Stakeholder views on requiring diagnosis or clinical indication on e-prescriptions.

BACKGROUND: Medication safety organizations have been recommending the inclusion of diagnosis or clinical indication on prescription orders for decades. However, this information is typically not provided by prescribers and shared with pharmacists, despite the availability of data fields in the most commonly used standard for electronic prescriptions. OBJECTIVE: To elucidate the views of selected industry stakeholders relative to perceived barriers to including diagnosis or indication on all electronic prescriptions. METHODS: Semistructured concept elicitation interviews identified key issues. Survey items were refined iteratively by the research team. The final instrument consisted of 34 questions intended to elicit the importance and relative priority of perceived barriers and potential solutions. A link to the Internet survey was emailed to members of the National Council for Prescription Drug Programs in February 2023, with biweekly follow-up reminders. RESULTS: A total of 139 surveys were analyzed for a response rate of 9.6%. On the importance of resolving issues related to the inclusion of diagnosis or indication on e-prescriptions, a majority of respondents indicated "extremely important" or "very important" for all items except one. On level of agreement with statements about how to implement such a requirement, a majority indicated "strongly agree" or "agree" for 10 of 17 items. CONCLUSIONS: Although clearly exploratory, the results of our survey suggest industry stakeholder agreement that uniform inclusion of diagnosis or clinical indication on all e-prescriptions would improve patient safety and health outcomes. A number of important questions and potential barriers must be resolved for implementation to be successful.

Physicians differ in their perceptions of sensitive medical records: Survey and interview study.

Physician categorizations of electronic health record (EHR) data (e.g., depression) into sensitive data categories (e.g., Mental Health) and their perspectives on the adequacy of the categories to classify medical record data were assessed. One thousand data items from patient EHR were classified by 20 physicians (10 psychiatrists paired with ten non-psychiatrist physicians) into data categories via a survey. Cluster-adjusted chi square tests and mixed models were used for analysis. 10 items were selected per each physician pair (100 items in total) for discussion during 20 follow-up interviews. Interviews were thematically analyzed. Survey item categorization yielded 500 (50.0%) agreements, 175 (17.5%) disagreements, 325 (32.5%) partial agreements. Categorization disagreements were associated with physician specialty and implied patient history. Non-psychiatrists selected significantly (p = .016) more data categories than psychiatrists when classifying data items. The endorsement of Mental Health and Substance Use categories were significantly (p = .001) related for both provider types. During thematic analysis, Encounter Diagnosis (100%), Problems (95%), Health Concerns (90%), and Medications (85%) were discussed the most when deciding the sensitivity of medical information. Most (90.0%) interview participants suggested adding additional data categories. Study findings may guide the evolution of digital patient-controlled granular data sharing technology and processes.

My data choices: Pilot evaluation of patient-controlled medical record sharing technology.

Patients desire greater control over sharing their digital health data. Consent2Share (C2S) is an open-source consent tool offered by SAMHA and the VA to support granular data sharing (GDS) options that align with patient preferences and data privacy regulations. The need to validate this tool exists. We pilot tested C2S with 199 English and Spanish-speaking patients with behavioral health conditions (BHCs) and patient guardians. Data were analyzed using mixed methodology. All participants desired granular control over the sharing of their health data. Most participants (87%) were highly interested in using a tool that offered granular options for executing data sharing decisions, with over half (55%) indicated that being able to specify the data type, data recipient, and data use purpose made them more willing to share their medical records. Majority (83%) indicated that the supported data type sharing categories satisfied their data-sharing privacy preferences. Majority (87%) also reported that knowing the purpose of data use made them more comfortable in sharing. Some participants (28%) accessed the education materials provided on data type sharing options. Patients want granular choices when sharing medical records. Consent2Share and its supported data type sharing categories are adequate to capture patients' data sharing preferences. Further development is needed before deployment in clinical environments.

Perceptions and Concerns of SUD Treatment Organizations Regarding the CARES Act's Alterations to Patient Confidentiality Regulations.

