Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Today devices...but tomorrow ? It's called "creep".
The goal of the HHS Heath IT organization is to reduce or eliminate paperwork associated with healthcare and have everything in electronic format available to anyone in medicine. RFID chips can accomplish that. Facial recognition (patient name, address, etc) can accomplish that too. Your driver license picture is used for that.
HealthIT.hhs.gov: Home
Here..from a "standards" meeting from the HHS "Health IT" organization:
Document #17 from this link on standards meeting..talking about "future" standards. HealthIT - Banner Search Results
It’s so hard to actually write criteria for because there are new technologies that do facial recognition of the patient who is in the bed. So, do we want to use RFID, do we want to use bar code, do we want to use biometrics, do we want to use DNA, do we want to do facial recognition? The answer is they’re all fine and who knows what technology tomorrow will bring?
Good post (rep'd you).
This brings up the issue of the way regulations are intentionally vaguely written leaving room for subsequent adjustment to allow for new developments, applications and interpretation. It's a "living document" that will change with the ruling party's policies, either for good or bad, depending on one's view of the direction we're taking.
FDA recognizes the importance of post-market surveillance (PMS) and utilizes a multi-faceted approach to monitor the performance of medical devices after marketing clearance or approval to ensure their continued safety and effectiveness. FDA uses several PMS tools to accomplish effective monitoring of device performance. For example, the Agency requires medical device manufacturers to follow certain PMS requirements for marketed devices, including adverse event reporting for all devices, and tracking systems and post-market surveillance studies or post-approval studies for select devices. This approach provides for nationwide surveillance through adverse event reporting, complemented by targeted efforts, such as post-approval studies. However, medical devices present unique post-market challenges because of their diversity and rapid product evolution. Importantly, key infrastructure improvements, such as increased electronic adverse event reporting, the establishment of the Unique Device Identification (UDI) system, and the incorporation of UDI into health-related electronic records, will have a profound and positive impact of the nation’s ability to adequately monitor medical devices in the post-market period.
Are you going to make an argument??? Yes or no....?
Right after you. At this time, exploring your knowledge on the issue. You pointed at something, I want to see what you know about it and specifically its history.
It isn't an implantable chip, guys, it's registering MEDICAL DEVICES implanted in patients (i.e., pacemakers, insulin pumps...)
Oh GAWD!!!
It was an idiotic allegation to make in the first place. From out of which cave and hibernation for centuries do people who make such claims crawl from? Thanks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
