Slashdot Mirror


Feds Plan For 35 Agencies To Collect, Share, Use Health Records of Americans

cold fjord writes: The Weekly Standard reports, "This week, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the release of the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan 2015-2020, which details the efforts of some 35 departments and agencies of the federal government and their roles in the plan to 'advance the collection, sharing, and use of electronic health information to improve health care, individual and community health, and research.' ... Now that HHS has publicly released the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan, the agency is seeking the input from the public before implementation. The plan is subject to two-month period of public comment before finalization. The comment period runs through February 6, 2015." Among the many agencies that will be sharing records besides Health and Human Services are: Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Justice and Bureau of Prison, Department of Labor, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of Personnel Management, National Institute of Standards and Technology.

36 of 209 comments (clear)

  1. Not to mention by JRV31 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The NSA, CIA, and FBI.

    1. Re: Not to mention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dice needs to share why Timothy is still employed and why Bennett Haselton uses the site as his blog. Transparency!

    2. Re:Not to mention by BreakBad · · Score: 4, Funny

      They screwed up by not arbitrarily inserting the word freedom in the title, e.g. "Federal Heath IT FREEDOM Strategic Plan". Or replacing 'strategic', sounds to much like a battle plan.

    3. Re:Not to mention by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Well, this should pretty much close the loop on the "Big Brother" initiative that the Feds have obviously been working towards.

      I wonder if there is any way to opt OUT of this. I don't see that the Federal govt needs to know or store or handle my personal medical information.

      I'm happy to take my chances without them handling this, I've done quite well without it all these many years of my life so far.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:Not to mention by operagost · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why have HIPAA, when tens of thousands of federal employees will have access to our personal information?

      This is what you wanted, Democrats.*

      * based on Congressional Record of ACA voting

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    5. Re:Not to mention by dywolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am quite sure you have no clue what you are talking about.
      The myths about HIPAA and teh ACA refuse to die because of ignorance like yours.

      -For starters they do not and will not haev access to your private health information.
      -HIPAA largely doesnt aplpy to the ACA itself or mechanisms.
      -specifically HIPAA does not apply to the exchange website, which is the only part of the ACA that even uses your personal information, but notably does NOT use your private health information.
      -All ACA does is provide some incentive for helath providers to transition to electronic records.
      -Your health records and privacy laws covering them, including HIPAA, are not changed under the ACA

      I say again: you are clueless about both HIPAA and the ACA.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  2. At that rate ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    " Among the many agencies that will be sharing records besides Health and Human Services are: Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Justice and Bureau of Prison, Department of Labor, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of Personnel Management, National Institute of Standards and Technology."

    In other words, almost everyone except YOU!

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:At that rate ... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      I don't remember signing a release form...

      Hmmm ... how's that go again ... oh, yeah ... I have altered our deal, pray I do not alter it further.

      You really think you get a choice in this?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:At that rate ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      That's not true. You can request a copy of your records from any of those agencies, including your doctors. I've seen all my metal health professional's hand written notes and such in my files. I have copies of my brain scans from my MRI's. Including all the inaccuracies that I mentioned due to unclear and incomplete notes.

      So what information can't you get that you need?

      The audit trail for every agency that has consulted your file? That IS part of your medical records, right?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:At that rate ... by stephanruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So what information can't you get that you need?

      You stole my question.

      What information can't you get that you need Mr. Government?

      In San Francisco, a police officer can already pull the list of prescribed medications of any girl in California he's interested in dating (without any audit trail or oversight). Does every cop really "need" that kind of access at his fingertips for the war on drugs?

      It would be nice if the information also freely flowed the other way. Can you let us know what prescribed medication police officers take? Which of them take meds for being crazy, or take meds for STDs, the public has the right to know about that. In fact, an STD test should also be required of a police officer anytime that police officer has an open cut, or provokes an open cut in someone else.

      And what about the medication lists of district attorneys and sitting judges? It would be nice to know about their meds as well. The same goes for the medication of their wives or girlfriends. After all, if a cop/DA can get the medication information, and by inference the medical information, of myself and/or my significant other on a whim. I should also have the right to do the same to him.

  3. As a Federal Inmate by artlu · · Score: 2

    Although I knew that I would lose several civil rights, such as carrying a firearm, etc. I never believed that being put into the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Prisons would mean that my personal health history would be shared across thirty-five departments. I do not mind this, and it does not surprise me. However, this is just another example of big brother making decisions that are outside of my control.

    See my story at The Market is not Random.

    -Anthony

    --
    -------
    artlu.net
    1. Re:As a Federal Inmate by bobbied · · Score: 2

      Although I knew that I would lose several civil rights, such as carrying a firearm, etc. I never believed that being put into the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Prisons would mean that my personal health history would be shared across thirty-five departments. I do not mind this, and it does not surprise me. However, this is just another example of big brother making decisions that are outside of my control.

