Throughout 2017, the health care and life sciences industries experienced a widespread proliferation of digital health innovation that presents challenges to traditional notions of health care delivery and payment as well as product research, development and commercialization for both long-standing and new stakeholders. At the same time, lawmakers and regulators made meaningful progress toward modernizing the existing legal framework in a way that will both adequately protect patients and consumers and support and encourage continued innovation, but their efforts have not kept pace with what has become the light speed of innovation. As a result, some obstacles, misalignment and ambiguity remain.

We are pleased to bring you this review of key developments that shaped digital health in 2017, along with planning considerations and predictions for the digital health frontier in the year ahead.

Read the full Special Report.

Blockchain is rapidly becoming the focus of conversations regarding health care disruption, and for good reason. What started out as a means for cryptocurrency is now making waves in a variety of industries, set to revolutionize how data is stored and shared.

The inability to easily and securely store and share data has long been a burden on the health system. Blockchain poses a solution to that through encryption and highly advanced technological assets which open the doors to health care innovation. Today we see blockchain being used with electronic health records (EHRs) so that a patient’s medical history is easily accessible to him/her, as well as his/her doctors, insurance providers, etc. It’s also providing the “how” in implementing value-based payment agreements, which link payment to performance of a drug or medical device. Blockchain is currently being used both in the private and public sectors, including the FDA and the CDC. While the full potential of this new technology is not yet known, the industry seems eager to find out.

Ahead of this year’s J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference, we sat down with Lee Schneider, our top blockchain thought leader, to talk specifically about how this new technology is revolutionizing (or has the potential to revolutionize) the health care space. Continue Reading Blockchain: Health Care’s Next Great Disruptor?

In the final days of 2017, the vice chairman of the Standing Committee of China’s National People’s Congress (NPC) submitted a report to the Standing Committee of the NPC detailing the Network Security Law enforcement inspection project that began earlier in the year. This inspection had focused on five key points under the government’s overall data protection strategy:

  • Legal education
  • Supporting laws and regulations
  • Protection of critical information infrastructures and the application of graded protection for network security
  • Illegal network information
  • Personal information protections

Continue Reading New Chinese Government Report Highlights Recent Data Protection Enforcement and Attitudes

China’s new data protection framework clearly creates a requirement for local storage and conducting a security assessment before personal information or important data is shared with other jurisdictions, but it is currently much less clear what types of entities fall under this requirement.

Localization and Transfer Assessment Requirements Related to CII Operators

Under the People’s Republic of China Network Security Law, also known as the Cybersecurity Law, personal information and important data collected and generated in the operation of critical information infrastructure operators (CII operators) is required to be stored in China and, before providing that information abroad, a security assessment is required to be passed. This new requirement caused a significant amount of concern for entities that fall within the category of CII operators because of the need to potentially restructure their data systems, but there was also a general appearance of acceptance within the business community due to the relatively targeted scope of the definition of CII operators and acknowledgement that critical infrastructures require elevated protections. Continue Reading Transferring Data from China: Who Must First Pass a Pre-Export Security Assessment?

Disruption of traditional health care is inevitable and poses a central challenge for health care governance. While the size and complexity of the health care industry have slowed the process of business disruption, its high costs and lack of convenience make it highly vulnerable to innovative, nontraditional competitors.

To make sure boards are well-prepared to address this challenge, McDermott Will & Emery and Kaufman Hall have partnered on a new thought leadership series designed to help you identify the signs of disruption, learn how to prepare your organization, and understand the implications for health care governance.

Get critical insights on how to spot, prepare for and manage disruption in your organization now:

  • Listen to Surviving Disruption Podcast, Episode 1: The Signs of Disruption.
  • Download Is Your Organization Disruption Ready? Questions to Assess Preparedness.
  • View our Top 5 Business Disruption Considerations for Corporate Governance infographic.
  • Watch our Behind the Scenes: The Making of the Surviving Disruption Podcast Series video.

Subscribe to the Surviving Disruption podcast on iTunesSoundCloud and Pocket Casts, and keep an eye on the Resource Center for Episode 2: The Path Through Disruption and Episode 3: A Governance Foundation, being released on December 27 and January 10.

Although the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act has been on the books for almost 10 years, a recent surge in lawsuits has likely been brought on by developments in biometric scanning technology and its increased use in the workplace. At least 32 class action lawsuits have been filed in recent months by Illinois residents in state court challenging the collection, use and storage of biometric data by companies in the state. This could potentially cause a reevaluation of company strategies and development of new defenses in the use of advancing biometric technology.

