AMA and NSW Privacy Commissioner Warn on E-Health
A thorough public debate and greater examination of the ramifications of electronic health records is needed urgently, said the Chair of the AMA's Unique Health Identifiers policy discussion group, Dr Sandra Hacker, at today's AMA National Conference.
Dr Hacker said that while there were many benefits to be gained from electronic health, privacy issues were paramount and she felt that the Federal Government was not taking the privacy issue seriously enough.
"The current private sector privacy legislation before the House of Representatives, is not sufficient to protect patients under a unique health identifier (UHI) system," Dr Hacker said.
"The legislation fails to provide for adequate or effective sanctions if privacy is breached and there must be the capacity for audit trails of UHI use.
"While the Federal Government pushes hard to implement electronic health in this country, the medical profession is working as hard to ensure that the system is safe and reliable.
"The AMA supports better information links between doctors, hospitals and medical services. Some of the benefits of having a UHI include: being able to collate a comprehensive medical history; enhancing care management; and transferring medical details with ease.
"This can improve patient care and reduce medication mishaps, especially in emergencies.
"However, some of the disadvantages include the possibility of greater scrutiny of health services with the potential to limit such services and the ease with which massive amounts of data can be duplicated at the click of a button" Dr Hacker said.
A speaker at the policy discussion group, NSW Privacy Commissioner and President of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board, Mr Chris Puplick, said that until there were adequate evidence-based arguments for UHIs, the public should keep a close eye on the debate.
"Until we have a clear understanding and have the legislative parameters on who controls, has access to and permits the use of unique health identifiers, patient privacy will remain somewhat compromised," Mr Puplick said.
"There are benefits and disadvantages to having a UHI, but let's get it right the first time to ensure no one is the unwilling victim of an 'electronic disaster'.
"The Australian public is generally overly trusting and is prepared to give out personal information, believing that the information will be used appropriately. With e-health this mindset needs to change and the warning bells need to ring loudly.
"We must ensure that the greatest benefit to be gained from electronic health records and having a UHI is a meaningful improvement in patient outcomes.
"The success of such a system should not be based on the information outcomes for the Health Insurance Commission, epidemiologists or health insurance companies.
"Once Australia's privacy advocates sit comfortably with an e-health system, the general public may then feel a lot more comfortably in the knowledge that e-health is the way to go," Mr Puplick said.