Showing posts with label HIT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HIT. Show all posts

Thursday, December 31, 2009

The got it wrong... AGAIN!

See article: 'Meaningful Use' criteria released

Can you believe it? Doctors and hospitals that purchase electronic health records (EHRs) 'wired' for 'back-door' data mining will be paid to steal and use our sensitive health records without our permission!

The government and the massive health data mining industry won. Industry and the government’s plan to continue illegal and unethical data mining trumped Americans’ rights to health privacy.

The rules guarantee that employers, insurers, banks, and government will be able to use our sensitive health information---from prescriptions to DNA--- to discriminate against us in jobs, credit, and insurance.

Instead, the new interim rules for EHRs should reward the purchase and use of 'smart' EHRs with consent technologies so patients control who can see and use their health records.

The stimulus billions will be wasted because doctors and hospitals will be rewarded for using obsolete, unethical EHR 'clunkers'. Like the UK, the US will be forced to spend billions to correct a disastrously flawed national electronic health system that prevents patients from controlling their health records.

To understand the "meaningful use" criteria that SHOULD be required in EHRs, see the comments submitted to the Administration by the bipartisan Coalition for Patient Privacy, representing millions of Americans: http://www.patientprivacyrights.org/site/DocServer/LCoalition_to_HIT_PC_Meaningful_Use.pdf?docID=5681

When will the Administration and corporations get it? Privacy protections have to be tough and comprehensive if we want a national HIT system that consumers will trust and use.

To act, join www.patientprivacyrights.org to get e-alerts. Stop corporations and the government from using your sensitive health information for uses you would never agree to.

Monday, October 19, 2009

The Word Is Out: Do You Know Who Owns Your Health Records?

This WIRED article, Medical Records: Stored in the Cloud, Sold on the Open Market, is based on yesterday’s NYTimes story that closed by quoting Patient Privacy Rights.

It points out the 2 KEY ways that electronic health systems violate patient privacy:
• Health technology vendors sell patient records without consent
• It is impossible to de-identify health information, so promises that the data can’t be re-identified must to be verified by outside audits

The chart at the top of the story is from our website—it shows the millions: businesses and government agencies---that today can do whatever they want with our health records, including selling them for profit.

The ‘fix’ is that Congress must restore patients’ rights to control personal health information------this right has been the foundation of the healthcare system for 2,400 years.

No one else should own our health records and no one should have access to them without our consent.

Friday, July 24, 2009

Bill O'Reilly is REALLY worried about the loss of his personal medical privacy...

So much so that he repeatedly returned to the topic while debating health care reform last night.

See Editorial with Video

68% of Americans share his fears and "Have Little Confidence that Electronic Health Records Will Remain Confidential" (see: Past Meetings: 7/21/09, slide #3 of the "Privacy and Security Work Group: Recommendations" presentation on the HIT Standards Committee website at: http://healthit.hhs.gov/portal/server.ptopen=512&objID=1271&parentname=CommunityPage&parentid=2&mode=2&in_hi_userid=10741&cached=true

O'Reilly debated with a doctor who doesn't seem to know that we have no control over our personal electronic health records, the massive damage that already causes, and how much more we will all be harmed if the Administration does not stop health IT systems from violating our privacy. Patient control over personal health information must be built into every electronic system up front.

Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and the majority of Amercians REALLY care about health privacy. The national concensus is that we should control who sees our health records; which has been our legal and ethical right since the nation's founding. Restoring the right to control PHI in electronic health systems will quell fears that the majority has have about electronic systems.

Quotes from the story:

• O’Reilly demonstrated his primary fear – almost panic – over the assumption that his medical records may not be private any more if President Obama passes some version of his healthcare bill. But enough with the foreplay -- O’Reilly dived right into his main fear. “My health records which are now in the hands of my private physician . . . they’re gonna be in Washington, right, so every malady that I have is gonna be seen by people in Washington. I don’t want that, do you want that?”

• After a little back and forth on the issue, O’Reilly repeated, “On a computer disk in D.C. will be what’s wrong with me . . . based on my medical history. It makes me very, very nervous.” Yes, we noticed.

• O’Reilly, again, focused worriedly on the privacy issue. “Let me ask you this,” O’Reilly posited. “It worries me that my medical history and your medical history is now gonna be on a disk in Washington, D.C., rather than the confidentiality of a doctor-patient, which we have had in this country for decades – that’s gone.”

