Privacy and Health Care – Blog referencing PPR’s “The Case for Informed Consent”

The blog Emergent Chaos wrote an article urging for privacy in the mental health field as a means of minimizing the stigma associated with diagnosis.

Some key statistics pointed out in this post:

“First, between 13 and 17% of Americans admit in surveys to hiding health information in the current system. That’s probably a lower-bound, as we can expect some of the privacy sensitive population will decline to be surveyed, and some fraction of those who are surveyed may hide their information hiding. (It’s information-hiding all the way down.)

Secondly, 1 in 8 Americans (12.5%) put their health at risk because of privacy concerns, including avoiding their regular doctor, asking their doctor to record a different diagnosis, or avoiding tests.”

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.’”

Cloud Computing: HIPAA’s Role

The below excerpts are taken from the GOVinfoSecurity.com article Cloud Computing: HIPAA’s Role written by Marianne Kolbasuk McGee after the January 7, 2013 Panel in Washington D.C.: Health Care, the Cloud, & Privacy.

“While a privacy advocate is demanding federal guidance on how to protect health information in the cloud, one federal official says the soon-to-be-modified HIPAA privacy and security rules will apply to all business associates, including cloud vendors, helping to ensure patient data is safeguarded.

Joy Pritts, chief privacy officer in the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT, a unit of the Department of Health and Human Services, made her comments about HIPAA during a Jan. 7 panel discussion on cloud computing hosted by Patient Privacy Rights, an advocacy group…

…Deborah Peel, M.D., founder of Patient Privacy Rights, last month sent a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights urging HHS to issue guidance to healthcare providers about data security and privacy in the cloud (see: Cloud Computing: Security a Hurdle).

“The letter … asks that [HHS] look at the key problems in cloud … and what practitioners should know and understand about security and privacy of health data in the cloud,” Peel said during the panel.”

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.”

OCR Could Include Cloud Provision in Forthcoming Omnibus HIPAA Rule

The below excerpt is from the Bloomberg BNA article OCR Could Include Provision in Forthcoming Omnibus HIPAA Rule written by Alex Ruoff. The article is available by subscription only.

“The final omnibus rule to update Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations, expected to come out sometime early this year, could provide guidance for health care providers utilizing cloud computing technology to manage their electronic health record systems, the chief privacy officer for the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology said Jan. 7 during a panel discussion on cloud computing.

The omnibus rule is expected to address the health information security and privacy requirements for business associates of covered entities, provisions that could affect how the HIPAA Privacy Rule affects service providers that contract with health care entities, Joy Pritts, chief privacy officer for ONC, said during the panel, hosted by the consumer advocacy group, Patient Privacy Rights (PPR).

PPR Dec. 19 sent a letter to Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights Director Leon Rodriguez, asking the agency to issue guidance on cloud computing security. PPR leaders say they have not received a response…

…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.”

Health Care, the Cloud, and Privacy, Jan. 7 Panel

Health Care, the Cloud, and Privacy

Phoenix Park Hotel
520 North Capitol Street, NW | Washington, DC 20001
Georgian Room
Monday, January 7, 2013 | 12:00 p.m. ET

On behalf of Patient Privacy Rights (PPR), you are invited to attend a panel discussion on health care system privacy challenges posed by cloud computing. The one-hour discussion, “Health Care, the Cloud, and Privacy,” will be held on Monday, January 7, 2013 at the Phoenix Park Hotel in Washington, D.C. Boxed lunches will be provided.

With technological innovations that promise better efficiency and lower cost, one of the most anticipated developments is how industry and regulators will respond. That question today is focused intently on cloud computing and the implications for corporations with electronic systems containing sensitive consumer health data. Who is handling patient data? How do HIPAA and other health privacy laws and rights function in the cloud? What can policymakers do to better protect our sensitive medical data?

Our distinguished panel will feature:

Joy Pritts
Chief Privacy Officer
Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Deborah C. Peel, MD
Founder and Chair
Patient Privacy Rights (PPR)

Nicolas P. Terry
Hall Render Professor of Law
Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law

Lillie Coney
Associate Director
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)

Please RSVP to Jenna Alsayegh at jalsayegh@deweysquare.com.

We hope to see you there!

And there is more:
View the Invitation as a PDF
View the Press Release

PPR also sent a letter to the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that urges for more comprehensive guidance on securing patient data in “the cloud.” With the healthcare industry moving their records to electronic databases, PPR sees a number of issues associated with cloud computing services, including compliance with existing healthcare privacy laws like the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, stronger state and federal health information privacy laws, medical ethics, and Americans’ rights to health information privacy. View the letter here.

Sizing Up De-Identification Guidance, Experts Analyze HIPAA Compliance Report (quotes PPR)

To view the full article by Marianne Kolbasuk McGee, please visit: Sizing Up De-Identification Guidance, Experts Analyze HIPAA Compliance Report.

The federal Office of Civil Rights (OCR), charged with protecting the privacy of nation’s health data, released a ‘guidance’ for “de-identifying” health data. Government agencies and corporations want to “de-identify”, release and sell health data for many uses. There are no penalties for not following the ‘guidance’.

Releasing large data bases with “de-identified” health data on thousands or millions of people could enable break-through research to improve health, lower costs, and improve quality of care—-IF “de-identification” actually protected our privacy, so no one knows it’s our personal data—-but it doesn’t.

The ‘guidance’ allows easy ‘re-identification’ of health data. Publically available data bases of other personal information can be quickly compared electronically with ‘de-identified’ health data bases, so can be names re-attached, creating valuable, identifiable health data sets.

The “de-identification” methods OCR proposed are:

  • -The HIPAA “Safe-Harbor” method:  if 18 specific identifiers are removed (such as name, address, age, etc, etc), data can be released without patient consent. But .04% of the data can still be ‘re-identified’
  • -Certification by a statistical  “expert” that the re-identification risk is “small” allows release of data bases without patient consent.

o   There are no requirements to be an “expert”

o   There is no definition of “small risk”

Inadequate “de-identification” of health data makes it a big target for re-identification. Health data is so valuable because it can be used for job and credit discrimination and for targeted product marketing of drugs and expensive treatment. The collection and sale of intimately detailed profiles of every person in the US is a major model for online businesses.

The OCR guidance ignores computer science, which has demonstrated ‘de-identification’ methods can’t prevent re-identification. No single method or approach can work because more and more ‘personally identifiable information’ is becoming publically available, making it easier and easier to re-identify health data.  See: the “Myths and Fallacies of “Personally Identifiable Information” by Narayanan and Shmatikov,  June 2010 at: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~shmat/shmat_cacm10.pdf Key quotes from the article:

  • -“Powerful re-identification algorithms demonstrate not just a flaw in a specific anonymization technique(s), but the fundamental inadequacy of the entire privacy protection paradigm based on “de-identifying” the data.”
  • -“Any information that distinguishes one person from another can be used for re-identifying data.”
  • -“Privacy protection has to be built and reasoned about on a case-by-case basis.”

OCR should have recommended what Shmatikov and Narayanan proposed:  case-by-case ‘adversarial testing’ by comparing a “de-identified” health data base to multiple publically available data bases to determine which data fields must be removed to prevent re-identification. See PPR’s paper on “adversarial testing” at: http://patientprivacyrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/ABlumberg-anonymization-memo.pdf

Simplest, cheapest, and best of all would be to use the stimulus billions to build electronic systems so patients can electronically consent to data use for research and other uses they approve of.  Complex, expensive contracts and difficult ‘work-arounds’ (like ‘adversarial testing’) are needed to protect patient privacy because institutions, not patients, control who can use health data. This is not what the public expects and prevents us from exercising our individual rights to decide who can see and use personal health information.

