Tuesday, 9 February 2016

Liverpool Care Pathway - A Renegade State

When the law is but lip service then is democracy not served but made mockery and betrayed.





May was was talking to her family. May remonstrated with the physician not to pull her about. The physician ignored her and spoke directly to the family instead.

“She has pneumonia,” he said.

The physician departed and returned to say he had consulted with his LCP team. He informed the family that May was dying.

The driver was set up. In 18 hours, she was gone.

May was not asked.

Lord Carlisle called for doctors who put patients on the LCP without their permission to be struck off.

Due process is observed and they do nothing.

Nothing is all they have to do for we are nothing and everything is dismissed as anecdote.

They do nothing because they know they can.

There were voices that had cautioned restraint...

This is the BMJ from 2008, eight years ago 
A recent study has shown that health care professionals in a hospice setting are wrong 50% of the time when predicting patient survival. Such is the pressure to roll out the LCP nationwide that many patients, especially the frail elderly, are at risk of having their lives shortened prematurely. That may suit economists and politicians with eyes on the balance sheet rather than the patient, and it may suit those who resent having elderly bed-blockers on their wards, but it is not good medicine. Poor end of life care undermines the trust between doctors and their patients. 
It is surely time to put the LCP on hold until all the concerns that have been raised online at http://www.bmj.com and elsewhere have been carefully considered. It is time for those who advocate sedation without hydration at the end of life to examine their motives. It is time for the medical profession to take collective responsibility for end of life care, for this topic is far too important to be left to palliative carers and the Department of Health. We must not allow ourselves to be driven by individuals or organisations with vested interests or by quasi- governmental committees meeting behind closed doors. It is time to say enough is enough! 
Yours truly, 
Dr Gillian M Craig.
E mail: craig.gm@clara.co.uk.
The years rolled on and Version 12 was rolled out and the LCP and other Pathways continued to take their toll.

A medical holocaust proceeded as EoLC went into overdrive...
Liverpool Care Pathway - The Voice In The Wilderness
Whatever happened to plain and simple life care...?
Liverpool Care Pathway - The Killing Wards
There was a Review that achieved much little than it took place and only took place because the groundswell of what had been dismissed as 'anecdote' in parliament was seized upon by Denise Charlesworth-Smith and held aloft as a battle standard  to demand justice for her own father.

Then, in a Government Press Release dated 26 June 2014, it stated:

When the Review was published last year, the Minister for Care and Support announced that people who have a complaint – even where a complaint had already been pursued – about the care given to a dying patient on the Liverpool Care Pathway should have access to an independent assessment of their case should they want it. That message is reinforced today.
New approach to care for the dying published - Press releases - GOV.UK
New Priorities for Care launched as the new basis for caring for someone at the end of their life.
Plain and clear, the words: “even where a complaint had already been pursued”.

May's daughter, Jane, took May's case to her MP.

The Under Secretary of State for Care Quality has responded to the MP, but not within the spirit of the intentions of the wording of the government Press Release.

Surprise, surprise.

Mr. Gummer is fully aware that, in pursuing a complaint, the complainant will be invited to take the matter further to the PHSO. That is all part of the NHS complaints process.

Mr. Gummer knows this full well, or should do. It is wholly unacceptable but he has responded thus that, firstly, the complaint was resolved locally and, secondly, because the PHSO is an ‘independent’ body this constitutes the ‘independent assessment’.

That being said, this does not resolve the whole fundamental principle of obtaining consent to treatment.

They cherry-pick what they wish to respond to and ignore or overlook what they do not wish to respond to.

If you persist, they deny everything.

Mr. Gummer, as Under Secretary of State for Care Quality, is fully aware that consent is a fundamental principle and that this was a major issue raised in the LCP Review that permissions were not obtained.

May had capacity to be asked. This is stated to be so and admitted in correspondence with the Trust. Why, then, was she not asked her permission to be placed on the Liverpool Care Pathway?

The MP has responded with an apology to Jane that this is not the answer she wanted but that is that.

