Transforming Hypertension Diagnosis and Management in The Era of Artificial Intelligence: A 2023 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Workshop Report.

Hypertension is among the most important risk factors for cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and dementia. The artificial intelligence (AI) field is advancing quickly, and there has been little discussion on how AI could be leveraged for improving the diagnosis and management of hypertension. AI technologies, including machine learning tools, could alter the way we diagnose and manage hypertension, with potential impacts for improving individual and population health. The development of successful AI tools in public health and health care systems requires diverse types of expertise with collaborative relationships between clinicians, engineers, and data scientists. Unbiased data sources, management, and analyses remain a foundational challenge. From a diagnostic standpoint, machine learning tools may improve the measurement of blood pressure and be useful in the prediction of incident hypertension. To advance the management of hypertension, machine learning tools may be useful to find personalized treatments for patients using analytics to predict response to antihypertension medications and the risk for hypertension-related complications. However, there are real-world implementation challenges to using AI tools in hypertension. Herein, we summarize key findings from a diverse group of stakeholders who participated in a workshop held by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in March 2023. Workshop participants presented information on communication gaps between clinical medicine, data science, and engineering in health care; novel approaches to estimating BP, hypertension risk, and BP control; and real-world implementation challenges and issues.

Protecting reproductive health information in the post-Roe era: interoperability strategies for healthcare institutions.

On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court ended constitutional protections for abortion, resulting in wide variability in access from severe restrictions in many states and fewer restrictions in others. Healthcare institutions capture information about patients' pregnancy and abortion care and, due to interoperability, may share it in ways that expose their providers and patients to social stigma and potential legal jeopardy in states with severe restrictions. In this article, we describe sources of risk to patients and providers that arise from interoperability and specify actions that institutions can take to reduce that risk. Institutions have significant power to define their practices for how and where care is documented, how patients are identified, where data are sent or hosted, and how patients are counseled, and thus should protect patients' privacy and ability to receive medical care that is safe and legal where it is performed.

Doctors Routinely Share Health Data Electronically Under HIPAA, and Sharing With Patients and Patients' Third-Party Health Apps is Consistent: Interoperability and Privacy Analysis.

Since 2000, federal regulations have affirmed that patients have a right to a complete copy of their health records from their physicians and hospitals. Today, providers across the nation use electronic health records and electronic information exchange for health care, and patients are choosing digital health apps to help them manage their own health and health information. Some doctors and health systems have voiced concern about whether they may transmit a patient's data upon the patient's request to the patient or the patient's health app. This hesitation impedes shared information and care coordination with patients. It impairs patients' ability to use the state-of-the-art digital health tools they choose to track and manage their health. It undermines the ability of patients' family caregivers to monitor health and to work remotely to provide care by using the nearly unique capabilities of health apps on people's smartphones. This paper explains that sharing data electronically with patients and patients' third-party apps is legally consistent under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) with routine electronic data sharing with other doctors for treatment or with insurers for reimbursement. The paper explains and illustrates basic principles and scenarios around sharing with patients, including patients' third-party apps. Doctors routinely and legally share health data electronically under HIPAA whether or not their organizations retain HIPAA responsibility. Sharing with patients and patients' third-party apps is no different and should be just as routine.

Legal Barriers to the Growth of Health Information Exchange-Boulders or Pebbles?

Policy Points: Historically, in addition to economic and technical hurdles, state and federal health information privacy laws have been cited as a significant obstacle to expanding electronic health information exchange (HIE) in the United States. Our review finds that over the past decade, several helpful developments have ameliorated the legal barriers to HIE, although variation in states' patient consent requirements remains a challenge. Today, health care providers' complaints about legal obstacles to HIE may be better understood as reflecting concerns about the economic and competitive risks of information sharing. CONTEXT: Although the clinical benefits of exchanging patients' health information electronically across providers have long been recognized, participation in health information exchange (HIE) has lagged behind adoption of electronic health records. Barriers erected by federal and state health information privacy law have been cited as a leading reason for the slow progress. A comprehensive assessment of these issues has not been undertaken for nearly a decade, despite a number of salient legal developments. METHODS: Analysis of federal and state health information privacy statutes and regulations and secondary materials. FINDINGS: Although some legal barriers to HIE persist, many have been ameliorated-in some cases, simply through improved understanding of what the law actually requires. It is now clear that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act presents no obstacles to electronically sharing protected health information for treatment purposes and does not hold providers who properly disclose information liable for privacy breaches by recipients. The failure of federal efforts to establish a unique patient identifier number does slow HIE by inhibiting optimal matching of patient records, but other action to facilitate matching will be taken under the 21st Century Cures Act. The Cures Act also creates the legal architecture to begin to combat "information blocking." Varying patient consent requirements under federal and state law are the most important remaining legal barrier to HIE progress. However, federal rules relating to disclosure of substance-abuse treatment information were recently liberalized, and development of a technical standard, Data Segmentation for Privacy, or DS4P, now permits sensitive data requiring special handling to be segmented within a patient's record. Even with these developments, state-law requirements for patient consent remain daunting to navigate. CONCLUSIONS: Although patient consent requirements make HIE challenging, providers' expressed worries about legal barriers to participating in HIE likely primarily reflect concerns that are economically motivated. Lowering the cost of HIE or increasing financial incentives may boost provider participation more than further reducing legal barriers.