It Looks Like The Unwary And Asleep Are About To Be Caught Out!

This appeared last week:

Privacy time bomb: Australian businesses have six months to avoid legal firestorm

Chris Brinkworth

18 Sept,2024

The Australian Business Network

Many business entities and their marketing partners are unknowingly using tools and data in ways that could expose them to legal action within six months.

The long-anticipated Australian privacy reforms have arrived, offering businesses a unique opportunity to lead in data protection and consumer trust, while compelling them to act swiftly to avoid serious privacy penalties from very basic practices of which they may be unaware.

The “carrot and a stick” central to these reforms is the introduction of a “privacy tort”, which presents an opportunity (carrot) for companies to strengthen consumer trust by using a very big “stick” in the shape of class action and litigation.

It’s crucial to understand that these changes represent just the beginning of a broader reform agenda. This is the first tranche of agreed recommendations from the Privacy Act Review, with consultation on a second tranche of reforms likely to come in 2025.

Forward-thinking businesses have a unique opportunity to get ahead of the curve by embracing these initial changes.

With a 25-year career in targeting and tracking hundreds of millions of people using billions of pieces of behavioural data, identifiers, pixels, cookies and more, I must emphasise the profound impact these partial reforms will have on basic current business practices.

Many entities and their marketing partners are unknowingly using tools and data in ways that could expose them to legal action within six months. The early warnings are evident in published comments from the OAIC, ACCC and legal academics.

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus articulates the context succinctly: “The digital economy has unleashed enormous benefits for Australians. But it has also increased the privacy risks we face through the collection and storage of enormous amounts of our personal data.”

This statement underscores the delicate balance between the industry’s desire for better targeting, measurement and identity resolution and the need to protect personal privacy. The introduction of a new privacy tort, set to take effect in six months, represents a strategic approach to reforming data practices in the digital economy, potentially reshaping how businesses approach these marketing objectives.

The reach of this new tort is extensive and should not be underestimated. While many may be quick to point out the failure to implement the vast majority of the proposed privacy reforms, we must give credit where it’s due.

The Attorney-General’s department has clearly thought strategically about how to significantly reform unethical and risky privacy practices in the digital economy through the use of the tort, a tool that has been in discussion for many years. This targeted approach, rather than rushing through wholesale reform just before an election, shows a measured response to a complex issue.

Do not be fooled into thinking partial reform means “no teeth that can bite”. The growing dependence on data and changes in global regulatory frameworks have led to a significant increase in privacy-related legal actions, providing plenty of examples of where to focus attention.

Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind has previously highlighted the extent of data collection: “Social media platforms and other websites receive personal information about internet users as they browse the web. This data can range from basic site visits to more detailed personal information like email addresses and mobile numbers.” She has noted “most people wouldn’t reasonably expect household brands, medical providers or news sites to disclose details about site visits, duration and content consumption to social media platforms,” describing such practices as “harmful, invasive and corrosive of online privacy.”

The new tort could potentially apply to various business practices, including excessive tracking and profiling, unauthorised mixing of personal data across business units, misleading privacy disclosures, risky data sharing practices, use of deceptive identifiers, lack of genuine user choice in data collection, and attempts to circumvent user privacy preferences.

Business leaders need immediately to ask themselves what our teams and technology partners are doing with customer data and are we aligned with reasonable consumer expectations? Are we inadvertently crossing lines that could expose us to legal action under the new privacy tort?

Kind has previously warned that “pixels are one of many tracking tools, including cookies, that permit granular user surveillance across the internet and social media platforms,” underscoring the sophisticated nature of tracking technologies and the need for robust regulation.

Dreyfus emphasises public sentiment driving these changes: “We know Australians are concerned about the protection of their personal information, and of the risks associated with the misuse or mismanagement of their information.” He adds, “Australians … expect that when they do (share their personal information), their information will be protected and that they will maintain control over it.”

For businesses, these reforms necessitate a thorough review of data practices. Companies must discuss with their legal and privacy teams the need to conduct Privacy Impact Assessments on every technology touching their customer data life cycle, overhaul processes and ensure comprehensive staff training.

As Kind has asserted, website providers “have an obligation to ensure that sharing web browsing data with social media platforms is in line with what internet users might reasonably expect”. This sets a new standard for transparency and user consent in data collection and sharing practices.

While these reforms may not represent a complete overhaul of Australia’s data protection landscape, the tort signals a significant shift towards greater accountability and transparency in data practices that will impact many businesses’ practices.

