Slashdot Mirror
1 in 3 Patients Will Have Their Healthcare Records Compromised (computerworld.com)
Lucas123 writes: A legacy of lackluster electronic security in healthcare and an increase in the amount of online patient data will lead to an increase in the number of consumers who will have their healthcare records compromised by cyberattacks in 2016, according to a new report from IDC Health Insights. The report, which includes 10 future predictions about the healthcare industry, also predicted that by 2018, cognitive computing would play an increasingly important role in helping physicians to identify the most effective treatment for 50% of patients resulting in a 10% reduction in mortality and a 10% cut in costs. Also by 2018, 30% of worldwide healthcare systems will employ real-time cognitive analysis to provide personalized care leveraging patient's clinical data, directly supported by clinical outcomes and "real world evidence" data — information pulled from patient studies and treatment results. That same year, IDC expects virtual healthcare and computer-assisted surgery to be the norm. Surgeons will use computer-assisted or robotic surgery techniques to assist in planning, simulating, and performing 50% of the most complex surgeries. Conversely, patients will be communicating with physicians via messaging, email and video chat sessions far more often, which will reduce costs and increase convenience.
2 out of 3 won't!
Since health insurance can no longer be denied based on pre-existing conditions, why should I care if my health records are compromised? What do I have to lose?
We were fortold to grow vital organs in the 90's. We would have a cure for death itself and become immortal by 2000. We were forcasted to all work in robotic lifting suites and fly in jetpacks and have self-flying cars decades ago.
There's no doubt the cybersecurity breaches will become more and more common. To say you have an exact figure though is ridiculous. Maybe more, maybe less, but there's no way we can possibly predict what'll happen 20, 30 years down the road. people far overestimate the changes in 20 years and far underestimate the changes in 2.
And lastly, I'd like to finish with this little bit...
Elderly patients and patients convalescing with mobility issues, in particular, will find an advantage in using virtual doctor visits so that they won't be forced to commute to and from healthcare facilities.
We were supposed to have this universally in the 70's, I don't know why people still beat this dead horse. Many places already have it, and it's not some lofty goal that's difficult to implement. It's a guy in a laboratory coat on Skype (or more realistically, some proprietary health application, but you get the idea).
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Maybe fines and regulations will ensure patients aren't victimized by sloppy security anymore then.
Outsourcing important stuff with sensitive information obviously leads to fuckups, but some people cannot see the obvious until it knees them in the balls and spits in their eye. The "bad things only happen to other people" view is prevalent among those managers who spent their education time on "networking" - (as in getting drunk with students with rich parents)
FYI, if it is really a difficult surgery, go to an expert. (e.g. Pancreatic surgery). Even if you have to pay out of pocket. The guy who wants your case so he can write it up is not necessarily as good as the guy who does lots of hard surgeries and doesn't publish as much.
Also, read the research papers yourself if you are smart enough. Your doctor may know the field but hasn't always read everything you'll find, and that way you'll be working with good enough information that you can make an informed choice between different viable treatments with more information than you would get from the doctor. You'll also understand enough that you can bring his attention to a question he doesn't notice if, for example, a lab writes up a report badly and without highlighting the issue.
"...Conversely, patients will be communicating with physicians via messaging, email and video chat sessions far more often, which will reduce costs and increase convenience."
So, the doctors office that requires an initial visit, a follow-up visit, a follow-up to the follow-up visit, and every report and test result also requiring a visit, care to tell me how you're suddenly going to convince a corrupt system hell-bent on extracting a co-pay each and every time they do work for you with a forced visitation policy to step away from that easy revenue stream? (Ironically, using even more electronic communications will likely force us to modify the title of this article to 1-in-2.)
Convenience or profits. You tell me which one you already know they'll choose based on history. You think the meth addict is hooked bad? Greed is far more addictive and widespread in THE capitalist industry. Looking at how things work today, I wouldn't be surprised in the "grand" future of things that physicians won't want to charge per email. They're probably already lobbying for standardized insurance codes for it.
There's only one true way you're going to reduce your medical costs. It's called eating right, exercising, and avoiding the medical industry altogether until absolutely necessary, because nothing about it is ever cheap, nor will it be.
1 in 3 is not bad. But we can do better, i know it! Ideally, a free market seems like the best solution to the problem of uncompromised and/or unavailable for sale patient records. So the problem should correct itself after a few years and/or a few good 0day exploits.
We all know its gonna be 1 in 1 eventually. Yay.
Well clearly more of the records need to be held encrypted with the key kept securely by the health provider. ... as with every other private record. If we can't keep our private stuff private then the terrorists have won.
What if my kid was on a Playstation, and some predator could read her private messages because they weren't encrypted!?
Companies should offer users end-to-end encryption. It's not a technical issue, it's a business model question... they get money by selling users private data to creepy organizations with no accountability!
Medical records are sheer gold for identity fraud http://www.wsj.com/articles/ho...