• “The data is going to go to a bank in Washington, D.C.,” O’Reilly fretted. “ . . . I’m talking about you, Dr. Marc Lemont Hill, having a condition . . . with his program, it goes to D.C. and the bureaucracy decides how to treat you, not your physician. Doesn’t that worry you?”

• “So you don’t mind having your condition – whatever it may be – leave your doctor’s office and go to D.C. . . ,” O’Reilly said.

• O’Reilly hammered the privacy issue, once again, saying, “It’s going to a database that can be accessed . . . okay, if you don’t mind it, I do, and that’s a big concern of mine. We don’t have any privacy as it is in this country . . . .”

• Hill pointed out the bigger issue than the privacy of medical records (to most Americans, but not to O’Reilly) is 50 million uninsured Americans – and said that President Obama addressed that in the press conference.

• But the biggest question of all – what’s O’Reilly’s medical condition? The one O’Reilly is terrified might fall into the hands of the government? Is it really so awful that O'Reilly (not usually one to worry about privacy) is willing to kill health care reform just to protect it?

Monday, July 6, 2009

UK Handing off their health records?

Federal Computer Week: U.K. mulls handing off national health records to Microsoft, Google

It will be interesting to see which one the UK chooses. Microsoft joined the bipartisan Coalition for Patient Privacy to urge Congress to restore consumer control over PHI in 2007. Google has not.

MS signed Coalition letters in 2007 and 2009, and agreed to support the Coalition's tough privacy principles and health privacy rights in electronic systems. HealthVault was built to adhere to the Coalition's stringent privacy principles. Open, public promises by major corporations are taken very seriously by federal regulatory agencies and consumer advocates.

The promises by the technology corporations that joined the Coalition are a rebuke to other HIT vendors and the data mining industry that will do anything to get their hands on PHI for all sorts of uses that patients would never agree to.

Today, the clearest sign of serious corporate commitment to health privacy rights is joining the Coalition for Patient Privacy and standing with consumers to build an ethical, legal HIT system---the only kind that will be trusted and succeed.

Monday, June 22, 2009

But privacy is ALREADY gone!

Refer to Wall Street Journal article: Is Government Health Care Constitutional?

The authors fear that Americans' health privacy rights will be eliminated by health reform if a proposed "public plan" evolves into "single payer".

They are too late, there is no privacy (the right to control personal information) in the US electronic health system ---EXCEPT for the strong new rights Congress added to the stimulus bill: the ban on sales of PHI, the right to segment sensitive records, and the right to limit disclosure of PHI to health plans for payment or HCO if treatment is paid for out-of-pocket.

Our strong existing ethical and legal privacy rights (a powerful national consensus arrived at over 200+ years) are being totally ignored by federal and state government and industry.

The authors clearly don't know that we have no health privacy today or that privacy advocates in the bipartisan Coalition for Patient Privacy (representing 10 million Americans) work to restore those rights.

In 2002, amendments to the HIPAA regulations granted new rights to corporations and government to use ALL health data without informed consent for purposes no one would ever agree to AND eliminated Americans' rights to give consent before our data is used. See: http://www.patientprivacyrights.org/site/PageServer?pagename=HIPAA_Intent_Vs_Reality . In 1999, the HIPAA statute granted law enforcement unfettered access to all electronic health records without informed consent or any judicial process.

Both Democratic and Republican Administrations and Congress have contributed to eliminating patients' rights to control personal health information. The ONC-Coordinated Federal Health IT Strategic Plan: 2008-2012, requires all EHRs to be "wired" for data mining and requires every citizen to have an EHR by 2014.
See: http://www.patientprivacyrights.org/site/DocServer/HITStrategicPlan08.pdf?docID=5161

The Federal Strategic Plan grants "back door" access to the nation's electronic records to government agencies; to the for-profit research industry for P4P, QI, population health, genetic research (personalized medicine), etc; and to the insurance industry to detect fraud (this is one of the most offensive and discriminatory measures planned--the last people patients want to have MORE access to sensitive health records are insurers and employers).

Key Quotes:

• The Supreme Court created the right to privacy in the 1960s

• the justices posited a constitutionally mandated zone of personal privacy that must remain free of government regulation, except in the most exceptional circumstances.

• Taking key decisions away from patient and physician, or otherwise limiting their available choices, will render any new system constitutionally vulnerable.

