tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post8239580698676935045..comments2024-03-29T09:18:22.495+11:00Comments on Australian Health Information Technology: Just Why Have Medicare Not Got The Abuse Of Their Systems Under Control? Firm Penalties Are Vital.Dr David G More MB PhDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06902724829795199526noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-56848559434855374242011-12-21T11:33:29.977+11:002011-12-21T11:33:29.977+11:00And it is still after-the-event activity. Sometime...And it is still after-the-event activity. Sometimes way after the event. In the case of e-health that can be too late if someone has disclosed information, misused IT systems and their access to them, and possibly altered information contained within records. (This case states that alterations were made to award benefits that an individual wasn't entitled to. Imagine a similar impact on a Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-29283077371036231802011-12-21T08:18:36.919+11:002011-12-21T08:18:36.919+11:00The point is that the proof of the pudding is in t...The point is that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Staff are still breaching and getting relatively minor penalties. I reckon if you knew you faced jail time that would reduce the incidence of the problem dramatically.<br /><br />This is separate from the issue that all this breaching erodes public confidence - which we need if e-health is to have a hope of working.<br /><br />DavidDr David G More MB PhDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06902724829795199526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-11172373607407232132011-12-20T23:21:56.935+11:002011-12-20T23:21:56.935+11:00I think you need to do a tiny bit more research on...I think you need to do a tiny bit more research on this. Medicare do indeed have punitive measures for staff accessing records inappropriately. This is regularly covered in Senate enquiries of various flavours and then breathlessly reported by the papers.<br /><br />Case in point - this story came from the senate inquiry to the HI service and directly addresses the issues raised here: http://Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-81810248220811697422011-12-20T20:45:50.377+11:002011-12-20T20:45:50.377+11:00I agree - the monitoring is not very proactive if ...I agree - the monitoring is not very proactive if this staff member could continue to access records for 3 years without being detected!!<br /><br />"The outcome is one of 14 cases of suspected breaches " - how many more were there that they did not detect if it took them 3 years to find this one? Given they have over 25,000+ staff you can't tell me there were only 14 breaches.<br /Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23447705.post-11180237815520523712011-12-20T19:08:47.962+11:002011-12-20T19:08:47.962+11:00quote:
... accessing records ... on 124 separate ...quote:<br /><br />... accessing records ... on 124 separate occasions<br /><br />... many "unauthorised accesses” between January 2007 and January 2010.<br /><br />The staff member accessed one customer’s records on 61 occasions, and also a co-worker’s customer record on 61 occasions.<br /><br />unquote.<br /><br />If that is a "key priority for federal government agencies", then IBnoreply@blogger.com