Privacy in the Age of Remote Patient Monitoring: Insights and Actions from CTeL’s Annual RPM Conference
In today’s fast-evolving healthcare landscape, remote patient monitoring (RPM) is redefining patient care. Yet, as these technologies become increasingly integrated into patients’ daily lives, concerns about privacy and security are intensifying. At CTeL’s third annual RPM conference, experts Anura Fernando, Global Head of Medical Device Security at UL Solutions, and Dr. Anthony Magit, Associate Chief Medical Officer at Rady Children’s Hospital, provided crucial insights into the risks and solutions for maintaining privacy in RPM. Their discussion underscored the need for not just secure data, but also secure environments, and offered healthcare providers a roadmap to safeguarding patient privacy in this new era.
The Hidden Privacy Risks of RPM
RPM’s potential is staggering: from monitoring heart rates and blood glucose to tracking sleep patterns and movement, it can vastly improve chronic care management and empower patients. But with this potential comes risk. Unlike traditional clinical data, RPM data often enters deeply personal spaces—recording not just vital signs but moments of daily life in real time.
Dr. Magit noted that privacy concerns are the top barrier for many patients, particularly vulnerable populations, who worry about the risk of being monitored or exposed in their own homes. Patients may value RPM’s benefits but still hesitate to adopt it fully due to fears of breaches and surveillance. “We want RPM devices in our homes, but no one wants to invite a potential hacker into their living room,” he said.
“We want RPM devices in our homes, but no one wants to invite a potential hacker into their living room,” he said.
Anura Fernando added that security risks extend beyond medical data to include any sensitive personal information captured by RPM devices. Not all data collected through RPM falls under traditional HIPAA protections, and a lack of standardized protocols for non-medical data means much of it could be at risk. “We need to look beyond HIPAA,” Fernando argued, “and think about protecting all sensitive data, whether or not it’s classified as health information.”
“We need to look beyond HIPAA,” Fernando argued, “and think about protecting all sensitive data, whether or not it’s classified as health information.”
From Compliance to Control: Building a Secure RPM Ecosystem
The speakers agreed that healthcare organizations must take a proactive role in securing RPM data, emphasizing data ownership and secure storage as non-negotiable priorities. “Data ownership shouldn’t rest with third-party vendors,” Dr. Magit asserted. Ensuring that healthcare providers, not RPM vendors, own and control the data keeps it closer to patient records and affords patients a higher level of security.
For Fernando, traditional compliance measures like HIPAA offer a foundation but don’t go far enough. “Checklists are a start,” he acknowledged, “but we need to move beyond them.” Standards such as the Manufacturer’s Disclosure Statement for Medical Device Security (MDS2) offer more robust data protection for RPM, but there’s also a need for detailed assessments that consider entire communication infrastructures and potential points of vulnerability.
A deeper approach, he suggested, includes understanding the “threat model” for the whole RPM system, anticipating areas of weakness, and applying advanced risk management tools. For instance, organizations should insist on encryption at every stage of data transfer and adopt protocols that anonymize or disassociate identifying data whenever possible. “Encryption and data disassociation are foundational,” Dr. Magit emphasized. By implementing these practices, healthcare providers can reduce the chances of a breach—and the impact if one occurs.
Privacy at Home: Managing RPM in Personal Spaces
As RPM devices become part of patients’ homes, they also enter the social and physical spaces of family members, caregivers, and visitors, complicating privacy matters even further. Dr. Magit raised an often-overlooked issue: RPM devices in the home can inadvertently capture data on household members or guests, potentially breaching their privacy. To counter this, he suggested providing patients with clear information about their right to control RPM monitoring in their homes, including the option to turn devices off as needed. In some cases, hospitals even provide signage for RPM households, ensuring everyone in the home understands when and where monitoring is occurring.
Fernando noted that anonymizing data before it’s stored can further safeguard privacy, especially in scenarios where patients need continuous monitoring but don’t want others in their homes affected by it. “Data that can’t be traced back to individuals reduces the risk of unintentional breaches,” he said. Anonymization, pseudonymization, and even simple data management policies can be powerful tools for minimizing risk.
Patient Concerns: A Barrier to RPM Adoption
One of the session’s most thought-provoking moments came when Dr. Magit reflected on patient hesitancy toward RPM technology. Despite the potential for RPM to improve care for isolated and at-risk patients, fear of breaches, misuse, and surveillance can keep people from embracing it. This is particularly true for elderly patients, who are often more skeptical of digital technology and wary of any device that could expose their location or activities.
“Patients appreciate RPM’s benefits, but we have to build their trust if we want them to adopt it,” Dr. Magit observed. To that end, both experts emphasized transparency as a critical piece of the adoption puzzle. Providers need to help patients understand what’s being collected, who will see it, and how it will be used. Even more, healthcare providers should reassure patients that they own their data, have a say in who sees it, and can ask for it to be removed.
Actions for Providers and Vendors
For healthcare providers, these insights point to specific action steps that can build a more secure, transparent, and trusted RPM framework:
Set Clear Data Ownership Policies: Providers should retain data ownership, not RPM vendors. This approach ensures the data remains under the healthcare provider’s control, limiting vendor access and potential risks.
Adopt Advanced Security Standards: Go beyond HIPAA. Apply MDS2 standards and encryption at every data transfer point. Consider regular audits to assess security controls and identify potential vulnerabilities in RPM systems.
Prioritize Patient Education: Patients should be well-informed about what data is collected and stored, what’s part of their medical record, and what remains private. Educate patients on their rights to control device monitoring within their home and to restrict data access as they see fit.
Consider Offline Data Collection When Possible: Where real-time data isn’t necessary, providers can offer offline options, reducing the risk of live tracking and enhancing patient security.
Stay Updated on State and Federal Compliance: With states like California raising the bar on data privacy, compliance is now a multi-layered task. It’s essential for providers to keep up with evolving state-specific regulations to remain compliant and protect patient rights.
Securing RPM’s Future
As RPM technology becomes a standard feature of modern healthcare, balancing its benefits with its risks is critical. Both Fernando and Dr. Magit agreed that RPM privacy and security should be a shared responsibility across the entire healthcare ecosystem—from vendors to providers to patients. “Security is a shared responsibility,” Fernando concluded, emphasizing that as RPM technology evolves, so must our approach to protecting the lives and privacy of those who rely on it.
For healthcare providers, the call to action is clear: privacy and security protocols must evolve alongside the technology. By taking proactive steps today, we can create a future where RPM serves patients’ health without compromising their privacy.