oversight

Medical Records Privacy: Uses and Oversight of Patient Information in Research

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1999-02-24.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                               United States General Accounting Office

GAO                            Testimony
                               Before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
                               Pensions, U.S. Senate




For Release on Delivery
Expected at 9:30 a.m.
Wednesday, February 24, 1999
                               MEDICAL RECORDS
                               PRIVACY

                               Uses and Oversight of
                               Patient Information in
                               Research
                               Statement of Bernice Steinhardt, Director
                               Health Services Quality and Public Health Issues
                               Health, Education, and Human Services Division




GAO/T-HEHS-99-70
Medical Records Privacy: Uses and
Oversight of Patient Information in
Research
               Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

               We are pleased to be here today to discuss our report on the privacy of
               medical records used for health research, which was released today.1 As
               you know, the increased use of information technology in the health care
               system and the number of parties with routine access to personally
               identifiable medical data have raised concerns about the potential misuse
               of these data and the adequacy of the current system of protections. At the
               same time, the availability of these data is important for research that can
               improve the understanding of diseases and treatments across broad
               populations.

               One of the principal mechanisms for overseeing research is the
               institutional review board (IRB) system. Under the current Federal Policy
               for the Protection of Human Subjects—which was adopted in 1991 and is
               known as the Common Rule—research conducted by academic medical
               centers, pharmaceutical companies, and other organizations that are
               supported or regulated by any of 17 federal agencies is subject to review
               by local boards. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has regulations
               nearly identical for oversight of research conducted for drug or medical
               device approvals. In general, IRBs are meant to ensure that researchers
               minimize the risks to human research subjects and obtain subjects’
               informed consent to participate. When appropriate, IRBs are also supposed
               to consider whether the research projects under their review will protect
               the privacy of subjects and inform subjects of the extent to which their
               data will be kept confidential.

               The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996
               (P.L. 104-191) called for protections for the privacy of medical
               information. Pursuant to HIPAA, the Secretary of Health and Human
               Services recommended standards with respect to the privacy of personally
               identifiable information in September 1997. If federal legislation is not
               enacted by August 1999, the Secretary must promulgate regulations setting
               privacy standards within 6 months. As you know, a number of bills
               addressing privacy standards were introduced in the 105th and 106th
               Congresses, although none has been enacted. As the Congress continues
               to consider legislation, one concern is to provide access to medical
               records for the purposes of research while also offering privacy
               protections.



               1
                Medical Records Privacy: Access Needed for Health Research, but Oversight of Privacy Protections Is
               Limited (GAO/HEHS-99-55, Feb. 24, 1999).



               Page 1                                                                         GAO/T-HEHS-99-70
             Medical Records Privacy: Uses and
             Oversight of Patient Information in
             Research




             In light of these considerations, we examined issues related to the use of
             medical records for research. In my remarks today, I will describe to what
             extent medical information used for research depends on personally
             identifiable information, research that is and is not subject to current
             federal oversight requirements, and how IRBs ensure the confidentiality of
             health information used in research. I will also discuss the safeguards
             health care organizations have in place to protect the confidentiality of
             health information used in research. We relied extensively on information
             we collected from 7 IRBs and 12 organizations that conduct health
             research, including managed care, pharmacy benefit management,
             pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and health information organizations and
             integrated health systems.

             In summary, our survey revealed that a considerable amount of health
             research relies on personally identifiable information. While some of this
             research is subject to IRB review—either because it is federally supported
             or regulated research or because the organization voluntarily applies
             federal rules to all of its research—some of the organizations conduct
             records-based research that is not reviewed by an IRB. In any case, the
             process of IRB review does not ensure the confidentiality of medical
             information used in research—primarily because the provisions of the
             Common Rule related to confidentiality are limited. Moreover, according
             to recent studies, the IRB system on the whole is strained. Nevertheless,
             although external review of their research is limited, most of the
             organizations in our study told us that they have various security
             safeguards in place to limit internal and external access to paper and
             electronic databases, and many say they have taken measures to ensure
             the anonymity of research and survey subjects.


