Security and Privacy of Patient Data Subject of Regulatory Hearing

Representatives of patients, providers, insurers and tech companies testify before federal panel yesterday at the HIT Policy Privacy & Security Tiger Team Virtual Hearing on Accounting for Disclosures.

“We believe it’s the patient’s right to have digital access that is real-time and online for accounting of disclosures,” said Dr. Deborah Peel, the head of Patient Privacy Rights, a group she founded in 2004. Patients “need and want the data for our own health. We need to have independent agents as advisors, independent decision-making tools, we need independence from the institutions and data holders that currently control our information. We need to have agents that represent us, not the interests of corporations,” she said.

“I think the day will come when people will understand that their health information is the most valuable personal information about them in the digital world and that it’s an asset that should be protected in the same way that they protect and control their financial information online,” Peel said.

To view the full article click Security and Privacy of Patient Data Subject of Regulatory Hearing

To view a PDF of the hearing click HIT Policy Privacy & Security Tiger Team Virtual Hearing on Accounting for Disclosures

 

Medical Info for Sale Online

In this article the News4 I-Team discovered how anyone with internet access and who is willing to pay just a few hundred dollars can easily have access to and purchase private medical records online.  This contributes to between “one and two million Americans being affected by medical identity theft each year”.

Read more in this article here and learn where stolen medical information goes, who is selling the information, and where they are getting it from in the first place.  Are YOU at risk?

 

Helmet cams raise privacy, liability concerns

“Every time Austin Fire Department Engine 20 rolls toward an emergency call, firefighter Andrzej Micyk straps on a bright yellow helmet to protect himself from heat and falling debris…and a tiny, high-definition video camera that captures…every move — from how he interacts with the public to what he does to gain control of an inferno.”

To view a video the Statesman published with this article, click here

To view the full article click here


Comments from Dr. Peel: “Other major national fire departments ban helmet cams. The Austin TX Fire Dept has no policy about personal helmet cams. The key problem for the public is firefighters often respond to medical emergencies. Should someone with a heart attack or suicide attempt end up on YouTube?”

“This story raises questions about citizens’ rights to health privacy that are similar to the problems that occur when hospital and emergency room employees use cell phones to take pictures of patients.” See recent example: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/woman-sues-hospital-sticker-prank-surgery/story?id=20204405

“In a different context, police cars use video cameras to document encounters with citizens who are potentially breaking the law. In this case, videos serve a very different purpose and protect both citizens and members of the police.”

 

Trust must be mutual for patient engagement to work

“A recent study in the Journal of the American Informatics Association reports that nearly one in eight patients has withheld information from their healthcare providers due to security concerns. Moreover, most of the respondents were very concerned about the security of their information when it was being shared electronically or by fax. Just last week, advocacy organization Patient Privacy Rights sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services urging the agency to improve privacy protections of patients’ electronic health records, particularly in the cloud and in HIEs.”

Read more: Trust must be mutual for patient engagement to work – FierceEMR http://www.fierceemr.com/story/trust-must-be-mutual-patient-engagement-work/2013-09-18#ixzz2fRtzIBsV
Subscribe at FierceEMR

Pairing patient privacy with health big data analytics

“Health privacy and security are often mentioned in tandem, but Deborah Peel, Founder and Chair of Patient Privacy Rights and Adrian Gropper, Chief Technology Officer of Patient Privacy Rights, took a different view in a recent Institute for Health Technology Transformation (iHT2) webcast.”

“The presentation, titled “Competing for Patient Trust and Data Privacy in the Age of Big Data” detailed a few of the nuances between patient data privacy and security and why privacy is so significant as healthcare organizations pull together huge data sets for health information exchange (HIE) and accountable care.”

To view the full article, please visit: Pairing patient privacy with health big data analytics

The webcast can be viewed at: Competing for Patient Trust and Data Privacy in the Age of Big Data Webinar

Five More Organizations Join Lawsuit Against NSA Surveillance

To view the full article, please visit: Five More Organizations Join Lawsuit Against NSA Surveillance

“The five entities joining the First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. NSA lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California are: Acorn Active Media, the Charity and Security Network, the National Lawyers Guild, Patient Privacy Rights and The Shalom Center. They join an already diverse coalition of groups representing interests including gun rights, environmentalism, drug-policy reform, human rights, open-source technology, media reform and religious freedom.”

The FBI’s New Wiretapping Plan Is Great News for Criminals

To view the full article, please visit: The FBI’s New Wiretapping Plan Is Great News for Criminals

US technology is designed for ‘exceptions’ and ‘outliers’, i.e., ‘worst-case’ scenarios like terrorists and unconscious patients.

Bruce Schneier concludes  his May 29th  essay:

“Finally there’s a general principle at work that’s worth explicitly stating. All tools can be used by the good guys and the bad guys. Cars have enormous societal value, even though bank robbers can use them as getaway cars. Cash is no different. Both good guys and bad guys send e-mails, use Skype, and eat at all-night restaurants. But because society consists overwhelmingly of good guys, the good uses of these dual-use technologies greatly outweigh the bad uses. Strong Internet security makes us all safer, even though it helps the bad guys as well. And it makes no sense to harm all of us in an attempt to harm a small subset of us.”

