Government to sell YOUR NHS records

by Andy Thu Feb 06, 2014 6:40 pm

To the highest bidder.
Just think, companies and shareholders plan to make money from YOUR highly personal and confidential medical records.

http://action.sumofus.org/a/nhs-patient-corporations/2/3/?sub=fb

by Clarkson Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:07 pm

Guess which govt first thought that up. It was OK the but not ow why?

by Andy Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:15 pm

Evidence, Drinky. or just more rw lies?
We are getting bored of you making untrue assertions with no evidence or links to back up your tainted claims

by Clarkson Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:22 pm

I'll try to find it from something on the net but remember I have worked around the health service for the last 20 odd years. Many of my friends still work within it at senior levels so I am not a rooky at this. The current IT systems were ordered by the last govt this isn't RW propaganda. Moreover many medical professionals are in agreement. Is your anti business gene so strong you would deny drug companies useful data that might one day save lives and earn the NHS a few quid today

Just bear with me and accept that this was considered acceptable years ago with controls. So its wrong now but right then. Again I ask why?

by Andy Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:27 pm

I might have been mooted under a Labour government, but was never implemented, because it would have caused a public outcry.
It was wrong then, and is still wrong now.
Just think, for a small fee, any company could find out all about your sex life, your wife's "ladies" department problems and the number of times you had to attend the "clinic"

Not acceptable in any society except Dave and Gideon's, where making a fast buck is the most important thing.

by Andy Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:30 pm

Clarkson wrote:I'll try to find it from something on the net but remember I have worked around the health service for the last 20 odd years. Many of my friends still work within it at senior levels so I am not a rooky at this. The current IT systems were ordered by the last govt this isn't RW propaganda. Moreover many medical professionals are in agreement. Is your anti business gene so strong you would deny drug companies useful data that might one gay save lives and earn the NHS a few quid today

Just bear with me and accept that this was considered acceptable years ago with controls. So its wrong now but right then. Again I ask why?

Do you need to edit that Drinky?

by Clarkson Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:32 pm

Day though if the cap fits :D

by Clarkson Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:33 pm

Handy Andy wrote:
Clarkson wrote:I'll try to find it from something on the net but remember I have worked around the health service for the last 20 odd years. Many of my friends still work within it at senior levels so I am not a rooky at this. The current IT systems were ordered by the last govt this isn't RW propaganda. Moreover many medical professionals are in agreement. Is your anti business gene so strong you would deny drug companies useful data that might one day save lives and earn the NHS a few quid today

Just bear with me and accept that this was considered acceptable years ago with controls. So its wrong now but right then. Again I ask why?
Do you need to edit that Drinky?

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:41 pm

Handy Andy wrote:To the highest bidder.
Just think, companies and shareholders plan to make money from YOUR highly personal and confidential medical records.

http://action.sumofus.org/a/nhs-patient-corporations/2/3/?sub=fb

Private companies already have access to medical confidential records, they have done for sometime

by Andy Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:43 pm

Clarkson wrote:Day though if the cap fits :D

My avatar says it all. My wife has only ever complained about the quantity of KY she needs!

by Clarkson Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:45 pm

Handy Andy wrote:I might have been mooted under a Labour government, but was never implemented, because it would have caused a public outcry.
It was wrong then, and is still wrong now.
Just think, for a small fee, any company could find out all about your sex life, your wife's "ladies" department problems and the number of times you had to attend the "clinic"

Not acceptable in any society except Dave and Gideon's, where making a fast buck is the most important thing.

They lost power mucker in 2010 haven't you heard. They would had they still been in power.

Remember Labour made more use of PFI that the Tories ever did or have since they did many things you would find unacceptable.

Incidentally the controls to which I refer involve removing names etc it is the demographic data nd medical data that is important.

Still I understand your point of view. Rather many die as a result of a lost opportunity than we release this data to the private sector.

Fair do's you are consistent. On tax rather many get poorer as we force out the rich as they have in France by introducing tax rates known to cause tax flight.

On business rather we have less jobs than reduce bureaucracy.

On public service rather we have millions of unproductive workers rather than those we really need to care for the elderly etc.

On technology rather we hold back advancement rather than offend the Luddites in the unions.

On democracy rather we walk slowly into a pan European dictatorship and keep on pretending we shall give the electorate a say.

Need I go on. Forgive me if your dystopian Socialist nirvana isn't my idea of a future for my children.

On democracy rather we walk slowly into a pan European dictatorship and keep on pretending we shall give the electorate a say.

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:47 pm

Again this thread is moot, private companies already have access to private medical companies, so what is the issue?

by Clarkson Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:48 pm

Handy Andy wrote:
Clarkson wrote:Day though if the cap fits :D
My avatar says it all. My wife has only ever complained about the quantity of KY she needs!

You Socialist love shafting us all so maybe you are Bi?

by Andy Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:51 pm

The government claims that individuals won’t be able to be identified. However, many experts have warned that under the current plans, we could easily be singled out through simple cross-referencing of other databases -- especially if you have a rare or unusual condition. Imagine your employer finding that you might have had an abortion when you were a teenager. Or your insurance company finding out you are HIV positive. The consequences for us as individuals could be huge.

