and can be market driven. that is where government is going to have to play a thoughtful role in terms of trying to figure out brin since what existing programs in dhs might have relevance to give liability protections to the extent that events occur and what kind of clarity can be given by government and specifically what identical -- identifiable information is

declined because there is no clarity in that and that this cause problems at this particular juncture so these are two areas that the government is going to have to play a role. >> chris what is your take on it and i guess particularly for the companies and the smaller companies in midsize companies the one that everyone agrees needs to kick up their game a notch and do they need some kind of incentive on the financial side or the really tangible site to make the improvements that we would like to see for overall cybersecurity? >> first i will speak from an at&t perspective and then address the smaller companies but from my standpoint and you heard the chairman wednesday, its core to our business. the last thing an organization like ours wants to be is a victim of cyberattack so we are

investing significantly in our cybersecurity capabilities and we believe we have a robust program in place today and we will be looking at the framework and evaluating how it can complement what we are doing. we take cybersecurity as is the significant issue in our day-to-day business. rum that standpoint we are not looking for economic or financial incentives with use of the framework or looking how we can incorporate it into our existing practices. that is not something companies our size are generally looking for. or a small to medium-sized business i can't really speak to them since i work for at&t so we don't fit the category of small to medium-size but from that standpoint i do think one of the reasons, that is one of the reasons it's so important it's so flexible and allows it to be adapted to the business needs. if you are smaller enterprise the idea before was how can we get them talking about cybersecurity? some of the workshops we went to there was discussion about they

don't even know where to begin so the framework and allowing them to do a risk assessments and determine what are my risks and needs they should be able to pick and choose from the menu of proposed categories and subcategories the ones most relevant to them and that anyway can help make it cost-effective as opposed to it in a big checklist that they customize into their business. by allowing for that flexibility and not making something that is it top-down approach it will allow small to medium-sized businesses to customize their risk. there are also disincentives. there is the issue of i think if the framework continues to be a voluntary thing that's flexible and adaptable he will see widespread support in the industry but i think if there is a general view that if industry uses the framework but still

races down the road risk of incremental regulations applied that will have a chilling effect on the overall use of the framework. it's entirely appropriate as the government and the panel spoke about to look at the regulations in the mindset of how to streamline and how to basically harmonize the framework but the idea of incremental regulations are growing and the regulatory base and it would have a chilling effect on companies in support of the framework. >> is the question of incentives in particular interest to the members? >> utilities will certainly benefit from the market-based improvement that the framework takes expected to have especially in the supply chain and when they purchased various pieces of technology. the liability protection is very important in the utility space as well. utilities share information

primarily locally primarily with who they know. getting the right information from the government in the usable shape and form and shape it among themselves is somewhat inhibited by liability protection. so that's important. another thing that is important is utilities have federal state and local regulations. our regulatory agencies are -- so streamlining regulations from and i say this cautiously because god forbid it is the way it is and it's okay. we know how to deal with that but that plus state plus local plus various other standards guidelines not the bulk electric system but other parts of the operation are extremely important. and he worked the government agencies can do to work with the state and local organizations so whatever they end up doing to

regulate local utilities does not reflect on the framework. right now we are in a situation where the utility located with facilities in different states will get different audit results from the same information that they submit. we would really like to demonstrate compliance or adherence or whatever it is that our cats -- members are subject to. >> that leads to my next question about regulation and we heard, this morning repeatedly from the administration that the goal is to create new regulations here. section 10 of the executive order has been something of a bogeyman throughout the whole process. people are a little fearful about what may come out of that. what is your sense right now of whether there is a command and control regulatory structure in the future here? are you pretty satisfied this is

on a voluntary track or what would you think? >> personally i am pretty satisfied with the reassurance from the governing folks that this is voluntary and i do the best job i can to tell my members that there will always be an anxiety on this topic and especially having an independent regulatory agency in our space and state and local agencies. these are all outside of the executive order. again the collaborative work that we understand, the white house in dhs are doing with state and local and independent regulatory agencies is extremely important for us in assuring that this doesn't somehow inadvertently become a basis for regulation when it wasn't intended to do so. >> can you talk about how the framework interacts with existing regulations in your thoughts on what the future holds? >> i think it entirely fair for

streamlining to occur and there's always going to be some level of anxiety about legislation but right now we have been encouraged by the comments made by the administration about it being nonregulatory and voluntary. we had conversations with their independent regulator and at this point in time we are optimistic that we can work with them to rollout the framework within our sector in a way that will work for both the business side and the agency side. i think catherine pointed out we are very prepared to start with the outreach committee working within the sector to roll the framework out to get the broadest-based adoption so i would say right now i'm optimistic. we will check in a year or two and see where we stand but right now we are pretty optimistic that things are going to proceed down the right path. there are a lot of existing venues that will accomplish a lot of things without having to go down the regulatory path.

>> dug your sector has enhanced predatory -- >> the rumor is we have a few regulations and financial services and i would observe that the framework has not slowed them down at all. [laughter] in any way shape or form. we have seen in our agencies a lot of interest in third-party risk management and outsourcing risk management lately. that wasn't driven by the cybersecurity framework. that was driven by regulatory concerns in that particular area and a reminder that all of our partners need to adhere by the way to the gramm-leach-bliley safeguarding customer regulation requirements so we are to have by regulation of linkage between our regulations and a third-party provision services within the supply chain. i think that what the framework

does for us is we have talked about before is it gives us an opportunity to have a better vehicle to talk about how companies can implement that. i am with chris that i am cautiously optimistic on this one. i think over time we will see whether or not there is an increasing push toward making some of this stuff mandatory. i think some of that will obviously be driven by a fence and we will see what the next year brings. so i think it is up to congress in a lot of instances to make those kinds of determinations. there was a lot of thinking earlier that this stuff should be mandatory. that could be revisited so we will have to see. i think it's up to us and the private sector to do what we can on the market races to keep that from happening frankly to the extent we do our job government has doesn't have to come back behind us on a legislative basis and try to do that for us.

>> i am laughing as it's going down the line. i would say just as much as there is anxiety i think when i talk with customers here in the u.s. about a regulatory approach is the equal speculation outside of the united states about whether or not a voluntary approach will work so i would just like to make the point that doug made really clear here which is the impetus is up to us to make it work. as i talk to customers and i do spend a huge amount of time talking to the customer base there are a lot of customers in the united states that are assuming regulation is coming. that is the mindset that they are operating in. the conversation that i continue to have with everyone is again the impetus is up to those of us here in this space to demonstrate that an industry driven standards based approach can demonstrably --

demonstrably improve cybersecurity so we need to take the actions to show that this can mitigate and manage risk of concern and we are also in it for the long game, that we didn't just come to develop the framework create we are not just going to be here for the first round. this is an ongoing conversation between industry and government to move us forward and we need to see how much the mark can do. we need to get all the elbow and the shoulder behind it that we can in we can and there may be some space that's left over but let's make sure we get that opportunity to see now that we have defined what how much shoulder can we put a hide put a hidtas of the small areas of risk that may actually exceed the hygiene approach on the baseline are very narrow and the limited resources of government and industry that can be applied are prioritized in that space. >> catherine do you want to take the regulatory question then we'll take questions from the audience. >> i think between the four

individuals, no i don't think there's anything left to be said questions? >> iq have one question that is for you catherine. [laughter] >> you thought you were getting out of that. >> it's from patrick donegan and analysts. he is asking what kind of legislation do you think is needed for communication service providers? >> well you can certainly talk to my washington office at greater length because i'm an advisor in the cpac however we have been seeking some form of legislative support in terms of not only the information-sharing peace but i think you understand that communications sector isps are not supposed to share anything about anything about anything about our customers so we do not.

so for instance if we have the banking customer and that ranking customer is under attac. i tell maybank gee maybe you should call your eyes out and share this. we who see so much in manage so much and protect so much are absolutely precluded by law and we follow that about sharing that kind of information. it might be the time to revisit whether or not that's appropriate or under what circumstances we who might see first might be able to share faster so that others can protect. that is one element. there is also an element of so if we do see something bad coming what do we do about it? there is a liability protections so if we see bad things coming across the pipe heading directly for major swaths of networks should we turn it off or if we turn it off and please i'm not talking about the internet turn

off button that are there things that we should do, are there things that we could do it? those are areas that need to be discussed, explored, made understandable, repeatable, adaptive and in the current environment right now we cannot do so. we might be in a better position to be able to protect customers that this is the sort of thing where if we do take action and we unwittingly turn off two or three people or 300 people because we think we are trying to protect 2000 that is where the dialogue needs to occur. that is where the dialogue is occurring and we will see how it plays out. >> by the way we have a conversation between the utilities. >> doug and catherine talked about the industry as a whole it's no big secret we have been pushing for the establishment of a clear legal framework that

includes liability protection for information-sharing. it's also botches the practice of cybersecurity. right now cybersecurity is an exception within the existing statutes. it is viewed as an exception based function so by thing from our perspective it's important that there be clarity in the law that cybersecurity is a positive thing that should be done and it's not something viewed in a negative light so moving in that direction with a clear legal framework including information-sharing and monitoring and other actions is where we would like to drive the conversation with congress. >> yes, question? yes, maam. >> i am from great river energy and electric cooperative located in minnesota and i don't know if my question is necessarily for

this panel are the audience in general but an observation i'm making is everyone on this panel comes from large companies. we as a generation electric cooperative we sell electric power to 28 just tradition centers. we have an i.t. staff and the security department. our distribution members do not. they may have one i.t. person and assuming we also have the independent telephone companies in minnesota as well who also we are assuming her in a similar situation. i don't know that they even know that this framework exists so i'm curious if there is a plan on how to communicate the framework to these very small companies who might not even know they exist because they have a very large impact as well collectively. not as much as the large companies and how do you make sure that they are being i guess

taking these considerations of the framework to note? >> that is a critical question. >> i might take a little bit of that because we are conflicted on every single issue because we represent large as well as small and medium-size institutions. we have thousands of immunity banks that we work with and i deal with that very issue every day in terms of trying to ensure they are reasonably repeatable and community bank environments. one rat mechanism we use rather than just our working groups is there fs isaf because we have 4000 members within it particular isaf. many of them are community banks and we also use our coordinating council to do that as well. many trade associations within our financial service or coordinating council represent smaller institutions within our

financial services sector as well. i think the answer is every single communication piece imaginable should be utilized to get the word out, first of all the framework out and second of all how can we talk about the framework and encourage institutions to actually look at it and think that it's relevant to them? i think that is the job of the trade association is to really build those relevant talking points so that the smaller institutions really understand that this has meaning to them and really can be very helpful to them as they have those conversations about cybersecurity. >> that is an issue that is of real importance to your membership also. >> absolutely and cathy is a member as a matter of fact.

we had a bunch of people stuck in town so we had wonderful utility participation in the back of the room because they couldn't get out of town and i really appreciate the support of their presence. reaching out to smaller organizations and reaching out to people who can use cybersecurity has been a concern throughout this process. utc is doing a number of things just the usual outreach stuff their webinars and things and we also understand their number of things being done by individual sectors working on it for mentation guidance as well as all the other sectors. there are things we can do for small business administration. their efforts as a community again outside of the normal people who do cybersecurity or in smaller organizations that have never heard of it but maybe they have read the news and they know that's a problem. it's still an evolving conversation about how it's

going to happen but there are encouraging signs. >> i have a comment. we have been very fortunate within the communications are. every single association member has been very articulate about what are the needs of their constituents and in particular the cooperative association in our associations so we will be working with them collectively and individually to make sure they have what they need to talk to their constituencies and being part of the feedback loop into the implementation so that if for instance we find out the corporatist corporatists, the telephone cooperatives are not, that they are missing that or they don't get that or they need more help there they will end up being a very key important feedback loop back to the government partners. >> i guess the only thing i would add is cathy you asked the question that emphasizes the point that i've been trying to make throughout this panel which

is renowned -- need to think about not only broad reaching who we intend to target what matters to them what are the resources available to them in and get that feedback into the process. so it really ties to thinking about who we are trying to reach and what we are trying to accomplish with the outreach and awareness not just scattershot in resources. >> there is a question, sir. >> thank you. duncan with the european telecoms council. first of all angela thank you very much for bringing the issue out to the americas here. from the point of view of the framework i would like to applaud first world bank for the fact that we have some level of common lexicon which we can actually rally around now globally and not just in the u.s. so that is very helpful. the one thing that i'm concerned about is that cybersecurity is an issue around holistic design

and the ability to actually implement all the way to the supply-chain, holistic implementation. the utility are especially we have 30-year launch cycles and yet some of the things we are talking about as if we can do it in nine months. i'm just interested about how we are going to secure the holistic design and implementation and the rollout of this framework in a timely manner to secure critical infrastructure. >> why don't you take a shot of that? >> a couple of things that i would say on that. first of all when we think this does bring up at least one point where i think there is an opportunity for improvements in the framework moving forward because there is an opportunity i think to enhance the guidance

around securing engineering practices associated with the framework as we think about moving forward. you are talking about the holistic overall approach and you know there are a lot of organizations that are doing a lot, mine included who have very rigorous security gin and practices. that said when i think about what is going on in the critical infrastructure space almost everyone is an i.t. producer or provider at this point. you are building in-house apps in order to be of as do the processes that are unique to yourself so when i think specifically about the framework itself enhancing the securing gin and practices such that those are promulgated more broadly across the ecosystem is one area where we can think about improvement. the other piece on change over time because that is the other piece i hear in your question. you have environments in parts of architected in one place and

at the risk landscape and practices and innovations to deal with it are moving fast. that's an area where i think we see parallels between what occurred in the primary infrastructure space in the early 2000's thousand and what is occurring in the industrial control environments now. we are certain to have conversations about securing engineering practices and how you use new environments like cloud and virtual machines so you can run slide -- light switch over to an existing another virtual machine inside of the same server. this is where again i think the framework is driving a conversation that needs to occur because some of the practices and innovations that have occurred in the primary i.t. space need to also occur in operational technology space that you are dealing with. it's not that i have a specific answer now but i think this is a catalyst for conversation between communities that will help to start either address or

manage some of those concerns. >> nadia? >> certainly so the framework has been discussed as useful for discussion between the suppliers and we have talked this morning about her biting market-based incentives. the discussion has been happening in the i.t. space for a long time and hopefully as far as the utility space it will percolate into the ses base and help provide that catalyst for suppliers to further adopt good security engineering practices. it's not going to happen overnight but raising the level of discussion in the united states in migrating in cooperation with overseas like angela addressed i think would be help all. >> one other point on that is a lot of the larger committee occasions companies have expectations of the suppliers adapt thing secure supplier

services. today you have to meet certain security criteria and we have review processes in place for that. angela mc's a good point framework does become a catalyst for discussion about more secure engineering projects. the framework by its very nature is really about business processes and risk management. it's not really below that layer. it's the things you should be thinking about to secure your risk that each individual company has their own business. i certainly hope the software developers will apply the framework to their business. you talk about privacy by design so they process is something that will be necessary in addition to the framework itself >> and want to thank everybody on the panel. this was a terrific conversation and i think you have really helped to enlighten the audience about what is going on here and

what are the next steps to look or so thank you very much and looked forward to continuing this conversation. i'm going to hand it back to robert. thank you. [applause] >> so very quickly i want to thank our panelists both on the industry and government side and our moderators. i also want to thank her audience you hear in person and folks in cyberspace. we look forward to further discussion. u.s. telecom will continue to be a venue for these kinds of conversations and i thank all of you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> one of the things that we worry about obviously our cyberattacks but physical

dangers and what i always think is what keeps me up at night when i think about what can happen next. and i wonder what your greatest fear is asked to a physical attack here in our country, general? c. i would just answer by really two things. on the cybersite i think an attack against our critical infrastructure that would have potential damaging effects and are transportation health care clearly financial is an area that we have to pay very close attention to our energy her. ..

>> we can get a lot more done it if conagra's works with us. of this caucus has shown time and time again under the most difficult circumstances the kind of courage in and unity and discipline that has made me very, very proud. just talking to do its before i came out, we will the long bercy, i believe anybody tried to hold government hostage and threatened the full faith and credit of the united states of america and order to contract policy concessions. the fact we could pass a co-lead debt limit is one example of why when you are unified in a unit you stick together this country is better off.

i could not be more appreciative of what you are doing. [applause] just a couple more points. deborah wong, you have seen reports over the last couple of days me slightly exceeded targets for the aca side up a and evil but for the month of january. [applause] we have three and a half million people who have signed up to get insurance through the marketplace for the first time close at 7 billion your signed up for medicaid or the 3 billion a young people who stay on their parents please restart to see data already the uninsured rate is coming down we will keep pushing to make sure that here in america everybody can enjoy the for a vigil security you peace of mind that good quality health insurance provides. tastes -- for you have any

tough on issues ted years or five years from now we will look back you say this was a blige achievement that could not have happened without this caucus. >> they are closing in on the and i fake when i go through a survival school they taught us the people who capture you are the least trade to capture pow and retailers of the best time to the escape is right then. i thought they were rookies so i pulled out my masterpiece and i had rounds and i went like this. get away. get back then i fired tracer over their head and they did

not flinch. they raised their rifles like this and wanted would reach into his pocket and pulled out a little comic-book that had drawings on one side and had words of the average showed him capturing an american pilot. he said he ince up. hand up. here i am casey died long guns facing at the high probably thought that was the best advice i would get all day. "washington journal"

continues. host: joining us from austin, texas is dr. deborah peel, founder and chairman of the board of a gr the founder david chairman of the board of a what is thatro group called vacuum the agent age of p, before any information about you was moved from one doctor to another, you had to be the floor in the information about you would move from one doctor to another, you had to be asked your permission and to send the information. today with the new electronic health records

records, health and probation and exchanges, everyone else else, everyone that holds the data controls it and moves it. we don't know where it goes. we don't have a chain of custody we cannot prevent our information from fleeing through literally thousands of data users. the problem is in the digital age is the most valuable information about you. anything about your health. patient privacy rights to put everybody back and control of their own very personal health records. efforts of a lot of health-care reform has been the electronic records act. is this something you do not support? o, we actually do support technology. the problem is, they are putting in the wrong kind. technology could give each of us

the kind of control we want over our information. it could work exactly like things did before the electronic age. to a doctor for a broken foot, you did not tell that dr. the same information that you would tell a dr. for your heart or you would not tell a psychiatrist or a mental health professional the same thing you would tell an allergist. age, we carefully selected what we shared with which physicians. the electronic age and the way the technology we have now works is we cannot select anything. everything is open, every kind of sensitive record is open to people that have no need to see it. damaging to people's trust in doctors when they

realize that what they say to one doctor does not stay there. it can get to other people that they would never want or expect to see it. host: you are a psychiatrist? guest: yes, yes. that's where my experience comes from. more than that, freudian psychoanalysis. i work with people and have worked for over 30 years in long-term treatment. , dealing with your feelings and depression and addiction and child abuse, these are incredibly sensitive issues. no one would talk to me if they thought it was going to be on the internet. that's a deal killer. privacy is absolutely critical to people being able to tell physicians sensitive information that we need to know to help them. that is true not just of psychiatry.

it is true of every kind of illness. it is very important to be able to trust that your physician is going to protect your information. today with electronic systems, they cannot. they literally cannot prevent your information from being blown around the world. host: legislatively, what would you like to see done to prevent these electronic medical records from getting out? guest: there is a change that 2002 where it your right to give consent for your information could be disclosed or shared and that was taken out of the hipaa privacy rules. the media did not report it and congress did not notice and the public is not about to read 2000 pages of dense legislative language. nobody knew but those of us who work with people who have sensitive conditions, we were

all over that. the first thing that has to happen is your right of consent, your right to control who sees your health information needs to be restored in hipaa. we have strong constitutional rights to privacy and control over our health information. but the technology industry has not paid attention. hospitals, the pharmacies, the electronic health record vendors , health technology vendors -- all of them use and share our information in ways that we would never agree with. host: from your website, patient you sayhe writes.org, who can use an see your health records, over 4 million businesses including employers, government agencies, insurance companies, billing firms, pharmaceutical companies,

pharmacy benefit managers, marketing firms and data miners? records are currently out there for all those people to see? guest: yes, actually they are. the senate is focusing in particular recently on the data brokers. there is a huge hidden industry online of data brokers. the public is just starting to learn about them. collects like axiom 1500 points of data about everyone in the entire united states. there is another company called ims health that is about to sell stock in the filing they sent to the government to be able to sell stock says that they buy our health information, electronic health records, prescriptions, claims data, and they also put in information about our health and social media. they buy this information from

100,000 data suppliers. , covering 780,000 live data feeds and they sell profiles to 5000 clients including the u.s. government. this kind of use of health information, when we cannot even get it, is absolutely appalling. how can we possibly find out what 100,000 companies are doing with their health information? how can any individual person do that? this complete lack of control of our most sensitive information has to be fixed. it has to be fixed because it is a massive violation of our rights to keep sensitive information private. patient. peel founded

rabbits he writes in 2004. what sparked you two found this? how do you protect your own patients information? guest: whoo - well, there are a number of things that caused me to do this. as we have talked about, i practice in one of the most sensitive areas of medicine. information about peoples minds and bodies, their feelings, their fears, their fantasies -- this information is very sensitive. beginning of my work as a psychiatrist, it was very clear that this information had to be protected. -- and i'm sure your audience knows this -- any kind of mental health diagnosis can ruin your life, frankly.

and it does because that gets out to employers. is the situation that recently made so much news when the aol ceo tim armstrong outed families that had distressed families born to them. he stripped away the privacy of that sensitive situation and information and revealed them to the world. this is the kind of thing that employers -- and the public needs to know this -- employers could get your health information in the paper age. but it was much harder. today, it is incredibly easy for them to get this sensitive information. and we never know. have laws passed, for example, thatan insurer -

every time our health information is shared or disclosed or sold, we get notified just like if you do electronic banking. every time there is a transaction, you get an e-mail. we should be notified every time our health information is used and who is using it and why, especially when we cannot control it. we should be able to get all the copies that all of these companies have of our information. we are the only ones who knows what is right or wrong about our health. it's our health that is at risk. is ifst important thing you cannot trust your physician to keep this information private , it really damages your ability to work with a doctor and get help. americans in eight hides health information or omits it. that's 20-30,000,000 people because they know electronic

systems take away privacy. there are millions more that avoid or delay every year treatment for very serious conditions like cancer. avoid earlyle treatment for cancer, putting their lives literally at risk. million,n, another 2 avoid or delay treatment for depression. again, people can die from depression. they can become suicidal and they can kill themselves. this is terrible. treatment for sexually transmitted diseases -- do we really want people not to get treated for those diseases because they are afraid that that information will not stay , so having an electronic record system that reveals everything that -- really causes harm

to people. the harm is not just not giving treatment but the worst harm is the violation of the relationship with the doctor. when you are sick, when you are hurting, you need to be able to trust somebody. if that doctor has an electronic record system that sells your data, and many do, then what? who do you trust? control whole to knows the most sensitive things about you -- that is a human need. that is a human right, to need to be able to decide who knows what about you. that is very important. today's electronic health system completely eliminates our ability to decide who we share things with. and who knows all about us. host: can you choose, as a physician, whether or not you will share patient information

and can you choose whether or not to sell patient information? guest: to some degree. for example, some physicians have the ability to choose which electronic health record system they use. others do not if they work for a hospital, for example. many of the major electronic health records systems cell data -- sell data. many of them, as part of their business practice, sell your data. there are others that don't. that is at least worth asking your doctor. which electronic records system do you have and doesn't sell my data? are you selling my data? you have to ask this of hospitals, two. it depends of a physician has an independent practice.

they do not have to even use electronic health records. there are lots of small practitioners and concierge physicians that are sticking with paper, primarily for privacy reasons, to keep people's records private. but the government wants president- this is bush and president obama, both share the same goal. they want each of us to have an electronic health record by this year. the problem is, most of the electronic health records that are out there to not do anything that we want and that we expect from these systems. they don't allow us or our doctors to hold back any information in violation of the law and in violation of our right to privacy. host: 202 is the area code if you'd like to talk to dr. peel.

the first call for dr. peel on patient privacy rights comes from linda in texas. i have to attend the pain clinic because of several painful medical conditions. you are treated like a criminal and your privacy is violated in at least two ways. it is vital in the making you take a urine test to prove that you're not a drug addict and that you are taking your medications. , they turn over your information to the department of public safety to make sure that you are not shopping for drugs and doctors. they do that by tying together pharmacies instead of turning it over the the department of public safety, the police force. i am very distressed by that. that is a big violation

of our constitutional rights. guest: absolutely, i could not agree more. i am a psychiatrist, and adult psychiatrist, i have long worked with people with addictions. addictionalization of and people with chronic pain who made these medicines is an outrage. , in mys no reason opinion, that law enforcement should have databases of everyone who is on a painkiller or on certain other substances and sotalin for adhd forth as well as certain sensitive hormonal medicines. in these databases that law enforcement has. it should never have worked that way. never. if anything, the information from the pharmacies, if you get a second prescription for a pain payinge, you should be

the doctors that prescribe the second medicine, and both doctors should be pinged so you can get together with the doctors and figure out what the problem is. i am outraged as you are. medicinese need these for genuine medical conditions and sometimes, if the medicine does not work, you go to a different doctor to get a prescription. many people are reluctant to say to their doctor that you prescribe something that does not work so well for me. if there is a second prescription or a second dr., the technology system could connect everyone back together. it would say this is a medical problem. why don't you work it out with these two doctors? there really is no reason for this to be sent to the criminal justice system. i think it's an outrage. it causes people to be afraid to take pain medicine and a causes doctors to be afraid to prescribe them.

sorry, these are legitimate and important medicines. i am completely with you about that. the technology, again, could be redesigned. it could keep the information with the people that are actually treating you. here is a tweet -- guest: that's almost true. thes true that many of health insurance companies also sell data. blue cross clue shield sells the data -- maybe 53 million people -- they are not the only ones. yes, you are absolutely right. one of the things that we were to get into the stimulus bill --

there was a technology portion of the 2009 stimulus bill -- if you pay cash for something, some health care treatment, dr. or a medicine, the technology system is supposed to allow you to block that information from going to your health plan. the technology companies have fought this. they say it's too expensive and we cannot do it. they have been stalling ever since 2009. they say that we cannot revamp the flow of that information. -- revamp the flow of that information. you are supposed to be able to thatevent the flow of information. in practice, systems don't allow that to happen. it is very disturbing. that is a federal right. that's a federal law. we cannot exercise because the technology companies to not want to build in patient protection. ont: we invited dr. peel

after tim armstrong made this statement regarding health care costs at his company. ershave had two aol two questions -- should somebody who is fiscally in charge of making sure that value is given shareholders, that benefits are available to the company, should that person know about distressed babies and know about extraordinary medical or should he or she not be aware of personal situations like this? guest: i believe there should be an absolute ban on employers knowing anything about

employee's health, at least as much is possible. it gets difficult and small businesses but it can be done. the only thing relevant to the employer should be is the person doing the job. that's what's relevant. is doingrong of aol this in a really bad way. all, most of your audience would be surprised to know that pretty much any employer can get your health information whether they are self-insured or not. it's available. it is sold so they can get it. that is incredibly distressing. there are better ways to do this. for example, there are companies that are self-insured like ibm, that put all kinds of firewalls between health information and management. ibm tells everyone -- they announced publicly that our

company will never, ever look at your health information. and guess what, they seem to be able to manage the benefits just fine. they let another company do it and they don't look for it it's not necessary to look. the thing that tim armstrong and the rest of the ceos need to look at is what is the real cause of america's health cost? about it for a second, it's pretty simple. it's not sick people. sick people in europe do not cost what they cost in this country. at ceos should be looking the people who are the drivers, the companies that drive these accepted health costs we have in our nation. i would suggest that probably most people saw the issue in "time magazine" from last year -- stephen brill spent a year or two looking at what is causing the high cost for american

health care. he found four things -- costs, hiddenl excess of hospital costs, massively inflated drug costs, high hidden costs for freestanding surgical clinics, and the cost of lobbying for the other three issues in washington. i'm sorry but none of those things are caused by people being sick or having a preemie baby born. they are not caused by people. the costs are caused by other corporations that have figured out ways to charge outrageous amounts of money for services that can be delivered in much more efficient and cheaper ways throughout the rest of the world. ofare being taken advantage by the health care industry. host:. is another tweet --

what is an roi form? guest: i'm not sure what she means. it usually means return on investment, doesn't it? guesthost: as far as medically? guest: if you give a consent, you should always be able to take it back. that should be possible. it's very difficult with electronic information and particularly for what is coming statewidey state now, health information exchanges, where different health care providers in your state are going to share your information. that is very difficult to opt in or out of.

in some states, you cannot opt out at all. it's a mandate that everyone's information will be exchanged. host: this is a release of information is what roi stands for. guest: oh and the reader was saying she cannot take it back? host: i think she must work in the health care field because signsys once a patient's and electronic release of information, they cannot take it back and she was on to say that i see anything treated forever. h, in a way, that person is right. what we should have in the future is one place where we set up all the rules of how our information should be shared. words, in order to control our records, we will have to have one location where everyone that wants our information comes to check and see if they can get it. likeould set up rules

anytime i am treated in the health-care system, i want a copy of that information to go a copyedical home and for myself to put my own health bank account. i want information about new medicines or allergies to be sent to all of my doctors. in other words, you should be able to set up the rules of how you typically operate with doctors and hospitals where you let each one no the things that are relevant to the care they give you. for example, when you break a bone, that doctor does not need to know that you are seeing a psychiatrist or that you have marital problems or that you have a sexually transmitted disease. we should be able to set our rules, broad and narrow, about who can see what for which situation in one place.

all of the data holders should ife to check with us first what they want the information for does not fit with our rules, we could easily, with technology, the pinged and asked. dr. jones wants to see your latest let test records, is that ok? forcould be pinged exceptions and set up rules for which research you want to donate your medical information to contribute to. example, if people in your family have diabetes, you might have a broad rule that says i am willing to have my information used for research into the causes and treatment of diabetes but not some other , but not some bone

disease. if you follow me, we should be able to set up with our strong constitutional rights to control health information. we should be able to set up rules about how our data is used and we have to have it in one place. think about it -- if there is 100,000 health data suppliers and you have to give consent for everything they do or you have to go to find different hospitals and change your forms about what can be disclosed, it's impossible to keep up. the data holders will have to turn around and come to us. we have to have the right to control this information. we have to put our control and rules in one place and everyone that wants her information should have to come to us. call is dave in kingman, arizona. caller: how are you doing?

three things real fast -- i apologize, we have moved on any to get to your question. i agree with you, dr., for the most part as far as information availability. i disagree on any medication, any and all medication prescribed by any doctor anywhere. by anyld be seeable doctor. in a psychiatric situation and giving them an upper or down or, because a doctor breaks a bone, they might give them pain medication. then they may get treated by -- diabetes.r host: i think the dr. gets your

point. guest: that's important. the reason you should control your prescription records is there are lots of doctors that discriminate against people because they see that they have a medicine for maybe depression. or that they are taking a medicine for addiction. the doctors to tell us which of our medicines have conflicts. if we have our own complete list of medications, why couldn't we have an app that tells us which medicines might not work together well? why couldn't we know for ourselves and learn for ourselves which medicines might not work together? it's ridiculous. , aredoctors, as you know not even familiar with all of the drug interactions.

it is very complicated. there is no reason, if we have our medicine that we cannot find that out ourselves and let doctors now. here is what has happened throughout my career where people were taking sensitive medication. the vast majority of my patients did not want other doctors to know. this is because doctors, like a lot of the public, really have strong feelings about people ith mental illness addiction or child abuse and the get very nervous and they do not listen to them. i don't treat them as well for their medical condition. people with heart disease -- i am treating you for depression, this is something that is important for your cardiologist to know. sometimes antidepressants can conflict with cardiac medication. really can patients have that knowledge.

we don't need to wait for doctors to tell us how medicines work. the information is out there and the technology and the applications for figuring out drug conflicts -- we can look at that ourselves if we have our own information. after all, who cares the most aret whether your medicine contraindicated or don't work together or might hurt you? who cares the most about your health? i think it's you and me. guest: armand from atlanta, go ahead. glad you are able to be on here today and i appreciate you taking my call. issues. lot of i fell off a two-story shed in a warehouse and it did damage to my mac. it causes me migraine headaches.

myfeels like somebody shot rain out of my head with a gun. when i talk about this to these pain doctors, they think i am suicidal and i explained that i am not suicidal. i am only there to get the pain medicine that i need. i don't ask for the shots but they refused to give me the medicine if that -- if i don't take all the medicine they offer. i don't think it's fair they do that. some of this is because of the other doctors i have had seen. they have given the shots on the don't work and they give me the pain medicine. i know how to take my pain medicine. host: thank you very much. it's true, it's very treat chronic pain. sometimes the doctors are not flexible. there are lots of different ways

to treat comic pain -- chronic pain. you need to be offered more than shots or pills. there is also various kinds of yoga, thererapy, are all kinds of other methods to begin to try to bring down the pain. it is really a tough problem. you should have access to a of different kinds of treatment and not be dictated to. host: there is another tweet -- guest: absolutely. peopleow, millions of have access to our records. let me give you a very specific example. i think thesnowden analogy is very apt. it is really a tough in a typical hospital like here in austin, the population is

about 2 million people. we have two major hospitals. maybe three. we have a public hospital, a catholic hospital, and then we have a hospital corporation of america hospital. records on most of the 2 million and all of them 5-7000aff, at least doctors and nurses and everyone of them can see the records of all 2 million people in this area. these are just hospital employees. this does not include insurance notany employees, this does include electronic health records company employees. i also need to tell everyone that a hospital has between 150- 650 different kinds of software that work with your health information. each one of those companies may have the right to use or sell

your information. it depends with some the contract. probably millions s who could share millions of records and when we read about reaches of personal information, the most common reaches in this country, the highest frequency, are breaches of health information because it is exposed and stalin because it is so valuable and has your financial information. it's not a good system. jean is calling from dublin, virginia. go ahead. caller: everything you have been saying about privacy and data i agree with but there is one major flaw in all of this. allowedbalization has sovereignty to become a firewall for these companies. when data has been moved to

other countries beyond u.s. sovereignty, there is really nothing you can do about it. guest: that's certainly true about the cloud. sorry, weet, -- i'm would be safer if our data was in europe or in some places in canada. they have much tougher laws that do not permit companies to even collect your data without your consent. there are other countries that have way tougher privacy laws in line with what americans expect. arkansas, good, morning. what about when somebody goes into the emergency room - [inaudible] drug andt give him a

he might be on another drug they don't know about. [inaudible] as a psychiatrist, how do you feel about if you had a cocaine addict as a patient? guest: that's a great question. example of being unconscious in an emergency room and all your records have to be opened -- as a physician, i ran an emergency room and i guarantee you if you are unconscious in an emergency room, we will pick your pockets and call your mother, we will call anyone we can to get any information about you to save your life. the highest duty of a physician is to save a life. privacy gets pushed aside in that case.

but one of the things that is important to understand about somebody unconscious in the emergency room is we should not built a system where everyone's records are open all the time to everyone except to us. . for that rare one and one million cases where you are unconscious, what we need are systems that work for us so that we can protect our information and selectively share it routinely. that is what most of medicine is about. routine the it is about routine t are scheduled where we are awake and conscious and we can decide to share. that is the kind of technology we should have that let each of us make the choices about what is shared. the other thing about the emergency situation is i guarantee you that if you come in their unconscious with no records, we have a protocol. breathe, cardiac -- we

know what to do to evaluate how to keep you alive long enough to figure out what is going on. it's very possible when you come in unconscious that you have something that is new that is not in your old records. people forget that records are not everything because your health changes and particularly, there are emergencies. there are new conditions that emerge. they are obviously not in your old records. that's the point of getting trained in medicine that you diagnose and try to understand things that you don't have all the information about yet. peel is a graduate of the university of texas and the medical rants at galveston. krupa tweets -

-i'm a little confused. host: you referred to the fact that medical costs are not because of sick people necessarily. that aaying it's true few of the people in a plan use most of the benefits. yeah, of, well , course -- some of us are sicker than others but it's not sick people that are causing the excessive costs in this country. i'm sorry, it's the people charging us these excessive rates that are far beyond any other country and the rest of the world. amazing hidden monopolies.

the health care industry uses our data in ways that we don't even know because we cannot even get it. we cannot even get our electronic health records which we are supposed to have a right to get since 2001. imagine if we could get our all of and could pool our different treatments from different hospitals and doctors. we are the only ones that would want to use health information so that we could get apples to apples or head to head comparisons. a cost from a hospital. a hospital will have 20 or arty or 50 different costs for the same thing depending on which health plan you are him. we don't actually even know what the costs are much less the quality. who cares about that? i think it's us. i think it's the parents.

i think it's the moms in the dads and the people who are trying to keep their children and their families and their mothers and fathers healthy. i think it is us. we are the citizens who care about what this really costs and where the money is going why the costs are skyhigh. when these industries are making so much money, we have got to and get the off data so we can actually learn what works, what is cost- effective, who the best doctors and hospitals are, and what is inflating these costs. it is not being set. other countries can deliver much better health care at much lower cost than we can. there is something wrong with what we are doing. pat: the last call is from in new york. with mostou i agree

of what the doctor says as far as not being blocked from getting health care because of records that are x posed. i live in europe for 10 years and it worked well for me and 60,000 other american servicemen. mythe area of mental health, ex had borderline personality disorder. how do you not sure that information in a court of law where it affects children, spouses, the information needed to be shared. interferes with the broken system of justice in this country when it comes to father custody. host: we will leave it there. guest: i think those are complex questions. when are times psychiatric diagnosis might be

an issue in custody. it might have to be discussed. i think mostly the courts and particularly the divorce courts try to have effective evaluations, neutral evaluations, of the parents and the children to try to understand what is in the best interest of the children. i personally do not believe that every mental illness means you should not be able to be a parent. i think that's absurd. thing butcomplicated i think part of what you are getting at is there are times when we need to know if someone has a mental illness that prevents them from being a good parent, something like that is important to know. i would like to think that the courts try to get neutral evaluations in the best interest of the children. is ther. debra peel

founder and chairman of the board of patient travis he writes, thank you for your time. caller guest: you are

>> with the syria talks in geneva i get it is a difficult process but what should we read into the process of wind the russians still seem to agree with the u.s.? that this is not just a traditional government? >> everyone who saw my dog to the idea of the to be the communique understood the purpose was a unit is. some of the talks this far did not produce significant breakthrough everyone recognized the of the

resolution to this conflict came to a negotiated political settlement. we will continue to pressure not just the aside receive the countries like russia and iran to recognize it is in nobody's interest to see the continuing bloodshed and the collapse is taking place inside syria. the president said last week this is a difficult process. we are far from achieving the goal we edition. we have to keep at it. there is no other way to resolve the ongoing crisis that does not include sitting across from each other. >> but if you say everybody came to the table to agree to find a transitional body but now the russians say that is not the point of the talks? back again would say

significant progress is not achieved but it is important to say that the talks themselves have taken place. we will continue to press all parties to recognize there is no other way out of this conflict. we continue to believe the receives and willingness with the implementation of the geneva communique that is the foundation of the talks. the opposition and shows a seriousness of purpose that will continue to outline their version dated we commend them for that. they show they can engage constructively for the sake of the syrian people and we have not seen that so far. again, we recognize the situation in syria continues to be terrible for the

people of syria. our efforts including humanitarian efforts are un security council to pass a resolution to make it deliver humanitarian aid or the opposition are to bring about transition in syria to lead to a better future for the country. there is no other way to get from here to there.

[applause] >> thank you very much. think you. thank you very much. good morning. i am sorry we're starting a little late you gathered a little late and i was told it was speaker of this of the workouts. a lot of your body your head and i thought i can't just wait. we are getting into the silly season everything is reported in a political context i can see the headlines. clinton hospitalizes attendees of the health conference. [laughter] tries to make money for sponsor. [laughter] it is not a bad headline we have three hospitals out

here. thank you for being here. also for the support also espn for their great town hall be gained last night. it was amazing. they did a wonderful job. [applause] the athletes of the program were great issue and the children were wonderful. also our other sponsors in addition pga tour, ge, price waterhouse cooper, astra said the cuts, california endowment, they'll support the conference. a and the year-round work we do to try to help the people around america. i want to think he vienna --

he be an end with the challenge the starts on thursday to build on bob hope's legacy trying to keep alive here in the valley. bob hope would appreciate the weak of will this bill first met him when he was still just 78 years old. and i was governor of arkansas he did a gig at the universities in my head dinner with him. i said have a you keep doing this? he said i play golf as long as i could but i walk one hour a day the matter where i am or how it is site carry every foot wear and a big umbrella. if i have to walk after a big night i do wish i'd never go to bet unless i have walked in our he made

it to nearly 100 sewage is not a bad prescription. will we try to do with this conference is think about weld this with every generation. most of you know, that the health matters idea grew out of good results we had to tackle the childhood obesity epidemic. that is what it was it was our biggest public health problem when we started. i want to thank all the people i was introduced by one of our young divisive record numbers last night who came all the way from me and me. -- miami. in order to reduce bad

calories going to schools by 90 percent a you believe in the way of a nationwide movement upgrading the quality of health in the schools through cafeteria offerings cover working in 20,000 schools with exercise programs, we're now moving aside the schools on that but it was clear to me that there was ward needed to be done if we would improve the health and wellness of americans increased the percentage of our income on health care closer to the average. one of the reasons for growing income inequality in america which is the daughter most people don't connect is as recently as three years ago we would spend 17-point 8% on health care issue and no other

country was spending more than 11.8% of theirs. $1 trillion going to elf -- health care that could gone into raising income of people who were at work. also reducing disposable income of virtually every american who either had health insurance and was paying for it or had to pay out of pocket. the good news is for all this trouble we are now down at 17.2% because for the last four years we had inflation under 4% for the first time in less than half a century. but there are economic as well as implications to the trajectory we are all in. it was clear to be less restarted something like this we would have problems with the aging of the baby

boomers. i am the oldest of the baby boomers. i hate that. [laughter] there is. we're just getting started. if you live to me 65 you already have a life expectancy if you are a woman, 85 or man, 82 and have. we will live longer and if we don't with better we will put the unconscionable burden on our children and our grandchildren. and reverse all the trends that are well of the way for the greater health to be closer to global competitors with the ability we have to allocate to care for people who are sec. that is why we do this today you'll hear announcements

from people who will fill in the blank how to improve the health of all americans. including the james beard foundation and many others. i am excited. we are announcing that the health matters initiative supporters are making $100 million of new commitments affecting one dash six americans in a positive way. this is something we try to chase the whole ecosystem myth of america relating to health tuned policy and i am thrilled. particularly because of the commitment from last year 90 percent had either been completed or under way.

[applause] every international breaking says cancer treatment but we are light years ahead of every other country with percentage of income that we devote to health care but if you measure in terms of life expectancy and health and wellness every international survey i have seen over the last 10 years we are between 2015 and 303rd. we can do better and we have to change it ourselves. we will focus now on our panel.

i will make this one final point. current diseases committee of which are entirely preventable claves seven out of 10 lives in 75% of health care spending every single year. over the last generation diabetes, obesity, heart disease and other chronic diseases the number of people suffering from diabetes has tripled affecting more than 25 million. it is now the leading cause of a number of complications with kidney failure and pointed this. -- played to this. with their habits to lifestyles and environments the results in the disparities that we all see including those that are

in, based. iu board to look at our conversation. our panelists have interesting things to say. there will be introduced, do you know, what they call those voices backstage of america? it is called the voice of god if anybody says if you are a believer you can say yes. i want to bring out our panelists. thank you very much. [applause] >> please welcome the panelists of the health transformation panels.

[applause] those of you read in the previous conferences will recognize at least some of the people of the stage. i will begin by giving everybody a couple of minutes to talk about what they intend to do in the couple of years at the point they want to make about the contributions they can make to deal with this issue. >> we have worked with the

clinton foundation with humana id we will commit this year to focus on a community to improve their health by 20 percent by 2020 by making individuals easier to achieve their health. i will point out the important part of that is not just that 20% improvement but the health care system in general the to focus to have people achieve health and the easier way. as a society health is hard for it is hard to stay healthy. it is easy to for bad habits and grade you look at the under resources it is hard for them to retain health they don't have the health literacy or access to good food or economic conditions that promote healthier and as an organization part three together with

organizations better of the stage is one of our obligations. we look forward to working with you in that community. >> i am representing ge what we'd like to do this year is to utilize the employer base is as a catalyst for health care change. we represent health as the biggest medical device manufacturers to have the responsibility of technology. in addition the chief foundation in there we make creance two major issues surrounding health. the idea of primary care shortage or the underserved regions and in addition we

have private thousand covered lives we have to think about how we manage the cost of health care while continuing to make sure the quality of health is either the save or raise. that is a major issue we are working very closely in houston. one of the of reasons this is interesting to have some of the best medical centers of the world as it relates to house statistics we're looking forward to work of this together with clinton health matters to make a difference as some players are a catalyst to allow this to happen. they put 50 percent of the health care bill as an

example and when customers are in the room it is amazing how people want to collaborate. i look forward to talk about that spee big houston is about to face a new challenge because there is so the low income people that the state of texas refuses to accept medicaid would be but the hospitals will lose their patent will be in a much more difficult situation and then they were before. idols of of those hospitals have actually asked the federal government if they could take accounting out of texas for the medicaid treatment. [laughter] i thought the governor -- the governor would say how he would secede from the

government i would say don't let the door hit you of the way out as the governor of arkansas. [laughter] but now these hospitals want to secede to get back into the union to get the medicaid coverage it is an extremely serious issue then all of a sudden you see the increase of the care bill with uncompensated care has been eliminated because people all have compensated care. make them laugh but sometimes that clears the mind is a very serious issue >> let me take you for all you have done for the game of golf. [laughter] since chairman of the

president's katy has been to the ryder cup and presidents cup over the years. i remember a ryder cup in the uk when he came in and then there was a rustle and five minutes later in the middle of the first fair way of walking down listening to the applause was president clinton had stolen the show. it was fabulous. last night there was a discussion about your athletic prowess talking about double digits of the basketball game. i have to believe you are a better golfer to did do in basketball player but the key for your commitment and french share. people wonder why we are involved with the vienna the tournament is very important to the two were in of the

players but for a healthy and promus it fits with the culture and i will explain quickly. all tournament to raise money for charity this year over a hundred $30 billion. 80 percent of those efforts of those tournaments are focused on some health related activity. . .

partnering with humana, with their wellness programs, over 90% of our employees are voluntarily scanned. that scanning has resulted in a wide range of activity changes and behavioral changes in our employee base and they're totally into it. so, initiatives and effort and energy behind things that relate to what the health matters conference is all about and the clinton foundation is all about, is just a natural for us, and given the fact that our players walk on average 30 miles a week, they're great role models on the fitness side of the equation. so, what are we doing?

well, i think as the president has often talked about on the global scale of doing things like reducing sugar content in diet drinks available to school children, that's a mega, colassal, global, countrywide effort, that needs to be married with lots of little activity at the local level. so, for us, it's contributing to using our players as role models, telling the story of things like what comes out of this conference on a national basis, and at the same time looking at the places we play tournaments. we're in so many markets. almost 100 tournaments. about how we can generate more activity there. and so this year, we promised the president we would underwrite for the next five years as a part of the players championship proceeds, the same thing that's going on in houston, and ashley smith

juarez -- ashley juarez smith who is from the area, has become extremely prominent in the education side of the equation in northeast florida, agreed to take on the role of coordinator. and we will work and be behind her in supporting the effort of exchanging best practices, bringing governmental leaders together, and making things happen. i think that the other thing that i think longer term we can do is try to -- a lot of this discussion is all about defense and how much it's costing us and how it's going to bankrupt us if we don't do something, and how it affects the educational system and how it increases the disparity between income levels in our country. not enough, i think, is talked about in terms of the positive about what can happen relating diet and wellness and physical fitness to success. and i see increasingly young people getting that.

but to me, more focus on that that we can help with, i think, is a goal of ours as well, mr. president. thank you. >> thank you. before i go on, tim said something that made me think of something i should have said in my opening remarks and that is, this is really about getting hundreds of millions of people to do specific small things, one day after the next, until you change the whole structure of the production, delivery, consumption, of food, and the same thing about our exercise and activities, and obviously changes going on in healthcare delivery. but i noticed the other day something i haven't heard anyone else mention, which is that with almost no fanfare, the food producers of america are selling slightly fewer calories per

capita to people this year than they have been, and there was an article i read that said that if it's down like literally not an enormous amount. 80 or 90 calories a day but if you did 100-calories a day every day for a year, how much weight would you lose? i think that all these things there are there is a greater awareness. everybody needs to step up and do something. and so i thank you very much. and i never -- i'd like to ride a golf cart, but tim's basically shamed me into trying to walk more on the golf course. you heard the 30 miles a week thing. so, patrick. >> president clinton, thank you for the honor inviting us here. i think i would just mentioning that the power of one man's ability to actually lead

president clinton was responsible for forming the funding for the human genome, and responsible for supporting technology. so how does that relate what we're doing some out of that came to the human genome. we are presenting the work we have developed the first nano particle for breast cancer and lung cancer and pancreatic cancer, and our work with the clinton foundation is to try to address a major infliction of this country and the worlds, is cancer. and imagine if you could now for the first time measure cancer from the blood, identify and get the right treatment. we have patients with pancreatic

cancer free of met as at the sis. and i have a cousin came to me who in canada was going to get the wrong treatment, said she had two months. she is now 13 months and almost free of disease. so, i want that kind of information for the world to understand and to see, and through this conference i'll be describing some of the work. the problem is, however, the science is so complicated, the information is so vast, how do we get this kind of information to the hands of the practicing physicians? how do we get the physician in south central l.a., physician in the navajo nation, to have exact same treatment as if you were in sloan-kettering or md anderson. i'm proud to say there's a collaborative being form today where the best care -- it

netflix can obsolete block butter, we can change the way of getting information exchanged across the country, and we will through an integrated clinical operating system. so today we will announce a operating system that is running 3.3 million cancer patients, been running for the last five years, and will take credit for that as part of oncology because we launched that. and now in real-time patient will have actual information, in real-time, at point of care, in time of need, anywhere, anytime and that is the goal. it's more than the goal. we actually launching that in this country. [applause] >> thank you. >> i love being around patrick because i feel so dumb and yet he makes me think that, like a blind man, that -- i was raised

in the south and we had a saying, even a blind hog finds an acre now and then. so i feel like i found an acre by funding the human genome and nano technology research. one of the things newt gingrich and i agreed on. but i think to bring this home, you should say just a couple of minutes here about the actual healthcare revolution you're trying to affect in south central l.a. last time patrick and i were together was in los angeles, and he said, i am convinced that we can give poor people in south central l.a. the same quality of health care you get in beverly hills, and i -- and so it's a laudable goal but how do you do

it. would you give us a couple of minutes on that? >> the first thing is -- first of all, came from south africa, born in south africa, lived in the area of apartheid. i was the first white chinese person to work in a white hospital. i had to take 50% salary for the honor of working in that hospital. so i've come from -- i'd been brought up in this area of oppression. i was astounded to find and hear that a woman went to martin luther king hospital in south central l.a., entered the emergency room and called 9-1-1 from the floor of the emergency room, asking for help to get her out of there. and she died on the floor of that emergency room. they shut the hospital down, and said there will be now -- their solution was have no care in south central l.a. so, we were able to, frankly -- i know david fineberg is in in

the audience -- embarrass the university of california system to participate and help us open up martin luther king and it's now open, i'll be glad to say in 2015. the issue, however, is not a physical building. their -- the issue is access to information and education, and bringing doctors to that community, and that they could have information -- a patient could in south central l.a., through a software system that is ubiquitous, that transfers information about the patient's condition in real-time to a specialist, let's say, sitting in beverly hills or brentwood or westwood and have that information transmitted and communicated and the doctor being educated, is going live. doctor david feinberg is in the audience it's call the institute of molecular medicine where this

kind of medicine is whether you are rich or poor, if you have cancer, this is what you deserve, and martin luther king, his birthday this week, said the healthcare is a human right. so i think this is something we will be pursuing. thank you, mr. president, for that encouragement. with a voice like the clinton foundation, we also have this -- the system of electronic medical record which -- where the electronic record do not speak if you're in a hospital, there's no way for you transferring your information from one hospital to another, yet there's a system that has information. we're about to launch this in the navajo nation. so our idea is if you can address this in the poorest of the poor, we can make this work for the rest of the country. [applause]

>> thank you, again, for this opportunity. my introductory comments i had the opportunity to say a little bit about what we do. but i'd like to tie together a couple of points that have been made and elaborating on our mission. we're in the business of operating hospitals. and hospitals in our healthcare delivery system are the frontline in providing care to people, particularly when they need it urgently. and in an emergency. and i also mentioned in my introduction that our company alone is spending $800 million a year in uncompensated care. i was very pleased, president clinton, you negligence your introductory commented -- you mentioned in your comments we succeeded in bending the cost curve a bit. we're spending a little bit less as a percent of gdp and the raid of healthcare inflation has

reached historic low levels, probably lower than anybody in the audience can remember. how are we doing this and what is the role of the hospital? it an essential role. science is incredibly important and innovations will be transformational for the health and well-being of the population. but you want that emergency room available at 2:00 in the morning to treat any condition you can think of. so, our interest in addition to wellness, which is obviously a topic today -- is in providing greater value. our country spends more than enough money on health care but the value isn't there. and i'm pleased that -- we can get into examples as we good along in the panel -- there are innovations taking place that enable to us increase federally the quality of care we're providing, the reliability of care. the type of refly ball --

rereliable emergency care in poor communities that would not occur, at fleece one of our hospitals. so i'm quite optimistic about the future for the health system, and i think particularly in this year of 2014, where we are embarking upon this grand experiment in health reform, our hospitals are right at the epicenter, and bruce's insurance plans as well in trying to make this work and trying to pursue that laudible goal, which frankly was initiated by you during your administration of trying to improve access to care and the percentage of people who are covered by some form of insurance program. ultimately that will lead to better health very, very quickly. so i just would like to say, hospitals are incredibly important part of the equation and we're actually doing a pretty good job. we're