Fear-driven technology harms Democracy and health:

  • Example #1: FBI

Bruce Schneier’s essay (below) tells how US-created security flaws help the wrong people (criminals and terrorists) and harm the rest of us (law-abiding citizens).

  • Giving the government access (via back doors, brute force decryption, etc) to everyone’s data to find terrorists is the ‘worst-case’ scenario used to justify destroying strong data security protections.
  • But law-abiding people, businesses, and government really NEED strong data security protections to function everyday online.
  • Criminals and terrorists can exploit the security flaws created to catch them to steal information and harm governments, individuals, and corporations; but ordinary citizens and businesses can’t build or afford security technology to protect their own data.
  • WORST CONSEQUENCES: people will not trust technology and governments, and cyber-wars can destroy people, governments, and corporations.

 

  • Example #2: US health technology systems

The US eliminated data privacy in health technology systems, helping the wrong people (government and corporations) and harming patients.

  • Government and corporations control the use of the nation’s health data. Medical emergencies are the ‘worst-case’ scenario used to justify this technology: if you are unconscious in an emergency room (a one-in-a-million), you can’t give consent to share your data.
  • But the 299,999, 700 million US patients who are awake expect to control use of personal health data in order to trust doctors and technology.
  • Government and industry control use of the nation’s data for various purposes without the knowledge of the public, there is no ‘chain of custody’ for health data and no data map to track uses. Some hidden uses may be beneficial and some may harm patients.  Patients can’t buy or use privacy technology to protect health data.
  • WORST CONSEQUENCES: 40-50 million people/year avoid or delay treatment, or hide information to protect the privacy of health information, risking their lives and health.  Technology causes tens of millions of people who need treatment to suffer bad health outcomes.

 

In a Democracy, judges should approve spying on suspected criminals or terrorists. In a Democracy patients should be asked for consent to use personal health data. Advance directives or break-the-glass technology can permit access to health data when patients are unconscious.

 

In a Democracy, shouldn’t technology support ‘best-case’ scenarios , i.e., citizens’ freedoms and human and civil rights to privacy and health?

Surgery photo leads to privacy lawsuit against Torrance Memorial

“A doctor put stickers on a patient who was under anesthesia, and a photo was taken. The lawsuit underscores how, despite hospitals’ rules, the pervasiveness of cellphones raises concerns about privacy.”

Quotes from Dr. Peel:

“‘The idea that people are using their cellphone or even have one in the operating room is crazy,’ said Dr. Deborah Peel, founder of Patient Privacy Rights, a nonprofit advocacy group in Austin, Texas. ‘It’s a massive security risk and incredibly insensitive to patients.'”

“In similar cases elsewhere, Peel said, hospital personnel often lose their jobs. In 2010, for instance, four employees at St. Mary Medical Center in Long Beach were terminated because they used cellphones to photograph a dead emergency-room patient and shared the photos with others, according to state records.”

To view the full article, please visit: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hospital-patient-privacy-20130905,0,7915045.story

The Office Nurse Now Treats Diabetes, Not Headaches

In response to the escalating costs of healthcare many employers are adding on-site medical clinics to help their employees become healthier—and don’t use employees’ personal health data to penalize them or discriminate against them.

But other large employers, such as CVS, use high costs to justify replacing employees’ health insurance with health savings accounts, imposing involuntary health screenings and wellness programs, and penalizing workers who don’t respond to these simplistic solutions.

Two studies in Health Affairs show that wellness programs don’t work:

  • -“Wellness Incentives In The Workplace: Cost Savings Through Cost Shifting To Unhealthy Workers” See: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/32/3/468.abstract
  • -“A Hospital System’s Wellness Program Linked To Health Plan Enrollment Cut Hospitalizations But Not Overall Costs”  See: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/32/3/477.abstract
  • -Rising US healthcare costs are NOT caused by sick people who seek treatment, but by industries that decide what to charge for treatment—including the health insurance industry, the hospital industry, the drug industry, the outpatient surgical center industry, and the lobbying industry.  Industry charges have no real constraints because healthcare is not optional, sick people, employers, and/or government must pay.

Learn about why the US pays sky-high healthcare costs in Time magazine’s March 2013 issue, “Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us”

To view the full article, please visit The Office Nurse Now Treats Diabetes, Not Headaches.

My Routine – Mark Rothstein, Law Professor

To view the full article, please visit My Routine – Mark Rothstein, Law Professor.

This is a very interesting article about Mark Rothstein’s opinion of current governmental actions involving privacy law. Rothstein asserts, “We live in an age in which consent should not be mistaken for choice. We click through consent on software without even reading it. Even if we technically consented, I doubt very much whether the average person would say, ‘Oh sure, it’s OK for my phone company to accumulate all this data about me.'”

In the interview, Rothstein also comments on the views of Louis D. Brandeis, saying “He felt that the government set the tone for society. If the government doesn’t value privacy and invades people’s privacy, then everybody will do that. He also thought it was very important that government activities be subject to review by the political process and the people.”