Understanding Data Sharing in Glucose Monitoring: Privacy and Security Considerations

The landscape of diabetes management has undergone a remarkable transformation in recent years, driven by technological innovations that enable continuous, real-time monitoring of glucose levels. Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) collect interstitial glucose readings every 5 minutes, generating vast amounts of sensitive health data that flow between devices, applications, cloud platforms, and healthcare providers. While these advancements offer unprecedented opportunities for improved patient outcomes and personalized care, they also introduce complex challenges surrounding data privacy and security that demand careful consideration from patients, healthcare professionals, manufacturers, and policymakers alike.

As glucose monitoring systems become increasingly interconnected within the broader digital health ecosystem, understanding how personal health information is collected, stored, shared, and protected has never been more critical. This comprehensive guide explores the multifaceted privacy and security considerations inherent in modern glucose monitoring technology, examining regulatory frameworks, technical safeguards, emerging threats, and best practices that shape the responsible use of this life-changing technology.

The Critical Role of Data in Modern Glucose Monitoring

Continuous glucose monitors and the platforms and applications that communicate with CGMs help achieve better outcomes and can advance the understanding of diabetes. The data generated by these sophisticated devices serves as the foundation for informed clinical decision-making, enabling both patients and healthcare providers to identify patterns, predict dangerous glucose fluctuations, and adjust treatment protocols with precision that was impossible just a decade ago.

Real-Time Monitoring and Predictive Capabilities

Modern CGM systems provide continuous streams of glucose data that offer far more than simple point-in-time measurements. These devices track trends, calculate rates of change, and can predict impending hypoglycemic or hyperglycemic events before they occur. CGMs keep patients safe from harm from low blood sugars by alerting them when their glucose has fallen below a threshold, a feature particularly valuable for individuals experiencing hypoglycemia unawareness who have lost the ability to recognize warning signs of dangerous glucose drops.

The integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning into glucose monitoring platforms has further enhanced these predictive capabilities. Advanced algorithms analyze historical patterns alongside real-time data to provide personalized insights about how specific foods, activities, medications, and stress levels affect individual glucose responses. This level of granular, actionable intelligence empowers patients to make immediate adjustments to their diabetes management strategies throughout the day.

Enhanced Patient Engagement and Clinical Outcomes

The availability of comprehensive glucose data has fundamentally changed the patient-provider relationship in diabetes care. Rather than relying solely on periodic hemoglobin A1C tests and sporadic fingerstick measurements, healthcare professionals can now access detailed glucose profiles that reveal patterns across days, weeks, and months. This wealth of information enables more nuanced treatment adjustments and supports collaborative decision-making between patients and their care teams.

Studies conclude that the use of continuous glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes mellitus significantly reduces HbA1c compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose, demonstrating measurable improvements in glycemic control. Beyond clinical metrics, CGM technology promotes greater patient engagement by making glucose management more visible, understandable, and actionable in daily life.

Integration with Automated Insulin Delivery Systems

Perhaps the most transformative application of CGM data lies in its integration with automated insulin delivery systems, commonly known as artificial pancreas technology. CGMs integrated with pump therapy tighten blood glucose control, creating closed-loop systems that automatically adjust insulin delivery based on real-time glucose readings. These hybrid closed-loop systems represent a paradigm shift in diabetes management, reducing the cognitive burden on patients while improving time-in-range and reducing dangerous glucose excursions.

The data exchange between CGM sensors, insulin pumps, and control algorithms occurs continuously and must be both reliable and secure. Any disruption, corruption, or unauthorized access to this data stream could have immediate and potentially life-threatening consequences, underscoring the critical importance of robust security measures in these interconnected systems.

Understanding Data Flows in Glucose Monitoring Ecosystems

The modern glucose monitoring ecosystem involves complex data flows between multiple stakeholders and technological components. Understanding these pathways is essential for identifying potential privacy and security vulnerabilities and implementing appropriate safeguards.

Glucose monitoring data typically flows between several key parties, each with distinct roles and responsibilities:

Healthcare Providers and Clinical Teams: Physicians, endocrinologists, diabetes educators, and other healthcare professionals access glucose data to assess treatment efficacy, adjust medications, and provide clinical guidance. Data from diabetes devices and apps can provide crucial input to health care providers when they assess risk factors, review treatment plans, and assess patient well-being. This access enables more informed clinical decision-making but also creates responsibilities for secure data handling and appropriate use.

Family Members and Caregivers: Many CGM systems include features that allow designated family members or caregivers to remotely monitor glucose levels, particularly valuable for parents of children with diabetes or caregivers of elderly patients. While this sharing enhances safety and provides peace of mind, it also extends the circle of individuals with access to sensitive health information.

Device Manufacturers and Cloud Service Providers: CGM manufacturers typically operate cloud-based platforms that receive, store, and process glucose data from devices. These platforms enable data synchronization across multiple devices, provide analytics and reporting tools, and facilitate data sharing with healthcare providers. However, the same data are not protected when in the hands of a CGM manufacturer as they would be under traditional healthcare privacy regulations, creating a significant regulatory gap.

Third-Party Applications and Research Institutions: The glucose monitoring ecosystem increasingly includes third-party applications that integrate with CGM data to provide additional functionality, such as carbohydrate counting, exercise tracking, or medication reminders. Research institutions may also access aggregated or de-identified glucose data to advance scientific understanding of diabetes management. Each of these connections introduces additional considerations for data privacy and security.

Types of Data Collected and Shared

The scope of data generated by glucose monitoring systems extends well beyond simple glucose measurements. A comprehensive understanding of the data types involved is essential for assessing privacy risks:

Continuous Glucose Measurements: Time-stamped glucose readings collected at regular intervals, typically every 1-15 minutes, creating detailed profiles of glucose fluctuations throughout the day and night.
Insulin Dosing Information: For systems integrated with insulin pumps or smart pens, data includes basal rates, bolus doses, correction factors, and insulin-on-board calculations.
Carbohydrate and Nutritional Data: Many systems allow users to log food intake, carbohydrate counts, and meal timing to correlate dietary choices with glucose responses.
Physical Activity and Exercise Data: Integration with fitness trackers or manual logging captures information about exercise type, duration, and intensity, which significantly impacts glucose levels.
Medication and Treatment Information: Beyond insulin, systems may track other diabetes medications, supplements, and treatment adjustments.
Contextual and Behavioral Data: Some platforms collect information about sleep patterns, stress levels, illness, menstrual cycles, and other factors that influence glucose control.
Device and Technical Metadata: Information about device serial numbers, sensor lot numbers, calibration data, connectivity status, and system errors.
Personal Identifiers: Names, dates of birth, contact information, insurance details, and other personally identifiable information necessary for account management and healthcare coordination.

The aggregation of these diverse data types creates comprehensive digital profiles that reveal intimate details about individuals’ daily lives, health status, and behavioral patterns, making robust privacy protections essential.

Privacy Considerations in Glucose Monitoring

Patients’ physical security is also at risk if adequate cybersecurity measures are not taken, highlighting that privacy concerns in glucose monitoring extend beyond mere data confidentiality to encompass fundamental questions of patient autonomy, control, and safety.

Meaningful informed consent represents the cornerstone of ethical data sharing in healthcare. Patients must understand what data is being collected, how it will be used, who will have access to it, and what rights they retain over their information. However, the complexity of modern glucose monitoring ecosystems often makes truly informed consent challenging to achieve.

Data sharing from this equipment is regulated via Terms of Service and Privacy Policy documents, which patients must typically accept to use CGM systems and associated applications. These documents are often lengthy, written in technical or legal language, and may be updated periodically without explicit patient notification. Research suggests that few patients thoroughly read or fully understand these agreements, potentially consenting to data practices they would find objectionable if fully informed.

Effective informed consent in glucose monitoring should address several key elements: the specific types of data collected; the purposes for which data will be used (treatment, research, product improvement, marketing); the parties who will have access to data; the duration of data retention; patients’ rights to access, correct, or delete their data; and the procedures for withdrawing consent. Healthcare providers and device manufacturers share responsibility for ensuring patients have the information and support needed to make autonomous decisions about their data.

Data Ownership and Control

Who owns these and other data, how they are used, and how they are kept secure are open questions that remain largely unresolved in the current regulatory landscape. While patients generate glucose data through their bodies and devices, the legal ownership of that data often resides with device manufacturers or platform operators, creating tension between patient expectations and commercial realities.

This ambiguity has practical implications for patient control over their health information. Patients may find it difficult to export their complete data history in usable formats, transfer data between different platforms or healthcare providers, or ensure permanent deletion of their information when discontinuing a service. Some manufacturers impose restrictions on how patients can access or use their own data, particularly regarding integration with third-party applications or research projects not approved by the manufacturer.

Emerging regulatory frameworks increasingly recognize patient rights to data portability and control. The European Union’s GDPR, for instance, grants individuals the right to receive their personal data in a structured, commonly used format and to transmit that data to another controller. Similar principles are being incorporated into healthcare-specific regulations, though implementation remains inconsistent across jurisdictions and manufacturers.

Data Anonymization and De-Identification

When glucose monitoring data is used for research, quality improvement, or other secondary purposes, anonymization or de-identification techniques are often employed to protect patient privacy. However, the effectiveness of these techniques in the context of continuous, granular glucose data presents unique challenges.

Traditional de-identification approaches remove or obscure direct identifiers such as names, addresses, and medical record numbers. Yet glucose patterns themselves can be highly distinctive, potentially serving as biometric identifiers. The combination of glucose data with other information—such as timing patterns, geographic location data from mobile devices, or correlated activity data—may enable re-identification even when direct identifiers have been removed.

Pseudonymization is defined within GDPR as the processing of personal data in such a way that the data can no longer be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of additional information, offering a middle ground that maintains data utility for analysis while providing privacy protection. Effective pseudonymization requires that the linking information be kept separately and subject to technical and organizational measures preventing re-identification.

Third-Party Access and Commercial Use

The commercial value of health data has created incentives for companies to collect, analyze, and monetize glucose monitoring information in ways that may not align with patient expectations or interests. There are privacy issues since CGM manufacturers and their corresponding apps and platforms store patients’ health data and allow those data to be shared and analyzed, potentially including sharing with advertisers, data brokers, or other commercial entities.

Privacy policies may permit data sharing with third parties for purposes such as targeted advertising, product development, or sale to other companies. While such practices may be disclosed in terms of service agreements, patients often lack awareness of the extent of third-party access or meaningful ability to opt out while still using essential glucose monitoring services.

The integration of glucose monitoring data with broader digital health ecosystems and consumer technology platforms further complicates privacy considerations. When CGM data is shared with smartphone operating systems, fitness apps, or smart home devices, it may become subject to the privacy policies and data practices of those platforms, which typically offer less stringent protections than healthcare-specific regulations.

Security Threats and Vulnerabilities

Challenges related to data security, affordability, and awareness of CGM devices remain, with documented data breaches and vulnerabilities in digital health systems highlighting the importance of robust security measures. The connected nature of modern glucose monitoring systems creates multiple potential attack vectors that could compromise patient data or, more alarmingly, patient safety.

Cybersecurity Risks in Connected Medical Devices

Glucose monitoring systems rely on wireless communications between sensors, receivers, smartphones, and cloud servers, each representing a potential vulnerability. The sensitive data they generate must be securely transmitted to prevent unauthorized access, ensuring this security while maintaining seamless communication is a critical challenge as these systems become more interconnected.

