Dr. Peel's Ludd calculator

Summary: You can try for complete anonymity if you like. You can also be completely isolated, never get any help, and die decades before you might otherwise.

Dr. Deborah Peel has been crusading against health reform since the Clinton years. Readers of Modern Healthcare have named her one of the 100 most powerful people in the field for three years running.

She is also (and there is no polite way to say this) a Luddite. The aim of her pressure group, Patient Privacy Rights, appears to be keeping health care in the paper-based dark ages.

My final evidence is the so-called Privacy Risk Calculator posted to her site last week.

The only way to avoid risks to your privacy, according to Dr. Peel's Ludd Calculator, is for you to pay cash for all health transactions, avoid prescriptions and insurance, and in all ways avoid that nasty Internet machine. The more paranoia you display, the better.

Well you can do that. You can try for complete anonymity if you like. You can also be completely isolated, never get any help, and die decades before you might otherwise.

It's true there are risks to privacy in all data exchanges. It is also true that health insurers and employers have been routinely violating patient privacy for decades, in order to reduce their health care costs.

But the answer to that is not to build a bridge to the 18th century. The answer is to reduce and (if possible) eliminate their incentive for doing this. This was one of the primary motives for health reform, which Dr. Peel opposed in the name, she said, of protecting privacy.

The time has come for the industry to face the real threat. Our health IT infrastructure is 20 years behind the times because fear mongers like Dr. Deborah Peel have fought computing every step of the way, as well as reform.

HIPAA was a great victory for those activists, but it turned out to be a Pyrrhic one. Rather than protecting privacy, all it did was create some phony hoops doctors could easily leap through forms, and to further reduce any incentive for computerizing and exchanging patient records.

It was a cynical law that only bred cynicism, which is how Luddism gains a foothold.

The overhead thus introduced to our health IT system, which is finally being overcome through efforts like the HITECH stimulus and NHIN Direct, is aimed at automating this paper flow, controlling who has access to records, recording when they do access for auditing purposes.

The result is not going to be perfect, because the incentives to spy remain, but on a transaction-per-transaction basis things will improve a lot. Plus we will get the benefits of information sharing -- lower transaction costs, personal control over a wide array of health data, and the ability to study large populations efficiently being just a few.

But there will be many, many more information transactions, so there will be breaches. Auditing and law enforcement will be needed to keep the damage to a minimum, and make sure leaks are never routine.

The answer to a fear of people breaking into your house is not to live on the street. And it's clear from her "calculator" and the way it asks questions that this is Dr. Peel's aim.

It's time for the industry to stop fearing her, and for government to stop listening to her.

Topics: IT Employment, CXO, Health, Legal

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

25 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • RE: Dr. Peel's Ludd calculator

    "Well you can do that. You can try for complete anonymity if you like. You can also be completely isolated, never get any help, and die decades before you might otherwise."

    That really happen all that much?
    CobraA1
  • RE: Dr. Peel's Ludd calculator

    You know how I can tell that you have never been a victim of identity theft, Dana?

    Otherwise you would have never said such foolish things.
    D. Kellus Pruitt
    • RE: Dr. Peel's Ludd calculator

      @D. Kellus Pruitt I have been a victim of identity theft. I guess I'm fortunate in being the only one of me around, thus the theft of my name is easy to detect and deal with.

      It would be great if we all had better index terms, so we could all be unique, and thus safer from thieves. But activists like Dr. Peel reject even that.

      She's not helping.
      DanaBlankenhorn
  • RE: Dr. Peel's Ludd calculator

    I have always promoted health IT and healthcare reform if you would bother to read anything I write, Dana. See: www.patientprivacyrights.org. We believe that patients should control the use and sale of their electronic health records, not corporations and the government. We want to see systems people can trust. We should not have to lose our privacy forever to benefit from health IT.
    dpeelmd
    • RE: Dr. Peel's Ludd calculator

      @dpeelmd Then why did your calculator tell people never to use the Internet, never to use credit cards, never to give anyone any information that might prove helpful in an emergency? I support people owning their own data, too, but I accept the need for this computer thingie you just used to contact me (costing you points in your own calculator as a result).

