The Data Sharing of Healthcare
December 8, 2016
Machine learning tools like the artificial intelligence Watson from IBM can and will improve healthcare access and diagnosis, but the problem is getting on the road to improvement. Implementing new technology is costly, including the actual equipment and training staff, and there is always the chance it could create more problems than resolving them. However, if the new technology makes a job easier and resolves situations then you are on the path to improvement. The UK is heading that way says TechCrunch in, “DeepMind Health Inks New Deal With UK’s NHS To Deploy Streams App In Early 2017.”
London’s NHS Royal Free Hospital will employ DeepMind Health in 2017, taking advantage of its data sharing capabilities. Google owns DeepMind Health and it focuses on driving the application of machine learning algorithms in preventative medicine. The NHS and DeepMind Health had a prior agreement in the past, but when the New Scientist made a freedom of information request their use of patients’ personal information came into question. The information was used to power the Streams app to sent alerts to acute kidney injury patients. However, ICO and MHRA shut down Streams when it was discovered it was never registered as a medical device.
The eventual goal is to relaunch Streams, which is part of the deal, but DeepMind has to repair its reputation. DeepMind is already on the mend with the new deal and registering Streams as a medical device also helped. In order for healthcare apps to function properly, they need to be tested:
The point is, healthcare-related AI needs very high-quality data sets to nurture the kind of smarts DeepMind is hoping to be able to build. And the publicly funded NHS has both a wealth of such data and a pressing need to reduce costs — incentivizing it to accept the offer of “free” development work and wide-ranging partnerships with DeepMind…
Streams is the first step towards a healthcare system powered by digital healthcare products. As already seen is the stumbling block protecting personal information and powering the apps so they can work. Where does the fine line between the two end?
Whitney Grace, December 8, 2016
CSC Attracts Buyer And Fraud Penalties
July 1, 2015
According to the Reuters article “Exclusive: CACI, Booz Allen, Leidos Eyes CSC’s Government Unit-Sources,” CACI International, Leidos Holdings, and Booz Allen Hamilton Holdings
have expressed interest in Computer Sciences Corp’s public sector division. There are not a lot of details about the possible transaction as it is still in the early stages, so everything is still hush-hush.
The possible acquisition came after the news that CSC will split into two divisions: one that serves US public sector clients and the other dedicated to global commercial and non-government clients. CSC has an estimated $4.1 billion in revenues and worth $9.6 billion, but CACI International, Leidos Holdings, and Booz Allen Hamilton might reconsider the sale or getting the price lowered after hearing this news: “Computer Sciences (CSC) To Pay $190M Penalty; SEC Charges Company And Former Executives With Accounting Fraud” from Street Insider. The Securities and Exchange Commission are charging CSC and former executives with a $190 million penalty for hiding financial information and problems resulting from the contract they had with their biggest client. CSC and the executives, of course, are contesting the charges.
“The SEC alleges that CSC’s accounting and disclosure fraud began after the company learned it would lose money on the NHS contract because it was unable to meet certain deadlines. To avoid the large hit to its earnings that CSC was required to record, Sutcliffe allegedly added items to CSC’s accounting models that artificially increased its profits but had no basis in reality. CSC, with Laphen’s approval, then continued to avoid the financial impact of its delays by basing its models on contract amendments it was proposing to the NHS rather than the actual contract. In reality, NHS officials repeatedly rejected CSC’s requests that the NHS pay the company higher prices for less work. By basing its models on the flailing proposals, CSC artificially avoided recording significant reductions in its earnings in 2010 and 2011.”
Oh boy! Is it a wise decision to buy a company that has a history of stealing money and hiding information? If the company’s root products and services are decent, the buyers might get it for a cheap price and recondition the company. Or it could lead to another disaster like HP and Autonomy.
Whitney Grace, July 1, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