Potential security threats include:

Unauthorized Access and Data Interception: Attackers could potentially intercept wireless communications between CGM components to access glucose data or other sensitive information. While modern systems employ encryption, vulnerabilities in implementation or outdated encryption standards could be exploited.

Device Tampering and Manipulation: More concerning than data theft is the possibility of attackers manipulating device functionality or data displays. Theoretical attacks could involve altering glucose readings displayed to patients or healthcare providers, potentially leading to inappropriate treatment decisions. For integrated insulin delivery systems, unauthorized access could theoretically enable manipulation of insulin dosing, creating immediate safety risks.

Cloud Platform Vulnerabilities: The cloud-based platforms that store and process glucose monitoring data represent attractive targets for cyberattacks due to the concentration of sensitive health information. Hospital network security firewalls can pose challenges if data from devices are sent to an intermediary cloud-based platform, and similar vulnerabilities exist in consumer-facing platforms.

Mobile Application Security: CGM systems increasingly rely on smartphone applications as primary interfaces for data display and management. These applications may contain security vulnerabilities, particularly if not regularly updated, and the smartphones themselves may be compromised through malware or other attacks.

Supply Chain Vulnerabilities: Security risks can be introduced during device manufacturing, software development, or distribution. Compromised components or malicious code inserted during production could create backdoors for later exploitation.

Data Breach Risks and Consequences

Healthcare data breaches have become increasingly common and costly. Out of those using IoT in healthcare, 89% have suffered an IoT-related security breach, demonstrating the widespread nature of security challenges in connected health devices. When glucose monitoring data is compromised, the consequences extend beyond privacy violations to include potential identity theft, insurance fraud, and discrimination.

Stolen glucose monitoring data could reveal diabetes diagnoses that individuals have not disclosed to employers, insurers, or others, potentially leading to discrimination in employment, insurance coverage, or other contexts. The detailed behavioral and lifestyle information captured by CGM systems could be misused for targeted scams, social engineering attacks, or other malicious purposes.

For healthcare providers and device manufacturers, data breaches carry significant financial and reputational costs. Beyond direct expenses for breach response, notification, and remediation, organizations face potential regulatory penalties, litigation, and loss of patient trust that can have lasting business impacts.

Insider Threats and Unauthorized Access

Nearly half of all healthcare breaches are caused by insiders and the average time to detect a breach is 236 days, highlighting that security threats come not only from external attackers but also from individuals with legitimate access to systems. Healthcare employees, contractors, or others with authorized access may intentionally or inadvertently compromise patient data through curiosity, malice, negligence, or social engineering.

Effective security programs must address insider threats through access controls that limit data access to only what is necessary for job functions, monitoring and auditing of data access patterns to detect suspicious behavior, training and awareness programs to help staff recognize and avoid security risks, and clear policies and consequences for unauthorized data access.

Regulatory Frameworks Governing Glucose Monitoring Data

The regulatory landscape for glucose monitoring data privacy and security is complex, involving multiple overlapping frameworks that vary by jurisdiction and the specific entities handling the data.

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act requires healthcare organizations to safeguard the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of electronic protected health information. HIPAA establishes comprehensive standards for protecting patient health information in the United States, but its application to glucose monitoring data depends on who is handling the information.

HIPAA applies to “covered entities”—healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses—and their “business associates” who handle protected health information (PHI) on their behalf. When glucose monitoring data is held by healthcare providers or transmitted to them for treatment purposes, it is protected under HIPAA’s Privacy Rule, Security Rule, and Breach Notification Rule.

However, the same data are not protected when in the hands of a CGM manufacturer unless that manufacturer qualifies as a business associate of a covered entity. This creates a significant regulatory gap: glucose data collected directly by device manufacturers and stored on their platforms may not be subject to HIPAA protections, even though it contains sensitive health information.

Under the HIPAA Security Rule, organizations must implement technical safeguards, including a mechanism to encrypt and decrypt ePHI when it is stored or transmitted. While encryption is technically “addressable” rather than absolutely required under HIPAA, organizations must conduct risk assessments and implement encryption or equivalent alternative measures, making encryption effectively mandatory in most circumstances.

