it to further an investigation.

However, health providers should have no business with anything like it, any more than they have any business asking about firearms in the home or other personal information they're being encouraged to seek in a "whole picture" approach to patient care.

Someone seems to have crossed health with life as a whole and figured one should required access to the other. That sums up the garbage and nonsense I've been seeing and reading for a long time now, while trying to understand the reams upon reams of regulation and bureaucracy this has all created. I doubt ANY single person truly understands all of what this does as a "package". It's too big, complex and layered at this stage.

So, the idea this might be happening doesn't surprise me in the least anymore. I'm sure there is far worse we haven't heard about yet. There is plenty for it to be lost in.

Ummm . . . I'm not sure if you meant to respond to me or if you haven't read all of my posts in this thread . . . but, your response to me doesn't match up with what I've been saying. Especially, the "life is but a dream" and we shouldn't worry BS.

I've continually said that I think the OP piece is simply scare tactics and that it makes no sense for healthcare providers or insurance companies to seek such information. If they wanted to know about what we injest, they don't need to rely on bank statements. And healthcare providers (hospitals/doctors) don't care about our credit histories. I've also said, even if they do have access that they cannot get the type of info or use it in the way that the OP claims.

Maybe you have just read part of my response to someone without reading what I was responding to . . . or you just think because I disagree with the OP that I somehow support the idea? However, I never said that those industries have any business with that sort of data or we should "hand over everything about ourselves". In fact, I have said the opposite.

The closest I came to a correlation with your response is saying that health insurance companies already run credit reports on potential "individual policy" applicants . . . the same as auto insurance companies do (or mortgage companies, rental companies, most employers, applications for student aid, random sales marketing firms, etc. etc.).

So . . . rant on man.

a reply to: solomons path

I didn't realize I was that cryptic.

I believe the OP is likely accurate and the level of intrusion this represents, if accurate, is par for the course...to use a term our President would understand well.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: solomons path

I didn't realize I was that cryptic. I asked if that was a direct response to me, as indicated by the fact that is said "reply to solomons path".

I believe the OP is likely accurate and the level of intrusion this represents, if accurate, is par for the course...to use a term our President would understand well.

Didn't say you were cryptic . . . I asked if it was a direct response to me, as indicated by your post.

Because, I didn't say or present the attitude that you seem to be responding to. My first response was explaining why it made no sense to use the info in the way presented in the OP. My next few were explaining why that info couldn't be used in the way or for the purposes claimed in the OP. I even admitted the government is too intrusive with data collection, I don't support "Obamacare", and that too much of our information is already available to industries that have no need for it.

Yet . . . your response to that was . . .

So basically 'Life is but a dream'...and that's why we shouldn't worry about just giving away everything about ourselves like gifts on Christmas?

I've even pointed out how healthcare providers or insurance companies can find out about our "health habits" by much easier means, which are already at their disposal.

Whether or not the data collection is happening really isn't up for debate or denied by me; however, the conclusions reached by the OP and how that data is going to be used is nothing but partisan doom porn. And, obviously it has worked on many of you.

So . . . please show me where I said anything resembling what you implied my attitude was on the subject of data collection.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000
And even though I never said "don't worry" about data collection or government intrusion, by all means . . .

Please provide evidence that healthcare providers will be able to access an actual credit card statement or bank records . . . or that they could possibly use said documents in the way that is being claimed, if they could access such information. And, I'll gladly stop calling the OP's report or those that buy such nonsense as "gullible".

Again, healthcare providers don't need "credit card" information to track your habits . . . if they don't believe you . . . they can run a Cotinine test for tobacco (or various other blood work for any other habit). Why would they use credit statements? That news report makes no sense. Simple blood work, urine tests, and hair tests would tell the healthcare provider if you are "telling the truth", as the report asks. And, not just nicotine . . . illicit drugs, presciptions, fatty or processed foods . . . they can even tell if you are "active" on a normal basis (i.e. exercise). Insurance companies already can and do request applicants take such tests in cases where there is a question.

Nicotine and cotinine can both be measured qualitatively or quantitatively. Qualitative testing detects the presence or absence of the substances, while quantitative testing measures the concentration of the substance. Quantitative testing can help distinguish between active smokers, tobacco users who have recently quit, non-tobacco users who have been exposed to significant environmental tobacco smoke, and non-users who have not been exposed.

So I've never done one of those online background checks you can do on someone for like $7.00, but for a reason I can't recall I saw my own several years ago. I was shocked to see that anyone anywhere could look up what I owed on my mortgage, my date of birth, and some other stuff I wasn't happy about being available to just anyone. I believe it was the balance on my mortgage.... I'll have to pay the fee and see if it's that or the homes value. I just recall it felt intrusive. If it's public record, anyone can pay to see it.

This means, at minimum, all of the following can be exposed about you for a small fee:

Present address and phone number.
Address history.
Present place of employment
Employment history.
Your marriage history, if any.
Your mortgage information, clearly
I've heard they show bankruptcies and other financial stuff - if it's gone through a courthouse I believe it is fair game.
I remember seeing my average income! This one upset me pretty good. That is my business.
Number of children.
Names and ages of those children.
Anything that has to do with the justice system would also be there for all to see. Maybe even somrthing as small as a speeding ticket or dog at large.
I bet now you can also see if a person has health coverage.

You can also get a lot of information on sites like ancestry.com.
Even if you couldn't get all of this under one roof you could find it with just a little bit of work.

If we all have access to all of this we know there is so so much more the powers that be have access to.

Maybe some laws have changed but I know what I saw back when I saw this shocked me. Maybe I did pay for it but I truly don't recall doing that. I could have found a free site.

If my computer knows what I like and don't like, and what sites I visit, a person can know that as well. All they need to do is tap into my IP address probably. Actually, I hope it hasn't become that easy.

a reply to: Dianec
Diane . . . hate to break it to you . . . but, it is that easy. Basically, anything associated with your social security number can be accessed by anyone.

As I was involved in the hiring process for the last company I worked for, I know that they checked every available outlet for info on prospective hires.

Background check - personal and criminal, as well as public records (marriage, divorce, titles, deeds, etc.)
Credit check
IRS and Social Security check
Facebook (and all other social media outlets - twitter etc.)
Simply Google the person's name
Past Employer verification (it's not just a call . . . you send docs to fill out regarding dates and salary)
Educational records

Now I'm sure if had a unique IP one could access your computer, but that would have to be sophisticated attack. Most firewalls would catch that communication, if you are set up right. Also, most IP addresses are simply generic to your provider (i.e. Cox, Comcast, etc.) That sounds more like government work . . .

a reply to: solomons path

Please provide evidence that healthcare providers will be able to access an actual credit card statement or bank records . . . or that they could possibly use said documents in the way that is being claimed, if they could access such information. And, I'll gladly stop calling the OP's report or those that buy such nonsense as "gullible".

I hope meeting a demand for evidence isn't necessary to avoid being ridiculed as gullible as a member. I don't find it extreme to believe this Government is fully capable of slipping language into thousands of pages of text...in order to snoop into our private lives.

Where is the interest coming from for playing down a report out of a legitimate media outlet for something that is quite in character for the people we have running both this nation and Obamacare itself?

I just don't quite get the enthusiasm for supporting that specific side of this particular issue?

a reply to: Dianec

What opportunities do people miss by looking at that stuff before getting to know the human associated with those things? Basing decisions off of those things would take the spontaneity out of life. I get it if your going to loan them money or want to make sure they aren't a criminal if working with sensitive populations, but to control who enters ones life in that manner is to lose the diversity that makes life interesting. Sometimes not knowing is best - as it leaves us room for fate to take its course.

The more we attempt to control every aspect of everything, the less we feel in control. People will always want more. If time travel became possible tomorrow, I would no longer have a wish to go into the future. I think it would terrify me.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

You know . . . I guess I'm the gullible one!! I went and found the evidence for this report myself. Heck . . . feel free to call me an idiot.

That said, I wasn't supporting it . . . I was saying why the report didn't make sense (i.e. "how will they know if you are telling the truth" - they don't need spending habits to tell that and that is why I posted what I have previously). However, it turns out there is SOME truth to the Texas' station report. Although, the providers reasoning for doing it has nothing to do with wanting to know if patients are being truthful or "Obamacare". . . it's about predictive models and actuary tables.

I did a search for more info on this report . . . It stems from a Bloomberg article from two days ago. In it, the Pittsburgh and Carolinas health systems (many hospitals and their own insurance racket) state that they are buying the same cc data that marketers buy from data brokers like LexisNexis. Although, LexisNexis and Acxiom Corp. claim that the do not or will not sell customer info to health insurers.

Acxiom Corp. (ACXM) and LexisNexis are two of the largest data brokers who collect such information on individuals. Acxiom says their data is supposed to be used only for marketing, not for medical purposes or to be included in medical records. LexisNexis said it doesn’t sell consumer information to health insurers for the purposes of identifying patients at risk.

Although, this is still not something mandated or asked for through "Obamacare", so I still think that is a misrepresentation and I'm sticking with scare tactics about "Obamacare". While the article mentions the fines that hospitals can incur for seeing the same patient too many times in a month, the health systems using this (only Pittsburgh and Carolinas) state it is simply to get a demographic model and have the ability to predict future issues within the community. And only Carolinas Health System is using "spending info" . . . Pittsburgh is simply building on demographics.

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, which operates more than 20 hospitals in Pennsylvania and a health insurance plan, is using demographic and household information to try to improve patients’ health. It says it doesn’t have spending details or information from credit card transactions on individuals.

Carolinas Health Care System:

While the hospital can share a patient’s risk assessment with their doctor, they aren’t allowed to disclose details of the data, such as specific transactions by an individual, under the hospital’s contract with its data provider. Dulin declined to name the data provider.

If the early steps are successful, though, Dulin said he would like to renegotiate to get the data provider to share more specific details on patient spending with doctors.

“The data is already used to market to people to get them to do things that might not always be in the best interest of the consumer, we are looking to apply this for something good,” Dulin said.

While all information would be bound by doctor-patient confidentiality, he said he’s aware some people may be uncomfortable with data going to doctors and hospitals. For these people, the system is considering an opt-out mechanism that will keep their data private, Dulin said.

Important to note: the end of the quote says the system is considering an "opt-out" mechanism, further "pushing" this from the sensationalist title of the OP . . . "Obamacare pushing doctors, hospitals to check spending habits, credit cards of patients"

So, while I still think the OP and report title is misleading and sensationalist . . . If this works for these systems, soon they will all do it.

It should be noted that it is the credit card customer that authorizes this data being "shared" and subsequently sold, though the T&C agreement with the credit card company. There is nothing "nefarious" that these health care providers are doing. As someone that doesn't use credit cards . . . it shocks me that the cc company can "share" your specific transaction (i.e. statement) info with data brokers. Does it actually state that in the T&C of credit card applications? If so, why do you people sign up for them?

Time to cancel those cards for those of you that buy now and pay later . . .

Bloomberg

a reply to: solomons path

Good Find indeed !!!

( I linked to the same article back on page 1 )

You explained it better too



It takes two to tango !!

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: solomons path

Good Find indeed !!!

( I linked to the same article back on page 1 )

You explained it better too

It takes two to tango !!

My apologies to you, then. I didn't see the link to the Bloomberg article before I started posting, simply the news report and the blog post in the OP. As I said . . . I'm an idiot.