However, the complexity of modern data ecosystems and interwoven stacks, products and data partnerships means that internal reviews will not be sufficient. Without getting ahead of this through specialised audits and reviews that scrutinise data flows, tools and consents, businesses risk having these issues uncovered not by themselves or their BAU agency partners – but instead by litigators in the courtroom. The choice is clear: invest in expert-led Privacy Impact Assessments of your activity now, or potentially face costly legal battles and reputational damage.

Chris Brinkworth is managing partner at Civic Data.

Here is the link:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/technology/privacy-time-bomb-australian-businesses-have-six-months-to-avoid-legal-firestorm/news-story/e6f67a9a06c15b2fc21156521fc30da2

I can hear the yelps now from those who thought change would never happen!

I predict a lot of fun and surprise about six months from now!

David.

 

It Seems That IVF Is Not Quite As Innocuous As Was Initially Thought.

 This important article appeared last week.

IVF babies have ‘significantly increased’ risk of serious heart defects

By Wendy Tuohy

September 27, 2024 — 2.15pm

Children conceived through IVF and other reproductive technologies have a significantly higher risk of serious heart abnormalities than naturally conceived children, a large international study has found.

A study of 7.7 million children in four northern European countries found babies born through assisted reproduction including IVF, intracytoplasmic sperm injection and embryo freezing have a 36 per cent higher risk of serious heart abnormalities.

The study, published on Friday in the European Heart Journal, found the risk of heart defects – the most common form of birth abnormalities – was particularly associated with babies born in multiple births, a practise not encouraged in Australia. Some defects cause life-threatening complications.

However, overall the risk of such defects was still low for children born through assisted reproduction: 1.84 per cent, compared with 1.15 per cent for those conceived naturally. The risk for multiples born through IVF was higher, at 2.47 per cent, compared with 1.62 per cent for those conceived naturally.

Study leader Professor Ulla-Britt Wennerholm, of the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, said previous research had identified increased risks for babies born through assisted reproduction, including pre-term birth and low birth weight.

She said the fact the risk of heart defects was similar regardless of the type of assisted reproduction used may indicate a common factor underlying the parents’ infertility and congenital heart problems in their babies.

“Congenital heart defects can be extremely serious, requiring specialist surgery when babies are very young, so knowing which babies are at the greatest risk can help us diagnose heart defects as early as possible and ensure the right care and treatment are given,” Wennerholm said.

Factors that can increase the risk of congenital heart defects, such as a child’s year of birth, country of birth, mother’s age at delivery, if the mother smoked during pregnancy, or if the mother had diabetes or heart defects were taken into account.

Because technology is being used more widely around the world to aid conception, there may be a global increase in congenital heart abnormalities.

The University of New South Wales National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit found in its 2023 assisted reproductive data report that a record one in 18 babies had been born in Australia through the technologies in 2021. The technologies helped with the conception of 18,594 babies.

A 2014 study by the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute found young adults conceived by assisted reproduction are just as healthy, smart and mentally stable as people conceived naturally, although they may carry a slightly higher risk of some illnesses such as asthma.

They concluded the rate of chronic illnesses, growth measures such as puberty milestones, educational achievements, and quality of life were generally similar between the naturally and medically conceived by the time they were young adults.

Fertility Society of Australia and New Zealand board member Dr Anne Clarke said the study was observational and could not be definitive in terms of cause and effect.

“The headline suggesting that IVF babies have a 36 per cent higher chance of major heart defects is misleading because the study highlights that the absolute risk is 1.84 per cent compared with 1.15 per cent in babies conceived without assisted reproductive technology (ART),” Clarke said.

Some of the births included in the study dated back to the 1980s, which made that part of the data old.

“The study also concludes that the increased risk is particularly associated with multiple births in assisted reproduction, but this is not encouraged in ART practice in Australia,” she said.

Dr Nathalie Auger, of the University of Montreal Hospital Research Centre, said assisted reproduction accounted for 2 to 8 per cent of births worldwide, and “while most neonates born after assisted reproductive technology are healthy, these procedures are not without risks”.

“Patients who use assisted reproductive technology tend to differ from the general population. These patients may have underlying morbidities that affect both fertility and the risk of heart defects,” she said.

Professor Bernard Tuch, consultant endocrinologist and director of the New South Wales Stem Cell Network, said the new data confirmed previous findings of heart abnormalities.

“It has been well documented that children born after assisted reproductive technology have a slightly but significantly increased risk of congenital abnormalities,” he said. “The commonest such abnormalities are cardiac in nature.”

