How is this not a criminal breach of HIPAA laws?
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individuals/guidance-materials...
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individuals/guidance-materials...
>What about patient data? All of Google’s work with Ascension adheres to industry-wide regulations (including HIPAA) regarding patient data, and come with strict guidance on data privacy, security and usage. ... To be clear: under this arrangement, Ascension’s data cannot be used for any other purpose than for providing these services we’re offering under the agreement, and patient data cannot and will not be combined with any Google consumer data.
Does anybody enforce this or do we just take Google at their word?
EDIT: I guess I don't understand. Once we give Google the sensitive information, how do we have any way of knowing what they do with it? I'm guessing an audit on all of Google's data is out of the question.
While the Grauniad is trying to spin it to sound worse, the whole point is Google are providing data processing services to a valid HIPAA processor via Google Cloud, not that they nefariously bought the data to integrate it with the search results.
Much like health data stored on AWS with a dedicated internal project team could be accessed by "Amazon" staff. It's kinda the point, the google staff have been brought in to help manage the data.
I don't think that anyone is claiming they are intending to do this.
Yes, the DHHS Office of Civil Rights enforces HIPAA Privacy and Security rules. That enforcement is reactive of there is no independent regular compliance certification or monitoring required, however, which is a weakness, but the fact that detection of violation can lead to personal as well as institutional penalties, and that those penalties are criminal as well as civil, means it's not a risk that decision-makers tend to be willing to take on just because it would (so long as undetected) provide a business opportunity.
Can you fly under the radar and potentially get away with not doing it? Of course, anything is possible. Could a multibillion dollar internet organization beholden to shareholders and under public scrutiny get away with it? Not likely.
Can you provide a link to this requirement? The HIPAA/HITECH laws provide no requirements for an external audit (and self-audits aren't actually audits) and the HHS, as far as I know, only does small sample random audits unless a complaint was made.
That said, most people do not understand how HIPAA works (I am in no way saying you are one of these people). Unless you are a healthcare provider (think doctor) or a business that is supporting those providers (think 3rd party tools built specifically for managing healthcare records) it's pretty difficult to have a legitimate HIPAA complaint made against you.
If google is able to get these, what’s stopping anyone else?
It doesn't preclude other crimes whether from hackers but doesn't technically guarantee them in Google's part. Technically the provider could have just given sensitive information like complete idiots because they were asked.
Having said that, my job in the healthcare IT world is building interfaces, i.e. facilitating the transfer of health data from one system to another. Most likely what's going on here is Google and Ascension have a project together, and part of that project is either an interface or a data dump from Ascension to Google for the purposes stated in the article. I haven't read all the information, but generally the data will be "de-identified", which some interpret as sufficient to avoid HIPAA violations.
Neither company is small or ignorant; they both had their lawyers look at the contract and they signed off on it. So either the lawyers at both companies are mistaken or mislead, or somewhere after the initial scoping the scope changed (which, btw, happens all the time) and nobody updated legal or felt the need to update management or raise a concern
And that's concerning, regardless of which option it is. Either the legal teams at both companies are ill-informed or outright ignorant (perhaps intentionally), or there are no checks -- and no responsible project managers -- in place to prevent this from occurring. Somewhere along the line, someone should have suggested that this was perhaps not cool, and taken the issue up the chain of command. Most healthcare companies have a well established process in place for that, and I can't believe either of these would be different in that respect.
You should read what both Google and Ascension has said about this -- the data is intentionally not being de-identified, although it's not clear as to what the rationale for that decision is.
Even if it were, though, de-identification isn't actually very effective, particularly if you have easy access to a mountain of other personal data (such as Google has).
> Neither company is small or ignorant; they both had their lawyers look at the contract and they signed off on it.
I'm quite certain that, at worst, both companies think that they can get away with this legally. Even if it's entirely legal, though, that in no way means it's right or acceptable.
Per their press release (https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/inside-google-cloud/our...), Google is playing the role of a BA as a part of this deal. They have signed a business associate agreement (BAA), as HIPAA requires. This agreement will have defined the permitted uses for the PHI that Ascension is transmitting to Google.
Basically this all sounds utterly ordinary. It's 2019 and even healthcare companies want to be in The Cloud (and especially want to be associated with AI and ML). My last company stored lots PHI in AWS. AWS signed a BAA with us. Now, if someone at Google with access to this PHI misuses it (e.g., accesses it for an invalid reason or sells it on the black market), then they could be in violation of HIPAA and face penalties. But the mere fact that a covered entity is transferring data to a business associate in no way suggests a HIPAA violation its own.
(Disclosure: I work at Google, but know nothing about this project.)
Why not?
As a Business Associate of a health care provider organization, with an agreement in place binding them to the same rules for that data the principal they serve would have, which is enforceable not only by the principal, and by patients, but also directly against Google by the government.
> If google is able to get these, what’s stopping anyone else?
Nothing is stopping anyone else from offering the kinds of services to health care providers and insurers that involve patient data under a BAA; most health care providers and insurers have numerous Business Associates performing various functions involving patient data, including, in many cases, large tech firms like Microsoft, Amazon, and, sure, Google. If anything, Google is behind in this space in terms of volume because of Amazon, Microsoft, and some more specialized forms in the healthcare space have stronger enterprise sales positions in general, and, especially for Microsoft and some of the more specialized forms, more established relations with firms in the space that make it a lower “activation energy” to engage those firms as BAs.
"In addition, business associates of covered entities must follow parts of the HIPAA regulations."
All vendors must comply with HIPAA laws (ie EMR systems)
Not because I think what Google did breaks HIPAA laws - there are many sub-threads below that can explain that better than I that this doesn't violate HIPAA - but rather the question helps highlight where we should truly be upset.
What Google did was legal; because of that, we should be upset that the government / regulatory bodies created an environment such that this was legal. Rallying against a publicly traded company of 100's of 1000's of employees for doing something "immoral" is not a productive use of your energy.
(The irony here is I usually am _against_ more regulation!)
It's a similar argument I made with the whole martin shkreli debacle: senators & congressmen/women got their picture day grilling him with the whole "how could you price gouge these poor, sick people?" But his consistent response was, essentially, the inverse: "How could you create an environment where this is totally 100% legal?"
But suddenly this company, Google, makes it immoral? It seems to me that if you care this much about private companies having your data, you should switch to a publicly owned healthcare system.