Since 1991, over half the states have enacted laws that restrict or prohibit insurers’ use of genetic information in pricing, issuing, or structuring health insurance. Wisconsin was the first state to do so, in 1991, followed by Ohio in 1993, California and Colorado in 1994, and then several more states a year in each of the next five years. Similar legislation has been pending in Congress for several years. Also, a 1996 federal law known as the Health (...) Insurance Portability and Accountability Act prohibits group health insurers from applying “preexisting condition” exclusions to genetic conditions that are indicated solely by genetic tests and not by any actual symptoms. (shrink)

Since 1991, over half the states have enacted laws that restrict or prohibit insurers’ use of genetic information in pricing, issuing, or structuring health insurance. Wisconsin was the first state to do so, in 1991, followed by Ohio in 1993, California and Colorado in 1994, and then several more states a year in each of the next five years. Similar legislation has been pending in Congress for several years. Also, a 1996 federal law known as the Health (...) Insurance Portability and Accountability Act prohibits group health insurers from applying “preexisting condition” exclusions to genetic conditions that are indicated solely by genetic tests and not by any actual symptoms. (shrink)

The medical profession is steeped in traditions that guide its practice. These traditions were developed to preserve the well-being of patients. Transformations in science, technology, and society, while maintaining a self-governance structure that drives the goal of care provision, have remained hallmarks of the profession. The purpose of this paper is to examine ethical challenges in health care as it relates to Big Data, Accountable Care Organizations, and Health Care Predictive Analytics using the principles of biomedical ethics laid (...) out by Beauchamp and Childress. Among these are the use of Electronic Health Records within stipulations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Clinicians are well-positioned to impact health policy development to address ethical issues associated with the use of Big Data, Accountable Care, and Health Care Predictive Analytics as we work to transform the doctor–patient relationship towards improving population health outcomes and creating a healthier society. (shrink)

Protecting the privacy of individually-identifiable health data is a dominant health policy objective in the new millennium. Technological, economic, and health-related reasons substantiate the development of a national electronic health information infrastructure. Through this emerging infrastructure, billions of pieces of health data of varying sensitivities are exchanged annually to provide health care services and service transactions, conduct health research, and promote the public’s health. These multi-purpose, rapid exchanges of electronic health data, (...) far removed from the typical disclosure of health information through the doctor/patient relationship of yesteryear, contribute to heightened individual concerns about identifiable health data. Responding to American fears and perceptions of actual and potential privacy abuses, policymakers have recently developed new, modern privacy protections through legislative and regulatory laws, as well as ethical and industry codes.Modern health information privacy protections are reflected in federal regulations developed by the federal Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. (shrink)

Protecting the privacy of individually-identifiable health data is a dominant health policy objective in the new millennium. Technological, economic, and health-related reasons substantiate the development of a national electronic health information infrastructure. Through this emerging infrastructure, billions of pieces of health data of varying sensitivities are exchanged annually to provide health care services and service transactions, conduct health research, and promote the public’s health. These multi-purpose, rapid exchanges of electronic health data, (...) far removed from the typical disclosure of health information through the doctor/patient relationship of yesteryear, contribute to heightened individual concerns about identifiable health data. Responding to American fears and perceptions of actual and potential privacy abuses, policymakers have recently developed new, modern privacy protections through legislative and regulatory laws, as well as ethical and industry codes.Modern health information privacy protections are reflected in federal regulations developed by the federal Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. (shrink)

The privacy and security rules of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 emphasize taking steps for protecting protected health information from unauthorized access and modification. Nonetheless, even organizations highly skilled in data security that comply with regulations and all good practices will suffer and must respond to breaches. This paper reports on a case study in responding to an important breach of the confidentiality and integrity of identifiable patient information of the Kaiser (...) Internet Patient Portal known as. From the perspective of theories about highly reliable organizations, effective health information security programs must respond resiliently to as well as prospectively anticipate security breaches. (shrink)

Traditionally, hospital emergency readiness plans primarily addressed natural disasters, but because of preparations for year 2000, the arrival of terrorism in the United States, and the potential for mass casualties, hospitals were prompted to bring together new partners and create new emergency readiness plans. These new plans, however, give rise to a number of important issues hospitals must consider. First, hospitals must consider legal liability that might arise during an emergency. For example, what liability might arise when decision are made (...) regarding the provision of individual treatment versus mass triage? Second, hospitals must be cognizant of relevant privacy rules, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, as they apply to public health emergencies activities. Third, hospitals must be aware of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act which requires Medicarefunded hospitals to screen patients for emergency medical conditions and prohibits their transfer until they are stabilized. (shrink)

Traditionally, hospital emergency readiness plans primarily addressed natural disasters, but because of preparations for year 2000, the arrival of terrorism in the United States, and the potential for mass casualties, hospitals were prompted to bring together new partners and create new emergency readiness plans. These new plans, however, give rise to a number of important issues hospitals must consider. First, hospitals must consider legal liability that might arise during an emergency. For example, what liability might arise when decision are made (...) regarding the provision of individual treatment versus mass triage? Second, hospitals must be cognizant of relevant privacy rules, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, as they apply to public health emergencies activities. Third, hospitals must be aware of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act which requires Medicarefunded hospitals to screen patients for emergency medical conditions and prohibits their transfer until they are stabilized. (shrink)

Even though health care provider reporting of diseases to public health authorities is common, often there is under-reporting by providers, including for notifiable diseases; frequently, under-reporting occurs by wide margins. Two causal factors for this under-reporting by providers have been that: disclosing data may violate their patients’ privacy, and disclosed data may be used to evaluate their performance. A reluctance to disclose information due to privacy concerns exists despite the U.S. Health Insurance Portability and (...) class='Hi'>Accountability Act Privacy Rule permitting disclosures of personal health information for public health purposes without patient authorization. On the other hand, such patient privacy concerns are somewhat justified: there have been documented breaches of patient information from public health data custodians.A common way to address this privacy issue is to de-identify patient data before it is disclosed to public health. (shrink)

The increased use of health information technology is a common element of nearly every health reform proposal because it has the potential to decrease costs, improve health outcomes, coordinate care, and improve public health. However, it raises concerns about security and privacy of medical information. This paper examines some of the “gaps” in privacy protections that arise out of the current federal health privacy standard, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Privacy (...) Rule, which is the main federal law that governs the use and disclosure of health information. Additionally, it puts forth a range of possible solutions, accompanied by arguments for and against each, to strengthen the current legal framework of privacy protections in order to build public trust in health IT and facilitate its use for health reform. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act , enacted in February 2009, includes a number of changes to HIPAA and its regulations, and those changes are clearly noted among the list of solutions. (shrink)

Current economic conditions have coincided with the implementation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and forced public health officials to consider how to ethically incorporate compliance into their already strained budgets, while maintaining the integrity and intent of the legislation.As of April 14, 2003, the HIPAA Privacy Rule provides a new federal floor of protections for personal health information. The Privacy Rule establishes standards for the protection of health information held by (...) many physicians’ offices, health plans, and health care clearinghouses. The Rule protects personal health information by establishing conditions regulating the use and disclosure of individually identifiable health information by these entities, also referred to as covered entities. The Rule does not prevent the daily operations of health care establishments. (shrink)

Developers and vendors of large language models (“LLMs”) — such as ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Microsoft’s Bing at the forefront—can be subject to Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) when they process protected health information (“PHI”) on behalf of the HIPAA covered entities. In doing so, they become business associates or subcontractors of a business associate under HIPAA.

