HB2823 Introduced. Prohibit physician questions re firearms.

[n5wd]

Seriously, do you want the government prohibiting your doctor from discussing any topic with you? This is free speech between you and your doctor ( or your minister or whatever ) and we don't need any legislator involved prohibiting or forcing disclosure or preventing conversation. This is not just firearms. It is private trusted conversation. Beware when you prohibit speech.

I seriously didn't want the government involved in my healthcare in the first place.

People just underestimate the new requirements regarding electronic medical records and exactly whom will have access to them in the future.

This.

My doctor can ask me anything that he wants. I'll answer the questions that I want to. It is when he adds my answers (or refusals to answer) to a data base that it turns the problem in an entirely different direction.

At my last annual checkup, my doc (a family physician working in a family group practice in a suburb of Fort Worth) and I got to talking about guns and what he recorded about whether I have guns or not. He told me that in his practice's patient history software, there was no "checkmark" data point for "is there a gun in the house", and that the only place he could add such a notation in a pstient's record is in a freeform block for "added information". He's not required by anyone to ask about guns, but might do so based upon conversations with the patient or patient's family, if it seemed appropriate. He does have access to some handouts about gun safety in the home, and that was about all he might mention, if that. So, apparently, there is no database that he's aware of.

And while he said he'd rather I leave the gun in the car when I come in to see him, he wouldn't know if I was carrying (we've had that conversation and demonstration, before) since I normally stay fully clothed during all but the annual checkup. And, he said they see enough guns on patients that, unless it was one of the newer med aides that seem to come and go with regular frequency, no one would freak out if it were found out that I was carrying.

[K5GU]

Filed today 9-10-2015 in the House by Spitzer. Relating to prohibiting certain physician questions regarding firearms.

Is it September already? Time flies!

My doc offered to write me a prescription for a gun if I didn't have one.
I asked if my Rx plan would cover it.
True story.

Oops! (I'm old).

[mojo84]

N5wd, That's the way it should be done. Keep in mind, there are many different electronic medical record systems out there. They can also easily be modified and customized as things change. The goal down the road is for a patient to have a master medical record that multiple doctors can access so a patient's care can be coordinated by the various doctors/specialists. Eventually, insurance carriers and who knows who else may have access to that information.

Also, keep in mind, insurance programs are written with many features, fields and components already included in the code. They just haven't been activated yet. I have day in presentations put on by companies working hard to develop such software and cloud networks.

Just because something isn't being done today doesn't mean it won't be down the road.

[mojo84]

I know many do not want to believe the doctor's associations are actively involved with influencing gun issues. I recommend everyone read this. Pay particular antention to the words that are used. They openly say, physicians can be a source for information and influence gun policy.

http://annals.org/mobile/article.aspx?articleid=1569946" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Implementing a Public Health Approach to Gun Violence Prevention: The Importance of Physician Engagement FREE
Shannon Frattaroli, PhD, MPH; Daniel W. Webster, ScD, MPH; Garen J. Wintemute, MD, MPH
[+] Author Affiliations
Ann Intern Med. 7 May 2013,158(9):697-698 doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-9-201305070-00597
This article was published at http://www.annals.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; on 12 February 2013.
Evidence-based, well-implemented, and enforced gun policies can reduce gun violence, and this vision can be realized with the help of physicians. As the details of policy proposals unfold and the public and policymakers weigh the options, this commentary presents 5 strategies for physician engagement in these discussions.
The first month of 2013 brought more discussion about gun policy and more action from our state and national leaders than has occurred in decades. The release of the Vice President's task force report, the President's executive actions, and the bills in Congress and several state legislatures are all indications that the country is poised to change how it regulates access to guns.
Whether and to what extent such change occurs will depend in large part on the response from the public. Health care providers, and physicians in particular, are an important source of information for the public and a valued constituency for policymakers. Therefore, as the details of different policy proposals unfold and the public and policymakers weigh the options, we present a case for the role of physicians in these discussions.

