It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective.
I am outraged that our elected officials would even think of sneaking this into a stimulus package
Originally posted by Cutwolf
Perhaps my reading comprehension fails me, but I do not see where in the cited sections of the bill the author gets her conclusions.
The whole thing seems to be about streamlining information. An addition to a doctor's current arsenal, not a replacement.
If anyone can cite and explain how the author draws her quoted conclusions, it would be appreciated.
Originally posted by Merigold
And what is it with the fear of socialized medicine?
A board gets to decide if your surgery is worth the tax payers money.
Originally posted by cognoscente
reply to post by jibeho
Anyone familiar with "biosurveillance"?
If you have a heart condition or something like that. Your vitals can be monitored at all times.
[edit on 12-2-2009 by cognoscente]
Biosurveillance, Intelligence and Bugs
The House Committee on Energy and Commerce has decided to investigate the creation of the National Biosurveillance Integration System at the Department of Homeland Security.
The operation was mandated by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 10. Its mission is to "to provide early detection and situational awareness of biological events of potential national consequence by acquiring, integrating, analyzing, and disseminating existing human, animal, plant, and environmental biosurveillance system data into a common operating picture," according to the DHS.
Biosurveillance is the automated monitoring of information sources of potential value in detecting an emerging epidemic, whether naturally occurring or the result of bioterrorism. Information sources that can be monitored for early warning include purchases of nonprescription medication (1) and symptoms reported during ambulatory care (2). Although these sources offer opportunities for early detection, they may also lead to high rates of false-positive reactions. A more definitive tool for biosurveillance is the electronic reporting of diagnostic results confirming the presence of a pathogen.
Heightened concerns about bioterrorism have led public health organizations to reevaluate methods used to report diseases. Currently, most healthcare providers notify public health organizations of reportable diseases by telephone, fax, or mail (3). These techniques generally delay the communication of confirmatory test results and notification of the appropriate public health organization (4). Underreporting is a major concern with traditional disease surveillance strategies (5); even cases of severe diseases sometimes go unreported (6). In addition, substantial variability exists in the completeness of the information sent to public health; initial reports often include only the test result and the patient name. They lack demographic details that are useful to public health officials, requiring them to perform followup calls to get the additional information (7). These delays and inconsistencies may impair the ability of public health officials to detect or respond to a bioterrorist event. One solution to these deficiencies is to use an electronic system to report disease to public health authorities.Text