VA's Health Records Software Allows Blacklisting of Veterans

The Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA) is a system-wide electronic health records program employed by the United States Veterans Health Administration to enable doctors in any VA hospital or outpatient clinic to quickly create and review patient records as well as order medications and tests. Computerized medical records improve efficiency, reduce the need for repeated tests, and reduce the potential for medical errors. Used properly, they are a powerful tool for improving the quality and efficiency of patient care. But they have a dark side, as well. The same technology that enables a VA doctor in San Diego to review an MRI within minutes of its being performed in New York allows any doctor within the system to view any negative, inflammatory or libelous statements that may be included in the patient’s record, possibly prejudicing the doctor against a particular veteran, and compromising if not sabotaging that veteran’s medical care.

The VistA electronic medical records software contains a feature called a “Patient Record Flag” (PRF) that gives doctors in the VA system the ability to blacklist patients who in their opinion are disruptive or pose a potential risk to the health and safety of patients and staff, or who have exhibited drug-seeking behavior. When a doctor in the VA system accesses a patient's electronic record, there is a small button labeled "Flag" in the upper right-hand corner of the menu that appears with the patient's record, and doctors can easily read or enter remarks about "problem patients" by clicking on that button, which will be highlighted in bold red letters if there are any entries, but is otherwise greyed-out (see image below).



The PRF is by design readily accessible to anyone within the system with access to a computer terminal, including receptionists and administrative clerks, and thus compromises patient confidentiality. While ostensibly designed to protect the safety and wellbeing of patients and staff from patients with a documented history of threats or acts of violence, the Patient Record Flag has enormous potential for abuse, and can be used by a doctor to demonize or libel a patient who has filed a complaint against the doctor, or who has simply engaged in behavior the doctor personally finds suspect or annoying. Patient blacklisting is a particularly insidious form of libel, as it can and often does result in denial of medical care and puts the patient's life, health and privacy at risk.

Patient blacklisting is a fairly common but rarely discussed problem throughout the US medical system even though it is widely considered to be unethical and is often illegal as well. Doctors use these blacklists as a means of alerting other doctors to patients they feel may pose a problem, but they are also used to punish patients for no other reason than the patients in question annoyed the doctor or filed complaints against him, and are often a willful attempt at medical sabotage. Sometimes doctors will specifically request that a particular patient be denied medical care. Other times, doctors will voluntarily refrain from providing care due to the fear a particular patient might file a lawsuit against him or might be a drug seeker. Since denial of proper treatment can lead to the injury or death of a patient, blacklisting is in reality a form of medical assault and malicious libel.

But despite their widespread use, medical blacklists tend to be fairly local in scope, often existing exclusively within a particular hospital or shared across a few local hospitals, doctors and pharmacies. These blacklists are usually informal, often just a notebook maintained in the ER of "problem patients," such as "drug seekers" or "frequent flyers" (patients who come to the ER looking for drugs to treat their pain or to get high, or with a perceived excessive number of visits). It is remarkably easy to get added to a blacklist, particularly for chronic pain patients who are routinely stigmatized as "addicts" by uninformed or unethical physicians who frequently confuse legitimate requests for pain treatment with the behavior of drug addicts looking to get high. Some private pharmacy chains also maintain records of any "drug-seeking" behavior they perceive to have encountered and share this info throughout their own computer networks, as well as with doctors upon request.

But the VA has unfortunately moved this primitive practice into the 21st Century by incorporating the ability to blacklist patients right into its software, which means that any patient who is so branded is going to have a problem not just in his local VA hospital or outpatient clinic, but throughout the entire VA system. Although the VA publishes a guideline for the use of the PRF (Patient Record Flags Phase III User Guide, available here) it is possible for a doctor to write anything he wants in the PRF, and unless the patient finds out about it, which is unlikely, he will not be able to challenge it. This documentation describes the PRF thusly:

Patient record flags are used to alert VHA medical staff and employees of patients whose behavior and characteristics may pose a threat either to their safety, the safety of other patients, or compromise the delivery of quality health care. These flag assignments are displayed during the patient look-up process (pg 1, PRF user guide).

Perhaps recognizing the potential for abuse of the PRF, the VA also notes in its guideline that:

PRFs should never be used to punish or to discriminate against patients; nor should they be constructed merely for staff convenience. The effectiveness of PRFs depends upon limiting their use to those unusual risks that threaten the safe delivery of health care. Threats to the effective use of PRFs are their misuse and their overuse." (p 27, PRF user guide)

PRFs need to be free of redundant language, slanderous or inflammatory labels, and language that provides insufficient information or guidance for action.
(p 29, PRF user guide)

But it is difficult to see how adopting a guideline that many doctors in the system have probably never bothered to read is going to prevent abuse of this system. Though the VA requires that all PRFs be reviewed every 2 years or whenever a patient requests a review, as noted below, there is no requirement for notifying a patient that he has in fact been red-flagged and the damage is often done by the time a patient figures out he's been blacklisted, if he ever does. Two years is a long time to have to go without proper medical care because some doctor at the VA didn't like your attitude, and there is no guarantee the review process will remove frivolous or libelous PRFs.

As part of the patient health record, all PRF are under authority of the Chief of Staff at each facility and must be reviewed at least every 2 years. A reminder for upcoming review must be generated 60 days prior to the 2-year anniversary date of the PRF. NOTE: PRFs must be accorded the same confidentiality and security as any other part of the heath record. (p 28, PRF user guide)

However, it is unlikely the confidentiality of patients is being protected when the VA authorizes nearly anybody within the system with access to a computer terminal, including enrollment clerks, insurance and billing staff, and travel clerks to access the PRF.

While some strategy to alert the staff in VA hospitals of patients who have a proven history of violence may seem logical and warranted, the mechanism they have chosen amounts to little more than a blacklist where any doctor can voice hostile opinions about patients he doesn't like and effectively sabotage any patient's care.

The VistA software's built-in blacklist is of particular concern to veterans with chronic pain problems, as patients complaining of pain are the most frequent targets of blacklists in other medical contexts and some blacklists are maintained exclusively for "drug-seekers." VA's guidelines specifically allow the PRF to be used to red flag patients who exhibit "drug-seeking" behavior (pg 23) without specifically defining exactly what that behavior is. In fact there is no consensus definition as to what actually constitutes "drug-seeking behavior" and the term lacks scientific precision. For the most part, drug-seeking behavior is whatever the doctor says it is, based on nothing more than medical folklore or his own prejudices. Chronic pain patients often find themselves branded with the modern-day equivalent of the Scarlet Letter (in this case, the "A" is for "addict.") for no other reason that they exhibited behaviors that are often associated with real drug addicts, a phenomenon known as "pseudoaddiction." Dr. Frank B. Fisher, a Harvard-trained general practitioner and chronic pain advocate in California, describes pseudoaddiction thusly:

The term pseudoaddiction was coined in 1989 to describe chronic pain victims mistakenly diagnosed as suffering from opioid addiction after they were driven, by undertreated pain, to display certain drug-related behaviors. Simply stated, pseudoaddiction is a misdiagnosis that results from undertreatment of chronic pain. When this diagnosis is made, the medical system has erred. Recognition that patients are frequently harmed by misdiagnosis of addiction should prompt an aggressive search for undertreatment of pain. Unfortunately, this usually does not happen. Instead, when a patient displays certain behaviors, he is typically threatened with termination of his treatment, rather than questioned about its effectiveness. (Source)

So clearly, labeling a patient as a "drug-seeker" is not only libelous, it is unscientific as it is impossible to determine whether a person is an addict or not simply through behavioral cues. Of course, doctors certainly do not need to use the PRF feature to blacklist a patient, but can do so through more traditional means or by simply entering libelous or inflammatory comments in other areas of the patient's medical record. But the mere existence of the PRF suggests to any doctor in the VA system that blacklisting a patient is not only a permissible but a desirable thing to do, even when that blacklisting doesn't fall within the parameters of the stated guidelines, which are problematic in themselves. Thanks to the VA's creation of an officially-sanctioned, computerized blacklist, many veterans may find themselves unfairly branded for the "crime" of being wounded during their service and demanding treatment for their pain.

(The VistA software was developed at taxpayer's expense and is public domain and can be downloaded with a Freedom of Information request, but the website also has a downloadable demo available here.)