The impact of EU Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act on health information systems

A. Värri
{"title":"The impact of EU Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act on health information systems","authors":"A. Värri","doi":"10.23996/fjhw.122310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The European Parliament has approved new legislation, the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA) to improve the functioning of the internal market of intermediary services in the European Union (EU) where there is a risk that the major so-called gatekeeper companies can exercise unfair control of core platform services. The purpose of this study was to investigate, what health information systems could be in the scopes of these acts and what requirements the acts may have for the production, the sale and the use of health information systems.\nThe act texts were examined bearing in mind what types of health information systems exist and what their user bases are. Those health information systems that can belong or do not belong to the groups of systems regulated by the DMA and DSA were identified. The most relevant requirements for these systems were also identified from these acts.\nThe result of the study is that these acts have only minor consequences for the healthcare information systems sector as they are not often intermediary (hosting) services in the meaning of the DSA or gatekeepers in the meaning of the DMA. The emerging digital healthcare platforms are most affected by the new DSA and secondly such peer support patient portals where patients can supply content for others to see. Apparently, no digital healthcare platform has yet reached such a size or a dominant role within the EU that it would fall under the scope of the DMA.\nThe two above mentioned healthcare related intermediary services have due diligence obligations to remove illegal contents from their services and to treat their business and consumer customers fairly. The obligations include clear and fair terms and conditions, the provision of a single point of contact for users and authorities, content moderation, complaint handling, marking advertising clearly, annual reporting, and responding to the contacts from the authorities. The obligations increase when the size of the enterprise increases.\nIt is still too early to produce healthcare information systems specific guidance to support the implementation of these two acts as the acts themselves and potential upcoming general guidance documents can serve the health information systems community sufficiently well.","PeriodicalId":424295,"journal":{"name":"Finnish Journal of eHealth and eWelfare","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Finnish Journal of eHealth and eWelfare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23996/fjhw.122310","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The European Parliament has approved new legislation, the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA) to improve the functioning of the internal market of intermediary services in the European Union (EU) where there is a risk that the major so-called gatekeeper companies can exercise unfair control of core platform services. The purpose of this study was to investigate, what health information systems could be in the scopes of these acts and what requirements the acts may have for the production, the sale and the use of health information systems. The act texts were examined bearing in mind what types of health information systems exist and what their user bases are. Those health information systems that can belong or do not belong to the groups of systems regulated by the DMA and DSA were identified. The most relevant requirements for these systems were also identified from these acts. The result of the study is that these acts have only minor consequences for the healthcare information systems sector as they are not often intermediary (hosting) services in the meaning of the DSA or gatekeepers in the meaning of the DMA. The emerging digital healthcare platforms are most affected by the new DSA and secondly such peer support patient portals where patients can supply content for others to see. Apparently, no digital healthcare platform has yet reached such a size or a dominant role within the EU that it would fall under the scope of the DMA. The two above mentioned healthcare related intermediary services have due diligence obligations to remove illegal contents from their services and to treat their business and consumer customers fairly. The obligations include clear and fair terms and conditions, the provision of a single point of contact for users and authorities, content moderation, complaint handling, marking advertising clearly, annual reporting, and responding to the contacts from the authorities. The obligations increase when the size of the enterprise increases. It is still too early to produce healthcare information systems specific guidance to support the implementation of these two acts as the acts themselves and potential upcoming general guidance documents can serve the health information systems community sufficiently well.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
欧盟数字服务法和数字市场法对卫生信息系统的影响
欧洲议会已经批准了新的立法,数字服务法案(DSA)和数字市场法案(DMA),以改善欧盟(EU)内部中介服务市场的运作,其中存在主要所谓的看门人公司可能对核心平台服务行使不公平控制的风险。本研究的目的是调查哪些卫生信息系统可能在这些法案的范围内,以及这些法案对卫生信息系统的生产、销售和使用可能有哪些要求。在审查法案文本时,考虑到存在何种类型的卫生信息系统及其用户基础。确定了可以属于或不属于由DMA和DSA监管的系统组的卫生信息系统。从这些法案中也确定了这些制度最相关的要求。研究的结果是,这些行为对医疗保健信息系统部门的影响很小,因为它们通常不是DSA意义上的中介(托管)服务,也不是DMA意义上的看门人。新兴的数字医疗保健平台受到新的DSA的影响最大,其次是这种对等支持患者门户网站,患者可以在其中提供内容供其他人查看。显然,在欧盟范围内,还没有数字医疗平台达到如此大的规模或占据主导地位,以至于它属于DMA的范围。上述两家与医疗保健相关的中介服务有尽职调查义务,以删除其服务中的非法内容,并公平对待其业务和消费者客户。这些义务包括明确和公平的条款和条件,为用户和当局提供单一联系点,内容审核,投诉处理,清晰地标记广告,年度报告以及响应来自当局的联系。随着企业规模的扩大,义务也随之增加。现在制定卫生保健信息系统具体指南来支持这两项法案的实施还为时过早,因为这些法案本身和可能即将出台的一般性指导文件可以很好地为卫生信息系统社区服务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Käyttöönoton ajankohdan sekä osaamiseen ja koulutukseen liittyvien tekijöiden yhteys sairaanhoitajien antamaan arvioon asiakas- tai potilastietojärjestelmästä Balancing stakeholder interests and paradoxes in health data sharing within health ecosystems Co-creating a service ecosystem for supporting digitalization in health and welfare Telephone consultation as a sustainable method of service delivery in occupational medicine: results of a qualitative study DIGIDIA-project: Experiences of video-enabled receptions for prevention of type 2 diabetes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1