             The growth of information technology and changes in the health care
Background   delivery system have led to increased use of personal medical information.
             Numerous organizations collect, store, transmit, and use medical
             information on individuals, who may have little or no knowledge of the
             organizations’ accessing their personal health data. Some of these
             databases are extensive, containing records on millions of individuals. The
             availability of these large databases has made many types of research
             possible but has increased the potential for misuse of private medical




             Page 2                                                     GAO/T-HEHS-99-70
                        Medical Records Privacy: Uses and
                        Oversight of Patient Information in
                        Research




                        information, raising concern over issues related to privacy and
                        confidentiality.2

                        The federal system of protections was developed largely in response to
                        biomedical and behavioral research that caused harm to human subjects.
                        To protect the rights and welfare of human subjects in research, the
                        Common Rule requires organizations conducting federally supported or
                        regulated research to establish and operate IRBs, which are, in turn,
                        responsible for implementing federal requirements for research conducted
                        at or supported by their institutions. IRBs are intended to provide basic
                        protections for people enrolled in federally supported or regulated
                        research. Most of the estimated 3,000 to 5,000 IRBs in the United States are
                        associated with a hospital, university, or other research institution, but
                        IRBs also exist in managed care organizations (MCO), government agencies,
                        and as independent entities employed by the organizations conducting the
                        research. IRBs are made up of both scientists and nonscientists.


                        The organizations that we contacted primarily conduct health research to
Health Information Is   advance biomedical science, understand health care use, evaluate and
Needed for a Variety    improve health care practices, and determine patterns of disease. These
of Research Purposes    organizations use health-related information on hundreds of thousands,
                        and in some cases millions, of individuals in conducting their research.
                        The MCOs and integrated health systems3 in our study use medical records
                        data, which are generated in the course of treating patients, to conduct
                        epidemiological research and health services research, such as outcomes
                        and quality improvement studies.4 For example, one MCO, in conducting a
                        quality improvement study, determined from its claims database whether
                        patients with vascular disease were receiving appropriate medications and
                        reported the findings to patients’ physicians to assist in the treatment of
                        their patients.

                        2
                         Privacy refers to the specific right of an individual to control the collection, use, and disclosure of
                        personal information. Confidentiality, a tool for protecting privacy, mandates specific controls on
                        personal data, limiting access and disclosure. The privacy protections of the Common Rule apply to
                        research on human subjects when the researcher obtains information that is individually identifiable.
                        The Common Rule defines a human subject as a living individual about whom a researcher obtains
                        (1) data through intervention or interaction with the individual or (2) identifiable private information.
                        Information is individually identifiable when the identity of the subject is or may be readily ascertained
                        by the researcher or associated with the information.
                        3
                         Integrated health systems are systems of care that can include hospitals, academic medical centers,
                        and primary care physicians and specialists.
                        4
                         Health services research examines the use, costs, quality, accessibility, delivery, organization,
                        financing, and outcomes of health care services to increase the knowledge and understanding of health
                        services for individuals and populations. It includes outcomes research on the benefits and harms of
                        alternative strategies for preventing, diagnosing, or treating illness.



                        Page 3                                                                             GAO/T-HEHS-99-70
Medical Records Privacy: Uses and
Oversight of Patient Information in
Research




The pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that we contacted also
conduct health services and epidemiological research; but unlike MCOs and
integrated health systems, they rely on data from other organizations for
this type of research. One pharmaceutical company’s epidemiology
department, for example, conducts large-scale studies using data from
MCOs and health information organizations to monitor the effectiveness of
drugs on certain populations.

For pharmacy benefit management (PBM) firms, which administer
prescription drug benefits for health insurance plans, a primary source of
data is prescription information derived from prescriptions dispensed by
mail or claims received from retail pharmacies. PBMs design and evaluate
programs that are intended to improve the quality of care for patients who
have specific diseases or risk factors while controlling total health care
costs. One PBM in our study, for example, develops disease management
programs; these programs depend on the ability to identify individuals
with conditions, such as diabetes, that require more intensive treatment
management.

The health information organizations that we contacted rely solely on data
from other organizations. Typically, they collect medical claims data from
their clients or obtain it from publicly available sources, such as Medicare
and Medicaid.5 They may also acquire data through employer contracts
that stipulate that all the employers’ plans provide complete data to a
health information organization. Examples of research projects include
studies of the effects of low birth weight on costs of medical care and the
effectiveness of alternative drug therapies for schizophrenia.

Officials at the organizations we contacted believe that many of these
studies require personally identifiable information to ensure study validity
or to simply answer the study question. For longitudinal studies,
researchers may need to track patients’ care over time and link events that
occur during the course of treatment with their outcomes. Researchers
may also need to link multiple sources of information, such as electronic
databases and patient records, to compile sufficient data to answer the
research question. For example, officials at one health information
organization stated that without patient names or assigned patient codes,
it would not have been possible to complete a number of studies, such as
the effects of length-of-hospital stay on maternal and child health
following delivery and patient care costs of cancer clinical trials.

