Artificial Intelligence and Data Mining Against Doctors

Looks like George Orwell, may have been just 40 yrs off in the novel he wrote – 1984. Some 20%-30% of our population has Medicare or Medicaid as their health insurance. They also have some control over your income. SS checks were increased by 3.2% for 2024, BUT President Biden just gave all federal employees a 5.2% pay increase. So UNCLE SAM can control how much or how little health you receive and/or entitled to, which can have a dramatic impact on a person’s QOL! With the massive expansion of AI (Artificial Intelligence). Bureaucrats will need a lot fewer employees to do data mining on people they believe are doing something that is illegal or something that some bureaucracy just doesn’t like what they are doing.

Artificial Intelligence and Data Mining Against Doctors

https://doctorsofcourage.org/artificial-intelligence-and-data-mining-against-doctors/

AI and Privacy Clash in United States v. Dr. Neil Anand M.D.: Warrantless Data Mining and the Battle for Healthcare Privacy

In a groundbreaking legal case that has ignited a nationwide debate on privacy, surveillance, and the limits of government artificial intelligence (AI), United States v. Anand has brought to light the use of AI computer algorithms for targeting and interrogating chronic pain patients and those with substance use disorders. Dr. Neil Anand, a medical professional, finds himself at the center of a legal battle that raises critical questions about the loss of medical privacy in the United States and its potential implications for legal cases in the future.  The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have recently intensified their efforts to combat healthcare fraud through the use of data analytics, Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI), and Machine Learning. These advanced technologies have yielded success in identifying instances of fraud, but they have also inadvertently targeted innocent healthcare providers and practices, sparking a national debate about the balance between crime prevention and civil liberties.

The Government’s Reliance on Advanced Technologies

The federal government’s fight against healthcare fraud is not new, but its recent surge in hiring prosecutors and FBI agents with expertise in AI and machine learning signifies a significant shift in strategy. The government focuses on detecting “fraud, waste, and abuse” in the healthcare industry, with data analytics playing a pivotal role in their success. According to the DOJ and HHS, their investment in data analytics yields a remarkable return on investment, with each dollar spent on healthcare fraud detection and enforcement resulting in a return of at least four dollars.  However, experts caution that these technologies can lead to innocent healthcare providers and practices being accused of wrongdoing simply because they exhibit statistical anomalies or are considered outliers in their practices. The critical question raised by this approach is whether it inadvertently identifies some legitimate practices and providers as fraudsters.

The Role of Data Analytics

Jacob Foster, Principal Assistant Chief of the DOJ’s Health Care Fraud Unit, emphasizes that data analytics should not be used to conclusively determine misconduct. He insists that data is a tool to suggest the need for further investigation and that a thorough inquiry is necessary.  Unfortunately, the government has not always followed this advice. Healthcare providers and legal experts have witnessed cases where data analytics wrongly accused individuals of fraud, leading to significant financial and reputational costs before their names were cleared after providing context to the government

Targeting of Chronic Pain and Substance Use Disorder Patients

The data mining operations extended beyond mere surveillance, reaching the targeting of specific patient groups, notably chronic pain patients and those struggling with substance use disorders. Government AI algorithms and targeting packages were employed for unsolicited interrogation of patients in United States v. Anand, raising profound ethical and legal questions regarding the boundaries of surveillance and profiling.

The Involvement of Private Companies and Government Contractors

Qlarant, a Maryland-based technology company, has developed algorithms to identify questionable behavior patterns related to controlled substances and opioids. These algorithms analyze various data sources, including court records, insurance claims, drug monitoring data, property records, and incarceration data, to flag providers. While these algorithms play a crucial role in identifying potential issues, William Mapp, Qlarant’s Chief Technology Officer, acknowledges the potential for errors and emphasizes that the final decision about how to act on the information lies with people, not the algorithms themselves.

United States v Anand: A Landmark Case

The case of United States v Anand has ignited a national debate about privacy, surveillance, and the reach of government AI. Dr. Neil Anand, a medical professional, found himself at the center of a legal battle that revealed warrantless data mining and the use of AI computer algorithms to target and interrogate chronic pain patients and those with substance use disorders.

The DrCHRONO Electronic Health Records Controversy and Warrantless Data Mining of Medical Records

At the heart of this case lies the warrantless data mining of Dr. Anand’s patient records within the DrCHRONO electronic health records system. The use of AI algorithms to sift through personal health information without consent or a warrant has raised significant concerns about privacy and individual rights.

The core of this case revolves around the warrantless data mining of Dr. Anand’s patient records, specifically within the DrCHRONO electronic health records system. The use of AI algorithms by government agencies to comb through vast amounts of personal health information without explicit consent or a warrant has triggered significant concerns about privacy and individual rights.

Coley O. Reynolds: A Champion of Privacy

In response to the alleged invasion of privacy, Dr. Anand’s legal counsel, the renowned attorney Coley O. Reynolds, took on the case with determination and vigor. Reynolds, known for his relentless pursuit of justice and civil liberties, filed motions to uncover the potential unlawful use of data analytics and targeting packages. His actions have initiated a legal battle that could have far-reaching implications for the future of privacy rights and surveillance in the United States. This case scrutinizes medical records seized under a search warrant dated August 20, 2019. Dr. Anand’s defense counsel, Coley O. Reynolds, argues that evidence obtained through this warrant should be suppressed, as they contend it was acquired due to a defective search warrant. Their argument hinges on the omission of critical information from the search warrant affidavit, which, if included, would have negated the finding of probable cause. Dr. Anand also respectfully requests a hearing based on the legal precedent set by Franks v. Delaware (1978), allowing individuals to challenge the accuracy and completeness of information presented in a search warrant affidavit.

Privacy and Legal Precedents

The breach of privacy in medical records poses significant implications for American citizens. These records contain some of the most intimate and sensitive information about a person’s life, including their medical history, conditions, and treatments. The violation of this privacy jeopardizes the trust and confidentiality that are foundational to the doctor-patient relationship.

Most people involved in this infraction of privacy consider the government invasion of medical records to only be used for tracking pain management. What they don’t realize is that sex hormones (testosterone, etc) are also in the record. So in the future, citizens with gender changes could be objects of discrimination as well.

Furthermore, the invasion of medical records could have consequences for legal cases in the future. If the government can access and use personal medical data without proper oversight, the rights of individuals in other legal contexts may also be at risk. Legal precedents emerging from cases like United States v. Anand will define the future boundaries of government surveillance and data mining.  The loss of privacy in medical records has wide-reaching implications, as it threatens the trust and confidentiality that are fundamental to the doctor-patient relationship. The invasion of medical records could also affect legal cases in the future, setting precedents for governmental surveillance and data mining boundaries.

Balancing Security and Privacy

In an era where national security often collides with individual privacy, it is crucial to strike a balance. AI and advanced technology have revolutionized the way information is collected and analyzed, but it should be done within the confines of the law and with respect for individual rights. As technology advances, legal frameworks must adapt to ensure that privacy rights remain intact.

The ongoing legal battle surrounding healthcare fraud investigations is front and center in the case of United States v. Anand and Dr. Neil Anand. Dr. Anand, a practitioner in Pennsylvania, finds himself at the epicenter of a debate that raises significant questions about the use of AI and data analytics in law enforcement.

This legal battle underscores the broader context of how the federal government, particularly the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has harnessed the power of artificial intelligence and data mining in combating healthcare fraud. While using digital solutions and data analytics in the fight against healthcare fraud is not new, recent developments have seen an increased reliance on these technologies. The DOJ and HHS have expanded their ranks with prosecutors and FBI agents focused on using advanced AI and machine learning tools to uncover instances of “fraud, waste, and abuse” in the healthcare industry.

However, this intensified use of technology raises crucial questions. Are these innovative data analytics approaches inadvertently targeting innocent practices and providers as fraudsters? According to some experts, the answer is an unequivocal “yes.” In their pursuit of justice, these advanced tools have sometimes failed to distinguish between legitimate healthcare providers and those engaged in fraudulent activities.

The government’s rush to employ these new tools has led to unfortunate consequences, with many innocent physicians, clinics, hospitals, and health systems being accused of wrongdoing simply because their practices are different from their peers. Being a statistical outlier or anomaly should serve as a basis for further inquiry, not as proof of fraud.

The Department of Justice has used data-mining techniques to target practices and providers whose frequency of certain treatments and procedures exceeds the majority of their peers. Examples include the number and strength of opioid prescriptions, high-reimbursement injections, and the frequent ordering of high-complexity labs. Yet, perfectly legitimate reasons could explain these deviations, such as patient populations with unique needs or practitioners specializing in specific treatments.

The involvement of private companies like Qlarant, a Maryland-based technology company, further complicates the landscape. Qlarant has developed algorithms to identify questionable behavior patterns related to controlled substances and opioids. These algorithms have attracted partnerships with state and federal enforcement entities, including the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General, the FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Administration.

