North Carolina grants public access to provider prescription habits

Photo by freestocks.org on Unsplash

North Carolina is hoping that opening up provider prescription histories, along with imposing new limitations on the prescription of opioids will work to hold more doctors accountable and decrease the number of opioid prescriptions issued in the state.

The law, called the NC STOP Act, put limitations on the number of opioid prescriptions that a medical provider can issue to an individual, based on many factors that any prescribing provider should analyze before to deciding whether to write a prescription. Currently, the state believes that 4,500 doctors exceed the prescription limitations across the state, and the number bay even higher. Blue Cross Blue Shield has begun to try and address the epidemic by blocking prescriptions for opioids that exceed seven days.

“On top of this, the state has created a searchable database for citizens who can type in the name of their doctor and find out whether he or she is a regular prescriber of opioids,” said Ben Whitley, a Winston-Salem Personal Injury Attorney with the Whitley Law Firm. The idea behind the database is that it will work to educate consumers about the approach their doctor takes toward prescribing opioids, while also creating accountability in doctors, knowing that their prescribing practices will be available for all to see.

For doctors that fail to comply with the Act by limiting the number of opioid prescriptions, the law authorizes the state licensing board to take action against the doctor by issuing notices of non-compliance and taking any other steps the board deems necessary to gain compliance.

From a legal standpoint, doctors that continually violate statutes like the NC STOP Act open themselves up to liability from a medical malpractice standpoint. If their improper prescribing of opioids leads to the death of a patient, and that doctor had been made aware of his or her violation of prescribing restrictions, it creates a much stronger case for any individual seeking compensation.

For the time being, however, consumers should utilize the database to inform themselves about the practices of their own doctor as well as any doctor they may be considering. Avoiding exposure to doctors with questionable prescribing practices may save heartache and trouble down the road.

Weaponized information seeks a new target in cyberspace: Users’ minds


File 20180727 106514 17lwvm6.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Cyberattacks target Americans’ thinking.
Fancy Tapis/Shutterstock.com

Richard Forno, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

The Russian attacks on the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the country’s continuing election-related hacking have happened across all three dimensions of cyberspace – physical, informational and cognitive. The first two are well-known: For years, hackers have exploited hardware and software flaws to gain unauthorized access to computers and networks – and stolen information they’ve found. The third dimension, however, is a newer target – and a more concerning one.

This three-dimensional view of cyberspace comes from my late mentor, Professor Dan Kuehl of the National Defense University, who expressed concern about traditional hacking activities and what they meant for national security. But he also foresaw the potential – now clear to the public at large – that those tools could be used to target people’s perceptions and thought processes, too. That’s what the Russians allegedly did, according to federal indictments issued in February and July, laying out evidence that Russian civilians and military personnel used online tools to influence Americans’ political views – and, potentially, their votes. They may be setting up to do it again for the 2018 midterm elections.

Some observers suggest that using internet tools for espionage and as fuel for disinformation campaigns is a new form of “hybrid warfare.” Their idea is that the lines are blurring between the traditional kinetic warfare of bombs, missiles and guns, and the unconventional, stealthy warfare long practiced against foreigners’ “hearts and minds” by intelligence and special forces capabilities.

However, I believe this isn’t a new form of war at all: Rather, it is the same old strategies taking advantage of the latest available technologies. Just as online marketing companies use sponsored content and search engine manipulation to distribute biased information to the public, governments are using internet-based tools to pursue their agendas. In other words, they’re hacking a different kind of system through social engineering on a grand scale.

Americans are used to seeing Russian propaganda that looks like this.
AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth

Old goals, new techniques

More than 2,400 years ago, the Chinese military strategist and philosopher Sun Tzu made it an axiom of war that it’s best to “subdue the enemy without fighting.” Using information – or disinformation, or propaganda – as a weapon can be one way to destabilize a population and disable the target country. In 1984 a former KGB agent who defected to the West discussed this as a long-term process and more or less predicted what’s happening in the U.S. now.

The Russians created false social media accounts to simulate political activists – such as @TEN_GOP, which purported to be associated with the Tennessee Republican Party. Just that one account attracted more than 100,000 followers. The goal was to distribute propaganda, such as captioned photos, posters or short animated graphics, purposely designed to enrage and engage these accounts’ followers. Those people would then pass the information along through their own personal social networks.

Starting from seeds planted by Russian fakers, including some who claimed to be U.S. citizens, those ideas grew and flourished through amplification by real people. Unfortunately, whether originating from Russia or elsewhere, fake information and conspiracy theories can form the basis for discussion at major partisan media outlets.

As ideas with niche online beginnings moved into the traditional mass media landscape, they serve to keep controversies alive by sustaining divisive arguments on both sides. For instance, one Russian troll factory had its online personas host rallies both for and against each of the major candidates in the 2016 presidential election. Though the rallies never took place, the online buzz about them helped inflame divisions in society.

The trolls also set up Twitter accounts purportedly representing local news organizations – including defunct ones – to take advantage of Americans’ greater trust of local news sources than national ones. These accounts operated for several years – one for the Chicago Daily News, closed since 1978, was created in May 2014 and collected 20,000 followers – passing along legitimate local news stories, likely seeking to win followers’ trust ahead of future disinformation campaigns. Shut down before they could fulfill that end, these accounts cleverly aimed to exploit the fact that many Americans’ political views cloud their ability to separate fact from opinion in the news.

These sorts of activities are functions of traditional espionage: Foment discord and then sit back while the target population becomes distracted arguing among themselves.

Fighting digital disinformation is hard

Analyzing, let alone countering, this type of provocative behavior can be difficult. Russia isn’t alone, either: The U.S. tries to influence foreign audiences and global opinions, including through Voice of America online and radio services and intelligence services’ activities. And it’s not just governments that get involved. Companies, advocacy groups and others also can conduct disinformation campaigns.

Unfortunately, laws and regulations are ineffective remedies. Further, social media companies have been fairly slow to respond to this phenomenon. Twitter reportedly suspended more than 70 million fake accounts earlier this summer. That included nearly 50 social media accounts like the fake Chicago Daily News one.

Facebook, too, says it is working to reduce the spread of “fake news” on its platform. Yet both companies make their money from users’ activity on their sites – so they are conflicted, trying to stifle misleading content while also boosting users’ involvement.

Real defense happens in the brain

The best protection against threats to the cognitive dimension of cyberspace depends on users’ own actions and knowledge. Objectively educated, rational citizens should serve as the foundation of a strong democratic society. But that defense fails if people don’t have the skills – or worse, don’t use them – to think critically about what they’re seeing and examine claims of fact before accepting them as true.

American voters expect ongoing Russian interference in U.S. elections. In fact, it appears to have already begun. To help combat that influence, the U.S. Justice Department plans to alert the public when its investigations discover foreign espionage, hacking and disinformation relating to the upcoming 2018 midterm elections. And the National Security Agency has created a task force to counter Russian hacking of election systems and major political parties’ computer networks.

The ConversationThese efforts are a good start, but the real solution will begin when people start realizing they’re being subjected to this sort of cognitive attack and that it’s not all just a hoax.

Richard Forno, Senior Lecturer, Cybersecurity & Internet Researcher, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The ‘Religious Liberty Task Force’ announced

Rare footage.

Sessions only likes the parts of the Bible he can use to justify being mean to people he doesn’t like:

Sadly it is no exaggeration, no hyperbole, to say that Attorney General Jeff Sessions declared a holy war on LGBT people, LGBT equality, and LGBT rights on Monday.

He declared war on anything that could be perceived to trespass on the “religious freedom” or “religious liberty” of Christians—which is loosely defined enough to be construed as trespassing on pretty much anything he and his allies choose it to mean.

Sessions said this was because there was a “dangerous movement” to erode the Christian right to worship.

There isn’t, of course; it’s an invented bogeyman for a ravenously-pursued ideological crusade. Women, religious minorities, LGBT people: Prepare to fight for your bodies, your rights to worship, your wedding cakes.

Sessions’ announcement of a “Religious Liberty Task Force” at a “Religious Liberty Summit” follows President Trump’s religious liberty executive order of May. It also follows the Department of Health and Human Services’ announcement in January of a new “Conscience and Religious Freedom Division” to be housed within the agency’s Office for Civil Rights.

Muller indictments ‘will be a bombshell’

Every once in a while, morning news includes actual information, the kind I like.

Yesterday, Morning Joe featured Rep. Eric Swalwell and former federal prosecutors Daniel Murphy and John Martin.

“So do you think that members of Congress have been obstructing justice in the russia investigation?” Scarborough asked Swalwell.

“They’re stopping justice in the Russia investigation,” Swalwell said.

“We saw that when we would bring people in like Michael Cohen and ask direct questions about the Trump Tower meeting and Don Jr. would refuse to answer. You know you have subpoena power and you don’t have to take the refusal, but each time we would say, ‘Make Donald Trump Jr. answer, but they would say, ‘No, we’re here under a voluntary scheme,’ which is what they set up. They protected them at every single stop. Since they ended their investigation we learned about Cambridge Analytica, about Roger Stone’s extensive contacts and we’re learning more and more about Michael Cohen. These guys are going to learn the hard way in November, I’m afraid.”

Scarborough asked Murphy, “Is it not fair to say that after Mueller’s last round of indictments a couple of Fridays ago where the United States government actually identified Russians that were trying to undermine American democracy, that at this point if you are trying to stop Mueller’s investigation, you’re not just a dupe for Donald Trump, you’re a dupe for Vladimir Putin and you are getting in the way of an investigation that’s trying to get to the bottom of how the Russians tried to undermine American democracy?”

“That indictment set forth how the Russians went forward, at least in one way to infiltrate our election,” Murphy said.

“What Bob Mueller has not done at any point — and I think this is intentional, he has not included any evidence of American involvement in any of what we call collusion. Collusion is shorthand for conspiracy to defraud.”

Scarborough asked why.

“For a couple of reasons. One is what we talked about with Michael Cohen. He doesn’t want to let the public or other witnesses know what evidence he has. Two, I think he wants to wait and make a very complete decision as to whether and what extent Americans were involved. So he’s going to keep it all confidential because there may be people that aren’t charged that should not go — be named in public or there may be people who will be charged. But he’s basically gathering all of the evidence and doing what a professional prosecutor would do,” Murphy said.

“And then he is going to make a final decision as to who is going to be charged and with what, and he’s not going to leak anything and he’s not going to let anything out there. But I do think he’s going to indict people. I think when that indictment drops it is going to be a bombshell.”

“I think Dan is right,” Martin said. “I think Mueller is not going to do anything until he has the complete picture.”