Electronic Medicine?!?!

Does anybody else find the idea and implementation of electronic medical records somewhat disturbing? Privacy rights were only briefly mentioned in the last two paragraphs of the article. However, this seems, at least to me, to be the bigger issue here. Assuming the adoption rate of electronic records increases, won't doctors and health providers need to keep back-up files in the event of a system failure? Of course back-up records would need to be kept. But who would be responsible for keeping them? If back-up files were on the home computer of each doctor, wouldn't your medical information security be only as good as the home alarm system of your doctor, leaving your ssn and financial information vulnerable to a home invader? Perhaps the solution is not to store these files at the homes of physicians, but rather at some facility off-site of the care center? The question then becomes how do you transfer that information to the facility? If the records are sent via the internet, then they are vulnerable to hackers. If the responsibility is left to a courier (since your physician wouldn't dare waste valuable time lugging files) then what of doctor-patient confidentiality? And wouldn't the off-site facility want to keep back-ups as a precautionary tactic? Someone, however, will come up with the ingenious solution, that the safest way to back-up an electronic file is with a paper one. The true question is one that is more of a gamble. Which is more important to each individual, to save $40 at a doctor's visit (likely only a two or three time a year occurrence), or would you prefer that your identity and financial information be just a little more secure from those who would do you ill?


The article, "Doctors Edge Toward Electronic Records" can be seen at the following link:

http://www.ajc.com/tuesday/content/epaper/editions/tuesday/business_34ccd7b0e00e61da0048.html