5
 Clients of health information organizations may include health care providers, health plans and plan
administrators, employers, and government health programs.



Page 4                                                                           GAO/T-HEHS-99-70
                       Medical Records Privacy: Uses and
                       Oversight of Patient Information in
                       Research




                       Some of the research conducted by the organizations we contacted must
Federal Requirements   conform to the Common Rule or FDA regulations because it is either
Do Not Apply to All    supported or regulated by the federal government. Several MCOs obtain
Research, but Some     grants from various federal agencies, including the Centers for Disease
                       Control and Prevention; one health information organization that we
Organizations          contacted conducts research for federal clients, such as the Agency for
Voluntarily Apply      Health Care Policy and Research. Some organizations that conduct both
                       federally supported or regulated research and other types of privately
Those Requirements     funded research choose to apply the requirements uniformly to all studies
to All Studies         involving human subjects, regardless of the source of funding.

                       However, some other organizations that carry out both publicly and
                       privately funded research apply the federal rules where required, often
                       relying on IRB review at collaborators’ institutions, but do not apply the
                       rules to their privately funded research. Pharmaceutical and biotechnology
                       companies, for example, rely on the academic medical centers where they
                       sponsor research to have in place procedures for informed consent and IRB
                       review,6 but they do not maintain their own IRBs.

                       Some organizations conduct certain activities that involve identifiable
                       medical information, but they do not define these activities as research.
                       For example, officials at several MCOs told us that they did not define
                       records-based quality improvement activities as research, so these
                       projects are not submitted for IRB review. But there is disagreement as to
                       how to classify quality improvement reviews, and some organizations do
                       submit these studies for IRB review, where they define the studies as
                       research.

                       Finally, at some organizations, none of the research is covered by the
                       Common Rule or FDA regulations and no research receives IRB review. For
                       example, one PBM in our study, which conducts research for other
                       companies—including developing disease management programs—does
                       not receive federal support and, thus, is not subject to the Common Rule
                       in any of its research. While it does not have an IRB, this PBM uses external
                       advisory boards to review its research proposals. Another type of research
                       that for some companies does not fall under the Common Rule or FDA
                       regulations is research that uses disease or population-related registry
                       data. Pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies maintain such
                       registries to monitor how a particular population responds to drugs and to
                       better understand certain diseases.

                       6
                        Pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that conduct clinical research in-house for FDA
                       regulated products are required to have IRB review and informed consent for that research.



                       Page 5                                                                        GAO/T-HEHS-99-70
                             Medical Records Privacy: Uses and
                             Oversight of Patient Information in
                             Research




                             While many organizations have in place IRB review procedures, recent
IRB Reviews Provide          studies that pointed to weaknesses in the IRB system, as well as the
Limited Oversight of         provisions of the Common Rule itself, suggest that IRB reviews do not
Confidentiality              ensure the confidentiality of medical information used in research. While
                             not focusing specifically on confidentiality, previous studies by GAO and by
                             the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector
                             General have found multiple factors that weaken institutional and federal
                             human subjects protection efforts.7 In 1996, we found that IRBs faced a
                             number of pressures that made oversight of research difficult, including
                             the heavy workloads of and competing professional demands on members
                             who are not paid for their IRB services. Similarly, the Inspector General
                             found IRBs unable to cope with major changes in the research
                             environment, concluding that they review too many studies too quickly
                             and with too little expertise, and recommended a number of actions to
                             improve the flexibility, accountability, training, and resources of IRBs.


Federal Regulations          Under the Common Rule, IRBs are directed to approve research only after
Contain Limited Provisions   they have determined that (1) there are provisions to protect the privacy of
for Overseeing               subjects and maintain the confidentiality of data, when appropriate, and
                             (2) research subjects are adequately informed of the extent to which their
Confidentiality              data will be kept confidential. However, according to the Director of the
                             Office for Protection From Research Risks (OPRR),8 confidentiality
                             protection is not a major thrust of the Common Rule and IRBs tend to give
                             it less attention than other research risks because they have the flexibility
                             to decide when it is appropriate to review confidentiality protection
                             issues.

                             Consistent with federal regulations, the seven IRBs that we contacted told
                             us that they generally waive the informed consent requirements in cases
                             involving medical records-based research.9 Researchers at the
                             organizations we visited contend that it is often difficult, if not impossible,
                             to obtain the permission of every subject whose medical records are used.


