Google to use patient data to develop healthcare algorithms for hospital chain
-
Member 14840496 wrote:
Life insurance companies would love to have medical histories.
They usually ask for that anyway.
Member 14840496 wrote:
I get the feeling that some people in here have Google stock.
Everybody should. It performs very well.
Yep. Thank you for confirming my suspicions.
-
I hope they realize that they are then responsible for following HIPAA regulations as to all patient data, and can be severely fined (see below) for each record if any of that data is released. Greed knows no bounds. 'HIPAA violations are expensive. The penalties for noncompliance are based on the level of negligence and can range from $100 to $50,000 per violation (or per record), with a maximum penalty of $1.5 million per year for violations of an identical provision.'
I hate to break this to those of you living in the US, but here are exerpts from an email that I received recently. Whatever Google does, the horse left the barn long ago:
Quote:
[S]tarting in 2003, changes made to HIPAA eliminated your right to control the disclosure of your own medical records. The phrase “patient permission” was changed to “regulatory permission.” This one rule change means your medical records can now be disclosed to any "covered entity," including data clearinghouses, accounting firms, law firms, and banks without your permission. In certain circumstances, your employer can obtain “regulatory permission” to view your medical records. Your medical records can even be released to marketing companies if what they’re selling is related to your condition or how it’s treated; the management or coordination of your care; or involves alternative treatments, therapies, health care providers, or other care settings. What's more, a federal rule that went into effect in 2006 allows lenders to obtain or use medical information for determining if you qualify for credit. They can’t do it directly, but if they gain access to your medical records, they can legally share it with their "affiliates." This magically converts the data into credit information, not medical data. Indeed, your “protected health information” can be disclosed without your authorization in 12 different scenarios. Consider this diagram from thedatamaporg[^] showing where the data of “You, the Patient” is shared. Thus, when you visit a physician or health care facility in the United States, never assume that what you disclose to them will remain private. And the “HIPAA Notice” almost every medical facility requires you to sign as a condition of treatment virtually guarantees your medical records will be used, disclosed, and disseminated without your consent. You can, of course, request that your physician or other health care provider restrict disclosure of your personal medical data. But they are under no legal obligation to comply. Nor do they have to state a reason for denying your request, or for that matter, respond to it at all. And even if they agree to a restriction, in some cases, they might be prohibited from honoring it.
-
I hate to break this to those of you living in the US, but here are exerpts from an email that I received recently. Whatever Google does, the horse left the barn long ago:
Quote:
[S]tarting in 2003, changes made to HIPAA eliminated your right to control the disclosure of your own medical records. The phrase “patient permission” was changed to “regulatory permission.” This one rule change means your medical records can now be disclosed to any "covered entity," including data clearinghouses, accounting firms, law firms, and banks without your permission. In certain circumstances, your employer can obtain “regulatory permission” to view your medical records. Your medical records can even be released to marketing companies if what they’re selling is related to your condition or how it’s treated; the management or coordination of your care; or involves alternative treatments, therapies, health care providers, or other care settings. What's more, a federal rule that went into effect in 2006 allows lenders to obtain or use medical information for determining if you qualify for credit. They can’t do it directly, but if they gain access to your medical records, they can legally share it with their "affiliates." This magically converts the data into credit information, not medical data. Indeed, your “protected health information” can be disclosed without your authorization in 12 different scenarios. Consider this diagram from thedatamaporg[^] showing where the data of “You, the Patient” is shared. Thus, when you visit a physician or health care facility in the United States, never assume that what you disclose to them will remain private. And the “HIPAA Notice” almost every medical facility requires you to sign as a condition of treatment virtually guarantees your medical records will be used, disclosed, and disseminated without your consent. You can, of course, request that your physician or other health care provider restrict disclosure of your personal medical data. But they are under no legal obligation to comply. Nor do they have to state a reason for denying your request, or for that matter, respond to it at all. And even if they agree to a restriction, in some cases, they might be prohibited from honoring it.
Really. Your dates are interesting. Because when I went to work for a large health care service company in 2009 until 2018, I had to take a HIPAA exam every year; and none that verbiage was ever in those exams. So I will assume that your dated information (2003-2006) was changed somewhere along the line. If anything, they kept tightening the regulations. So I guess by your info, the company was just wasting money creating and forcing these exams on employees based on the current HIPAA regulations during that period just for fun. You have any new info as of 2021 by any chance? Because I would like to see what they are now.
-
Yep. Thank you for confirming my suspicions.
What suspicions? Because I'm pretty sure you're wrong.
-
What suspicions? Because I'm pretty sure you're wrong.
Sure, whatever you say.
-
I hate to break this to those of you living in the US, but here are exerpts from an email that I received recently. Whatever Google does, the horse left the barn long ago:
Quote:
[S]tarting in 2003, changes made to HIPAA eliminated your right to control the disclosure of your own medical records. The phrase “patient permission” was changed to “regulatory permission.” This one rule change means your medical records can now be disclosed to any "covered entity," including data clearinghouses, accounting firms, law firms, and banks without your permission. In certain circumstances, your employer can obtain “regulatory permission” to view your medical records. Your medical records can even be released to marketing companies if what they’re selling is related to your condition or how it’s treated; the management or coordination of your care; or involves alternative treatments, therapies, health care providers, or other care settings. What's more, a federal rule that went into effect in 2006 allows lenders to obtain or use medical information for determining if you qualify for credit. They can’t do it directly, but if they gain access to your medical records, they can legally share it with their "affiliates." This magically converts the data into credit information, not medical data. Indeed, your “protected health information” can be disclosed without your authorization in 12 different scenarios. Consider this diagram from thedatamaporg[^] showing where the data of “You, the Patient” is shared. Thus, when you visit a physician or health care facility in the United States, never assume that what you disclose to them will remain private. And the “HIPAA Notice” almost every medical facility requires you to sign as a condition of treatment virtually guarantees your medical records will be used, disclosed, and disseminated without your consent. You can, of course, request that your physician or other health care provider restrict disclosure of your personal medical data. But they are under no legal obligation to comply. Nor do they have to state a reason for denying your request, or for that matter, respond to it at all. And even if they agree to a restriction, in some cases, they might be prohibited from honoring it.
Wow. Thank you for posting that. I had no idea.
Latest Articles:
Client-Side Type-Based Publisher/Subscriber, Exploring Synchronous, "Event-ed", and Worker Thread Subscriptions -
Sure, whatever you say.
Sorry, I thought you were being serious. Good day then.
-
Really. Your dates are interesting. Because when I went to work for a large health care service company in 2009 until 2018, I had to take a HIPAA exam every year; and none that verbiage was ever in those exams. So I will assume that your dated information (2003-2006) was changed somewhere along the line. If anything, they kept tightening the regulations. So I guess by your info, the company was just wasting money creating and forcing these exams on employees based on the current HIPAA regulations during that period just for fun. You have any new info as of 2021 by any chance? Because I would like to see what they are now.
They're neither my dates nor my info. It was taken verbatim from a recent email from someone who deals with privacy and related issues as a business. None of it would surprise me, but I don't currently live in the US. The unauthorized disclosure of information would have applied to your job, but there's also the question of what's authorized. Do your own due diligence.
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing. -
They're neither my dates nor my info. It was taken verbatim from a recent email from someone who deals with privacy and related issues as a business. None of it would surprise me, but I don't currently live in the US. The unauthorized disclosure of information would have applied to your job, but there's also the question of what's authorized. Do your own due diligence.
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.Let's see if I have this right. You used data from a RECENT email that contains information relating to 2003 and 2006 to make a statement as to the CURRENT HIPAA regulations to make your point. Remarkable. My due diligence has nothing to do with the the current HIPAA regulations. It is dictated to those who work with the data.