Stolen medical records can be used for medical insurance fraud and taking out loans in your name. If you don't pay up, they send debt collectors after you. They are paid by commission so don't care if they debt is legit. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem... http://www.philly.com/philly/b... http://www.startribune.com/cri... http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news...
What to do if they send a debt collector after you http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa...
Shit IT security by health providers is a big problem http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/1... http://www.wsj.com/articles/an... http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/17...
So is doctors collecting information about you they don't need like your SSN which staff can sell to identity thieves http://www.forbes.com/sites/la...
Ok - a couple of things. First, this cognitive computing will presumably need pretty accurate data. Anyione with any expoerience of health record data will attest that clinicians are not always locquatious and even simpe stuff, possibly important contextual data, is simply ignored.
Second - it bugs me that scare stories about data security being breached could stop very valuable research that makes use of these data. If we are going to get cognitive computing in the future then analysts need access to these data. Telling people that this will mean data breaches, insurance being refused, could dissuade people from giving their consent.
IDC claim they undertake research to aid decision making - how have they researched the future and come up with this rather jaded view? They seem to have completely ignored what we would need to realise the potentials of research using health data.
If you have nothing wrong with you...
you have nothing to hide!
to *provide* the care... but a 200% increase to *receive it*... why not. most people have insurance now.. so jack the rates up.. let the insurance companies deal with the blowback from increased premiums instead.
must have single payer system with uniform set rates for services... based on the scope of the facility and region its located in (e.g. a top tier hospital in nyc should get a few more bucks for services than a community hospital in bismark nd).
So, the doctors office that requires an initial visit, a follow-up visit, a follow-up to the follow-up visit, and every report and test result also requiring a visit, care to tell me how you're suddenly going to convince a corrupt system hell-bent on extracting a co-pay each and every time they do work for you with a forced visitation policy to step away from that easy revenue stream?
Where did you get the idea that they're not going to charge just as much for a video consultation?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So, the doctors office that requires an initial visit, a follow-up visit, a follow-up to the follow-up visit, and every report and test result also requiring a visit, care to tell me how you're suddenly going to convince a corrupt system hell-bent on extracting a co-pay each and every time they do work for you with a forced visitation policy to step away from that easy revenue stream?
Where did you get the idea that they're not going to charge just as much for a video consultation?
I don't doubt they will, but that will be rather limited. I doubt that medical diagnosis or other critical analysis will go on over phone or video chat without a misdiagnosis happening at some point causing a death and blaming the lack of physical presence for the oversight, establishing the precedent that you must go see your doctor in person to avoid that liability, which brings us right back to square one.
And in today's litigious society, that scenario isn't far-fetched at all.
By using the hyphen, you are gluing together the words to make a new, atomic, monolithic entity. So, "1-in-3" means something like "cancer", for example.
You use that to disambiguate situations where you need to resolve a series of adjectives for example.
1 in 3 patients means something totally different that 1-in-3 patients.
I am so glad we have a national law requiring everything be digitized despite a lack of interest in doing so by the majority of providers. What a great idea that was.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
MORE for the video consultation
There FTFY.
Government programs are moving more to outcome based pay, so this should lower costs.
In the past it was straight volume, do this procedure, get paid this. (which often doesn't cover the cost of the procedure itself, let alone the doctor's pay) and hospitals that accept the subsidy programs have to bill others more to cover costs from that.
Now with things going outcome based you don't get paid much if the patient comes back in a month or two later with the same thing. you treat again but you don't get paid the second time. This puts big pressure to get it right first time.
This is from a Catholic healthcare company in Wisconsin, Illinois and Iowa
http://www.wfhealthcare.org/wf...
Unreimbursed Cost of Government-Sponsored Programs $115,878,726
Shortfall experienced when payments received are below the cost of treating public beneficiaries through Medicaid and Medicaid HMO.
Charity Care $34,472,456
Free or discounted health services provided to those who cannot afford to pay and who meet all criteria for financial assistance. Charity care is based on actual costs, not charges, and does not include bad debt.
Subsidized Health Services $10,016,482
The negative margin for clinical services that are provided despite a financial loss because of an identified community need that would need to be met by the government or another not-for-profit if it was not offered. The financial losses are so significant that negative margins remain after removing the effects of charity care, bad debt, and Medicaid shortfalls.
Just mail me a copy too.
Ya know, I liked my insurance...back when it was one quarter of what it is now. Rat bastards.
That's why you should only see your doctor when you must, and should only provide real information in order to assure correct payment and diagnosis and treatment. Let the rest be made up. And don't use insurance. Just save up the money and pay for it out of pocket, odds are it will be less money.
I hope I'm 1 in 3 and have access to my records. It would be awesome to be able to transfer them to another hospital.
This is IDC we're talking about...
Attempt Two:
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
Do not have health care records available online
The records that will not be compromised belong to doctors who refuse to waste time with overpriced and underperforming EHR solutions. These doctors keep records in manila folders, locked in file cabinets, locked in basements, of locked buildings.
Fire on the other hand...