• if over time, as many critics fear, a "public option" health insurance plan turns into what amounts to a single-payer system, the constitutional issues regarding treatment and reimbursement decisions will be manifold. The same will be true of a quasi-private system where the government claims a large role in defining acceptable health-insurance coverage and treatments. There will be all sorts of "undue burdens" on the rights of patients to receive the care they may want. Then the litigation will begin.

• In crafting the law, however, its White House and congressional sponsors must keep privacy -- that near absolute right to personal autonomy they have so often praised and promoted -- squarely before them. The only thing that is certain today is that the courts, and not Congress, will have the last word.

The authors tilt at the wrong windmill --not realizing they are too late: the privacy for health data in electronic systems is already GONE. We hope they will join us and work to RESTORE Americans' longstanding ethical and legal rights to health privacy--regardless of a "public plan" or whether it turns into "single payer".

Sunday, May 17, 2009

HIMSS & Who is Promoting HIT in Stimulus Spending?

This story tells how HIMSS and Harvard's Blackford Middleton promoted spending billions on health IT in the stimulus bill.

HIMSS and Blackford believe that health technology will be the silver bullet that enables healthcare reform and kills/slows higher costs. That may be possible, but is highly doubtful because the billions are such a bonanza for the health IT industry.

Will this be yet another example of the stimulus billions being used to prop up large corporations, but not to save individual patients who are sick?

Not only does most of health IT vendor industry NOT care about whether healthcare reform succeeds or not, they actively fought to weaken Americans' rights to privacy and security. By law, industry cares about maximizing revenue, not treating the sick.

So the BIG question is: will the government require all electronic health records systems to have the tough privacy and security measures the public expects and needs to trust these systems? Will the government require electonic health systems to build in our legal and ethical rights to privacy up front?

Most of the HIT industry lobbied to sell the same old dinosaur products and against privacy. The incumbents are very powerful and not interested in change OR IN OUR PRIVACY RIGHTS.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Financial System vs. Healthcare System

The financial system is often lauded as being good at protecting Americans' sensitive financial and demographic data, but the evidence is not so clear. Heartland had a massive breach of credit card data in its system of sponsored banks. In addition to the $12.6 million in costs, it will also have to pay to "implement end-to-end encryption when payment data is sent from the merchant to the processor".

Will breaches of healthcare data cost any less? That is highly doubtful. The pain and exposure is far worse and there are NO remedies. The privacy of health data can never be recovered or restored. With identity theft you can eventually recover from the damage and restore your credit.

Plus its harder to protect electronic health data because there is SO MUCH MORE sensitive personal data than exists in financial systems. Payment and credit card data are just the start, everything is included in electronic health systems, from prescriptions to DNA.

And compared to the financial industry, the healthcare industry has millions more employees----of insurers, hospitals, pharmacies, data management and data warehousing corporations, HIT vendors, and even state and federal government agencies----who all have access to sensitive data.

See article "Heartland breach cost $12.6 million, CEO says"

Monday, May 11, 2009

First HIT Policy Committee Meeting on Stripping Privacy Away?

No surprise the new HIT Policy committee is gearing up to eliminate privacy, i.e. patient control over personal health information, using the excuse that the entire nation's records are needed for biosurveillance and research without informed consent. See the quotes from Drs Calman and Clark. The title of the article says it all: "Committee studies public health, research".

The committee is dominated by industry appointees who will make sure the policies they come up with grant unfettered government and industry access to Americans' most sensitive personal data, from prescriptions to DNA.

What they don't get is they will lose the public's support and trust if they build a system where everyone's health records can be data mined for any research purpose. A Westin/Harris IOM poll found only 1% of the public would allow researchers unfettered access to their electronic medical records. The government and the research community are completely at odds with the public's rights to health privacy.

The reality is millions of Americans already refuse to participate in healthcare systems that harm them because they have no control over their medical records.

HHS noted in the Preamble to the HIPAA Privacy Rule that 600,000 Americans/year avoid early diagnosis and treatment for cancer because treatment records are not private private. Two million people/year with mental illness avoid diagnosis and treatment for the same reason: their records are not private. The Rand Corporation found that 150,000 Iraqi vets refuse treatment for PTSD because their treatment is not private, resulting in the highest rate of suicide in active duty military personnel in 30 years.