      See my story at The Market is not Random.

      -Anthony

      Just my opinion...

      When you're one of the few people who stays healthy through good nutrition and didn't get caught up in the medical matrix,

      Oh how naïve of you... You DO remember that the ACA mandates coverage for 1 doctor visit a year for a physical. They will now know that you did or didn't make that visit, because it is the LAW now that you have health care insurance. The IRS will have to know about your insurance status to make sure you have it or paid your fines. So you may not have any health issues of interest, but information about you will still be available, like it or not.

      Your only way of "opting out" of such tracking is to 1. Make sure the IRS doesn't know about you (No tax returns, No employment, No bank accounts, no health insurance) and 2. Make sure you NEVER see a doctor who will be obliged to report the visit and pay in cash. 3. Don't have a driver's license, own a car or have insurance on one. 4. No credit cards. 5. Don't register to vote (much less actually vote). 6. Don't get married, divorced, or have kids (heck, just never get an SSN in the first place.) And there is a lot more things, but you get the idea...

      Don't figure on that healthy lifestyle keeping you out of the medical database. Healthy people do get sick and require medical treatment from time to time. Perhaps not as much as you, but as you get older your chances of needing medical care will only go up, even if you do continue your healthy ways.

      You are tracked.... Like it or not, healthy or not, you will be tracked in public records, credit records and the like.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:As a Federal Inmate by beelsebob · · Score: 2

      Why on earth would they not get to find out? While you're an inmate, they are directly responsible for your care. They need to know what is and has been wrong with you so that they can get that right.

  4. uh oh by slashmydots · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm so glad NASA is concerned about my health but I'm worried they may find out that I'm an alien.

  5. Opt-Out Strategy by some+old+guy · · Score: 2

    Move to another country where privacy means more than a door on a commode stall. That's about the extent of available options.

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    1. Re:Opt-Out Strategy by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Move to another country where privacy means more than a door on a commode stall. That's about the extent of available options.

      Of course, there's no guarantee the US hasn't hacked that country's computers, telecommunications, or enacted a data sharing agreement with that government.

      Seriously, name me a single country which provably hasn't been hacked by the US, or directly share data with the US, and which would be your bastion of privacy.

      I have my doubts such a place exists.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Opt-Out Strategy by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the plus side, you'll probably live longer.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    3. Re:Opt-Out Strategy by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm curious how data sharing works in those countries with nationalized health systems. I'd wager there's at least as much information sharing there as anywhere else.

    4. Re:Opt-Out Strategy by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      On the plus side, you'll probably live longer.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

      You know..I'd just rather take my chances and have an Opt In for it if I wanted it.

      Looking at that link it says "The figures reflect the quality of healthcare in the countries listed as well as other factors including ongoing wars, obesity, and HIV infections".

      Frankly, I dunno what having the Feds have such extreme access to my medical records would to to help prevent my life expectancy with regard to wars, obesity and HIV, unless the feds take my information and require lifestyle changes for things like obesity. I suppose they could link it to my grocery stores and prevent me buying bad foods, etc.

      But that's not quite the role I want the US govt to play in my life.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  6. enjoy! by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, you guys wanted federal health care.

    Please don't act all surprised when this information is used for all sorts of other purposes.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:enjoy! by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You mean like the private insurance industry has already been doing for years? My insurance carrier is dictating my care to my physician now. I want the power to decide what's best for me place back into her hands. That will never, ever, happen as long as the private insurance industry remains in the position it's in.

      Pay for ordinary care out of pocket, and the problem is solved. If health insurance had nothing to do with people who had other power over you, like your employer or the government, but was instead like car insurance - just a product you shopped for, and only used in a crisis, the landscape would totally change.

      It amazes me though the number of people pay $3-6K more a year (depending on how many insured) just to jet a lower deductible that works out to the same $3-6K a year! If every doctors visit is paid by insurance instead of you of course the company will call the shots: they're paying the bill - and you're not even saving any money that way!

      Just give me a high-deductible plan that I buy like car insurance, and get government back to only regulating the quality of that product, not in the room with me in the doctor's office.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  7. No good comes of this by koan · · Score: 2

    35 more ways for your private information to leak or be hacked.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  8. Not Impressed by Jawnn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Privacy and and security seem to be an afterthought, at best, in these plans and associated documents. Given the fact that attacks on health care data are already growing at an alarming rate (as predicted by many analysts) and that the health care industry is 10-20 years behind financial services when it comes to security and fraud prevention, this plan seems premature. At the very least, it's stated goals need to place privacy and security at the forefront, for until that gap is closed, any effort to expand the footprint of such sensitive information is, to say the least, misguided.

