Cloud storage exposed?

[keefe]

I don't think it needs to stop there. You could look at population trends, gender trends, age trends, etc. vs disease and outcomes sorted by different therapies and such. Electronic medical records could open up whole new areas of research that would have been so much harder to do on paper.

Our lead investigator is an Epidemiologist so we are looking at baseline statistical reporting from a public health perspective. We are tied in to a major local university medical school and an affiliated Cancer Research Center for this pilot.

[forgetful]

My guess is your chief medical info officer is correct IF it is aggregated data.  People start to care when it is attached to a face, or a SS #, or what have you. 

For example, if they think it is going to keep them from getting a job, they might care.  Or if it is going to raise their auto insurance premium, or whatever.   If it's in the blind, I would agree, no one is going to care.  But how will the data be used, who else gets their hands on it, etc, is always a concern.

I'd be curious to hear the legal side of the treatments that come from the data.  A drug company can create a drug that for 99.99999% of the public works a certain way, but rest assured the 0.0001% that has a different reaction to it will result in a lawsuit, etc,.  So, if you're taking 50,000 records of type 1 diabetics and comparing and contrasting how certain insulin works, etc to help effectively treat other diabetics, but for whatever reason it has a negative reaction to some small group of type 1 diabetics as a result (in other words, the doctor is sued for not treating them as an individual but as a collective data point), what's the liability if any?

For the record, I'm all for this technology and think it will help the vast majority of people, but I also know how F'd our country can be and the realities of a litigious society we have.

No worries there, Type 1 diabetes will be cured in 5-10 years.

[GooooMarquette]

I'd be curious to hear the legal side of the treatments that come from the data.  A drug company can create a drug that for 99.99999% of the public works a certain way, but rest assured the 0.0001% that has a different reaction to it will result in a lawsuit, etc,.  So, if you're taking 50,000 records of type 1 diabetics and comparing and contrasting how certain insulin works, etc to help effectively treat other diabetics, but for whatever reason it has a negative reaction to some small group of type 1 diabetics as a result (in other words, the doctor is sued for not treating them as an individual but as a collective data point), what's the liability if any?

Plenty of interesting questions there.

When the FDA approves use of a drug, it typically approves it for particular diseases. Therefore, for example it might approve a specific drug for type 1 diabetes. A doc who prescribes the drug for this purpose will likely be able to defend any lawsuit on the basis of the FDA approval. There may be circumstances where the patient can argue the doc knew or should have known that other circumstances could have led to the adverse reaction, but I suspect these are fairly limited.  In other words, the FDA's approval of the drug for the condition insulates the doc to a fairly significant degree.

Occasionally, after approval a particular side effect (sometimes in a limited group of patients) becomes apparent. And in some of these cases, the FDA issues a "black box" warning. This essentially tells the docs that they should be cautious about using the drug in that subset of patients. When this happens, the doc's liability would likely increase if he or she used the drug in those situations and didn't properly warn the patient or monitor for the side effect.

Finally, there is the situation where the FDA approves the drug for a particular condition (type 1 diabetes) but research later shows that it is also effective in treating another condition (high cholesterol). Docs are free to use the drug to treat patients with high cholesterol, but their risk of liability could be higher if an adverse reaction happens in one of those patients. In this case, the doc's defense would be showing that there is evidence indicating that the drug is appropriate for patients with high cholesterol, despite the fact that the FDA's approval is more limited. This type of use is often referred to as "off label use" and is very common. As long as the evidence supports use in the other conditions, docs would frequently be successful in defending the claim.

[mu03eng]

My guess is your chief medical info officer is correct IF it is aggregated data.  People start to care when it is attached to a face, or a SS #, or what have you. 

For example, if they think it is going to keep them from getting a job, they might care.  Or if it is going to raise their auto insurance premium, or whatever.   If it's in the blind, I would agree, no one is going to care.  But how will the data be used, who else gets their hands on it, etc, is always a concern.

I'd be curious to hear the legal side of the treatments that come from the data.  A drug company can create a drug that for 99.99999% of the public works a certain way, but rest assured the 0.0001% that has a different reaction to it will result in a lawsuit, etc,.  So, if you're taking 50,000 records of type 1 diabetics and comparing and contrasting how certain insulin works, etc to help effectively treat other diabetics, but for whatever reason it has a negative reaction to some small group of type 1 diabetics as a result (in other words, the doctor is sued for not treating them as an individual but as a collective data point), what's the liability if any?

For the record, I'm all for this technology and think it will help the vast majority of people, but I also know how F'd our country can be and the realities of a litigious society we have.

And this is one of the great traveshamockeries holding technological advancement back.  Between patent trolls and legal concerns should there be a downside to innovation there is a great brake applied to our technological advancement.

Want to improve the economy?  Get the lawyers in check and watch innovation and productivity flourish.

My company is spending an insane amount of time and effort on putting security in place on our products.  Are there potential threats?  Sure but it's not that we are concerned with an actual hack and what might happen it's that we want to appear concerned.  The security team reports to and is driven by the legal department which tells me what the driving force is.  Holds everything back

[WellsstreetWanderer]

The FDA does not have any control over a Doctor's use of an approved device or drug in my experience. Sold many a device that benefited patients which were used in areas not approved by the FDA.  Many companies that I have been associated with have had beneficial medical devices delayed  by FDA and made considerably more expensive because of the potential of future litigation.  I remember a colleague who had a neighbor employed by the Dept. of Transportation that received a promotion to the FDA. Not unusual for a company to go through the majority of the regulation process to have the agent leave and a new person take over who insists on beginning the process over.

[ChicosBailBonds]

No worries there, Type 1 diabetes will be cured in 5-10 years.

