Prince William’s DNA

As more individuals start posting their genomes or other genetic information online, privacy issues grow. A recent article from GenomeWeb about Prince William’s DNA highlights one of PPR’s concerns about publicly sharing such information: one person’s choice to research and reveal information about themselves reveals information about so many others who had no say in that decision.

To be clear, PPR is not opposed to genetic testing and actually believes there are many new and exciting possibilities that exist within the realm of genetic analysis. However, there are several issues that need to be addressed before people start encouraging others to publicly share their own genetic information. This excerpt from the article sums up the dilemma quite nicely:

“What is noteworthy is the ethics of publishing details of this genetic analysis at all,” Brice says, noting that “one of the major ethical concerns about genetic information and privacy” is that individual information can lead to the disclosures about family members.

The Duke’s cousins are free to have genetic tests if they want, but disclosing information about other, non-consenting individuals, is “highly questionable,” Brice says.

To read the full article, click here. (Note: Free subscription may be required).

The Verizon order, the NSA, and what call records might reveal about psychiatric patients

The NSA knows we are sick because we phone doctors’ offices.

As a mental health professional, Dissent Doe explains in her blog (below) how revealing phone call metadata is:

“Because my phone is used mainly for calls to and from patients and clients, can the NSA figure out who my patients are?  And could they, with just a query or bit of analysis, figure out when my patients were going into crisis or periods of symptom worsening?  I suspect that they can. And because I am nationally and internationally known as an expert on a particular disorder, could the government also deduce the diagnosis or diagnoses of my patients or their family members? Probably.”

There is a huge national media response to the NSA spying on Americans’ cell phone calls, but the media does NOT report on the far worse systemic corporate and government spying on the nation’s electronic health records.

The US healthcare system is engineered for hidden corporate and government surveillance of personal data about the minds and bodies of all 300 million Americans –from prescriptions to diagnoses to DNA—it’s all collected and sold.

The US media simply repeats industry and government talking points about the benefits of electronic health systems without reporting on the massive harms:

  • -Millions of patients/year avoid early diagnosis and treatment of cancer, depression, and sexually transmitted diseases because they know that information will not be private (see citations and statistics in:http://patientprivacyrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/The-Case-for-Informed-Consent.pdf)
  • -1/8 people hide health information because they know that information will not be private
  • -Should we use technology that causes millions to suffer bad outcomes?

2013 is a critical year: every state will share your health data with hundreds-thousands more hidden users via Health Information Exchanges (HIEs).

  • -Many states to not allow you to ‘opt-out’ of HIEs that exchange your health data.
  • -Most states do not allow you to prevent your most sensitive health information from being exchanged.
  • -So far, not one state gives patients control over data exchange.

SIGN PPR’s petition and say “no” to data exchange without your consent at: http://patientprivacyrights.org/2013/06/sign-the-petition-for-patient-controlled-exchange-of-health-information/

We need trustworthy technologies that put patients back in control of the use, disclosure, and sale of their sensitive health data.

  • -Patients have always controlled who could see and use paper medical records.
  • -Now institutions (corporations and government) control who can see and use the nation’s electronic health records.

Great existing technologies can fix badly designed electronic health systems, but we need new laws that require privacy-protective technologies are built into all electronic systems that handle health data.

Sign the Petition for Patient-Controlled Exchange of Health Information

Sign the petition asking Congress to put you in control of exchanging your sensitive health data via Health Data Exchanges (HIEs)!

Sign the petition here.

By the end of the year, every state must have one or more Health Information Exchange (HIEs) so your health data can be transferred to other doctors, the state, the federal government, insurers, technology companies, researchers, commercial users, and many other institutions.

Today those institutions and organizations decide when and to whom to transfer your health data—not you.

KEY PRINCIPLES FOR DATA EXCHANGE USING HIEs:

• You should control whether or not your health information is exchanged.

• You should have full access to electronic copies of all your health information.

• You should know what information the HIE exchanges, stores or collects, with whom your data is shared, and the purpose for using it.

View and sign the petition asking Congress to strengthen the law so Americans can trust electronic health systems and data exchanges.

States’ Hospital Data for Sale Puts Privacy in Jeopardy

TODAY: watch Prof Sweeney and Jordan Robertson present their research on how easily patients could be re-identified patients from hospital data sold by the state of Washington —at the 3rd International Summit on the Future of Health Privacy in Washington, DC. Register to watch free at: www.healthprivacysummit.org.
Every state sells or gives away sensitive hospital data without regard to how easily it can be re-identified and sold, not just Washington. The buyers may want to sell you something or use your records for employment background checks. Health data is easily available for hidden discrimination.

The solution is all users of personal health data should have to ask first.

May 15, 2013 Health Care Symposium – Dialogue on Diversity

PPR Founder Deborah C. Peel, MD Joins Experts at
Dialogue on Diversity’s Health Care Symposium 2013

The Elusive Concept: Health Care a $15 Tr. Economy Can “Afford”

On May 15, 2013, Dr. Deborah Peel will join other experts in Washington, DC for the Health Care Symposium 2013, “The Elusive Concept: Health Care a $15 Trillion Economy Can “Afford.” During the complimentary lunch, the Honorable Donna M. Christian-Christensen will receive Dialogue on Diversity’s Health Leadership Award, followed by Dr. Deborah Peel’s panel.

Registration is free to the public, and a complimentary breakfast will also be provided. See the full agenda with specific times here.

The day begins with focused discussions on the laws of health care as well as the rising costs, followed by a panel on food and nutrition and the need for preventative strategies. After the lunch panel, experts will discuss cultural competency and class and ethnic access disparities. The day will close with a discussion on the  chief medical threats in the United States, such as Cancer, AIDS, and Obesity.

See more on sessions and speakers in this Press Advisory.

For the past two years, Dialogue on Diversity has worked with PPR as a member of the Coalition for Patient Privacy as well as a Consumer Partner of the Health Privacy Summit.

WHAT:

Health Care Symposium 2013
The Elusive Concept: Health Care a $15 Tr. Economy Can “Afford”
WHEN:
Wednesday, May 15th, 2013 | 8:30 a.m. – 3:30 p.m. ET
WHERE:

The American Federation of Teachers
555 New Jersey Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001

Re: Poor Prognosis for Privacy

In response to The Wall Street Journal article by Melinda Beck: Poor Prognosis for Privacy

Most healthcare institutions and John Halamka ignore the fact that for over a decade technology has empowered millions of patients to control which parts of their electronic health records are disclosed for mental health and addiction treatment. The technology for ‘segmentation’ exists.

Congress, the courts, state and federal laws, and medical ethics require that patients control who can see and use sensitive personal health data, yet federal regulators who write the rules for industry have not required electronic health systems to use either ‘segmentation’ or other technologies like meta-data tagging that could also enable selective disclosures of health information.

When the public finds out they can’t control the use or disclosure of sensitive personal health data, many millions will refuse early diagnosis and treatment for cancer, depression, and STDs every year—and millions more will hide information, refuse tests, and act in ways that put their health at risk. These are bad outcomes.

Should the public be forced to use health technology systems that cause bad outcomes? Why not require technology that IMPROVES health outcomes?

The Right to Obtain Restrictions Under the HIPAA/HITECH Rule: A Return to the Ethical Practice of Medicine

To view the full article, please visit: The Right to Obtain Restrictions Under the HIPAA/HITECH Rule: A Return to the Ethical Practice of Medicine.

Great explanation of how industry has fought to influence those in government that write the ‘rules’ for how federal law works in practice. The key industry tactic is to complain that complying with the law is too costly or impossible or would take too much time. For reasons we don’t understand, the government agency that writes the ‘rules’ takes the side of industry rather than defending patients.

GOP senators seek to ‘reboot’ federal health IT policy, unveil white paper

This article is by subscription only: GOP senators seek to ‘reboot’ federal health IT policy, unveil white paper

“Key GOP senators released a white paper Tuesday (April 16) raising concerns with federal policy on health information technology, and the lawmakers seek feedback from stakeholders — including the administration, hospitals and vendors – on how the program can be improved. The senators worry that the $35 billion allocated to health IT in the 2009 stimulus package is being spent inefficiently and suggest Congress, the administration and stakeholders work together to “reboot” the electronic health record incentive program so that it to accomplish its goals.”

Materials of interest:

More articles discussing this action:

athenahealth and Mashery team up for health developer-friendly API initiative

To view the full article, please visit athenahealth and Mashery team up for health developer-friendly API initiative.

Electronic health records (EHRs) companies allow access to patients sensitive health data and sensitive information about physicians’  practices so technology companies can develop applications.

Applications have the potential to be useful to physicians and patients but at what cost to privacy? Will EHR “apps” secretly collect and sell people’s information the way Smartphone apps collect and sell contact, GPS data and more?  We now know the business model for many technologies is selling intimate personal data.

Quotes:

  • ·athenahealth will open “access to doctors’ appointment data, patient’s medical history (anonymized) , billing information and more”,
  • ·“the company hopes developers will be able to create an ecosystem of apps on top of athenahealth’s EMR service”
  • ·“Other EMR providers, including Allscripts and Greenway, have also opened up their APIs to developers and created app marketplaces.”