Can this commitee face reality when they have severe conflicts of interest and want the use of Americans' health data?

The lack of privacy drives millions away from healthcare. And the lack of privacy causes suffering and death--bad outcomes.

It looks like patients' and consumers' best hope for preserving their health privacy rights in electronic systems may be Gayle Harrell. She may be the only committee member who can face reality.

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

A Start to Securing PHI?

Sometimes press releases for new products tell us far more about the risk of identity theft in electronic health systems than the mainstream press or trade journals.

Check out this zinger quote: "Most organizations don't even know where their PHI is." Why doesn’t the mainstream press tell the public that the health care organizations (like hospitals) have no idea where all their sensitive personal health data resides?

How about this: "The software (Identity Finder) automatically finds PHI such as social security numbers, medical record numbers, dates of birth, driver licenses, personal addresses, and other private data within files, e-mails, databases, websites, and system areas. Once found, the software makes it simple for users or administrators to permanently shred, scrub, or secure the information." Emails? Who sends drivers license numbers, SS#s, and Dates of Birth in emails? Clearly lots of healthcare organizations do.

We can only hope products like this sell.

See full article at http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-05-2009/0005019328&EDATE

Monday, May 4, 2009

Reducing Cost or Care? Orszag on HIT

Fascinating 'insider' article on the budget process and the Orzag/Obama plan to reduce healthcare costs by building a health IT system 'wired' for data mining:
"At the core of both the stimulus bill and the Obama budget is Orszag’s belief that a government empowered with research on the most effective medical treatments can, using the proper incentives, persuade doctors to become more efficient health-care providers, thus saving billions of dollars. Obama is in effect betting his Presidency on Orszag’s thesis." (See Article)

"Orszag seems more right than wrong about how to bring down health-care costs, but the truth is that, while there is obviously a great deal of waste in the American medical system, nobody knows for certain whether Orszag’s plan—which is now Obama’s plan—will work."

The plan relies on building HIT infrastructure to obtain the data for "comparative effectiveness" research. Republicans question whether this research approach can reign in healthcare spending enough and also fear it will lead to "vast government intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship". And the plan relies on building an HIT system to data mine ALL data without informed consent.

Our problems with the plan:

1) Orzag/Obama want ALL health data without informed consent for research, which is unethical, illegal, and destroys patient trust in doctors.
2) Orzag/Obama do not seem to realize that compelling the use of all health data will INCREASE the number of Americans who avoid treatment altogether (already in the millions). Many Americans know that avoiding care is the only way to keep health data private.
3) Millions avoiding treatment means millions delay care or never get care, increasing bad outcomes, deaths, and costs.
4) But worst of all for proponents of research: they won't get the data needed to learn what works best unless they restore privacy and patient control over data. Researchers cannot get the results all of us want with missing and inaccurate data!
5) To find out what the most effective treatments are for many costly conditions we have to actually have all the data in our systems. Today millions of people with Depression and Addiction have NO data in the system because they pay for private care or attend AA or NA so NO data is ever generated.
6) It will be a tragedy never to find out what treatments are most effective---and a HUGE waste of the billions of stimulus dollars to build an HIT system without privacy.

Key Quotes from the article:

• The deficit spectre has loomed over every major debate. The most contentious issue has been health care.
• Orszag came to the debate with a third option, which combined Summers’s concern about deficits and Daschle’s insistence that Obama tackle health care this year. He argued that health-care reform is deficit reduction.
• At the core of both the stimulus bill and the Obama budget is Orszag’s belief that a government empowered with research on the most effective medical treatments can, using the proper incentives, persuade doctors to become more efficient health-care providers, thus saving billions of dollars. Obama is in effect betting his Presidency on Orszag’s thesis.
• Orszag, despite his image as a number-crunching technocrat, considers himself an activist.
• At Princeton, he wrote his senior thesis on the relationship between the Federal Reserve and Congress. One of his conclusions was that “it is clear that Congress suffers from a lack of understanding of even the most rudimentary economics.” Orszag’s paper won an award for the best thesis that year in international economics or politics.
• At the Congressional Budget Office, Orszag hired specialists in health-care economics and turned the institution into a clearinghouse of information about rising health-care costs. When I asked him whether he was an advocate for policies at a place that was supposed to be nonpartisan, he replied, “I would say I was activist.”
• Kent Conrad, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, has made eradicating the federal budget deficit his life’s work. He told me that he picked Orszag to run the C.B.O. in 2007, and repeatedly asked him to testify before his committee, because they shared a concern about long-term spending trends.
• If there was one aspect of the President’s budget that demonstrated Obama’s European sympathies, Ryan said, it was health care. More specifically, it was Orszag’s approach to curbing health-care costs. “He believes you need to set up this ├╝ber-bureaucracy—the institute of comparative effectiveness—which we’ll put smart people in, and they will design the metrics and the processes on how medicine is to be practiced,” Ryan said. “And then the federal government will impose and enforce those processes. . . . It is precisely what they employ in England. It’s precisely what they employ in Canada.” Rather than celebrate Orszag’s attempt to rein in health-care spending, Ryan seemed horrified by it.
• Obama will spend the rest of this year fighting a war on two fronts. On one are Democrats protecting old-line economic interests: oil, gas, and coal companies; agribusiness; student-loan companies; and pharmaceutical companies and medical providers who fear that Orszag’s ideas for cutting health-care costs will hit them hard. On the other are institutional interests. Obama will be battling committee chairmen who oppose his Pell-grant reforms, and placating senators who resent his willingness to use a feature of the budget process known as “reconciliation,” which limits debate and prevents the use of a filibuster, to pass his health-care plan.
• Orszag’s job is to defend Obama’s budget on all fronts, but he will be most deeply engaged in health care. I asked him how he could be so sure that his ideas about how to reduce health-care costs would work, mentioning that I had been surprised to learn that Paul Ryan and other Republicans had seized on health-care cost controls as the issue they believed would bring down Obama’s health-care plan and, with it, they surely hoped, his Presidency. Specifically, they believed that Orszag’s obsession with “comparative effectiveness,” research about which treatment options work best for a given ailment, will lead to vast government intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship. The research, which received major funding in the stimulus legislation and which was also included in Obama’s budget, had assumed a sinister meaning on the right.
• Orszag dismissed the criticism as a caricature. “I don’t see how it interferes with the doctor-patient relationship to suggest that it would be better if your doctor had more information about what would work for you,” he said. “The best way of putting it is that your doctor shouldn’t have disincentives to give you the higher-quality care, which often happens now.” Far from a huge government bureaucracy, he proposes a simple adjustment of incentives: “You get paid more if the treatment has been shown to be effective and a little less if not.”
• Orszag seems more right than wrong about how to bring down health-care costs, but the truth is that, while there is obviously a great deal of waste in the American medical system, nobody knows for certain whether Orszag’s plan—which is now Obama’s plan—will work.
• As Orszag explained his ideas, I couldn’t help remembering an encounter I had with him one day in the hallway at O.M.B. I told him that I had read his Princeton undergraduate thesis. He looked at me and smiled a little sheepishly. He said that at some point after his arrival at graduate school, in London, he had had a sudden realization: that he had made a mistake, and the crucial formula that he had used in his thesis, the one that had won him the prize, was incorrect. “It was so innovative,” he said, “that it was wrong.”

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Stimulating Health IT

Health Affairs Briefing: Deborah Peel, MD, founder & chair of Patient Privacy Rights, represents consumers in a discussion of Health Information Technology and how to proceed with privacy. Learn more and find how you can attend.

Friday, January 30, 2009

The true problems in HIT

The experts quoted are correct that cost, interoperability, difficulty of use, work-flow disruption, and lack of proof of safety/effectivenss are good reasons not to spend $20 billion in HIT stimulus money on bad products (the equivalent of buying SUVs instead of hybrids and electric cars).

But Kibbe and Klepper should look beyond their own perspectives to consider the wider context and the real make-or-break issue: what must EHR systems have to ensure the public's trust and willingness to use them?

Of course, doctors must be able to afford, easily use, and know that EHR systems actually work and are effective, but systemic failure is inevitable unless patients trust electronic systems. Today's health IT systems and products are not even close to meeting the public's expectations for control over personal data and and ironclad security.

From the consumer perspective, the worst defects in today's EHR systems are:

1) Patients have no control over the use or disclosure of their personal health information in these systems.

2) Doctors, hospitals, labs, pharmacies, PBMs, insurers, data miners, data aggregators, etc, etc, and software vendors control the disclosure, use, and sale of the nation's personal health information.