HIPAA’s Breach Notification Rule requires covered entities to notify affected individuals, the Department of Health and Human Services, and in some cases the media when breaches of unsecured PHI occur. Breaches that impact fewer than 500 individuals must be reported to impacted individuals within 60 days of discovery, while breaches affecting 500 or more individuals must be reported to HHS, the media, and the impacted individuals within 60 days.

The General Data Protection Regulation came into effect in 2018, and its primary purpose is to create one coherent data protection framework across the EU, applying to every company that collects personal data from EU data subjects, regardless of where the company is located. This extraterritorial reach means that glucose monitoring device manufacturers and platform operators serving European patients must comply with GDPR requirements even if headquartered outside the EU.

GDPR provides broader protections than HIPAA in several respects. GDPR requires data protection by design and by default, which means that every organization that deals with personal data must consider these data protection principles while designing any new product or service. This principle requires that privacy considerations be integrated into glucose monitoring systems from the earliest stages of development rather than added as an afterthought.

Key GDPR requirements relevant to glucose monitoring include:

Lawful Basis for Processing: Organizations must establish a legal basis for collecting and processing personal data, typically consent, contractual necessity, or legitimate interests. For sensitive health data like glucose measurements, explicit consent is generally required.

Data Subject Rights: GDPR grants individuals extensive rights over their personal data, including rights to access, rectification, erasure (“right to be forgotten”), data portability, and restriction of processing. Glucose monitoring platforms must provide mechanisms for patients to exercise these rights.

Breach Notification: GDPR Article 33 requires organizations to report breaches within 72 hours to supervisory authorities, a significantly shorter timeframe than HIPAA’s 60-day requirement.

Data Protection Impact Assessments: Organizations must conduct assessments of privacy risks for processing activities that are likely to result in high risks to individuals’ rights and freedoms, including most uses of health data.

The penalties for failure to comply with HIPAA can run up to $1.5 million per year, while GDPR’s fines can reach 4% of global revenue or up to €20 million, making compliance a significant business imperative for glucose monitoring companies operating internationally.

FDA Regulation of Medical Devices

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates glucose monitoring systems as medical devices under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The FDA cleared for marketing the first over-the-counter continuous glucose monitor, the Dexcom Stelo Glucose Biosensor System, intended for anyone 18 years and older who does not use insulin, representing a significant expansion of access to CGM technology.

The FDA issued guidance on post market management of cybersecurity in medical devices, emphasizing that security vulnerabilities present risks to the safety and effectiveness of medical devices. This guidance establishes expectations for manufacturers to address cybersecurity throughout the device lifecycle, including design, development, deployment, maintenance, and decommissioning.

FDA cybersecurity guidance addresses several key areas relevant to glucose monitoring systems: threat modeling and risk assessment during device development; security controls including encryption, authentication, and authorization; software updates and patch management to address discovered vulnerabilities; monitoring and response to cybersecurity threats; and coordination with security researchers and other stakeholders.

However, the FDA may not enforce the Act against certain platforms or products that only help users self-manage their disease without providing specific treatment suggestions, creating ambiguity about which glucose monitoring applications fall under FDA oversight and which may be regulated primarily as consumer products.

Emerging Regulatory Developments

HIPAA was written for healthcare providers and their business associates and was never meant to govern the data exhaust of a modern digital health ecosystem, including glucose readings and behavioral signals. Recognizing these gaps, policymakers are developing new regulatory frameworks specifically addressing consumer health technologies.

HIPAA protects medical records; HIPRA aims to protect the entire digital health footprint, and under the Health Information Privacy Reform Act, health apps, wearables, or connected devices may soon be held to the same privacy and security expectations as traditional healthcare entities. While not yet enacted, such legislation signals growing recognition that existing regulatory frameworks inadequately address the privacy and security challenges posed by consumer health technologies like glucose monitoring systems.

The introduction of the Medical Devices Regulation and In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation in the European Union has established updated rules for medical devices, including software, creating additional compliance requirements for glucose monitoring systems marketed in Europe.

Technical Security Measures for Glucose Monitoring Systems

Protecting glucose monitoring data requires implementing multiple layers of technical security controls that address data throughout its lifecycle—during collection, transmission, storage, use, and eventual deletion.

Encryption Technologies

Encryption is a critical component of data security in the healthcare industry, and by implementing robust encryption methods, healthcare organizations can enable secure data sharing. Encryption converts readable data into coded form that can only be decrypted with the appropriate key, protecting information even if intercepted or accessed by unauthorized parties.

Encryption in Transit: All communications are over secure channels and are encrypted using standard protocols, such as TLS, protecting data as it moves between CGM sensors, smartphones, and cloud servers. Modern implementations should use current versions of Transport Layer Security (TLS 1.3 or later) with strong cipher suites to prevent interception or tampering during transmission.

Encryption at Rest: Data stored on devices, smartphones, or cloud servers should be encrypted using strong algorithms. Advanced encryption standards secure files by converting them into unreadable formats that require designated decryption keys. AES-256 encryption is widely considered the gold standard for protecting stored health data.

End-to-End Encryption: End-to-end and edge encryption secure data from connected devices like insulin pumps and wearable monitors while maintaining performance. This approach ensures that data remains encrypted throughout its journey from sensor to final destination, with decryption keys held only by authorized parties.

Emerging Encryption Technologies: Privacy-first analytics with homomorphic encryption enables encrypted data analysis for research and operations without exposing patient information. This advanced technique allows computations to be performed on encrypted data without decrypting it, enabling valuable research and quality improvement activities while maintaining strong privacy protections.

Authentication and Access Control

Ensuring that only authorized individuals can access glucose monitoring data requires robust authentication and access control mechanisms.

Multi-factor authentication provides an additional layer of verification, requiring credentials beyond a basic password. MFA typically combines something the user knows (password), something they have (smartphone or security token), and sometimes something they are (biometric authentication) to significantly reduce the risk of unauthorized access even if passwords are compromised.

Role-based access control assigns permissions based on job functions, limiting unnecessary exposure to patient information. In healthcare settings, RBAC ensures that physicians, nurses, administrative staff, and other personnel can access only the information necessary for their specific roles, implementing the principle of least privilege.

Security modules provide features like encryption, access control, and data logging to ensure proper handling of sensitive sensor data, creating comprehensive audit trails that document who accessed what information and when, supporting both security monitoring and regulatory compliance.

Secure Software Development and Maintenance

Security must be integrated throughout the software development lifecycle for glucose monitoring applications and device firmware.

Security by Design: Privacy and security considerations should be incorporated from the earliest stages of system design rather than added as afterthoughts. This includes threat modeling to identify potential vulnerabilities, secure coding practices to prevent common security flaws, and security testing throughout development.

Regular Updates and Patch Management: Software vulnerabilities are continuously discovered, making regular security updates essential. Glucose monitoring systems should include mechanisms for timely deployment of security patches, with careful attention to maintaining device functionality and user experience during updates.

Vulnerability Management: Organizations should establish processes for identifying, assessing, and remediating security vulnerabilities, including coordination with security researchers who may discover issues. Responsible disclosure programs that allow researchers to report vulnerabilities confidentially can help identify and fix security issues before they are exploited.

Network Security and Segmentation

Protecting the network infrastructure that supports glucose monitoring systems helps prevent unauthorized access and contain potential breaches.

The system involves a distributed architecture with CGM devices, display devices, cloud servers, and an analysis engine, with data classified by sensitivity and selectively transmitted through the architecture to control access to restricted data. This segmentation approach limits the potential impact of security breaches by ensuring that compromise of one system component doesn’t automatically provide access to all data.

