Streamlining US health care business has raised unique privacy concerns. Bills and explanations of benefits contain protected health information that could be disclosed to someone other than the patient.
AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(3):279-287. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.3.pfor4-1603.
Mary Anderlik Majumder, JD, PhD and Christi J. Guerrini, JD
Amendments to the Common Rule and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) raise questions about broad consent and sale of health data.
AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(3):288-298. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.3.pfor5-1603.
Patients can now easily view their health records, so clinicians must consider a reader’s interpretation of how they convey sensitive personal health information. What might this mean for ethics consultants?
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(9):E784-791. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.784.
International debate about human genome editing governance has undergone a paradigm shift and suggests that inclusive public deliberation is still important.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(12):E1065-1070. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1065.
Upcoding and misrepresenting clinical information constitute fraud, cost a lot, and can result in patient harm and unnecessary procedures and prescriptions.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(3):E221-231. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.221.
Rebekah Davis Reed, PhD, JD and Erik L. Antonsen, PhD, MD
Though the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s collection of disaggregated genetic data for occupational surveillance and research raises numerous privacy concerns, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 allows genetic information to be used to develop personal pharmaceuticals.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(9):E849-856. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.849.