Electronic information is a vital but complex component in the modern health care system, fueling ongoing efforts to develop a universal electronic health record infrastructure. This innovation creates a substantial tension between two desirable values: the increased quality and utility of patient medical records and the protection of the privacy of the information they contain. This article discusses related U.S. legislation, policy, and law—including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. This article (...) offers an inclusive, equilibrium model to conceptualize the spectrum of challenge that this interplay of desirable but oppositional values creates. The model illustrates the relationship between information privacy and information flow, and that between individual and society-level needs, within the resulting impact sectors of individual security, health care priorities, public health effectiveness, and e-health development, while specifying beneficial outcomes for each. (shrink)

Heath services come with the promise of confidentiality.1 The ethical mandate to safeguard the confidentiality of personal health information aligns with legal mandates to do the same. Numerous state and federal laws demand one form of health data confidentiality or another, best illustrated by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.2 In early 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services decided to take a tougher stand against HIPAA violators, utilizing powers created by (...) the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act.3 Ushering in a new era, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services imposed an unprecedented civil penalty of $4.3 million on Cignet Health of .. (shrink)

Privacy is protected in biobank-based research in the US primarily by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule and the Federal Policy for Protection of Human Subjects. Neither rule, however, was created to function in the unique context of biobank research, and therefore neither applies to all biobank-based research. Not only is it challenging to determine when the HIPAA Privacy Rule or the Common Rule apply, but these laws apply different standards to protect privacy. (...) In addition, many other federal and state laws may be applicable to a particular biobank, researcher, or project. US law also does not directly address international sharing of data or specimens outside of the EU–US Safe Harbor Agreement, which only applies to receipt of data by certain US entities from EU countries, and is in the process of revision. Although new rules would help clarify privacy protections in biobanking, any implemented changes should be studied to determine the sufficiency of the protections as well as its ability to facilitate or hinder international collaborations. (shrink)

For nearly twenty-five years, federal regulation of privacy issues in research involving human subjects was the primary province of the federal rule for Protection of Human Subjects. As of April 14, 2003, the compliance date for the Privacy Rule of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, however, the Common Rule and the Privacy Rule jointly regulate research privacy. Although, in theory, the Privacy Rule is intended to complement the Common Rule, there are several areas in (...) which the rules diverge. In some instances the inconsistencies result in gaps in privacy protection; in other instances the inconsistencies result in added burdens on researchers without additional privacy protections. In all instances, the lack of harmonization of these rules has created confusion, frustration, and misunderstanding by researchers, research subjects, and institutional review boards. In this article, I review the major provisions of the Privacy Rule for research, explain the areas in which the Privacy Rule and Common Rule differ, and conclude that the two rules should be revised to promote consistency and maximize privacy protections while minimizing the burdens on research. (shrink)

This guide accompanies the following article(s): ‘Full Disclosure of the “Raw Data” of Research on Humans: Citizens’ Rights, Product Manufacturer’s Obligations and the Quality of the Scientific Database.’Philosophy Compass 6/2 (2011): 90–99. doi: 10.1111/j.1747‐9991.2010.00376.x Author’s Introduction Securing consent (and informed consent) from patients and research study participants is a key concern in patient care and research on humans. Yet, the legal doctrines of consent and informed consent differ in their applications. In patient care, the judicial doctrines of consent and informed (...) consent are disclosure doctrines based on the obligation of physicians to inform their patients of the following types of information: the nature of the procedure the physician is recommending in the patent’s care (P), the alternatives to the physician‐recommendation (A), and the risks of procedure and its alternatives (R). In addition, the physician must provide truthful answers to the patient’s questions (Q) to the best of the physician’s abilities. In research on humans, the onus of disclosure by study sponsors and principal investigators is much greater than in patient care precisely because the purpose of research is not patient care. The purpose of research is the identification and development of new generalizable knowledge. Thus, participation in a research study or trial may not benefit the study volunteer at all. In addition, the participant may carry a heavy risk burden in relationship to any testing of a newly designed drug or device as part of their experiences in the research study. Presently, despite the risks borne by the research study participant, the raw data collected from volunteers in research trials are treated by courts as if they were the private property of the study sponsor rather than generally owed to the public as would be expected by an effort like research participation aimed at contributing to the development of generalizable knowledge. This paper reviews the obligations that study sponsors owe to their study participants based on the very definition of research as a systematic activity whose purpose is to develop generalizable knowledge to help all humans. Author Recommends Court cases Canterbury v. Spence, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit 464 F.2d 772 (1972). (Federal appellate decision heard in the District of Columbia, USA) Reibl v. Hughes, 2 S.C.R. 880 (1980). (Supreme Court of Canada) Rogers v. Whitaker, 175 C.L. R. 479 (1992). (High Court of Australia) Sidaway v. Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and the Maudsley Hospital and Others. 1 A.C. 871 (1985) (House of Lords) Canterbury v. Spence is the landmark Federal informed consent case in the United States heard in the District of Columbia. In this case, Judge Spottswood Robinson articulated the reasonable person standard of informed consent. This standard was subsequently adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada (Reibl v. Hughes, 2 S.C.R. 880 (1980)) and the High Court of Australia (Rogers v. Whitaker, 175 C.L. R. 479 (1992)). The House of Lords rejected the reasonable person standard in England in Sidaway v. Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and the Maudsley Hospital and Others. 1 A.C. 871 (1985). Book Mazur, Dennis J. The Science and Ethics of Research on Humans. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007. This book is a detailed guide for the review of scientific and ethical aspects of research on humans contained in the research study protocols and research informed consent forms which need to be submitted by study sponsors and principal investigators to institutional review boards (IRBs) for IRB review before a research study can receive approval to be conducted within a human study population in those institutions over which the IRB has authority. It also presents basic definitions in the area of research on humans and basic approaches to help conduct a deep review of the underlying scientific and ethical issues that are present within a research study protocol and its accompanying research informed consent form. Report National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, DC: DHEW Publications, 1978 (78‐0012). This U.S. National Commission in the Belmont Report argued for the necessity of a reasonable volunteer standard in research on humans in the United States. Arguing that the professional standard and the reasonable person standard of consent and informed consent were insufficient to base a disclosure standard in research on humans, this National Commission developed the reasonable volunteer standard where a study participant is to be approached in research informed consent with that information that a reasonable volunteer would want to know. Online Materials Belmont Report: Syllabus Topics for Lecture and Discussion Week I: Introduction and Overview Readings: Rogers v. Whitaker, 175 C.L.R. 479 (1992). (High Court of Australia) Sidaway v. Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and the Maudsley Hospital and Others. 1 A.C. 871 (1985) (House of Lords) Week II: The Different Standards of Consent and Informed Consent Readings: Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (1972). (Federal appellate opinion heard in the District of Columbia) Sidaway v. Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and the Maudsley Hospital and Others. 1 A.C. 871 (1985) (House of Lords) Week III: Definition of Research Reading: Mazur, Dennis J. The Science and Ethics of Research on Humans. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007. (Especially Chapters 2 and 3) Week IV: How to Review a Research Study Protocol and Research Informed Consent Form Reading: Mazur, Dennis J. The Science and Ethics of Research on Humans. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007. (Especially Chapters 4–6, 10, and 12–14) Week V: Obligations in Research of Humans Versus Patient Care Reading: National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, DC: DHEW Publications, 1978 (78‐0012). Focus Questions • How do the judicial doctrines of consent in England and Australia compare to the judicial doctrines of informed consent in the United States and Canada? • How does a professional standard of disclosure differ from a reasonable person standard of disclosure? • What is the definition of research? • How is a research study (study proposal and research informed consent form) reviewed from scientific and ethical bases for considerations of approval by an IRB? • How do the obligations of a study sponsor, a principal investigator, and a research team conducting a research trial on human study participants differ from the obligations of a physician caring for a patient? • Should all raw data of research derived from humans be made available to the public for use in developing generalizable knowledge to help others, or should raw data be considered the private property of the study sponsors (for example, prescription drug manufacturers), who fund the research trials? Seminar/project Idea Draw a timeline of the development of the basic concepts of consent and informed consent in patient care and in patient research. On this timeline, first place the dates of the key court cases in England, the United States, Canada, and Australia on consent and informed consent. Then place the date of the development of the Belmont Report. Why do differences exist between these four countries in terms of the legal requirements of informedness of a patient (in medical care) and a study participant (in medical research)? What roles if any do the concepts of self‐determination and self‐decision have in consent and informed consent in patient care and in informed consent in research on humans among the four countries of interest? What are the realities of research on human participants that require a new standard of informed consent, the reasonable volunteer standard, to be developed beyond the two standards in patient care, the professional standard, and the reasonable person standard? Counterpoint Arguments The following are counterpoint arguments that need to be appreciated to more fully understand the concepts that impact the thesis that ‘raw data’ should be open to the public to allow the opportunity of checking of the results of its associated scientific paper and for further analysis. De‐Identified (Anonymized) Raw Data A current approach to identifying (anonymizinig) raw data is based on the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 (P.L.104‐191). HIPAA was enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1996 to keep a person’s medical information private. In a research study, a person’s private medical information can become research data. HIPAA’s Privacy Rule allows a covered entity to de‐identify data by removing all 18 elements that could be used to identify the individual or the individual’s relatives, employers, or household members; these elements are enumerated in the Privacy Rule. The covered entity must also have no actual knowledge that the remaining information could be used alone or in combination with other information to identify the individual who is the subject of the information. Under this method, the identifiers that must be removed are the following: 1 Names. 2 All geographic subdivisions smaller than a state, including street address, city, county, precinct, ZIP Code, and their equivalent geographical codes, except for the initial three digits of a ZIP Code if, according to the current publicly available data from the Bureau of the Census: 2a. The geographic unit formed by combining all ZIP Codes with the same three initial digits contains more than 20,000 people. 2b. The initial three digits of a ZIP Code for all such geographic units containing 20,000 or fewer people are changed to 000. 3 All elements of dates (except year) for dates directly related to an individual, including birth date, admission date, discharge date, and date of death, and all ages over 89 and all elements of dates (including year) indicative of such age, except that such ages and elements may be aggregated into a single category of age 90 or older. 4 Telephone numbers. 5 Facsimile numbers. 6 Electronic mail addresses. 7 Social security numbers. 8 Medical record numbers. 9 Health plan beneficiary numbers. 10 Account numbers. 11 Certificate/license numbers. 12 Vehicle identifiers and serial numbers, including license plate numbers. 13 Device identifiers and serial numbers. 14 Web universal resource locators (URLs). 15 Internet protocol (IP) address numbers. 16 Biometric identifiers, including fingerprints and voiceprints. 17 Full‐face photographic images and any comparable images. 18 Any other unique identifying number, characteristic, or code, unless otherwise permitted by the Privacy Rule for re‐identification. Even though ‘raw data’ can be de‐identified (anonymized) so that there is no way to trace back the data to the study participant from which it was drawn, there are still questions whether the ‘de‐identified raw data’ can be given to other researchers or made public without the original study participant’s approval. It may be the case that this approval could be done at the start of any research study where the individual considering study participation would be counseled on what the process of de‐identification consists of and would be asked whether the participant would allow use of the data by other researchers or made available to the public in a de‐identified state. However, there may be questions of the study participants as to whether the data are truly de‐identified and untraceable back to the study participant since the participant would not be able to see the process actually being carried out in detail in all relevant circumstances. Using Raw Data in Context Simply being in possession of raw data is never enough to build on that data from a research perspective. Researchers need to understand the context of the scientific research study in which the data were collected. This research context includes (but is not limited to): (i) the scientific hypothesis of the research study, (ii) the inclusion and exclusion criteria selected by the research designers of the study to determine which study participants were included and which were excluded from the study, (iii) the methods used to collect the data and possibilities of errors in the data collection processes, and (iv) answers to questions regarding whether any data were excluded from the study data and why these data were excluded. Ownership Rights Over Data There are ownership rights over data. Ownership rights include court decision making related to the question which parties are to be considered as the owners of the data. Possible owners here include (but are not limited to) (i) the study sponsor whose only role was to fund that study, (ii) the principal investigator(s) who developed the scientific hypothesis, and (iii) individual study participants through special contracts made by individual participants who negotiate such contracts with study sponsors and principal investigators to share in the ownership of data. Examples of such data are participant sources of unique gene lines or unique cell lines to be used in future research. Objections to Data Sharing Finally, individual researchers may simply object to sharing data. A researcher’s arguments here may be simply stating that he or she has a right to fully analyze the data since the collection of the data was the researchers’ idea in the first place. These researchers may argue that they have the right to mine the data as fully as they can before deciding to make the data open to the public for others to analyze. Works Cited 1 Kaiser, J. ‘Making Clinical Data Widely Available.’Science 322.5899 (10 Oct. 2008): 217–8. 2 de Lusignan, S., J.F. Metsemakers, P. Houwink, V. Gunnarsdottir, and J. van der Lei. ‘Routinely Collected General Practice Data: Goldmines for Research? A Report of the European Federation for Medical Informatics Primary Care Informatics Working Group (EFMI PCIWG) from MIE2006, Maastricht, The Netherlands.’Informatics in Primary Care 14.3 (2006): 203–9. 3 Sim, I. ‘Human Studies Database Project’, CTSA Data Repositories Symposium (17 Oct. 2008). 23 Nov. 2010. 4 Sim, I., C.G. Chute, H. Lehmann, R. Nagarajan, M. Nahm, and R.H. Scheuermann. ‘Keeping Raw Data in Context.’Science 323.5915 (6 Feb. 2009): 713. 5 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, HIPAA Privacy Rule, Information for Researchers. 13 Nov. 2010. 6 Wilczynski, N.L., R.B. Haynes, and Hedges Team. ‘EMBASE Search Strategies for Identifying Methodologically Sound Diagnostic Studies for Use by Clinicians and Researchers.’BMC Medicine 29.3 (March 2005): 7. (shrink)