-
I hope they realize that they are then responsible for following HIPAA regulations as to all patient data, and can be severely fined (see below) for each record if any of that data is released. Greed knows no bounds. 'HIPAA violations are expensive. The penalties for noncompliance are based on the level of negligence and can range from $100 to $50,000 per violation (or per record), with a maximum penalty of $1.5 million per year for violations of an identical provision.'
-
You remove the Names, specific addresses, etc. Then it's just statistics.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it. ― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
Correct. One would HOPE they do that. But someone, some group, or process has to remove or transpose the critical HIPAA data. It should be automated and randomized.
-
I hope they realize that they are then responsible for following HIPAA regulations as to all patient data, and can be severely fined (see below) for each record if any of that data is released. Greed knows no bounds. 'HIPAA violations are expensive. The penalties for noncompliance are based on the level of negligence and can range from $100 to $50,000 per violation (or per record), with a maximum penalty of $1.5 million per year for violations of an identical provision.'
Should you be accused of greed for trying to get a better job with more pay? A business has people to pay.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
dandy72 wrote:
fallacy
Why is it a fallacy? What do we have to worry about? If the threat is real then you should be able to quantify it.
SeanChupas wrote:
What do we have to worry about?
Egads. Yeah, Google's the greatest company that has ever existed. Gotcha.
SeanChupas wrote:
If the threat is real then you should be able to quantify it.
Do your own research. This whole "nothing to hide/no worries" thing has been debated ad nauseam.
-
No, they are a data company. They make data useful. Yes, they also run ads. No, google is a corrupt company. Stop assuming things.
They'd make no money if they didn't do anything with that data. It's their selling of that data, to advertisers, that keeps Google in business. They're an advertising company, no matter what Kool-Aid you're apparently drinking. Here's an interesting (and relatively recent) article that a quick, ahem, google search came up with: https://blog.smei.org/google-search-engine-advertising-company/ SMEI calls itself a "worldwide professional association for sales & marketing". You'd think they'd choose their words in such an article rather carefully.
-
Google to use patient data to develop healthcare algorithms for hospital chain - The Verge[^] anonymous patient data.
-
Should you be accused of greed for trying to get a better job with more pay? A business has people to pay.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
Better job, no. More pay, maybe. Where does it stop? That's why we have monopoly laws. See below. It's called greed. Google slammed for ‘monopoly power’ in new antitrust lawsuit from 35 states [^]
-
They'd make no money if they didn't do anything with that data. It's their selling of that data, to advertisers, that keeps Google in business. They're an advertising company, no matter what Kool-Aid you're apparently drinking. Here's an interesting (and relatively recent) article that a quick, ahem, google search came up with: https://blog.smei.org/google-search-engine-advertising-company/ SMEI calls itself a "worldwide professional association for sales & marketing". You'd think they'd choose their words in such an article rather carefully.
dandy72 wrote:
Kool-Aid you're apparently drinking.
:laugh: Right to the insults. :zzz:
-
SeanChupas wrote:
What do we have to worry about?
Egads. Yeah, Google's the greatest company that has ever existed. Gotcha.
SeanChupas wrote:
If the threat is real then you should be able to quantify it.
Do your own research. This whole "nothing to hide/no worries" thing has been debated ad nauseam.
dandy72 wrote:
This whole "nothing to hide/no worries" thing has been debated ad nauseam.
If that were true, then you should be able to list the dangers very quickly and succinctly. Well?
-
dandy72 wrote:
Kool-Aid you're apparently drinking.
:laugh: Right to the insults. :zzz:
-
dandy72 wrote:
This whole "nothing to hide/no worries" thing has been debated ad nauseam.
If that were true, then you should be able to list the dangers very quickly and succinctly. Well?
SeanChupas wrote:
If that were true,
You're suggesting it's not? You're the epitome of laziness are you? LMGTFY was created for you. [Let Me Google That For You](https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=nothing+to+hide+nothing+to+worry+about) Searching for that, you get page after page of relevant results. Christ, the very first entry is a Wikipedia page on the topic. Well?