Re: Heart Gadgets Test Privacy-Law Limits

In response to The Wall Street Journal article “Heart Gadgets Test Privacy-Law Limits

This story shows the ethical and legal absurdity of private corporations’ claims to own and control patient records. Greedy corporations are copying their business models from Google and Facebook: sell every piece of information about every individual to any willing buyer.

Despite patients’ strong rights to obtain copies of their entire medical records, including data from devices that monitor health status, most hospitals and electronic health systems don’t yet offer patients a way to download personal health information, which is required by HIPAA and HITECH.

EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY patients also have very strong ethical, legal, and Constitutional rights to control the disclosure and use of personal health information.

Today’s health IT systems and data exchanges were designed to prevent patient control over personal health information. Most health IT systems have abysmal data security (millions of health data breaches and thefts) and no means for patients to control who can see, use or sell their health data.

Government and Congress have poured $29 billion in stimulus funds into defective technology systems that violate the public’s rights to privacy and control over health information in electronic systems.

Medtronic and hospitals are hiding behind illegal contracts that violate patients’ rights to access and control sensitive personal health information.

We need clear new laws to ban the sale of personal health information without informed consent and RESTORE patient control over use, disclosure, and sale of health information.

-Deborah Peel

A Future Perspective: Have We Seen The End Of Consumer Privacy In Health Care?

PPR Founder & Chair, Deborah C. Peel, MD, presents on a panel at the 8th Annual Open Minds Technology & Informatics Institute. View her presentation slides here.

In an era of Facebook, reality television, and the internet, it seems that as a society, we don’t view privacy in the same way that we did in the past – that is, except when it comes to health care. Yet the reality is that even that may be changing; in today’s environment, data is more easily shared with electronic health records and consumers have increased access to their own records, and therefore the ability to share information as they choose. But are consumers truly ready to give up privacy? And if they aren’t ready, is there anything we can do to protect patient privacy in our increasingly digital world? In this unique session, our panel of experts will discuss how our definition of privacy has changed over the years and answer the question – Is privacy dead in health care?

Faculty:
Deborah C. Peel, M.D., Founder & Chair, Patient Privacy Rights Foundation
Tim Timmons, CCEP, CHPC, CHP, CHSS, Corporate Integrity Officer, Greater Oregon Behavioral Health, Inc.
Julie Caliwan, Senior Associate, OPEN MINDS

Institute Overview

We know the future of health care will be shaped by technology.
Everything from the way we communicate with consumers, to how we deliver services, to the way we interact with other health care providers is under the influence of technological innovation. The relationship between consumers and provider organizations is already shifting as these innovations change our system in ways that would have been unfathomable just a decade ago – from robots and remote monitoring systems, to neurotechnology and smartphone apps.

Organizations with the best technology strategy will have the competitive edge.
The 2012 OPEN MINDS Technology & Informatics Institute is designed to provide an inside look at the ground-breaking technologies that will influence the health care market in the years to come. By gathering together the industry’s greatest technological innovators, a team of expert faculty, and the country’s top health and human service executives, this institute will not only provide you with a glimpse at the future, but also a strategic roadmap for success along the way.

Benefits of Online Medical Records Outweigh the Risks- Includes Opposing Quotes from Dr. Deborah Peel

An article written by Larry Magid in the Huffington Post quotes PPR when speaking about the issues surrounding electronic health records. You can view the full article here: Benefits of Online Medical Records Outweigh the Risks.

“There are also privacy concerns. In a 2010 Wall Street Journal op-ed, psychiatrist Deborah Peel, founder of Patient Privacy Rights, complained that ‘lab test results are disclosed to insurance companies before we even know the results.’ She added that data is being released to ‘insurers, drug companies, employers and others willing to pay for the information to use in making decisions about you, your job or your treatments, or for research.’ Her group is calling for tighter controls and recognition that “that patients own their health data.’”