This guide accompanies the following article(s): ‘Full Disclosure of the “Raw Data” of Research on Humans: Citizens’ Rights, Product Manufacturer’s Obligations and the Quality of the Scientific Database.’Philosophy Compass 6/2 (2011): 90–99. doi: 10.1111/j.1747‐9991.2010.00376.x Author’s Introduction Securing consent (and informed consent) from patients and research study participants is a key concern in patient care and research on humans. Yet, the legal doctrines of consent and informed consent differ in their applications. In patient care, the judicial doctrines of consent and informed (...) consent are disclosure doctrines based on the obligation of physicians to inform their patients of the following types of information: the nature of the procedure the physician is recommending in the patent’s care (P), the alternatives to the physician‐recommendation (A), and the risks of procedure and its alternatives (R). In addition, the physician must provide truthful answers to the patient’s questions (Q) to the best of the physician’s abilities. In research on humans, the onus of disclosure by study sponsors and principal investigators is much greater than in patient care precisely because the purpose of research is not patient care. The purpose of research is the identification and development of new generalizable knowledge. Thus, participation in a research study or trial may not benefit the study volunteer at all. In addition, the participant may carry a heavy risk burden in relationship to any testing of a newly designed drug or device as part of their experiences in the research study. Presently, despite the risks borne by the research study participant, the raw data collected from volunteers in research trials are treated by courts as if they were the private property of the study sponsor rather than generally owed to the public as would be expected by an effort like research participation aimed at contributing to the development of generalizable knowledge. This paper reviews the obligations that study sponsors owe to their study participants based on the very definition of research as a systematic activity whose purpose is to develop generalizable knowledge to help all humans. Author Recommends Court cases Canterbury v. Spence, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit 464 F.2d 772 (1972). (Federal appellate decision heard in the District of Columbia, USA) Reibl v. Hughes, 2 S.C.R. 880 (1980). (Supreme Court of Canada) Rogers v. Whitaker, 175 C.L. R. 479 (1992). (High Court of Australia) Sidaway v. Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and the Maudsley Hospital and Others. 1 A.C. 871 (1985) (House of Lords) Canterbury v. Spence is the landmark Federal informed consent case in the United States heard in the District of Columbia. In this case, Judge Spottswood Robinson articulated the reasonable person standard of informed consent. This standard was subsequently adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada (Reibl v. Hughes, 2 S.C.R. 880 (1980)) and the High Court of Australia (Rogers v. Whitaker, 175 C.L. R. 479 (1992)). The House of Lords rejected the reasonable person standard in England in Sidaway v. Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and the Maudsley Hospital and Others. 1 A.C. 871 (1985). Book Mazur, Dennis J. The Science and Ethics of Research on Humans. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007. This book is a detailed guide for the review of scientific and ethical aspects of research on humans contained in the research study protocols and research informed consent forms which need to be submitted by study sponsors and principal investigators to institutional review boards (IRBs) for IRB review before a research study can receive approval to be conducted within a human study population in those institutions over which the IRB has authority. It also presents basic definitions in the area of research on humans and basic approaches to help conduct a deep review of the underlying scientific and ethical issues that are present within a research study protocol and its accompanying research informed consent form. Report National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, DC: DHEW Publications, 1978 (78‐0012). This U.S. National Commission in the Belmont Report argued for the necessity of a reasonable volunteer standard in research on humans in the United States. Arguing that the professional standard and the reasonable person standard of consent and informed consent were insufficient to base a disclosure standard in research on humans, this National Commission developed the reasonable volunteer standard where a study participant is to be approached in research informed consent with that information that a reasonable volunteer would want to know. Online Materials Belmont Report: Syllabus Topics for Lecture and Discussion Week I: Introduction and Overview Readings: Rogers v. Whitaker, 175 C.L.R. 479 (1992). (High Court of Australia) Sidaway v. Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and the Maudsley Hospital and Others. 1 A.C. 871 (1985) (House of Lords) Week II: The Different Standards of Consent and Informed Consent Readings: Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (1972). (Federal appellate opinion heard in the District of Columbia) Sidaway v. Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and the Maudsley Hospital and Others. 1 A.C. 871 (1985) (House of Lords) Week III: Definition of Research Reading: Mazur, Dennis J. The Science and Ethics of Research on Humans. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007. (Especially Chapters 2 and 3) Week IV: How to Review a Research Study Protocol and Research Informed Consent Form Reading: Mazur, Dennis J. The Science and Ethics of Research on Humans. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007. (Especially Chapters 4–6, 10, and 12–14) Week V: Obligations in Research of Humans Versus Patient Care Reading: National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, DC: DHEW Publications, 1978 (78‐0012). Focus Questions • How do the judicial doctrines of consent in England and Australia compare to the judicial doctrines of informed consent in the United States and Canada? • How does a professional standard of disclosure differ from a reasonable person standard of disclosure? • What is the definition of research? • How is a research study (study proposal and research informed consent form) reviewed from scientific and ethical bases for considerations of approval by an IRB? • How do the obligations of a study sponsor, a principal investigator, and a research team conducting a research trial on human study participants differ from the obligations of a physician caring for a patient? • Should all raw data of research derived from humans be made available to the public for use in developing generalizable knowledge to help others, or should raw data be considered the private property of the study sponsors (for example, prescription drug manufacturers), who fund the research trials? Seminar/project Idea Draw a timeline of the development of the basic concepts of consent and informed consent in patient care and in patient research. On this timeline, first place the dates of the key court cases in England, the United States, Canada, and Australia on consent and informed consent. Then place the date of the development of the Belmont Report. Why do differences exist between these four countries in terms of the legal requirements of informedness of a patient (in medical care) and a study participant (in medical research)? What roles if any do the concepts of self‐determination and self‐decision have in consent and informed consent in patient care and in informed consent in research on humans among the four countries of interest? What are the realities of research on human participants that require a new standard of informed consent, the reasonable volunteer standard, to be developed beyond the two standards in patient care, the professional standard, and the reasonable person standard? Counterpoint Arguments The following are counterpoint arguments that need to be appreciated to more fully understand the concepts that impact the thesis that ‘raw data’ should be open to the public to allow the opportunity of checking of the results of its associated scientific paper and for further analysis. De‐Identified (Anonymized) Raw Data A current approach to identifying (anonymizinig) raw data is based on the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 (P.L.104‐191). HIPAA was enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1996 to keep a person’s medical information private. In a research study, a person’s private medical information can become research data. HIPAA’s Privacy Rule allows a covered entity to de‐identify data by removing all 18 elements that could be used to identify the individual or the individual’s relatives, employers, or household members; these elements are enumerated in the Privacy Rule. The covered entity must also have no actual knowledge that the remaining information could be used alone or in combination with other information to identify the individual who is the subject of the information. Under this method, the identifiers that must be removed are the following: 1 Names. 2 All geographic subdivisions smaller than a state, including street address, city, county, precinct, ZIP Code, and their equivalent geographical codes, except for the initial three digits of a ZIP Code if, according to the current publicly available data from the Bureau of the Census: 2a. The geographic unit formed by combining all ZIP Codes with the same three initial digits contains more than 20,000 people. 2b. The initial three digits of a ZIP Code for all such geographic units containing 20,000 or fewer people are changed to 000. 3 All elements of dates (except year) for dates directly related to an individual, including birth date, admission date, discharge date, and date of death, and all ages over 89 and all elements of dates (including year) indicative of such age, except that such ages and elements may be aggregated into a single category of age 90 or older. 4 Telephone numbers. 5 Facsimile numbers. 6 Electronic mail addresses. 7 Social security numbers. 8 Medical record numbers. 9 Health plan beneficiary numbers. 10 Account numbers. 11 Certificate/license numbers. 12 Vehicle identifiers and serial numbers, including license plate numbers. 13 Device identifiers and serial numbers. 14 Web universal resource locators (URLs). 15 Internet protocol (IP) address numbers. 16 Biometric identifiers, including fingerprints and voiceprints. 17 Full‐face photographic images and any comparable images. 18 Any other unique identifying number, characteristic, or code, unless otherwise permitted by the Privacy Rule for re‐identification. Even though ‘raw data’ can be de‐identified (anonymized) so that there is no way to trace back the data to the study participant from which it was drawn, there are still questions whether the ‘de‐identified raw data’ can be given to other researchers or made public without the original study participant’s approval. It may be the case that this approval could be done at the start of any research study where the individual considering study participation would be counseled on what the process of de‐identification consists of and would be asked whether the participant would allow use of the data by other researchers or made available to the public in a de‐identified state. However, there may be questions of the study participants as to whether the data are truly de‐identified and untraceable back to the study participant since the participant would not be able to see the process actually being carried out in detail in all relevant circumstances. Using Raw Data in Context Simply being in possession of raw data is never enough to build on that data from a research perspective. Researchers need to understand the context of the scientific research study in which the data were collected. This research context includes (but is not limited to): (i) the scientific hypothesis of the research study, (ii) the inclusion and exclusion criteria selected by the research designers of the study to determine which study participants were included and which were excluded from the study, (iii) the methods used to collect the data and possibilities of errors in the data collection processes, and (iv) answers to questions regarding whether any data were excluded from the study data and why these data were excluded. Ownership Rights Over Data There are ownership rights over data. Ownership rights include court decision making related to the question which parties are to be considered as the owners of the data. Possible owners here include (but are not limited to) (i) the study sponsor whose only role was to fund that study, (ii) the principal investigator(s) who developed the scientific hypothesis, and (iii) individual study participants through special contracts made by individual participants who negotiate such contracts with study sponsors and principal investigators to share in the ownership of data. Examples of such data are participant sources of unique gene lines or unique cell lines to be used in future research. Objections to Data Sharing Finally, individual researchers may simply object to sharing data. A researcher’s arguments here may be simply stating that he or she has a right to fully analyze the data since the collection of the data was the researchers’ idea in the first place. These researchers may argue that they have the right to mine the data as fully as they can before deciding to make the data open to the public for others to analyze. Works Cited 1 Kaiser, J. ‘Making Clinical Data Widely Available.’Science 322.5899 (10 Oct. 2008): 217–8. 2 de Lusignan, S., J.F. Metsemakers, P. Houwink, V. Gunnarsdottir, and J. van der Lei. ‘Routinely Collected General Practice Data: Goldmines for Research? A Report of the European Federation for Medical Informatics Primary Care Informatics Working Group (EFMI PCIWG) from MIE2006, Maastricht, The Netherlands.’Informatics in Primary Care 14.3 (2006): 203–9. 3 Sim, I. ‘Human Studies Database Project’, CTSA Data Repositories Symposium (17 Oct. 2008). 23 Nov. 2010. 4 Sim, I., C.G. Chute, H. Lehmann, R. Nagarajan, M. Nahm, and R.H. Scheuermann. ‘Keeping Raw Data in Context.’Science 323.5915 (6 Feb. 2009): 713. 5 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, HIPAA Privacy Rule, Information for Researchers. 13 Nov. 2010. 6 Wilczynski, N.L., R.B. Haynes, and Hedges Team. ‘EMBASE Search Strategies for Identifying Methodologically Sound Diagnostic Studies for Use by Clinicians and Researchers.’BMC Medicine 29.3 (March 2005): 7. (shrink)