Firewalls, intrusion detection systems, and network monitoring tools help identify and block suspicious activity. For healthcare organizations integrating CGM data into electronic health record systems, network security becomes particularly critical to prevent breaches that could affect broader patient populations.

Data Integrity and Validation

Beyond confidentiality, security measures must ensure that glucose monitoring data remains accurate and unaltered. Encryption helps ensure data remains accurate and unaltered, as any attempt to modify encrypted records without authorization corrupts the data, alerting administrators to tampering.

Digital signatures and checksums can verify that data has not been modified during transmission or storage. For integrated insulin delivery systems where data integrity directly impacts patient safety, these validation mechanisms are particularly critical.

Organizational and Administrative Safeguards

Technical security measures must be complemented by organizational policies, procedures, and practices that create a culture of privacy and security awareness.

Risk Assessment and Management

Under the HIPAA Security Rule, organizations must conduct regular risk assessments to ensure compliance with administrative, physical, and technical safeguards. These assessments should identify potential threats to glucose monitoring data, evaluate the likelihood and potential impact of those threats, and determine appropriate security measures to mitigate identified risks.

Risk assessments should be conducted regularly and whenever significant changes occur in technology, operations, or the threat landscape. The results should inform security investments and priorities, ensuring that resources are directed toward the most significant risks.

AI-driven tools streamline encryption updates, monitor threats, and ensure compliance with minimal manual intervention, helping organizations maintain security in the face of evolving threats and increasingly complex technology environments.

Policies and Procedures

Comprehensive written policies and procedures establish clear expectations for how glucose monitoring data should be handled, accessed, and protected. These should address data collection and retention; access controls and authentication requirements; encryption and security standards; incident response and breach notification; vendor management and business associate agreements; employee training and awareness; and compliance monitoring and auditing.

Policies must be regularly reviewed and updated to reflect changes in technology, regulations, and organizational practices. Importantly, policies are only effective if consistently implemented and enforced, requiring ongoing monitoring and accountability mechanisms.

Training and Awareness

Future research should investigate how to effectively educate and train health care professionals on data security and privacy to increase their awareness, as HCPs prioritize functionalities over security and privacy concerns when recommending these tools to patients. This observation highlights the need for comprehensive training programs that help healthcare professionals understand both the benefits and risks of glucose monitoring technologies.

Training should be provided to all individuals who handle glucose monitoring data, including healthcare providers, administrative staff, IT personnel, and device manufacturer employees. Topics should include recognizing and reporting security incidents; proper handling of patient data; password security and authentication; social engineering and phishing awareness; and regulatory requirements and organizational policies.

Patient education is equally important. Patients should receive clear, accessible information about privacy and security features of their glucose monitoring systems, steps they can take to protect their data, and how to recognize and report potential security issues.

Incident Response and Breach Management

Deploy systems for continuous security monitoring and anomaly detection to monitor data access patterns, generate alerts for unauthorized access, and track unusual behavior, while maintaining an incident response plan that enables rapid, coordinated response when security incidents occur.

Effective incident response plans should include procedures for detecting and reporting potential security incidents; assessing the scope and severity of incidents; containing and mitigating ongoing threats; investigating root causes; notifying affected individuals and regulators as required; and implementing corrective actions to prevent recurrence.

Organizations should conduct regular drills and tabletop exercises to test incident response capabilities and identify areas for improvement before actual incidents occur.

Vendor Management and Business Associate Agreements

Glucose monitoring ecosystems typically involve multiple vendors and service providers, each potentially having access to patient data. Organizations must carefully evaluate the security practices of vendors and establish clear contractual requirements for data protection.

Under HIPAA, business associate agreements must be established with any vendors who will handle protected health information, specifying permitted uses of data, security requirements, breach notification obligations, and liability provisions. Similar contractual protections should be established even when HIPAA doesn’t directly apply, ensuring that all parties in the data ecosystem maintain appropriate security standards.

