Clinical laboratories and pathology groups should be on the alert to this new digital threat; telehealth sessions and video conferencing calls particularly vulnerable to acoustic AI attacks
Banks may be the first to get hit by a new form of hacking because of all the money they hold in deposit accounts, but experts say healthcare providers—including medical laboratories—are comparably lucrative targets because of the value of patient data. The point of this hacking spear is artificial intelligence (AI) with increased capabilities to penetrate digital defenses.
AI is developing rapidly. Are healthcare organizations keeping up? The hackers sure are. An article from GoBankingRates titled, “How Hackers Are Using AI to Steal Your Bank Account Password,” reveals startling new AI capabilities that could enable bad actors to compromise information technology (IT) security and steal from customers’ accounts.
Though the article covers how the AI could conduct cyberattacks on bank information, similar techniques can be employed to gain access to patients’ protected health information (PHI) and clinical laboratory databases as well, putting all healthcare consumers at risk.
The new AI cyberattack employs an acoustic Side Channel Attack (SCA). An SCA is an attack enabled by leakage of information from a physical computer system. The “acoustic” SCA listens to keystrokes through a computer’s microphone to guess a password with 95% accuracy.
“With recent developments in deep learning, the ubiquity of microphones and the rise in online services via personal devices, acoustic side channel attacks present a greater threat to keyboards than ever,” wrote UK study authors Joshua Harrison, MEng, Durham University; Ehsan Toreini, University of Surrey; and Maryam Mehrnezhad, PhD, University of London.
Hackers could be recording keystrokes during video conferencing calls as well, where an accuracy of 93% is achievable, the authors added.
This nefarious technological advance could spell trouble for healthcare security. Using acoustic SCA attacks, busy healthcare facilities, clinical laboratories, and telehealth appointments could all be potentially compromised.
“The ubiquity of keyboard acoustic emanations makes them not only a readily available attack vector, but also prompts victims to underestimate (and therefore not try to hide) their output,” wrote Joshua Harrison, MEng (above), and his team in their IEEE Xplore paper. “For example, when typing a password, people will regularly hide their screen but will do little to obfuscate their keyboard’s sound.” Since computer keyboards and microphones in healthcare settings like hospitals and clinical laboratories are completely ubiquitous, the risk that this AI technology will be used to invade and steal patients’ protected health information is high. (Photo copyright: CNBC.)
Why Do Hackers Target Healthcare?
Ransomware attacks in healthcare are costly and dangerous. According to InstaMed, a healthcare payments and billing company owned by J.P. Morgan, healthcare data breaches increased to 29.5% in 2021 costing over $9 million. And beyond the financial implications, these attacks put sensitive patient data at risk.
Healthcare can be seen as one of the most desirable markets for hackers seeking sensitive information. As InstaMed points out, credit card hacks are usually quickly figured out and stopped. However, “medical records can contain multiple pieces of personally identifiable information. Additionally, breaches that expose this type of data typically take longer to uncover and are harder for an organization to determine in magnitude.”
With AI advancing at such a high rate, healthcare organizations may be unable to adapt older network systems quickly—leaving them vulnerable.
“Legacy devices have been an issue for a while now,” Alexandra Murdoch, medical data analyst at GlobalData PLC, told Medical Device Network, “Usually big medical devices, such as imaging equipment or MRI machines are really expensive and so hospitals do not replace them often. So as a result, we have in the network these old devices that can’t really be updated, and because they can’t be updated, they can’t be protected.”
But telehealth, according to the UK researchers, may also be one way hackers get past safeguards and into critical hospital systems.
“When trained on keystrokes recorded using the video-conferencing software Zoom, an accuracy of 93% was achieved, a new best for the medium. Our results prove the practicality of these side channel attacks via off-the-shelf equipment and algorithms,” the UK researchers wrote in IEEE Xplore.
