Public Comments

AHIC successor | health care privacy — The World Privacy Forum offered public comments on HHS’ American Health Information Community (AHIC) successor plans, urging that HHS adopt a “no stakeholders left behind” policy as it forms the new public/private AHIC. The Forum’s analysis of the AHIC Successor White Paper concluded that the current succession plans lack processes and checks that would ensure meaningful consumer participation, and that the AHIC successor plans as they currently stand do not bode well for a robust role for privacy or consumer groups in the new AHIC. Specific issues the World Privacy Forum discussed in its comments included fee structures, membership, handling conflicts of interest, stakeholder issues, privacy and identifiability issues, and the need for the new AHIC to achieve credibility.

The World Privacy Forum offered public comments on HHS’ American Health Information Community (AHIC) successor plans, urging that HHS adopt a “no stakeholders left behind” policy as it forms the new public/private AHIC. The Forum’s analysis of the AHIC Successor White Paper concluded that the current succession plans lack processes and checks that would ensure meaningful consumer participation, and that the AHIC successor plans as they currently stand do not bode well for a robust role for privacy or consumer groups in the new AHIC. Specific issues the World Privacy Forum discussed in its comments included fee structures, membership, handling conflicts of interest, stakeholder issues, privacy and identifiability issues, and the need for the new AHIC to achieve credibility.

In June, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) published a request for information about its plan to create a “public/private” national database of healthcare information tentatively called the “National Health Data Stewardship entity.” WPF and EFF raised questions about ownership and management of the proposed database (Would this database fall under HIPAA? Would it fall under the Privacy Act of 1974?), questions about identifiability of patients in the database, and suggested that a full-time, independent privacy officer should be established for the program from the inception of the planning stages. The comments also discussed the numerous questions relating to data security (including medical identity theft) and data quality, as well as consent, access, and opt-out procedures for patients that the proposed national database raises. Read the joint comments (PDF)

We particularly note the Committee’s observation that the non-covered entities “may even sell personal health information without authorization for the purpose of marketing or other purposes that consumers may find objectionable.” The World Privacy Forum agrees with the Committee, and believes that the use of identifiable patient health care information for marketing is a disturbing possibility. New institutions are being developed and implemented to exploit gaps in HIPAA that allow use of patient data for marketing purposes. Action to close those gaps is needed urgently. The Committee’s letter is a small step in that direction.

Our principal concern with iPledge is that the FDA has failed to set privacy standards for the iPledge program [2] or for similar programs that mandate patient tracking. As a result, the iPledge registry has privacy shortcomings that may potentially impact the individuals who take Accutane or Isotretinoin generics.