Here is one example of a privacy issue that affects your health care. The case cited below related to a New Hampshire court case where data mining companies collect data about you, in order to then selel that data to various organizations for various purposes.
Lets be clear here. Some of these purposes are legitimate. Such as when a medical researcher collects data about patients in a clinical trial to figure out what works best. Or when researchers survey the larger body of patients looking for data that may identify disease trends.
The problem comes in when personally identifiable information about specific patients is collected and then sold for purposes that have NOTHING to do with their health care. One obvious example of this is when pharmaceutical companies use this data to fine turn their pitch to your doctor, so they can convince your doctor to prescribe some drug they want to sell, regardless of whether or not it may be the best treatment for your condition.
This issue relates to collected patient identifiable information which is then sold as a database for other commercial purposes.
Health care privacy is a big issue for those who have much to gain if information is shared properly and well, and much to lose if it is shared badly and without concern for the patient.
When the drug companies put sales ahead of solutions, then we have a problem. There is a reason why drug research for hair loss, obesity and erectile disfunction get the lion's share of the research funding, and rare diseases get the leftovers. There are more people with more money to spend on those drugs, than there are patients who need cures for vasculitis.
Decisions regarding what medications you should take must come from the informed partnership between you and your doctor. if either of those parties are unduly influenced, then the decision becomes biased. Would you rather take the name brand drug, or the one that works? They are not always the same thing.
I encourage all of you to keep your ears and eyes open and support anything that promotes your well being, such as a SECURE electronic medical records system that is PATIENT FOCUSED, and not that merely benefits the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, such as we have now.
Here is the latest on the New Hampshire case.
Electronic Privacy Information Center - http://epic.org/
Court Upholds New Hampshire Prescription Privacy Law
Today, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a New Hampshire law that bans the sale of prescriber-identifiable prescription drug data for marketing purposes. In August, EPIC and 16 experts in privacy and technology filed a "friend of the court" brief urging the federal appellate court to reverse a lower court ruling that delayed enforcement of the New Hampshire Prescription Confidentiality Act. The experts said the lower court should be reversed because there is a substantial privacy interest in patient data that the lower court failed to consider. The New Hampshire Attorney General also defended the law, calling pharmaceutical representatives "invisible intruder[s] in the physician's examination room." Data mining companies challenged the law, claiming that the privacy measure violated their free speech rights. For more information, see EPIC's IMS Health v. Ayotte page. (Nov. 18)
Lets be clear here. Some of these purposes are legitimate. Such as when a medical researcher collects data about patients in a clinical trial to figure out what works best. Or when researchers survey the larger body of patients looking for data that may identify disease trends.
The problem comes in when personally identifiable information about specific patients is collected and then sold for purposes that have NOTHING to do with their health care. One obvious example of this is when pharmaceutical companies use this data to fine turn their pitch to your doctor, so they can convince your doctor to prescribe some drug they want to sell, regardless of whether or not it may be the best treatment for your condition.
This issue relates to collected patient identifiable information which is then sold as a database for other commercial purposes.
Health care privacy is a big issue for those who have much to gain if information is shared properly and well, and much to lose if it is shared badly and without concern for the patient.
When the drug companies put sales ahead of solutions, then we have a problem. There is a reason why drug research for hair loss, obesity and erectile disfunction get the lion's share of the research funding, and rare diseases get the leftovers. There are more people with more money to spend on those drugs, than there are patients who need cures for vasculitis.
Decisions regarding what medications you should take must come from the informed partnership between you and your doctor. if either of those parties are unduly influenced, then the decision becomes biased. Would you rather take the name brand drug, or the one that works? They are not always the same thing.
I encourage all of you to keep your ears and eyes open and support anything that promotes your well being, such as a SECURE electronic medical records system that is PATIENT FOCUSED, and not that merely benefits the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, such as we have now.
Here is the latest on the New Hampshire case.
Electronic Privacy Information Center - http://epic.org/
Court Upholds New Hampshire Prescription Privacy Law
Today, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a New Hampshire law that bans the sale of prescriber-identifiable prescription drug data for marketing purposes. In August, EPIC and 16 experts in privacy and technology filed a "friend of the court" brief urging the federal appellate court to reverse a lower court ruling that delayed enforcement of the New Hampshire Prescription Confidentiality Act. The experts said the lower court should be reversed because there is a substantial privacy interest in patient data that the lower court failed to consider. The New Hampshire Attorney General also defended the law, calling pharmaceutical representatives "invisible intruder[s] in the physician's examination room." Data mining companies challenged the law, claiming that the privacy measure violated their free speech rights. For more information, see EPIC's IMS Health v. Ayotte page. (Nov. 18)
No comments:
Post a Comment