The Fund supports several networks of state health policymakers to help identify, inspire, and inform policy leaders.
The Fund identifies and shares policy ideas and analysis on topics important to state health policymakers, particularly on issues related to state leadership, primary care, aging, and total costs of care.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. And read the latest blogs from our thought leaders, including Fund President Christopher F. Koller.
The Fund publishes The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to health policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund is an endowed operating foundation that publishes The Milbank Quarterly, commissions projects, and convenes state health policy decision makers on issues they identify as important to population health.
March 2017 (Volume 95)
David Blumenthal Read Bio
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
Every technological advance brings both benefits and risks, many of which are unanticipated. This is especially true of digitizing health information—a process that is inevitable and accelerating. Since the dawn of the information revolution, the very idea that health care would remain walled off from this profound development has been untenable. The question was not if but when, and with what effects. For example, the so-called 21st Century Cures Act has numerous unheralded provisions that clearly indicate bipartisan support for health information exchange (HIE) and bipartisan impatience with the failure of vendors and providers to facilitate it.1
It is important to recognize that these effects are not fixed but evolving. The benefits and risks of digitized health information will change as health information technologies advance and as professionals and patients become more familiar with them. An important example of how effects may evolve is the concern about patients withholding data. The worry is that patients may be reluctant to share sensitive information with clinicians in the digital age for fear that their data will be insecure, which is not unrealistic, given almost daily reports of hacking into supposedly protected databases.
Such fears are likely to grow as HIE becomes widespread. HIE consists of a largely unrealized capability to move individuals’ health information around the health system for clinical, administrative, and investigational purposes. This raises the prospect that sensitive data may be both routinely and intentionally shared in ways that patients find concerning. More troubling, data on the move may be inherently less secure than data stored behind institutional firewalls.
The withholding of data by patients creates many problems.2 It reduces the accuracy and completeness of the information available to the health care professionals responsible for making diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. From the patients’ standpoint, this may compromise the quality of care they receive. From the clinicians’ standpoint, data withholding may increase the frustration and risks of clinical practice. Clinicians take pride in their profession and are demoralized when missing information compromises their skills. Health professionals may also fear being held legally liable for failing to elicit information that patients are reluctant to provide.
That said, HIE brings huge potential benefits for patients, clinicians, and society. HIE facilitates better and safer care for patients.3 It may reduce society’s health care expenses—and patients’ out-of-pocket costs—by avoiding unnecessary diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. The sharing of accurate and complete data encourages clinicians to practice at the top of their game. It may also facilitate cutting-edge research by means of accessing and analyzing patient data repositories created through HIE.
As we grapple with the growing concerns over data withholding, the first task is to make sure these concerns are real. Research is required to document the nature and extent of patients’ failure to share health information: to understand who withholds data, what they withhold, and how often they do so. The epidemiology of the phenomenon may suggest important ways to minimize it.
Minimizing the risks of new technologies is a logical first step toward optimizing their value. Assuming for the moment that data withholding will occur—as it has long occurred in the world of paper medical records as well—a number of strategies could reduce the frequency and the downside of patients’ withholding of health information.
All these strategies, in my view, should be consistent with one overarching premise: patients own and should control their health care data and have no obligation to share information that they prefer to withhold.
Donald Berwick eloquently described the bedrock principle of patient autonomy: We (clinicians) are all “guests in their lives,” and we need to live by the rules of the house.4
Some clinicians may seek to prevent data withholding by threatening not to care for patients who do so. But this approach violates the fundamental requirement that health professionals put patients’ interests—real or perceived—ahead of their own. Clinicians are trained to function without perfect information. Patient data withholding is just one more contributor to the challenging information reality that health professionals have faced while gathering their patients’ medical histories since, at least, the age of Hippocrates. (There are, of course, circumstances when patients’ data withholding can affect the welfare of others, for example, when they are carrying or are exposed to a communicable disease. In such cases, patients’ rights to data withholding may be circumscribed.)
Clinicians, health care organizations, and vendors can and should reduce the frequency of patient data withholding. First, they should create the most secure possible environment for the data health professionals collect. In fact, the most common reason for highly publicized data breaches in health care is not malicious hacking, but health care providers’ bad data hygiene.5 Many health professionals and organizations do not observe the most basic security precautions, such as requiring and training their employees to observe basic security procedures.
Second, they should educate patients on the benefits and risks of data sharing and withholding so that they can make informed decisions. With appropriate education, patients can give meaningful consent (or nonconsent) to providers’ participation in data sharing on their patients’ behalf.
Finally, technological innovation designed to increase patients’ ability to exert granular control over their health information may constitute a third way of minimizing data withholding. If patient portals and other devices through which patients access their health information can offer them choices on what they are willing to share, and with whom, they may feel more confident in the integrity of the data systems that store their health information.
In the near future, electronic means of gathering and storing patient data will become normative. In the meantime, we will have to manage the problems that come with the territory. The key is to recognize patients’ unquestioned right to control their health care fate, including their health information, and to minimize the risks of data sharing, maximize the benefits, and make it technologically safe and easy to participate.
Address correspondence to: David Blumenthal, MD, The Commonwealth Fund, 1 E 75th St, New York, NY 10021 (email: firstname.lastname@example.org).
David Blumenthal, MD, MPP, is president of The Commonwealth Fund. He is formerly the Samuel O. Thier Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and chief health information and innovation officer at Partners Healthcare System in Boston. From 2009 to 2011, he served as the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, with the charge to build an interoperable, private, and secure nationwide health information system and to support the widespread, meaningful use of health IT. Previously, Blumenthal was a practicing primary care physician, director of the Institute for Health Policy, and professor of medicine and health policy at Massachusetts General Hospital/Partners Healthcare System and Harvard Medical School. He is the author of more than 250 books and scholarly publications, including most recently Heart of Power: Health and Politics in the Oval Office (University of California Press, 2010). He is a member of the National Academy of Medicine and serves on the editorial boards of the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation. He has also served on the staff of the US Senate Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research, is the founding chairman of AcademyHealth, and is a trustee of the University of Pennsylvania Health System.
Get the Latest from the Milbank Memorial Fund
The Milbank Quarterly’s multidisciplinary approach and commitment to applying the best empirical research to practical policymaking offers in-depth assessments of the social, economic, historical, legal, and ethical dimensions of health and health care policy.