Objectives: Learn how substance use disorder (SUD) treatment organizations view and respond to changes in confidentiality and disclosure law following adoption of CARES Act Sec. 3221 and prior to promulgation of revised implementing regulations. Methods: Online survey followed by informal interviews. Representatives of SUD organizations reported their degree of awareness of Sec. 3221 provisions and their organizations' views on amendments to disclosure practices; current and future changes of organizational policies; difficulties anticipated in implementing new rules; and preferences for resources. Results: Forty informant surveys on 30 organizations completed. Participants (62.5 percent) indicated being somewhat knowledgeable about Sec. 3221. Evenly divided positive and concerned views on Sec. 3221 reflect tension between preserving confidentiality of patient records and improving coordination of care. Most (76.7 percent) reported organizational discussions on Sec. 3221. Some (30 percent) identified changes to make in near future. Over a third expected few or no barriers to implementing changes to privacy and disclosure practices, while most (64.7 percent) expected hindrances including complexity and tensions in the law, staff education, cost, technological adjustments, and changes in the ways SUD organizations interact with external organizations and individuals. To overcome barriers noted, participants expressed desire (66.7 percent) for teaching tools such as webinars and templates to follow. Conclusions: SUD treatment organizations began thinking of and planning for proposed changes well before expected implementation of Sec. 3221. Their concerns reflected practicalities of implementation, determining content of law, and wondering about the extent to which it solves problems (improving coordination of care among various providers) or endangered other goals (protecting confidentiality of SUD patient records).

Behavioral Health Professionals' Perceptions on Patient-Controlled Granular Information Sharing (Part 1): Focus Group Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient-controlled granular information sharing (PC-GIS) allows a patient to select specific health information "granules," such as diagnoses and medications; choose with whom the information is shared; and decide how the information can be used. Previous studies suggest that health professionals have mixed or concerned opinions about the process and impact of PC-GIS for care and research. Further understanding of behavioral health professionals' views on PC-GIS are needed for successful implementation and use of this technology. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in health professionals' opinions on PC-GIS before and after a demonstrative case study. METHODS: Four focus groups were conducted at two integrated health care facilities: one serious mental illness facility and one general behavioral health facility. A total of 28 participants were given access to outcomes of a previous study where patients had control over medical record sharing. Participants were surveyed before and after focus groups on their views about PC-GIS. Thematic analysis of focus group output was paired with descriptive statistics and exploratory factor analysis of surveys. RESULTS: Behavioral health professionals showed a significant opinion shift toward concern after the focus group intervention, specifically on the topics of patient understanding (P=.001), authorized electronic health record access (P=.03), patient-professional relationship (P=.006), patient control acceptance (P<.001), and patient rights (P=.02). Qualitative methodology supported these results. The themes of professional considerations (2234/4025, 55.5% of codes) and necessity of health information (260/766, 33.9%) identified key aspects of PC-GIS concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Behavioral health professionals agreed that a trusting patient-professional relationship is integral to the optimal implementation of PC-GIS, but were concerned about the potential negative impacts of PC-GIS on patient safety and quality of care.

Behavioral Health Professionals' Perceptions on Patient-Controlled Granular Information Sharing (Part 2): Focus Group Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient-directed selection and sharing of health information "granules" is known as granular information sharing. In a previous study, patients with behavioral health conditions categorized their own health information into sensitive categories (eg, mental health) and chose the health professionals (eg, pharmacists) who should have access to those records. Little is known about behavioral health professionals' perspectives of patient-controlled granular information sharing (PC-GIS). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess behavioral health professionals' (1) understanding of and opinions about PC-GIS; (2) accuracy in assessing redacted medical information; (3) reactions to patient rationale for health data categorization, assignment of sensitivity, and sharing choices; and (4) recommendations to improve PC-GIS. METHODS: Four 2-hour focus groups and pre- and postsurveys were conducted at 2 facilities. During the focus groups, outcomes from a previous study on patients' choices for medical record sharing were discussed. Thematic analysis was applied to focus group transcripts to address study objectives. RESULTS: A total of 28 health professionals were recruited. Over half (14/25, 56%) were unaware or provided incorrect definitions of granular information sharing. After PC-GIS was explained, all professionals demonstrated understanding of the terminology and process. Most (26/32 codes, 81%) recognized that key medical data had been redacted from the study case. A majority (41/62 codes, 66%) found the patient rationale for categorization and data sharing choices to be unclear. Finally, education and other approaches to inform and engage patients in granular information sharing were recommended. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides detailed insights from behavioral health professionals on granular information sharing. Outcomes will inform the development, deployment, and evaluation of an electronic consent tool for granular health data sharing.