                             7
                             Scientific Research: Continued Vigilance Critical to Protecting Human Subjects (GAO/HEHS-96-72,
                             Mar. 8, 1996) and HHS Office of Inspector General, “Institutional Review Boards: A Time for Reform,”
                             OEI-01-97-00193 (June 1998).
                             8
                              OPRR is within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and is the oversight agency for HHS-supported
                             research.
                             9
                              A waiver or modification of informed consent may be permitted if an IRB finds and documents that:
                             the research involves no more than minimal risk; the rights and welfare of subjects will not be
                             adversely affected; the research could not practicably be carried out without the waiver or alteration
                             of the consent requirement; and, whenever appropriate, subjects will be provided with pertinent
                             information after participation. FDA regulations do not permit a waiver of consent.



                             Page 6                                                                            GAO/T-HEHS-99-70
                           Medical Records Privacy: Uses and
                           Oversight of Patient Information in
                           Research




                           As an example, the director of research at one integrated health system
                           described a study that tracked about 30,000 patients over several years to
                           determine hospitalization rates for asthmatic patients treated with inhaled
                           steroids.

                           The IRBs that we contacted told us that they routinely examine all research
                           plans using individually identifiable medical information to determine
                           whether the research is exempt from further review, can receive an
                           expedited review,10 or requires a full review. Further, in reviewing
                           research using individually identifiable genetic data, two of the IRBs had
                           policies to consider additional confidentiality provisions in approving such
                           research.


Some Breaches of Privacy   The actual number of instances in which patient privacy is breached is not
Have Been Reported         fully known. While there are few documented cases of privacy breaches,
                           other reports provide evidence that such problems occur. For example, in
                           an NIH-sponsored study, IRB chairs reported that lack of privacy and lack
                           of confidentiality were among the most common complaints made by
                           research subjects.11 Over the past 8 years, OPRR’s compliance staff has
                           investigated several allegations involving human subjects protection
                           violations resulting from a breach of confidentiality. In the 10 cases
                           provided to us, complaints related both to research subject to IRB review
                           and to research outside federal protection.12

                           In certain cases involving a breach in confidentiality, OPRR has authority to
                           restrict an institution’s authority to conduct research that involves human
                           subjects or to require corrective action. For example, in one investigation,
                           a university inadvertently released the names of participants who tested
                           HIV positive to parties outside the research project, including a local
                           television station. In this case, OPRR required the university to take
                           corrective measures to ensure appropriate confidentiality protections for
                           human subjects. In response, the university revised internal systems to
                           prevent the release of private information in the future.



                           10
                             An expedited review may be conducted by the chairperson or a chair-appointed IRB member rather
                           than the full board.
                           11
                            James Bell Associates, “Final Report: Evaluation of NIH Implementation of Section 491 of the Public
                           Health Service Act, Mandating a Program of Protection for Research Subjects,” prepared for NIH’s
                           Office of Extramural Research (June 1998).
                           12
                             Additional cases may have been reported to OPRR, but these were examples the staff could readily
                           identify that involved breaches of confidentiality.



                           Page 7                                                                         GAO/T-HEHS-99-70
                          Medical Records Privacy: Uses and
                          Oversight of Patient Information in
                          Research




                          However, in other cases, OPRR determined that it could not take action
                          because the research was not subject to the Common Rule and, thus, it
                          lacked jurisdiction. For example, in a case reported in the media, OPRR
                          staff learned of an experiment that plastic surgeons had performed on 21
                          patients using two different facelift operations—one on each half of the
                          face—to see which came out better. OPRR staff learned that the study was
                          not approved by an IRB and that the patients’ consent forms did not explain
                          the procedures and risks associated with the experiment. In addition, the
                          surgeons published a journal article describing their research that
                          included before and after photographs of the patients. Because the
                          research was performed in physician practices and was not federally
                          supported, it fell outside the Common Rule and OPRR could take no action.


                          Each organization that we contacted reported that it has taken one or
Organizations             more steps to limit access to personally identifiable information in their
Conducting Research       research. Many have limited the number of individuals who are afforded
Have Measures to          access to personally identifiable information or limited the span of time
                          they are given access to the information, or both. Some have used
Reduce Access to          encrypted or encoded identifiers to enhance the protection of research
Personally Identifiable   and survey subjects.13 Most, but not all, of the organizations have
                          additional management practices to protect medical information,
Information               including written policies governing confidentiality. Some organizations
                          have also instituted a number of technical measures and physical
                          safeguards to protect the confidentiality of information.