  9. Re:No bother in commenting... by bobbied · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually, the problem is that we fall for the "It's for the starving children" political rhetoric and have VERY short memories. What happens in reality is what Jonathan Gruber (sp) said happened with the ACA, it's how you package it. It's all about the marketing and the sound bites and NOT about the truth. In short, lie, cheat and steal what you want and politics has turned into a PR propaganda campaign where the truth comes in second to the cause. "The ends justify the means."

    However, all is not lost. Despite the problems of politics, the voters still do respond to such tactics eventually. Every Senator that got elected for their first time in 2008 and voted for the ACA just lost their re-election bid. Many others who voted for the ACA are also gone. Once the real effects of the ACA started to hit home and the propaganda proven untrue, the voters responded.

    Short term, the tactic works, but in the long run, I still have faith in the voters... At least the slice of voters in the middle who actually decide things for us...

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  10. FUD and kneejerk reactions by dywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Before we cower in fear because ZOMG EVERYONE KNOWS EVERYTHING ABOUT ME....lets consider some things:

    -there has been a push for a long time to move medical records to electronic format. we've been promised cost reductions as a result, as well has better/quicker care
    -most health records still paper instead of electronic. the move to electronic records has largely been a failure; one reason is the resulting cost reductions that have been promised have been slow to materialize, if theyve materialized at all.
    -those that are, are not in some large nationwide or accessible database
    -under federal law personal health information is private and cannot be released to outside parties without consent
    -under federal law any information that is released must be anonymized; ie, no SSN or names or other personally identifiable information
    -google facebook and other data miners probably already know more about your current health needs than these records would tell someone, and they already associate it with you (ie, their data isnt anonymous)

    So we're not talking about the FBI or NSA using this to find out you have irritable bowel syndrome.
    (chances are they already know from other sources like Facebook anyway...*tin foil hat*).
    and they likely wouldnt care anyway (life is not a hollywood movie).

    No, its not readily apparent why the Dept of Ag might need health data.
    But health researchers absolutely. And they get anonymized health data already.
    But if we considered something like antibiotic resistance and hte theory that overapplication to livestock is a factor, I could see a scenario where health researchers partner with Dept of Ag to study the effects of antibiotic usage on livestock.

    In fact the anonymous nature of this data is a big factor in the outrage over the House bills just a week or two ago that purported to "ban secret science" by requiring full disclouse over everything, and banning agencies from making decisions based on "secret science or data". This would have the efect of banning hte CDC or other health agencies from making decisions based on research using this anonymous data....data that is anonymous because of privacy laws. Effectively hamstringing the agencies compeltely.

    All in all, teh cowering in fear and conspiracy reactions to this are just FUD.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    1. Re:FUD and kneejerk reactions by xanthines-R-yummy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, the National Institutes of Health already has an anonymized database of the health records from patients in their clinical trials and a company called Explorys (no, I don't work for them, either), is doing something similar on a larger scale across multiple hospital systems. Having CMS and HHS involved to add more data is definitely a good thing, if done correctly. Links below.

      http://btris.nih.gov/
      https://www.explorys.com/
      https://www.explorys.com/about...

    2. Re:FUD and kneejerk reactions by cayenne8 · · Score: 2
      If they want this information from me, anonymous or not, they should have to get my explicit "OK" to use my data, and not allow it to be gathered by default.

      Nothing really is more private than my medical records. I'm still trying to find in the Constitution, amongst the narrowly defined, limited, enumerated powers the Federal Govt is supposed to have where they are to gather all the information they can on me, a law abiding citizen, for any type of usage.

      I'm trying to find even the stretch for "interstate commerce" where they could possibly be enabled to get this power.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:FUD and kneejerk reactions by JDAustin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And yet IRS has been used for political gain and private citizens tax information have been turned over political operatives. This was illegal under federal law, but still happened with no consequences.

      What makes you think that this will not happen with private citizens medical info?

    4. Re:FUD and kneejerk reactions by Yakasha · · Score: 2

      So we're not talking about the FBI or NSA using this to find out you have irritable bowel syndrome.
      (chances are they already know from other sources like Facebook anyway...*tin foil hat*).
      and they likely wouldnt care anyway (life is not a hollywood movie).

      You're right. They don't care about that.
      But they do care about things like prescription habits (Your receiving & your doctor's prescribing), GSWs, abortions (Did you forget Republicans are still trying to ban those?), stem cell treatments, assisted suicide, plastic surgery, and any other medical procedure they're trying to restrict or ban, or they feel indicates criminal activity (too many chemical burns? Maybe you have a meth lab).

      Just because you or I can't think of a way to abuse the data now, doesn't mean the Federal Government won't figure out a way to abuse you in the future, using the data. Yes there are legitimate reasons for the Feds to have the data, but unfortunately, as has been proven over, and over, and over again, they can't be trusted.

    5. Re:FUD and kneejerk reactions by JBMcB · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So we're not talking about the FBI or NSA using this to find out you have irritable bowel syndrome.
      (chances are they already know from other sources like Facebook anyway...*tin foil hat*).
      and they likely wouldnt care anyway (life is not a hollywood movie).

      No, here's what will happen.

      There will be a murder somewhere. There will be blood left at the scene. They'll type out the blood and find it contains an uncommon antigen. They'll search out the health database looking for people who knew the victim with that antigen. If that fails, they'll look for people who just lived near the victim. They'll cross reference cell records and find out you were in the area when the murder occurred (which doesn't prove you were there, just that your cell phone was within a few miles of a cell tower, which of course it was as you live in the area.)

      Boom - you're a suspect in a murder case.

      This is, granted, a limited example, but the possibilities for abuse are nearly limitless.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    6. Re:FUD and kneejerk reactions by magarity · · Score: 3

      Before we cower in fear because ZOMG EVERYONE KNOWS EVERYTHING ABOUT ME

      The worst part is probably NOT going to be that they know the CORRECT things about your health; the worst part will be when they know INCORRECT things about you. People have absolutely horrible times getting off the secret no-fly list of terrorists and that's just run by one government agency. Can you imagine if you have to convince 30+ different government agencies that they have you down incorrectly as being a modern Typhoid Mary? And just after you convince one or two of them to correct your record, their system gets an update back from one of the others resetting you back to where you started?

    7. Re:FUD and kneejerk reactions by LessThanObvious · · Score: 2

      Some FUD for sure, but there are legitimate concerns. I personally don't want any of my health info online anywhere for any reason. This is both for potential abuse and also because I believe the health care industry and some government agencies are completely unprepared to secure this data. I also will say that the more people have to question the privacy of their health data the more it will lend itself to people editing their treatment. If a person cannot feel 100% confident that a mental health issue or the like will remain private then they will be less likely to accept treatment.

    8. Re:FUD and kneejerk reactions by SacredNaCl · · Score: 2

      Trying to get your health care records changed to only reflect accurate information now is pretty much impossible. Even the doctors cannot retract information -- only make an amendment to it. I had an associate with spinal stenosis. He was on some pretty heavy pain medicines. He ended up having a slip and fall, and went to the ER. The ER doctor was someone he had known in high school, and didn't even remember having slighted him. The doctor put him down as opioid addicted, treatment resistant, and marked him as "DO NOT ADMINISTER NARCOTICS" in the BJC system. He likely wouldn't have found out about that until he was sucked into a hospital stay or another ER visit, except that this guy went the extra asshat step of contacting his doctor. Okay, his GP accepts the call, schedules him an extra appointment asking "Did your pain drugs contribute to you breaking your ... ? Do you have a drug problem ...?" His GP keeps him on his pain medicines until he retires a year or so later. Now he can't find anyone to do pain management for him with anything that has half a chance of working because that flag is still in the system. The best he could do under our current laws is to "add a statement of disagreement" with the record -- which still flags him at nearly every hospital and doctors office as a drug seeker if they actually get a copy of his records.

      Worse, he can't just omit X from the records. Once one other party got the records from BJC, they had to include the records from BJC in the transfer. So one asshat can make your life extremely difficult.

      --
      Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
  11. Re:No bother in commenting... by 14erCleaner · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The ironic thing about Grubergate is that he's been proven right. The Republicans have used one recorded remark by a mid-level bureaucrat to override all fact-based arguments about the ACA for the past month. Yes, people really are stupid. Give them something to be angry about, and they'll vote against their own interests.

    --
    Have you read my blog lately?
  12. Oh, look, another lefty enamored with himself. by dfenstrate · · Score: 2

    Yes, people really are stupid. Give them something to be angry about, and they'll vote against their own interests.

    It's rather presumptive of you, and every other Democrat, to pretend to know people's interests better than they do. It's part of the unmistakable arrogance that comes from the left, and was perfectly displayed by Gruber. You and your fellow leftists are cut from the same cloth as every other human, but you whip each other up with flattery on how kind, intelligent and compassionate you are for simply being on the left. Whether ruin or prosperity follows your policy actions isn't terribly important. You had the best intentions, you see, and the books can always be cooked after the fact to hide any negative news that doesn't fit the narrative.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  13. Penalties for unauthorized release? None. by mveloso · · Score: 2

    Great, my data is protected by federal laws.

    So what happens when there's an "unauthorized release" of your data by a federal agency?

    Nothing!

    That's why the laws on "unauthorized release" are bogus when you're talking about the government. No penalty = no enforcement = no care.

    The TLA agencies care about your data when they need to ensure your cooperation with an ongoing investigation.