A Culturally Relevant Care Model to Reduce Health Disparities Among Medicaid Recipients.

Health disparities among Hispanics are associated with poorer health status across multiple health conditions, greater use of high-acuity services, and lower use of care continuity and preventive services. A new integrated delivery organization (IDO) designed around culturally responsive care aims to reduce health disparities and improve health outcomes among the Hispanic community by deploying a multifeatured approach. The IDO combines the universal administration of a culturally sensitive health risk screening tool, the delivery of culturally appropriate medical, behavioral and spiritual health, and creative support of provider practices with training and informational resources, financial incentives, actionable data, technology, and cultural sensitivity training for providers and staff. The IDO further distinguishes its unique approach by partnering with a university informatics program to establish a local learning health care system destined to enrich the evidence base for culturally appropriate interventions that reduce health disparities. Longitudinal research is currently underway that focuses on the impact of culturally motivated interventions on resource utilization, retention, and quality.

Recommendations to Inform Substance Use Disorder Data Sharing Research: Scoping Review and Thematic Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Title 42 Code of Federal Regulations Part 2 (42 CFR Part 2 or Part 2) was enacted in 1975 to protect patients receiving treatment for substance use disorders. A scoping review on Part 2 characterized published work. METHODS: Seven databases were searched. Studies were categorized based on date of publication, primary objectives, methods, and findings. A thematic analysis was conducted using article titles and abstracts. RESULTS: Of the 36 studies identified, the majority (78%) were opinions or legal reviews, (22%) employed quantitative and/or qualitative methods to study the impact of Part 2, and over half (58%) were published in the past 5 years. Only 8% of studies reported stakeholder involvement in Part 2 studies and no study included patients or patient advocates. No study discussed the efforts to align Part 2 with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act or provided evidence of the benefit of this alignment. Three main themes emerged from the review: care delivery (46.6%), law and ethics (27.6%), and technology (25.9%). There were no studies focusing on stigma and its effect on substance use treatment and Part 2. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the significance of Part 2, the literature is sparse. It is time to initiate a new era of scholarly research that focuses on the impact of statutes and policies that govern substance use disorder data sharing. Specifically, we recommend research on Part 2 and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act alignment, the effects of Part 2 on patients, as well as providers and other stakeholder perceptions on the regulation.

Indication or diagnosis should be required on prescriptions.

Although prospective drug utilization review and patient counseling have long been recognized as professional and ethical responsibilities of pharmacists, the implementation of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 made them legal responsibilities. Ensuring the safety and effectiveness of prescription pharmaceutical care requires that all members of the prescriber-patient-pharmacist triad are equally informed about the therapeutic plan for which the pharmacist is professionally, ethically, and legally responsible for properly implementing. Providing pharmacists with the clinical indication or diagnosis is an important and long overdue first step. DISCLOSURES: No funding was received for the writing of this article. Warholak has received grant funding through the University of Arizona from Sinfonia Rx, Pharmacy Quality Alliance, and the Arizona Department of Health Services, unrelated to this work. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

A pilot comparison of medical records sensitivity perspectives of patients with behavioral health conditions and healthcare providers.

This pilot study compares medical record data sensitivity (e.g., depression is sensitive) and categorization perspective (e.g., depression categorized as mental health information) of patients with behavioral health conditions and healthcare providers using a mixed-methods approach employing patient's own EHR. Perspectives of 25 English- and Spanish-speaking patients were compared with providers. Data categorization comparisons resulted in 66.3% agreements, 14.5% partial agreements, and 19.3% disagreements. Sensitivity comparisons obtained 54.5% agreement, 11.9% partial agreement, and 33.6% disagreements. Patients and providers disagreed in classification of genetic data, mental health, drug abuse, and physical health information. Factors influencing patients' sensitivity determination were sensitive category comprehension, own experience, stigma towards category labels (e.g., drug abuse), and perception of information applicability (e.g., alcohol dependency). Knowledge of patients' sensitivity perceptions and reconciliation with providers could expedite the development of granular and personalized consent technology.

Prescriber and pharmacist attitudes toward inclusion of diagnosis or clinical indication on prescription orders.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacy and medication safety organizations have long recommended that diagnosis or clinical indication be required on medication orders to improve the safety and effectiveness of care. OBJECTIVE: To assess attitudes of Arizona prescribers and pharmacists toward the inclusion of the clinical indication or the diagnosis on prescription orders and perceived barriers to its implementation in Arizona. METHODS: Data were obtained by questionnaires from pharmacists and primary care prescribers after a continuing pharmacy education presentation on the value of including a clinical indication or a diagnosis on prescription orders. The survey was distributed to licensed pharmacists who attended the Arizona Pharmacy Association's Southwest Clinical Pharmacy Seminar. The survey was distributed to primary care providers with active Arizona licenses who attended the Arizona Osteopathic Medical Association Annual Convention and to nurse practitioners after an Arizona Nurse Practitioner Council educational webinar. Prescriber and pharmacist responses were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. An a priori alpha of 0.05 was used, and in the cases of multiple comparisons, a Bonferroni correction was employed. RESULTS: A total of 74 complete questionnaires were submitted by prescribers and 54 by pharmacists. Approximately 71% of the prescribers and 66% of the pharmacists agreed that they would support voluntary inclusion of a diagnosis or a clinical indication on prescription orders (P = 0.81). However, the 2 groups disagreed on whether the inclusion of the diagnosis or clinical indication should be a requirement (44% of prescribers agreed vs. 96% of pharmacists, P < 0.001). Two perceived barriers revealed statistically significant differences, with the prescribers being more concerned about possible insurance rejections than pharmacists (P = 0.005, whereas the pharmacists were more concerned about potential software transmission accuracy than prescribers (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Arizona prescribers and pharmacists in our convenience sample supported the voluntary inclusion of a diagnosis or a clinical indication on prescriptions orders but disagreed as to whether it should be required. Prescribers especially indicated they have a variety of concerns that need to be overcome before they could support a statewide mandate.

Pilot evaluation of sensitive data segmentation technology for privacy.

BACKGROUND: Consent2Share (C2S) is an open source software created by the Office of the National Coordinator Data Segmentation for Privacy initiative to support electronic health record (EHR) granular segmentation. To date, there are no published formal evaluations of Consent2Share. METHOD: Structured data (e.g. medications) codified using standard clinical terminologies (e.g. RxNorm) was extracted from the EHR of 36 patients with behavioral health conditions from study sites. EHRs were available through a health information exchange and two sites. The EHR data was already classified into data types (e.g. procedures and services). Both Consent2Share and health providers classified EHR data based on value sets (e.g. mental health) and sensitivity (e.g. not sensitive. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square analysis were used to compare differences between data categorizations. RESULTS: From the resulting 1,080 medical records items, 584 were distinct. Significant differences were found between sensitivity classifications by Consent2Share and providers (χ2 (2, N = 584) = 114.74, p = <0.0001). Sensitivity comparisons led to 56.0 % of agreements, 31.2 % disagreements, and 12.8 % partial agreements. Most (97.8 %) disagreements resulted from information classified as not sensitive by Consent2Share, but sensitive by provider (e.g. behavioral health prevention education service). In terms of data types, most disagreements (57.1 %) focused on procedures and services information (e.g. ligation of fallopian tube). When considering value sets, most disagreements focused on genetic data (100.0 %), followed by sexual and reproductive health (88.9 %). CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to further validate Consent2Share before broad use in health care settings. The outcomes from this pilot study will help guide improvements in segmentation logic of tools like Consent2Share and may set the stage for a new generation of personalized consent engines.

Mental health professional perspectives on health data sharing: Mixed methods study.

This study explores behavioral health professionals' perceptions of granular data. Semi-structured in-person interviews of 20 health professionals were conducted at two different sites. Qualitative and quantitative analysis was performed. While most health professionals agreed that patients should control who accesses their personal medical record (70%), there are certain types of health information that should never be restricted (65%). Emergent themes, including perceived reasons that patients might share or withhold certain types of health information (65%), care coordination (12%), patient comprehension (11%), stigma (5%), trust (3%), sociocultural understanding (3%), and dissatisfaction with consent processes (1%), are explored. The impact of care role (prescriber or non-prescriber) on data-sharing perception is explored as well. This study informs the discussion on developing technology that helps balance provider and patient data-sharing and access needs.

Mental health professionals' perceptions on patients control of data sharing.