“[AI] has worrying implications for the medical industry, as more and more appointments go virtual, the implications of deepfakes is a bit concerning if you only interact with a doctor over a Teams or a Zoom call,” David Higgins, Senior Director at information security company CyberArk, told Medical Device Network.
Higgins elaborated on why healthcare is a highly targeted industry for hackers.
“For a credit card record, you are looking at a cost of one to two dollars, but for a medical record, you are talking much more information because the gain for the purposes of social engineering becomes very lucrative. It’s so much easier to launch a ransomware attack, you don’t even need to be a coder, you can just buy ransomware off of the dark web and use it.”
Steps Healthcare Organizations Should Take to Prevent Cyberattacks
Hackers will do whatever they can to get their hands on medical records because stealing them is so lucrative. And this may only be the beginning, Higgins noted.
“I don’t think we are going to see a slowdown in attacks. What we are starting to see is that techniques to make that initial intrusion are becoming more sophisticated and more targeted,” he told Medical Device Network. “Now with things like AI coming into the mix, it’s going to become much harder for the day-to-day individual to spot a malicious email. Generative AI is going to fuel more of that ransomware and sadly it’s going to make it easier for more people to get past that first intrusion stage.”
To combat these attacks patient data needs to be encrypted, devices updated, and medical staff well-trained to spot cyberattacks before they get out of hand. These SCA attacks on bank accounts could be easily transferable to attacks on healthcare organizations’ patient records.
Clinical laboratories, anatomic pathology groups, and other healthcare facilities would be wise to invest in cybersecurity, training for workers, and updated technology. The hackers are going to stay on top of the technology, healthcare leaders need to be one step ahead of them.
This is good news for clinical laboratories that already perform medical testing for telehealth providers and an opportunity for medical labs that do not, it is an opportunity to do so
Telemedicine visits have become commonplace since the arrival of COVID-19. Before the pandemic, telehealth was primarily used to give remote patients access to quality healthcare providers. But three years later both patients and physicians are becoming increasingly comfortable with virtual office visits, especially among Millennial and Gen Z patients and doctors.
Now, a recent study by the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania (Penn Medicine) suggests that there could be a significant financial advantage for hospitals that conduct telemedicine. This would be a boon to clinical laboratories that perform medical testing for telemedicine providers.
According to Digital Health News, in July 2017 Penn Medicine launched a 24/7/365 copayment-free telemedicine program for its employees called Penn Medicine OnDemand. To engage with a telemedicine provider, patients must have a smartphone or tablet with a front-facing camera and updated operating system.
Telemedicine Visits Cost Less than In-Office Doctor Appointments
An analysis of the OnDemand program’s data collected from its inception through the end of 2019 found that the telemedicine appointment per-visit cost averaged around $380, whereas the cost of an in-person visit at an emergency department, primary care office, or urgent care clinic averaged around $493.
Typically, Penn Medicine’s employees used the telemedicine program for common, low risk health complaints. Healthcare conditions that many patients might otherwise not seek treatment for if an in-office visit was inconvenient.
“The data we analyzed pre-date the pandemic. It was a time when people were just putting a toe in the water and wondering, ‘Let me see if telemedicine could treat my needs,’” Krisda Chaiyachati MD, an internal medicine physician and Adjunct Assistant Professor at Penn Medicine, told Digital Health News. Chaiyachati lead the research team that conducted the telemedicine study.
“These days, people seem willing to jump in for an appropriate set of conditions,” he added. “The good news is that we made care easier while saving money, and we think the savings could be higher in the future.”
Chaiyachati and his colleagues found that telemedicine can save employers healthcare costs without sacrificing quality of care.
“The conditions most often handled by OnDemand are low acuity—non-urgent or semi-urgent issues like respiratory infections, sinus infections, and allergies—but incredibly common, so any kind of cost reduction can make a huge difference for controlling employee benefit costs,” Krisda Chaiyachati MD (above), a Penn Medicine physician and the study’s lead researcher, told Digital Health News. Clinical laboratories that already perform testing for telemedicine providers may see an increase in test orders once hospitals learn of the costs savings highlighted in the Penn Medicine study. (Photo copyright: Penn Medicine.)
