�鶹Ů��

A proposed rule that would require the nation's most critical industries to more quickly report cyberattacks is raising the ire of the health care industry, which claims the new directives could actually hinder its response in a crisis. Why it matters: Cyberattacks have sent shockwaves across the health care industry, but regulators and providers don't agree on how to get a handle on the problem. (Reed, 7/8)

Palomar Health Medical Group recently told its patients that a wide range of their personal information may have been compromised when an “unauthorized actor” accessed “certain files” on its digital network. But, two months in, the North County medical provider said it still “is not able to identify the specific individuals and information that may have been impacted.” Palomar first detected the breach, said to have spared its hospitals in Escondido and Poway, on May 5, but indicated this week that its ongoing investigation has found that the unauthorized digital intruder first was inside its defenses on April 23 and the infiltration continued until May 5 when the medical group “identified suspicious activity on certain computer systems within its network.” (Sisson, 7/5)

Dozens of big nonprofits like Geisinger, Ascension, and Henry Ford are turning to investor-owned psychiatric hospital operators — particularly the two biggest, Acadia and Universal Health Services — to build new hospitals to manage the surging number of adolescents and adults experiencing mental health emergencies. These joint ventures are appealing because they can piggyback off the nonprofits’ strong local reputations while obscuring their involvement now that their own names have been tarnished by lawsuits and government settlements. (Bannow, 7/8)

Health insurance companies are concerned multimillion-dollar new gene therapies could break the $9.2 billion health insurance exchange risk-adjustment program. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services tinkered with the risk-adjustment system in an effort to better account for high costs, but insurers view the modifications as inadequate in the face of costly new treatments and caution that companies may respond by downgrading benefits and provider networks. (Tepper, 7/5)

Many academic hospitals develop in-house blood tests that doctors and patients rely on for the diagnosis of serious conditions, including cancer or Alzheimer’s disease. The FDA has not historically regulated these laboratory-developed tests, or “LDTs,” but this year issued a new rule that will phase in regulation. A trade association seeking to block the new rule has filed suit against the FDA in Texas, where federal judges have generally been hostile to the agency. The case will test whether the FDA has the statutory authority to regulate such tests as medical devices, the classification it’s used to assert jurisdiction over them. (Bogage, 7/5)

A looming anti-China biotechnology bill has spooked U.S. life sciences companies, according to a new report. (Wilkerson, 7/2)