Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<b><i>Online Exclusive:</b></i> Medical Professionals Demanding Better Privacy Practices from Pharmaceutical Industry
Privacy is a critical issue for medical professionals, and they are expecting pharmaceutical firms to help ensure their own privacy, as well as the privacy of personal data about their patients.
According to a study released earlier this week by the Ponemon Institute, 88% of respondents said it is 'important' or 'very important' for a pharmaceutical company to protect personal information. The respondents were physicians, nurses, and physicians' assistants.
The study also found some concern over the greater ability of pharmaceutical firms to track patients through the use of wireless communications devices and 'tagging' bottles of medication with radio frequency information devices ('RFID'). While acknowledging the benefits of improving information flow, 48% of respondents said they worry about an increased risk of data breach due to the use of wireless devices, and 38% expressed concern about RFID tags.
Other key findings:
- 27% of respondents said they would file a complaint, 29% said they would disengage, and 15% said they would participate in a boycott against a company in the event of a data breach.
- 73% percent agreed that 'overly aggressive marketing, sales and promotional tactics' are a 'big issue … that could negatively impact [my] sense of privacy.'
Also, the survey tallied respondents' perceptions of which pharmaceutical companies are best at protecting privacy. The top five companies, in order, were: Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Merck (tie), Wyeth (tie), and Eli Lilly.
“Preventing data breaches has become a top priority for pharmaceutical companies, partly due to state notification laws, but more importantly because consumer and clinician loyalty depends upon it,” said Steve Roop, vice president of marketing at Vontu, a corporate privacy firm that sponsored the study.
Privacy is a critical issue for medical professionals, and they are expecting pharmaceutical firms to help ensure their own privacy, as well as the privacy of personal data about their patients.
According to a study released earlier this week by the Ponemon Institute, 88% of respondents said it is 'important' or 'very important' for a pharmaceutical company to protect personal information. The respondents were physicians, nurses, and physicians' assistants.
The study also found some concern over the greater ability of pharmaceutical firms to track patients through the use of wireless communications devices and 'tagging' bottles of medication with radio frequency information devices ('RFID'). While acknowledging the benefits of improving information flow, 48% of respondents said they worry about an increased risk of data breach due to the use of wireless devices, and 38% expressed concern about RFID tags.
Other key findings:
- 27% of respondents said they would file a complaint, 29% said they would disengage, and 15% said they would participate in a boycott against a company in the event of a data breach.
- 73% percent agreed that 'overly aggressive marketing, sales and promotional tactics' are a 'big issue … that could negatively impact [my] sense of privacy.'
Also, the survey tallied respondents' perceptions of which pharmaceutical companies are best at protecting privacy. The top five companies, in order, were:
“Preventing data breaches has become a top priority for pharmaceutical companies, partly due to state notification laws, but more importantly because consumer and clinician loyalty depends upon it,” said Steve Roop, vice president of marketing at Vontu, a corporate privacy firm that sponsored the study.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.