In the early 1970s, Congress considered enacting comprehensive privacy legislation, but it was unable to do so. In 1974, it passed the Privacy Act, applicable only to information in the possession of the federal government. In the intervening years, other information privacy laws enacted by Congress, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, have been weak and sector specific. With the explosion of information technology and the growing concerns about an absence of effective federal (...) privacy laws, the legal focus has shifted to the states. Signaling a new direction in state data privacy and consumer protection law, the California Consumer Privacy Act establishes important rights and protections for California residents with regard to the collection, use, disclosure, and sale of their personal information. The CCPA is certain to spur similar legislation and to affect national and international businesses that collect data from California's residents. Understanding the new law is important for all data‐driven industries, including health care. (shrink)

For nearly twenty-five years, federal regulation of privacy issues in research involving human subjects was the primary province of the federal rule for Protection of Human Subjects. As of April 14, 2003, the compliance date for the Privacy Rule of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, however, the Common Rule and the Privacy Rule jointly regulate research privacy. Although, in theory, the Privacy Rule is intended to complement the Common Rule, there are several areas in (...) which the rules diverge. In some instances the inconsistencies result in gaps in privacy protection; in other instances the inconsistencies result in added burdens on researchers without additional privacy protections. In all instances, the lack of harmonization of these rules has created confusion, frustration, and misunderstanding by researchers, research subjects, and institutional review boards. In this article, I review the major provisions of the Privacy Rule for research, explain the areas in which the Privacy Rule and Common Rule differ, and conclude that the two rules should be revised to promote consistency and maximize privacy protections while minimizing the burdens on research. (shrink)

On January 25, 2013, the Federal Register published the Department of Health and Human Services omnibus amendments to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy, Security, Enforcement, and Breach Notification Rules. These modifications also include the final versions of the HIPAA regulation amendments mandated by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Although the amended rules were effective on March 26, 2013, covered entities (...) and their business associates have a compliance date of September 23, 2013.It has been 10 years since the April 14, 2003 compliance date for the original HIPAA Privacy Rule. Despite HHS’ clarification of some issues by posting answers to frequently asked questions, there have been no significant amendments to the Privacy Rule since 2003. (shrink)

On January 25, 2013, theFederal Registerpublished the Department of Health and Human Services omnibus amendments to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy, Security, Enforcement, and Breach Notification Rules. These modifications also include the final versions of the HIPAA regulation amendments mandated by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Although the amended rules were effective on March 26, 2013, covered entities and their (...) business associates have a compliance date of September 23, 2013.It has been 10 years since the April 14, 2003 compliance date for the original HIPAA Privacy Rule. Despite HHS’ clarification of some issues by posting answers to frequently asked questions, there have been no significant amendments to the Privacy Rule since 2003. (shrink)

One can find numerous examples of how health care providers have breached the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act by posting video recordings, photos, or identifying...