Read “To Scan or Not to Scan: Surge in Lawsuits under Illinois Biometrics Law.”

In September, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) announced that it is scaling back requirements for third-party certification of criteria related to certified electronic health record (EHR) technology (CEHRT). Going forward, ONC will allow health developers to self-declare their products’ conformance with 30 of the 55 certification criteria.

ONC will also exercise discretion and not enforce the requirement that certification bodies conduct randomized surveillance of two percent of the health IT certifications they issue.

Read “ONC’s De-Regulatory Announcement Aims at Enticing Industry to Adopt 2015 Edition Criteria.”

Copyright 2017, American Health Lawyers Association, Washington, DC. Reprint permission granted.

On September 29, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) formally announced a December 12th workshop on informational injury—the injury a consumer suffers when information about them is misused. The workshop will address questions such as, how to characterize and measure such injury and what factors businesses and consumers should consider the benefits and risks of collecting, using and providing personal information so as to gain further perspective for how the FTC should apply its legal framework for privacy and security enforcement under 15 USC § 45 (Section 5). In her September 19th remarks to the Federal Communications Bar Association, Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen, the Acting Chairman of the FTC, metaphorically characterized the workshop’s purpose as providing the next brushstrokes on the unfinished enforcement landscape the FTC is painting on its legal framework canvas. The full list of specific questions to be addressed may be accessed here.

Background. The FTC views itself as the primary US enforcer of data privacy and security, a role it recently assumed. While the FTC’s enforcement against practices causing informational injury through administrative proceedings goes back as far as 2002, its ability to pursue corporate liability for data security and privacy practices under its Section 5 “unfair or deceptive trade practices” jurisdiction was only ratified in 2015 by the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation. The FTC has actively invoked its enforcement authority but, in doing so, has been selective in determining which consumer informational injuries to pursue by questioning the strength of evidence connecting problematic practices with the injury, examining the magnitude of the injury and inquiring as to whether the injury is imminent or has been realized. Continue Reading Upcoming FTC Workshop on Informational Harm | Next Brushstrokes on the FTC’s Consumer Privacy and Security Enforcement Canvas

On 6 August 2017, the UK government released ‘The Key Principles of Vehicle Cyber Security for Connected and Automated Vehicles’, guidance aimed at ensuring minimum cybersecurity protections for consumers in the manufacture and operation of connected and automated vehicles.

Connected and automated vehicles fall into the category of so-called ‘smart cars’. Connected vehicles have gained, and will continue to gain, adoption in the market and, indeed, are expected to make up more than half of new vehicles by 2020. Such cars have the ability through the use of various technologies to communicate with the driver, other cars, application providers, traffic infrastructure and the Cloud. Automated vehicles, also known as autonomous vehicles, include self-driving features that allow the vehicle to control key functions–like observing the vehicle’s environment, steering, acceleration, parking, and lane changes–that traditionally have been performed by a human driver. Consumers in certain markets have been able to purchase vehicles with certain autonomous driving features for the past few years, and vehicle manufacturers have announced plans to enable vehicles to be fully self-driving under certain conditions, in the near future.

Continue Reading UK Government Issues Cybersecurity Guidance for Connected and Automated Vehicles

The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology recently released a report (the Report) detailing user experience research on patient access to health data. The Report sought to examine the experiences of 17 individuals and processes of 50 health systems, with commentary from four medical record fulfillment administrators, to determine how the medical record request process can be improved for consumers. The Report ultimately concludes that patients and health care providers alike are in need of a well-defined process that is convenient, expedient and transparent.

Background

The Health Insurance Patient Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) does not create a uniform process for storage and production of medical records across providers, and in-turn did not create a convenient request process for patients. Generally, patients have a right to access a designated record set, which includes 1) medical records and billing records about individuals maintained by or for a covered health care provider; 2) enrollment, payment, claims adjudication, and case or medical management record systems maintained by or for a health plan; and 3) other records that are used, in whole or in part, by or for the covered entity to make decisions about individuals. Upon receipt of a request by a patient to access their health records, the covered entity receiving the request must produce the records within 30 days. Prior to producing those records, however, the covered entity must verify the identity of the individual making the request. This often involves signature verification or similar processes.

Continue Reading Many Lessons Still Need to be Learned regarding Patient Access to Health Care Information