At 10:26 +0100 on 10-10-1996, Ross Anderson wrote:
> > So does that address (at this "conceptual level") the problem
> > referred to in Ross's point or is there something else in here ?
>
> No.
>
> My point is that the overwhelming majority of systems currently
> being fielded as part of the IM&T strategy do not permit patients
> - or for that matter doctors - to opt out of information sharing.
>
> A patient is within his rights to forbid a hospital consultant to
> put information about a course of treatment on the Clearing system
> because that will result in this information being automatically
> shared with, for example, HES. However, the hospital will then not
> get paid.
>
> Similarly, a girl who turns up for contraceptives and refuses to
> share this fact with the health authority (maybe mum works there)
> will have to be treated at the GP's expense, as the IOS claim will
> not be paid unless there is a valid name attached.
>
> This locking together of clinical and administrative information
> is quite unnecessary but appears to form a central plank of IMG
> thinking. It is bound to lead to continuing serious trouble in the
> future
>
> Ross
Ross,
What do you have in mind?
The problem is not technical. It is human, I fear.
Question 1:
Why is there a kind of discrimination? Why must certain touchie things be
exempted from normal procedures?
Question 2:
Why do administrators think they need all the data before taking action?
Why don't they use a confidence system, where they believe what is sent ,
but without all privacy data? And offcourse institute a controlling body
which randomly checks claims. (Social control)
Gerard Freriks,huisarts, MD
C. Sterrenburgstr 54
3151JG Hoek van Holland
the Netherlands (31) 174-384296/ Fax: -386249
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|