For my daughter's sake (and the 2 million others that have the disease in this country), I hope you are right.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

And this is one of the great traveshamockeries holding technological advancement back.  Between patent trolls and legal concerns should there be a downside to innovation there is a great brake applied to our technological advancement.

Want to improve the economy?  Get the lawyers in check and watch innovation and productivity flourish.

My company is spending an insane amount of time and effort on putting security in place on our products.  Are there potential threats?  Sure but it's not that we are concerned with an actual hack and what might happen it's that we want to appear concerned.  The security team reports to and is driven by the legal department which tells me what the driving force is.  Holds everything back

You will not receive one argument from me at all. 

[brandx]

And this is one of the great traveshamockeries holding technological advancement back.  Between patent trolls and legal concerns should there be a downside to innovation there is a great brake applied to our technological advancement.

Want to improve the economy?  Get the lawyers in check and watch innovation and productivity flourish.

My company is spending an insane amount of time and effort on putting security in place on our products.  Are there potential threats?  Sure but it's not that we are concerned with an actual hack and what might happen it's that we want to appear concerned.  The security team reports to and is driven by the legal department which tells me what the driving force is.  Holds everything back

Until something happens to YOU - then lawyers look a lot better.

You are right, though. Legal shenanigans and costs drive up costs and hold back innovation at times. But without said lawyers making sure the security is OK, you open yourself up to the possibility of more lawsuits. There are always those out there that will take advantage of you and game the system. Without legal protections, your company would not be in business very long.

A good example would be OSHA and its regulations. They cost companies time and money. But they are only there because of abuses that exist.

[GooooMarquette]

The FDA does not have any control over a Doctor's use of an approved device or drug in my experience. Sold many a device that benefited patients which were used in areas not approved by the FDA.

Correct - that's the "off label use" referred to in my post. 

I only distinguished use according to the label vs off-label use because a question was raised about potential liability for a physician if sued by an injured patient.

[mu03eng]

Until something happens to YOU - then lawyers look a lot better.

You are right, though. Legal shenanigans and costs drive up costs and hold back innovation at times. But without said lawyers making sure the security is OK, you open yourself up to the possibility of more lawsuits. There are always those out there that will take advantage of you and game the system. Without legal protections, your company would not be in business very long.

A good example would be OSHA and its regulations. They cost companies time and money. But they are only there because of abuses that exist.

OHSA and even the EPA are reasonable examples but they are government bodies on "one side" of the issue, also they don't have a monetary incentive either.  The problem is that lawyers sit on both sides of the transaction:  those claiming to be aggrieved and the accused perpetrators.  Also, lawyers are incentivized to take any opportunity to make money, even on trumped up charges.  Lawyers are protecting clients, they are generating revenue for their firm.

Simple fix?  Loser pays.  You'll watch a bunch of frivolous lawsuits disappear.

[jficke13]

I remember as a kid the photo would come out and you would see people waving the photo to "make it develop faster".  I always wondered if that was incredible BS or really did speed up the process.  Mythbusters will have to do something with that one.   

I recall that actually was detrimental to the quality of the photograph, but I'm not 100% on that.

[jficke13]

Want to improve the economy?  Get the lawyers in check and watch innovation and productivity flourish.

First, kill all the lawyers. The only people worse than us are politicians.

[Spotcheck Billy]

First, kill all the lawyers. The only people worse than us are politicians.

...and if all of the lawyers are dead no one can press charges for their elimination ... I like it!

[GooooMarquette]

First, kill all the lawyers. The only people worse than us are politiciansBadger fans.

Fify

[brandx]

OHSA and even the EPA are reasonable examples but they are government bodies on "one side" of the issue, also they don't have a monetary incentive either.  The problem is that lawyers sit on both sides of the transaction:  those claiming to be aggrieved and the accused perpetrators.  Also, lawyers are incentivized to take any opportunity to make money, even on trumped up charges.  Lawyers are protecting clients, they are generating revenue for their firm.

Simple fix?  Loser pays.  You'll watch a bunch of frivolous lawsuits disappear.

Wow - nobody else has that opportunity!!

[mu03eng]

Wow - nobody else has that opportunity!!

You are correct, but you compared OSHA to lawyers, lawyers are motivated by money, OSHA is not.  You can't protect the hen house with guards that are paid by both the hens and the wolves.

[jficke13]

...and if all of the lawyers are dead no one can press charges for their elimination ... I like it!

Credit where credit is due: It's from William Shakespeare, Henry VI

[ChicosBailBonds]

First, kill all the lawyers. The only people worse than us are politicians.

Many politicians are lawyers, or at least have law degrees.....kill them twice?

[forgetful]

OHSA and even the EPA are reasonable examples but they are government bodies on "one side" of the issue, also they don't have a monetary incentive either.  The problem is that lawyers sit on both sides of the transaction:  those claiming to be aggrieved and the accused perpetrators.  Also, lawyers are incentivized to take any opportunity to make money, even on trumped up charges.  Lawyers are protecting clients, they are generating revenue for their firm.

Simple fix?  Loser pays.  You'll watch a bunch of frivolous lawsuits disappear.

I always here this argument and at face value it sounds good, but it would cause far far more harm than good.  What you would see is the 'big money' would just invest even more in crushing the opposition.  They already do this, but an additional threat of if you lose, you'll have to pay the millions in attorney's fees we are throwing at this even though we know we are in the wrong.

Really bad idea.

[brandx]

I always here this argument and at face value it sounds good, but it would cause far far more harm than good.  What you would see is the 'big money' would just invest even more in crushing the opposition.  They already do this, but an additional threat of if you lose, you'll have to pay the millions in attorney's fees we are throwing at this even though we know we are in the wrong.

Really bad idea.

Unbelievably bad idea. Just another ploy to get those who are not rich from ever suing.