      It does anger me when people, in the name of good causes, encourage people to do foolish things or to become paranoid.
      DanaBlankenhorn
  • RE: Dr. Peel's Ludd calculator

    Interesting article. I appreciate you writing it.
    Unfortunately what's caused me to write is, ironically, that little Facebook "Like" icon. I much preferred the old "Like", which didn't require that I involve Facebook, and all its privacy concerns, in a simple act of appreciation.
    Spatha
    • RE: Dr. Peel's Ludd calculator

      @Spatha I agree that Facebook hosed its users, and think anyone who leaves is wise to do so.

      But Dr. Peel is condemning solid support groups like diabeticconnect, encouraging social isolation in the face of horrors, isolation that charlatans can easily take advantage of to take your money as well as your life.
      DanaBlankenhorn
  • RE: Dr. Peel's Ludd calculator

    "The answer to a fear of people breaking into your house is not to live on the street."<br><br>No, the answer is to have law & order and actually put criminals in jail. Without law enforcement, no locks or alarms will protect you for very long.
    Margalit Gur-Arie
    • RE: Dr. Peel's Ludd calculator

      @Margalit Gur-Arie I agree with that. Too many laws aren't enforced. Anything called a "regulation" is too often not enforced. And this includes, in particular, privacy regulations.
      DanaBlankenhorn
  • RE: Dr. Peel's Ludd calculator

    "I have always promoted health IT and healthcare reform if you would bother to read anything I write" says Deborah

    Pity that she never gets quoted doing anything of the sort. It must be that terrible liberal media.
    boltyboy
    • RE: Dr. Peel's Ludd calculator

      @boltyboy I used Dr. Peel's own calculator, and linked to it. It recommends you pay cash for everything, never use the Internet for anything, and avoid health IT like the plague.

      It's attitudes like that which have put health IT 20 years behind the times and caused the cost spiral we now face.
      DanaBlankenhorn
      • RE: Dr. Peel's Ludd calculator

        @DanaBlankenhorn Of course Dana. I've been critical of Peel for a LONG time now. She consistently tells lies about the activities of Health IT vendors, has a track record of opposing reform, and claims the complete opposite. What is far worse is that any time a comment is required in the media about health IT and privacy she's always on.

        And as for her comment here? She must just have been misquoted all these years.

        If you want to go further into the mire, try this
        http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2008/03/health-20-get-1.html
        boltyboy
  • RE: Dr. Peel's Ludd calculator

    Thank you for posting this. I tried out the calculator and found the layout and visuals designed to scare an already frightened people. The great hopes of the future of HIT and the hopes of better health outcomes for all lies within more openness and transparency within the medical record. How can we aggregate data and come into an age of scientific medical decision making, if we are on able to share data? How can we know about the newest and best treatment options if we cannot post and talk with other patients? How dare Ms. Peel scare people about privacy rights when we are talking about life and death decisions. I am deeply offended by this calculator and its lack of empathy to others.<br>-Regina Holliday
    Regina Holliday
  • RE: Dr. Peel's Ludd calculator

    No one disagrees that privacy issues are very important. But we are smart enough to decide what we should share and how we should share it. Deb Peel should ask the ~ 700,000 cancer patients who have used ACOR.org since 1995 about the benefits of actively sharing their medical history with large numbers of other patients (and losing some privacy in the process). Many have been saved because they consciously decided that the benefits of doing so clearly outweigh the potential risks.

    I fully understand why Regina would be offended. Deb Peel's vision of individual protection & the calculator represent one of the worst forms of health-related paternalism I have seen in a long time and are also a great example of a self-serving, single-topic "educational" resource. Instead of scaring people (and then asking them for donations all over her website) how about truly educating them about the risks AND BENEFITS so that they can make informed decisions on their own?

    In the world of networked and engaged patients, the only real influencers are those who provide access to unbiased information, not those who use scare tactics to arm twist. Engaged patients will not tolerate Dr. Peel's behavior, while Fox News will love her forever!
    kosherfrog
  • RE: Dr. Peel's Ludd calculator

    Dear Dana. You are wrong on this one.

    1) Since January 2005, the privacy if more than 50 million electronic health records has been reported breached or compromised and the actual number of electronic records breached is likely to be twice that since there was no national breach notice law until September of last year when section 13402 of the HITECH law became effective.

