Feeds

NHS England tells MPs: 'The state isn't doing dastardly things with GP medical records'

Exec backs fudged care.data that will 'save' health service

Securing Web Applications Made Simple and Scalable

NHS England's bosses and the government's health minister came under fire from MPs on Tuesday afternoon over the fudged and delayed plan to store patients' GP-held medical records with other data kept by hospitals in a centralised database.

Tim Kelsey, the health service's patients and information national director, admitted to Parliament's health select committee that the poorly communicated care.data campaign had led to "confusion, suspicion and a level of anxiety" that he needed to put a stop to. Given the UK government's previous database fiascos, it's clear why Brits were so concerned.

The result was to pause the planned grab of GP medical records in England for six months. Kelsey agreed that patients deserved more assurance about the legal safeguards he insisted were already in place in the Health and Care Act 2012.

"I'm not sure we have made the case for the benefits of this," he said. "This is not a PR exercise, nor is it a stunt ... it is about the future of the NHS."

Tim Kelsey: If 90 per cent of patients opt out of care.data, we won't have an NHS.

When pressed, Kelsey insisted that, where patients had opted out of the controversial scheme, "no clinical data flows from your practice". That's a message he said had "got a bit lost" during the piss-poor handling of the leaflet drop that NHS England had carelessly bundled with junk mail.

Kelsey told the assembled politicos that, over the course of the next six months, NHS England would try to bring an end to concerns about care.data by talking about legal safeguards, offering support for GPs specifically around how patients can opt out, and to "explain why this matters so much."

He said that it was simply not true that "the state is going to do dastardly things" with centrally held GP medical records. But MPs noted that Kelsey faced a tough job proving to the public that it won't happen, given the botched implementation of the system to date.

Later, during the hearing, Kelsey made what some critics may consider to be an outrageous claim. He said: "If 90 per cent opt out [of care.data], we won't have an NHS."

Incredibly, although the system was set to begin extracting data from GP surgeries in April, the government is yet to come up with a code of practice on issues such as confidentiality as required under the 2012 Health and Social Care Act.

The health select committee pressed undersecretary of state Dan Poulter, who seemed ill-equipped to respond in detail to specific questioning about the scheme, but who pointed out that the body created to deal with information-handling – the health and social care information centre (HSCIC) – was going through an "evolutionary" phase.

The reason: it had only been put in place 10 months ago. It meant that, when the minister was asked about newspaper reports that claimed NHS England had sold hospital records to insurers, Poulter was effectively able to say that it hadn't happened on the HSCIC's watch.

The organisation's director of information and data services, Max Jones – when directly asked about whether private information slurped by the care.data scheme would be shared with insurance firms – stumbled over the word "untrue".

He then claimed that there had been a "variety of misrepresentations of the facts". Jones claimed that the HSCIC would not approve to such data being shared with insurance companies in the way some privacy critics had feared.

NHS England's care.data boss Tim Kelsey grilled in Parliament on Tuesday

But MPs asked how such a promise could be enforced given the absence of a code of practice for the HSCIC, GPs and NHS England.

"A code of practice is being drawn up," Jones said. "Under the obligations of the [Health and Social Care] Act we have to consult widely on that proposal."

He was unable to say publicly when the code of practice would be published, however.

Privacy concerns have been raised over HSCIC's sharing of pseudonymised medical data with companies in the outside world, specifically just how anonymous said data is when it leaves the database; Jones told the panel information extracted from patients' records is a "critical tool" for HSCIC. He said if scattered pieces of such data could be assembled, like a jigsaw, to identify a specific individual, for example, then the firm responsible would face a fine of up to £500,000 from the Information Commissioner's Office.

The company would also be told it had breached the terms of contract laid out by the HSCIC. But some MPs dismissed Jones by arguing that such sanctions were small change to big pharma and insurance corporations eager to get hold of Britain's medical charts.

Earlier in the hearing, Sharmila Nebhrajani, the boss of Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC), told MPs that GP medical records were "a really valuable asset" but said that the care.data scheme had been "stymied by its communication".

"There are some very big unknowns in the execution of the database," she added. And said that the public needed confidence in understanding how the data would be used.

Privacy campaigner Phil Booth of Medconfidential told MPs that there remained a huge problem with the system that the government was trying to lump on patients in England. He said:

We have never denied the research benefits ... it must be trustworthy ... we would like to see all data flows in the NHS ... to be consensual, safe and transparent.

But Booth said, to make that happen, required "a fundamental re-engineering" of the entire system. ®

Application security programs and practises

More from The Register

next story
ONE EMAIL costs mining company $300 MEEELION
Environmental activist walks free after hoax sent share price over a cliff
HP, Microsoft prove it again: Big Business doesn't create jobs
SMEs get lip service - what they need is dinner at the Club
Arrr: Freetard-bothering Digital Economy Act tied up, thrown in the hold
Ministry of Fun confirms: Yes, we're busy doing nothing
Help yourself to anyone's photos FOR FREE, suggests UK.gov
Copyright law reforms will keep m'learned friends busy
Apple smacked with privacy sueball over Location Services
Class action launched on behalf of 100 million iPhone owners
US judge: YES, cops or feds so can slurp an ENTIRE Gmail account
Crooks don't have folders labelled 'drug records', opines NY beak
UK government officially adopts Open Document Format
Microsoft insurgency fails, earns snarky remark from UK digital services head
You! Pirate! Stop pirating, or we shall admonish you politely. Repeatedly, if necessary
And we shall go about telling people you smell. No, not really
prev story

Whitepapers

Top three mobile application threats
Prevent sensitive data leakage over insecure channels or stolen mobile devices.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Boost IT visibility and business value
How building a great service catalog relieves pressure points and demonstrates the value of IT service management.
Designing a Defense for Mobile Applications
Learn about the various considerations for defending mobile applications - from the application architecture itself to the myriad testing technologies.
Build a business case: developing custom apps
Learn how to maximize the value of custom applications by accelerating and simplifying their development.