Vendor security should be assessed before engagement and monitored on an ongoing basis through audits, security questionnaires, and review of security certifications and attestations.

The interoperability challenges and barriers in diabetes health care are widely recognized, and the data fragmentation evident in diabetes management highlights the urgent need for a regulated interoperability model. Standardized approaches to data sharing can enhance both utility and security of glucose monitoring information.

Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR)

For integration with EHR systems and health care settings, the proposal embraces the Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources standard, designed to ensure efficient data exchange across diverse health care platforms. FHIR provides a modern, standardized framework for exchanging healthcare information that can facilitate secure, controlled sharing of glucose monitoring data.

The adoption of a common data exchange standard like FHIR is essential and could integrate these tools into existing EHR systems, simplifying the work of health care providers by eliminating the need to interact with multiple proprietary systems and data formats.

FHIR-based approaches to glucose monitoring data exchange can incorporate robust security features including OAuth 2.0 for authorization, support for encryption and digital signatures, granular consent management, and audit logging of data access. Standardization also facilitates security by enabling consistent implementation of security controls across different systems and vendors.

Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)

Application programming interfaces facilitate controlled data exchange while maintaining strict authentication standards, enabling third-party applications to access glucose monitoring data in secure, standardized ways. Well-designed APIs can enhance innovation and patient choice while maintaining security through authentication requirements, rate limiting to prevent abuse, scoped permissions that limit access to only necessary data, and comprehensive logging of API access.

While some APIs, such as Dexcom, provide valuable solutions, they represent a rare exception in a landscape where the norm is limited real-time data access. Broader adoption of secure, standardized APIs could significantly enhance the glucose monitoring ecosystem while maintaining appropriate privacy and security protections.

Balancing Openness and Security

The diabetes community has a strong tradition of patient-driven innovation, with individuals and open-source communities developing tools to access and use their glucose monitoring data in ways not supported by manufacturers. These efforts have driven important innovations, including some that have been subsequently adopted by commercial products.

However, Terms of service and copyright law impact patient-driven innovation in open-source communities, creating tension between manufacturers’ desire to control their platforms and patients’ desire to access and use their own health data. Finding appropriate balance requires recognizing patients’ fundamental rights to their health information while maintaining necessary security controls and ensuring that third-party integrations don’t compromise safety or security.

Regulatory frameworks increasingly support data portability and patient access, potentially requiring manufacturers to provide secure mechanisms for patients to export their data or authorize third-party access through standardized APIs.

Best Practices for Patients and Healthcare Providers

While manufacturers and platform operators bear primary responsibility for implementing robust security measures, patients and healthcare providers also play important roles in protecting glucose monitoring data.

Patient Best Practices

Review Privacy Policies and Settings: Take time to understand what data is collected, how it’s used, and who has access. Review privacy settings in glucose monitoring applications and adjust them to match your comfort level and needs.

Use Strong Authentication: Enable multi-factor authentication on glucose monitoring accounts and use strong, unique passwords. Avoid sharing login credentials with others unless absolutely necessary.

Keep Software Updated: Install updates for glucose monitoring applications and device firmware promptly, as these often include important security fixes.

Secure Your Devices: Protect smartphones and other devices used to access glucose monitoring data with passwords or biometric authentication. Be cautious about installing applications from untrusted sources.

Be Selective About Data Sharing: Carefully consider before granting third-party applications access to your glucose monitoring data. Review what data they will access and how they will use it.

Monitor for Suspicious Activity: Regularly review your glucose monitoring accounts for unexpected access or changes. Report any suspicious activity to the device manufacturer and your healthcare provider.

Understand Your Rights: Familiarize yourself with your rights regarding access to, correction of, and deletion of your data. Don’t hesitate to exercise these rights when appropriate.

Healthcare Provider Best Practices

Evaluate Security Before Recommending Devices: Consider privacy and security features when recommending glucose monitoring systems to patients. Discuss these considerations as part

Table of Contents