Your Member of Parliament is your representative. To whom else are you to turn to if your MP turns away?

The official guidelines do clearly state that permission must be sought. The Trust, the PHSO, an anonymous 'very experienced medical professional' and adviser to the Ombudsman, the Under Secretary of State, the MP, all have disregarded this authoritative opinion and official NHS guidance. They are not prepared to comment on this nor permit May's daughter to challenge.

The fact is, if facts need repeating and evidently they do, that May was put on the LCP without her permission.

What have they to say to that?

Nothing.

They Do Nothing because they know they can.

This is the continental model, the omnipotent and anonymous authority Kafka confronted in works such as "The Castle" and "The Trial".

May's daughter is suffering her own trials.

Jane has not gone onto the optimum regime for her CLL TP53 aberation because of conditions for funding imposed by the CDF (Cancer Drugs Fund).

The CDF has recently come under scrutiny from MPs...

This is ABPI 
“What is needed is a wholesale reform of NICE, which, along with NHS England, needs to develop a longer-term sustainable solution to the evaluation and commissioning of cancer medicines. We therefore look forward to the upcoming consultation on the Cancer Drugs Fund and remain committed to working with all parties to achieve a more joined-up system which allows many more NHS patients to benefit from life-enhancing medicines.”
The BBC has asked: How do we pay for innovative drugs?

As if in answer, the HSJ has headlined: Fifteen trusts asked to pay executives more than prime minister.

HMOs have also had considerable scrutiny of late in the corridors of power.

A Houses in Multiple Occupation Bill is currently in debate in Northern Ireland.

HMOs have attracted debate at Westminster.

Debating Clause 85 of the Housing and Planning Bill in a Public Bill Committee on 26th November 2015 concerned Licences for HMO and other rented accommodation.

Here is Brandon Lewis Minister of State (Communities and Local Government) - As I have outlined, we want to ensure that the licence [HMO] is granted only to a landlord who can demonstrate that they are a fit and proper person to operate a house in multiple occupation.

More recently, the Planning (Community Right of Appeal) debate was heard in Westminster Hall on 20th January 2015 also concerning HMOs and predatory landlords who are disregarding the planning rules.

Social landlords, for whom no prerequisite of licence is required but must still adhere to HMO Management Regulations, are granted leave from having to jump through the hoops...
Liverpool Care Pathway - Litigating The Litigants

Liverpool Care Pathway - No Confidence In Confidentiality
Social Landlords are registered charities. They present a shop window of window dressing which conceals not a pretty picture.

When are these so-called charities to be brought to account?

The Metro reported on Friday...



We have read about LATCs (Local Authority Trading Companies)

The  Smart Alecs at Age UK have set up Age UK Enterprises Limited as the "commercial arm" of Age UK. Essentially, it’s a smart ALEC (Arms Length External Company)...

See -
Liverpool Care Pathway - When Justice Must Be Bought And Those Who Seek It Punished
and
Liverpool Care Pathway - When Creep Comes To Slide
This is 'partnership working'. Slip is come to slide and creep is come to spread and mutual profit is the justification of reason.

Where will all this lead?

You scratch my back; I'll scratch yours.

This is Age UK 




Commercial partnership with E.ON

Age UK has a longstanding commercial partnership with E.ON.

When customers contact us, they are signposted to E.ON and offered a choice of all four E.ON tariffs and many choose the one year tariff or variable option, however many prefer the reassurance of a fixed tariff for two years.

The long term Commercial partnership includes a typical commission to Age UK of £10 for each customer.
Is this within the remit of a charity to muscle elderly vulnerable people into signing up with companies with which it has a commercially beneficial relationship?

AGE UK has partnered with another 'charity', a pro-euthanasia outfit, the 'charitable arm' of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society which re-branded as Dignity in Dying.

See, for instance -
Liverpool Care Pathway - Doing The Addition
AGE UK Enterprises Ltd also sells branded Insurance provided by Ageas Insurance Ltd.