The genetic testing industry is in a period of potentially major structural change driven by several factors. These include weaker patent protections after Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.; a continuing shift from single-gene tests to genome-scale sequencing; and a set of February 2014 amendments to the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 regulations and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule. This article explores the (...) nature of these changes and why they strain existing regulatory frameworks for protecting patients, research subjects, and other consumers who receive genetic testing.Oversight of genetic testing has, at least to date, had two major thrusts: privacy and ethical protections and traditional consumer health and safety regulations. Examples of the first are the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act and the HIPAA Privacy Rule, which after 2013 amendments expressly protects genetic privacy as well as other medical privacy. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 12.3 (2002) 299-303 [Access article in PDF] Bioethics Inside the Beltway What Should IRBs Consider When Applying the Privacy Rule to Research? Julie Waltz Gerlach In 1996, Congress mandated the establishment of standards for the privacy of individually identifiable health information through the Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Until the establishment of HIPAA, personal (...) health information could be distributed without notice or consent for reasons that had nothing to do with a patient's medical treatment or health care reimbursement. Patient information held by a health plan could be passed on to a lender who then might deny the patient's application for a home mortgage or a credit card or to an employer who might use it for personnel decisions. Congress failed to meet its 21 August 1996 deadline established by HIPAA to pass privacy legislation; the Act passed the responsibility to Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). On 28 December 2000, the Secretary of Health and Human Services released final privacy regulations relating to the protection of patients' individually identifiable health information. The "Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information" (Privacy Rule/current) took effect 14 April 2001. As required by HIPAA, the Privacy Rule established conditions for the collection, use, and disclosure of protected health information by covered entities for research purposes. Covered entities, defined as health plans, health care clearinghouses, and health care providers that engage electronically in a wide range of financial and administrative transactions related to payment and reimbursement, must comply by 14 April 2003 (DHHS 2000, p. 82462). To ensure that the provisions of the final rule provide strong privacy protection without hindering access to health care, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS 2002, p. 14776) has proposed modifications to the Privacy Rule.The final Privacy Rule (DHHS 2001) grants substantial rights to individuals/research participants to be informed of how their protected health information is maintained and how that information may be used or disclosed. It also defines individual's/research participants' rights with regard to gaining access to information about themselves, when such information is held by covered entities. [End Page 299]The Privacy Rule requires researchers either to receive authorization from individuals/research participants to collect, use, and disclose protected health information, or to obtain a waiver of authorization that is approved by an institutional review board (IRB) or Privacy Board, or to use de-identified data. Section 164.508 of the Privacy Rule, entitled "Use and Disclosures for Which an Authorization Is Required," describes how IRBs will be directly affected. The rule focuses not just on research but on the overall privacy of all identifiable health information. Institutions have the option of adding these required duties to IRBs or establishing "privacy boards." Privacy boards, as defined by the Privacy Rule, are to be composed of members with varying backgrounds and professional competency to review the effect of the research protocol on the individual/research participant's privacy rights. The board must include at least one member who is not affiliated with the covered entity, or any entity conducting or sponsoring the research, and not related to any person who is affiliated with such entities. Board members cannot participate in the review of any research project in which the member has a conflict of interest.The basic concepts and tenets of privacy and confidentiality are well known to IRBs in the United States, which operate under the Common Rule (45 CFR 46) and/or the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) human subject protection regulations. Both sets of regulations require IRBs to ensure that risks (including privacy risks) are minimized. Under these regulations, IRBs must consider the confidentiality of research data and whether researchers should have access to confidential medical information. IRBs also must review the consent form as a process of communication that will inform research subjects about the research study.One noteworthy aspect of the Privacy Rule is its application to all research regardless of funding source. Currently, research funded by... (shrink)

The U.S. 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act exempts members of health care sharing ministries from the individual mandate to have minimum essential insurance coverage. Little is generally known about these religious organizations and even less critical attention has been brought to bear on them and their ACA exemption. Both deserve close scrutiny due to the exemption’s less than clear legislative justification, their potential influence on the ACA’s policy and ethical success, and their salience to current religious (...) liberty debates surrounding the expansion of religious exemptions from ACA responsibilities for both individuals and corporations. Analyzing documents of the United States’ three largest health care sharing ministries and related material, I examine these organizations and their ACA exemption with particular consideration of their ethical dimensions. Here a thick description of the nature and workings of health care sharing ministries precedes a similar account of the ACA exemption. From these empirical analyses, five ethical and policy concerns emerge: the charity versus insurance status of these ministries; the conflation of two ACA religious exemptions; the tension between the values of religious liberty and of justice; the potential undermining of ACA policy goals; and the questionable compliance of health care sharing ministries with ACA exemption requirements. An accurate and informed understanding of HCSMs is required for policymakers and others to justify the ACA exemption of health care sharing ministry members. A sufficient justification would address at least the five ethical and policy concerns raised here. (shrink)

From a giant of health care policy, an engaging and enlightening account of why American health care is so expensive -- and why it doesn't have to be. Uwe Reinhardt was a towering figure and moral conscience of health care policy in the United States and beyond. Famously bipartisan, he advised presidents and Congress on health reform and originated central features of the Affordable Care Act. In Priced Out, Reinhardt offers an engaging and enlightening account of (...) today's U.S. health care system, explaining why it costs so much more and delivers so much less than the systems of every other advanced country, why this situation is morally indefensible, and how we might improve it. The problem, Reinhardt says, is not one of economics but of social ethics. There is no American political consensus on a fundamental question other countries settled long ago: to what extent should we be our brothers' and sisters' keepers when it comes to health care? Drawing on the best evidence, he guides readers through the chaotic, secretive, and inefficient way America finances health care, and he offers a penetrating ethical analysis of recent reform proposals. At this point, he argues, the United States appears to have three stark choices: the government can make the rich help pay for the health care of the poor, ration care by income, or control costs. Reinhardt proposes an alternative path: that by age 26 all Americans must choose either to join an insurance arrangement with community-rated premiums, or take a chance on being uninsured or relying on a health insurance market that charges premiums based on health status. An incisive look at the American health care system, Priced Out dispels the confusion, ignorance, myths, and misinformation that hinder effective reform. (shrink)

By 2014, each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia will have a new health insurance exchange, or marketplace, established under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. These exchanges are the centerpiece of the reform law: they will be the main portals where people who do not have health insurance coverage through their jobs and small businesses will go, either in person or online, to find a health plan and to learn about (...) and apply for federal subsidies. The most immediate challenge facing all fifty‐one exchanges is fulfilling their most basic role: ensuring that all who are eligible to enroll in qualified health plans and to receive federal subsidies in fact enroll. (shrink)

Current research on the human genome holds enormous long-term promise for improvements in health care, but it poses an immediate ethical challenge in the area of health insurance, by raising the question of whether insurers should be allowed to take genetic information about customers into account in the setting of premiums. It is widely held that such discrimination is immoral and ought to be illegal, and the prevalence of this view is understandable, given the widespread belief, which (...) I endorse, that every individual in a society as affluent as ours has a basic right to affordable health care. But prohibiting genetic discrimination in health insurance is not an effective way to protect this right. On the contrary, I argue that because of the nature of insurance as a product sold in a competitive market, such a prohibition is misguided, and its worthy aims must, instead, be pursued through reforms in our country’s system of publicly provided health care. (shrink)

In 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services proposed changes to the regulations that govern human subjects protection in federally funded research. The proposed changes involve modifying inclusion standards for minimal-risk research and removing the necessity of review from certain categories of noninvasive research. All studies would instead be required to comply with privacy protections as initiated by the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act . We argue that relying on HIPAA to protect participants from (...) participation-related risks in noninvasive research is insufficient to protect the autonomy and psychological health of potential research participants. Instead, we suggest a streamlined review format for these categories of research. (shrink)

Various aspects of the concepts of privacy and confidentiality are discussed in relation to health care information in primary health care settings. In addition, findings are presented from patient and nurse practitioner focus groups held to elicit concerns that these two groups have in relation to privacy and confidentiality in their respective primary care settings. The focus groups were held prior to the implementation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accessibility Act in the USA. Implications (...) for advanced practice registered nurses in primary care practices are provided. (shrink)

According to HealthCare.gov, by improving access to quality health for all Americans, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will reduce disparities in health insurance coverage. One way this will happen under the provisions of the ACA is by creating a new health insurance marketplace (a health insurance exchange) by 2014 in which “all people will have a choice for quality, affordable health insurance even if a job loss, job switch, move or illness (...) occurs”. This does not mean that everyone will have whatever insurance coverage he or she wants. The provisions of the ACA require that each of the four benefit categories of plans (known as bronze, silver, gold and platinum) provides no less than the benefits available in an “essential health benefits package”. However, without a clear understanding of what criteria must be satisfied for health care to be essential, the ACA’s requirement is much too vague and open to multiple, potentially conflicting interpretations. Indeed, without such understanding, in the rush to provide health insurance coverage to as many people as is economically feasible, we may replace one kind of disparity (lack of health insurance) with another kind of disparity (lack of adequate health insurance). Thus, this paper explores the concept of “essential benefits”, arguing that the “essential health benefits package” in the ACA should be one that optimally satisfies the basic needs of the people covered. (shrink)

This paper explores the consequences of the oft ignored fact that public health insurance must actually be supplied by the state. Depending how the state is modeled, different health insurance outcomes are expected. The benevolent model of the state does not account for many actual features of public health insurance systems. One alternative is to use a standard public choice model, where state action is determined by interaction between self-interested actors. Another alternative—related to a (...) strand in public choice theory—is to model the state as Leviathan. Interestingly, some proponents of public health insurance use an implicit Leviathan model, but not consistently. The Leviathan model of the state explains many features of public health insurance: its uncontrolled growth, its tendency toward monopoly, its capacity to buy trust and loyalty from the common people, its surveillance ability, its controlling nature, and even the persistence of its inefficiencies and waiting lines. (shrink)

In The Ethics of Universal Health Insurance, Alex Rajczi shows how defenders of universal health insurance can address the ethical issues raised by these objections and make the moral case for an American universal health insurance system that improves on the gains made in the Affordable Care Act.

ABSTRACTThe health‐care reform promised by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of March 2010 continues our dependence on a central feature of the American health‐care system: employer‐sponsored insurance . In this article I will criticize the assumptions regarding market and welfare concerns on which this dependence is based and argue that efforts to mandate ESI ignore both the dynamics of the employment relation and the nature of health‐care needs. A comparison between investing in employee education (...) and investing in employee health will reveal the pragmatic challenges to ESI and the covert appeal to employer beneficence on which ESI rests. This paper argues that relying on ESI to guarantee appropriate care for a significant segment of the population is undesirable and unsustainable from both market and moral perspectives. (shrink)

Despite the recent advances in information and communication technology that have increased our ability to store and circulate information, the task of ensuring that the right sorts of information gets to the right sorts of people remains. We argue that the many efforts underway to develop efficient means for sharing information across healthcare systems and organizations would benefit from a careful analysis of human action in healthcare organizations. This in turn requires that the management of information and knowledge within healthcare (...) organizations be combined with models of resources and processes of patient care that are based on a general ontology of social interaction. The Health Level 7 (HL7) is one of several ANSI-accredited Standards Developing Organizations operating in the healthcare arena. HL7 has advanced a widely used messaging standard that enables healthcare applications to exchange clinical and administrative data in digital form. HL7 focuses on the interface requirements of the entire healthcare system and not exclusively on the requirements of one area of healthcare such as pharmacy, medical devices, imaging or insurance transactions. This has inspired the development of a powerful abstract model of patient care called the Reference Information Model (RIM). The present paper begins with an overview of the core classes of the HL7 (Version 3) RIM and a brief discussion of its “actcentered” view of healthcare. Central to this account is what is called the life cycle of events. A clinical action may progress from defined, through planned and ordered, to executed. These modalities of an action are represented as the mood of the act. We then outline the basis of an ontology of organizations, starting from the theory of speech Acts, and apply this ontology to the HL7 RIM. Special attention is given to the sorts of preconditions that must be satisfied for the successful performance of a speech act and to the sorts of entities to which speech acts give rise (e.g. obligations, claims, commitments, etc.). Finally we draw conclusions for the efficient communication and management of medical information and knowledge within and between healthcare organizations, paying special attention to the role that medical documents play in such organizations. (shrink)

