Health information privacy provisions included in the federal stimulus package amount to a "massive" expansion of HIPAA, said a Milwaukee lawyer participating in a conference discussion about its legal and financial implications.  Mark Garsombke, a shareholder in Milwaukee-based Whyte Hirschboeck and chairman of the firm's HIPAA practice group, said the new health privacy provisions, included in the HITECH Act embedded within the stimulus bill, apply HIPAA regulations beyond health care providers to the outside accountants, lawyers and others professional they engage.

There is also a requirement included in the legislative, Mr. Garsombke said, that would require health care professionals and their business associates to notify a patient if his or her health record becomes "unsecured."  It also contains what Mr. Garsombke called "shaming provisions" that require providers to notify the media and their state health department if more than 500 health records are breached.

Mr. Garsombke said that business associates, as outside service providers are called under HIPAA, now must act like the health care providers or plans they work for in terms of HIPAA.  Health care providers and plans may like these provisions because they will force business associates to be more careful, Mr. Garsombke said.  But it also may create a burden for them because they may have to redo the agreements they have with their outside consultants regarding the personal health information to which their work exposes them.

GE announced that it will spend $3 billion over the next six years on healthcare innovation that will help deliver better care to more people at lower cost. In addition, the company will commit $2 billion of financing and $1 billion in related GE technology and content to drive healthcare information technology and health in rural and underserved areas. These investments are the foundation of GE's healthymagination initiative, which is built on the global commitments of reducing costs, improving quality and expanding access for millions of people.

The conference has begun with a terrific challenge from Peter Strombom, a conference co-chairman.  Peter's thesis is that no one knows all of what is available today in health care IT, nor does anyone know what will be available to us in the future.  These are questions the co-chairman hopes will play a large part in the discussions this afternoon and tomorrow.

Mike Klein has included in his opening remarks a statement about a social networking site I've been scratching my head about recently.  Mike commented on reports within the past few days that only 30 percent of those who register on Twitter come back after 30 days.  Since not too long after I registered on Twitter, I've wondered about its utility.  It seems to make sense for organizations like newspapers and web sites that want to drive traffic to their sites.  But for Joes like me, the utility of Twitter is far cloudier.

Dr. Barry Chaiken, the other conference chairman, has taken the podium to speak about Twitter and other social networking tools.  He cites technological and sociological differences between the United States and Europe to explain the difference in social networking usership from one shore of the Atlantic to the other.

Dr. Chaiken is now talking about how he's using social networking in the creation of a new worldwide organization called the Global Health Alliance.  The alliance was organized to share medical images and other clnical content and case information.  Social networking is helping to shape and drive the collaboration.  He's now displaying the portal--www.medting.com--through which this collaboration is occuring.  It looks easy to use and information rich.

Dr. Chaiken is now making very interesting comments about how the cultural norms of social networking have not been established.  Is commerical activity acceptable on Twitter and Facebook?  How deep into your network will you go for an introduction?  These and other rules are still being made.  It strikes me through my own experience with social networking that the lack of these rules is part of the reason that those tools fall flat on their faces for some, if not many, of us.

Mike has just asked Dr. Chaiken about the role of social media in communication about the H1N1 pandemic.  Dr. Chaiken believes that not all of the cases that have been discovered worldwide would have been known without social networking.  This has very important epidemiological advantages for the global response.  The bad side, however, of social and online media is that there is no regulator of what is true.  Many people, Dr. Chaiken said, will not eat pork in fear of catching the swine flu, even though there is not evidence the disease can be caught through pork consumption.