Sensible Topic NHS Database - opt out or not?
- Thread starter Him Her
- Start date
@danforth, https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14156524/control.pdf makes more sense if you read The Summary Care Record and care.data.
Both written by the same doctor.
You have a Summary Care Record which might be used during treatment, this can be opted out of by the standard NHS form which has the effect of applying two codes to your medical record (9Ndo and 93C1). This don't seem too insidious but it could be.
Care.data is another database which is not used for your treatment but is accessible to lots of organisations and information will not be anonymous. Notice how we didn't get an opt-out form in the post for this one? HSCIC have a price list (as linked in the above site) for your data
. Using the care.data opt-out letter applies 9Nu0 and 9Nu4 to your record which will prevent the release of any data. I imagine insurance companies will be very interested in this one, piecing together family medical histories to come up with premiums. Everyone should opt-out of this one, it is of no benefit to you.
At reception or your doctor? I doubt either would recognise me at mine.
Remember to check the codes have been added, via the practice manager. If they get awkward then a Subject Access Request (SAR) is the way forward .
Both written by the same doctor.
You have a Summary Care Record which might be used during treatment, this can be opted out of by the standard NHS form which has the effect of applying two codes to your medical record (9Ndo and 93C1). This don't seem too insidious but it could be.
Care.data is another database which is not used for your treatment but is accessible to lots of organisations and information will not be anonymous. Notice how we didn't get an opt-out form in the post for this one? HSCIC have a price list (as linked in the above site) for your data
. Using the care.data opt-out letter applies 9Nu0 and 9Nu4 to your record which will prevent the release of any data. I imagine insurance companies will be very interested in this one, piecing together family medical histories to come up with premiums. Everyone should opt-out of this one, it is of no benefit to you.At reception or your doctor? I doubt either would recognise me at mine.
Remember to check the codes have been added, via the practice manager. If they get awkward then a Subject Access Request (SAR) is the way forward .
It might be worth mentioning WHY you should be concerned given the news item this morning suggesting NHS England will use the 6 month delay to 'further educate' people on the benefits.
Public sector has a poor record in IT Systems implementation. It's not that their systems are larger and more complex than private systems, the opposite in fact. There are a number of factors but one major one is a tendency to attempt some kind of 'big bang' approach whereas in the private sector implementation tends to be more modular. Creating successful complex systems is considerably easier if they are broken down into smaller, less complex, systems that can be integrated.
The NHS has a poor record of data security with reports suggesting up to 2000 patient records are compromised daily.
NHS admits new medical records database could pose privacy risk - Telegraph
Even the NHS' own Risk Assessment suggests that care.data could be open to abuse.
The so-called anonymisation is less than useless if other databases are similarly open to abuse - anyone who knows anything about databases knows how easy it is to take two databases, each containing NI number, and join the tables yielding name, address etc.
Public sector has a poor record in IT Systems implementation. It's not that their systems are larger and more complex than private systems, the opposite in fact. There are a number of factors but one major one is a tendency to attempt some kind of 'big bang' approach whereas in the private sector implementation tends to be more modular. Creating successful complex systems is considerably easier if they are broken down into smaller, less complex, systems that can be integrated.
The NHS has a poor record of data security with reports suggesting up to 2000 patient records are compromised daily.
NHS admits new medical records database could pose privacy risk - Telegraph
Even the NHS' own Risk Assessment suggests that care.data could be open to abuse.
The so-called anonymisation is less than useless if other databases are similarly open to abuse - anyone who knows anything about databases knows how easy it is to take two databases, each containing NI number, and join the tables yielding name, address etc.
More time for the BBC to brainwash people into believing that care.data is for their individual benefit. Count how many times you hear the phrase "Better data equals better care." over the next few months.
Here's NSCICs menu:
Code:
You don't have permission to view the code content. Log in or register now.I'm as confused as hell by all this which I guess is the main aim.
Different opt out letters,some missing necessary codes to opt out of everything.
Does the wording in the Generated fax cover me if I want to opt out of everything?
If not does anyone seen a letter that covers this?
Cheers
Cressi
My earlier post wasn't trying to suggest that general data sharing was a good idea, quite the reverse.
The only option form I've actually seen relates to automatic synchronization of GP and hospital records, to avoid using email and post.
That's the only aspect I am prepared to agree with, and that form has now been "withdrawn". Thinking back, maybe it was locally produced,
I didn't take much notice at the time, because it wasn't mine.
All we really want is automatic data sharing for medical reasons, and a "sod off" option for anything else, but I'm not optimistic.
I haven't had any official notification of any of this from the NHS, and it appears I'm not alone. The revised version will no doubt be
"repackaged" to address any concerns, but the original intent, whatever it was, will remain.
On the wider "big brother" aspect, that's the battle I think long lost, and this one is just a skirmish that will blow over with "reassurances".
Afaik, data sharing between unspecified government departments was allowed under the Data Protection Act, though I don't know how
the exact status of the NHS is defined. In any case the act has proved ineffective, expect for punitive measures after the event.
As more data is shared across systems, the more it's likely to leak. This time it was implied we had some control. Really?
The banks have a more focused security priority, and that's not working too well either.
It could be just apathy, but how long before you can just google someones medical record out of the cloud?
The only option form I've actually seen relates to automatic synchronization of GP and hospital records, to avoid using email and post.
