skip to main content
10.1145/1882992.1883020acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesihiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Privacy policies of personal health records: an evaluation of their effectiveness in protecting patient information

Published:11 November 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

In recent years, there has been growing demand by patients for access to their own health information via tools like Personal Health Records [1]. The Markle Foundation [2] defines the Personal Health Record (PHR) as an electronic application through which individuals can access, manage and share their health information in a secure and confidential environment. PHRs are emerging and consolidating as an effective tool for patients to maintain their own health-related information. Healthcare Organizations (HCOs) and e-health services covered by HIPAA face the problem of implementing effective and cost-efficient security and privacy policies, while constantly demonstrating compliance with HIPAA regulations. To this end, HCOs must implement system-wide policies, standards, guidelines and procedures for safeguarding the organization's information including Electronic Medical Records (EMR) and Electronic Health Records (EHR), in conjunction with HIPAA mandates [3]. Similar security and privacy issues also apply to PHRs, as patient information must be protected under HIPAA regulatory requirements. PHR applications were initially provided by single vendors as a module (with limited functionality) within a Hospital Information System (HIS). But with growing use of Web 2.0 technologies, PHRs have also evolved as web-based solutions provided by business parties, leveraging "anywhere anytime" accessibility made possible by the internet. Although business third parties providing PHR solutions are not subject to HIPAA regulations, nonetheless security and privacy for PHRs are critical issues - both for the patients using the PHR and for the providers themselves. In this context, this paper focuses on existing PHR applications and functions, classification of PHRs based on their business and technical environments, privacy features, privacy policies and coverage, and privacy policy notification issues. Furthermore, in order to verify privacy policy coverage and notifications offered by web-based PHRs, an evaluation of such privacy policies against already established and well-researched evaluation criteria was conducted.

The two main PHR platforms used for evaluation in this research include Microsoft HealthVault and GoogleHealth. The objective is to highlight existing vulnerabilities in PHR privacy policy coverage and gaps in privacy policy notification mechanisms, while investigating the lack of availability of tools that enable patients to adequately protect their personal health information.

References

  1. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2008. Social uses of personal health information within PatientsLikeMe, an online patient community: what can happen when patients have access to one another's data. Jeana H Frost, Michael P Massagli Volume: 10, Issue: 3, Pages: e15 PubMed ID: 18504244Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Connecting for Health. The Markle Foundation. http://www.connectingforhealth.org/resources/final_phwg_report1.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Qualys On Demand Vulnerability Management. CASE STUDY: Geisinger Health System--Bringing HIPAA Compliance to an Electronic Medical Record System. http://www.qualys.com/docs/geisinger.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Center for Information Technology Leadership {CITL}. 2008. Value of Personal Health Records. Center for Information Technology Leadership. ISBN: 978-0-9800697-4-7Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. The Markle Foundation. Press Release. October 11, 2005. http://www.markle.org/resources/press_center/press_releases/2005/press_release_10112005.phpGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics. http://ncvhs.hhs.gov/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. The Hippocratic Oath. http://www.indiana.edu/~ancmed/oath.htmGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. The Code of Fair Information Practices 1974. http://www.consumerprivacyguide.org/law/pa.shtmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. The Patient Privacy Rights Foundation. http://www.patientprivacyrights.orgGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/HIPAAGenInfo/Downloads/HIPAALaw.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Gellman, R. Personal Health Records: Why Many PHRs Threaten Privacy. World Privacy Forum. The World Privacy Forum - A Legal and Policy Analysis. www.worldprivacyforum.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Lisa A. Gallagher, HIMSS Director, Privacy and Security. Privacy and Security Issues for PHRs. Consumer Organization Outreach TF (March 28, 2007). http://www.himss.org/content/files/PHRPrivSecCOO-LGV1.0.pdf?src=enews20070411Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. San Diego Tribune. 2008. Health records shared online pose dilemma. Keith Darcé. March 5, 2008. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080305/news_1n5web.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. World Privacy Forum. 2008. http://www.worldprivacyforum.org/testimony/NCVHStestimony_092005.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. PHRPrivacy.com. 2008. The Foundation for Healthcare Excellence. http://phrprivacy.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=41&Itemid=139Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Security and Privacy Issues with Health Care Information Technology. Marci Meingast, Tanya Roosta, Shankar Sastry. Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley. http://robotics.eecs.berkeley.edu/~roosta/EMBC06.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Health Privacy Project at http://www.healthprivacy.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Review of the Personal Health Record (PHR) Service Provider Market: Privacy and Security. ALTARUM Research. January 5, 2007. http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/materials/01_07/ce/PrivacyReview.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Detailed PHR Privacy Report Cards. Patient Privacy Rights Foundation. 2010. http://patientprivacyrights.org/detailed-phr-privacy-report-cards/#MSHVGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. User Centric. 2010. http://www.usercentric.com/publications/2009/02/02/google-health-vs-microsoft-healthvault-consumers-compare-online-personal-heaGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. e-HIM Personal Health Record Work Group. "The Role of the Personal Health Record in the EHR." Journal of AHIMA 76, no. 7 (July-August 2005): 64A--D.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. The HITECH Act and HIPAA. 2010. HIPAA Survival Guide. http://www.hipaasurvivalguide.com/hipaa-survival-guide-21.phpGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. HITECH Act -- Interim Final Rule. 2009. http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/administrative/enforcementrule/enfifr.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Privacy policies of personal health records: an evaluation of their effectiveness in protecting patient information

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        IHI '10: Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Health Informatics Symposium
        November 2010
        886 pages
        ISBN:9781450300308
        DOI:10.1145/1882992

        Copyright © 2010 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 11 November 2010

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader