It is this time, but under the colour they're all "chums", certainly not "chumps" as some appear.
Sensible Topic NHS Database - opt out or not?
- Thread starter Him Her
- Start date
It is this time, but under the colour they're all "chums", certainly not "chumps" as some appear.
It could be just apathy, but how long before you can just google someones medical record out of the cloud?
Anybody want any racing tips ?:Biggrin2:
I say this as an NHS admin worker, with legitimate access to patients' medical histories - but there is no generally accessible, central repository containing the records of all NHS patients (or even just NHS England). It would be possible, the NHS number would be an ideal tracking method, but the cancellation of NPfIT stopped the move to a shared electronic health record (EHR).
For what it's worth; I can see the records from our hospital trust and the GP data for patients in the area. Other trusts, might share data with one another if they have the same patient administration system (PAS). But this would be a local setup and not the norm.
However, I was always under the impression that data sent to HES and SUS were anonymised. This doesn't seem to be the case, and I wonder if it changed with the move to Payment by Results (PbR) in the mid 2000's or if the person that told me they were anonymised was mistaken.
Any company, insurance or otherwise, attempting to use partially anonymised health data (e.g. postcode, date of birth etc) supplied by care.data (or any other source) in an attempt to identify the person that health data belongs to is likely breaking the Data Protection Act; namely Principles 1, 2 and 6.
So, they might be caught, they would be fined (it might be worth it) but the data is still out there somewhere.
And with government/NHS collusion (not sure who's driving this) even that is unlikely to happen.
We lost it before we even knew about it, and laws are fine, but they don't stop anything, just maybe punish afterwards.
Once the cat is out of the proverbial bag, I'm not sure what happens to the data should someone be caught using it against the terms under which it was licensed. I hadn't considered that.
To be fair, all crime is punished retrospectively. To punish before the crime has been committed is reminiscent of a Philip K Dick short story.
The law changed a couple of years ago, partly because of preventable data security lapses which were the fault of an individual not following the company's data protection policies (loss of unsecured USB drives for example). The person responsible the data security breach can be fined and imprisoned.
You'd hope the "up to" £500,000 fine per breach would be enough of a deterrent for the company. Or am I just being naive?
You're not being naive, and it would certainly put me off.:Biggrin2:
But you have to know about it, then prove it, and then there's the "up to". The real deterrent may be the "per breach" and how it's defined.
E.g is a breach one record, or one database, to take extremes. Depending on that, it may be an "affordable" risk, or even an investment,
to an insurance, or drug company. Insurance premiums could be slowly increased for some individuals according to potential risk, or just declined.
They do that already, but the knowledge will allow more precision, and be difficult to prove.
I want my medical information on tap, to any medical person, for any medical reason, and my personal treatment.
That makes perfect sense to me, but there it should stop. There will be individual errors, we all make them, but widespread sale is another matter.
Time to check the earth lead on my foil lined cap again!:Biggrin2:
Maybe you just didn't run the numbers? Think bigger
Let's say 10 million records 'escape' to a sales operation, on a typical conversion rate of 1% and an average profit of £50 that would be £5,000,000 which makes the 'up to' fine a bit of a joke.Of course the demographic data etc. will probably make the conversion rate higher and they'll probably go for a higher value sale.
This isn't my area, and the annual NHS training focuses on responsibilities under DPA and FOI rather than what happens when it goes wrong, but I was under the impression a breach was per person, per event. e.g. someone selling the reason behind a celebrities recent attendance to hospital to a newspaper would count as one breach, where as the lost of a single USB drive that contained the entirety of several patients' medical histories would count as multiple breaches.Maybe you just didn't run the numbers? Think bigger
Of course the demographic data etc. will probably make the conversion rate higher and they'll probably go for a higher value sale.
I'd like to think it's clarified in the actual act, but the wiki article doesn't leave much confidence...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998#Complexity said:
Quite rightly, clinical staff would rather look after patients than fill forms and tick boxes. So certain admin staff - such as myself - need some access to your medical record.
Firemouth
Inactive User
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2006
- Messages
- 2,512
- Reaction score
- 351
I was not talking about how things are now. but how things were planned to be. selling personal NHS data was one things that was directly stated as an aim of the changes.
and IF it is implemented, any holder of an NHS smart card would have full access to all your health records.
I don't care if most are honest. there should still be a graduated access system based, on the necessity for information relating to your current stay or treatment.
The speed at which the government halted and then delayed the introduction of this system. makes the cynic in me think it just another way the Troys are using to sow mistrust, of the NHS, amongst the electorate.
leading eventually to its destruction.
because , lets face it, people who can't afford the treatment, should not get treated right?. it's a basic Tory mantra ever since the inception of the NHS.
Have you got a source for that, because this is from the horses mouth as it were:
http://systems.hscic.gov.uk/rasmartcards/strategy/outlineuse said:
As an NHS staff member, I'm supposed to stay politically neutral
After slogging through the references above, I'm getting bogged down in alphabet soup.
We'll never know the detail, or the potential gains to various interests, but if you zoom out with the benefit of hindsight, a few things are clear.
Private companies don't buy data unless they profit from it's use. The NHS will be paid a fraction of the potential value.
We know anonymisation is ineffective across multiple sources, one reason why this forum exists.
The sale, leak, or error, occurred before the in/out options existed, and then the default was "opt in".
The options were packaged to confuse, presenting an obvious benefit while concealing the "grubbier" side.
This reeks of politicians, not the NHS, but at the upper level, it's difficult to spot the join.
A somewhat cynical speculation then:-
"They" expected the sale or error, to slip under the radar, but were tipped off about the early stages of media attention.
The hastily contrived package was an attempt get permission, after the event, but before the story broke.
Where I have a choice with a default "opt in", someone will get a much greater benefit than I (just possibly) might.
An exception would be organ transplant donation, can't think of any others offhand.
Simple, but it works for me!
We'll never know the detail, or the potential gains to various interests, but if you zoom out with the benefit of hindsight, a few things are clear.
Private companies don't buy data unless they profit from it's use. The NHS will be paid a fraction of the potential value.
We know anonymisation is ineffective across multiple sources, one reason why this forum exists.
The sale, leak, or error, occurred before the in/out options existed, and then the default was "opt in".
The options were packaged to confuse, presenting an obvious benefit while concealing the "grubbier" side.
This reeks of politicians, not the NHS, but at the upper level, it's difficult to spot the join.
A somewhat cynical speculation then:-
"They" expected the sale or error, to slip under the radar, but were tipped off about the early stages of media attention.
The hastily contrived package was an attempt get permission, after the event, but before the story broke.
Where I have a choice with a default "opt in", someone will get a much greater benefit than I (just possibly) might.
An exception would be organ transplant donation, can't think of any others offhand.
Simple, but it works for me!
Currently reading through this: Sustaining Public Trust in Health Data - Health & Social Care Information Centre
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2006
- Messages
- 3,042
- Reaction score
- 4,059
The Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) and the Care.Data Programme is not the problem in my mind, but the fact that ATOS are providing the Software and Services really does give me feelings of mistrust.
ATOS have a proven track record of Incompetence, Inefficiency, Mendacity, Non-Compliance and Failure !! And of course a large number of the British Public have no Trust in them.
In case you can't guess that includes Me !!
ATOS have a proven track record of Incompetence, Inefficiency, Mendacity, Non-Compliance and Failure !! And of course a large number of the British Public have no Trust in them.
In case you can't guess that includes Me !!
So you can see why career politicians felt so comfortable with them.:Biggrin2:
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2006
- Messages
- 3,042
- Reaction score
- 4,059
Knowing what they want for themselves as career politicians must also be a trait of numerous civil servants in the departments awarding these contracts, because there can be no real rhyme or reason to the qualifying factors for gaining these contracts.
ATOS, well what can I say about their failures that hasn't already been said ? Plus they never paid any Corporation Tax despite profitting from Billions of pounds of these contracts.
G4S, debacles over the Olympics, huge errors with prisoner tagging, numerous escapes from prisoners to court service and they are also under investigation by the Serious Crime Office for embezzelment and overbilling for services to the government. And like ATOS, G4S also did not pay any Corporation Tax despite their Billion pounds contracts with the government.
Serco, another tagging and prisoners failure on a slightly smaller scale to G4S; and like G4S, Serco are also under investigation by the Serious Crime Office for embezzlement and overbilling for services to the government.
Capita, who have botched numerous local and national government contracts, including like ATOS the mismanagement of ESA and DLA assessments and they have come under fire about numerous housing benefits schemes they run for some local councils.
Then there are the Work Programme providers such as A4E, who actually had contracts suspended ! and are under investigation for Fraud, with several members of the company having already been found guilty. Ingeus Deloitte (who have just been bought out by American Company Providence Service Corporation) who have been the subject of numerous complaints about non-compliance.
And the list goes on !!!
Yet, despite all this occurring they continue to be awarded new multi Billion Pound Contracts !!!
Surely something underhand must be occurring for this to be the case. In my opinion, the problems must not only be occurring in these Companies but also in the Civil Service Departments awarding these contracts.
It's all a cosy little set up at the top, and has been for many years. Two main parties, little difference between them, broad agreement about a range of issues,
both often at complete odds with the electorate. No doubt, after all the apparent anger displayed at PMQs etc, they all drink together, and pat (or scratch) each
others backs, the charade completed for another day. The cannon fodder, in the unsafe seats, come and go, the top end don't really care. It's just an act!
Then we have the real power group, the unelected senior civil servants, rather like the EU inner circle. They're paid more than MPs, have secure jobs,
and career spans overlapping many governments. Consequently, whenever a new government is elected from primarily the "old" politicians, out come the
"black books", because they know where the bodies are buried, should the need arise. No one climbs up the greasy political pole and gets to the top with
clean hands, leaving no fingerprints on the way. These civil servants are largely faceless, and unsackable because they protect each other just like most
organizations. A quiet word with an MP or minister who won't co-operate, or a whiff of something to a newspaper? No real secrets to Whitehall.
They also present options to ministers for government contracts in most areas not covered by EU competition rules (a competing civil service, no less).
If I was a minister who favoured a particular company for personal benefit, I might be tempted to share that benefit, in some way, with the civil servant,
if he would include my company in the options, or even recommend it. As a bonus, his acceptance would negate any secret he might hold about me.
Far fetched, or everyday business? No idea really, but the alternative is serial incompetence over many years, difficult to believe.
Politicians aren't the only ones in panic mode about UKIP, the civil service mandarins haven't had time to compile a black book safety net.:Biggrin2:
