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!
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."
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.
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?
Sure, no one is going to be denied insurance, but that doesn't mean certain entities (i.e. any potential future employer) won't want to discriminate if they are aware of your history and how much of a financial burden you might be in the future (insurance costs, lost time at work due to illness, etc.)
Often times, knowing someone's medical past helps paint the future. You can and will be discriminated for it, especially if you've been lucky enough to survive a life-threatening illness or disease (e.g. cancer.)
If you have nothing wrong with you...
you have nothing to hide!
And prospective employers might decide you're too sick to invest in. Or people might find out you have an STD
I am not sick, and I have never had an STD. I am actually very healthy. So if unhealthy people are harmed by disclosure, then logically, I should benefit if mine are disclosed. I should get better job offers, and women will want to date me. So how do I ensure that my medical records are among the 1/3 that are compromised?
I just ensured that your medical records have been compromised. Btw, as of now, you have been pregnant twice ending with abortions, have had the clap and are still being treated for syphilis. Looks like you tested positive for cocaine and heroin recently too but have yet to receive any treatment.
Oh, and yes, i understand how being pregnant could present something of a mystery so it is clear that you are a male "now". Nothing for you to worry about though. I bet you could create a fabulous backstory that all your friends would love but unfortunately prospective job opportunities would never hear because they would either care or not care long before giving you a chance to explain it away.
a top tier hospital in nyc should get a few more bucks for services than a community hospital in bismark nd
Why? The Top-tier hospital has higher volumes and can afford better equipment, not to mention larger donation possibilities. Because of patient volume, they can purchase supplies in larger volumes, leading to cost savings and can deliver the same tests far cheaper than the smaller hospital in Bismark, or even more importantly, rural/critical access hospitals that can't afford the equipment for the high-value or elective procedures.
You have it backward: the smaller independent locations should be getting higher reimbursement rates than the huge metropolitan health systems.
even thou medicare pays more then private insurance.
I have never heard anyone say medicare pays more than private insurance, not even proponents of medicare. They may claim Medicare is more efficient, but from everything I have read or heard what you said above is simply false. Medicare seems to pay about 80% of what private insurance pays.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke