Disrupting the information order in health care: Institutions, policy regimes, and the value of data.

Cybersecurity is an increasingly important threat to health care delivery, and email phishing is a major attack vector against hospital employees. To describe the practice of phishing simulation and the extent to which health care employees are vulnerable to phishing simulations. Retrospective, multicenter quality improvement study of a convenience sample of 6 geographically dispersed US health care institutions that ran phishing simulations from August 1, 2011, through April 10, 2018. The specific institutions are anonymized herein for security and privacy concerns. Simulated phishing emails received by employees at US health care institutions. Date of phishing campaign, campaign number, number of emails sent, number of emails clicked, and email content. Emails were classified into 3 categories (office related, personal, or information technology related). The final study sample included 6 anonymized US health care institutions, 95 simulated phishing campaigns, and 2 971 945 emails, 422 062 of which were clicked (14.2%). The median institutional click rates for campaigns ranged from 7.4% (interquartile range [IQR], 5.8%-9.6%) to 30.7% (IQR, 25.2%-34.4%), with an overall median click rate of 16.7% (IQR, 8.3%-24.2%) across all campaigns and institutions. In the regression model, repeated phishing campaigns were associated with decreased odds of clicking on a subsequent phishing email (adjusted OR, 0.511; 95% CI, 0.382-0.685 for 6-10 campaigns; adjusted OR, 0.335; 95% CI, 0.282-0.398 for >10 campaigns). Among a sample of US health care institutions that sent phishing simulations, almost 1 in 7 simulated emails sent were clicked on by employees. Increasing campaigns were associated with decreased odds of clicking on a phishing email, suggesting a potential benefit of phishing simulation and awareness. With cyberattacks increasing against US health care systems, these click rates represent a major cybersecurity risk for hospitals.

Telemedicine: Transforming Community Long-Term Care

Machine-Learning Implementation in Clinical Anesthesia: Opportunities and Challenges.

Structural Justice Ethics in Health Care

Paediatricians oppose Health and Social Care Bill

1. The American Health Care System: Separate and Unequal American Democracy and Equality Rising Economic Inequality American Public Opinion and Equality American Health Care, Equality, and Public Opinion Inequalities in the American Health Care System The Relationship Between Socioeconomic Status and Health Inequality The Politics of Health Care Inequality The Plan of this Book References 2. African Americans and Heath Care Introduction African Americans and Health Status/Outcomes Access to Health Care African Americans and Quality of Health Care African Americans' and Whites' Perceptions of American Society and Health Care System Possible Explanations for Health Care Disparities Reducing Health Care Disparities Between African Americans and Whites: Progress? Conclusions References 3. Hispanics and Health Care Introduction Hispanics and Health Status/Outcomes Access to Health Care Quality of Care Hispanic's and White's Perceptions of American Society and Health Care System Possible Explanations for Health Care Disparities Unauthorized Immigrants and Health Care Conclusions References 4. American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Health Care Introduction Indian Health Service Health Status/Outcome Access to Care Quality of Care Possible Explanations for Health Care Disparities Conclusions References 5. Gender and Health Care Introduction Health Status/Outcomes Quality of Health Care Explanation for Health Care Disparities Conclusions References 6. Children and Health Care Introduction Health Status/Outcomes Access to Health Care Quality of Health Care Explanations for Health Care Disparities Conclusions References 7. Elderly and Health Care 8. Geography and Health Care 9. Conclusion: Health and Inequality Reconsidered.

1% Steps for Health Care Reform: Implications for health care policy and for researchers.

Although the US health care system is often touted as one of the best in the world, disparities exist in quality of care received by different populations, in different regions, and across different institutions and clinicians. Initiatives to provide access to health insurance have been a major policy tool to ensure that Americans receive high-quality health care. However, availability of insurance coverage does not automatically lead to high-quality care. This article explores points of vulnerability in the US health care system at which the potential to achieve high-quality care can be lost: (1) access to insurance coverage; (2) enrollment in available insurance plans; (3) access to covered services, clinicians, and health care institutions; (4) choice of plans, clinicians, and health care institutions; (5) access to a consistent source of primary care; (6) access to referral services; and (7) delivery of high-quality health care services. Ensuring high-quality health care requires that each of these "voltage drops" be recognized and addressed. JAMA. 2000;284:2100-2107.

Disparities in Vision Health and Eye Care: Where Do We Go from Here?

