Republicans demand answers on blue state health program accused of leaking patient data to Big Tech
FIRST ON FOX: House Republicans are putting California's state-run public health insurance exchange on notice with a letter demanding answers about its leaking of private patient data to third-party entries as part of a marketing effort.
Spearheaded by several Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the letter to Covered California, which facilitates public health insurance for millions of Californians, seeks answers to numerous questions about its alleged leak of private patient data to third-party entities, such as LinkedIn and Google.
"Ensuring the confidentiality of health information is a foundational obligation for entities operating within the health insurance ecosystem," the letter, signed by five Republican leaders in the House, states. It points out how federal privacy protections, in particular those stemming from the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), establish certain "expectations" for how organizations like Covered California must handle patient information.
Additionally, in California, the law requires consumers provide permission to certain organizations before their medical information can be disclosed to third-parties.
"Recent reports and public filings raised questions about whether those expectations were met in this case, and whether existing oversight mechanisms are sufficient to detect and prevent improper disclosures," the Republicans' letter asserted.
Following public criticism in late April, alleging that Covered California was passing sensitive patient data to LinkedIn via a network of "trackers" on its website, the state-run health insurance exchange removed them.
The criticism stemmed from a forensic analysis by two investigative nonprofits, which found Covered California's website was sharing patients' answers to questions, such as whether one is pregnant, or how many prescription drugs they use, or how often they see doctors, were being passed to LinkedIn without the patients' knowledge or consent. Other questions included demographic information and other sensitive personal data, and Covered California subsequently admitted to sharing patients' Social Security numbers.
In total, Covered California had more than 60 active "trackers" on various data points, according to Cal Matters, one of the investigative nonprofits that uncovered the leaked data. Cal Matters, in their investigation, pointed out how the average number of trackers across more than 200 government websites it investigated was only three.
Following the Cal Matters report that led to public criticism, Coverd California subsequently explained that the "trackers" it had functioning on its website were part of an advertising campaign initiated in February 2024, and upon discovery of the data sharing, it removed them in April the following year.
"Covered California leverages LinkedIn's advertising platform tools, including LinkedIn Insight tags, which are pieces of code added to a website to help track how visitors interact with the site. This tool allows us to better understand consumer behavior and deliver tailored messages to help consumers make informed decisions about their health care options," Covered California said in a public statement put out following the Cal Matters report. "While the review is still ongoing, Covered California has identified that some sensitive data was inadvertently collected by the tags, including first names, the last four digits of Social Security numbers, and other sensitive health information like pregnancy status."
The state health insurance exchange added that it was reviewing its entire website to ensure no more analytical tools were improperly collecting or sharing sensitive patient data.
Meanwhile, days after Cal Matters brought the data-sharing concerns involving Covered California to light, a class-action lawsuit was filed against LinkedIn and Google, accusing the companies of operating software enabling them "to intercept sensitive and confidential communications of Covered California customers."
The letter from House Republicans marks the latest attempt to increase pressure on the California-run public health insurance exchange. Republicans are demanding answers to questions pertaining to its data sharing, including during the period of time it was allegedly sharing info with LinkedIn, as well as questions about what Covered California is currently doing to protect its patients' data.
"Americans deserve to know that their sensitive health data is secure and being handled prudently," Chairman Guthrie said following transmission of the letter to Covered California. "We are hopeful that California will be transparent and forthcoming about this apparent data security failure as we launch our investigation."
"The unauthorized sharing of private health data with third-party advertisers— including pregnancy status, prescription drug use, and Social Security information— is deeply troubling," added California Rep. Jay Obernolte, a fellow Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee who helped spearhead the letter to Covered California alongside Guthrie. "We're seeking answers because the people of California deserve accountability and transparency when their privacy is compromised."