That's the only aspect I am prepared to agree with, and that form has now been "withdrawn". Thinking back, maybe it was locally produced,
I didn't take much notice at the time, because it wasn't mine.
All we really want is automatic data sharing for medical reasons, and a "sod off" option for anything else, but I'm not optimistic.
I haven't had any official notification of any of this from the NHS, and it appears I'm not alone. The revised version will no doubt be
"repackaged" to address any concerns, but the original intent, whatever it was, will remain.
On the wider "big brother" aspect, that's the battle I think long lost, and this one is just a skirmish that will blow over with "reassurances".
Afaik, data sharing between unspecified government departments was allowed under the Data Protection Act, though I don't know how
the exact status of the NHS is defined. In any case the act has proved ineffective, expect for punitive measures after the event.
As more data is shared across systems, the more it's likely to leak. This time it was implied we had some control. Really?
The banks have a more focused security priority, and that's not working too well either.
It could be just apathy, but how long before you can just google someones medical record out of the cloud?
...but how long before you can just google someone's medical record out of the cloud?
Weeks rather than years I suspect!
Just tried my NI number...........ok so far.
killdeer
Inactive User
Totally horrified this morning to read in the Telegraph that the NHS has already sold the hospital records of all patients to insurers.:Angryfire
The insurers have already been using this info to increase the premiums of many people.
Hospital records of all NHS patients sold to insurers - Telegraph
The insurers have already been using this info to increase the premiums of many people.
Hospital records of all NHS patients sold to insurers - Telegraph
"The Department of Health said: "The rules changed last year so this would no longer be allowed. Information like this can only be accessed now if there is a clear benefit to improving health or health systems."
If you've been born in the last year then it's going to happen eventually.
If this report is true, it's already happened to the rest of us.
It may be "anonymised" or whatever, at source, but it looks like the final piece of the data jigsaw.
When they repackage the bolt on the stable door, the horse will still have done several laps round the field.
Ain't life, and it would appear predicted death, wonderful, when it seems everything is for sale, but then it always was!:Angryfire
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2006
- Messages
- 3,042
- Reaction score
- 4,059
Apparently the Opt Out period has been extended.........................Does that surprise anyone now they know ATOS are involved ?
Opting Out Details Here :: How to opt out | medConfidential
Opting Out Details Here :: How to opt out | medConfidential
Every month I order a repeat prescription using the "systemonline" ordering system. 2 days after placing the order I go to the surgery to pick up the paper prescription and the next time I pass a pharmacy I call in and get the pills. On the last 2 occasions I have used a Pharmacy (Weldricks) about 3 miles away from where I live. Prior to this I had been using Lloyds which is less than 1mile from home.
Today I used the "systemonline" and was requested to collect the prescription from Weldricks in 2 days time. I never opted into the EPS (electronic prescription service) neither was I given the opportunity to opt out of it.
I never gave Weldricks permission to contact my surgery or the surgery permission to nominate Weldricks.
In the past 3 years Weldricks has spread like a rash in my area, putting all the independents out of business. What motivates them? Would a request from an Insurance or drug company, get a favourable response?
All GP practices have been privatised and are now only motivated incentives.
Today I used the "systemonline" and was requested to collect the prescription from Weldricks in 2 days time. I never opted into the EPS (electronic prescription service) neither was I given the opportunity to opt out of it.
I never gave Weldricks permission to contact my surgery or the surgery permission to nominate Weldricks.
In the past 3 years Weldricks has spread like a rash in my area, putting all the independents out of business. What motivates them? Would a request from an Insurance or drug company, get a favourable response?
All GP practices have been privatised and are now only motivated incentives.
The motivation pre-dates the Pyramids, it's the increasing stealth and speed I object to!
Last edited by a moderator:
Firemouth
Inactive User
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2006
- Messages
- 2,512
- Reaction score
- 351
not until the grubby little info thieves are removed from the equation. and in my case the DNA thieves.
In principal it's vital we do it. It's the only way we can run the health service in what's laughingly called an "efficient" manner.
it's idiotic that a UK citizen taken into hospital, for what ever reason, has to explain his every medical need every time he visits.
personally I'm pig sick of doing it.
I'd take M to an appointment and spend half of it explaining the problem THEY said i had to take her in for. FFS
The other thing is, anyone with an NHS smart card, has total access to your/our info.
I think a higher level should be needed to access anything other than basics.
though I agree that's probably harder to do than tripe.
38 Degrees organised a mass op-out request, which i joined. hours after it was sent Health officials visited 38 Degrees to to "understand their concerns". and the whole thing was postponed the same day.
Last edited:
And that's where the problem arises. It's a question of defining the level of "need" in relation to the level of "access".
1)......I don't object to all my medical information being readily available, to anyone with a medical need, for my personal treatment.
2)......I do object to the same information, supposedly abridged or "anonymised" being sold to a third party for commercial reasons.
It looks like they only bothered to ask after the event, if the reports are correct. "Statistical data" is a smoke screen for people on the make.
So, front line staff should have the higher access level to all the medical detail, above that restriction should apply, but that conflicts with traditional
NHS hierarchy, particularly the "top end" who seem to be selling, or have already sold, the data. No surprise.
Firemouth
Inactive User
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2006
- Messages
- 2,512
- Reaction score
- 351
Thing is, it's not the NHS doing this, it's this government.