3) Most of today's EHR technology is extremely primitive (20-30 years old) and does not comply with patients' longstanding legal and ethical privacy rights:
•most EHRs do not have the functional capacity to segment sensitive records
•human-readable audit trails of disclosures are not required, so patients have no way to know who snooped in their records or where their personal health information has been sent or sold
•the security measures are abysmal. CIO magazine story from 2006 reported that all 850 EHR systems examined could easily be hacked: http://searchcio.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid182_gci1273006,00.html

The most important reason not to buy $20 billion dollars worth of dinosaur EHR technology is that consumers will NEVER trust electronic health systems unless they control sensitive personal data and unless the systems have state-of-the-art security to prevent the frequent breaches, losses, and thefts of millions health records.

Until the American public has PROOF electronic systems can be trusted, failure is inevitable. Why not build EHRs and the electronic health system right from the start, rather than spending billions later to rebuild?

Must we repeat the mistakes made in the UK? The NHS system was built without patient control over data. Billions of dollars and many years were wasted before the government realized that forcing patients into an electronic health system that shares data without consent doesn't work.

View the full story referenced

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Response to: Will Technology Cure Health Care — Or Kill It?

Giving your genome to a for-profit corporation for testing today is a very dangerous act for the following reasons:

1) Americans NO longer have the right to health privacy! Today, your rights to health privacy in electronic health systems are nil. You have no control over personal electronic health information. Federal bureaucrats eliminated our rights to control the use and disclosures of personal health information in electronic systems in 2002. The media has not reported on this drastic elimination of every Americans’ privacy rights. See HIPAA's Intent v. Reality.

2) Once you reveal your genome, you will never be able to delete it from the private corporation’s data bases or make it private again. Why on earth would you pay someone to take and use the most personal health data that exists about you and your family for whatever purposes they choose? Think about Paris Hilton’s sex video, once it was out in cyberspace, it can never be private again. It will live for millenia on the Internet.

3) Why pay a private corporation like 23andMe or any other for-profit genetic testing lab to take your extremely valuable and sensitive personal health data and give it to them as a CORPORATE asset—to sell, to disclose to researchers for studies you might not want to be part of, to sell as an asset to employers or insurers or financial institutions, or even to sell to the US Government as part of the data profiles they are building on every American in Fusion Centers.

4) The legal duties of coporations are to stockholders, not to patients or people who buy genetic tests. Genetic testing labs like 23andMe can be bought by Google or the Bank of America or to a business that sells employers genetic snapshots of future employees’ potential illnesses. Even if you trust a genetic lab—-you have no control over whether that corporation is sold to another corporation that you would never want to own your DNA.

5) Today’s health IT systems are notoriously insecure and hackable. An industry study of 850 electronic health records systems found ALL of them could easily be hacked. See Article.

What assurances do you have that the lab’s database is secure enough to prevent your genome or genetic tests from being stolen?

6) It is crtical to understand that giving ownerhsip of a personal asset like your DNA or genome to a corporation is a very bad idea. Not only do you put your future opportunities at risk, you endanger your entire family’s futures at the same time.

As a practicing physician who has spent over 30 years listening to patients whose sensitve medical records were used against them by employers or used to humiliate them or harm them in public, I am very well aware of how personal health information is used to harm people and ruin lives. I founded Patient Privacy Rights because health information should never be used except to help you get well or for research WITH your informed consent. No one should be denied a job or a promotion because of fears about their future health.

Because of the lack of privacy, 600,000 people refuse to seek treatment or early diagnosis for cancer and 2,000,000 refuse treatment for mental illness. 150,000 Iraqi vets refuse treatment for PTSD because they fear their treatment will not be private. The result is the highest rate of suicide among active duty military in 30 years. The lack of health privacy kills.

Current law is just not enough to protect health privacy. GINA is not enough. We need Congress to restore our longstanding Constitutional, legal, and ethical rights to control personal health information. Without that right firmly re-established in Federal law, giving ANYONE your sensitive genomic or health information is a very bad idea.

Check out our website. You can sign up for e-alerts about health privacy in the Digital Age. If we are able to restore control over our personal digital health information, then we have a powerful model for building personal control over ALL our personal electronic data (financial, email, phone records, purchases, etc). If you do not fight for your privacy rights, who will?

If EVERYTHING about you is for sale and can be seen by everyone, will you continue to have your precious liberties and freedoms?

See Original Article