Group items tagged

The United States' 35-year-old federal privacy law and related policies should be updated to reflect the realities of modern technologies and information systems, and account for more advanced threats to privacy and security, according to a report sent today to OMB Director Orszag. In its 40-page paper, the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board calls for Congress to amend the 1974 Privacy Act and provisions of the 2002 E-Government Act to improve federal privacy notices; clearly cover commercial data sources; and update the definition of "system of records" to encompass relational and distributed systems based on government use of records, not just its possession of them. The panel included technology experts from industry and academia. The panel wants heightened government leadership on privacy and suggests the hiring of a full-time chief privacy officer at OMB and regular Privacy Act guidance updates from the office. Chief privacy officers should be hired at major agencies and a chief privacy officers' council should be created, much like the Chief Information Officers' Council that is chaired by OMB's e-government and IT administrator.

We all like to think our privacy is absolute. But if your job involves working across borders, you'll want to talk about privacy as a matter of degree rather than as an uncompromising right. Why? Not only do you want to be seen as someone who can get things done globally, but you also may personally want to be part of advancing social objectives that are arguably as important as privacy. Have you ever had to re-architect your global rollout of PeopleSoft or Lawson because of European Union privacy concerns? Or adjust how your company offers technical support to medical products sold in Europe? Have you ever been part of acquiring a failing European company where the privacy of employee data was a final sticking point? If you've seen projects with obvious social benefit get held up by seemingly minor data-related questions, then you might have been running up against this notion of "nothing trumps privacy." It's a popular idea. The half-billion people of Europe do view privacy as a human right. And they're not the only ones. As one of the first acts of the UN, Eleanor Roosevelt and the U.S. delegation in 1948 lobbied for the global adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UNDHR), whose Article 12 states, "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation." With Europe and the UN using absolute-sounding language to describe a right to privacy, it's no wonder we have all of these delayed and downsized corporate projects. People are legitimately concerned about our sometimes reckless march into the Information Age, and they want to put some brakes on it. But does privacy trump all foes? I can think of at least six other equally important social objectives that regularly put limits on privacy: 1. Personal health. We all want to stay healthy - even when we lose the ability to communicate and give consent. Emergency-room personnel need access t

A group of U.S. companies, led by technology giants Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard and eBay, is set to outline recommendations for new federal data-privacy legislation that could make life easier for consumers and lead to a standard federal breach-notification law. The recommendations, which were developed by a group of industry players called the Consumer Privacy Legislative Forum, are set to be released at an upcoming privacy conference six weeks from now, according to Peter Cullen, Microsoft's chief privacy officer. The companies have been working for the past three years to encourage the adoption of federal consumer data-privacy laws and to answer the question of what federal legislation should look like, Cullen said in an interview. Other forum members include Google, Oracle, Procter & Gamble and Eli Lilly. One idea is that laws should make it easier for consumers to understand what they're getting into when they share their personal data with Web sites, Cullen said. "The whole focus on consent really puts an unfair burden on the consumer," he said. "My mom doesn't know what an IP address is." The recommendations will cover rules around data use and the ability of consumers to correct inaccurate data. And they will cover data breach notification, which is now covered by a patchwork of state laws. Simplifying breach-notification laws by creating a single federal standard is important, Cullen said Wednesday while speaking at a discussion of privacy policy in San Francisco. "It's not that there is no privacy law. There's actually too much privacy law," he said. "If you think about data-breach notification laws just as an example, there are 38 state laws, many of them very different." "We need to think about much more of a framework approach." Congress has passed some laws covering consumer data privacy, such as the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), but existing laws do not comprehensively cover consumer privacy in general.

The US government has now adopted a policy of fostering the adoption of electronic medical records (EMR). The policy is intended to increase the efficiency of the US healthcare system, thereby lowering costs and reducing the incidence of preventable errors. At the same time, through its The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy rules, the government has set minimum standards for the security of those records. These two goals-privacy and security of these records, along with their free interchange among medical providers-can easily wind up at odds with each other. A recent study that looked at the role of state privacy laws in EMR adoption suggests that the problem is very real, as state privacy laws seem to inhibit the use of EMR by hospitals located there. The authors, based at MIT and the University of Virginia, line up a variety of data that validate their suggestion that privacy and the use of EMR may require a careful balance. So, for example, they cite some highly publicized lapses when it comes to the maintenance of patient privacy: someone once offered the records of 200,000 patients for sale on Craigslist, while hospitals have seen their own employees attempt to get at the electronic files of famous patients. Perhaps more significantly, the authors suggest that the public, as represented by their legislators, has concerns about the privacy of EMR. They found that states that have passed their own privacy laws to supplement the HIPAA rules tend to have a higher percentage of their populace signed up for the Do Not Call Registry, indicating a corresponding individual-level interest in maintaining privacy. So, they looked at whether these laws had any impact on the adoption of EMR by hospitals located in each state.

making best indexing in goggle and bing. RADJASEOTEA is a master of backlinks. You want indexing in goggle and bing. LOOK THIS www.fiverr.com/radjaseotea/making-best-super-backlink-143445

Those who are superstitious may believe that bad things happen on Friday the 13th, but we will leave it to each individual and entity to formulate conclusions regarding the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (the HITECH Act), which Congress passed late on Friday, February 13, 2009, and President Obama officially signed into effect on February 17, 2009. The HITECH Act addresses various aspects relating to the use of health information technology (H.I.T.), including providing for federal funding by way of grants and incentive payments in order to promote H.I.T. implementation. This Alert focuses, however, on Subtitle D of the HITECH Act, which includes important, new and far-reaching provisions concerning the privacy and security of health information that will materially and directly affect more entities, businesses and individuals in more diverse ways than ever before. These changes are further elaborated upon below, but this Alert can only highlight certain prominent issues under the HITECH Act and is by no means a comprehensive review of this lengthy and complex Act. For questions and additional guidance on the HITECH Act, contact your Fox Rothschild attorney or the authors of this Alert. New Privacy and Security Requirements * Security Breach Notification Requirements: Security breach notification requirements under the HITECH Act go into effect 30 days after the date that interim final regulations are promulgated, which will be no later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the HITECH Act (August 16, 2009). Covered entities, business associates and vendors who handle personal health records are required to abide by breach notification requirements. Violations of this requirement by vendors would be treated as an unfair and deceptive act or practice in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. If a breach affects more than 500 individuals of a particular state, notice also must be provided to prominent media outl

An insurance company seeking to challenge the authority of Canada's privacy legislation and the privacy commissioner in an auto injury case will have to go to the Federal Court to make its case, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal has ruled. In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Privacy Commissioner of Canada and Attorney General Canada, State Farm argued that Canada's privacy regime does not apply to surveillance tapes the insurer commissioned following a motor vehicle accident in 2005. In March 2005, Jennifer Vetter, insured by State Farm, was involved in a motor vehicle collision with Gerald Gaudet. State Farm subsequently hired a lawyer in anticipation of litigation by Gaudet against Vetter. The insurer also hired private investigators that conducted video surveillance on Gaudet. Gaudet filed a request under Canada's privacy legislation, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), that State Farm turn over to him the personal information it had compiled, including copies of the surveillance reports and tapes. State Farm went to the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench asking for "declaratory" relief on several issues. Among other things, the insurer asked for a court order declaring that PIPEDA did not apply to information obtained in a bodily injury damages claim. It also asked the court for an order confirming that the privacy commissioner had no right or authority to compel State Farm to turn over the documents. The privacy commissioner asked for a stay of proceedings in the New Brunswick court, arguing that the authority of the privacy commissioner was a matter for the Federal Court (which has jurisdiction over federal legislation such as the PIPEDA). The New Brunswick Appeal Court noted both the provincial and federal courts have jurisdiction to hear cases about the constitutionality of federal legislation. But only the Federal Court could determine the outcome of a direct challenge to the authority of the p

