分享还是不分享。“这不是问题”——共享关联数据的隐私保护程序

K. Muralidhar, R. Sarathy, Han Li
{"title":"分享还是不分享。“这不是问题”——共享关联数据的隐私保护程序","authors":"K. Muralidhar, R. Sarathy, Han Li","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2462152","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recently the New York Times reported on the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center using commercial data from Acxiom to develop analytical models to “intended to improve patients’ health care outcomes and contain costs.” The article summarizes the process as follows: \"The Pittsburgh health plan, for instance, has developed prediction models that analyze data like patient claims, prescriptions and census records to determine which members are likely to use the most emergency and urgent care, which can be expensive. Data sets of past health care consumption are fairly standard tools for predicting future use of health services. But the insurer recently bolstered its forecasting models with details on members’ household incomes, education levels, marital status, race or ethnicity, number of children at home, number of cars and so on. One of the sources for the consumer data U.P.M.C. used was Acxiom, a marketing analytics company that obtains consumers’ information from both public records and private sources. With the addition of these household details, the insurer turned up a few unexpected correlations: Mail-order shoppers and Internet users, for example, were likelier than some other members to use more emergency services.\" Not surprisingly, the legal and ethical implications of this practice has raised concerns: \"'This intensive, intrusive kind of data analytics that leads to differential treatment of customers, even if we are fine with it in the business context, needs to be disclosed in the medical context,' says Frank Pasquale, a professor in health care regulation at the Seton Hall University School of Law.\" At first glance, there appears to be no way out of the dilemma. It is clear that sharing individual data can be perceived as intrusive and possibly unethical. On the other hand not sharing precludes the possibility of substantial benefits to both individuals and organizations. We contend that posing this question as either to share or not share individual data is to ignore the possibility of a compromise. It is possible for healthcare and other data to be linked and analyzed allowing us to realize most of the benefits (preserving statistical relationships) for a small price (little or no disclosure of private information). In this study, we describe a procedure for achieving this objective.","PeriodicalId":200945,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Other Consumer Privacy (Sub-Topic)","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"'To Share or Not to Share. That is Not the Question' - A Privacy Preserving Procedure for Sharing Linked Data\",\"authors\":\"K. Muralidhar, R. Sarathy, Han Li\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2462152\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Recently the New York Times reported on the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center using commercial data from Acxiom to develop analytical models to “intended to improve patients’ health care outcomes and contain costs.” The article summarizes the process as follows: \\\"The Pittsburgh health plan, for instance, has developed prediction models that analyze data like patient claims, prescriptions and census records to determine which members are likely to use the most emergency and urgent care, which can be expensive. Data sets of past health care consumption are fairly standard tools for predicting future use of health services. But the insurer recently bolstered its forecasting models with details on members’ household incomes, education levels, marital status, race or ethnicity, number of children at home, number of cars and so on. One of the sources for the consumer data U.P.M.C. used was Acxiom, a marketing analytics company that obtains consumers’ information from both public records and private sources. With the addition of these household details, the insurer turned up a few unexpected correlations: Mail-order shoppers and Internet users, for example, were likelier than some other members to use more emergency services.\\\" Not surprisingly, the legal and ethical implications of this practice has raised concerns: \\\"'This intensive, intrusive kind of data analytics that leads to differential treatment of customers, even if we are fine with it in the business context, needs to be disclosed in the medical context,' says Frank Pasquale, a professor in health care regulation at the Seton Hall University School of Law.