Ageas brands include Castle Cover, Express Insurance, Kwik Fit Insurance, RIAS, and Tesco Underwriting Ltd. Tesco Underwriting Ltd is jointly owned by Aegas and Tesco Bank.

This is a tangled web. Is this but an appearance of competition?

It is likely a mutually lucrative relationship.

According to Third SectorAge UK income is currently £159m. This ranks 9th in the tables and Age UK pays 38 staff in excess of £60k. Tom Wright, Age UK CEO, earns up to £190k.
"Charities want dynamic, superb chief executives to drive and fulfil their missions," he says. [David Fielding] "If you're too restrictive and sanctimonious on salaries, you will struggle to recruit and retain the best possible leaders."
Third Sector
This is 'justified' to recruit and retain the best possible leaders who have come up with ideas for innovative income generation such as badgering donors and driving them to suicide and employing crews of chuggers to aggressively accost passers by in the street.

And what happens to all that information you give when they sign you up as a donor? If you don't opt out, will you be opted in?

Positive liberties; negative rights.

This is Collaborate 
Collaborate is a new data source of prospective donors for UK charities. Collaborate is part of the Abacus Alliance database, the largest single source of transaction data in the UK. Actual transactional histories are modelled to predict future behaviour. There are two solutions available: non-contribute and contribute.
Concerned about sharing your donor data? This solution allows charities to access a sub-set of the Abacus Alliance in order to:
  • acquire new donors
  • reactivate lapsed donors
  • £130 per thousand

  • By contributing your shareable donor records you can:
  • gain access to the full Abacus Alliance universe
  • acquire new donors
  • reactivate lapsed donors
  • gain donor insight
  • £70 per thousand

  • With over 17 years’ experience, Abacus has become the standard for high-level consumer targeting in the UK.
    Medialab is an industry leading direct response media agency, with a track record for delivering market beating results within the charity sector with a core focus on new supporter acquisition through data driven media planning and innovation solutions. They work with more than 30 charity clients directly and many others through long-standing agency relationships, including Macmillan, Age UK and Save the Children.
    In 2012, Lord Shawcross took over the helm at the Charity Commission and was very critical of the fundraising tactics being employed in the Third Sector...

    Liverpool Care Pathway - The Likely Customers

    The Express carried a report on excessive and exorbitant remuneration...


    Nine executives at Cancer Research UK earn more than the Prime Minister, including chief executive Harpal Kumar, who pockets up to £240,000 a year.
    Kumar, 50, lives in a luxury £1.6m home in north-west London and does not have a mortgage.

    Peter Wanless, CEO of the NSPCC, earns a staggering £162,000 per year – £40,000 more than his predecessor Andrew Flanagan.

    Last year he pictured sipping champagne, and boasted on Facebook: "This was taken while I was 'working' on a visit to Jersey."

    The NSPCC was among the charities that asked Olive Cooke, 92, for money before she killed herself last month.

    Cooke, a poppy seller, was inundated with requests from charities she felt were "taking advantage" of her generosity.

    The mother-of-three was struggling with her finances after being diagnosed with cancer.

    A spokesman for the NSPCC said: "We have thousands of long-term supporters, who are committed to helping end child abuse, of which Olive Cooke was one."

    Other high earners include Amnesty International's Salil Shetty, who pockets a salary of up to £210,000, and Tom Wright of Age UK, who earns up to £190,000 a year.
    Where will all this lead?

    Sir Stephen Bubb, chief executive of Acevo (Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations), has accused William Shawcross, the chair of the Charity Commission, of being out of touch when he criticised charities that rely on state funding...
    Liverpool Care Pathway - Either, Or... Else
    Are these the makings of the Corporate State...?
    Liverpool Care Pathway - The Palliative-Medical Complex
    Supplemental  reading -
    Liverpool Care Pathway - A True Story
    Liverpool Care Pathway - Responses Will Be Answered

    Liverpool Care Pathway - A True Story Supplemental

    Liverpool Care Pathway - A True Story: The Next Generation

    Liverpool Care Pathway - Jane's Story

    Liverpool Care Pathway - Don't Call The Ambulance! 
    Liverpool Care Pathway - Bringing It On Home

    Monday, 1 February 2016

    Liverpool Care Pathway - No Confidence In Confidentiality

    A Prometheus unchained or the State unrestrained?
    And does Pandora let mischief reign...?