Telemedicine on the Rise
The idea is not new. In late 2018, Planned Parenthood launched the Planned Parenthood Direct mobile app in New York State. The app provides New York patients with access to birth control, emergency contraception, and UTI treatment with no in-person visit required.
The program has since expanded across the country. Users of the app can connect with a physician to go over symptoms/needs, and the be sent a prescription within a business day to the pharmacy of their choice.
The concept is similar to Penn Medicine OnDemand, which gives patients 24/7 year around access to treatment for common and low-acuity medical issues in a convenient, virtual process.
Telemedicine was on the rise in other parts of the healthcare industry before the pandemic. According to “The State of Telehealth Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic” published by Julia Shaver, MD, Kaiser Permanente, in the journal Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice, 76% of US hospital systems had utilized some form of telemedicine by 2018. This rate grew exponentially while the healthcare system had to navigate a world with COVID-19 on the rise.
And, apparently, quality of care does not suffer when moved from in-person to virtual settings. Two studies conducted by The University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC) found telemedicine to be effective and that “common concerns about telemedicine don’t hold up to scrutiny,” according a news release.
In her New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) paper on the studies, Kathleen Fear, PhD, URMC’s Director of Data Analytics, Health Lab, and her co-authors, wrote: “Three beliefs—that telemedicine will reduce access for the most vulnerable patients; that reimbursement parity will encourage overuse of telemedicine; and that telemedicine is an ineffective way to care for patients—have for years formed the backbone of opposition to the widespread adoption of telemedicine.”
However, URMC’s study found the opposite to be true. The NEJM authors wrote, “there is no support for these three common notions about telemedicine. At URMC, the most vulnerable patients had the highest uptake of telemedicine; not only did they complete a disproportionate share of telemedicine visits, but they also did so with lower no-show and cancellation rates. It is clear that … telemedicine makes medical care more accessible to patients who previously have experienced substantial barriers to care.
“Importantly, this access does not come at the expense of effectiveness. Providers do not order excessive amounts of additional testing to make up for the limitations of virtual visits. Patients do not end up in the ER or the hospital because their needs are not met during a telemedicine visit, and they also do not end up requiring additional in-person follow-up visits to supplement their telemedicine visit,” the NEJM authors concluded.
“Not only did our most vulnerable patients not get left behind—they were among those engaging the most with, and benefiting the most from, telemedicine services. We did not see worse outcomes or increased costs, or patients needing an increased amount of in-person follow up. Nor did we find evidence of overuse. This is good care, and it is equitable care for vulnerable populations,” Fear said in the news release.
“For patients, the message is clear and reassuring: Telemedicine is an effective and efficient way of receiving many kinds of healthcare,” she added.
Opportunities for Clinical Laboratories
Dark Daily has covered the fast growing world of telemedicine in many ebriefs over the years.
As telemedicine broadens its reach across the healthcare world, clinical laboratories and pathology groups would be wise to seek collaboration with health plans and providers of telemedicine to figure out where sample collection and testing fits into this new virtual healthcare space.
The rapid diagnostic test costs less than $5 per unit and can be adapted for other diseases, the developers say, which opens a slew of possibilities for clinical laboratories
Just as the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus spurred deployment of new vaccine technology based on messenger RNA (mRNA), the COVID-19 pandemic also could prove to be a watershed for in vitro diagnostics (IVD) innovation in ways that benefit clinical laboratories.
A Penn Medicine news release noted that “The RAPID technology … transforms the binding event between the SARS-CoV-2 viral spike protein and its receptor in the human body, the protein ACE2 (which provides the entry point for the coronavirus to hook into and infect human cells), into an electrical signal that clinicians and technicians can detect. That signal allows the test to discriminate between infected and healthy human samples. The signal can be read through a desktop instrument or a smartphone.”