\\\" At first glance, there appears to be no way out of the dilemma. It is clear that sharing individual data can be perceived as intrusive and possibly unethical. On the other hand not sharing precludes the possibility of substantial benefits to both individuals and organizations. We contend that posing this question as either to share or not share individual data is to ignore the possibility of a compromise. It is possible for healthcare and other data to be linked and analyzed allowing us to realize most of the benefits (preserving statistical relationships) for a small price (little or no disclosure of private information). In this study, we describe a procedure for achieving this objective.\",\"PeriodicalId\":200945,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Other Consumer Privacy (Sub-Topic)\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Other Consumer Privacy (Sub-Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2462152\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Other Consumer Privacy (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2462152","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

最近,《纽约时报》(New York Times)报道了匹兹堡大学医学中心(University of Pittsburgh Medical Center)利用Acxiom的商业数据开发分析模型,“旨在改善患者的医疗保健效果并控制成本”。文章总结了这一过程:“例如,匹兹堡健康计划开发了预测模型,分析患者索赔、处方和人口普查记录等数据,以确定哪些成员可能会使用最紧急和紧急的护理,而这些护理可能会很昂贵。过去卫生保健消费的数据集是预测未来卫生服务使用情况的相当标准的工具。但这家保险公司最近在其预测模型中加入了成员家庭收入、教育水平、婚姻状况、种族或民族、家中子女数量、汽车数量等细节。upmc使用的消费者数据来源之一是营销分析公司Acxiom,该公司从公共记录和私人来源获取消费者信息。加上这些家庭细节,保险公司发现了一些意想不到的相关性:例如,邮购购物者和互联网用户比其他一些成员更有可能使用更多的紧急服务。毫不奇怪,这种做法的法律和伦理影响引起了人们的关注:“这种密集的、侵入性的数据分析导致了对客户的差别待遇,即使我们在商业环境中对此没有意见,但在医疗环境中也需要披露,”西顿霍尔大学法学院(Seton Hall University School of Law)医疗保健监管教授弗兰克·帕斯夸莱(Frank Pasquale)说。乍一看,似乎没有办法摆脱这种困境。很明显,分享个人数据会被认为是侵入性的,甚至可能是不道德的。另一方面,不分享排除了个人和组织获得实质性利益的可能性。我们认为,提出是否共享个人数据的问题是忽视妥协的可能性。有可能将医疗保健和其他数据联系起来并进行分析,使我们能够以很小的代价(很少或不披露私人信息)实现大部分好处(保留统计关系)。在本研究中,我们描述了实现这一目标的程序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
'To Share or Not to Share. That is Not the Question' - A Privacy Preserving Procedure for Sharing Linked Data
Recently the New York Times reported on the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center using commercial data from Acxiom to develop analytical models to “intended to improve patients’ health care outcomes and contain costs.” The article summarizes the process as follows: "The Pittsburgh health plan, for instance, has developed prediction models that analyze data like patient claims, prescriptions and census records to determine which members are likely to use the most emergency and urgent care, which can be expensive. Data sets of past health care consumption are fairly standard tools for predicting future use of health services. But the insurer recently bolstered its forecasting models with details on members’ household incomes, education levels, marital status, race or ethnicity, number of children at home, number of cars and so on. One of the sources for the consumer data U.P.M.C. used was Acxiom, a marketing analytics company that obtains consumers’ information from both public records and private sources. With the addition of these household details, the insurer turned up a few unexpected correlations: Mail-order shoppers and Internet users, for example, were likelier than some other members to use more emergency services." Not surprisingly, the legal and ethical implications of this practice has raised concerns: "'This intensive, intrusive kind of data analytics that leads to differential treatment of customers, even if we are fine with it in the business context, needs to be disclosed in the medical context,' says Frank Pasquale, a professor in health care regulation at the Seton Hall University School of Law." At first glance, there appears to be no way out of the dilemma. It is clear that sharing individual data can be perceived as intrusive and possibly unethical. On the other hand not sharing precludes the possibility of substantial benefits to both individuals and organizations. We contend that posing this question as either to share or not share individual data is to ignore the possibility of a compromise. It is possible for healthcare and other data to be linked and analyzed allowing us to realize most of the benefits (preserving statistical relationships) for a small price (little or no disclosure of private information). In this study, we describe a procedure for achieving this objective.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信