Here is the link:

https://www.theage.com.au/national/ivf-babies-have-significantly-increased-risk-of-serious-heart-defects-20240927-p5ke0x.html

It seems unclear just how large the risk of problems is but it is clear we much keep careful monitoring running so any problems can be minimized!

David.

I Wonder How Long It Will Take Until We Establish A Proper Centre For Disease Control?

After the pandemic started to settle we were promised an OZ CDC

It there an sign as yet?

Christine Middap

Act now before ’pandemic amnesia’ sets in

27 Sept,2024

Melbourne was nearing the end of its first 100 days of strict lockdowns and premiers were cautiously planning to loosen border controls in October 2020 when federal opposition leader Anthony Albanese made a significant pledge to protect the country in future pandemics.

Australia couldn’t afford a repeat of the Ruby Princess debacle, where infected cruise passengers were allowed to disembark freely in NSW, or the unfolding disaster in aged care where 673 people had already died, he said.

“Our health, our lives and our economy all depend on us getting the response to future pandemics right,” Albanese said, vowing that a Labor government would establish a new body, the Australian Centre for Disease Control, to strengthen the country’s preparedness and lead the fight in future outbreaks.

It was an uncontroversial announcement – opposition health spokesman Chris Bowen correctly pointed out that peak health bodies had been calling for a central entity for more than 30 years; it was mooted by the Australasian Epidemiological Association at its inaugural conference back in 1987. “It’s time to get on with it,” Bowen said in 2020. “An Australian CDC would save lives and ease the pain of chronic illness.”

The same experts who looked to that promise and follow-up $90m post-election commitment with hope are now frustrated that this much-vaunted linchpin to Australia’s future pandemic response is inching along, losing momentum and serving as proof, they say, that lessons from the Covid era risk being lost.

Public consultation and expert roundtables were held in 2022, leading many to believe the government was pursuing its policy with zeal in the face of ongoing warnings that viral disease outbreaks were increasing in frequency and severity. The CSIRO says two novel viruses, on average, are appearing in humans every year and the proportion that gives rise to larger outbreaks is growing. In other words, this is no time for complacency.

“The pandemic demonstrated really clearly why a CDC body is important and we were delighted with the government’s announcement, but what’s happened since then has been puzzling,’’ Australian Medical Association president Steve Robson says. “Evidence that we’ve learned the lessons from the last pandemic would be a functional CDC, and we haven’t seen that yet. I would need to be convinced that we could cope with the next pandemic well at all.’’

Adjunct professor Terry Slevin, head of Australia’s peak body for public health, says the proposed centre should be far more advanced than it is and he doubts the necessary enabling legislation will be introduced in this government’s first term, as expected. He calls the lack of solid progress “pandemic amnesia”.

“There’s lack of certainty about the ACDC’s future and lack of clarity in relation to resources,” says Slevin, chief executive of the Public Health Association of Australia. “There’s still people wondering whether it will become a reality.”

Robson agrees. “It’s crunch time. I’m sceptical that this can be delivered by the government as promised, in the timeframe as promised,” he says.

In the wash-up from the Covid-19 pandemic many health and science groups – from the Australasian Epidemiological Association and the Doherty Institute to the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation and the Australian Academy of Science – recommended an ACDC to undertake real-time monitoring of infectious diseases, collect national data and provide expert and transparent advice to government. “It would provide for a co-ordinated national health response that gets away from individual state or territory political responses,” Robson says.

Here is the link:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/act-now-before-pandemic-amnesia-sets-in/news-story/bfa79852bf9cbe8eaa62e6a782f48bac

Typical Government – great announcements and bugger all action.!

Just pathetic – won’t happen in my lifetime I suspect!

David.

It Seems They Still Have Not Made The myHealthRecord Something Doctors Want To Use!

This appeared last week:

ANZ

Electronic Health Records (EHR, EMR)

GPs cry My Health Record 'overhaul' and more briefs

Also, Breast Cancer Foundation New Zealand is set to launch a national programme ensuring cancer therapy adherence.

By Adam Ang

September 27, 2024 07:17 AM

Australian gov't urged to raise My Health Record funding

An organisation of general practitioners in Australia has called on the federal government to upgrade the country's digital health record system.

"We’re calling for the federal government to overhaul My Health Record to improve its useability for Australians, GPs, and other health professionals," said RACGP President Dr Nicole Higgins in a statement.

This comes as RACGP found from the initial result of its annual survey that nearly a third of Australian GPs are rarely or not using My Health Record. More than 2,000 GPs are polled yearly in RACGP's Health of the Nation survey. 

"My Health Record can’t fulfil its potential to be the one-stop store for Australians’ health records without investment to improve its useability," Dr Higgins stressed. 

She insisted that My Health Record must capture more patient information and make it easier for GPs to search them, as well as ensure data interoperability and timely notification when patient records are updated. Dr Higgins also recommended implementing automation tools to make the system "more usable," particularly in capturing data from GP records.

Recently, the country's Productivity Commission found My Health Record "plagued by incomplete records and poor usability." Last year, the Strengthening Medicare Task Force also called for the modernisation of the "clunky" digital health records system. 

Here is the link:

https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/anz/gps-cry-my-health-record-overhaul-and-more-briefs

Isn’t this just pathetic. If the Government has not worked out what the myHR needs to be after 12 years (it was initiated in 2012!) is there any chance insight and a purpose will suddenly drop from the sky?

And in the same week we have:

‘It’s a big job’: Doctors demand overhaul of $2b health data platform

---

Joseph Brookes
Senior Reporter

26 September 2024

Share

Almost one in three doctors aren’t using a national patient record database despite more than a decade and $2 billion of development, leading to fresh calls this week for an overhaul that can deliver productivity gains and prepare the platform for automation.

Health minister Mark Butler says ongoing upgrades funded by the government in 2023 and 2024 will deliver a better My Health Record (MHR) and “rich insights” from patient data.

But he is facing pressure for an accelerated usability overhaul from the Royal Australian College of GPs, which have linked the struggles to rising out of pocket costs for patients.

“It needs to capture more information for patients and be easier for GPs to search. It should share information with GP practice software and notify GPs when patients records are updated to support patient care and safety,” RACGP President Dr Nicole Higgins said.

“Automation will also make it more useable, such as automating data capture from GP records when patients consent.”

‘Clunky’: Health Minister Mark Butler says not enough data is flowing through My Health Record

Despite having existed in some form since 2012 and controversially switching to an opt out model in 2019, use of MHR is patchy, while the underlying platform is plagued by incomplete records and poor usability

A Productivity Commission report in May said only two per cent of documents uploaded to MHR are being looked at by other doctors, with some seeing the platform as a “shoebox of PDFs”.

According to RACGP survey results published this week, 31 per cent of doctors rarely or never use it.

The Productivity Commission’s report estimated a $5.4 billion windfall from better use of electronic medical records around the country because it would reduce patients’ time in hospital, while automation and artificial intelligence could deliver even more.

“The potential savings in general practice and other health settings would also be substantial,” Dr Higgins said.

“This money could then be re-invested back into reducing out-of-pocket costs for patients to help in the current high cost of living climate.

“We’re calling for the federal government to overhaul My Health Record to improve its useability for Australians, GPs and other health professionals.

In response to findings from a 2023 taskforce, which included the RACGP, Mr Butler accepted the platform needed an overhaul. He followed up with a $429 million funding commitment in the next federal Budget, which was topped up in the latest Budget in May.

“My Health Record is now old technology,” Mr Butler said in a statement to InnovationAus.com on Thursday.

“It still uses the old PDF format that Labor installed when we were last in government. It was cutting edge then, but it’s clunky now.

“That’s why the Albanese government is upgrading My Health Record to transform it from a ‘PDF document system’ to a data rich platform to provide rich insights to consumers and health professionals.”

Behind the scenes, the Australian Digital Health Agency responsible for MHR has been transitioning away from a single vendor for the platform, Accenture.

The tech services giant has clashed with the agency while being paid $750 million to operate MHR after securing contracts that broke procurement rules.

The issues led to a move away from Accenture — which now represents one third of vendor costs for MHR, down from 100 per cent prior to 2021 —  and prompted a wider consideration of insourcing national health platforms.

In the meantime, users of the platform are frustrated.

“It’s a big job to improve our flagship national health data system, and we recognise that the Australian Government and the Australian Digital Health Agency are taking steps to this end,” Dr Higgins said. “However, this work must continue to be prioritised because it will have significant benefits for Australians, and our health system.”

Here is the link:

https://www.innovationaus.com/its-a-big-job-doctors-demand-overhaul-of-2b-health-data-platform/

Isn’t this just pathetic. If the Government has not worked out what the myHR needs to be after 12 years (it was initiated in 2012!) is there any chance insight and a purpose will suddenly drop from the sky? Also there is no evidence I can see the RACGP (or anyone else) has a clue what to do with it as well! Let us remember it costs millions of dollars per month and has never been proven to offer any real benefit!

I said it was a lemon in 2012 and it still is. Way past time to kill it off and spend the money on something useful!!!

David.