    2) The average cost of an electronic health information breach is now $6.6 million and the total cost of the breaches involving more than 500 people that have been reported to HHS is now in excess of a billion dollars just since last September. Of course, the cost of new health IT and security protections, and cyber insurance on top of the cost of the breaches is diverting already limited health care dollars from patient care to IT vendors, consultants and lawyers.

    3) We now have studies that show what many of us knew that health IT will not save 100,000 lives and $77 billion annually as some argued when the HITECH Act was being considered. Early studies show that it actually has increased medical errors and added costs?this is why the HITECH Act was added to the stimulus bill rather than to the health reform bill, because CBO refused to score it as generating any savings. It now appears they were correct, however, it is producing jobs for unemployed computer geeks and profits for IT vendors.

    4) Health IT makes it possible for the first time in the history of medicine to (a) breach the privacy of millions of individual?s medical records simultaneously with the punch of a button (this is HHS?s finding), (b) steal health information without having physical access to it and without even being in the same country, and (c) destroy someone?s health privacy in a way that it can never be restored (electronic information about someone, once leaked, is available forever).

    5) HHS has determined that the entire health delivery system is dependent upon the willingness of individuals to share the most intimate details of their lives with their health care providers. Congress, Secretary Shalala under the Clinton Administration and Secretary Sebelius all seem to understand that we cannot have an effective health care system if the public loses trust in the system. That is why people are listening to Dr. Peel and why additional privacy protections were provided by Congress in the HITECH Act and are being implemented by Secretary Sebelius and ONC Director Blumenthal (and even his brother, the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut).

    In addition, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently reaffirmed Justice Brandies? finding that the right to privacy is ?the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men?. IMS Health Inc. v. Sebelius, p. 24 (1st Cir., Aug. 4, 2010). Apparently Blankenhorn does not fall into that category.

    D. Kellus Pruitt DDS
    D. Kellus Pruitt
    • RE: Dr. Peel's Ludd calculator

      @D. Kellus Pruitt please provide the references to your item #3. Saying there are studies is not quite sufficient for many of us. We want to see the studies and assess their validity, on our own, just as we can assess on our own the risks to our privacy!
      kosherfrog
      • RE: Dr. Peel's Ludd calculator

        @kosherfrog You won't like this, but everything I've said is available on the PatientPrivacyRights Website.

        The facts you question are not new.
        D. Kellus Pruitt
    • Thank you Dr. Ludd

      @D. Kellus Pruitt The benefits of technology for health care are manifold. The necessity of technology is obvious. We need to obviously work against privacy breaches, but the first essential step is eliminating the incentive for people to seek the data.

      I applaud the work being done on privacy by HHS, but to credit Dr. Peel completely with that work is a mistake, in my opinion.

      I think the key evidence is the calculator itself.
      DanaBlankenhorn
      • RE: Dr. Peel's Ludd calculator

        @DanaBlankenhorn Thanks, Dana. Regardless of all the other points I made - which have all been written about extensively and are commin knowledge by now - if the publc does not trust the security of the information they provide their doctors, the eHRs will be worthless.

        If you haven't looked around, Americans simply don't trust eHRs and our discussion here makes no difference at all.

        D. Kellus Pruitt DDS
        D. Kellus Pruitt
    • RE: Dr. Peel's Ludd calculator

      @D. Kellus Pruitt In terms of the health care system, you're completely wrong. Excuses for Luddism are just that, excuses.

      It's true there have been breaches, mainly driven by the incentive employers and insurers have to breach privacy. Get rid of those incentives and you greatly reduce the risk.

      The benefits of health IT are manifold. We know that patients benefit enormously from contact with other sufferers. We know people benefit enormously from knowing their actual medical condition. We know that systems based on data work better than those based on guesswork. And we know there are enormous benefits from gathering lots of data on lots of people in order to detect patterns.

      What have you got in response? Excuses. Legal decisions. Fear. It doesn't add up in my mind. But you do put Dr. Peel's arguments together cogently, completely and in an easy to comprehend manner. I want to congratulate you on that.
      DanaBlankenhorn