5 ms·

In support of your point about "sufficently aggregated" data, I occasionally work on projects that publish aggregate health statistics, and you have to be very

In support of your point about "sufficently aggregated" data, I occasionally work on projects that publish aggregate health statistics, and you have to be very careful about the size of your denominators. For instance, even without telling what numbers you are dividing, you probably couldn't publish the percentage of HIV positive results among pacific islanders in Nebraska. Because there might be only six such people.

pvnick 10y ago
Good point!
- facetube 10y ago
  IIRC this is why HHS and HIPAA regulations specify "all ages over 89" as protected health information for purposes of data deidentification – there just aren't that many people who have lived that long.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    It also specifies all date elements for patient-specific events (including treatment) more specific than the year must be removed for deidentification generally.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - robryk 10y ago
      So "I treated a skier with a broken leg in the last skiing season" is something a doctor can't say? (Skiing season is shorter than a year.) Actually, giving a year of a winter/summer sport-related accident already provides a shorter window for when the accident has occurred. So should all case reports about such be giving at least a two year long window?
sib 10y ago
Oddly enough, it turns out to be 836(!), which is definitely higher than I would have guessed. http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/data/nebraska/demographic.html http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/data/nebraska/demographi...
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  Those are presumably not all HIV positive.
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    Yes, but what personal or privacy-compromising information does "6 of this list of 836 people have HIV" convey? That that population has a higher-than-normal incidence of HIV as compared the US at large? That's potentially valuable aggregate health information, but I don't see how that compromises anyone's privacy. It would if you reported "6 of 836 were HIV+ on Tuesday. The next day, a new couple moved into town. On Wednesday, 7 of 838 were HIV+." I don't think the aggregated data that is contemplated here is released on nearly that frequency.

pvnick 10y ago

Good point!

facetube 10y ago
IIRC this is why HHS and HIPAA regulations specify "all ages over 89" as protected health information for purposes of data deidentification – there just aren't that many people who have lived that long.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  It also specifies all date elements for patient-specific events (including treatment) more specific than the year must be removed for deidentification generally.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - robryk 10y ago
    So "I treated a skier with a broken leg in the last skiing season" is something a doctor can't say? (Skiing season is shorter than a year.) Actually, giving a year of a winter/summer sport-related accident already provides a shorter window for when the accident has occurred. So should all case reports about such be giving at least a two year long window?

sib 10y ago

Oddly enough, it turns out to be 836(!), which is definitely higher than I would have guessed. http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/data/nebraska/demographic.html http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/data/nebraska/demographi...

semi-extrinsic 10y ago
Those are presumably not all HIV positive.
- sokoloff 10y ago
  Yes, but what personal or privacy-compromising information does "6 of this list of 836 people have HIV" convey? That that population has a higher-than-normal incidence of HIV as compared the US at large? That's potentially valuable aggregate health information, but I don't see how that compromises anyone's privacy. It would if you reported "6 of 836 were HIV+ on Tuesday. The next day, a new couple moved into town. On Wednesday, 7 of 838 were HIV+." I don't think the aggregated data that is contemplated here is released on nearly that frequency.