On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Adam Fuchs <[email protected]> wrote: > Not sure I understand why this gets into n*m roles. Can you elaborate? > > The question of when your physician should have access seems like it could > be represented by just a few labels, like "regularCheckup", > "illnessEvaluation", and "populationStudy". Those labels could then be tied > to an auditing system that could verify appropriateness of access over time.
And if you change doctors? Maybe that's a job for some sort of role/group model. > > Adam > > On Aug 9, 2012 10:19 PM, "Josh Elser" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I've thought quite a bit about the approach you've outlined previously.. >> >> The main caveat I've always struggled to overcome is how to encapsulate >> *when* a physician should have access to your records. This expands the >> problem into n*m roles which becomes difficult to manage inside Accumulo, >> especially as time elapses. >> >> On 8/8/2012 6:29 PM, Marc Parisi wrote: >>> >>> Just some ideas and thoughts.... >>> >>> With a system I'm building I have code to take care of user roles. Roles >>> will define visibilities, how analysis is performed, information >>> sharing, etc. I have a particular role for sharing. I also have an area >>> of interest, usually assigned to a physician role, therefore only a >>> physician's office can see certain data from it. The data corresponding >>> to a given person can be accessed by that person ( if they have app >>> access ), the physician that created it, and other physicians ( with a >>> different area of interest ) with whom the user wants to share their >>> data. Each area of interest will be cryptographically secured. Our >>> approach will utilize multiple crypto technologies. I would suggest >>> making crypto your last stop. Focus on getting >>> the visibility hierarchy designed. HIPAA requirements can come later. >>> >>> In my approach, there is no elevation of fields per se. Instead, there >>> are visibiilities for all assigned parties,so in my case it is a matter >>> of labeling. The data can have hierarchies, and each hierarchy has >>> different labels to control access. >>> >>> " Patient demographic fields are PHI (personal health information) and >>> these should not be visible to all who want to perform analysis, but >>> only to main administrators, >>> patient and maybe physician. I assume these would have to have >>> separate authorization label. " >>> >>> Yes. I think this is where roles will help. Assign roles and >>> visibilities to those roles. As of right now, I'm putting ephemeral data >>> in my visibilities ( user ID for a physician, among other things ). I >>> will probably move this to the qualifier and take a more simple approach >>> to visibilities. >>> >>> Each role has different actions. Right now I have four actions; syncing, >>> querying, deleting, and sharing. You don't have to capture actions, but >>> you might want to limit how the roles of users vary, and I think >>> modeling the security actions within each role is an excellent way to do >>> so. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Edmon Begoli <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> I am trying to model the healthcare claim on accumulo and I want to >>> lay it out so that it: >>> >>> A. Accurately reflects the structure of the claim >>> >>> B. I could have controls finely applied to different sections of the >>> document >>> >>> I am simplifying matter but claim contains claim document >>> identifiers, >>> demographics of the patient, and line items for the procedures >>> performed: >>> >>> claim identifier, data submitted, data processed, state of origin, >>> ... >>> patient name, dob, location, other identifiers >>> procedure 1 code, procedure 1 provider, procedure 1 cost, ... >>> ... >>> procedure n code, procedure n provider, procedure n cost, ... >>> >>> >>> Patient demographic fields are PHI (personal health information) and >>> these should not be visible to all who want to perform analysis, but >>> only to main administrators, >>> patient and maybe physician. I assume these would have to have >>> separate authorization label. >>> >>> Other fields may be visible to different groups of people - i.e. >>> federal claim administrators can see all, but regional offices can >>> only see their states. >>> Separate, more permissive labels. >>> >>> Finally, it might make sense to "elevate" some fields for easy access >>> and analysis - ie. diagnostic codes, zip code, cost. >>> This would not be a matter of labels, but data design. >>> >>> >>> With all this in mind, I would welcome if anyone has any security and >>> data design suggestions. >>> >>> >
