Krzyzanowski Brittany, Manson Steven M
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
JMIR Med Inform. 2022 Aug 3;10(8):e37756. doi: 10.2196/37756.
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) was an important milestone in protecting the privacy of patient data; however, the HIPAA provisions specific to geographic data remain vague and hinder the ways in which epidemiologists and geographers use and share spatial health data. The literature on spatial health and select legal and official guidance documents present scholars with ambiguous guidelines that have led to the use and propagation of multiple interpretations of a single HIPAA safe harbor provision specific to geographic data. Misinterpretation of this standard has resulted in many entities sharing data at overly conservative levels, whereas others offer definitions of safe harbors that potentially put patient data at risk. To promote understanding of, and adherence to, the safe harbor rule, this paper reviews the HIPAA law from its creation to the present day, elucidating common misconceptions and presenting straightforward guidance to scholars. We focus on the 20,000-person population threshold and the 3-digit zip code stipulation of safe harbors, which are central to the confusion surrounding how patient location data can be shared. A comprehensive examination of these 2 stipulations, which integrates various expert perspectives and relevant studies, reveals how alternative methods for safe harbors can offer researchers better data and better data protection. Much has changed in the 20 years since the introduction of the safe harbor provision; however, it continues to be the primary source of guidance (and frustration) for researchers trying to share maps, leaving many waiting for these rules to be revised in accordance with the times.
《健康保险流通与责任法案》(HIPAA)是保护患者数据隐私方面的一个重要里程碑;然而,HIPAA中关于地理数据的条款仍然模糊不清,阻碍了流行病学家和地理学家使用和共享空间健康数据的方式。关于空间健康的文献以及一些法律和官方指导文件为学者们提供了模棱两可的指导方针,导致对HIPAA中一项特定于地理数据的安全港条款产生了多种解释并加以使用和传播。对这一标准的误解导致许多实体在数据共享时过于保守,而另一些实体给出的安全港定义则可能使患者数据面临风险。为促进对安全港规则的理解和遵守,本文回顾了从HIPAA法律制定至今的情况,阐明常见的误解,并为学者们提供直接的指导。我们聚焦于安全港的2万人人口阈值和三位邮政编码规定,这两点是围绕患者位置数据如何共享的困惑的核心。对这两项规定进行全面审视,综合各种专家观点和相关研究,揭示了安全港的替代方法如何能为研究人员提供更好的数据和更好的数据保护。自引入安全港条款以来的20年里,情况发生了很大变化;然而,它仍然是试图共享地图的研究人员的主要指导来源(也是挫折来源),让许多人等待这些规则与时俱进地修订。