The healthcare industry is considered to be one of the biometrics’ most promising chances. Global healthcare spending is estimated to be about 10% of worldwide GDP (Frost & Sullivan, 2018). Healthcare is vastly automated, highly controlled and its objective is individuals’ health. Biometrics in healthcare environments can greatly speed up administrative processes, get rid of errors due to increased workloads which can result in expensive or risky mistakes, and minimize fraud. Notably, biometrics for healthcare is still a nascent market and success stories are rare. Healthcare facilities will not shop straightforward for biometrics, but will look for wholly integrated business and healthcare resolutions (BI, 2018). New applications across new areas of clinical study of medical tools are expected to make way for the healthcare biometric market. Increased government initiatives towards healthcare infrastructure in the developing nations also drive the worldwide healthcare biometric market.
As a patient identification and staff authentication solution, biometrics in healthcare is used to safeguard access to sensitive patient records and help with patient registration requirements (Das, 2014). It is estimated that the whole worldwide marketplace for biometrics solution in the healthcare market will reach about US$5 billion by 2020 (Brown, 2010). Its use will also reflect the increasing demand for healthcare fraud prevention in America, along with the need to improve patient privacy as well as healthcare safety. From what has recently been observed, a majority of healthcare organizations and hospitals are setting up biometric security architecture. This is because secure identification is important in the healthcare system, both in controlling reasonable admission to consolidated archives of digitized patient’s information, and restricting physical admission to hospital wards and buildings (Zuniga, Win & Susilo, 2010). Security identification authenticates social and medical support personnel.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
This paper will focus on the issue of Biometrics in healthcare and its vision for 2020. It will also compare two articles on the same subject matter, and determine whether these reports are correct, or conflicting. The main barriers, if any, will also be identified and a general summary of where Biometrics in healthcare industry will be in 2020 be provided. A conclusion will also be provided at the end.
Discussion
Brief summary of the Biometric Industry Tracker article
This article aims at providing insight into the various trends and significant developments in the biometrics industry that have occurred in the past year, and looking into the future. The sample used in the survey constituted 310 respondents, 47% of whom were members of the Biometrics Institute (Pato & Millett, 2010). The respondents were from across the world, such as New Zealand, the UK, Continental Europe, America and North America, and Australia (Mackenzie, 2011). Issues such as market optimism and market restraints were included in the interview and questionnaires. The respondents were also asked to what level they disagreed or agreed with different points of views expressed at the Institute meetings. Findings revealed that about 71% use a biometric regularly in their daily life, with only 4% citing they never do so (Trader, 2012). When asked how positive they felt about novel chances or projects in biometrics in 2018 and beyond, most responded positively, particularly the North American respondents.
Surprisingly, about 10% of the respondents expressed being uncomfortable with the use of biometrics (Jain, 2007). The article concludes that the complete record investigates the reaction to each of the views in a more elaborative manner, specifically taking a closer look at the reactions of users versus suppliers and across three evaluated areas. The record will be utilized as a significant foundation for future dialogues amongst Biometrics Institute members with the purpose of providing thought-leadership and direction around the conscientious utilization of biometrics (Snyder, 2010).
Brief summary of the Frost & Sullivan document
This particular article has focused more on the data management, data architecture in healthcare industry, and upcoming technologies compared to the Biometrics article discussed above. It starts by stating that healthcare providers have began developing information management plans, where data needs to be invested upon so that they can bring about returns (Tripathi, 2011). Apparently, investing in the data architecture for healthcare providers is considered a rather tough choice. However, the most significant reason for upgrading data management strategies and architecture is for provider organizations to be well equipped for healthcare standards of the future. Noticeable healthcare big trends such as increased concentration on the prevention and wellness versus treatment, evolving compliance needs and regulatory accountability, and the shift towards value-oriented care are making solutions that leverage analytics, mobile platforms and artificial intelligence a necessity (Betances, Isabel & Huerta, 2012).
The article highlights on the upcoming needs for healthcare data management and future-evidence data architecture. At the center of a data strategy is healthcare data management which captures, stores, changes, evaluates, and accesses all the information available to an organization (Gates, 2007). The article also goes on to identify a few challenges related to modernizing data architecture such as it provides unclear vision for future information applications and sources, which is the outcome of a lack of organizational data strategy (Mogli, 2011). Some of the upcoming technologies and data management instruments in the healthcare industry have been identified as Big Data solutions, Data Lake, and Hybrid Storage (Schneider, 2011). Data management is generally considered to be an underinvested and under-planned business option within the full scale of changes covering healthcare digitalization.
The article discusses the next-generation data management architecture which will allow for the industry to maintain a competitive edge and enable it join all the content into one, all-inclusive information platform that acts as a joined source of truth (Frost & Sullivan, 2018). It concludes by discussing the future of data management in the healthcare industry where future priorities will focus on projecting analytics, ever-present healthcare services, and meticulous medicine. Presently, healthcare providers are at the phase of recognizing that information can actually be an asset, similar to any other fiscal or physical asset, to the organization (BI, 2018).
A reflection of the two articles
The two articles presented have talked about the presence of biometrics in the healthcare industry, but have focused on two distinct matters. The first article has provided information and statistics about the current trends and important developments in the biometrics sector, while the second one has concentrated more on data architecture and management in relation to biometrics in the healthcare industry. Unlike in the second article, the first has also indicated the future of biometric in years to come. The Frost & Sullivan article has discussed the future but more on the data management next generation architecture. Although both reports are correct, they are conflicting in that they do not discuss the same issue.
The main barriers that are rather evident from the two articles include getting the equilibrium correct between security, privacy, and convenience, and providing certification and principles of biometrics use for digital contracts (Das, 2014). With regards to data management and architecture, getting the right individuals from diverse departments to consent to such management and reporting objectives or spend time together to come up with a plan, is quite a difficult task. That is why provision of data is fraught with irregularities in business rules, terms, and industry (Brown, 2010). Notably, biometric technology, particularly in healthcare, holds great possibility and promise to enhance patient wellbeing and protection.
Today, the architecture of a majority of biometric resolutions is incapable of scaling at a business level because it can only control a division of patients. Biometric systems must, therefore, be able to determine the limited identifiers in each of the schemes inside the delivery system, with the inclusion of medical groups, associated post-acute facilities, outpatient clinics, and aligned hospitals (Zuniga, Win & Susilo, 2010). Large scale deployment challenges are another barrier that is experienced by healthcare in terms of biometrics. A number of solutions such as iris scanners and palm vein usually require highly specialized, sole hardware. Moreover, user unease linked to invasive sensors is quite common since fingerprint, iris and palm scanners require patients to come into contact or interact with the hardware, inducing hygiene concerns or fear of physical injury (Pato & Millet, 2010).
In conclusion, the Biometrics Institute states that the increasing discussion of privacy or data safeguarding concerns observed in the last few years has reinforced the significance of an autonomous organization able to encourage the responsible utilization of biometrics (Mackenzie, 2011). The Institute together with its members has immense forethought to developing an autonomous multi-stakeholder community that now merges different key stakeholders discussing and creating effective practices. It also fills in gaps where principles, policies, and laws usually cannot keep up with technological development and consumer adoption (Trader, 2012). On the other hand, Frost & Sullivan believe that healthcare Information Technology has the chance to tap into the patient centricity shift through creation of resolutions that do not require selling to money-making businesses (Jain, 2007). They can establish shared worth for stakeholders via services that are beneficial to both providers and patients.
Benefits and limitations of biometrics in healthcare
Benefits
The security of hospital data is vital in the healthcare industry, especially as high-profile hacks are on the rise. Medical information is already a target, threatening both providers and patients. Biometrics is beneficial in that it helps shut down medical reports, making it hard for strangers to access the information from a computer (Snyder, 2010). This technology brings various forms of solutions which are almost impossible to hack. Conventional security systems tend to mess up frequently costing individuals a huge amount of time, resources, and cash. Biometrics works with a person’s physical characteristics such as palm vein, retina, and fingerprints to serve them correctly anytime, anywhere (Tripathi, 2011). The use of biometrics is quite convenient in that one does not need to note down, or remember anything and their credentials are always with them.
Unlike other solutions, biometrics tends to be extremely scalable solutions for all kinds of projects. These technologies are utilized in a majority of workforce management, banking security schemes, healthcare institutions, and government ventures (Betances, Isabel & Huerta, 2012). In other verification techniques, anyone can use someone else’s security number of password to hack their personal data, which is extremely risky. However, with biometric security, direct interactions are required to log in or pass the protection system which allows 100% responsibility for all activities (Gates, 2007). From what has so far been observed, biometric systems are considered the most flexible security resolution. A person has their own security credentials and need not bother recalling difficult numbers, symbols, and alphabets for creating complicated passwords.
Another benefit of biometrics in healthcare is that it is very time conserving, unlike with conventional techniques. These technologies are also trustworthy particularly with the young generations (Mogli, 2011). Biometrics provides people with the best ROI compared to other protection schemes. It is possible to keep record of thousands of workers of large organizations such as hospitals with just a single biometric tool and software. Corporations, government and healthcare institutions are taking on biometric systems to get precise information which saves money and time. With little finance, any organization can follow their workers and minimize the additional expenses they are paying for years (Schneider, 2011).
Limitations
Contrary to the numerous benefits associated with the adoption of biometrics in the healthcare industry, there are a few limitations of this particular technology. For instance, while the overall cost of scheme preservation is lower, the original expense of introducing a biometric system is quite costly (Frost & Sullivan, 2018). Normally, healthcare institutes use fingerprint scanners as a way of accessing the electronic hospital records, which may be between US$200 and US$1,000, depending on the quality (BI, 2018). Regardless of their consistency, and as indicated, there are still concerns about accessibility and hygiene issues. If the scanning tool is shared and entails users positioning their eyes on sockets utilized by others, it could rapidly become unhygienic unless sanitized after each use. Where accessibility is concerned, iris scanning may be an issue for individuals with particular medical issues. For instance, a person suffering from diabetes can change the appearance of the eye with time, causing iris recognition in future an issue (Das, 2014).
Another limitation associated with the use of biometrics in healthcare is that reading precision may be obstructed by certain factors which can increase both fake acceptance and rejection levels. Incorrect readings in the course of enrollment or in the course of overall utilization may be attributed to the inaccurate placement of the biometric mark or environmental factors, such as humidity, dirt, or temperature (Brown, 2010). At times, voice recognition may be required to access private patient information, and it is a technology that has gained popularity in the recent past. However, the techniques to defeat this particular technology are also advanced. It is now easy to replicate any of the biometric alternatives where even a recording on an effective microphone could conquer cheaper systems (Zuniga, Win & Susilo, 2010).
Key trends and emerging strategies in healthcare
Following the deployment of biometrics in sports stadiums, amusement parks, and airports to check tickets, the healthcare industry could influence the same approaches as consumers become more familiar with utilizing the methods together with their smart phones (Pato & Millett, 2010). Any possibility to implement upcoming technologies that makes it easy for hospitals, payers, practices, and other healthcare institutions to recognize individual patients and match individuals’ medical information to that person, holds much promise. Notably, the utilization of biometric technology has rapidly risen across various industries and applications. It is currently the preferred alternative for authentications and identity (Mackenzie, 2011). In the past, government projects made use of the technology for verification and distinctiveness. However, biometrics use in commercial applications has grown.
Globalization has been identified as the key factor driving the adoption of biometric technologies, and this trend is anticipated to prompt the development of multimodal biometric systems. Biometrics is anticipated to enable purchasing pattern recognition, while captured information can be utilized for applications such as keeping records and payments of health parameters (Trader, 2012). Given increased identity theft and fraudulent activities, medical insurance organizations and hospitals have made an effort to set up biometrics for managing hospital staff’s physical access to sensitive regions and patient identification. Additionally closed-circuit TV technology is anticipated to work in tandem with face biometrics to counter fraud, particularly in fiscal institutions (Jain, 2007). The union of protection for reasonable and physical access management via the use of smart cards with rooted fingerprint biometrics technology is a huge market force that is expected to turn into the model in many organizations for identity management and safety credential.
Where biometrics in healthcare industry will be in 2020/ the future of biometrics in healthcare
According to recent research, the worldwide healthcare biometrics market is anticipated to reach an estimated US$5.6 billion at a compound yearly growth rate (CAGR) of 22.3% by 2022 (Snyder, 2010). As observed, the worldwide healthcare biometrics market is rapidly growing because of increased awareness about the protection and safety of patients, as well as increased utilization of biometrics tools in healthcare industry applications. Additionally, the growing healthcare infrastructure is directing market development for healthcare biometrics tools. The overall market for biometrics has been quite reserved (Tripathi, 2011). It is expected that for private healthcare provision, America will dominate the biometrics market and will gain from the growth of the technologies’ platforms that encourage multimodal biometric identity (Betances, Isabel & Huerta, 2012).
Notably, the anticipated increase will be led by biometric technology that is inherently suitable for a majority of applications within the healthcare sector. Solutions able to meet both usability and control demands will be a driving force to increased adoption for both private and public healthcare services (Gates, 2007). The question now remains on how biometric authentication will look like by 2020. It is anticipated that biometrics technologies will be the main means of identity verification. By 2020, these technologies will be leveraged by the healthcare and banking industries and will be a huge contributor to the industries’ growth.
Presently, when individuals think of biometrics, fingerprint scanning is the very first thing that comes to memory. However, by 2020, other forms of biological feature-oriented verification will possibly be the norm (Mogli, 2011). Conventional biometric techniques such as iris and fingerprint scanning will be combined with evolving techniques like gauging pulse and respiration, cognitive vetting, and assessment of responses to particular stimuli (Schneider, 2011). These techniques may prove more efficient compared to present ones, but will also raise significant privacy questions that will need to be taken into consideration.
Biometrics technologies is also said to be present in many developing nations by 2020, where emergency service responders and paramedics will be able to identify patients with fingerprints, saving time and minimizing mistakes (Frost & Sullivan, 2018). The system will also provide access to national electronic health reports, assisting healthcare institutes to prepare for patients prior to their arrival. Presently, a few developing nations such as Singapore are already experimenting with drones equipped with defibrillators that heart attack victims can call for with an app (BI, 2018). Introduction of biometrics technologies will greatly improve data sharing efforts and communication between patients and healthcare providers.
All over the globe, organizations, military establishments, and governments are adopting biometric technologies for identification in different verticals for various objectives. Biometrics is generally utilized in public protection to increase security, get rid of identify fraud, and avoid replication of booking entries. Biometric utilizes physiological features of a person for patient identification, eliminating the need to provide social security numbers, dates of birth or insurance cards for identification in the course of registration. As discussed in the paper, there are various advantages and disadvantages associated with biometrics, particularly in the healthcare industry. For instance, it is beneficial in saving time and making it difficult for hackers to take advantage of a weak data base system to gain access to personal patient information.
Generally, the utilization of biometrics in the healthcare industry has greatly influence the security of hospital data and continuously affects the manner in which healthcare is provided. Despite the fact that the limitations of biometrics have been quite obvious, for instance privacy issues and iris failure recognition due to illnesses such as diabetes, extra applications and future uses of biometrics may actually become a significant part of healthcare evolution.
References
Betances, G., Isabel, R., & Huerta, M.K. (2012). ‘A review of automatic patient identification options for public health centers with restricted budgets.’ OJPHI , 4(1).
Biometrics Institute. (BI). (2018). Biometrics institute industry trend tracker 2018: Summary of key findings . London: Biometrics Institute Limited.
Brown, S.A. (2010). Ethical issues and security monitoring trends in global healthcare: Technological advancements . Hershey, P.A.: IGI Global.
Das, R. (2014). Biometric technology: Authentication, biocryptography, and cloud-based architecture . Westport, C.T.:CRC Press.
Frost & Sullivan. (2018). Data management, data warehousing and data lakes: Key trends and emerging strategies amongst healthcare providers .
Gates, M.A. (2007). ‘Biometrics and the passwords.’ For the Record , Vol. 19, No. 116. Pp. 14.
Jain, A.K. (2007). ‘Technology: Biometric recognition.’ Nature , 449.
Mackenzie, K. (2011). ‘Biometric palm reading: The future of patient identification?’ Health Leaders Media .
Mogli, G.D. (Dr.). (2011). ‘Role of biometrics in healthcare privacy and security management system.’ Journal of Bio-Medical Informatics , 2(4). Pp. 156 – 165.
Pato, J.N., & Millett, L.I. (2010). Biometric recognition: Challenges and opportunities . Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Schneider, J.K. (2011). ‘ Positive outcomes implementing biometrics in multiple healthcare applications .’ Retrieved on 14 December, 2018 from http://www.ultra-scan.com/Portals/16/PositiveOutcomes.pdf
Snyder, M.L. (2010). ‘Patient misidentifications caused by errors in standard bar code technology.’ Clinical Chemistry , 56(10). Pp. 1554 – 1560.
Trader, J. (2012). ‘Biometric patient id technology: Is it the future of patient access?’ Insightful Coverage of Healthcare Innovation .
Tripathi, P.K. (2011). ‘A comparative study of biometric technologies with reference to human interface.’ International Journal of Computer Applications , 14(5). Pp. 10 – 15.
Zuniga, A.E., Win, K.T., & Susilo, W. (2010). ‘Biometrics for electronic health records.’ Journal of Medical Systems , 34(5).
