UK government bows to pressure, agrees to delay NHS Digital grabbing the data of England's GP patients
- Reference: 1623160749
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/06/08/uk_gov_delays_gp_data_grab/
- Source link:
Jo Churchill, under-secretary for health and social care, told MPs today in Parliament that the date for the extraction of data from GP systems under [1]General Practice Data for Planning and Research programme would be pushed back from 1 July to 1 September this year.
"We have decided we will proceed with the important programme, but we will take some extra time, as we have conversed with stakeholders over the past couple of days," Churchill said.
[2]
NHS Digital has yet to clarify until which date patients will be offered the ability to opt out of the data haul. As originally planned, they had to inform their GPs of their wish to do so by 23 June, around six weeks following the [3]programme's announcement . The non-departmental body has yet to respond to The Register 's request for more information.
[4]
[5]
On Friday, powerful doctors' union the British Medical Association [6](BMA) called for a delay to the programme , while the Royal College of GPs called for more effective communication with patients to help them understand the importance of the programme and the ways they could opt out. On Monday, the opposition [7]Labour Party repeated calls for a delay .
Opting out of NHS Digital data grab
Despite the delay, 55 million citizens of England will need to opt out of the involuntary General Practice Data for Planning and Research scheme before it is introduced to prevent the entire history of their GP visits being slurped, according to campaigners.
The official announcement is [8]here . Opt-out forms are [9]here [.docx]. We understand you will need to give this form to your GP practice to prevent data held by your GP from joining the central repository, which will now happen on 1 September.
There is also a secondary opt-out process that stops non-GP data, such as hospital or clinic treatments, being used or sold for purposes other than your direct care. Healthcare data privacy campaigner medConfidential explains both Type 1 and Type 2 opt-outs [10]here .
Churchill said the extra time would be used "to talk to patients, doctors, health charities and others to strengthen the plan, build a trusted research environment and ensure that data is accessed securely."
Only yesterday in Parliament, health secretary Matt Hancock refused to budge on the implementation date for the programme when asked both by Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
On Friday (4 June), following pressure from the BMA and the RCGP, NHS Digital issued a statement saying: "We expect GPs to be ready to implement this new system from 1 July, which will provide benefits to patients across England and are ensuring support is in place to enable them to do this."
Legal challenge
Last week also saw technology nonprofit [11]Foxglove prepare a legal challenge to the data haul . Backed by Just Treatment, Doctors' Association UK, the Citizens, openDemocracy and the National Pensioners Convention, as well as MP David Davis, the challenge warned the extraction of GP data into systems controlled by NHS Digital would be "unlawful" and the group will seek an injunction to halt the scheme.
[12]BMA and Royal College of GPs refuse to endorse NHS Digital's data grab from surgeries in England
[13]Google, Facebook, Chaos Computer Club join forces to oppose German state spyware
[14]Conservative Party fined one-third of a luxury food hamper by ICO for nuisance email campaign
[15]Mammoth grab of GP patient data in the UK set to benefit private-sector market access as rules remain unchanged
In a statement today, Foxglove director Cori Crider said: "It shouldn't've taken Foxglove threatening a court case to get Matt Hancock to involve patients in this major change – but better late than never. We and our partners are pleased that, however, belatedly, the government saw sense.
"Now the government needs to meaningfully involve people and answer key questions."
[16]
Crider said the government should make it clear how patients would be informed, including those who aren't online, such as the 67 per cent of older people not digitally connected. She also wanted to know how the trusted research environment would operate and under what terms private-sector companies could access the data.
'Considerable confusion' about 'scope and nature' of data slurp from both practitioners and the public
Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham said: "I welcome the decision to delay the launch of the General Practice Data for Planning and Research (GPDPR) data collection scheme.
"The appropriate use of health data is an important part of health and care research and planning in England, and better sharing of health data could offer substantial benefits. However, it is clear that there remains considerable confusion regarding the scope and nature of the GPDPR, among both healthcare practitioners and the general public. This includes how data protection rights can be exercised in practice. It is sensible for NHS Digital to take more time to engage with its stakeholders, and consider the feedback it is receiving about its plans.
"The success of any project will rely on people trusting and having confidence in how their personal data will be used. Data protection law enables organisations to share data safely and, when it comes to using health information there are particular safeguards that must be put in place to protect people's privacy and ensure effective transparency. This ensures people’s data isn't used or shared in ways they wouldn't expect.
"We look forward to continuing to engage with NHS Digital regarding this important project."
