Watchdog warns UK health data platform could damage patients' trust
- Reference: 1669116733
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2022/11/22/nhs_data_platform_ndg/
- Source link:
Late last week, Dr Nicola Byrne, the National Data Guardian (NDG), said that the forthcoming competition for the Federated Data Platform – considered a "must win" for US spy-tech firm Palantir – put the problem of patients' trust in the NHS's handling of their data into "sharper focus."
She [1]blogged that the NHS had "amassed comprehensive cradle-to-grave information about tens of millions of [UK citizens], whatever our social and economic circumstances or ethnic origin."
[2]
"This store of confidential data is a national treasure – our shared national treasure – that must never be compromised or treated carelessly, as its collection is founded on our trust," she said.
[3]
[4]
Estimates suggest that, because of the unique position of the NHS, UK patient health data records could be worth £9.6 billion ($11.4 billion) a year to pharmaceutical and health tech companies.
The cache is also said to be valuable to the NHS itself as it strives to improve efficiency and recover from the strain of the COVID-19 pandemic.
[5]
"The value of our data will only be realised if it can be organized in such a way that the NHS is able to use it well to improve treatments, services and ultimately our health and care," Dr Byrne said.
"Sealing this precious asset in a vault where it cannot be used would render it worthless. However, making the data available in ways that damage patients' trust would be counterproductive. If people lose their trust in how the health and care system handles their confidential data things will fall apart, and plans for data use will not hold."
NHS England, a non-departmental body in the UK government, is set to launch the delayed £360 million ($427 million) procurement for the Federated Data Platform (FDP) in the coming weeks, according to documents shared with potential bidders.
[6]
"The importance of achieving the right balance is coming into sharper focus now, as NHS England begins asking companies to tender to provide a federated data platform. This 'ecosystem of technologies and services' will provide real-time, reliable insights to those making decisions about how care is planned and delivered," Dr Byrne said.
Although she said she strongly agreed with the aims and ambitions of NHS England's FDP, "this data programme must avoid common pitfalls around trust and transparency that have frustrated previous initiatives in this area."
Recent NHS history has been struck with difficulties in gaining public confidence to share patient data between doctors in general practice – the majority of whom are independent contractors – and the rest of the NHS.
A project to extract data from GP records and transfer it into a central store for research [7]stalled last year as health leaders failed to gain the confidence of patients and the medical profession. Attempts to restart the General Practice Data for Research and Planning (GPDPR) project, run by soon-to-be defunct NHS Digital, have so far failed.
[8]Decisions on health data sharing should not be taken by politicians, citizen juries find
[9]UK health privacy watchdog still in talks over who is accessing country's COVID data store
[10]Fresh concerns about 'indefinite' UK government access to doctors' patient data
[11]NHS Digital's demise bad for 55 million patients' privacy – ex-chairman
"Public trust can only be earned through a commitment to honesty and transparency. There must be no surprises for people about how their private information is being used," Dr Byrne said.
The NDG team has gathered a panel of advisors to help the FDP program get it right, she said.
"I have made clear that NHS England needs to allow sufficient time to listen to patients and professionals and then adapt plans according to what it hears.
"I have advised that the programme must be transparent and always strive to provide clear, easy-to-understand explanations of the platform, what data it will use, how it will use it, the benefits of the programme, and, just as importantly, the risks."
One of the main criticisms of GPDPR was that it failed to inform and consult patients, offering only website information and social media posts.
"Being open about risks and their mitigations provides an opportunity to meaningfully engage the public and build confidence in the system," Dr Byrne said. "This information should be publicly available, easy to find, and accessible. The [FDP] programme has subsequently assured me that it will be carrying out research with the public to determine what information people want and need about the programme. This will inform its communications and engagement plans, which it has committed to share with me for review."
The NDG has recommended clear governance frameworks and security measures for the platform. "I expect that it will continue to engage with me on these matters," she said.
Earlier this month, NHS Digital board papers revealed the UK government is set to expand its use of the Palantir platform it established in response to the pandemic. The documents confirmed that patient-identifiable data from NHS hospital systems will be shared with the existing data platform in a move designed to help cut hospital waiting times. This has prompted warnings of further legal action by privacy campaigners.
[12]According to documents seen by The Register , NHS England has now confirmed that this data extraction will need to be rolled into functionality for the new FDP. NHS England said it expects to award the contract in 2023. ®
Get our [13]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/in-pursuit-of-balance-unlocking-the-power-of-data-whilst-preserving-public-trust
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Y30AJ3nLRZz3acZ7i2shuQAAARI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Y30AJ3nLRZz3acZ7i2shuQAAARI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Y30AJ3nLRZz3acZ7i2shuQAAARI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Y30AJ3nLRZz3acZ7i2shuQAAARI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Y30AJ3nLRZz3acZ7i2shuQAAARI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/20/nhs_data_grab_delayed_again/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/31/uk_health_data_share/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/14/ndg_covid_data_store/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/23/uk_government_gp_data/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/04/nhs_digital_privacy_bmj_article/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/21/nhs_palantir_federated_data_platform/
[13] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Memo from the lords and masters to the peasants
We don't care. We own you.