                          Officials from two of the companies that we contacted told us that they
                          did not have written policies to share with us, and two other companies
                          were unable to provide us with such documentation, although officials
                          described several practices related to confidentiality. The organizations
                          that did provide us with documentation appear to use similar management
                          practices and technical measures to protect health information used in
                          their health research, whether they generate patient records or receive
                          them from other organizations.

                          To limit access, several organizations have created special subset
                          databases to enable them to limit researchers’ access to information that is


                          13
                            Data are considered “encoded” or “encrypted” when personal identifiers and means of directly
                          contacting an individual (for example, name, address, and social security number) are replaced with
                          numeric or other coding. “Anonymized” data are those from which all personal identifiers have been
                          removed or information aggregated in a manner so that individuals cannot be identified. Medical and
                          health data used by organizations when they conduct health research are viewed as fully identifiable
                          when a name, address, or another identifier is associated with the data.



                          Page 8                                                                          GAO/T-HEHS-99-70
Medical Records Privacy: Uses and
Oversight of Patient Information in
Research




relevant to their studies. In addition to limiting access to certain
individuals for specific purposes, some organizations have encrypted or
encoded patient information. Researchers at one integrated health system,
for example, work with information that has been encoded by computer
programmers on the research team—the only individuals who have access
to the fully identifiable data.

In conducting collaborative research, the organizations that we contacted
tend to use special data sets and contracting processes to protect medical
information. For example, one MCO, which conducts over half of its
research with government agencies and academic and research
institutions, transfers data in either encrypted or anonymized form and
provides detailed specifications in its contracts that limit use of the data to
the specific research project and prohibit collaborators from re-identifying
or transferring the data.

Generally, company policies define the circumstances under which
personally identifiable information may be disclosed and the penalties for
unauthorized release of confidential information. Most company policies
permit access only to the information that is needed to perform one’s job;
8 of the 12 organizations also require their employees to sign agreements
stating that they will maintain the privacy of protected health information.

Each organization that we contacted said it uses disciplinary sanctions to
address employee violations of confidentiality or failure to protect medical
information from accidental or unauthorized access, and an intentional
breach of confidentiality could result in employee termination—which
may be immediate. But they also pointed out that few employees have
been terminated, and when they have, the incidents were not related to the
conduct of research.

The organizations that we contacted said they use a number of electronic
measures to safeguard their electronic health data. Most reported using
individual user authentication or personal passwords to ensure users
access only the information that they need; some also use computer
systems that maintain an electronic record of each employee who
accesses medical data. These organizations may also use other technical
information system mechanisms, including firewalls, to prevent external
access to computer systems. In addition to electronic security, officials at
some of the organizations told us they use various security measures to
prevent unauthorized physical access to medical records-based
information, including computer workstations and servers.



Page 9                                                        GAO/T-HEHS-99-70
              Medical Records Privacy: Uses and
              Oversight of Patient Information in
              Research




              Personally identifiable information is often an important component of
Conclusions   research using medical records, and the companies we met with furnished
              many examples of useful research that could not have been conducted
              without it. Because our study focused on only a limited number of
              companies—in particular, those that were willing to share information
              about corporate practices—it is difficult to judge the extent to which their
              policies may be typical, nor do we know the extent to which their policies
              are followed. Nevertheless, most of the organizations we surveyed do have
              policies to limit and control access to medical information that identifies
              individuals, and many of them have adopted techniques, such as
              encryption and encoding, to further safeguard individual privacy.

              However, while reasonable safeguards may be in place in these
              companies, external oversight of their research is limited. Not all research
              is subject to outside review, and even in those cases where IRBs are
              involved, they are not required to give substantial attention to privacy
              protection. Further, in light of the problems that IRBs have had in meeting
              current workloads—one of the key findings of our earlier work as well as
              the work of HHS’ Office of Inspector General—it is not clear that the
              current IRB-based system could accommodate more extensive review
              responsibilities. In weighing the desirability of additional oversight of
              medical records-based research, it will be important to take account of
              existing constraints on the IRB system and the recommendations that have
              already been made for changes to that system.


              This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to respond to any
              questions that you or Members of the Committee may have.




(101804)      Page 10                                                     GAO/T-HEHS-99-70
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the
following address, accompanied by a check or money order
made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address
are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000
or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any
list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on
how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,
send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov




PRINTED ON    RECYCLED PAPER
United States                       Bulk Rate
General Accounting Office      Postage & Fees Paid
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001           GAO
                                 Permit No. G100
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested