In the United States, sensitive health information is protected under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). This act limits the disclosure of Protected Health Information (PHI) without the patient’s consent or knowledge. However, as medical care becomes web-integrated, many providers have chosen to use third-party web trackers for measurement and marketing purposes. This presents a security concern: third-party JavaScript requested by an online healthcare system can read the website’s contents, and ensuring PHI is not unintentionally or maliciously leaked becomes difficult. In this paper, we investigate health information breaches in online medical records, focusing on 459 online patient portals and 4 telehealth websites.
We find 14% of patient portals include Google Analytics, which reveals (at a minimum) the fact that the user visited the health provider website, while 5 portals and 4 telehealth websites con- tained JavaScript-based services disclosing PHI, including medications and lab results, to third parties. The most significant PHI breaches were on behalf of Google and Facebook trackers. In the latter case, an estimated 4.5 million site visitors per month were potentially exposed to leaks of personal information (names, phone numbers) and medical information (test results, medications). We notified healthcare providers of the PHI breaches and found only 15.7% took action to correct leaks. Healthcare operators lacked the technical expertise to identify PHI breaches caused by third-party trackers. After notifying Epic, a healthcare portal vendor, of the PHI leaks, we received a prompt response and observed extensive mitigation across providers, suggesting vendor notification is an effective intervention against PHI disclosures.
more »
« less
An Activity Theory Approach to Leak Detection and Mitigation in Patient Health Information (PHI)
The migration to electronic health records (EHR) in the healthcare industry has raised issues with respect to security and privacy. One issue that has become a concern for healthcare providers, insurance companies, and pharmacies is patient health information (PHI) leaks because PHI leaks can lead to violation of privacy laws, which protect the privacy of individuals’ identifiable health information, potentially resulting in a healthcare crisis. This study explores the issue of PHI leaks from an access control viewpoint. We utilize access control policies and PHI leak scenarios derived from semi structured interviews with four healthcare practitioners and use the lens of activity theory to articulate the design of an access control model for detecting and mitigating PHI leaks. Subsequently, we follow up with a prototype as a proof of concept.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2126504
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10356072
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of the Association for Information Systems
- Volume:
- 22
- Issue:
- 4
- ISSN:
- 1536-9323
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1007 to 1036
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Patient-generated health data (PGHD), created and captured from patients via wearable devices and mobile apps, are proliferating outside of clinical settings. Examples include sleep tracking, fitness trackers, continuous glucose monitors, and RFID-enabled implants, with many additional biometric or health surveillance applications in development or envisioned. These data are included in growing stockpiles of personal health data being mined for insight via big data analytics and artificial intelligence/deep learning technologies. Governing these data resources to facilitate patient care and health research while preserving individual privacy and autonomy will be challenging, as PGHD are the least regulated domains of digitalized personal health data (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2018). When patients themselves collect digitalized PGHD using “apps” provided by technology firms, these data fall outside of conventional health data regulation, such as HIPAA. Instead, PGHD are maintained primarily on the information technology infrastructure of vendors, and data are governed under the IT firm’s own privacy policies and within the firm’s intellectual property rights. Dominant narratives position these highly personal data as valuable resources to transform healthcare, stimulate innovation in medical research, and engage individuals in their health and healthcare. However, ensuring privacy, security, and equity of benefits from PGHD will be challenging. PGHD can be aggregated and, despite putative “deidentification,” be linked with other health, economic, and social data for predictive analytics. As large tech companies enter the healthcare sector (e.g., Google Health is partnering with Ascension Health to analyze the PHI of millions of people across 21 U.S. states), the lack of harmonization between regulatory regimes may render existing safeguards to preserve patient privacy and control over their PHI ineffective. While healthcare providers are bound to adhere to health privacy laws, Big Tech comes under more relaxed regulatory regimes that will facilitate monetizing PGHD. We explore three existing data protection regimes relevant to PGHD in the United States that are currently in tension with one another: federal and state health-sector laws, data use and reuse for research and innovation, and industry self-regulation by large tech companies We then identify three types of structures (organizational, regulatory, technological/algorithmic), which synergistically could help enact needed regulatory oversight while limiting the friction and economic costs of regulation. This analysis provides a starting point for further discussions and negotiations among stakeholders and regulators to do so.more » « less
-
