Slashdot Mirror


Americans Trust Docs, But Not Computerized Records

Lucas123 writes "A soon-to-be-released survey from CDW shows that Americans trust their physicians to use their health information responsibly, but they're very concerned that once in electronic format, their personal health information may suddenly show up on the Internet. Their fears may not be unfounded. CDW said that survey data showed 30% and 34% of doctors lack basic anti-virus software and network firewalls, respectively. Most amusingly, however, nearly a quarter of the 1,000 patient respondents said they don't even trust themselves with access to their own electronic health records."

3 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. Not amusing. Sensible. by BlueParrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most amusingly, however, nearly a quarter of the 1,000 patient respondents said they don't even trust themselves with access to their own electronic health records.

    What the hell is amusing about this? I dare claim I know miles more about information security than your average patient, and I'd certainly prefer to have my medical details kept safe by the pros than trying ( and probably failing ) to do so myself. For the same reason I keep my money in a bank as opposed to underneath my mattress. Now granted some doctors may have lax security, but for myself to keep the records in addition would just open up more avenues of attacks. The only good reason I can see why I would keep such records myself is to ensure I have a backup of them if my doctor was to screw up and erase them by accident or something.

    1. Re:Not amusing. Sensible. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I dare claim I know miles more about information security than your average patient, and I'd certainly prefer to have my medical details kept safe by the pros than trying ( and probably failing ) to do so myself.

      The problem is that you can't trust "the pros" to act in your best interests. Money is 100% fungible and misuse is pretty straight-forward -- a bank steals your money and its obvious what happened. But for someone doing searches of healthcare records it is much harder to tell if the intent is nefarious. Even the people doing the searches may not fully understand the implications themselves - ala netflix's "anonymised" data fiasco.

      What we need is less centralisation, not more. The push for electronic records in healthcare is inexorable, so we need to develop systems that inherently limit access. Not just fancy permission bits that can be ignored with the right privileges, but actually keeping the data physically inaccessible to those who don't absolutely need it. The best way to do that is to decentralise.

      For example, use the patient's smartphone to keep their records (with automated backups of the data as an encrypted blob). If a doctor needs the info, he can request it via a secured version of a text message. Make it a closed system so that when the patient responds to the request, he can set an expiration date for the copy that the doctor gets. Meanwhile the records on the phone are encrypted too prevent loss of the phone exposing records.

      If we had a system where each person was responsible for their own information, then the overhead of widescale misuse would be significantly increased. You'll never stop one-off abuses, but you can design a system that (a) makes widescale abuse difficult and (b) makes it easy for individuals to safely manage their own records.

      Right now are moving to the worst of both worlds - centralisation of data with protection no better than flimsy laws subject to interpretation and rewriting by people with money and interests that conflict with that of the patient.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:Not amusing. Sensible. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For example, use the patient's smartphone to keep their records (with automated backups of the data as an encrypted blob). If a doctor needs the info, he can request it via a secured version of a text message. Make it a closed system so that when the patient responds to the request, he can set an expiration date for the copy that the doctor gets. Meanwhile the records on the phone are encrypted too prevent loss of the phone exposing records.

      1. I don't have a smartphone.
      2. I forgot my smartphone, do I have to go back home to get it?
      3. The insurance company needs to drop a bill, do they text message you to get the data?
      4. Medicare wants to audit the hospital. Do they text a message to get the data?
      5. Oops, my smartphone got squashed when I got run over by a bus and they need my data ASAP, now what do I do?
      6. Oops, the cell phones are down again.

      No, this makes no sense at all. People don't WANT to manage their information. Most people CAN'T manage their information.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!