    Dot Data ‘safe havens’: Impregnable fortresses or sitting targets?

    They are acronymised as DaSH (Data Safe Haven) and ASH (Accredited Safe Haven) but is it just so much hash?

    This is A Charter for Safe Havens in Scotland  
    This charter sets out the agreed principles and standards for the routine operation of Safe Havens in Scotland where data from electronic National Health Service (NHS) patient records can be processed, linked with other data and analysed to support research when it is not practicable to obtain individual patient consent while protecting patient identity and privacy. It also describes, at a high level, how Safe Havens will work together across Scotland on collaborative research projects as part of a federated network.
    “Not practicable to obtain individual patient consent.”

    Positive liberties; negative rights.

    Again and again, it is underlined that this is the world as it now is...

    Consent is being assumed.

    Data is coded and uploaded but data is just that: Data.

    Actual data entry may be subject to error. Data also has context and context is not coded and codable, uploaded and uploadable.

    The GP with access to the patient and the patient record has context. Data uploaded is data out of context with no patient reference point.

    Doctors do actually use flow charts in diagnostic procedure. It is the fallibility of the flow chart that, like that of the machine, it is a linear, yes-no thought process with no 'but'. In getting the machine to think like the human, humans are beginning to think like machines.

    Actual medical misdiagnosis is not uncommon. This, too, will enter the data record...
    “Diagnostic error is barely on anybody’s radar screen,” said Dr. Mark Graber, 62, a nephrologist in Long Island, N.Y., and an expert on diagnostic errors.  The “To Err” report estimated that at least 44,000 and as many as 98,000 Americans die each year from all types of medical errors. More recent studies indicate there has been little progress since 1999, with as many as one in three or one in four hospitalized patients being harmed in some way by medical errors.

    The statistics indicate as many as 9 million patients nationwide and between 400,000 and 528,000 patients in Illinois are harmed each year. According to Graber and other researchers, deaths and serious harm associated with diagnostic errors are uncommon even though an estimated 5 percent to 15 percent of medical diagnoses are incorrect. But for those harmed, Graber said the impact can be devastating.
    BMJ Quality & Safety
    This is The Big Questions 
    Jackie Leotardi - 

    We, we would argue that, of course, there’s a case for high quality palliative care in hospitals and in the home but, when that’s rolled out indiscriminately in the NHS, it becomes very, very dangerous. My father was admitted to hospital on a Friday evening, parked on a ward all weekend. We begged them to do a CT scan. They kept saying, oh, we’ll have to see, we’ll have to see, we’ll have to see. We got the consultant brought down to his bed; she still refused to do a CT scan. On the Tuesday morning, they called us in. Oh, it’s too late now, he’s too poorly. We were given a definitive diagnosis of perforation. We said, how can you say that based on inconclusive x-rays? Oh, we’re sure it’s a perforation. He was put on the Liverpool Care Pathway and died. At the post mortem , it was found that he actually had a pulmonary embolism.

    Nicky Campbell –

    It was a misdiagnosis.

    Jackie Leotardi - 

    Yes. It was a total misdiagnosis. The reason we’re here is because elderly care in the NHS is appalling.


    There is fallibility in Dot Data.

    There is also risk...

    What is a Safe Haven?

    According to the HSCIC on its FAQs page 


    What is an Accredited Safe Haven (ASH)?

    An ASH is an accredited organisation, or a designated part of an organisation, which is contractually and legally bound to process data in ways that prevent the identity of individuals to whom the data relates from being identified.

