Doctors selling medical records

[silvia saint]

Doctors selling medical records
By Jason Frenkel
25-05-2005
From: Herald Sun


DOCTORS are secretly selling confidential medical records to a marketing firm with links to the pharmaceutical industry.
GPs are being paid in gift vouchers or as little as $150 to hand over drug records of their patients.

Doctors do not need their patients' permission to cash in on their personal information, which includes their medical history but not their names.

The federal Privacy Commissioner has approved the deal between GPs and the Cam Group - one of the world's largest pharmaceutical promotions companies.

Cam collects the data from software firm Health Communications Network through its "medical director" program, used by 16,000 Australian GPs.

It then collates the information and sells it to multi-national drug companies.

About 200 GPs across Australia have already signed up for the cash.

The ruling that GPs can sell patients' records to a third party has sparked fears big drug companies will use the information to single out individuals with drug promotions.

Privacy Commissioner Karen Curtis said because a patient's name and address were kept secret, the information was "de-identified" and did not breach the Privacy Act.

But in an embarrassing contradiction, the watchdog last year warned the Federal Government that "de-identified" information did not guarantee a patient's anonymity.

"In the case of some illnesses, it is possible that an individual may be identifiable from the health information in their electronic health record," the commission argued.

"It has been noted elsewhere that de-identifying data does not guarantee that the result is anonymous. Even when information shared with secondary parties is de-identified, it is often far from anonymous."

In a further worry for patients, the Medical Director software program sometimes collects the patient records of GPs who have not signed up, without their consent.

But Ms Curtis accepted HCN's undertaking that it did not use data from GPs not in the scheme or pass it on to other companies.

Premier Steve Bracks warned just a week ago - after Kylie Minogue revealed she had cancer - that breaches of medical privacy would not be tolerated in Victoria.

"We have very strong laws, privacy laws, around medical records, about access to details, about treatment," he said.

"These are private matters between the clinician and the patient, and they are enshrined in laws as private matters."

Cam vice-president Steve Jones told the Herald Sun yesterday the company treated privacy issues very seriously. Cam was analysing doctors' prescribing habits to evaluate the success of drug company promotions to GPs, he said.

"The bottom line is that the information we obtain, it's actually impossible to identify any patient," Mr Jones said.

The Australian Consumers Association complained to the Privacy Commissioner about the controversial deal late last year, alleging that it broke privacy laws.

ACA spokeswoman Lisa Tait described the practise as insidious and a threat to the doctor-patient relationship.

"People don't want strangers going through their medical records," Ms Tait said.

 

[CuPillar]

hmm.. i dont think it sounds that bad...

if names are removed what real damage can be given...

isnt it just helpin them collate info on whats going on where....

but hte thing about advertising drugs is kinda bad, i agree with that point....

 

[speedygonzales]

hmm.. i dont think it sounds that bad...

if names are removed what real damage can be given...

isnt it just helpin them collate info on whats going on where....

but hte thing about advertising drugs is kinda bad, i agree with that point....

I have the same opionion it's not realy wrong and companies do need info on there customers

 

[Zaineaol]

its the way the world works in my opinion - Marketing makes business work, marketing, even if it means selling a persons personal information...

I think it's wrong, but if it's legal, what can you do... hell i'm tempted to become a doctor now... cash in on someones perscription of choice

 

[speedygonzales]

Still $150 one off is'nt allot for a doctor

 

[CuPillar]

yes but $150 multiplied by x is....

 

[silvia saint]

it's wrong because doctors are already loyal to certain brands of drugs purely for the kickbacks they receive from the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture them. kickbacks such as all expense paid seminars (aka holidays) at lush resorts for one. doctors will be even more inclined to prescribe meds that aren't necessary so these firms will be continually interested in buying the data.

access to the data is also going to see more unnecessary drugs created and marketed to treat made up or non existent medical conditions (it's been done before), or created to treat real conditions for which there is already an abundant amount of drugs on the market with proven track records of successful treatment for said conditions.

as stated in the article it will also not be completely anonymous despite the claims it would be.

"the drug industry, has fooled me...into believing i'm defected, and only they can correct it" - green velvet.

 

[Oceanboy]

Yep just read this elsewhere too. I find it perhaps disturbing, especially this:

an individual may be identifiable from the health information in their electronic health record," the commission argued.

"It has been noted elsewhere that de-identifying data does not guarantee that the result is anonymous. Even when information shared with secondary parties is de-identified, it is often far from anonymous."

In a further worry for patients, the Medical Director software program sometimes collects the patient records of GPs who have not signed up, without their consent.

My doctor uses the medical director software and so I am concerned.