Two interesting articles have appeared in the last 48 hours.
First we have this:
My Health Record technology is 23 years out of date, Harvard technology guru says
Sue Dunlevy, National Health Reporter, News Corp Australia Network
Exclusive: The $2 billion My Health Record uses technology so out of date that crucial patient information on test results and diseases can’t be shared or read by computers.
Harvard medical school e-health guru Dr John Halamka said the My Health Record was nothing more than “digitised paper”.
“The My Health record is a noble idea but the standard they chose is from 1995, it uses PDFs, it’s not computable, it is just digitised paper,” he told News Corp Australia.
Doctors have already complained they have difficulty using the record because it is not searchable and it can take hours to find the test results or records they need because they have to open each PDF file to see what it contains.
Lots more here:
Then we had this:
23 November 2018
Global health leader says pivot MHR now
One of the most respected and experienced digital health experts in the world last week called on the Australian Digital Health Agency (ADHA) to stop the current trajectory of the My Health Record (MHR) project immediately and refocus and prioritise investment where it will have real and near-term benefit for the Australian health system.
Professor John Halamka, is Chief Information Officer of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, US, Chief Information Officer at Harvard Medical School and Chairman of the US Healthcare Information Technology Standards Panel (HITSP).
He has worked closely with both the Bush and Obama healthcare administrations to introduce and adapt the revolutionary and at times controversial “meaningful uses” legislation in that country.
Recently he has been contracted by the Gates Foundation to advise on digital connectivity in the effort to bring HIV under control in Africa, the Norwegian government in their efforts to swing their economy to be focused on healthcare innovation, and the Chinese government, in an ambitious project to digitise the medical data of the Chinese population and create the most powerful medical AI database in the world.
Visiting Australia briefly last week to keynote at the digital health transformation summit, Wild Health, Professor Halamka was asked by local digital health experts if he would talk to the AHDA about where he thought Australia was in digital health in the context of the rest of the world. According to sources, the ADHA had asked Professor Halamka not to sugar coat anything in his assessment.
And he didn’t.
While acknowledging the agency for how much it has achieved in terms of getting legislation in place and moving the needle on the digital health issue, he told senior leaders in the ADHA that the MHR project as it stood today was a waste of time and money for Australia.
He told attendees that without an ability to share structured data in a meaningful way, via a standard such as FHIR (Fast Health Information Resource), that most of the work done to date and moving forward would be of no use.
He said that it should be a major focus for the agency to look carefully out how distributed data sharing technologies like FHIR and blockchain are going to open up healthcare to patients, particularly now that Google and Apple have adopted FHIR has their standard for every application they are developing in healthcare.
But he didn’t stop there. Professor Halamka told the meeting that he was surprised that the Australian government was attempting to build and run such a big and centralized IT project.
Lots more here:
Word is that the ADHA and the CEO etc. are running around trying to suppress the manifest truth that the present myHR is technological equivalent of a prototype Model T Ford as compared to the current Aston Martin models. The present myHR is a totally obsolete solution to a problem that has never been properly defined or articulated. The fundamental problem with the myHR has correctly been compared to developing a mirror-like finish on a turd or as pathetic as providing lip stick to a pig! Nothing based on the present architecture and technologies I likely to deliver a small fraction of what is claimed!
When do you suppose the ADHA will face reality?
Surely they must realise, with the input from the Senate Inquiry submission and all the input from the likes of Grahame Grieve and John Halamka that they are the operators of a deeply unsatisfactory national EHR system and it is up to them to fix it - NOT hide their heads in the sand and try to shoot the messengers. It simply will not do.
David.
65 comments:
If one doesn't live in a world of reality one cannot confront reality.
It is futile trying to confront reality deniers with facts. Forget facts and understand that the problem is almost certainly one of emotions, not knowledge.
"Word is that the ADHA and the CEO etc. are running around trying to suppress the manifest truth that the present myHR is technological equivalent of a prototype Model T Ford as compared to the current Aston Martin models. The present myHR is an obsolete solution to a problem that has never been properly defined or articulated."
myhr, be it a Model T or an Aston Martin, is a relic of the past.
The future of clinical medicine will have very little to do with historical record keeping and much more to do with point of care measurements, analysis, diagnosis, treatment and real-time monitoring of the patient.
If myhr is a car, the future of healthcare is an airplane. We should be looking at what is needed to build and operate airplanes.
ADHA doesn't understand cars but they think they understand marketing and psychological techniques such as behavioural science. The trouble is, what they are trying to sell is worse than what is being used today, but doesn't solve today's problems.
I'm very surprised by Dr Chris Moy's description of the failures of "health systems, hospitals and doctors' clinics" to make progress on e-health initiatives - putting patient safety at risk - because he is one of the few people who have been invited to help make a difference in this arena.
As a GP, AMA member and now also ADHA adviser, Dr Moy's bio on the AMA site reads: "In 2012 he was appointed to the Independent Advisory Committee of the national Patient Controlled Electronic Health Record (PCEHR) where he developed an understanding of the serious usability problems that had arisen in the PCEHR. This led to membership of the National E-Health Transition Authority (NEHTA) Clinical Usability Program Steering Group which was instrumental in contributing to the repair of the PCEHR, now known as the My Health Record, and later, appointment to the My Health Record Operations Management Committee."
So I'm asking you, Dr Moy, how the peak medical bodies and the responsible agencies have so comprehensively stuffed up that independent experts are suggesting the whole the thing should be scrapped?
Sorry, here's the rest of Moy's bio (AMA website):
"He is currently a Patient Digital Safety Adviser for the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, and a member of the Privacy and Security Advisory Committee of the newly formed Australian Digital Health Agency.
As well as his involvement on AMA(SA) Council and Board, Chris is a member of the AMA's Federal Council- serving on both the Federal AMA Medical Practice Committee and Ethics and Medico-legal Committee since 2014, and chairing the latter since 2016.
Chris was inducted into the AMA Roll of Fellows in 2015."
Its on another health topic, but this video is so relevant to eHealth. You ignore the wisdom of crowds at your own peril.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDlF-z_x7vc
From one slide:
Why the Anointed Create fragile Systems
or
Why Intellectual-Yet-Idiots Create Fragile Systems
1. Neomania: falling in love with things and ideas that are new and exciting
2. Too much value on academic theories, not enough value on practical experience
3. Turning decisions over to a central authority
- with a central authority, one bad decision affects everyone
- the system is now fragile
Despite $2Billion spend and no progress, and in fact anti-progress they just won't accept they are idiots!
"When do you suppose the ADHA will face reality?"
maybe some of the medics on this blog could ask themselves if a certain CEO fits this profile
Narcissistic Personality Disorder
https://draxe.com/narcissistic-personality-disorder/
To a non-medical person he seems to display many of the symptoms listed.
I've just watched the video:
Diet, Health and the Wisdom of Crowds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDlF-z_x7vc
I really like stuff on The Vision of the Anointed
1. The Anointed identify a problem in Society
2. To fix the problem The Anointed propose a Grand Plan
3. The Anointed dismiss all evidence that the theory behind the Grand
Plan is wrong.
4. The Anointed assume that no good, intelligent person could possibly
oppose the Grand Plan
a) They're stupid
b) They're evil - they want The Bad to continue!
The Anointed have no problem trying to silence or even destroy the evil
people who disagree with them.
5. If possible, The Anointed will impose the Grand Plan on others (for
their own good).
6. The Anointed will never, ever, ever admit that the Grand Plan was a
bad idea.
If The Grand Plan Fails:
1. The plan was good, but people didn't follow it correctly - because
they are stupid
2. The plan was good, but it was undermined by people - because they're evil
3. The plan didn't go far enough. We need to do the same thing again,
ONLY BIGGER.
myhr fits this model exactly.
To summarise/precis the video:
When it comes to people and their health, top down, one-size-fits-all advice that ignores experience (i.e. the wisdom of the crowd) will fail.
The irony is that Tim is not an expert in clinical medicine or IT, but is behaving as an Anointed with a Grand Plan.
Hang on November 24, 2018 2:35 PM, hasn't Moy been out "selling" the MyHR on behalf of the ADHA since the opt-out period began? Anyone would think it's the best thing for health since penicillin.
But now Moy says, actually nothing works, and it's the federal and state governments' fault?
What happened to all the much vaunted "foundations" we've been told are in place for years now?
Then he goes on to complain that no-one has done the work needed to develop and implement standard naming of conditions, allergies, medications etc - while in the same story the ADHA is forced to concede that local man Grahame Grieve has managed exactly that with FHIR???
And the rest of the world is busy adopting FHIR while the agency has just had a briefing on it?
God help us...
"God help us..."
Sadly I think He sees all this as a Lost Cause!
David.
Well Bettina and Tim did sack the standards and interoperability experts, tried to do away with terminology and have no crass of informatics. Wonder if they even have a complete Architectural package of the myhr to go to market with?
Wonder if they even have a complete Architectural package of the myhr to go to market with?
The fact you never see even a PowerPoint representation would indicate that they do not.
You might be correct David. Things have noted on, myhr does not really provide a service to any extent that it will become a sort after tool to have. They have tried to be everything to everyone and delivered nothing of notoriety to anyone.
Talking about Dr C Moy, readers may be interested in his contribution to this:
https://www.myhealthrecord.gov.au/about/legislation-and-governance/legislation-consultation-public-submissions
"On 28 May 2015 the Department of Health published a discussion paper outlining proposed legislative changes to the Healthcare Identifiers Act 2010 and the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records Act 2012. Submissions were invited from interested parties by 5pm Wednesday 24 June 2015."
There is a submission (#21) from a C Moy
https://www.myhealthrecord.gov.au/sites/default/files/021_-_c_moy.docx?v=1526127604
The first bullet point in the submission is:
"I am generally supportive of the paper which makes sensible suggested changes"
The question is this: Is it the same C Moy as the person who is now associated with both the AMA and the ADHA and who is not always open and transparent about his connections.
There is no identifying information in the submission.
One does wonder.
On the topic of running for it to not be viewed as obsolete, they released this FHIR implementation guide for Medicare (read: DHS) data into My Health Record. https://developer.digitalhealth.gov.au/specifications/clinical-documents/ep-2746-2018/dh-2738-2018
Would love some expert commentary on this
> Would love some expert commentary on this
Well, I like that it's published in the open, using the common community accepted license and using the community tooling. I like that it uses value sets defined using the national terminology service. The documentation seems direct and plain speaking regarding the scenarios and the intent for implementers. Kudos to the team for all this - I know how much hard work it is.
The real question is whether the details are reasonable, the use cases are useful and also whether the compromises inherent in choosing the scope (any scope) are good. I have no grounds for commenting on those things without trying to implement it, or watching a connectathon on it (I haven't heard of anything scheduled)
You keep nudging Grahame it is appreciated by many. The rude of change is happening all around and the Myhr will simple be engulfed and washed out to sea. That is just the simple reality of our times. Just like streaming media killed the video rental store.
I do get concerned when its suggested that we all need to more to some new technology which will solve all our problems, like FHIR. I do not have an issue with FHIR as such, although its still early days. What has to be realized is that the amount of work required for everyone to implement FHIR, perfectly and in a compliant fashion, is enormous and very expensive. I am not sure the pathology companies, who should be best placed to do it, or are capable of doing that in anything other than a 5-10 year time frame and they would need $$$ to do it. Similarly the PMS systems have a release cycle that is slow and they do not have the resources or desire to implement something like FHIR in any reasonable time frame. They are focused on their customers and its features that drive them and I have never heard a user ask for standards compliance or specific standards. I have done work on FHIR, but its of no practical use currently in real clinical practice in Australia.
