Not_Too_Open_Minded

I've seen some very interesting treatments. The malaria drug hydrochloroquine and paired with azithromycin. Considering one is immunosuppressive anti-parasite. The other is antibacterial. They actual seem to be working. Intravenous vitamin C also has some solid data behind helping patients in critical condition. Plasma transfusions with people who've recovered from covid19, for their antibodies is underway right now. Will be exciting to see how this works. Besides those 3 I'm not very familiar with any that sound promising or show signs of success. Please list what your aware of or might reccomend. I've recently found out there's a microbiome in our lungs. I would like to see if there's any breathing treatments or lung bacteria transplants that could help.

I've been wondering. We know right now products are scarce from panic buying. But will we see a supply chain break? Chinas factories went down for a couple weeks. Will we see a few weeks period of certain products being scarce from a break in the supply chain?

Good point, that's likely going to be people 60+. Chances are the majority of them could adapt via contacting their bank, using public library internet, etc. But theres still going to be a portion left out to dry. I'm sure it being a small number. Allowing them to shop indoors wouldn't be as much of an issue.

So walmart is going to be cutting hours to reduce infection. Hear me out on this. What if instead of reducing hours they dont allow entry into the store and require all orders be done online for pickup. Give Walmart employees more hours. Only load groceries into vehicle trunks. People who travel their on foot have to join a queue outside. What's better here, reduced hours that could confine more people together in larger shopping densities, or people having less interaction with each other? https://www.google.com/amp/s/wgntv.com/news/coronavirus/walmart-to-cut-hours-to-combat-covid-19/amp/

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/tech/federal-court-says-hhs-can-t-limit-fees-for-third-party-access-to-patient-records

Yes per year. So you can read the white papers from companies in the space of helping people capture their data. Humanity.co estimates the average person to be worth around $1000 a year. They're a United States based company, ran by some cool folks. Their CEO is a former c-suite executive of the largest medical data brokerage in the world IQVIA. Wibson is a EU based company also ran by some cool folks, they estimate your data being worth around $240 a year. Article conveying how to price our data - http://stenor.github.io/ Article explaining the trouble with pricing data and more into the ethics of our information handling - https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/how-much-is-your-data-worth-to-tech-companies-lawmakers-want-to-tell-you-but-its-not-that-easy-to-calculate-119716 texting while driving is legal in certain states here in the U.S. the app I was referring to is On My Way. The data is sold for marketing. They don't sell to 3rd party brokers but trade data directly with customers for advertising. https://www.dailydot.com/debug/onmyway-app/ Florida state university was collecting stool samples years ago, but I can't find anything on it. Here's an article on a company that has played people in the 5 digits for their poop. (You have to fit very certain criterias to be paid that much) https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/01/29/you-can-earn-13000-a-year-selling-your-poop/%3foutputType=amp Data value will depreciate but it will also rise with new research and findings. Expansion of private business or government state development. A big shortcoming would be absolute transparency. If we did build the future society off data ownership, it would mean that absolute transparency could render the entire system of commerce obsolete. "Why purchase data when you can just look it up for free"

So a person's data value varies, but it's not impossible for someone to be worth thousands in annual data sales. There's even some economists who've wagered the average U.S citizen to be worth over $1000 a year in data sales. You heard of the app that pays you to not text and drive? It's like $20 every few months. They sell your GPS data and give you a cut. Certain clinical trials generate data worth thousands. Some universities are paying thousands for a stool sample if you have the right anatomy for gut microbiome study. Your data is worth what people are willing to pay. I do data procurement and assessment for a R&D company. I go and find medical data sets they're looking for to train their A.I models on. We're talking data sets of hundreds to thousands of people, that cost anywhere between $3,000 - $50,000. Which doesn't equate a lot per individual value but you also have to consider the data is taken at face value with expecting some clerical scribe errors or changes in health. I've seen statistics that state medical records errors at 70% per patient record. The quality of data is a big thing here. I don't believe the horse has bolted long ago. Per A.I safeguards, being able to strip A.I of the data that runs them is probably our best solution IMO. I think the horse has just entered the race and people are beginning to learn it's name. 9/10 that's correct. Facebook for instance, if you watched the Zuckerberg trial about user data he dodges lots of questions surrounded that and continues to retort with "we sell ads." They sell data too, lots of it. However there are platforms which are free and don't carry that sentiment. Wikipedia's founder is trying to launch his own social media network. They talked about charging for it but there's also been talk of it being free. There's plenty of platforms that are free like video games. The most popular ones are often free and only sell in game content. Also would like to add I contacted Wikipideas founder Jimmy Wales about his thoughts on data ownership. His response - "it's a monumentally horrible idea." I couldn't get him to explain his reasoning. I'm sure he has solid reasons and would've really liked to hear them. Would also like to add there's other Tech influencers who think it's a monumentally good idea. Others who think it's bad. I'm interested in hearing all sides.

So you're refusing to read the part "the record is still not required to be in full"?

