E.U. Panel to Propose Tighter Data Protection

BERLIN — The European Commission’s advisory panel on data protection plans this week to urge governments in the European Union to treat the geographic location of cellphone users as personal data, deserving of the highest level of privacy protection.

The Article 29 Working Party, a panel of 27 national regulators, plans to adopt the opinion on Friday, according an E.U. official who declined to be named because he was not authorized to speak for the panel.

The panel, whose opinions are not binding, is adopting the statement in a so-called “written procedure” without holding a formal meeting. The current chairman of the group is the Dutch data protection chief, Jacob Kohnstamm.

The statement is unlikely to have an immediate influence on the collection of cellphone location data by smartphone makers like Apple, which is being investigated by several European countries for its practices.

Technology companies in the past have ignored the panel’s recommendations, including the length of time that search engines can retain data about users’ computers.

The controversy surrounding the geographic location of cellphone users came to the fore in April when researchers in the United States disclosed that Apple, the maker of the iPhone, appeared to be collecting information in a file on its phones. Apple, in a statement, attributed the data collection to a software glitch and said it never tracks users’ locations.

Google, the maker of the Android smartphone operating system, said it collects geographic data for a limited time but renders it anonymous before sending it to its servers for processing. Android users also must give prior consent before Google can track their locations.

In the wake of the disclosure by Apple, five E.U. countries — Germany, France, Britain, Ireland and Italy — said they would investigate whether Apple broke national laws.

The geographic location of cellphone users is becoming a lucrative bit of information as computing goes mobile and wireless advertisers increasingly target cellphone users with geographically relevant ads for restaurants and other attractions.

Europe’s existing body of data protection law was written in the early days of the mobile era and was last revised in 1995.

The European justice commissioner, Viviane Reding, is working to modernize data protection laws to address the privacy challenges raised by the mobile Internet, including the handling of data by social networks like Facebook, the treatment of personal data by offshore cloud computing centers and the geographic data of mobile phone users.

In a May 3 speech in Brussels, Ms. Reding criticized Apple for collecting location data on iPhone users. Mrs. Reding said she would push for more restrictive laws to ensure privacy was maintained in the Internet age.

She also criticized Sony for being slow to inform 77 million consumers that their personal data had been obtained by hackers.

“I am now planning to expand data protection legislation to other areas,” Mrs. Reding said in the speech. “Trust has to be reinstated now. It is essential that clients know what happens to their data. Those in charge have to take the relevant technical and organizational measures to guarantee protection against data loss or an unjustified access.”

The European Commission is expected to present its recommended overhaul of the European data protection directive by the fall. The European Parliament and Council of Ministers would take up the proposed revisions starting in 2012.

 

Energy Dept. Panel to Revise Standards for Gas Extraction

 

The administration hopes to avoid the safety and regulatory breakdowns that led to the Deepwater Horizon blowout a year ago as it oversees onshore drilling using hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu has asked the panel’s seven experts, to be led by John Deutch, a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and deputy defense secretary, to recommend within 90 days immediate steps to make fracking cleaner and safer.

The group will have an additional three months to come up with comprehensive safety and environmental policies for state and federal regulators who oversee gas drilling.

Mr. Chu said that he was acting at the direction of President Obama, who outlined a new energy strategy last month that calls for stepped-up domestic oil and gas production but also new rules to make the business safer.

Hydraulic fracturing involves the high-pressure injection of fluids into underground shale formations to break open natural gas pockets. The technique, which has been in limited use for decades, is expected to significantly increase recovery of domestic gas supplies and keep prices moderate for years.

But the practice also pours millions of gallons of dangerous chemicals into the ground and into wastewater treatment systems, which in some cases cannot remove all the potential toxins. There are also numerous documented cases in which fracking fluids leaked into aquifers and contaminated drinking water.

“America’s vast natural gas resources can generate many new jobs and provide significant environmental benefits,” Mr. Chu said in a statement late Thursday, “but we need to ensure we harness these resources safely.”

Within hours, House Republicans issued a press release denouncing the study as wasteful, duplicative and another example of red tape run amok. They said that fracking has been used safely for more than 60 years and that the Environmental Protection Agency already has sufficient authority to regulate it.

Mr. Deutch, a chemist, is a longtime professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and has served in a number of top government posts. He is a director of Cheniere Energy, which operates a major liquefied natural gas terminal in Louisiana and a number of gas pipelines.

Other members of the panel include Stephen Holditch, chairman of the department of petroleum engineering at Texas A&M University; Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund; Kathleen McGinty, an aide to Al Gore when he was a senator and a former secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection; and Susan Tierney, former assistant secretary of energy for policy and Massachusetts secretary of environmental affairs.

Also serving are Daniel Yergin, chairman of I. H. S. Cambridge Energy Research Associates and the author of the “The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power,” a history of oil exploration; and Mark Zoback, a professor of geophysics at Stanford.

 

Obama Panel to Curb Medicare Finds Foes in Both Parties

。

Mr. Obama wants to expand the power of the 15-member panel, which was created by the new health care law, to rein in Medicare costs.

But not only do Republicans and some Democrats oppose increasing the power of the board, they also want to eliminate it altogether. Opponents fear that the panel, known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board, would usurp Congressional spending power over one of the government’s most important and expensive social programs.

Under the law, spending cuts recommended by the presidentially appointed panel would take effect automatically unless Congress voted to block or change them. In general, federal courts could not review actions to carry out the board’s recommendations. The impact of the board’s decisions could be magnified because private insurers often use Medicare rates as a guide or a benchmark in paying doctors, hospitals and other providers.

Last week, in his speech on deficit reduction, Mr. Obama said he wanted to beef up the board’s cost-cutting powers in unspecified ways should the growth of Medicare spending exceed certain goals. Supporters say the board will be able to make tough decisions because it will be largely insulated from legislative politics.

Lawmakers do not agree. Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin and chairman of the House Budget Committee, called it “a rationing board” and said Congress should not “delegate Medicare decision-making to 15 people appointed by the president.” He said Mr. Obama’s proposal would allow the board to “impose more price controls and more limitations on providers, which will end up cutting services to seniors.”

Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican who introduced a bill last month to repeal the Medicare board, said the president’s proposal “punts difficult decisions on health spending to an unelected, unaccountable board of bureaucrats.”

Representative Allyson Y. Schwartz, a Pennsylvania Democrat prominent on health care issues, said: “It’s our constitutional duty, as members of Congress, to take responsibility for Medicare and not turn decisions over to a board. Abdicating this responsibility, whether to insurance companies or to an unelected commission, undermines our ability to represent our constituents, including seniors and the disabled.”

Ms. Schwartz signed up on Friday as co-sponsor of a bill to repeal the board.

The purpose of the panel, according to the health care law, is to reduce the rate of growth in Medicare spending per beneficiary. The law sets annual goals — “target growth rates” — for Medicare spending below the average of the last 15 years.

Board members will be subject to Senate confirmation — no easy feat in the current political climate. Terms are six years. Members can serve no more than two full consecutive terms. The White House has yet to submit any nominations for the board.

“Why have legislators?” asked Representative Pete Stark of California, the senior Democrat on the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health.

In some ways, Mr. Stark said, expanding the power of the board could be as bad as giving vouchers to Medicare beneficiaries to buy private insurance. “In theory at least, you could set the vouchers at an adequate level,” he said. “But, in its effort to limit the growth of Medicare spending, the board is likely to set inadequate payment rates for health care providers, which could endanger patient care.”

Representative Shelley Berkley, Democrat of Nevada, said she wanted to repeal the Medicare board. “I have great faith that this administration can put together a strong, independent and knowledgeable board,” Ms. Berkley said, but she said she had less confidence in future administrations.

Mark Parkinson, president of the American Health Care Association, which represents nursing homes, said his members disliked the board because it would allow Congress and the president to “subcontract out difficult decisions.”

Still, the idea of a more potent Medicare board could be a live option if the White House insisted on it in budget negotiations with Congress.

Mr. Obama said last week that he would “reduce wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments,” cut spending on prescription drugs and take other steps to save $500 billion in Medicare and Medicaid by 2023. “But if we’re wrong and Medicare costs rise faster than we expect,” he said, the Medicare board would have “the authority to make additional savings by further improving Medicare.”

The president’s proposal would set stricter goals for Medicare spending and establish some type of automatic cost-cutting device as an “enforcement mechanism,” but Mr. Obama did not say exactly how it would work.

Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, described the board as a backstop to “ensure that health costs are reduced.” The board might not have to take action if the president’s other proposals slow the growth of Medicare spending, she said.

The board grew out of proposals by Mr. Obama and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia.

“Medicare payment policy should be determined by experts, using evidence, not by the undue influence of special interests,” Mr. Rockefeller said.

AARP, the American Medical Association and the American Hospital Association voiced concern about the president’s latest proposal.

“Relying on arbitrary spending targets is not a good way to make health policy, especially when decisions may be left to the unelected and unaccountable,” said A. Barry Rand, chief executive of AARP, the lobby for older Americans.

Under the law, the board cannot make recommendations to “ration health care,” raise revenues or increase beneficiaries’ premiums, deductibles or co-payments. This increases the likelihood that the board will try to save money by trimming Medicare payments to health care providers.

 

Obama Panel to Curb Medicare Finds Foes in Both Parties

 

Mr. Obama wants to expand the power of the 15-member panel, which was created by the new health care law, to rein in Medicare costs.

But not only do Republicans and some Democrats oppose increasing the power of the board, they also want to eliminate it altogether. Opponents fear that the panel, known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board, would usurp Congressional spending power over one of the government’s most important and expensive social programs.

Under the law, spending cuts recommended by the presidentially appointed panel would take effect automatically unless Congress voted to block or change them. In general, federal courts could not review actions to carry out the board’s recommendations. The impact of the board’s decisions could be magnified because private insurers often use Medicare rates as a guide or a benchmark in paying doctors, hospitals and other providers.

Last week, in his speech on deficit reduction, Mr. Obama said he wanted to beef up the board’s cost-cutting powers in unspecified ways should the growth of Medicare spending exceed certain goals. Supporters say the board will be able to make tough decisions because it will be largely insulated from legislative politics.

Lawmakers do not agree. Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin and chairman of the House Budget Committee, called it “a rationing board” and said Congress should not “delegate Medicare decision-making to 15 people appointed by the president.” He said Mr. Obama’s proposal would allow the board to “impose more price controls and more limitations on providers, which will end up cutting services to seniors.”

Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican who introduced a bill last month to repeal the Medicare board, said the president’s proposal “punts difficult decisions on health spending to an unelected, unaccountable board of bureaucrats.”

Representative Allyson Y. Schwartz, a Pennsylvania Democrat prominent on health care issues, said: “It’s our constitutional duty, as members of Congress, to take responsibility for Medicare and not turn decisions over to a board. Abdicating this responsibility, whether to insurance companies or to an unelected commission, undermines our ability to represent our constituents, including seniors and the disabled.”

Ms. Schwartz signed up on Friday as co-sponsor of a bill to repeal the board.

The purpose of the panel, according to the health care law, is to reduce the rate of growth in Medicare spending per beneficiary. The law sets annual goals — “target growth rates” — for Medicare spending below the average of the last 15 years.

Board members will be subject to Senate confirmation — no easy feat in the current political climate. Terms are six years. Members can serve no more than two full consecutive terms. The White House has yet to submit any nominations for the board.

“Why have legislators?” asked Representative Pete Stark of California, the senior Democrat on the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health.

In some ways, Mr. Stark said, expanding the power of the board could be as bad as giving vouchers to Medicare beneficiaries to buy private insurance. “In theory at least, you could set the vouchers at an adequate level,” he said. “But, in its effort to limit the growth of Medicare spending, the board is likely to set inadequate payment rates for health care providers, which could endanger patient care.”

Representative Shelley Berkley, Democrat of Nevada, said she wanted to repeal the Medicare board. “I have great faith that this administration can put together a strong, independent and knowledgeable board,” Ms. Berkley said, but she said she had less confidence in future administrations.

Mark Parkinson, president of the American Health Care Association, which represents nursing homes, said his members disliked the board because it would allow Congress and the president to “subcontract out difficult decisions.”

Still, the idea of a more potent Medicare board could be a live option if the White House insisted on it in budget negotiations with Congress.

Mr. Obama said last week that he would “reduce wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments,” cut spending on prescription drugs and take other steps to save $500 billion in Medicare and Medicaid by 2023. “But if we’re wrong and Medicare costs rise faster than we expect,” he said, the Medicare board would have “the authority to make additional savings by further improving Medicare.”

The president’s proposal would set stricter goals for Medicare spending and establish some type of automatic cost-cutting device as an “enforcement mechanism,” but Mr. Obama did not say exactly how it would work.

Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, described the board as a backstop to “ensure that health costs are reduced.” The board might not have to take action if the president’s other proposals slow the growth of Medicare spending, she said.

The board grew out of proposals by Mr. Obama and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia.

“Medicare payment policy should be determined by experts, using evidence, not by the undue influence of special interests,” Mr. Rockefeller said.

AARP, the American Medical Association and the American Hospital Association voiced concern about the president’s latest proposal.

“Relying on arbitrary spending targets is not a good way to make health policy, especially when decisions may be left to the unelected and unaccountable,” said A. Barry Rand, chief executive of AARP, the lobby for older Americans.

Under the law, the board cannot make recommendations to “ration health care,” raise revenues or increase beneficiaries’ premiums, deductibles or co-payments. This increases the likelihood that the board will try to save money by trimming Medicare payments to health care providers.