The press release on this athenahealth project stated, We’re providing the data and knowledge from our cloud-based network, a captive audience for developers to innovate for, and an online sandbox to do it all in.”

  • ·Who are the “captives”? athenahealth’s 40,000 physicians and their 100’s of thousands of patients

QUESTIONS:

  • ·When were the “captive” patients asked for consent for strangers who want to use and monetize their health records?
  • ·When were “captive” physicians asked consent for strangers to use information about their practices, what they charge, who they treat, how they treat patients, how they are paid by whom, and much more?
  • ·Why does athenahealth claim that patient data is “anonymized”—-when its impossible to prevent “anonymized” patient records from easy re-identification?

Many electronic health record (EHR) companies allow access/or sell sensitive patient data to technology developers and other companies.

BROADER QUESTIONS

  • ·When did the public learn about, debate, or agree to the use of their sensitive patient data by technology companies to build products?
  • ·Why do technology companies claim that “anonymization” and “de-identification” of health data works, when computer science has clearly proved them wrong?
  • ·How is the identifiable health data of hundreds of thousands of patients protected from any OTHER uses the technology developers decide to use it for?
  • ·How can the public weigh the risks and harms vs. benefits of using EHRs when there is no ‘chain of custody’ for our health data and no data map that tracks the thousands of HIDDEN users of our personal health information?
  • See Harvard Prof Latanya Sweeney explain the need for a data map at: http://tiny.cc/5pjqvw
    • -Attend or watch via live-streaming video the 2103 International Summit on the Future of Health Privacy in Washington DC June 5-6 to see the first data map Prof Sweeney’s team has built. Registration to attend or watch is free at: www.healthprivacytsummit.org

Mostashari, policy committee take critical look at CommonWell

To view the full article, please visit: Mostashari, policy committee take critical look at CommonWell

The ONLY way patients/the public will trust health technology systems is if THEY control ‘interoperability’—-ie if THEY control their sensitive health data. Patients have strong rights to control exactly who can collect, use, and disclose their health data. This also happens to be what the public expects and wants MOST from HIT……The public has strong legal rights to control PHI, despite our flawed HIT systems.

The story below is about an attempt by large technology vendors and the government to maintain control over the nation’s sensitive health data. Institutional/government-sanctioned models like the CommonWell Alliance violate patients’ rights to control their medical records (from diagnoses to DNA to prescription records).  Patients should be able to:

  • -choose personal email addresses as their IDs, there is no need for Institutions to choose ID’s for us—email addresses on the Internet work very well as IDs
  • -download and store their health information from electronic records systems (EHRs)–required by HIPAA since 2001, but only now becoming reality via the Blue Button+ project
  • -email their doctors using Direct secure email

Today’s systems violate 2,400 years of ethics underlying the doctor-patient relationship and the practice of Medicine: ie Hippocrates’ discovery that patients would only be able to trust physicians with deeply personal information about their bodies and minds IF the doctors never shared that information without consent. That ‘ethic’—-ie, to guard the patient’s information and act as the patient’s agent and protector is codified in the Hippocratic Oath and embodied in American law and the AMA Code of Medical Ethics. Americans have strong rights to health information privacy which HIPAA has not wiped out (HIPAA is the FLOOR, not the CEILING for our privacy rights).

The public does NOT agree that their sensitive health data should be used without consent—they expect to control health information with rare legal exceptions. See: http://patientprivacyrights.or…. HUGE majorities believe that individuals alone should decide what data they want to share with whom—not one-size-fits-all law or policies.

Nor does the public agree to use of their personal health data for “research”—whether for clinical research about diseases or by industry for commercial use of the data via the ‘research and public health loopholes’ in HIPAA. Only 1% of the public agrees to unfettered use of personal health data for research. Read more about these survey results here.

The entire healthcare system depends TOTALLY on a two-person relationship, and whether there is trust between those two people. We must look at the fact that today’s HIT systems VIOLATE that personal relationship by making it ‘public’ via the choice of health technology systems designed for data mining and surveillance. Instead we need technology designed to ensure patient control over personal health information (with rare legal exceptions). When patients cannot trust their doctors, health professionals, or the flawed technology systems they use, the consequence is many millions of patients avoid or delay of treatment and hide information. Every year many millions of Americans take actions which CAUSE BAD OUTCOMES.

Current health technologies and data exchange systems cause millions of people annually to risk their health and lives, ie the technologies we are using now cause BAD OUTCOMES.

We have to face facts and design systems that can be trusted. Patient Privacy Rights’ Trust Framework details in 75 auditable criteria what it takes to be a trusted technology or systems. See:http://patientprivacyrights.or… or download the paper at:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=22316…