Though still in its early stages, the technique potentially offers dramatically lower costs and faster results than traditional RT-PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction) molecular tests. Moreover, the RAPID technology might be useful for identifying other types of biomarkers and could be the basis for diagnostic tests that help reduce the cost-per-test in medical laboratory testing while providing comparable sensitivity and specificity to existing methodologies.
Clinical trials began on January 5, 2021, and the Penn Medicine researchers say the IVD test technology can be applied to other infectious diseases, which, if proven accurate, would be a boon to clinical laboratory testing.
Diagnostic Test Results in Four Minutes for Less than $5/Test
According to the news release, the RAPID 1.0 (Real-time Accurate Portable Impedimetric Detection prototype 1.0) biosensor test costs less than $5 and can deliver results in four minutes. The researchers reported overall accuracy of 87.1% on (139) nasal swab samples and 90% on (50) saliva samples.
The technology uses electrodes that can be mass-produced at low cost on commercially-available screen printers, the researchers said. Results can be read on electronic devices connected to a PC or smartphone.
RAPID 1.0 (above) is a low-cost COVID-19 diagnostic test developed at the César de la Fuente clinical laboratory at the Perelman School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. At less than $5/test, plus the ability to be adapted to other diseases, clinical laboratories performing disease screenings in rural or remote locations may have a new tool in the fight against infections. (Photo copyright: University of Pennsylvania.)
Does Penn Medicine’s RAPID 1.0 Test Replace Traditional RT-PCR Testing?
In their published study, the Penn Medicine researchers cited the need for “fast, reliable, inexpensive, and scalable point-of-care diagnostics.”
RT-PCR tests, they said, “are limited by their requirement of a large laboratory space, high reagent costs, multistep sample preparation, and the potential for cross-contamination. Moreover, results usually take hours to days to become available.”
Researchers who have studied the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus know that it uses a spike-like protein to bind to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors on the surfaces of human cells.
As described in Penn Medicine’s published study, the biosensor contains ACE2 and other biochemical agents anchored to an electrode. When the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus attaches to the ACE2, the biosensor transforms the chemical reaction into an electrical signal that can be measured on a device known as a potentiostat.
The researchers tested their RAPID 1.0 technology with two commercially available potentiostat models:
The researchers initially developed the electrode as a printed circuit board, which is relatively expensive. To reduce costs, they constructed a version that uses filter paper as the main component. The researchers noted that one screen printer in a lab can produce 35,000 electrodes per day, including time needed to incorporate the chemical elements. “However, it must be noted that these steps can be fully automated into a production line for industrial purposes, drastically reducing time requirements,” they wrote.
The test can be performed at room temperature, they added, and total cost per unit is $4.67. Much of that—$4.50—is for functionalizing the ACE2 recognition agent. The cost for the bare electrode is just seven cents.
“The overall cost of RAPID may be further reduced through recombinant production of ACE2 and ACE2 variants,” the researchers said, adding that the RAPID 1.0 test can detect the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus at low concentrations correlating to the earliest stages of the COVID-19 disease.
The Penn Medicine research team was led by César de la Fuente, PhD (above), an Assistant Professor in Psychiatry, Microbiology, Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering and Bioengineering at the Perelman School of Medicine. “Prior to the pandemic, our lab was working on diagnostics for bacterial infections,” he said in the Penn Medicine news release. “But then, COVID-19 hit. We felt a responsibility to use our expertise to help—and the diagnostic space was ripe for improvements.” (Photo copyright: University of Pennsylvania.)
Testing Penn Medicine’s RAPID 1.0 Test
The researchers evaluated the technology in blinded tests with clinical samples from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. The evaluation included 139 nasal swab samples, of which 109 were determined to be COVID-19 positive by RT-PCR tests and clinical assessments. Among these, the RAPID test successfully detected the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus in 91 samples, for a sensitivity rate of 83.5%. One sample was from a patient diagnosed with the highly contagious SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant B.1.1.7, which the test correctly identified as positive.
Among the 30 samples determined to be COVID negative, the RAPID test scored a specificity rate of 100%, meaning no false positives. Overall accuracy, including sensitivity and specificity, was 87.1%.
The researchers also analyzed 50 saliva samples: 13 COVID-positive and 37 COVID-negative. The test correctly identified all 13 positive samples but produced five false-positives among the 37 negative samples, for a specificity rate of 86.5%. The researchers speculated that this could be due to interactions between ACE2 and other biomolecules in the saliva but suggested that performance “will improve when using fresh saliva samples at the point-of-care.”
Are There Other Applications for the RAPID Test?
The Penn Medicine news release said the RAPID technology can be adapted to detect other viruses, including those that cause Influenza and sexually-transmitted diseases.
Robert Michel, Editor-in-Chief of Dark Daily and its sister publication The Dark Report, said the test points to one silver lining in the COVID-19 pandemic. “Researchers around the world intensified their work to find ways to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus that are faster, cheaper, and more accurate than the diagnostic technologies that existed at the time of the outbreak. In this regard, the COVID-19 pandemic may have accelerated the development and refinement of useful diagnostic technologies that will disrupt long-established methods of testing.”
Marcelo Der Torossian Torres, PhD, postdoctoral researcher at Penn Medicine and lead author of the study, said in the news release, “Quick and reliable tests like RAPID allow for high-frequency testing, which can help identify asymptomatic individuals who, once they learn they are infected, will stay home and decrease spread.
“We envision this type of test being able to be used at high-populated locations such as schools, airports, stadiums, companies—or even in one’s own home,” he added.
Clinical laboratory managers may want to stay current on the development and possible commercialization of the RAPID 1.0 (Real-time Accurate Portable Impedimetric Detection prototype 1.0) biosensor test by the research team at Penn Medicine.
Online reputation management is increasingly becoming a critical function that all providers, including clinical laboratories, must address or risk losing revenue
Recent surveys cite growing evidence that Facebook (NASDAQ:FB) and online review sites such as Yelp (NYSE:YELP) are swiftly becoming healthcare consumers’ preferred sources for researching doctors, hospitals, medical laboratories, and other medical service providers.
Healthcare consumers are using the Internet to review information
on healthcare providers prior to visits. More important, data show a majority
of Americans share their healthcare experiences publicly online following
visits with providers.
This should serve as a wakeup call for clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups that have not developed effective social media strategies, as they are clearly among the health services being evaluated.
More than half of Americans (51%) reported sharing their healthcare experiences online, an increase of 65% over just one year ago;
Among Millennials (people born between 1981 and 1996) that number jumps to 70%, a 94% increase over last year;
70% of Americans overall say online ratings and reviews influenced their choices of physicians and facilities;
More than 40% of respondents admitted they researched doctors online even after being referred to them by another healthcare professional.
“The survey results underscore the significance of online ratings and reviews as online reputation management for physicians becomes ever-more important in today’s healthcare environment,” said Aaron Clifford, Senior Vice President of Marketing at Binary Fountain, in a statement. “As patients are becoming more vocal about their healthcare experiences, healthcare organizations need to play a more active role in compiling, reviewing, and responding to patient feedback if they want to compete in today’s marketplace.”
Healthcare Dive also noted that Millennials are likely to consider online reviews and ratings of healthcare professionals to be trustworthy.
97% of 24- to 34-year-olds report believing
online comments are reliable;
While 100% of the 18- to 24-year-olds surveyed felt
similarly.