    Whilst all organisations may lawfully process data that has been anonymised through aggregation or robust pseudonymisation techniques for legitimate purposes, an ASH may process data that is only weakly pseudonymised where the data has the potential to readily identify individuals outside of the ASH environment. This data may contain a single “identifying” data item such as the NHS Number or a postcode that do not directly identify individuals but which, without the controls that apply to an ASH, render the data identifiable.

    Fundamental to this, is that ASHs do not have access to other data such as that provided by the Personal Demographics Service to be able to look up the identity of individuals. The data may continue to be personal data even within an ASH but the common law duty of confidentiality is not breached by the ASH processing data in this form under the ASH controls to prevent re-identification and inappropriate use.

    An ASH may process data that is only weakly pseudonymised. This data may contain a single “identifying” data item such as the NHS Number or a postcode that, without the controls that apply to an ASH, render the data identifiable.
    What does this mean for patient identifiable data?

    The HSCIC Data Service for Commissioners will be able to process personal confidential data for specific purposes but will not be able to pass on personal confidential data to other bodies without a lawful basis. Such a lawful basis could be: where the data is for the purposes of direct patient care; where consent has been gained; or, where section 251 support for the relevant purposes and data flow is in place.
    HSCIC
    What is section 251?
    Section 251 came about because it was recognised that there were essential activities of the NHS, and important medical research, that required the use of identifiable patient information – but, because patient consent had not been obtained to use people’s personal and confidential information for these other purposes, there was no secure basis in law for these uses.

    Section 251 was established to enable the common law duty of confidentiality to be overridden to enable disclosure of confidential patient information for medical purposes, where it was not possible to use anonymised information and where seeking consent was not practical, having regard to the cost and technology available.
    HRA (Health Research Authority)
    Section 251 of the NHS Act 2006 permits the Secretary of State for Health to make regulations to set aside the common law duty of confidentiality for defined medical purposes.

    The Regulations that enable this power are called the Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002. Any reference to ‘section 251 support or approval’ actually refers to approval given under the authority of the Regulations.

    The HRA took on responsibility for Section 251 in April 2013, establishing the Confidentiality Advisory Group (CAG) function.

    Section 251 was established to enable the common law duty of confidentiality to be overridden to enable disclosure of confidential patient information for medical purposes where it was not possible to use anonymised information and where seeking consent was not practical, having regard to the cost and technology available.

    “Not practicable to obtain individual patient consent.”

    Positive liberties; negative rights.

    Although Section 251 approval can temporarily set aside the common law duty of confidentiality, compliance with the Data Protection Act (1998) must still be maintained and data must still be fairly collected – i.e. individuals have a right to know who holds information about them and why.

    The Health and Social Care Act 2012 axed the Primary Care Trusts and neglected to pass on key data handling responsibilities to the new commissioning bodies.

    Initially, the newly formed CCGs were in a state of chaos, no-one knowing who or which was what. That was our experience initially in attempting to chase a matter of concern for a client.

    There was no longer a legal basis for the flow of information. NHS England applied to the CAG for a section 251 exemption.

    Needs must and needs must and the legal genie comes round with new laws for old, new laws for old.

    Laws are not always used as, perhaps, they were intended...

    See -
    Liverpool Care Pathway - By Intrusion And By Stealth
    ...Or even acted upon at all.

    Last year we were attempting to address numerous issues at our little project...

    See -
    Liverpool Care Pathway - Litigating The Litigants

    We are a HMO by definition. However, we were told by those who should know - the local council - that we are not legally a HMO because we are social landlords.

    It was left to us to dig into the legislation and we now have agreement that, while as social landlords we are not licensable as a HMO, the management regulations pertaining to HMOs still apply. We may use the regulations to address the issues.

    The council have confirmed this to be the case but have told us, in confidence, that their only resort under the legislation would be to seek conviction and that it is highly unlikely that they would act to seek a conviction.

    Catch 22, Catch 22 and mate.

    The more they legislate, the more they need to legislate to paper over the cracks. This is rather a mirror image of Microsoft Windows.

    The Care Act 2014 amended the Control of Patient Information Regulations 2002.