Patients often struggle to obtain their medical records. Most states require payment through a HIPAA guided process if medical facilities or physicians refute access to the records. So first hill to climb is often haggling secretaries and doctors until they either A. Obtain their information or B. Pursue them under HIPAA laws to pay for the record and apply to have costs reduced if they're out of budget. Once patients have their record it's still not legally required to be in full. While billing, lab work, test results are required by HIPAA. Doctors notes, assessments, wellness plans aren't required. So misdiagnoses, malpractice, negligence is harder to prove. Then there's third party risk modeling services. They comb through people's data and determine potential mortality, cost of care per year, potential of developing future co-infections, etc. Utilized more by payers than providers. They often have access to patients medical data and don't have to disclose with patients what they determine about them. Referencing healthcare here because it's the most obvious example of issues with people and access to their data.

The data isn't always accessible. For instance patients often struggle to collect their health records. If you download your Facebook data, it's not formatted in a comprehensible manner to the average person. Out of the multiple companies that offer risk modeling services to health insurance companies, they don't have to disclose everything with you that they do with your data. There's still lots of grey area here, but for the most part your correct about being able to capture your information. Agree on inevitable bad actors. I would think data ownership would help leverage handling them? Protection and oversight equally as important. In what ways do you think we could improve protection and oversight? Just higher demand for encryption compliance with tech companies? Oversight, maybe government or committees to raise public awareness?

Data is a valuable resource, often even referred to as the world's most valuable one. With law like GDPR in Europe and HIPAA in America, there is already some platform for data ownership. An emerging topic in American culture, a decade old topic in American health IT, is highly debated. Many patient advocates say it would be a solution to interoperability issues. Many tech companies such as EHR vendors claim the data belongs to them. Do you think data ownership is good or bad? If we lived in a society where you own all your information as property and earn a profit or control the sales of when EHR vendors sell your de-identified medical records, for Google to sell your browsing habits, or for any of the buying parties of your data to disclose how they intend to use your information. Do you think this would benefit or harm society? In my opinion this could be inevitable. As automation takes more jobs and information grows in value. Our data could be our largest asset one day. Especially if you own your lineages data in about 20 generations from now. I think this would also give the general population a fair amount of sway in markets as they could control which companies have access to our data. The only potential cons I see are that this could force the poor into giving away all their privacy. This could also turn privacy into a commodity. Which could be countered with say a independant committee that advises the public on who to and not to sell their data to; but would only work if the middle and upper classes abide by it. Thoughts?

Yes so we will be using algorithms to discern between controllable and non controllable health concerns. There are no constraints, patients have total control over who buys their data. Yes historical data in that sense and it will be gathered by the patients. They can get diagnostics done anywhere, but were going to focus on with their primary cares orders. The data will be authenticated by a physician. Here's an article about us by a respected author and editor in the healthcare IT world - https://www.emrandhipaa.com/andy/2018/06/25/how-the-young-unity-health-score-company-handles-the-dilemmas-of-health-it-adoption/ We've just been nominated for the upcoming Forbes tech council! Here is a 1 Million Cups presentation I did -

I don't see where producing more viable data that only sold on terms of the owning patient, can lead to anything bad or worse than the current state of medical data and electronic health record market. The only issues we consider risks are our data systems security breaches.

In regards to your discressions with selling your medical data. Regardless of whether you like it or not, your data is already being sold. Anonymity doesn't count for anything when your records are easily cross referenced back to you. Which is regular practice for authenticating the data and accessing marketing for many companies. My company will allow you total transparency and control over who buys your data, take it or leave it continuing the trend of underwriters and brokers profiting from your data. As far as insurance discrimination goes, we combat this by only giving insurance company's risk assessment and a percentage of our users and their patients data sales if they uphold the integrity of our guidelines for the patients. Our entire system is founded and focused on creating a more fair insurance system. Non controllable health problemed patients with aggressive cancers and genetic diseases will get cost ceilings based off their income and the insurance company gets a larger percentage of data sales than controllable score ranges. Controllable score ranges discern between optimal health and controllable health problemed patients. The only people who will be discriminated on are those who aren't taking care of themselves. They will only receive discrimination in the form of higher premiums with health goals to reach lower premiums. Not to mention we won't be trying to implement our health score for years. We will have to accumulate mass data and thoroughly engage with out users before we ever try to implement the score in insurance. Sorry for the late reply, had a long weekend with my food concession business.

WebMD is cool and all you guys but uh... what do you think about being able to profit off your medical data, contribute to the development of medical science, participate in studies, and be under a application hub of healthcare services such as finally having a say in your insurance premiums based off how healthy you are? Consent is our number one priority. We won't sell people's data without their knowledge. They will have the options to either opt out of selling their information and select who buys it, or put it on autopilot to be sold at will. Our data will be far more credible and efficiently mined than current means. Primary care doctors will be the ones uploading the electronic medical records. Which isnt too far off from how it's currently done but where we differ is our application will request current diagnostics so the blood test you got ran 10 years ago isn't going to be what's listed. It's the blood test you got this year.