Now that the government is pushing EMR use, the mainstream press has begun to report on the issue.

True, some astute editors are beginning to dig in to the problems that matter, such as securing patient data and challenges to getting physicians on board.

But most consumer publications, with their penchant for simplifying and condensing issues, are muddying the waters even further. Here’s some things they’re doing which, I’d argue, are actually slowing down the EMR adoption process:

*  Asking consumers whether they “want” an EMR: Let’s be honest: most consumers have only a vague idea of what an EMR is. You might as well ask them whether they’d like oh, I don’t know, a confoobatron. If they think those confoobatrons are supposed to be the latest thing in medicine, they’ll say sure, I’d want one of those!  In other words, you’re not giving doctors and hospitals real feedback as to how EMRs will foster relationships with their patients. It’s easy for clinicians to write off such responses as bogus and avoid adoption for a while longer.

* Focusing on a few spectacular security breaches: Yes, it’s really unfortunate that hospital staffers stole a peek at some Hollywood celeb’s medical data, or that a stolen laptop stocked with unencrypted data exposed patients at Hospital A to medical ID theft. But in playing up spectacular security breaches, mass media players distract everyone from the real issues. As we all know, most hospitals and doctors have far less glamorous problems to worry about, such as encrypting data, controlling access by role and seeing to it that staff are trained in security policies. But playing up a few disasters — such as stolen laptops or celebrity medical record leaks — makes it sound like security is beyond the reach of your average provider.

* Doing little to examine why physician adoption of EMRs is still low: While you will see the likes of USA Today look at abysmal EMR adoption rates, these stories usually collect a few random interviews with association heads or a random private practitioner and cite a few of their random headaches. These stories don’t dig into the really important issues (such as fear of productivity loss, lack of clinician buy in and techno-phobia) that are stopping the train. While doctors obviously read trade publications like this one, they’re human, and if the USA Today story they skimmed on the train doesn’t address their concerns, it’s easy to stay tuned out on EMRs for a while longer.

OK, maybe I’m being a bit unfair here.  Having been an editor for decades, I know the mass media can’t take the place of blogs like this that focus on serious professional issues. But I still wish that my colleagues in the consumer press would give EMR issues as much serious thought as, say, professional football. Wouldn’t that be refreshing?

Here’s a handy little blog item from health IT consulting firm Entegration.  While many bloggers focus on big-picture issues, firm president Art Gross has offered three easy-to-understand, concrete suggestions on how medical practices should protect themselves when they’re first rolling out their EMR.

Gross suggests they consider the following steps:

*  HIPAA security:  Gross recommends hiring HIPAA security services to help train employees and implement protocols which will make sure protected patient information isn’t compromised.

* Off-site data backup:  Few medical practices do more than back up their existing files to tape, but as he notes, data gets corrupted, backups are sometimes overwritten by mistake and disasters (fire, floods and more) can destroy on-site archives.

* Disaster recovery:   To be prepared for all contingencies, practices must have more than one copy of current data available, methods for accessing that data and detailed procedures in place for accessing the duplicate data.

Sure, companies with big IT staffs would do these things as a matter of course, but many small physician practices don’t even have a single full-time IT employee, relying instead on consultants to do basic maintenance.  That drive-by consultant is unlikely to be evaluating the practice’s overall readiness to keep an EMR up and running securely.

Reminding doctors that they must be careful custodians of their new digital data is a good idea.  Let’s hope more consultants )and vendors) dealing with small practices are preaching this gospel.

While it’s all well and good to prepare for Meaningful Use compliance, IT departments may be going a bit overboard.  A new survey by HIMSS has concluded that providers are being diverted from critical efforts like the HIPAA 5010/ICD-10 transition by efforts to capture MU bonuses.

It’s hardly surprising, given the tempting candy MU incentives offer, but it’s a bit worrisome too.  After all, preparing for 5010 transactions requires a mountain of work, touching electronic claims, eligibility verification, claim status, referral certification and more.  This is NOT something you can afford to ignore, particularly given the risk of incurring CMS’s wrath.

Consider this:  a full 35 percent of the providers responding to the HIMSS survey this summer said they had no plans at all in place to implement a 5010 readiness project. This despite the fact that they were supposed to begin testing by January 1 of this year.

Instead, HIMSS found, providers are spending much of their time working to qualify for MU money, neglecting the 5010 transition for now.  The HIMSS folks hypothesize that providers are laying low on 5010 now, hoping to squeeze in under the January 1, 2012 final deadline. Hey, maybe if IT leaders stick their heads in the sand long enough, the deadline itself will go away!

In reality, we all know what will happen — the same thing that happens whenever an enterprise punts on a critical initiative. Over the next several months, expect facilities to dump truckloads of money on vendors and tech help. Consultants, start your engines!

Yes, that’s right. Medical records just thrown away at the dump. Now that’s what I call some investigative reporting. Here’s the story:

Four Massachusetts community hospitals are investigating how thousands of patient health records, some containing Social Security numbers and sensitive medical diagnoses, ended up in a pile at a public dump.

The unshredded records included pathology reports with patients’ names, addresses, and results of breast, bone, and skin cancer tests, as well as the results of lab work following miscarriages.

Of course, you might be asking yourself how these records were found at the dump. Well, here’s the answer:

A Globe photographer discovered the records July 26 when he was dumping his trash at the Georgetown Transfer Station. When he got out of his car, he said, he saw a huge pile of paper about 20 feet wide by 20 feet long. Upset that the paper wasn’t being recycled, he looked more closely.

The photographer said he saw health and insurance records from at least four hospitals and their pathology groups — Milford, Holyoke, Carney, and Milton — mostly dated 2009. The Globe notified the hospitals. It is unclear how many other hospitals’ records might have been discarded in the dump.

Word is that the records were scanning into an EMR and then dumped the cheap (and illegal) way and that’s how they ended up at the dump. I think unemployment numbers in Boston just increased too since I’m sure someone will be losing their job for this.