Patient-generated health data (PGHD), created and captured from patients via wearable devices and mobile apps, are proliferating outside of clinical settings. Examples include sleep tracking, fitness trackers, continuous glucose monitors, and RFID-enabled implants, with many additional biometric or health surveillance applications in development or envisioned. These data are included in growing stockpiles of personal health data being mined for insight via big data analytics and artificial intelligence/deep learning technologies. Governing these data resources to facilitate patient care and health research while preserving individual privacy and autonomy will be challenging, as PGHD are the least regulated domains of digitalized personal health data (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2018). When patients themselves collect digitalized PGHD using “apps” provided by technology firms, these data fall outside of conventional health data regulation, such as HIPAA. Instead, PGHD are maintained primarily on the information technology infrastructure of vendors, and data are governed under the IT firm’s own privacy policies and within the firm’s intellectual property rights. Dominant narratives position these highly personal data as valuable resources to transform healthcare, stimulate innovation in medical research, and engage individuals in their health and healthcare. However, ensuring privacy, security, and equity of benefits from PGHD will be challenging. PGHD can be aggregated and, despite putative “deidentification,” be linked with other health, economic, and social data for predictive analytics. As large tech companies enter the healthcare sector (e.g., Google Health is partnering with Ascension Health to analyze the PHI of millions of people across 21 U.S. states), the lack of harmonization between regulatory regimes may render existing safeguards to preserve patient privacy and control over their PHI ineffective. While healthcare providers are bound to adhere to health privacy laws, Big Tech comes under more relaxed regulatory regimes that will facilitate monetizing PGHD. We explore three existing data protection regimes relevant to PGHD in the United States that are currently in tension with one another: federal and state health-sector laws, data use and reuse for research and innovation, and industry self-regulation by large tech companies We then identify three types of structures (organizational, regulatory, technological/algorithmic), which synergistically could help enact needed regulatory oversight while limiting the friction and economic costs of regulation. This analysis provides a starting point for further discussions and negotiations among stakeholders and regulators to do so.more » « less
-
Reddy, S. ; Winter, J.S. ; Padmanabhan, S. (Ed.)AI applications are poised to transform health care, revolutionizing benefits for individuals, communities, and health-care systems. As the articles in this special issue aptly illustrate, AI innovations in healthcare are maturing from early success in medical imaging and robotic process automation, promising a broad range of new applications. This is evidenced by the rapid deployment of AI to address critical challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including disease diagnosis and monitoring, drug discovery, and vaccine development. At the heart of these innovations is the health data required for deep learning applications. Rapid accumulation of data, along with improved data quality, data sharing, and standardization, enable development of deep learning algorithms in many healthcare applications. One of the great challenges for healthcare AI is effective governance of these data—ensuring thoughtful aggregation and appropriate access to fuel innovation and improve patient outcomes and healthcare system efficiency while protecting the privacy and security of data subjects. Yet the literature on data governance has rarely looked beyond important pragmatic issues related to privacy and security. Less consideration has been given to unexpected or undesirable outcomes of healthcare in AI, such as clinician deskilling, algorithmic bias, the “regulatory vacuum”, and lack of public engagement. Amidst growing calls for ethical governance of algorithms, Reddy et al. developed a governance model for AI in healthcare delivery, focusing on principles of fairness, accountability, and transparency (FAT), and trustworthiness, and calling for wider discussion. Winter and Davidson emphasize the need to identify underlying values of healthcare data and use, noting the many competing interests and goals for use of health data—such as healthcare system efficiency and reform, patient and community health, intellectual property development, and monetization. Beyond the important considerations of privacy and security, governance must consider who will benefit from healthcare AI, and who will not. Whose values drive health AI innovation and use? How can we ensure that innovations are not limited to the wealthiest individuals or nations? As large technology companies begin to partner with health care systems, and as personally generated health data (PGHD) (e.g., fitness trackers, continuous glucose monitors, health information searches on the Internet) proliferate, who has oversight of these complex technical systems, which are essentially a black box? To tackle these complex and important issues, it is important to acknowledge that we have entered a new technical, organizational, and policy environment due to linked data, big data analytics, and AI. Data governance is no longer the responsibility of a single organization. Rather, multiple networked entities play a role and responsibilities may be blurred. This also raises many concerns related to data localization and jurisdiction—who is responsible for data governance? In this emerging environment, data may no longer be effectively governed through traditional policy models or instruments.more » « less
-
Patient health records(PHRs) are crucial and sensitive as they contain essential information and are frequently shared among healthcare entities. This information must remain correct, up to date, private and accessible only to the authorized entities. Moreover, access must also be assured during health emergency crises such as the recent outbreak, which represents the greatest test of the flexibility and the efficiency of PHR sharing among healthcare providers, which ended up an immense interruption to the healthcare industry. Moreover, the right to privacy is the most fundamental right for a patient. Hence, the patient health records in the healthcare sector have faced issues with privacy breaches, insider outside attacks, and unauthorized access to crucial patients’ records. As a result, it pushes more patients to demand more control, security, and a smoother experience when they want to access their health records. Furthermore, the lack of interoperability among the healthcare system and providers and the added weight of cyber-attacks on an already overwhelmed system have called for an immediate solution. In this work, we developed a secured blockchain framework that safeguards patients’ full control over their health data which can be stored in their private IPFS and later shared with an authorized provider. Furthermore, the system ensures privacy and security while handling patient data, which can only be shared with the patients. The proposed Security and privacy analysis show promising results in providing time savings, enhanced confidentiality, and less disruption in patient-provider interactions.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00687