Integrated mental and physical care environments require data sharing, but little is known about health professionals' perceptions of patient-controlled health data sharing. We describe mental health professionals' views on patient-controlled data sharing using semi-structured interviews and a mixed-method analysis with thematic coding. Health information rights, specifically those of patients and health care professionals, emerged as a key theme. Behavioral health professionals identified patient motivations for non-sharing sensitive mental health records relating to substance use, emergency treatment, and serious mental illness (94%). We explore conflicts between professional need for timely access to health information and patient desire to withhold some data categories. Health professionals' views on data sharing are integral to the redesign of health data sharing and informed consent. As well, they seek clarity about the impact of patient-controlled sharing on health professionals' roles and scope of practice.

State of the art and a mixed-method personalized approach to assess patient perceptions on medical record sharing and sensitivity.

OBJECTIVE: Sensitive health information possesses risks, such as stigma and discrimination, when disclosed. Few studies have used a patient's own electronic health records (EHRs) to explore what types of information are considered sensitive andhow such perceptions affect data sharing preferences. After a systematic literature review, we designed and piloted a mixed-method approach that employs an individual's own records to assess content sensitivity and preferences for granular data sharing for care and research. METHODS: A systematic literature review of methodologies employed to assess data sharing willingness and perceptions on data sensitivity was conducted. A methodology was designed to organize and categorize sensitive health information from EHRs. Patients were asked permission to access their EHRs, including those available through the state's health information exchange. A semi-structured interview script with closed card sorting was designed and personalized to each participant's own EHRs using 30 items from each patient record. This mixed method combines the quantitative outcomes from the card sorting exercises with themes captured from interview audio recording analysis. RESULTS: Eight publications on patients' perspectives on data sharing and sensitivity were found. Based on our systematic review, the proposed method meets a need to use EHRs to systematize the study of data privacy issues. Twenty-five patients with behavioral health conditions, English and Spanish-speaking, were recruited. On average, participants recognized 82.7% of the 30 items from their own EHRs. Participants considered mental health (76.0%), sexual and reproductive health (75.0%) and alcohol use and alcoholism (50.0%) sensitive information. Participants were willing to share information related to other addictions (100.0%), genetic data (95.8%) and general physical health information (90.5%). CONCLUSION: The findings indicate diversity in patient views on EHR sensitivity and data sharing preferences and the need for more granular and patient-centered electronic consent mechanisms to accommodate patient needs. More research is needed to validate the generalizability of the proposed methodology.

Perceptions and Preferences About Granular Data Sharing and Privacy of Behavioral Health Patients.

Little is known about data sharing preferences for care and research of behavioral health patients. Eighty-six behavioral health patients (n = 37 Latinos; n = 32 with serious mental illness) completed questionnaires, in either English or Spanish, with items assessing their views on privacy and sensitivity of health record information. Most patients (82.5%) considered mental health information as sensitive. In general, there was a direct correspondence between perceived sensitivity of information and willingness to share with all or some providers. A main motivation for sharing data with providers was improving the patient's own care (77.8%). Most participants (96.5%) indicated they would be extremely to somewhat willing to share their data for research with their care facilities and universities. Follow-up patient interviews are being conducted to further elucidate these findings.

Design and Pilot Testing of an English and Spanish Behavioral Health Patient Survey on Data Privacy.

We piloted a Spanish and English survey on data privacy. Thirty-one Latino behavioral health patients completed the survey in person with a preference for paper (78%) over electronic questionnaire. Dialect variations across Latino countries and the lack of tools to assess reading level in Spanish affected comprehension. Our experience will help others address similar tasks more effectively and encourage inclusion of Latino populations in future research.

Evaluating the Quality of Health Information in a Changing Digital Ecosystem.

