Re: They’ve got an app for that

In response to Modern Healthcare’s article: They’ve got an app for that

On Feb 15th and 16th , the President’s Council on Science and Technology (PCAST) report was discussed in DC by the national HIT Policy PCAST Worgroup. A key PCAST recommendation was that data be meta-tagged for many uses—one key use is so patients can add tags that say: “do not disclose this sensitive data unless I say so”. Patient Privacy Rights and the Coalition for Patient Privacy have LONG argued that all health IT systems and data exchanges MUST restore patient control over the most sensitive personal information that exists: electronic health data.

We are glad to see privacy-enhancing technologies being demonstrated and used in the nation’s largest electronic health system: the military health system covering 9 million lives.

This story shows how the VA is actually ALREADY using data meta-tags so patients can control who sees what health data—see the video that goes along with the story below at: http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20110224/VIDEO/302249949/-1

PPR Comments on the PCAST HIT Report

The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) weighed in on the key problems with how the Administration is building health IT systems and data exchanges. They recommend that patients be able to meta-tag data to protect privacy, that interoperability requires adoption of a common “language”, and that the goal should be a “data-centric” system for research on all health records without consent. The report recommends that HHS and CMS decide when patient data can be used for “secondary” purposes without consent.

See the full PCAST report: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/08/pcast-releases-health-it-report

Patient Privacy Rights letter of comments to HHS emphasized:

  • Privacy is essential to build in up front.
  • We should not rush to deploy systems and spend billions on electronic systems and data exchanges until we know the privacy technologies PCAST recommends are adequate.
  • The recommendations for de-identifying health data were insufficient. Extensive work needs to be done to ensure that standards for de-identification actually work.

See PPR’s full comments here: http://patientprivacyrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/PCAST-comments-PPR-Final.pdf

See PPR’s written testimony here: http://patientprivacyrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Patient-Privacy-Rights-Testimony-PCAST-WG-Feb-15-2011.pdf