What we need is a focus on quality and compliance in whatever enters or leaves their "Black Box" system and an ability to reliably accept and produce compliant content. As it stands at the moment they need to consume (as first priority) compliant HL7V2 messages and also generate HL7V2 content to send out. Same for CDA in use. As a healthcare quality requirement rigorous compliance testing of these 2 activities should be a regulatory requirement to receive or send data. That would certainly motivate them to pay attention to compliance, which is what is required for interoperability. If they choose to adopt FHIR for anything, such as provider directory access, then there should be a similar requirement for compliance/testing. You cannot mandate a technology that is not backward compatible, unless you set a future data and supply the $$$ needed to achieve compliance by that date or don't receive or send health data. There are a myriad of systems out there (At least 30 in general use) and you would need every one to have compliant implementations to switch. In reality its pie in the sky.
We are much better to establish that healthcare messaging has patient safety implications and anything the leaves or enters you system must be compliant with standards, or you will not be able to receive or send. This actually requires no system design or implementation by government. It just requires some governance... Even standards are limping along without their support and the ADHA needs to be scraped off the floor when it implodes and quickly disposed of into the bin. Then FHIR implementation can proceed at whatever pace its fated to achieve, but safe in the knowledge that any implementations that access or receive external data are tested and safe for patient care. The existing data exchange needs to become compliant at a future date using governance to achieve it, it would still take $$ but mostly to fix errors and not start from nothing.
The issue for me is simple, a centralised solution for a distributed business problem doesn't work. If it did it would be the status quo not the exception sitting on the fringe, and when the centralisation is government, then it is even worse. Federal Governments role is to facilitate safe, secure, interconnection not own it. One wonders if anyone will ever go back and look at the original design of the set of federated repositories, or even knows such thinking existed.
@4:23 PM Those of us who advocated a federated approach were not welcome at the table. This is understandable when one contemplates the political implications. To a bureaucracy with a centralist philosophy such implications are not reassuring.
Centralised approach is not working out to well for them. They modelled this on Government Department Record Keeping.
With each state public system running their own EHR that dictates the experience some people will be able to get from My Health Record, it's federated in that inefficient sense? Yay?
November 27 @ 4:23 PM. It is quite obvious healthcare is a distributed business model, even the simplist of people could grasp that. The MyHR was and is a classic case of a simple concept distorted to meet ever changing agendas but never quite dealt with the real issues. At some point the MYHR took over, hence why we are now only dusting off securing messaging, conformance and compliance accreditation become declaration, standards has been left wondering the desert (nationally) and government is about to be swamped by the actual influx of useful consumer and clinical tools and they (gov) are unprepared to regulate the market and assist where needed.
If Tim wants to really see personal control over and full transparency of who is accessing my records then he needs to be demanding the Jurisdictions and institutions implement the HI services as it was intended. The public would be far better served doing this than trotting around the countryside dribbling.
@ 8:09 PM - They modelled this on Government Department Record Keeping.
The irony is that the ADHA has no record keeping practices or systems, most is still saved to local or shared drives. We were told O365 was delivered, but is no existent other than a login logo, not standardisation or governance across information systems. You either cannot find anything or if you can it’s 40 versions of the same thing. So any wonder they fumble with the concept of a centralised system? Let alone a more complicated system distributed and based on a principle of mutual agreements and trust.
I have to agree with 7:42 AM, the Agency internally is a reflection of its external. We get lots of promotional material, big plans about transformation, collaboration, self organising blah blah, but the reality is they just lay half baked poorly implemented ideas on top, layer after layer resulting in an every increasing mess that is not supported and solves no business problem. As for our leaders, the all staff meetings are half empty, just as we see the ADHA is missing from all the major events currently on. They cannot blame the past anymore and have lost control of the agenda, organisation and themselves.
It is a great shame when opportunities are lost.
Has Dilbert been to ADHA meetings?
https://dilbert.com/strip/2018-11-27
Thanks, 9:16, that's hilarious!!!!