BACKGROUND: Critical evaluation of online health information has always been central to consumer health informatics. However, with the emergence of new Web media platforms and the ubiquity of social media, the issue has taken on a new dimension and urgency. At the same time, many established existing information quality evaluation guidelines address information characteristics other than the content (eg, authority and currency), target information creators rather than users as their main audience, or do not address information presented via novel Web technologies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this formative study was to (1) develop a methodological approach for analyzing health-related Web pages and (2) apply it to a set of relevant Web pages. METHODS: This qualitative study analyzed 25 type 2 diabetes pages, which were derived from the results of a Google search with the keywords "diabetes," "reversal," and "natural." The coding scheme, developed via a combination of theory- and data-driven approaches, includes 5 categories from existing guidelines (resource type, information authority, validity of background information sources, objectivity, and currency) and 7 novel categories (treatment or reversal method, promises and certainty, criticisms of establishment, emotional appeal, vocabulary, rhetoric and presentation, and use of science in argumentation). The coding involves both categorical judgment and in-depth narrative characterization. On establishing satisfactory level of agreement on the narrative coding, the team coded the complete dataset of 25 pages. RESULTS: The results set included "traditional" static pages, videos, and digitized versions of printed newspapers or magazine articles. Treatments proposed by the pages included a mixture of conventional evidence-based treatments (eg, healthy balanced diet exercise) and unconventional treatments (eg, dietary supplements, optimizing gut flora). Most pages either promised or strongly implied high likelihood of complete recovery. Pages varied greatly with respect to the authors' stated background and credentials as well as the information sources they referenced or mentioned. The majority included criticisms of the traditional health care establishment. Many sold commercial products ranging from dietary supplements to books. The pages frequently used colloquial language. A significant number included emotional personal anecdotes, made positive mentions of the word cure, and included references to nature as a positive healing force. Most pages presented some biological explanations of their proposed treatments. Some of the explanations involved the level of complexity well beyond the level of an educated layperson. CONCLUSIONS: Both traditional and data-driven categories of codes used in this work yielded insights about the resources and highlighted challenges faced by their users. This exploratory study underscores the challenges of consumer health information seeking and the importance of developing support tools that would help users seek, evaluate, and analyze information in the changing digital ecosystem.

Medication prior authorization from the providers perspective: A prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: The prior authorization (PA) process for medications used by community providers requires modernization. Therefore, a deeper understanding of current state of PA from the community provider perspective is imperative to inform and modernize this managed care tool. OBJECTIVES: Objectives of this study were to identify, analyze and categorize the issues associated with the medication PA process from provider practice perspective. METHODS: A prospective non-experimental, cross sectional, observational study was performed using semi-structured interviews and direct observation at a convenience sample of eight primary care and medicine subspecialty group practices in Tucson, Arizona, USA. Participating practices were required to have an established medication PA process. The participant feedback from each site was analyzed using the Richards qualitative coding technique that includes descriptive coding, topic coding, and analytical coding. RESULTS: Data were obtained from eight unique community provider offices (8 sites) at which 29 prescribers practice. The pain points identified represented five main categories: 1) information transfer gaps; 2) format disparities; 3) outdated technologies; 4) care consequences; and 5) workarounds. Prescribers and their staff suggested improvements that included real time eligibility and formulary alerts regarding PA during the e-prescribing process, accurate, up-to-date formulary data with easy-to-access alternatives, and embedded PA that is integrated with electronic medical record data. Three sites used medication PA portals such as CoverMyMeds® for information gathering, but at the time of data collection, no sites used these PA portals for prospective electronic prior authorization (ePA) or the electronic process of requesting authorization from health plan payers for coverage. CONCLUSION: The PA process for medication used by community providers is in urgent need of modernization. Pain points identified in this study could be alleviated by implementing medication ePA solutions. However, providers and their staff are largely unaware that ePA exists. Additional research in this area is needed.

GRANULAR PATIENT CONTROL OF PERSONAL HEALTH INFORMATION: FEDERAL AND STATE LAW CONSIDERATIONS.

The advent of electronic medical records and health information exchanges has facilitated the possibility of patients exercising increasingly granular control over sensitive health information. In principle, patients should be able to control which of their health information is made accessible to which of their healthcare providers. To meet this goal, the architects of any system of granular control of patients' health information face a variety of challenges. In addition to technical, ethical, and prudential considerations, the architects of any effective system must also ensure compliance with applicable legal requirements. The extent of a patient's permissible control depends upon whether governing law prohibits providers from disclosing health information to other providers without a patient's authorization, permits providers to disclose to other providers at the provider's discretion, or requires such disclosure. To inform efforts to design a viable system, this article analyzes U.S. federal and state (Arizona) law in regard to the sharing of the following types of sensitive health information: substance abuse, mental health, genetic, communicable diseases, and sexual and reproductive health.