Protecting Privacy of Pregnant and LGBTQ+ Research Participants

This Viewpoint summarizes existing federal regulations aimed at protecting research data, describes the challenges of enforcing these regulations, and discusses how evolving privacy technologies could be used to reduce health disparities and advance health equity among pregnant and LGBTQ+ research participants.

How US law will evaluate artificial intelligence for covid-19

Daniel E Ho and colleagues explore the legal implications of using artificial intelligence in the response to covid-19 and call for more robust evaluation frameworks

To What Extent Does the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Apply to Citizen Scientist-Led Health Research with Mobile Devices?

In this article, we consider the possible application of the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to "citizen scientist"-led health research with mobile devices. We argue that the GDPR likely does cover this activity, depending on the specific context and the territorial scope. Remaining open questions that result from our analysis lead us to call for lex specialis that would provide greater clarity and certainty regarding the processing of health data by for research purposes, including these non-traditional researchers.

Hacking HIPAA: "Best Practices" for Avoiding Oversight in the Sale of Your Identifiable Medical Information

In light of the confusion invited by applying the label "de-identified" to information that can be used to identify patients, it is paramount that regulators, compliance professionals, patient advocates and the general public understand the significant differences between the standards applied by HIPAA and those applied by permissive "de-identification guidelines." This Article discusses those differences in detail. The discussion proceeds in four Parts. Part II (HIPAA's Heartbeat: Why HIPAA Protects Identifiable Patient Information) examines Congress's motivations for defining individually identifiable health information broadly, which included to stop the harms patients endured prior to 1996 arising from the commercial sale of their medical records. Part III (Taking the "I" Out of Identifiable Information: HIPAA's Requirements for De-Identified Health Information) discusses HIPAA's requirements for de-identification that were never intended to create a loophole for identifiable patient information to escape HIPAA's protections. Part IV (Anatomy of a Hack: Methods for Labeling Identifiable information "De-Identified") examines the goals, methods, and results of permissive "de-identification guidelines" and compares them to HIPAA's requirements. Part V (Protecting Un-Protected Health Information) evaluates the suitability of permissive "de-identification guidelines," concluding that the vulnerabilities inherent in their current articulation render them ineffective as a data protection standard. It also discusses ways in which compliance professionals, regulators, and advocates can foster accountability and transparency in the utilization of health information that can be used to identify patients.

Observational health research in Europe: understanding the General Data Protection Regulation and underlying debate

Insights into the incidence and survival of cancer, the influence of lifestyle and environmental factors and the interaction of treatment regimens with outcomes are hugely dependent on observational research, patient data derived from the healthcare system and from volunteers participating in cohort studies, often non-selective. Since 25th May 2018, the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) applies to such data. The GDPR focusses on more individual control for data subjects of 'their' data. Yet, the GDPR was preceded by a long debate. The research community participated actively in that debate, and as a result, the GDPR has research exemptions as well. Some of those apply directly; other exemptions need to be implemented into national law. Those exemptions will be discussed together with a general outline of the GDPR. I propose a substantive definition of research-absent in the GDPR-which can warrant its special status in the GDPR. The debate is not over yet. Most legal texts exhibit ambiguity and are interpreted against a background of values. In this case, those could be subsumed under informational self-determination versus solidarity and the deeper meaning of autonomy. Values will also guide national implementation and their interpretation. The value of individual control or informational self-determination should be balanced by nuanced visions about our mutual dependency in healthcare, as an ever-learning system, especially in the European solidarity-based healthcare systems. Good research governance might be a way forward to escape the consent or anonymise dichotomy.

United Kingdom: transfers of genomic data to third countries

In the United Kingdom (UK), transfer of genomic data to third countries is regulated by data protection legislation. This is a composite of domestic and European Union (EU) law, with EU law to be adopted as domestic law when Brexit takes place. In this paper we consider the content of data protection legislation and the likely impact of Brexit on transfers of genomic data from the UK to other countries. We examine the advice by regulators not to rely upon consent as a lawful basis for processing under data protection law, at least not when personal data are used for research purposes, and consider some of the other ways in which the research context can qualify an individual's ability to exercise control over processing operations. We explain how the process of pseudonymization is to be understood in the context of transfer of genomic data to third parties, as well as how adequacy of data protection in a third country is to be determined in general terms. We conclude with reflections on the future direction of UK data protection law post Brexit with the reclassification of the UK itself as a third country.

United States: law and policy concerning transfer of genomic data to third countries

This paper provides an overview of US laws and related guidance documents affecting transfer of genomic data to third countries, addressing the domains of consent, privacy, security, compatible processing/adequacy, and oversight. In general, US laws governing research and disclosure and use of data generated within the health care system do not impose different requirements on transfers to researchers and service providers based in third countries compared with US-based researchers or service providers. Of note, the US lacks a comprehensive data protection regime. Data protections are piecemeal, spread across bodies of law that target specific kinds of research or data generated or held by specific kinds of actors involved in the delivery of health care. Oversight is also distributed across a range of bodies, including institutional review boards and data access committees. The conclusion to this paper examines future directions in US law and policy, including proposals for more comprehensive protections for personal data.