Nearly Half of U.S. Adults Believe They Have Little To No Control Over Personal Info Companies Gather From Them While Online

To view the full article, please visit Nearly Half of U.S. Adults Believe They Have Little To No Control Over Personal Info Companies Gather From Them While Online.

No surprise, 80% of US adults do NOT want targeted ads. 24% think they have no control over information shared online.

How will US adults feel when they learn they have no control over sensitive electronic health information? Despite the new Omnibus Privacy Rule,  there is still no way we can stop our electronic health records from being disclosed or sold.  The only actions we can take are avoiding treatment altogether or seeking physicians who use paper records and paying for treatment ourselves. No one should be faced with such bad choices. There is no reason we should have to give up privacy to benefit from technology.

Today, the only way to prevent OUR health information from being disclosed or sold to hidden third parties is to avoid electronic health systems as much as possible. That puts us in a terrible situation, because technology could have been used to ensure our control over our health data. The stimulus billions can still be used to build trustworthy technology systems that ensure we control personal health information. Institutions, corporations, and government agencies should not control our records and should have to ask us for consent before using our them.

Quotes:

  • -”45% of U.S. adults feel that they have little (33%) or no (12%) control over the personal information companies gather while they are browsing the web or using online services such as photo sharing, travel, or gaming.”
  • -”many adults (24%) believe that they have little (19%) to no (5%) control over information that they intentionally share online”
  • -”one-in-five (20%) said that they only minimally understand (17%), or are totally confused (3%) when it comes to personal online protection”
  • -”When asked under what circumstances companies should be able to track individuals browsing the web or using online services, 60% say this should be allowed only after an individual specifically gives the company permission to do so.”
  • -”Just 20% of adults say that they want to receive personalized advertising based on their web browsing or online service use, while the large majority (80%) report that they did not wish to receive such ads.”

Clouds in healthcare should be viewed as ominous- Quotes from Dr. Deborah Peel

A recent article in FierceEMR written by Marla Durben Hirsch quotes Dr. Peel about the dangers of cloud technology being used in healthcare. Dr. Peel tells FierceEMR that “There’s a lot of ignorance regarding safety and privacy of these [cloud] technologies”.

Here are a few key quotes from the story:

“It’s surely no safe haven for patient information; to the contrary it is especially vulnerable to security breaches. A lot of EHR vendors that offer cloud-based EHR systems don’t take measures to keep patient data safe. Many of them don’t think they have to comply with HIPAA’s privacy and security rules, and many of their provider clients aren’t requiring their vendors to do so.” (Hirsch)

“Many providers have no idea where the vendor is hosting the providers’ patient data. It could be housed in a different state; or even outside of the country, leaving it even more vulnerable. ‘If the cloud vendor won’t tell you where the information is, walk out the door,’ Peel says.”

“Then there’s the problem of what happens to your data when your contract with the cloud vendor ends. Providers don’t pay attention to that when they sign their EHR contract, Peel warns.”

“‘The cloud can be a good place for health information if you have iron clad privacy and security protections,’ Peel says. ‘[But] people shouldn’t have to worry about their data wherever it’s held.’”

OCR Could Include Cloud Provision in Forthcoming Omnibus HIPAA Rule

The quotes below are from an article written by Alex Ruoff in the Bloomberg Health IT Law and Industry Report.

“Deborah Peel, founder of Patient Privacy Rights, said few providers understand how HIPAA rules apply to cloud computing. This is a growing concern among consumer groups, she said, as small health practices are turning to cloud computing to manage their electronic health information. Cloud computing solutions are seen as ideal for small health practices as they do not require additional staff to manage information systems, Peel said.
Cloud computing for health care requires the storage of protected health information in the cloud—a shared electronic environment—typically managed outside the health care organization accessing or generating the data (see previous article).
Little is known about the security of data managed by cloud service providers, Nicolas Terry, co-director of the Hall Center for Law and Health at Indiana University, said. Many privacy advocates are concerned that cloud storage, because it often stores information on the internet, is not properly secured, Terry said. He pointed to the April 17 agreement between Phoenix Cardiac Surgery and HHS in which the surgery practice agreed to pay $100,000 to settle allegations it violated HIPAA Security Rules (see previous article).
Phoenix was using a cloud-based application to maintain protected health information that was available on the internet and had no privacy and security controls.

Demands for Guidance

Peel’s group, in the Dec. 19 letter, called for guidance “that highlights the lessons learned from the Phoenix Cardiac Surgery case while making clear that HIPAA does not prevent providers from moving to the cloud.”

Peel’s letter asked for:
• technical safeguards for cloud computing solutions, such as risk assessments of and auditing controls for cloud-based health information technologies;
• security standards that establish the use and disclosure of individually identifiable information stored on clouds; and
• requirements for cloud solution providers and covered entities to enter into a business associate agreement outlining the terms of use for health information managed by the cloud provider.”

Patient privacy group (PPR) asks HHS for HIPAA cloud guidance

Government HealthIT recently wrote an article about Dr. Peel’s of Patient Privacy Rights’ letter to the HHS Office for Civil Rights pushing for security guidelines, standards, and enforcements for cloud technology being used in healthcare.

Here are a few key points highlighted in the article:

“Issuing guidance to strengthen and clarify cloud-based protections for data security and privacy will help assure patients (that) sensitive health data they share with their physicians and other health care professionals will be protected,” Peel said.

“Cloud-computing is proving to be valuable, Peel said, but the nation’s transition to electronic health records will be slowed ‘if patients do not have assurances that their personal medical information will always have comprehensive and meaningful security and privacy protections.’”

“Patient Privacy Rights, a group founded in 2006, is encouraging HHS to adopt guidelines that highlight ‘the lessons learned from the Phoenix Cardiac Surgery case while making it clear that HIPAA does not prevent providers from moving to the cloud as long as it is done responsibly and in compliance with the law.’”

“In general, Peel said, cloud providers and the healthcare industry at large could benefit from guidance and education on the application of federal privacy and security rules in the cloud. ‘HHS and HIPAA guidance in this area, to date, is limited,’ Peel said, recommending the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s cloud privacy guidelines as a baseline.”

Kravis Backs N.Y. Startups Using Apps to Cut Health Costs

The title should have been: “Wall Street trumps the Hippocratic Oath and NY patients’ privacy” or “NY gives technology start-ups free access to millions of New Yorkers sensitive health data without informed consent starting in February”.

Of course we need apps to lower health costs, coordinate care, and help people get well, but apps should be developed using ‘synthetic’ data, not real patient data. Giving away valuable identifiable patient data to app developers is very risky and violates patients legal and ethical rights to health information privacy under state and federal law—each of us has strong rights to decide who can see and use personal health information.

What happens when app developers use, disclose or sell Mayor Bloomberg’s, Governor Cuomo’s, Sec of State Hillary Clinton’s, or Peter Thiel’s electronic health records? Or will access to prominent people’s health records be blocked by the data exchange, while everyone’s else’s future jobs and credit are put at risk by developer access to health data?  Will Bloomberg publish a story about the consequences of this decision by whoever runs the NY health data exchange? Will Bloomberg write about the value, sale, and massive technology-enabled exploitation of health data for discrimination and targeted marketing of drugs, treatments, or for extortion of political or business enemies? Natasha Singer of the NYTimes calls this the ‘surveillance economy’.

The story did not mention ways to develop apps that protect patients’ sensitive information from disclosure to people not directly involved in patient care. The story could have said that the military uses “synthetic” patient data for technology research and app development. They realize that NOT protecting the security and privacy of sensitive data of members of the military and their families creates major national security risks.  The military builds and tests technology and apps on synthetic data; researchers or app developers don’t get access to real, live patient data without tough security clearances and high-level review of those who are granted permission to access data for approved projects that benefit patients. Open access to military health data bases threatens national security. Will open access to New Yorkers’ health data also threaten national security?

NY just started a national and international gold rush to develop blockbuster health apps AND will set off a rush by other states to give away or sell identifiable patient health information in health information exchanges (HIEs) or health information organizations (HIOs)—-by allowing technology developers access to an incredibly large, valuable data base of identifiable patient health information.  Do the developers get the data free—or is NY selling health data? The bipartisan Coalition for Patient Privacy (represents 10.3M people) worked to get a ban on the sale of patient health data into the stimulus bill because the hidden sale of health data is a major industry that enables hidden discrimination in key life opportunities like jobs and credit. Selling patient data for all sorts of uses is a very lucrative industry.