An article written by a physician.

http://www.physicianspractice.com/blog/ ... -amendment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[rotor]

I know many do not want to believe the doctor's associations are actively involved with influencing gun issues. I recommend everyone read this. Pay particular antention to the words that are used. They openly say, physicians can be a source for information and influence gun policy.

http://annals.org/mobile/article.aspx?articleid=1569946" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Implementing a Public Health Approach to Gun Violence Prevention: The Importance of Physician Engagement FREE
Shannon Frattaroli, PhD, MPH; Daniel W. Webster, ScD, MPH; Garen J. Wintemute, MD, MPH
[+] Author Affiliations
Ann Intern Med. 7 May 2013,158(9):697-698 doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-9-201305070-00597
This article was published at http://www.annals.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; on 12 February 2013.
Evidence-based, well-implemented, and enforced gun policies can reduce gun violence, and this vision can be realized with the help of physicians. As the details of policy proposals unfold and the public and policymakers weigh the options, this commentary presents 5 strategies for physician engagement in these discussions.
The first month of 2013 brought more discussion about gun policy and more action from our state and national leaders than has occurred in decades. The release of the Vice President's task force report, the President's executive actions, and the bills in Congress and several state legislatures are all indications that the country is poised to change how it regulates access to guns.
Whether and to what extent such change occurs will depend in large part on the response from the public. Health care providers, and physicians in particular, are an important source of information for the public and a valued constituency for policymakers. Therefore, as the details of different policy proposals unfold and the public and policymakers weigh the options, we present a case for the role of physicians in these discussions.

An article written by a physician.

http://www.physicianspractice.com/blog/ ... -amendment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Don't assume that physician's endorse this behavior just because of this article. There will always be the those that run under the Bloomberg banner and then there is the rest of the world. Going back to the original topic though, the restriction of free speech by the government regarding any topic, pro or anti gun control or any other topic, is a dangerous restriction of the first ammendment.

[Distinguished Rick]

I like the bill, however, my doctor has never asked me anything. If she ever did, I would get a new doctor.

[chuck j]

Last time I saw my doctor I bought a raffle ticket , his church youth program was selling chances for a gun every month for a year .

[rotor]

I like the bill, however, my doctor has never asked me anything. If she ever did, I would get a new doctor.

I gather that you are on active duty in Kabul, serving to protect our constitution. Perhaps you can explain why you would take the side that you would prohibit by law a physician from asking a question. Prohibit by law free speech. True, the question may be objectionable but you are not forced to answer it. When I see my doc we talk about guns all the time and who has the bigger collection.

[cb1000rider]

You can do your own research. The AMA and NRA are entirely different from one another.

Mojo, I have. I couldn't find anything that said doctors are compelled to ask these questions other than 2nd-hand antidotes, which is why I asked. It was a legitimate question. I'd feel differently if they ARE being compelled to ask. Your type of response solidifies my position, rather than providing me some data that I might need to see things differently.

I'm well aware of the AMA's historical record on anything firearm related in the political arena. I assume that indicating I need to compare to the NRA is just a great example of civil discourse and constructive suggestion, right?

I wouldn't be surprised if the AMA compiles statistical information around firearms. And regardless of who is compiling that data, it's almost certainly not going to be a positive story. I don't want my physicians bound and gagged around the subject just because we're scared of the political spin. When I'm compelled to answer, then I'll want physicians compelled not to ask.

Maybe we shouldn't allow them to ask if we're pilots, scuba dive, sky dive, or engage in other behavior that might have actuarial impacts?

[airborned]

Good one! Why, well, why do they ask, particularly the VA, etc. It seems like a symbolic way to say stop over reach.

I have never had my or any other doctor at the VA ask me anything firearm related.

I get asked every time I am at the va

[Abraham]

airborned

What's your response?

I know my doc knows as soon as I went in for my first physical.

Before I shed my clothes, I told him I wanted to show him something, upon which I produced my CHL. He looked at it carefully, said nothing, handed it back.

Then I stripped revealing my holstered Glock 19, set it aside and all did he was grin and tell me how much likes trap shooting and guns in general.

This was at least ten years ago, before docs started in with the "guns in your home" questions.

