EMR versus PHR

Health care in the world is changing and America is leading the change. At the heart of the transformation are the two écoles of health care records; electronic medical records (EMR) and Public Health Records (PHR).

Electronic medical records are designed by hospitals for hospitals. They are intended to make life easier for health care institutions rather than health care consumers. Electronic Medical Records are created by health care professionals such as doctors and nurses and can not be shared on social media such as twitter and facebook.

A PHR differs from an EMR in that it is owned and controlled by the patient and not the clinic.

Personal health records can be edited by the patient and can be freely circulated on the social media. However, PHRs are not reliable for diagnostic purposes since they are processed by the patient.

Microsoft and Google are offering Health Vault and Google health systems, respectively. These are a better fit for the patient oriented PHRs. You can edit and organize your records and your records on Google Health and Health Vault stay with you even if you change your doctor, hospital and insurer.

There are also real-time monitoring systems such as Nike+. This system records fitness data from a sensor in a running shoe and uploads it, via iPod, to a website where you can track and share your progress on social media. These systems are more hobby, pass-time oriented.

Has President Obama gone too far by promising that his administration "will make the immediate investments necessary to ensure that, within 5 years, to computerize all medical records ?

No, I do not think so. All the technological infrastructure is already there. As long as patient oriented health records (PHR) and clinic oriented health records(EMR) are kept separate the system will work.

Health care information should not loose its accuracy and reliability for the sake of socializing on the media.