    Specifically, concerning Regulations 5 and 6, these amendments may be seen as an additional 'patch' to provide for transfer of patient information to CCGs and empower the HRA -
    General 
    5. Subject to regulation 7, confidential patient information may be processed for medical purposes in the circumstances set out in the Schedule to these Regulations provided that the processing has been approved— 
    (a) in the case of medical research, by both the Secretary of State and a research ethics committee, and 
    (b) in any other case, by the Secretary of State
    Became...
    Approval for processing information 
    5. 
    (1) Subject to regulation 7, confidential patient information may be processed for medical purposes in the circumstances set out in the Schedule to these Regulations provided that the processing has been approved—   (a) in the case of medical research, by the Health Research Authority, and   (b) in any other case, by the Secretary of State. 
    (2) The Health Research Authority may not give an approval under paragraph (1)(a) unless a research ethics committee has approved the medical research concerned. 
    (3) The Health Research Authority shall put in place and operate a system for reviewing decisions it makes under paragraph (1)(a).


    Even so, the existing Regulation 5 could have provided for passing on of data handling responsibilities to CCGs by the Secretary of State who may permit...
    ...the transfer of confidential patient information between bodies or persons who may determine the purposes for which, and the manner in which, the information may be processed
    [Regulation 6]
    The Care Act 2014 paves the way toward 'joined-up services' and an integrated NHS as Health takes over Social Care. See -
    Liverpool Care Pathway - Transformation
    The Regulation 6 amendments provide similar empowerment to the HRA in regard to Registration to record such transfers of information and their purpose and, "in such manner and to such extent as it considers appropriate, publish entries it records in the register".

    The HRA has power to determine and approve the standing of the research ethics committee and to decide whether any transfer of patient data recorded in the register is published. Furthermore -
    (3) The Health Research Authority shall retain the particulars of each entry it records in the register, and the Secretary of State shall retain the particulars of each entry he records in the register, for so long as confidential patient information may be processed under the approval to which the entry relates and for not less than 12 months after the termination of that approval.
    All particulars of such transfer of patient data may not be kept and could be lost to the public record.

    There is much left to trust where those in whom we have invested our trust have shown themselves, time and again, not to be worthy.
    Registration
    6.—(1) Where an approval granted by the Health Research Authority or the Secretary of State under regulation 5 permits the transfer of confidential patient information between bodies or persons who may determine the purposes for which, and the manner in which, the information may be processed, it or he shall record in a register the name and address of the bodies or persons to whom that information may be transferred together with the particulars specified in paragraph (2). 
    (2) The following particulars are specified for inclusion in each entry in the register—
    (a) a description of the confidential patient information to which the approval relates;
    (b) the medical purposes for which the information may be processed;
    (c) the provisions in the Schedule to these Regulations under which the information may be processed; and
    (d) such other particulars as the Health Research Authority or (as the case may be) the Secretary of State may consider appropriate to enter in the register. 
    (3) The Health Research Authority shall retain the particulars of each entry it records in the register, and the Secretary of State shall retain the particulars of each entry he records in the register, for so long as confidential patient information may be processed under the approval to which the entry relates and for not less than 12 months after the termination of that approval. 
    (4) The Health Research Authority shall, in such manner and to such extent as it considers appropriate, publish entries it records in the register; and the Secretary of State shall, in such manner and to such extent as he considers appropriate, publish entries he records in the register.
    Risk: Data may be used and misused.

    Risk: Data may not be secure...

    Each impregnable fortress must communicate and data is only as secure as its lines of communication. Data is also outsourced for research purposes.

    How secure is outsourced data? Can security be guaranteed? Security experts have called 2015 the "Year of the Healthcare Hack".

    This is Phoenix Health Systems 


    It is just over a year since the FBI issued a special warning to healthcare organizations that they should prepare for a strong increase in cyberattacks. Since then, in the wake of several new blockbuster HIPAA security breaches,  2015 has been coined as the “Year of the Healthcare Hack,” by concerned security experts hoping to add weight to the FBI warning. The latest security breach just announced by UCLA Health System — among the “most wired” health organizations in the USA — underscores just how much cyber danger faces healthcare. Here’s why….