Progress in medicine and the subsequent extension of health coverage has meant that health expenditure has increased sharply in Western countries. In the United States, this rise was precipitated in the 1980s, compounded by an increase in drug consumption which prompted the government to re-examine its financial support to care delivery, most notably in hospital care and emergencies services. In California for example, 50 emergency service providers were closed between 1990 and 2000, and nine in 1999–2000 alone. In (...) that State, only 355 hospitals (out of 568) have maintained emergency services departments (Darves, WebMB, 2001). Reforming hospital Emergency Department (ED) operations requires caution not only because the media pay a lot of attention to ED operations, but also because it raises ethical issues: this became more apparent with the enactment of the EMTALA which stipulates that federally funded hospitals are required to give emergency aid in order to “stabilize” a patient suffering from an “emergency medical condition” before discharging or transferring that patient to another facility. While in essence the law aims to preserve patient access to care, physicians assert that the EMTALA leads to more patients seeking care for non-urgent conditions in EDs (GAO, Report to Congressional Committees, 2001), leading to overcrowding, delayed care for patients with true emergency needs, and forcing hospitals to divert ambulances to other facilities resulting in further delays in urgent care. Also, fewer physicians are willing to be on-call in emergency departments because the EMTALA law requires on-call physicians to provide uncompensated care. Thus there is a need to find a balance between appropriate care to be provided to ED patients, and low costs since uncompensated care is not covered by state or federal funds. This concerns, first and foremost, hospitals that provide a greater amount of uncompensated care (e.g. hospitals serving communities with a higher population of illegal immigrants). Looking at the intrinsic causes of high ED costs, the paper first explains why costs of care provided in EDs are high, and look at a major cause of high ED costs: overcrowding and ED users’ characteristics. This is followed by a discussion on a much-debated factor: the use of EDs for non-emergency conditions, a practice which has often been accused of disproportionately raising costs. We look at various mechanisms used either to divert or prevent the patient from using ED: these include triage services; and the role of HMOs in the ED chain of care: though the US government has increasingly relied on Managed Care organizations to contain costs (e.g. Medicaid and Medicare Managed Care), do HMOs make a difference when it comes to ED costs? Of particular interest is the family physician acting as a gatekeeper, and the legislation that was enacted to protect those who bypass the referral system. We then look at the other end of the ED chain (i.e. the recipient): the financial responsibility of ED users has increased. Alternative providers such as walk-in clinics are increasingly common. EDs also attempt to reengineer their operations to curb costs. While the data are mostly applicable to a private health care system (e.g. the US), the article, using a critical assessment of the existing literature, has implications for other EDs generally, wherever they operate, since every ED faces similar funding problems. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Hildegard: Medieval Holism and ‘Presentism’—Or, Did Sigewiza Have Health Insurance?Jerome L. Kroll (bio)Keywordsholistic healing, presentism, Hildegard of Bingen, medieval medicineSuzanne Phillips and Monique Boivin have published an article examining Hildegard of Bingen’s (1098–179) treatment and cure of Sigewiza, a possessed woman. The purpose of their article is to demonstrate Hildegard’s holistic, or biopsychosocial, approach to healing as a model that we in the twenty-first century have lost (...) but would do well to recover. Several questions come to mind:What is Hildegard’s model?Have we lost it?Is it something we wish to emulate?The basics of the case history is that a noblewoman, Sigewiza, is ill or possessed of an evil spirit. Attempts by her local abbot and community to send her on pilgrimages or otherwise to cure or exorcise her, even with Hildegard’s recommendation, have only short-lived success, after which Sigewiza’s illness or demon returns. Finally, the abbot asks Hildegard to take the noblewoman into her Benedictine monastery, and after a suitable time and various interventions, Sigewiza is permanently (presumably) cured. The arduous process of effecting this cure has left Hildegard weak and ill herself, a pattern of poor physical health from which Hildegard suffered all her life.Phillips and Boivin claim that this is an early example of conceptualizing and utilizing a bio-psychosocial model to treat a complex illness. Hildegard, well known for her medical and pharmaceutical knowledge, applies the proper dietary changes to correct Sigewiza’s humoral (biological) imbalance. She treats the psyche and its partner, the soul, by long hours of discussion with Sigewiza and verbal duels with her demon, as well as by exorcising the demon, and she includes the social aspects of treatment by bringing Sigewiza into the Benedictine community of sisters as a participating member. Which of these three modalities may be sufficient for a cure depends upon the medieval literary genre in which the case appears. If in a medical text, then the proper dietary treatment and application of compounds to neutralize and correct the offending humoral imbalances would be the therapeutic agents. In medieval hagiography, [End Page 369] the biological modality is never sufficient and often ridiculed, because the entire thrust of the text is to demonstrate the futility of medical (secular) ministrations and the effectiveness of saintly intervention in producing a cure, whether or not exorcism is technically part of the process. In Sigewiza’s case, perhaps because of the stubbornness of the possessing demon or because of other factors attached to Sigewiza’s condition, the three (biopsychosocial) modalities are utilized. It seems that Sigewiza has a treatment-resistant illness.The narrative follows a familiar topos in saint’s lives (Kroll and Bachrach 2005). Attempts to cure a demoniac by prayers, pilgrimages, intercessions of other local saints or reputedly holy persons, and sometimes by physicians (when available) are to no avail. The sufferer is brought, amidst great fanfare and public attention (a media event), to the holy woman who is the central figure of the particular Vita, and the sufferer is promptly, or protractedly, cured. In such an account, the holiness of the holy woman is further demonstrated and her reputation, shrine, and influence are duly extended and enhanced. The holy person, with humility, attributes the intercession and cure to the power of God, or Jesus or Mary or a particular patron saint, but the crowd of onlookers and the audience of the Vita understand that God (or Jesus or Mary) has in fact granted the miracle cure as a way of demonstrating the holiness of this holy person in contrast to those who previously tried to cure the ill person. The abbot who ‘referred’ Sigewiza to Hildegard, and the previous saints’ shrine to whom Sigewiza was brought, although generally acknowledged as being of fine character or respectability, had to suffer the ignominy of their petitions being rejected to dramatize the special regard in which Hildegard is held.Although we can say that the “purposes” for which Hildegard’s hagiographer includes such anecdotes is to demonstrate her holiness and her importance in God’s eyes, this does not stop us, nine centuries later, from using such... (shrink)

In this paper, we discuss how access to health-related data by private insurers, other than affecting the interests of prospective policy-holders, can also influence their propensity to make personal data available for research purposes. We take the case of national precision medicine initiatives as an illustrative example of this possible tendency. Precision medicine pools together unprecedented amounts of genetic as well as phenotypic data. The possibility that private insurers could claim access to such rapidly accumulating biomedical Big Data or (...) to health-related information derived from it would discourage people from enrolling in precision medicine studies. Should that be the case, the economic value of personal data for the insurance industry would end up affecting the public value of data as a scientific resource. In what follows we articulate three principles – trustworthiness, openness and evidence – to address this problem and tame its potentially harmful effects on the development of precision medicine and, more generally, on the advancement of medical science. (shrink)

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law the nation's first comprehensive health care reform bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Within weeks, twenty states filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of its most politically charged feature—an individual purchase mandate. By 2014, the bill requires most individuals to have health insurance. With certain exceptions (pertaining to income level and religious objections), individuals without qualifying coverage will pay an annual tax penalty. If anything, the tax penalty (...) is too low compared with the cost of insurance, so it may not provide sufficient incentive for healthy individuals to purchase insurance. But it remains controversial because it compels people to purchase coverage they choose not to have, raising the question whether Congress can lawfully and ethically require individuals to contract with, and transfer money to, a private party. (shrink)

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was designed to increase health insurance coverage in the United States. Its most controversial feature is the requirement that US residents purchase health insurance. Opponents of the mandate argue that requiring people to contribute to the collective good is inconsistent with respect for individual liberty. Rather than appeal to the collective good, this Viewpoint argues for a duty to buy health insurance based on the moral duty (...) individuals have to reduce certain burdens they pose on others. When some people have a duty to rescue, others may have a duty to take rescue precautions, in this case, to purchase health insurance to cover acute and emergency care needs. Requiring that individuals meet this obligation is consistent with respect of individual liberty. (shrink)

Various U.S. laws, such as the Clean Air Act and the Food Quality Protection Act, require additional protections for susceptible subpopulations who face greater environmental health risks. The main ethical rationale for providing these protections is to ensure that environmental health risks are distributed fairly. In this article, we (1) consider how several influential theories of justice deal with issues related to the distribution of environmental health risks; (2) show that these theories often fail to provide specific (...) guidance concerning policy choices; and (3) argue that an approach to public decision making known as accountability for reasonableness can complement theories of justice in establishing acceptable environmental health risks for the general population and susceptible subpopulations. Since accountability for reasonableness focuses on the fairness of the decision-making process, not the outcome, it does not guarantee that susceptible subpopulations will receive a maximum level of protection, regardless of costs or other morally relevant considerations. (shrink)