The case of United States v. Anand underscores the need for a balanced approach in the use of advanced technologies in healthcare fraud detection. As the legal battle continues, it highlights the importance of ensuring that constitutional rights are upheld and that evidence obtained through potentially unconstitutional means is not used in legal proceedings. The outcome of this case has the potential to set important precedents in the use of AI and data analytics in law enforcement, particularly concerning the protection of individuals’ rights and the integrity of healthcare providers. United States v. Anand brings to light the intricate world of government AI surveillance, warrantless data mining, and its consequences for privacy, particularly within the context of medical records. Dr. Anand’s case, coupled with the vigorous efforts of his legal counsel, Coley O. Reynolds, showcases the importance of safeguarding individual privacy and the potential legal precedents that will shape the future of privacy rights in the United States. The battle between security and privacy is far from over, and it is a topic that will continue to demand our attention and careful consideration as technology and legal battles evolve.

 

Why your prescription is so damn expensive

I have been around community pharmacies for a number of years, the first time I worked in a community pharmacy was in the fall of 1966 – as a pharmacy student – while I was attending Butler U in Indianapolis. This was before there was a PBM industry and there was no DEA!

Back in the 1960’s, wholesale prices of Rx items were pretty much static. The PBM industry came to be in 1970 and by the end of the 1970’s, wholesale prices on Rx meds started increasing dramatically, and sometimes multiple times a year.

I have seen reports that for a pharma to have one of their meds on the PBM approved formulary, they will be required to pay up to 75% rebate/kickback/discount back to the PBM for every Rx filled and billed to the PBM.

Here is an example of where all the $$$ the pt pays at the pharmacy register.

der UTERMENSCHEN, DR. LESLY POMPY, MD vs The Order in The Coif

AUSA Douglass Dreier, The annals of history bear witness to dark chapters where power exploited knowledge for sinister purposes. One such instance lies in the chilling connection between statistical manipulation, legal battles, pseudoscience, and the misuse of data analytics during the heinous Nazi era, echoing disconcertingly in contemporary times.

  

DREIER’S BATTLE OF THE BULGE: AUSA DOUGLASS C. DREIER, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. die UNTERMENSCHEN, DR. LESLY POMPY, MD

THE BUBBLE: A HIDE-OUT ON THE 12TH FL WHERE THE DOJ-DEA’s GRAND OPIOID HOAX ON AMERICA IS BEING SUSTAIN

FORMER US AG JEFFEREY BEAUREGARD SESSION’s IMPLEMENTATION OF CREATIVE JUDICAL STRONG-ARMING OF HEALTHCARE PROVIDER AS THE FINAL SOULUTION OF HIS OPIOID ELIMINATION TOOL BOX PACKAGE

THE BUBBLE: CREATIVE SCAM PROSECUTIONS AMBIGUITIES & ENTRAPMENT EXPOSING THE SOCIO-PATHIC MINDEST OF FORMER AUSA DAK KEYES OF ARKANSAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND: CHEIF JUDGE JAMES K. BREDA, A HEREO WHO VACATED “THE MONEY BALLING OF DR. RONALD ELFENBIEN, MD” FREE AT LAST

Read more »

THROW THE BUMS OUT: DEA DIRECTOR ANNE MILGRAM’S BASEBALL SCORES AND MEDICAL CARE HER UNSPEAKABLE CORRUPTUON

DEA DIRECTOR ANNE MILGRAM: The concept of “pre-crime,” once relegated to science fiction, has taken on a chilling reality in contemporary law enforcement practices. In a thought-provoking article titled “Pre-Crime” and the Danger of “Risk Assessments” authored by Paul J. Hetznecker, the issue of “pre-crime” and the utilization of “risk assessments” by law enforcement is brought to the forefront.

HOW DEA’S ANNE MILGRAM BASEBALL METHODOLOGY, “MONEY BALLING,” IS BEING USED IN UNITED STATES TO TARGET ALL MEDICAL CARE: “EXPOSING MILGRAM’S UNSPEAKABLE CORRUPTION”(short)

 

“MONEY BALLING,” RISK ASSESSMENT DATA FRAUD BY DEA: DIRECTOR ANNE MILGRAM MUST RESIGN!!!!

“…in using statistics, the government now has the road map to switch from knowledge to deeds…”
Richard Khorer, Adolf Hitler’s statistician

 

THE “MONEY BALLING,” OF MEDICINE: DIRECTOR OF DEA ANNE MILGRAM, THE REINCARNATION OF RICHARD KHORER, STATISTICIAN 3rd REICH, “SHE MUST RESIGN” (order of the coif)

 

APhA collaborates with CDC to advance health equity and prevent heart disease and stroke

Gun Smoke Red | This series of smoke shots are a part of a p… | Flickr

Here is the SMOKING GUN..

This project was funded in part by a contracted project agreement with the CDC, which is an agency of HHS.

An important objective of the project is to develop solutions that improve heart disease and prevent stroke in all communities.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States and is influenced by socioeconomic status, environmental conditions, institutional factors, structural racism, various forms of discrimination, and other factors pertaining to health equity.

One of the most common issues of pts dealing with under/untreated pain is typically high blood pressure and/or blood pressure at an emergency crisis level (>200/100).  Look at the third section in the below chart. It doesn’t come out and say what damage can occur, but the other graphic does.

There is about 4 different categories of pharma meds to treat high blood pressure. Many pts have told me that after their opioids were reduced, stopped that their blood pressure typically increased dramatically and their PCP put them – one at a time – all four of these categories of BP meds and their BP typically doesn’t respond and remained at/near/past a hypertensive crisis level.

Perhaps this article and the two graphics will allow the pt to start a discussion concerning their hypertensive crisis level blood pressure levels and the potential physical consequences to the pt if their blood pressure is not lowered. I would hope that the pt would be able to get access to their medical records and if not available, start taking their BP and create a chart of your BP and the MME/day of the opioids that you were taking before having a forced reduction. Most pt would expect to see their BP increase as their MME/day went down and the intensity of their pain went up.

That chart should be an excellent “show & tell” to get a practitioner or pharmacist to defend their rationale as to why the pt’s BP is up as is the pt’s pain intensity is up and MME/day is down and mark on the graphic where pharma BP med is added.

If all else fails, the pt may wish to file a complaint, with HHS and/or CMS

 

APhA collaborates with CDC to advance health equity and prevent heart disease and stroke

https://www.pharmacist.com/APhA-Press-Releases/apha-collaborates-with-cdc-to-advance-health-equity-and-prevent-heart-disease-and-stroke

WASHINGTON, DC—The American Pharmacists Association (APhA) announced today that it has entered into a contracted project agreement with CDC’s Applied Research and Evaluation Branch in the Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention to accelerate the implementation of pharmacy-based strategies to advance health equity and prevent heart disease and stroke.

APhA’s vision to inspire, innovate, and create opportunities for its members and pharmacists worldwide to optimize medication use and health for all is aligned with the CDC’s goal to improve cardiovascular health equity. APhA will work toward this goal by

  • Convening a community of practice to provide innovative peer-to-peer learning and capacity-building opportunities for health departments and pharmacy partners
  • Identifying and tailoring promising program models to meet community needs, overcoming challenges to implementation, and building capacity for evaluation and dissemination
  • Contributing to practice-based evidence for pharmacy-based strategies to advance health equity in heart disease prevention and treatment

An important objective of the project is to develop solutions that improve heart disease and prevent stroke in all communities.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States and is influenced by socioeconomic status, environmental conditions, institutional factors, structural racism, various forms of discrimination, and other factors pertaining to health equity.

Michael D. Hogue, PharmD, FAPhA, FNAP, FFIP, executive vice president and CEO of APhA, said “Pharmacists are trusted community health professionals who are highly accessible to patients and who increasingly engage in team-based care in practice settings that historically work with medically underserved patients. This project will build on the trust that people already have in their pharmacists to provide health screenings, education, and medication adherence counseling as they thoughtfully and comprehensively address patient concerns. Pharmacists, working together with public health entities, are a crucial partner in reducing the risk of heart disease and stroke in the United States.”

This project was funded in part by a contracted project agreement with CDC, which is an agency of HHS.

 

How many votes can Biden “buy” with “give a ways”

Biden Issues New Pardon for All Simple Marijuana Offenses

https://www.americanewsnation.com/2023/12/22/biden-issues-new-pardon-for-all-simple-marijuana-offenses/

On Friday, President Joe Biden has now issued an official declaration that all Americans with a prior marijuana use record, including those who have not been detained or prosecuted, will be granted federal pardons.

All U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who are in possession of marijuana for personal use, as well as those convicted of comparable federal offenses, are eligible for the comprehensive pardon. Additionally, marijuana consumers in the District of Columbia are pardoned.

It excludes individuals incarcerated for the unlawful sale of marijuana, in violation of federal law, as well as those convicted of other marijuana-related offenses like operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an illicit substance.

The potential consequences of Biden’s commutation are substantial, given that criminal records related to marijuana possession and use have hindered access to housing, employment, and educational prospects.

Those who have violated state law are not eligible for pardons; furthermore, documentation of a pardon must be obtained through an application process administered by the Department of Justice.

A year ago, Biden also granted a comparable commutation and made a commitment to implement further reforms. Further, all instances of simple marijuana possession or use were expunged from federal law under this year’s proclamation, including those who had never been charged.

Spinal Cord Stimulation Questioned for Chronic Pain

Spinal Cord Stimulation Questioned for Chronic Pain

Independent studies suggested no benefit, but industry-funded critics cast doubt on the findings

https://www.medpagetoday.com/neurology/painmanagement/107922

Independent studies suggested that spinal cord stimulation improved chronic pain no more than placebo, but industry-funded critics cast doubt on these findings, researchers said.

Recently published papers “found evidence of no benefit on pain and risk of harms,” wrote Adrian Traeger, PhD, of the University of Sydney in Australia, and Lisa Bero, PhD, of the University of Colorado in Aurora, in a JAMA Internal Medicine viewpoint article. “Authors funded by the spinal cord stimulator industry were swift to respond.”

“The responses to recent research on spinal cord stimulation illustrate how corporations continue to undermine independent science,” Traeger and Bero observed. “At a minimum, readers should recognize that attacks on independent science are often sustained and repetitive industry tactics to protect profits and should discount these criticisms.”

Spinal cord stimulation is a costly and invasive procedure and “clinicians and patients need to know what the evidence says about likely benefits and harms,” Traeger noted in an email to MedPage Today.

“As with many procedures to manage chronic pain, there are cases and anecdotes of people improving with spinal cord stimulation,” he continued. “But the best evidence available — from a Cochrane review — suggests that these devices may work no better than a credible placebo. Serious adverse events include infection, lead migration, neurological damage, and re-operation.”

A 2023 Cochrane review of randomized trials led by Traeger reported that data did not support the use of spinal cord stimulation to manage low back pain outside a clinical trial and concluded that spinal cord stimulation probably did not have sustained clinical benefits that would outweigh its costs and risks. A 2001 Cochrane review, which Traeger was not involved in, found very low‐certainty evidence that spinal cord stimulation may not provide clinically important benefits on pain intensity compared with placebo.

In JAMA Neurology, a retrospective comparative effectiveness study showed that the use of a permanent spinal cord stimulator was not associated with a reduction in opioid use or nonpharmacologic pain interventions compared with conventional medical management. Nearly one-fifth of patients treated with spinal cord stimulators experienced complications and required device revision or removal.

And in JAMA, a randomized clinical trial of patients with chronic radicular pain after lumbar spine surgery showed that spinal cord burst stimulation led to no significant difference in back pain-related disability compared with placebo. A follow-up study showed similar results.

Traeger and Bero identified 18 critiques in academic literature of the Cochrane reviews and the JAMA and JAMA Neurology articles. “Industry-funded critics of independent studies often do not follow the usual route of scientific discourse,” they reported.

“Rather than respond to the journal where the original study was published, critics frequently publish in journals where they are the editors and can control the discourse (15 of 18 letters criticizing the independent studies cited in this article appeared in journals with industry-affiliated editors),” they wrote. “The journal can then choose to paywall the subsequent response from the independent authors, giving critics the last word.”

Other strategies included attacking the credibility of the researchers instead of the research and criticizing the Cochrane reviews for assessing clinical trials instead of real-world studies.

Critics also claimed that because the FDA had approved spinal cord stimulators and they’ve been used for decades, there already is evidence for efficacy and safety.

“This is not the case,” Traeger and Bero wrote. “Provision 510(k) requires  that new medical devices need only be ‘substantially equivalent’ to a product already on the market, even if the earlier product is itself untested.”

Part of the concern may stem from the small number of trials comparing spinal cord stimulation and placebo, suggested Shravani Durbhakula, MD, MPH, MBA, of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, and co-authors in a critique of the 2023 Cochrane review published in Pain Medicine

While Durbhakula and colleagues have ties to industry, they pointed out that independent physician investigators have struggled to complete these studies. “Meanwhile, industry is disincentivized from performing such studies, as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require them for regulatory approvals in the presence of a predicate device, they are costly and hard to accrue patients into, and the risk-benefit ratio does not favor companies and their shareholders,” they wrote.

In the 1950s, the tobacco industry used campaigns of criticism to defend their products, Traeger and Bero noted. Other industries have used similar approaches to cast doubt on independent studies, they added.

Debate is an important part of the scientific process, Traeger pointed out. “When corporations interfere with the scientific process, it puts patients at risk,” he said.