Pathologists and clinical laboratory administrators should
consider the two findings above as evidence that a major change has already
happened in how the younger generations look for—and select—their hospitals,
their physicians, and their clinical laboratory providers. Thus, every
pathology group and clinical laboratory should have a business strategy for
managing the Internet presence of their labs. Failure to do so means that
competing labs that do a good job of managing their Internet presence will be
more successful at winning the lab testing business of Gen Xers (born
1965-1980), Millennials (Gen Y, born 1981-1996), and Gen Z (born 1997-2009).
In addition, the survey discovered that the most important
qualities consumers look for in a doctor are:
Friendly and caring attitudes;
Physicians’ ability to answer questions; and
Thoroughness of examinations.
Those polled reported the most frustrating issues when
dealing with healthcare professionals were:
Office wait times;
Cost and payment concerns;
Wait times for exam and medical laboratory
results; and
Scheduling appointments.
It’s All in a Word
Earlier this year, Healthcare Dive also reported on research that examined online reviews and their content conducted by Penn Medicine. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania used digital tools and data analytics to help healthcare providers better understand and improve the patient experience.
The researchers analyzed 51,376 online reviews about 1,566
hospitals posted on Yelp over a 12-year period. They published their findings in
the Journal
of General Internal Medicine (JGIM).
They concluded the word most often found in positive Yelp
reviews was “friendly.” Their example of how positive review writers used this word:
“The doctors, nurses, and X-ray technician who helped me out were all so cool
and friendly. It really restored my faith in humanity after I got hit on my
bike.”
Other words the researchers commonly found in good online
reviews include “great, staff, and very.”
“Told” was the word most often found in negative reviews. The
researchers’ example: “I constantly told them that none of that was true and
the nurse there wouldn’t believe me.” It appears from the JGIM study
that Millennials often felt healthcare professionals did not listen to them.
The researchers identified “worst, hours, rude, said, no and
not” as other words often found in negative reviews.
“As providers, we need to take a moment to think about how we talk in hospitals, but also what patients are hearing,” said lead author of the Penn Medicine study Anish Agarwal, MD, Assistant Professor of Emergency Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. “I may say something, but the way it’s heard and interpreted and then processed within patients when they’re going through a vulnerable time can be different.” (Photo copyright: University of Pennsylvania.)
Half of Millennials Prefer Internet Research and Online
Virtual Healthcare
Another survey conducted by Harmony Healthcare IT, a health data management firm based in South Bend, Ind., found that more millennials are researching the Internet for medical advice in lieu of actual doctor visits.
PC Magazine reported Harmony Healthcare IT’s survey found:
73% of Millennials reported following medical
advice found online instead of going to a doctor; and
93% reported researching medical conditions
online in addition to a doctor visit.
The survey also found that 48% of millennials trust online
resources for medical information and that 48% prefer virtual doctor office
visits over in-person visits.
In addition, 24% of this age group have gone five or more years without a physical and 57% prefer high-deductible health plans (HDHPs).
“With an emphasis on convenience, low cost, and technology, it will be interesting to see how this generation helps shape the future of health and how both patients and providers will adapt to those changes along the way,” Harmony Healthcare IT wrote in a blog post.
The results of these surveys illustrate why clinical laboratories
and anatomic pathology groups must have a social media strategy for managing
their reputations and presence on the Internet, especially where Millennials
are concerned.
That strategy should include easy and informative ways for
patients to learn about medical laboratory services, pricing of lab tests,
quality of work, and methods consumers can use to leave online feedback and
receive responses to their comments.
January’s press release confirmed the tech company is working to integrate critical medical data into its mobile devices, while further promoting interoperability and patient access
While interoperability has improved since the earliest electronic health record (EHR) systems, today’s active patients often need to sort through multiple healthcare portals—including those of clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups—to get a comprehensive view of their medical history. Not only can this be time consuming, but also inconvenient if the patient lacks access to a computer.