Exposing some important barriers to health care access in the rural USA

Health Data Breaches Compromised 29 Million Patient Records in 2010–2013

* Abbreviations: NAM — : National Academy of Medicine NHES — : National Health Education Standards Only 12% of American adults have proficient health literacy, defined as a set of skills needed to effectively function in the health care system.1 This is troubling given that health literacy is a stronger predictor of health than age, income, employment status, educational level, or race.2 A growing body of research also shows that low health literacy is associated with worse child health outcomes,3 higher health care costs, and elevated mortality rates.1 Although Americans are increasingly expected to be knowledgeable consumers of health care, it is clear that many individuals lack the core health literacy skills needed to understand their health insurance.4 This inadequate understanding of health care information creates challenges beyond the selection of a health insurance plan or payment calculations. Poor health literacy, including health numeracy, extends into one’s ability to seek care at an appropriate time, navigate through the health system, and share in important medical decisions. In this Perspective, we describe national efforts to combat low health literacy rates and argue that they fail to adequately prepare children and adolescents to be health-literate adults. We then propose several steps for educators, health care providers, and policymakers to improve health literacy among children and adolescents in the United States. The US Department of Health and Human Services, the National Academy of Medicine … Address correspondence to Tyler N.A. Winkelman, MD, MSc, University of Michigan, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars Program, North Campus Research Center, 2800 Plymouth Rd, Building 14, Room G100-20, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2800. E-mail: tywink{at}med.umich.edu

We need to talk about Covid-19 pandemic related stress

Introduction: The digital transformation of healthcare systems has significantly enhanced the efficiency, accessibility, and continuity of medical services. Electronic governance and health information technologies enable faster access to medical records, improved coordination among institutions, and data-driven clinical decision-making. However, the rapid integration of digital tools into healthcare introduces substantial ethical and legal challenges related to safeguarding patients’ personal medical information. Ensuring confidentiality, informed consent, cybersecurity, and accountability has become essential for maintaining trust in electronic health systems. International regulations such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and Convention 108, together with national legislative frameworks, require healthcare institutions to implement robust data protection standards. Methods: This study employs a document analysis and legal review methodology. International regulatory documents, including GDPR, HIPAA, OECD recommendations, and WHO guidelines, were examined to identify core principles of digital health data governance. Georgian legislation, particularly the Law on Personal Data Protection, the Law on Health Care, and the Law on Medical Practice, was analyzed to assess its alignment with international norms. In addition, ethical principles such as autonomy, justice, non-maleficence, transparency, and accountability were evaluated as guiding frameworks for medical data protection. The analysis also incorporates insights from global literature on digital health transformation during the COVID-19 pandemic, which served as a catalyst for accelerated digital adoption, remote consultations, and large-scale electronic data processing. Results: The findings highlight several critical issues associated with the electronic management of medical information. First, the risk of cyberattacks and data breaches remains high, given that medical information is among the most sensitive categories of personal data. Unauthorized access, system errors, and insufficient cybersecurity measures can lead to significant harm, including discrimination, psychological distress, and financial loss. Second, patients frequently lack adequate understanding of informed consent procedures. Complex legal documents and technical terminology make it difficult for individuals to grasp what data are collected, how they are processed, and who has access to them. This undermines autonomy and reduces trust in digital health systems. Third, disparities in digital literacy create additional barriers, particularly for older adults and persons with disabilities, limiting their ability to use electronic health services effectively. Fourth, the rapid digitization triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic improved service continuity but also exposed weaknesses in data protection practices, particularly in contexts with limited infrastructure. Fifth, despite the existence of legal frameworks, practical implementation gaps remain within healthcare institutions, including insufficient staff training and inconsistent application of information security protocols. Nevertheless, electronic governance offers substantial benefits, such as improved transparency, timely access to health information, enhanced coordination, and better allocation of medical resources. These advantages underscore the need for strengthened governance mechanisms rather than retreat from digital systems. Conclusion: Ensuring the secure and ethical management of medical information in digital healthcare requires a comprehensive approach. Strengthening the legal framework, improving cybersecurity infrastructure, simplifying informed consent procedures, and enhancing digital competencies among both patients and healthcare professionals are essential steps. International cooperation and harmonization with global standards play a crucial role in creating resilient systems capable of adapting to technological advancements. Ultimately, building trustworthy, transparent, and ethically grounded electronic health governance will not only protect patient privacy but also enhance the quality, equity, and reliability of healthcare services in the digital era.

Journal Article The Promise of Public Housing as a Community-Based Model of Health Care Get access Stan L. Bowie, Stan L. Bowie Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Cynthia J. Rocha Cynthia J. Rocha Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Health & Social Work, Volume 29, Issue 4, November 2004, Pages 335–339, https://doi.org/10.1093/hsw/29.4.335 Published: 01 November 2004 Article history Received: 17 October 2002 Revision received: 27 January 2003 Accepted: 24 February 2003 Published: 01 November 2004