 |
|
Rebuttal
Benjamin Littenberg, MD;
Charles D. MacLean, MDCM
Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(8):802-803.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
Trief and Ellison argue against the use of registries for diabetes on the grounds that they are ineffective, undermine the physician-patient relationship, and are a violation of privacy. They present their sense that registries are "dangerous," but they give no data that registries are anything but positive for patients, their families, and communities. They are concerned primarily about the outreach programs associated with registries, which they wrongly characterize as "mandatory." In fact, public health registries have 2 major functions. The first is to measure the scope of an epidemic so that health care providers, payers, and the government can make rational policies about how to organize services, spend limited monies, and be held accountable for the well-being of the people they serve. They are correct that New York City is the only jurisdiction in the country (and to our knowledge, the world) where . . . [Full Text of this Article]
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLES
Mandated Diabetes Registries Will Benefit Persons With Diabetes
Benjamin Littenberg and Charles D. MacLean
Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(8):797-799.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Mandated Diabetes Registries Will Not Benefit Persons With Diabetes
Paula M. Trief and Richard A. Ellison
Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(8):799-802.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Rebuttal
Paula M. Trief and Richard A. Ellison
Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(8):803.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