The panic is over, the ADHA spokesperson has spoken
https://www.healthcareit.com.au/article/my-health-record-technology-out-date
Healthcare IT News Au has become a marketing platform, which is why the previous editor apparently resigned in disgust.
Is this anything like ADHA's approach to management?
https://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2018/11/28
They are some pretty bold claims. If all this is true why have we not seen any evidence that this database is a useful clinical tool?
@10:11 PM. As someone who works there for now, this is pretty accurate, except only half the people are rowing and the middle of the boat is full of people wiping the rowers.
And if you know anything about rowing or navigation you get thrown overboard
The claims come from ADHA. The ADHA has proven to be less than trustworthy when it comes to facts.
I also notice myhr no longer seeks to be clinicians tool, nor a consumer tool. It now seems to be a pharmacy tool!!
AnonymousNovember 24, 2018 8:17 PM. Having sat through a briefing yesterday, it would appear even business requirements are lacking. Suggest this will end in disappointment. The ADHA has not proven to be the intellectual power house I thought it would be.
@9:49 AM. Surely not? There must be a box full of postal notes and folder somewhere with photos of whole boards somewhere?
According to the High-Level System Architecture, PCEHR System
Version 1.35 — 11 November 2011
Final
"This document is based on the April 2011 release of the PCEHR System Concept of Operations (ConOps)"
The business requirements were supposed to be developed after the Concept of Operations
This is not the normal architecture development process.
Usually you start with the business requirements and then work out what is needed and how it is to work.
But then, there's nothing normal about this dinosaur. Apart from maybe it is typical of many large scale government IT projects taken over by well meaning but totally unqualified project managers.
There is a well known phenomenon in the IT architecture world that says the early decisions are the most important and are the hardest to correct.
In the case of the PCEHR, everything went wrong as soon as the ConOP was released for comment. Then things started to get even worse when they didn't even implement the design in the Conop.
BTW, both the ConOp and the architecture documents were supposed to be updated over time. Have they? Maybe but they have never been released publicly if they have.
It is quite obvious from the operation of the system and the nature and flow of the documents that it is not what was planned and approved by the central government agencies - the ones who control the money, not the Dept of Health.
IMHO, the Dept of Health have not the faintest idea what is being perpetrated in their name. Add the myhr debacle to all the other troubles facing the Libs and the next election will be a bit of a headache for them. And it might happen a lot sooner than they expect.
Cathy Wilcox's cartoon in today's SMH rather says it all
http://www.drbrd.com/images/CathyWilcox27-11-18.JPG
@ 9:41 AM "I also notice myhr no longer seeks to be clinicians tool, nor a consumer tool. It now seems to be a pharmacy tool!!"
What exactly do you mean by this statement and why shouldn't it also be a useful tool for pharmacists?
Pharmacies and through them and their guild pharmacists are simply the latest cohort to be used to peddle the myhr. It used to be GP’s, then consumers, it now seems to be pharmacy with a dabble of nursing. It seems that they throw it at professions in a hope it will stick, when it does not they rollout a new profession.
This is aimed at the DTA, but the folks at Dept Health and ADHA need to read it. myhr isn't a platform or a capability, although those self same folks probably think it is.
Platforms, not projects, key to executing DTA’s ‘Vision 2025’ strategy
By Darryl Carlton
29/11/2018
The Mandarin
https://www.themandarin.com.au/101988-platforms-not-projects-key-to-executing-dtas-vision-2025-strategy/
"The DTA’s role is to create a platform for digital transformation, not to promote individual projects. The projects belong to individual departments and agencies, argues Darryl Carlton.
Of overriding importance when reading the ‘Vision 2025’ strategy is to consider the role of the DTA.
Is the DTA the custodian of projects, or is it responsible for creating the conditions that will allow agencies, businesses and citizens to perform the actions that would be of value to them? This is unclear when reading the DTA 2025 Strategy and Vision document.