Thus, it’s no surprise that in a January 24 press release, mobile technology giant Apple announced plans to enter the development ring and create an improved EHR for its mobile device users by updating its existing “Health” mobile application (app). The iOS 11.3 update, among other things, is designed to enable Apple iPhone owners to receive critical medical data, such as medical laboratory test results, directly on their devices.
“Our goal is to help consumers live a better day. We’ve worked closely with the health community to create an experience everyone has wanted for years—to view medical records easily and securely right on your iPhone,” said Apple COO Jeff Williams in the press release.
Jeff Williams (above), COO at Apple, notes that, “By empowering customers to see their overall health, we hope to help consumers better understand their health and help them lead healthier lives.” (Photo copyright: Apple.)
The new features are already available to developers in the latest iOS 11.3 beta 3 release. However, release to the public is expected soon with the issuance of the iOS 11.3 final release. This means that patients will not need to download extra apps—or remember to use them—to take advantage of the feature.
New Way to Improve Patients’ Access to Health Data or Just Another Data Silo?
The Apple Health Records platform adheres to Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) protocols for transmission of data. Providers send information to Apple which then aggregates the information, transmits it to patients’ iPhones and notifies them of the updates.
All information stored on the device is encrypted in storage and protected from unauthorized access by the user’s password.
Through the new Health Records interface, users view this aggregated data as a timeline, conduct searches, and share information with other parties as they deem appropriate.
Current medical information listed in the press release includes:
Allergies;
Conditions;
Immunizations;
Clinical laboratory results;
Medications;
Procedures; and,
Vitals.
Currently, the platform integrates data from three major EHR developers:
Epic;
Cerner; and,
AthenaHealth
Apple’s update to the Health app makes it easier for people to access and control of all of their health records and data. This included medical laboratory tests. (Image and caption copyright: Apple.)
Apple is also working with 12 health institutions across the US in the first phase of the project, including:
In the Apple press release, Stephanie Reel, CIO at John Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, stated, “Streamlining information sharing between patients and their caregivers can go a long way towards making the patient experience a positive one. This is why we are excited about working with Apple to make accessing secure medical records from an iPhone as simple for a patient as checking email.”
Previous Attempts at Mobile Health Record Devices Got Mixed Results
This isn’t the first time a major technology company has attempted to enter the mobile health market. Google Health was shuttered in 2011 citing low adoption. Wearable fitness trackers, such as Fitbit (NYSE:FIT) enjoyed a bubble, but are now seeing mixed success in terms of long-term adoption and use, according to The Motley Fool. More to the point, they’ve never quite become the holy grail of monitoring and data collection that some experts predicted, Huffington Post reported.
Larry Dignan, Editor-in-Chief at ZDNet, builds a compelling case for why this could be the attempt that succeeds in providing a consolidated platform for clinical laboratories, physicians, and other care providers to push data directly to patients and—with the patient’s permission—to each other, regardless of the platforms healthcare facilities use to store and transmit data.
He notes that much of Apple’s newest features build on foundations laid by the healthcare industry to create scalable, functional EHR systems. By working with existing protocols, Apple’s Health Records platform is already positioned for compatibility with many healthcare providers.
Furthermore, Apple is already known for partnering at the enterprise level with major businesses and industries, while also holding the trust of millions of Americans who store their personal information on Apple devices.
Is Apple the Future of EHRs?
Despite this, until the platform—and adoption by the public—is proven a success, it will be yet another walled garden of medical information. Even then, Apple is only one segment of the global mobile market.
Unless Apple provides access to other platforms (such as Android), those patients—and the medical communities serving them—are left consolidating information on their own through a sprawl of various portals. This also means that medical laboratories, pathology groups, and other service providers must continue to invest time and funding into communicating data in ways compatible with a plethora of internal and external systems and software.
Still, the platform offers an intriguing glimpse at the future of medical records and heralds a shift toward empowering patients with easy, comprehensive access to their own data, which would be a boon to the medical laboratory industry.
