“I wish those things were addressed three years ago, but we're going have to deal with it eventually,” Rothstein said.
The 2008 NCVHS report proposed patients should have some measure of control over the movement of certain particularly sensitive types of healthcare information across the proposed NHIN.
When both reports were issued they were, basically, ignored.
In December 2008, Kolodner's ONC issued a 12-page Nationwide Privacy and Security Framework for Electronic Exchange of Individually Identifiable Health Information.
In its appendix, the Kolodner framework defined privacy as: “An individual's interest in protecting his or her individually identifiable health information and the corresponding obligation of those persons and entities, that participate in a network for the purposes of electronic exchange of such information, to respect those interests through fair information practices.”
That definition, which said individuals only have an “interest” in protecting their information, but not a right to do so, didn't sit so well with privacy advocates.
And it was a far cry from the standard in the 2006 in the NCVHS report that defined health information privacy as an individual's “right” to control their information.
That framing of privacy as an individual's right, or merely an interest, remains unresolved and likely will remain at the core of the debate in the months to come.
What do you think? Write us with your comments at [email protected]. Please include your name, title and hometown.