I am going to argue that the DTA has the role of creating a platform for digital transformation, and not for promoting individual projects. The projects belong to individual departments and agencies. The idea of building a platform is common to the successful internet companies. You build common and shared frameworks which can scale through open, published APIs. You create scale that, in this case, the departments can leverage.
..."
IMHO, departments should leverage such platforms and create more focused platforms, not run projects.
The difference between a platform and a project is that a platform is content agnostic, a project attempts to deliver services.
The question then comes down to What health care services does the Federal Government deliver? AFAIK, either zero or something very small, certainly not to teh average patient.
This will make for interesting reading. The business case will be prior to all these changes so we will get a glimpse of what the intent would have been.
Phelps asks first question
Independent MP Kerryn Phelps asks her first question in the house about the business case for the widely criticised My Health Record database.
“Will the Prime Minister guarantee to provide the business case for the My Health Record database to this House in this sitting fortnight?,” she asks.
“This will be the final opportunity before the opt-out period is on 31 January 2019, and Australians need to be assured about the true intentions of this program?”
Health Minister Greg Hunt says My Health Record will always be in public ownership and he is happy to provide Dr Phelps with the relevant documents she seeks. He also defends the scheme.
“I would note that in terms of the benefits, this is about helping the 230,000 people in Australia who have some form of medication misadventure, or medication clash, avoid those clashes to ensure patients have direct access to their own records,” he says.
The current Government Ministers showed a complete lack of respect to MP Kerryn Phelps in her opening speech in parliament so I don’t hold much hope Hunt or the PM will provide anything out the published updated Acts.
The head of the agency behind My Health Record Tim Kelsey spoke at an industry event (MSIA), but it was under Chatham House rules after spotting someone from the free press.
Nice but dim, what a willy wonkier. Happy to exploit everyone’s privacy but only private citizens it seems
Having had both NEHTA and Agency tenure, I can assure you the was rigour in business requirement and architecture....at the start. That diminished after PCEHR release one, brilliantly highlighted by the Child eHealth Record app and it was down hill from there. That's when political shiny toys took over from clinical/patient/business need.
Along with the fundamental need to transition point to point to digital, instead of this insane focus on filling up a database.
@6:40 PM completely agree.
There may have been rigour at the start, but the documentation map in the system architecture shows the business requirements being developed out of the ConOps.
Where it all went wrong is not clear, but go wrong it did.
The change from what was a virtual record to a dumb centralised document management system will prove to be fatal.
IMHO.
24 June 2010 Bernard, ask a project manager to do the maths going forward
December 01, 2018 12:06 AM
"24 June 2010 Bernard, ask a project manager to do the maths going forward"
I'm afraid you've lost me.
In the words of that great philosopher and thinker, please explain.
Bernard I think what is being suggested is or was a known early impact to the PCEHR program. The impact was a near shut down of engagement in the middle of requirements and high level architect phase, the shut down resulted in an inability to engage as planned and decisions could not be made as needed. Rather than extend to program by 6 months to ensure the planned phases were carried out properly and agreements could be reached. They just soldiered on forgetting the requirements and refined architecture and just went to the Comoros, they commissioned a Statndards review and mostly ignored it then invented tiger teams ..... it all just got very messy very early and rather than listen to reason ... well we are where we are, and some are still hoping Santa will leave them a paddle under the tree.
24 June 2010, was when Julia Gillard took power from Rudd, triggered and election and all the events that surround that, quickly followed by the holiday season.
Perhaps the MyHR is the reason we have a cursed Parlimentary and loose primisters every 6 months.
Why has all the TV My Health Record advertising suddenly stopped?
Simple, the less it is talked about the fewer people will know to opt out, especially leading into the feasitive season. That or the Advertising Watchdog has had a word about misleading advertisement.
Or the ADHA have run out of money for now, or are saving it for a big push in late January, 2019.
David.
@1:10PM “Or the ADHA have run out of money for now or are saving it for a big push in late January”.
I don’t think either of those reasons make any sense. A media communications information campaign is no longer required. The public don’t need to be informed any more. It doesn’t matter whether people opt-out or not, because on 31 January, whether people like it or not they will be registered with an MHR.