[mojo84]

I know many do not want to believe the doctor's associations are actively involved with influencing gun issues. I recommend everyone read this. Pay particular antention to the words that are used. They openly say, physicians can be a source for information and influence gun policy.

http://annals.org/mobile/article.aspx?articleid=1569946" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Implementing a Public Health Approach to Gun Violence Prevention: The Importance of Physician Engagement FREE
Shannon Frattaroli, PhD, MPH; Daniel W. Webster, ScD, MPH; Garen J. Wintemute, MD, MPH
[+] Author Affiliations
Ann Intern Med. 7 May 2013,158(9):697-698 doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-9-201305070-00597
This article was published at http://www.annals.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; on 12 February 2013.
Evidence-based, well-implemented, and enforced gun policies can reduce gun violence, and this vision can be realized with the help of physicians. As the details of policy proposals unfold and the public and policymakers weigh the options, this commentary presents 5 strategies for physician engagement in these discussions.
The first month of 2013 brought more discussion about gun policy and more action from our state and national leaders than has occurred in decades. The release of the Vice President's task force report, the President's executive actions, and the bills in Congress and several state legislatures are all indications that the country is poised to change how it regulates access to guns.
Whether and to what extent such change occurs will depend in large part on the response from the public. Health care providers, and physicians in particular, are an important source of information for the public and a valued constituency for policymakers. Therefore, as the details of different policy proposals unfold and the public and policymakers weigh the options, we present a case for the role of physicians in these discussions.

An article written by a physician.

http://www.physicianspractice.com/blog/ ... -amendment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Don't assume that physician's endorse this behavior just because of this article. There will always be the those that run under the Bloomberg banner and then there is the rest of the world. Going back to the original topic though, the restriction of free speech by the government regarding any topic, pro or anti gun control or any other topic, is a dangerous restriction of the first ammendment.

I believe I stated many do not comply. Did I not?

I also said said the way one of the poster's doctors handled it was the way it should be handled.

Maybe compelled was too strong of a word. I do know for a fact they are pushed and pressured to ask and document gun ownership. Just because many do not does not mean it doesn't happen. There would not be such a legal fight in Florida if it was not the case. There are also several other states considering similar legislation.

[Cedar Park Dad]

I like the bill, however, my doctor has never asked me anything. If she ever did, I would get a new doctor.

The problem of course is if you are on Medicare or such that might be really hard to do. You could leave but couldn't find another doctor who would take new patients.

[mojo84]

You can do your own research. The AMA and NRA are entirely different from one another.

Mojo, I have. I couldn't find anything that said doctors are compelled to ask these questions other than 2nd-hand antidotes, which is why I asked. It was a legitimate question. I'd feel differently if they ARE being compelled to ask. Your type of response solidifies my position, rather than providing me some data that I might need to see things differently.

I'm well aware of the AMA's historical record on anything firearm related in the political arena. I assume that indicating I need to compare to the NRA is just a great example of civil discourse and constructive suggestion, right?

I wouldn't be surprised if the AMA compiles statistical information around firearms. And regardless of who is complaining that data, it's almost certainly not going to be a positive story. I don't want my physicians bound and gagged around the subject just because we're scared of the political spin. When I'm compelled to answer, then I'll want physicians compelled not to ask.

Maybe we shouldn't allow them to ask if we're pilots, scuba dive, sky dive, or engage in other behavior that might have actuarial impacts?

Is there a group or government out there trying to outlaw those activities? If so, maybe you are right.

You can deny it all you want and make the 1st Amendment argument all you want, doctors are being and will continue to be used for the anti-gun cause.

By the way, do you not realize there are already other things the government regulates regarding the patient doctor relationship?

[Jim Beaux]

Either my doc or his nurse (I cant remember) told me, that the doc is graded on how well the patient profile is completed. I gathered that the grade had something to do with some type of comps. I was also told that the gov was funding some or all of the digital records conversion.

Sorry for the cloudy memory but I was sick and irritated with the questions.

Later when I was admitted to the hospital, the nurse asked several questions unrelated to my healthcare that I refused to answer - and when she asked something along the lines of, "if I was fearful at home", I told her the interrogation was over - give me drugs and turn out the lights!