The shift to longitudinal, comprehensive electronic health records means that any health care provider or third-party user of the EHR will be able to access much health information of questionable clinical utility and possibly of great sensitivity. Genetic test results, reproductive health, mental health, substance abuse, and domestic violence are examples of sensitive information that many patients would not want routinely available. The likely policy response is to give patients the ability to segment information in their EHRs and to sequester (...) certain types of sensitive information, thereby limiting routine access to the totality of a patient's health record. This article explores the likely effect on the physician-patient relationship of patient-directed sequestration of sensitive health information, including the ethical and legal consequences. (shrink)

Each year individuals are required to execute millions of authorizations for the release of their health records as a condition of employment, applying for various types of insurance, and submitting claims for benefits. Generally, there are no restrictions on the scope of information released pursuant to these compelled authorizations, and the development of a nationwide system of interoperable electronic health records will increase the amount of health information released. After quantifying the extent of these disclosures, this article discusses why it (...) is important to limit disclosures of health information for nonmedical purposes as well as how it may be possible to do so. (shrink)

Pharmaceutical companies have exploited health information technology to “mine” data from drug prescriptions and use the data to better target their sales pitches to physicians. This article considers the policy arguments and first amendment implications regarding state regulation of data mining. It concludes that the legislative provisions are desirable and should withstand constitutional challenge.

Pharmaceutical companies have long relied on direct marketing of their drugs to physicians through one-on-one meetings with sales representatives. This practice of “detailing” is substantial in its costs and its number of participants. Every year, pharmaceutical companies spend billions of dollars on millions of visits to physicians by tens of thousands of sales representatives.Critics have argued that drug detailing results in sub-optimal prescribing decisions by physicians, compromising patient health and driving up spending on medical care. In this view, physicians often (...) are unduly influenced both by marketing presentations that do not accurately reflect evidence from the medical literature and by the gifts that sales representatives deliver in conjunction with their presentations. (shrink)