    It should come as no surprise  that UCLA Health System has announced the fourth biggest HIPAA security breach ever. On Friday it notified 4.5 million patients across four hospitals  that their protected health information and Social Security numbers had been compromised by hackers.

    The healthcare industry’s painful cyberattack record thus far in 2015 includes the January hacker attack against Premera Blue Cross, which compromised the financial and medical data of 11 million members, and the Anthem cyberattack reported in February, when nearly 80 million members and employees were similarly affected. CareFirst announced a major hacking incident in May that exposed information of approximately 1.1 million consumers.
    According to the US Department of Healththere have been over 1,100 security breaches since 2009 involving the protected health data of nearly a third of the U.S. population — more than 120 million people — 


    Government data is not secure.

    Here is CBS News 
    The sensitive information of nearly 22 million Americans was stolen from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), according to the latest investigation by federal officials.

    The investigation concluded with "high confidence" that personal information, including the Social Security numbers of 21.5 million individuals, was stolen from the agency's background investigation databases.

    The newest damage assessment by OPM is significantly larger than the initial reports in June, when federal agencies said the hacks compromised the records of as many as 18 million people. A separate but related hack discovered earlier this year compromised the personnel data of 4.2 million people -- a cyber crime that affected not only OPM but also records at Department of the Interior. About 3.6 million people were affected by both crimes.
    This is Bloomberg News 


    The Internal Revenue Service must answer in court for a data breach in which hackers gained access to personal identifying data belonging to at least 330,000 people.
    Two Texas women sued the agency Thursday in Washington, complaining that “the U.S. government cannot be relied upon to keep the personal data of its citizens safe.”

    The women, Becky Welborn of Dripping Springs and Wendy Windrich of Conroe, are seeking to represent anyone whose information was stolen after using the IRS “Get Transcript” service 
    A major US health insurer has suffered.

    This is RTV6 
    Hackers have stolen personal information from tens of millions of people with Anthem health insurance. The nation's second-largest health insurer, formerly known as WellPoint, said hackers stole Social Security numbers, names, birthdates, email addresses, employment details, incomes and street addresses of people who are currently covered or had coverage in the past.
    The Anthem hack adds to massive data breaches at JPMorgan, Sony Pictures, Target and Home Depot in the past 18 months.
    The nation’s second-largest health insurance company said its computers were hacked and the data of 80 million customers and employees may have been exposed.

    Anthem Inc. said Wednesday that investigators were still determining the extent of the breach -- which was discovered last week -- but it was likely that "tens of millions" of records were stolen.

    Anthem officials said both former and current customers and employees were impacted.

    "Cyber attackers executed a very sophisticated attack to gain unauthorized access to one of Anthem’s IT systems and have obtained personal information relating to consumers and Anthem employees who are currently covered, or who have received coverage in the past."

    This is USA Today 




    Excellus, an upstate New York health care company, says information for as many as 10 million of its clients nationwide may have been exposed in an attack dating back to 2013.

    The cyber breach was first discovered on August 5, Excellus spokesman Kevin Kane said.

    Criminal attacks on healthcare computer systems are up 125% since 2010 and are now the leading cause of data breaches, a study by the Ponemon Institute found in March.
    This is The Hill 
    Federal law enforcement sources told CNN that the site was infiltrated and personal data was stolen. Personal emails belonging to FBI Deputy Director Mark Giuliano and his wife were posted by a Twitter account that is believed to be connected to the Crackas With Attitude group.

    FBI spokesperson Carol Cratty declined to comment to CNN about the specific claims. She said the agency “takes these matters very seriously” and will work with its partners to “identify and hold accountable those who engage in illegal activities in cyberspace."

    Further reading -
    Liverpool Care Pathway - AC/DC

    Liverpool Care Pathway - A Data Bonanza

    Liverpool Care Pathway - Threshing The Data