Privacy is a central element of the FTC's consumer protection mission. In recent years, advances in computer technology have made it possible for detailed information about people to be compiled and shared more easily and cheaply than ever. That has produced many benefits for society as a whole and individual consumers. For example, it is easier for law enforcement to track down criminals, for banks to prevent fraud, and for consumers to learn about new products and services, allowing them to make better-informed purchasing decisions. At the same time, as personal information becomes more accessible, each of us - companies, associations, government agencies, and consumers - must take precautions to protect against the misuse of our information. The Federal Trade Commission is educating consumers and businesses about the importance of personal information privacy, including the security of personal information. Under the FTC Act, the Commission guards against unfairness and deception by enforcing companies' privacy promises about how they collect, use and secure consumers' personal information. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Commission has implemented rules concerning financial privacy notices and the administrative, technical and physical safeguarding of personal information, and it aggressively enforces against pretexting. The Commission also protects consumer privacy under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.

Enforcing Privacy Promises: Section 5 of the FTC Act A key part of the Commission's privacy program is making sure companies keep the promises they make to consumers about privacy, including the precautions they take to secure consumers' personal information. To respond to consumers' concerns about privacy, many Web sites post privacy policies that describe how consumers' personal information is collected, used, shared, and secured. Indeed, almost all the top 100 commercial sites now post privacy policies. Using its authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive practices, the Commission has brought a number of cases to enforce the promises in privacy statements, including promises about the security of consumers' personal information. The Commission has also used its unfairness authority to challenge information practices that cause substantial consumer injury.

A coalition of privacy groups today urged the Obama Administration to defend California's landmark financial privacy law against the banking industry's legal efforts to overturn it. The US Supreme Court is currently considering taking up the banks' appeal of a 2008 decision by the 9th Circuit Court upholding almost all provisions of the Financial Information Privacy Act of 2003 (SB 1 - Speier). On March 9th, the Supreme Court invited the Obama Administration to voice its opinion on the California privacy law. The case is American Bankers Association v. Brown, Supreme Court Docket Number 08-730. Letters to President Obama and Solicitor General Elena Kagan were signed by The Consumer Federation of California, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, CALPIRG, Consumers Union, Consumer Action, The Older Women's League, The California Alliance for Retired Americans, and Chris Larsen, Propser Marketplace, and founder of Californians for Privacy Now, the organization that spearheaded a 2003 ballot initiative campaign that turned fierce banking industry opposition into acquiescence with SB 1. "This represents a defining moment for privacy rights" the letter states. We ask you to stand with consumers by telling the Supreme Court to reject the banks' appeal in Brown." Privacy advocates support the State of California's position in this legal matter, which is that there is no merit to the appeal filed by the American Bankers Association. At issue is whether federal laws preempt portions of California law that regulate the sharing of private consumer information within a financial institution's family of affiliates.

The Department of Homeland Security's Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee has offered DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano 16 recommendations on how to best address privacy issues currently facing the department. The panel stressed that "the need to update the government's legal authority to protect and defend cyberspace in the U.S. classified intelligence systems raise specific and sometimes significant privacy issues, including the conflict between transparency and redress." The committee has asked that each DHS component - such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Office of Intelligence and Analysis - have a designated privacy officer that would report to the head of the section. The committee also "encourages DHS to continue to work toward policy and functional interoperability in the development of new systems and when making major modifications to existing systems," according to a letter from the committee hand delivered to Napolitano. Additionally, the panel said the 1974 Privacy Act has "not kept pace with the evolution of technology and developments in how data is collected, used, shared and stored. To the extent the Secretary is asked to submit recommendations to Congress for making the act more relevant and effective, the committee recommends that the secretary seek guidance from the Privacy Office staff, who are experts in applying the Act's provisions throughout the department." For more on the recommendations, read the committee's letter here.

To help parents better understand their childrens' online privacy rights, the Federal Trade Commission has developed a new article, Protecting Kids' Privacy. The article is posted at OnGuardOnline.gov, a Web site sponsored by the federal government and the technology industry to help users stay on guard against Internet fraud, secure their computers, and protect their personal information. Parents can learn what Web sites must do to protect the privacy of kids younger than 13 under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). For example, with very few exceptions, sites must get parents' permission if they want to collect or share their kids' personal information. Parents also will find tips for talking to their kids about online privacy, knowing what their kids are doing online, reporting a Web site that may be violating COPPA, and more. To learn more about online privacy for kids, view this article on OnGuardOnline.gov at www.OnGuardOnline.gov/topics/kids-privacy.aspx or view it as an FTC Facts for Consumers publication at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/tech/tec08.shtm. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC's online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,500 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC's Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

Veterans suffering anxiety and paranoia following the theft of a government hard drive containing the medical histories and Social Security numbers of 198,000 of their brethren cannot recover financial damages, a federal appeals court says. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in largely dismissing a class-action, ruled Wednesday that the veterans could recoup at least $1,000 under the Privacy Act if they could show financial damages, not mental anguish. What's more, the Atlanta-based court noted that the veterans - some already suffering post-traumatic stress syndrome from their Vietnam War days - likely could recover damages for mental anguish associated with the data breach if the lawsuit was before a different court. That's because the courts of appeal across the nation have issued conflicting interpretations of the Privacy Act of 1974, which allows people to sue the government for privacy breaches and recover "actual damages." Precedent in the 11th Circuit, which includes Alabama, Florida and Georgia, interprets "actual damages" as money losses only. So 198,000 veterans - whose life history was on a hard drive that vanished from a Birmingham, Alabama Veterans Administration hospital - are out of luck, even if their war-time paranoia was exacerbated by the breach. The 11th Circuit noted (.pdf) that the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals "do not restrict 'actual damages' under the Privacy Act to pecuniary losses." And the Supreme Court has refused to resolve the circuit splits.

Current government rules do too little to protect the privacy of people's personal health information and also hinder the use of health data in medical research, a panel of experts reported on Wednesday. A committee of the Institute of Medicine, which provides advice to U.S. policymakers, urged Congress to take an entirely new approach to protecting personal health data in research. Federal standards for protecting privacy of personal health data under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, are not doing the job, the panel said. Congress and the Obama administration are planning major changes this year to the U.S. health care system. Regarding the privacy rules, Congress should either start from scratch or thoroughly overall HIPAA's privacy provisions, the panel said. Better data security is needed, with greater use of encryption and other security techniques, the panel said. Encryption should be required for laptops, flash drives and other devices containing such data, it said. "Both privacy and health research are important. And we feel that we can strengthen privacy protections for people who participate in research while also allowing important research to proceed without unnecessary impediments," Dr. Bernard Lo of the University of California San Francisco, a member of the panel, told reporters. HIPAA governs how personally identifiable health information can be used and disclosed by health plans, health care providers and others. The intention is to protect personal health information while permitting the flow of information for health-related research and medical care. Lo said HIPAA has burdensome and confusing procedures for people to consent to have their health data used in medical research, dissuading people from taking part in such research.

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced Wednesday that it has reopened the public comment period on a proposal for a model privacy form that financial institutions could use to provide disclosures required by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA). The commission is reopening the comment period in order to solicit public comment on the results of recent quantitative consumer testing conducted to evaluate the form. In March 2007, pursuant to the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006, the SEC, together with seven other federal regulators, proposed a model privacy form designed to allow consumers easily to compare privacy practices of financial institutions. The jointly developed model form uses easily readable type font and is designed to be succinct and comprehensible. Under the proposal, financial institutions that chose to use the model privacy form would satisfy GLBA disclosure requirements and could take advantage of a legal "safe harbor." The SEC has reopened the comment period on the proposal to provide all persons who are interested in this matter an opportunity to comment on the results of the recent testing of the model privacy form.

Like this http://cheaptravelbooker.com Like this http://cheaptravelbooker.com like this http://killdo.de.gg travel,hotel,fun,hotel new,new offer,hotel best,best hotel,hotel travel,seo,backlinks,edu,gov,ads,indexing,bookmark,killgoggle,gogglesuck,goggle bookmark,kill goggle,yahoo,bing,indexing,quality links,linkwell,traffic boster,index best

The Federal Trade Commission today announced that it has approved a Federal Register notice seeking public comment on a proposed rule that would require entities to notify consumers when the security of their electronic health information is breached. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act) includes provisions to advance the use of health information technology and, at the same time, strengthen privacy and security protections for health information. Among other things, the Recovery Act recognizes that there are new types of Web-based entities that collect or handle consumers' sensitive health information. Some of these entities offer personal health records, which consumers can use as an electronic, individually controlled repository for their medical information. Others provide online applications through which consumers can track and manage different kinds of information in their personal health records. For example, consumers can connect a device such as a pedometer to their computers and upload miles traveled, heart rate, and other data into their personal health records. These innovations have the potential to provide numerous benefits for consumers, which can only be realized if they have confidence that the security and confidentiality of their health information will be maintained. To address these issues, the Recovery Act requires the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a study and report, in consultation with the FTC, on potential privacy, security, and breach notification requirements for vendors of personal health records and related entities. This study and report must be completed by February 2010. In the interim, the Act requires the Commission to issue a temporary rule requiring these entities to notify consumers if the security of their health information is breached. The proposed rule the Commission is announcing today is the first step in implementing this requirement. In keeping with the Recover

Like this http://cheaptravelbooker.com Like this http://cheaptravelbooker.com like this http://killdo.de.gg travel,hotel,fun,hotel new,new offer,hotel best,best hotel,hotel travel,seo,backlinks,edu,gov,ads,indexing,bookmark,killgoggle,gogglesuck,goggle bookmark,kill goggle,yahoo,bing,indexing,quality links,linkwell,traffic boster,index best

Industry Insiders Discuss HIT and HIPAA Issues March 30, 2009 by Astrid Fiano, Writer A significant part of President Obama's health care reform agenda is the push for implementing more health care technology. In the health care field privacy is always a major concern, and was the impetus of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996--protecting the privacy of individually identifiable health information in all formats, and the confidentiality provisions of the Patient Safety Act--protecting identifiable information being used to analyze patient safety events. So those in the health care industry now wonder will the Administration's focus on health IT (HIT) present more challenges to privacy concerns? As part of a continuing focus on HIT issues, DOTmed interviewed industry expert Kirk J. Nahra, a partner in the Washington D.C. legal firm of Wiley Rein LLP, specializing in privacy and information security for the health care and insurance industries, and named an expert practitioner by the Guide to the Leading U.S. Healthcare Lawyers. DOTmed also interviewed Lise Rauzi, Vice President, Training Development, for Health Care Compliance Strategies (HCCS). HCCS provides online training compliance for employees. Nahra notes that regardless of the rising concern over privacy and the new HIT legislation, there have already been formal HIPAA security rules on electronic information in place for several years--the health care industry compliance has just been inconsistent. The problem -- to the extent there is one -- is that HIPAA rules are process-oriented, Nahra explained. The rules don't tell an entity what to do, but rather what to evaluate--a standard set of questions, but without a standard set of answers. For example, a covered entity has to have an internal audit, but the rules do not tell the entity how best to carry out that internal audit. Not surprisingly, different businesses have different ideas on how to implement their HIPAA evaluations

A new report from the Progress & Freedom Foundation says that officials in some states want to pass legislation that would extend the Children Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) from covering children under 13 to covering teens until they're 18. COPPA, which became law in 1998, requires verifiable parental consent before a child under 13 can provide personally identifiable information to a Web site that caters to children. Expanding the law to cover teens till they're 18, according to the report, would "require Web sites to obtain more information about both minors and their parents, which runs counter to the original goal of the Act: protecting the privacy of minors." Ultimately, say the authors, "this would actually make minors less 'safe online.'" In this podcast, the report's co-author, PFF Senior Fellow Adam Thierer, explains the original COPPA law and why, in his opinion, the expanded law could have a chilling effect on the free speech rights of minors. The podcast runs 11:30

January 26, 2009 - As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama made his position on abortion very clear. During his campaign, he stated that he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act and that he opposed restrictions on Partial Birth Abortions. Now as President, Obama used the 36th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision to reiterate his quite extreme position. Obama made several statements about "ensuring that our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons...." However, his key statement appears to demonstrate an utter misunderstanding of the legal aspects of abortion, was that government "should not intrude on our most private family matters." An Associated Press subheader put it as "the ruling legalizing abortion represented a broader principle that government should not intrude on private family matters." Obama seemingly fails to understand three things about the "right to privacy." First, in that as far as it has been applied to abortion and contraception (Griswold vs. Connecticut); it is not a principle about "family matters." It is a principle purely about individual choice. Under Roe, no one else in the "family" has any say about the abortion decision. If the woman is not married to the father of the baby, he is not "family" anyway. Second, the right to privacy is not absolute. Third and most important, that under Roe, the "right to privacy" is secondary to two considerations about the unborn child: whether or not the unborn child is a "person," or at least "potential life." For these last two, we can turn to Roe itself. The "Right to Privacy" The majority opinion of Roe admits that, "The Constitution does explicitly mention any right of privacy." Majority author Harry Blackmun cites various past court decisions which recognize personal rights that are "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." Since these private rights had been found to have extension to areas such as marriage, procreation, contraception

First quarter federal reports show Google lobbied on the electronic medical records provisions of the federal economic stimulus act, contradicting the Internet giant's earlier claims that Consumer Watchdog's report of its effort was "100 percent false." Google's report shows a total expenditure of $880,000 on lobbying during the period including on "online health-related initiatives; issues relating to online personal health records, including in connection with H.R. 1: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009." Google also contracted with an outside firm, the Podesta Group, which independently reported lobbying for Google on "health information technology" and "online privacy." King and Spalding LLP also independently reported lobbying for Google on "online health-related initiatives, including health information technology provisions in H.R. 1, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act." After the nonprofit, nonpartisan Consumer Watchdog reported the "rumored" lobbying in January, Google contacted a charitable foundation about withdrawing Consumer Watchdog's funding. In a letter to Google CEO Eric Schmidt released today, Consumer Watchdog said the company owes the group an apology. Read Consumer Watchdog's letter here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/LtrSchmidt042209.pdf. "It is now clear from public records that Google was lobbying Congress relating to online personal health records in connection with the economic stimulus act... What else could Google have been seeking except to be excluded from the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) provisions on privacy and forbidding sale of records? Please tell us," wrote Jamie Court, Consumer Watchdog president and John M. Simpson, consumer advocate. "There is a simple way to resolve this," the letter said. "Publicly release all the substance of Google's lobbying efforts on H.R. 1. Google knows the drill: organize the information and make it universally accessible and useful."

U.S. lawmakers need to make sure privacy safeguards are in place before pushing electronic health records (EHR) on the public, senators and witnesses said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today. Health IT improvements are needed to improve the quality and efficiency of health care in the U.S., but patients might be wary of electronic health records without strong privacy safeguards built in, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said. "If you don't have adequate safeguards to protect privacy, many Americans aren't going to seek medical treatment," Leahy said. "Health care providers who think there's a privacy risk ... are going to see that as inconsistent with their professional obligations, and they won't want to participate." An $825 billion economic stimulus package, called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, includes $20 billion targeted toward health IT efforts. The bill, which could come before the full House for a vote this week, establishes an Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, which will be responsible for driving health IT standards.