When reached for comment, Covered California acknowledged receipt of the letter from Guthrie, Obernolte, and others on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, adding that they were currently reviewing its requests and plan to respond by the provided July 1 deadline. Google and LinkedIn declined to provide comment for this article.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
12 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump says supporters are 'more in love' with him than ever, as involvement in Iran roils MAGA world
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Wednesday downplayed any notion that his supporters are cooling on him amid uncertainty over whether he will order a U.S. strike on Iran, addressing a rift between some of his most vocal MAGA backers and national security conservatives. 'My supporters are more in love with me today, and I'm more in love with them, more than they even were at election time where we had a total landslide,' Trump told reporters as a new flagpole was erected at the White House, with machinery whirring in the background. 'I may have some people that are a little bit unhappy now, but I have some people that are very happy, and I have people outside of the base that can't believe that this is happening, they're so happy,' he said. Trump huddled Tuesday in the Situation Room with his national security team, and on Wednesday , Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told lawmakers on Capitol Hill that the Pentagon was providing Trump with possible options on Iran but would not say whether the military was planning to assist with Israeli strikes. 'I may do it, I may not do it,' Trump said Wednesday, in the exchange with reporters. 'I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do.' Trump's comments came as some longtime defenders of his America First mantra are calling him out for weighing a greater U.S. role in the conflict between Israel and Iran after a week of deadly strikes and counterstrikes. Georgia GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene , commentator Tucker Carlson and conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk are among those reminding their own devoted audiences of Trump's 2024 promises to resist overseas military involvement. Here's a look at the others who have chimed in: Shortly before Trump spoke, Steve Bannon , one of his 2016 campaign's top advisers, told an audience in Washington that bitter feelings over Iraq were a driving force for Trump's first presidential candidacy and the MAGA movement, saying that 'one of the core tenets is no forever wars' for Trump's base. But Bannon — a longtime Trump ally who served a four-month sentence for defying a subpoena in the congressional investigation into the U.S. Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021 — went on to suggest that Trump will maintain loyalty from his base no matter what. On Wednesday, Bannon acknowledged that while he and others will argue against military intervention until the end, 'the MAGA movement will back Trump.' Ultimately, Bannon said that Trump will have to make the case to the American people if he wants to get involved in Iran — and he hasn't done that yet. 'We don't like it. Maybe we hate it,' Bannon said, predicting what the MAGA response would be. 'But, you know, we'll get on board.' The far-right conspiracy theorist and Infowars host on Wednesday posted on social media a side-by-side of Trump's official presidential headshot, and an AI-generated composite of Trump and former President George W. Bush, whom Trump and many of his allies have long disparaged for involving the United States in the so-called 'forever wars' in Iraq and Afghanistan. Writing 'What you voted for' above Trump's image and 'What you got' above the composite, Jones added: 'I hope this is not the case…' ___ Kinnard reported from Chapin, South Carolina, and can be reached at .
New York Times
13 minutes ago
- New York Times
The Last Time Supreme Court Considered Trans Rights, It Protected Them
The Supreme Court last decided a major case about transgender rights in June 2020, a win for the L.G.B.T.Q. community in a dispute over workplace discrimination against gay and transgender workers. In that case, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, a group of plaintiffs — among them, a funeral director, an advocate for at-risk children, and a skydiving instructor — argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 guaranteed nationwide protection from workplace discrimination to gay and transgender people, even in states that offered no protection. In a vote of 6 to 3, the justices agreed. But that was a different court — and a different political moment. Although the court already had a conservative majority, the court's makeup shifted further rightward since then, after President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to fill the seat left by the liberal icon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The politics around transgender issues have also shifted rightward. Soon after Mr. Trump began his second term in January, he issued an executive order that federal agencies should limit surgeries, hormone therapy and other gender transition care for children and teenagers under 19. Lawyers for the Trump administration had urged the justices to uphold a Tennessee law banning some medical treatment for transgender youth. In the court's decision on Wednesday to uphold that law, the majority said that it would not determine whether the reasoning from the Bostock decision reached beyond employment discrimination. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. explained a view that, unlike in the employment discrimination context, changing a minor's sex or gender would not alter how the state law applied to them. The majority reasoned that if a transgender boy sought testosterone to treat gender dysphoria, the Tennessee law would prohibit a health care provider from giving it to him. If the patient was a girl, the law would still prohibit the hormone treatment because the person would lack a qualifying diagnosis, Chief Justice Roberts wrote. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor disagreed, arguing that the court's decision in Bostock would require a different result. She wrote that, as Bostock outlined in the employment discrimination case, 'it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.'