Further, NY patients are being grossly misled: they think they gave consent ONLY for their health data to be exchanged so other health professionals can treat them. Are they informed that dozens of app developers will be able to copy all their personal health data to build technology products they may not want or be interested in starting in February?

Worst of all the consequences of systems that eliminate privacy is: patients to act in ways that risk their health and lives when they know their health information is not private:

  • -600K/year avoid early treatment and diagnosis for cancer because they know their records will not be private
  • -2M/year avoid early treatment and diagnosis for depression for the same reasons
  • -millions/year avoid early treatment and diagnosis of STDs, for the same reason
  • -1/8 hide data, omit or lie to try to keep sensitive information private

More questions:

  • -What proof is there that the app developers comply with the contracts they sign?
  • -Are they audited to prove the identifiable patient data is truly secure and not sold or disclosed to third parties?
  • -What happens when an app developer suffers a privacy breach—most health data today is not secure or encrypted? If the app developers signed Business Associate Agreements at least they would have to report the data breaches.
  • -What happens when many of the app developers can’t sell their products or the businesses go bust? They will sell the patient data they used to develop the apps for cash.
  • -The developers reportedly signed data use agreements “covering federal privacy rules”, which probably means they are required to comply with HIPAA.  But HIPAA allows data holders to disclose and sell patient data to third parties, promoting further hidden uses of personal data that patients will never know about, much less be able to agree to.  Using contracts that do not require external auditing to protect sensitive information and not requiring proof that the developers can be trusted is a bad business practice.

NY has opened Pandora’s box and not even involved the public in an informed debate.

Patients want granular privacy control over health information in electronic medical records

View the full article written by  Kelly Caine and Rima Hanania at Patients want granular privacy control over health information in electronic medical records.

When will consent for the use of personal health data become a critical research topic?

Why won’t NIH, AHRQ, or HHS make research on consent and control over personal health information a priority?

Why is the government and academia ignoring this topic?

Results of AHRQ’s 20 focus groups across the US in 2009 showed:

  • ·A majority of the public wants to “own” their health data, and to decide what goes into and who has access to their medical records.
  • ·There was near universal agreement in all focus groups that if medical data are stored electronically, health care consumers should have some say in how those data are shared and used.
  • ·A majority believes their medical data is “no one else’s business” and should not be shared without their permission. This belief was expressed not necessarily because they want to prevent some specific use of data but as a matter of principle.
  • ·Participants overwhelmingly want to be able to communicate directly with their providers with respect to how their PHI is handled, including with whom it may be shared and for what purposes. Most believe they should automatically be granted the right to correct misinformation.

From: AHRQ Publication No. 09-0081-EF. Final Report: Consumer Engagement in Developing Electronic Health Information Systems. Prepared by Westat; July 2009. Available at: http://healthit.ahrq.gov/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_1248_888520_0_0_18/09-0081-EF.pdf.

Surely consent is worthy of study.

When a Palm Reader Knows More Than Your Life Line

See the full article at When a Palm Reader Knows More than Your Life Line.

Great story by Natasha Singer!  Langone Medical Center in NY is trying to quickly solve a problem, but it’s NOT the problem of identity theft or medical ID theft (where someone impersonates you to use your health insurance to obtain treatment).   As pointed out in the story, biometrics don’t protect against medical identity theft, because anyone can impersonate you using a fake ID and submit their palm prints and photo to Langone.

The problem Langone solved is how to reliably link every patient’s health records together, so the hospital staff can easily find them.  Instead, patients should control and link their records, and selectively share the relevant parts with physicians and staff on a ‘need-to-know’ basis.

The Langone health technology system (like the majority of US hospitals) prevents patient control of access to sensitive personal health information.  Instead it enables all physicians, nurses, and even admissions clerks to use palm prints and photos to pull up all your records, including sensitive data about sexual problems, marital therapy, STDs, addiction, etc.  Joseph Atick correctly pointed out that Langone could instead use biometrics to put patients in control of personal records by allowing access ONLY when the patient is present and scans his/her palm.

Langone uses biometrics the same way social security numbers are used: to collect and link together all financial and personal information about individuals.  We desperately need entirely different, trustworthy health IT systems that ensure individuals control their digital health identities and sensitive health data, not institutions.

Electronic health systems could work much like the way we control our finances online: we decide who gets paid, when, and how much, not banks or merchants. We can set up automatic payments and/or decide about transferring money on a case-by-case basis.

The US could have a trustworthy patient-controlled health IT system in 5 years. It will require:

  • -building patient and physician portals (so we can connect with doctors and health professionals)
  • -robust patient-controlled identity systems
  • -the ability to download copies of personal health data into health record banks that do not sell or transfer our data without informed consent
  • -strong new laws to restore our strong, longstanding rights to control health information in electronic systems

HIPAA and current technology empower government and institutions to control the nation’s health records. It’s high time to fix that.

HIT systems among top 10 health tech hazards, says ECRI

Another story about why health technology is not ready for prime time. Today untested, unsafe health technologies and applications that eliminate patient control over sensitive personal health information are mandated for use by physicians and hospitals.

Today patient health data is widely disclosed and sold through electronic systems See ABC Story about the sale of diabetic patient records for $14-$25 per patient). It will be years until patients can control sensitive information (from prescriptions to DNA to diagnoses) because systems were never designed to comply with patients’ rights to control health records. There is no data map to know where our personal health data is held or what it’s being for (see Prof Sweeney explain the need for a health data map on video).

In addition, health technology also poses serious risks to patient including:

  • -patient/data mismatches between systems (which would not happen if patients controlled the use and disclosure of their information)
  • -interoperability failures with medical devices and health IT systems
  • -Caregiver distractions from smartphones and other mobile devices

5 Held Over Apps that Stole Smartphone Info

Read the full article at 5 Held Over Apps that Stole Smartphone Info.

In Japan, “free apps had reportedly been downloaded up to 270,000 times” infecting at least ”90,000 people’s smartphones” with a virus that stole “10 million pieces of personal information from users’ address books”. Creating viruses is a crime in Japan.

Criminals want valuable contact information. How much more valuable do you think personal health information is?

The value of health data is the reason theft is the #1 cause of health data breaches (See “Top Reasons for HITECH Breaches As of October. 17, 2012″ by Melamedia. Sign up for free monthly breach statistics at: http://melamedia.com/index.php).

In the US, millions of employees of corporations can obtain, use, and sell your health data (See ABC News Investigation showing diabetic records for sale from $14-25/record at: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/medical-records-private-abc-news-investigation/story?id=17228986&singlePage=true#.UFKTXVHUF-Y).

Loopholes in HIPAA grant millions of employees of providers, doctors, hospitals, insurers, data clearinghouses, and health technology companies the right to use and sell our electronic health records.  We have no way to know when this happens, it’s part of the hidden US “surveillance economy“.

Tell lawmakers and the next President to require health technology systems that put you in control over who can see, use, and sell your electronic health records—from prescriptions to DNA to diagnoses. 90+% of Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, expect to control access to their sensitive health data.

Re: Social media and patient privacy lessons ripped from the headlines

Karen Cheung-Larivee’s recent FierceHealthcare article, “Social media and patient privacy lessons ripped from the headlines” once again reminds us that health privacy isn’t a concern limited to how information is exchanged in and among doctors’ offices or hospitals. Rather, it reminds us that even the casual ways people reveal parts of their personal lives to their own social networks can sometimes mean violating someone’s health privacy when they reveal sensitive pieces of information about other people’s lives too.

Unfortunately, there aren’t really rules protecting people from the harms that can occur when someone else broadcasts their personal information in the wild wild west of social media. However, that doesn’t mean institutions are completely absolved of their responsibility to protect patients’ privacy, no matter the environment. As the article points out:

One of the most common situations of social media fumbles are patients posting about other patients. Although it’s not a breach of HIPAA or HITECH (because patients aren’t considered “covered entities”), the hospital still has a responsibility under state law to protect patients.

No doubt social media provides a medium that allows us to connect and reach out to others in new and powerful ways. However, as users of these tools, we must also be mindful of how the ways we connect and interact with the rest of the world can have damaging effects on ourselves and others, whether it’s in the here and now or some point down the line.

Has your health privacy ever been violated as a result of social media? Are you willing to talk about what happened so others might learn from your experience? Please use this form to share your story.