With the Senate changes now being accepted by the government people can opt-out when they want at any time in the future. They don’t need to be told they have an MHR because it’s no longer relevant.
Whenever people discover they have an MHR they can opt-out and request their record be permanently erased from the system; provided the facilities to opt-out are easily accessible (although I don't think there is any legislation to ensure those facilities are available).
The 31st January has no relevance other than to be the get-go date for the ADHA to start enrolling everyone.
@8:40PM It looks as though the My Health Record naysayers have been checkmated!
We need to wait and see how it is finally implemented but, on the face of it, having a #myHealthRecord has become totally voluntary. This will mean anyone can just wander off and go their own way if they wish.
For those to whom it matters, for whatever reason, they can keep their data out of Government hands.
I would see that as a great outcome rather than any form of checkmate. The push, from the DOH and the ADHA, to grab health information from all has been pushed back!
Each individual is now in control if they want to be.
David.
I have to agree in part with you David, it does raise the question why continue with conscription. The opt out trials have demonstrated the market size for the myhr (and you can join at anytime). With 1.5 or so million opting out and just over a 3rd of a million opting in, surely this must suggest the consumer has spoken.
As for checkmate, we’ll all this has shown is the ADHA and those running it have completely lost the game. In the spirit of chess the department opened with 1 Nh3, the “ammonia opening” and went downhill from there.
@9:11 "it does raise the question why continue with conscription."
Answer:
1. To meet government's promise of giving every citizen a My Health Record. Another great achievement tied to bragging rights just prior to the election.
2. To reinforce the important place the ADHA has at the centre of digital health in Australia demonstrating its leadership position in the world also tied to bragging rights.
@8:03AM "having a #myHealthRecord has become totally voluntary."
I disagree. Anyone who doesn't opt-out before 31 January 2019 will automatically be given a #myhealthrecord. This means to me that having a myhealthrecord is INVOLUNTARY, whilst NOT having one is VOLUNTARY.
If the system were changed from opt-out to opt-in, then it would be a VOLUNTARY system.
"If the system were changed from opt-out to opt-in, then it would be a VOLUNTARY system."
That is true but if you want to get rid of it, for any reason, you can, and it will then be like you never had one. That is progress I reckon for consent and choice.
David.
Can't get more voluntary than that.
This raises the question:- How does a person who doesn't know they have involuntarily been given a myhealthrecord voluntarily opt-out?
Surely the answer must be that when they are involuntarily given a record they are notified by letter by Medicare informing them of this great news and letting them know how they can choose to voluntarily cancel the record under the government's opt-out arrangements.
Such a 'courtesy' letter would be a great idea. I suspect pigs will fly before it happens unless someone mentions the very sensible idea to Dr Phelps etc.
David.
something like this:?
https://twitter.com/Health_Privacy/status/1059659677309394944
November 6
I think pigs might fly too if you believe the idea that you can have your MyHR and anything that might be in it 'Deleted' permanently, any time you like. Not having a record in the first place in the only safe option.
Meanwhile, over at the CBA
https://www.itnews.com.au/news/cbas-comminsure-separation-raises-medical-data-access-concerns-516404
"medical information from claims lodged by an unknown number of customers had been "made available" outside of CommInsure."
"As reported by the ABC, it is unclear whether the data sharing and internal security controls themselves would constitute a data breach under Australia's mandatory notification scheme."
It might anger a lot of those unknown number of customers though!
And what do you think Dr Phelps will do David?
@9:52. I am not sure Phelps MP can do anymore than she has, not from want or trying but simply due to the fact we have no functioning parliament. Myhr will simply whither on the vine.
Worth tempering that when Susan ley was thrown under the bus Hunt was appointed as the damage-control minister, with a track record in being able to neutralise issues that can become massive headaches. He has done well considering the trail of destruction the ADHA CEO and his sidekicks have created. King MP might like to ponder that and consider if it is a pain worth living with
Post a Comment