Medscape
13 minutes ago
- Medscape
The Longevity Paradox: Medicine Meets Silicon Valley
'For without friends, no one would choose to live.' - Aristotle Jeffrey Benabio, MD, MBA Last year, Bryan Johnson, a 46-year-old tech founder, spent 2 million dollars on a regimen that included monthly plasma transfusions from his teenage son. Why? Well, we live in an age when the wealthy inject themselves with young blood, undergo elaborate hormone replacement protocols, get infusions of NAD+, and gobble metformin pill-packs to optimize their biological age. The sell is seductive: Death is evitable. Aging is curable. And with enough money, one can live to be old and healthy. The venture capital bets might be recent, but the yearning is ancient. Herodotus wrote in the 5th century BCE about special waters the long-lived Macrobians drank and bathed in — waters that not only extended life but left their skin "glossy and smooth." Later, Alexander the Great, in his conquests, was said to have been on a quest to find the "Water of Life." He died at 32, which is probably why his product isn't a popular supplement on Amazon today. Lucas Cranach's "The Fountain of Youth," painted in the late Medieval period, shows old and infirm patrons swimming in magical waters and emerging vibrant and young on the other side. Perhaps those waters had rapamycin-producing Streptomyces growing in it — which is a top seller today. The Fountain of Youth by Lucas Cranach d.Ä. Behind the tempting pitch to live forever lies an uncomfortable question: Is this medicine? Should we be testing testosterone on an athletic 23-year-old? Or continuously monitor glucose for a healthy adult with no signs of diabetes? Few doctors would order these for patients, and fewer payors would pick up the tab if they were ordered. This is the disconnect between medicine and entrepreneurs. "The medical system is so patronizing," said a young venture capitalist on a popular startup podcast I was listening to. He was complaining about how doctors resist ordering MRIs or specialized tests because we doctors "think patients are idiots." We do not. He's missing the point that, as a healthy 30-something, medicine is not resourced to help him with wellness requests. Who should pay for his requested MRI? Who would interpret the results? We physicians cannot keep up with the demand for services from those who need us acutely. We've no plan for absorbing a new generation of the "worried well" — better named the "ambitious well" — while also caring for their boomer grandparents. We have a critical shortage of primary care physicians; one that will only worsen as our population ages. The Association of American Medical Colleges projects a shortage of up to 40,400 primary care doctors by 2036. What happens if a portion of that workforce begins dedicating their time to monitoring biomarkers and fine-tuning supplement regimens for patients who are not sick? Healthcare resources — physicians' time, diagnostic equipment, laboratory services — are finite. Every hour we spend with a healthy person seeking optimization is an hour not spent with a patient who is ill. For every primary care physician giving up their practice for a cash-paying longevity clinic, there will be 2000 or so patients who now have to be redistributed onto already burdened practices. When healthy 35-year-olds can get same-day MRIs at boutique practices while my father-in-law waits nearly 2 months for an MRI to characterize a renal mass seen on ultrasound, we've failed. Caring for cash-paying patients who can sit with you for an hour is preferable to the daily grind of 15-minute appointments for patients who actually need an hour of your time. Why shouldn't docs get to choose? For one thing, our training is publicly funded. Taxpayer dollars pick up the tab for more than $20 billion in graduate medical education every year. It seems not quite right that this education doesn't at least in part serve the public who funded it. Despite these concerns, we should acknowledge the import of the longevity movement. Prevention is indeed better than cure. Early intervention can avert costly medical problems. And individuals have a right to pursue health optimizations they value, using their own resources. The question is, how should longevity medicine relate to our broader healthcare system and societal priorities? I think transparency is essential. Longevity interventions should be clearly labeled based on the strength of supporting research. It's the standard we adhere to every day in practice. We also need to be clearer about necessity versus enhancement. Insurance coverage and public resources should prioritize interventions that address or prevent disease. Enhancement services should be demarcated as distinct from necessary medical care. Physicians working in longevity medicine might also acknowledge some societal obligations. Perhaps consider devoting a portion of their practice to underserved populations or contributing to research that benefits the broader public, not just those who can afford boutique services. We also surely must address the structural factors that push physicians toward concierge practices. If doctors are fleeing due to administrative burden and time constraints, improving those would help ensure care remains accessible to all. Lastly, we might recognize that the best determinants of longevity operate at the population not the individual level. Clean air and water, safe neighborhoods, access to nutritious food, and strong social connections likely do more to improve the health and longevity of a population than any supplement or monitoring device. Realizing the promise of longevity medicine requires more than scientific breakthrough; it demands clarity about how these advances should be distributed and what values should guide their application. As physicians we face a choice: Should we allow longevity to become another domain where privilege determines outcomes? Or could we build a system where the benefits of extended healthy life are available to all? Since Herodotus and after nearly 2500 years of searching, we still haven't found the water of life. Or maybe Aristotle actually discovered it just a few years later: gymnastics, moderation in food and drink, and good friends. It's hard to raise a series A with that pitch though.