[17]
Stay tuned for our commentary on the amazing doublespeak about the project from UK health secretary Matt Hancock. ®
Get our [18]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/13/nhs_data_grab/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/databases&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YL@UIkxX0@YFWxCUbKeBZQAAAMY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/13/nhs_data_grab/
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/databases&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YL@UIkxX0@YFWxCUbKeBZQAAAMY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/databases&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YL@UIkxX0@YFWxCUbKeBZQAAAMY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/04/bma_and_royal_college_of/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/07/gpdpr_labour/
[8] https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-collections-and-data-sets/data-collections/general-practice-data-for-planning-and-research
[9] https://nhs-prod.global.ssl.fastly.net/binaries/content/assets/website-assets/data-and-information/data-collections/general-practice-data-for-planning-and-research/type-1-opt-out-form.docx
[10] https://medconfidential.org/how-to-opt-out/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/04/bma_and_royal_college_of/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/04/bma_and_royal_college_of/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/07/in_brief_security/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/03/conservative_party_fined_one_third/
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/17/nhs_data_market_access/
[16] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/databases&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YL@UIkxX0@YFWxCUbKeBZQAAAMY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[17] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/databases&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YL@UIkxX0@YFWxCUbKeBZQAAAMY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[18] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Opens excuses manual
@YAAC: slight mod.
4. Do exactly the same thing it in another way and invalidate all current opt-outs because it's a new process.
5. Make it even harder to opt out of the new process.
Re: Opens excuses manual
5. Name the program in a way that is confusing similar to the GDPR
Re: Opens excuses manual
Ah yes, the well worn exercise of consult and ignore, Sir Humphrey is a patient man...
Matt Hancock to involve patients
Good grief! That must be the first time a Tory MP has ever considered asking The Product for an opinion. Is the tide finally turning?
Re: Asking the product
Both parties do this routinely - when they are the opposition party.
Re: Matt Hancock to involve patients
>Tory MP has ever considered asking The Product for an opinion
Didn't work too well last time
1st July, 1st September
not to worry, by 1st September the plebs will have had other matters to worry their little heads about: returning from holiday, returning to schools...
Re: 1st July, 1st September
Trying to [1]return from holiday.
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-57396502
Re: 1st July, 1st September
... and by then all of the fuzz has died down. Like with WatsApp and Facebook.
Honi soit...
Re: 1st July, 1st September
They'll keep it under wraps and slip it out on a good day to hide this sort of news when everyone is looking elsewhere. There's probably a whole team of people employed to be on the lookout for that sort of day
Accidental naming coincidence
Is this deliberately named GPDPR to make people think it protects their privacy like a similarly named law? I'm thinking it probably is. When there was a very successful campaign named "National Living Wage", which pressured the government to bump up the Minimum Wage to something people can live on, the government responded by renaming the minimum wage to the National Living Wage. Which would presumably kill the campaign's Google ranking and sow confusion.
Re: Accidental naming coincidence
It's almost certainly not accidental. (cynical, moi? whatever gave you that idea?)
Re: Accidental naming coincidence
Like the postcode lottery? Or the health lottery?
GPDPR?
Is it just my suspicious mind, or have they deliberately named it such that the acronym* is very similar to "GDPR", in order to sow confusion, and possibly subconsciously associate any bad smell that arises with the EU's GDPR?
*Yes I know it's not technically an acronym, sue me.
edit - OK, so I see I'm the third person to post the same thought. We are a suspicious lot, aren't we?
Re: GPDPR?
"We are a suspicious lot, aren't we?"
Suspicion born from experience.
Re: GPDPR?
See also "NHSTest & Trace" (Dido Harding's lot), who use the same logos as the NHS (the ones with the hospitals, who may be about to become Dido Harding's next lot).
Who are NHS Digital exactly?
Hmm. I'm starting to get quite confused here. Aren't NHSX part of this new NHS Transformation Unit? And is that the one that the esteemed Baroness Dido Harding is being lined up to oversee??
Re: Who are NHS Digital exactly?
There lots of bits of the NHS, Public Health England, the Health secretary etc. etc.
Conveniently, so many that it's difficult to know which, if any, can be trusted.
Re: Who are NHS Digital exactly?
>Aren't NHSX part of this new NHS Transformation Unit?
NHSX is where Dr X works
NHS Digital is the stuff that involves sticking fingers in you
>> build a trusted research environment and ensure that data is accessed securely.
Shouldn't that have been done in time for July 1st rather than the new date?
I've now successfully persuaded 6 people to opt out. Now have another 2 months to work on a few more.
Opens excuses manual
1, Claim anyone opposing plan is confused and misunderstood
2, Claim to "dialog with stack-holders" with empathy face
3, Rename operation
4, Do exactly the same thing it in another way