Re: Memo from the lords and masters to the peasants
Jethro - add another couple of dozen pitchforks and torches to your trolley!
I forget where I read it
But I'm sure I saw a SPAD or a Minister saying somewhere that because the solution was federated no additional data permissions were required so they had no intent of re-seeking consent for the newest slurp. No doubt the RFP docs will be filled with Data Mesh BS.
1. We all know there will be a central "cache".
2. GDPR cares just as much about transmission as it does storage.
Same old leopard - same old spots. Instead of addressing the challenges of creating a medical data permissions framework they'd rather spunk all the cash on lining the pockets of Palantir in return for a cushy board spot or 2.
ahhh - it was here : https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/04/uk_governement_set_to_extract/?td=readmore
Even the NHS can't share info with itself so no worry.
I'm not worried. Even my GP can't see my hospital records and vice versa and what I can see like test results are often missing or wrong.
Watchdog -- Toothless -- But Quite Willing To Publish Whitewash!!!
Problems:
(1) Palantir
(2) GDPR.....seems it does not apply in this case
(3) "Pseudonomysation".....does not work!! Surprise!!!!
Link (item #1): https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-palantir-peter-thiel/
Link (item #2): https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252482365/Privacy-International-puts-Palantir-in-the-dock-for-NHS-data-analysis-work
Link (item #3): https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/23/anonymised-data-never-be-anonymous-enough-study-finds
.....and still NOTHING is being done to stop this huge, probably illegal, privacy-breaking slurp!!!!
Don't we already know who's won the contract? Obviously it's whichever firm donates the most to the Conservative Party. Or is that just me being cynical?
Its not quite
like that
Its whichever company offers to most non-exec directorships to the most number of ex-tory MPs*
*judging by the latest polls that will be about 160 .........
Being cynical makes you more likely to be right than wrong about this.
Even my (Tory) MP, who's on the ball about a number of things, appears to believe that Palantir can't possibly want to monetise NHS data and that the NHS Digital gang have our best interests at heart at all times. AFAIK he's never had a non-political job and has a decidedly non-technical mindset.
In consequence I suspect that he has little idea of the value of other people's medical data to unprincipled people with a total commitment to the metaphorical 50 bucks.
I suspect that he has little idea of the value of other people's medical data to unprincipled people with a total commitment to the metaphorical 50 bucks.
Another interpretation is that pretending not to understand such matters gives him plausible deniability. Thus when the inevitable happens, he can (claim to) be shocked to his very core that such skulduggery could take place, etc.
I suppose it's possible that he is, in fact, completely ignorant of how the world works in the age of surveillance capitalism, but that's not a great look either.
> If people lose their trust ... plans for data use will not hold.
This is definitely the biggest concern with the general loss of trust in the medical profession.
Planning Data - planning for what?
Pretty obvious what's getting stitched up here. I'd guess Palantir are going to be grooming US healthcare VC for 2-Tier NHS and they need this data to set your insurance premium. The privacy bit will be a figleaf so that Ministers can say "won't comment on any individual's costs" and deny they ever thought people in deprived and less affluent areas would be paying more than posh Tory voters.
"This store of confidential data is a national treasure"
No it's not. It's a cluster of personal data records of individuals who are the sole legitimate owners of their records.
No agency (government or otherwise) has the moral right to claim ownership of it, as it exists solely on the understanding that it is confidential to the person concerned and those providing their medical care. Of course that won't stop the powers trying to take ownership. The only way to fight this is for enough people to make enough noisy fuss to embarrass the powers.
@Lindsay Clark So is this UK patient data or England & Wales patient data?
Your article confuses the two and some of us need to know if NHS Scotland is part of these plans so we can protest.
Be on the safe side : go ahead and protest pre-emptively.
Besides, if it ain't happening now, it'll happen later.
Those board positions don't fill themselves, you know.
Security
Intentionally giving away data aside, This thing needs to be as bulletproof as possible and not simply awarded to the lowest bidder, it'll be attacked from day 0.
Different departments and GPs need to be granted access to specific patients to prevent people snooping on their neighbours or selling it to whoever asks (see the police database breaches for how inside threats can happen even on audited systems)
Trust
I don't know about the UK specifically but it sure has damaged trust in electronic health data everywhere else. Which is probably a good thing.
So if the data is worth £9bn presumable each and every person in the UK will be receiving their payment of about £136 will they?