If companies want to trace you from their records, it will be easy for them.
Luckily, a simple letter to your GP will forbid him from releasing your files.

Big Brother is looking at you closely in Drinky's dystopian, futuristic RW society.

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:54 pm

Handy Andy wrote:The government claims that individuals won’t be able to be identified. However, many experts have warned that under the current plans, we could easily be singled out through simple cross-referencing of other databases -- especially if you have a rare or unusual condition. Imagine your employer finding that you might have had an abortion when you were a teenager. Or your insurance company finding out you are HIV positive. The consequences for us as individuals could be huge.

If companies want to trace you from their records, it will be easy for them.
Luckily, a simple letter to your GP will forbid him from releasing your files.

Big Brother is looking at you closely in Drinky's dystopian, futuristic RW society.

Again private companies already have had access to private confidential medical records, so what is your issue?

You do realise, I should know as I used to work for one that they have strict rules over this information?

by Andy Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:56 pm

They also have strict rules on expenses in the HoC.
But that didn't stop wholesale abuse for a quick buck.
But with private medical companies, it won't be for a few bob, your information has huge financial value.

by Clarkson Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:59 pm

Yes and Labour were the worst offenders I'm surprised you chose that!

Indeed the Labour speaker Michael Martin tried his upmost to suppress it.

Poor choice comrade.

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:59 pm

Handy Andy wrote:They also have strict rules on expenses in the HoC.
But that didn't stop wholesale abuse for a quick buck.
But with private medical companies, it won't be for a few bob, your information has huge financial value.

Sorry Handy, but your argument is very moot, there is laws on this:

There are requirements under the Data Protection Act 1998 to keep personal data, including medical records, secure

Thus applies to all NHS staff as well as Non-NHS staff, both are capable to leaking the information if they wanted to, there is no difference in the NHS holding these files to a private company of which are run by medical professionals in the main.

The risk is the exact same in either.

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:15 pm

Your medical records are about to be sold to the highest bidder.

Starting this year, private companies will be able to buy information on us from the NHS’s new universal patient database -- including everything from mental health conditions, sexually transmitted infections and diseases like cancer -- all linked to your postcode, gender and ethnicity.

We’ve all been opted into the scheme by the government without our knowledge. And the clock is ticking -- the government has said they will upload our data in a matter of just a few weeks. If we’re going to stop this, we have to act now.

Tell Jeremy Hunt and the Department of Health not to sell our medical records.

It doesn’t really get more personal than what you discuss with your doctor. They know the most personal things about us -- like whether we’ve ever been depressed, had an embarrassing infection or struggled with drug & alcohol problems.

The government claims that individuals won’t be able to be identified. However, many experts have warned that under the current plans, we could easily be singled out through simple cross-referencing of other databases -- especially if you have a rare or unusual condition. Imagine your employer finding that you might have had an abortion when you were a teenager. Or your insurance company finding out you are HIV positive. The consequences for us as individuals could be huge.

We know that when we act together, we can bring about real change. When we fought to get High Street names like River Island and Edinburgh Woollen Mill to sign up to protect Bangladeshi factory workers, we won! Now we need to step up to defend something precious -- our right to privacy.

Tell Jeremy Hunt to stop the sale of our personalised patient data to big corporations.

by Clarkson Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:21 pm

What a wonderful contribution to the debate sassy.

Lets keep the data from Pharmaceutical companies to slow their progress a Luddite and anti human race it seems.

Dense doesnt come close to describe you.

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:23 pm

Again Sassy's argument is moot, Labour allowed private companies to maintain confidential records of patients, which even includes, those in care, who abuse, the sex register ect!

Its scaring people over something that already is in practice, absurd

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:26 pm

Yea right, just let them keep walking all over you Didge. I have already told my doctor that under no conditions are my records to be included, and I suggest that anyone who wants their records kept private does the same.

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:28 pm

You really have no idea Sassy, one question have they changed the confidential law on medical records?

No, so unless they change the law, you are talking garbage:

A doctor’s duty of confidentiality extends to a responsibility to ensure that written patient information is kept securely and protected against improper disclosure at all times. The GMC, in Confidentiality (2009), states: “Keep disclosures to the minimum necessary, and keep up-to-date with, and observe, all relevant legal requirements, including the common law and data protection legislation.”

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is responsible for governing data protection compliance. It can impose a civil monetary penalty up to a maximum of £500,000 if data controllers seriously contravene the Data Protection Act in a deliberate or reckless way, or of a kind likely to cause substantial distress or damages to an individual.

According to a recent study by privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch, between July 2008 and July 2011 there were at least 806 separate incidents in the NHS where patient medical records were compromised. This includes 91 incidents of NHS staff looking up details of colleagues, 23 incidents of patient information being posted on social networking sites, and 24 NHS trusts seeing confidential information stolen, lost, or left behind by staff.

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:31 pm

Good God, you haven't a clue what they are about to do have you?

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:35 pm

Sassy wrote:Good God, you haven't a clue what they are about to do have you?

My what a counter, with absolutely no counter what so ever.

Bravo

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:39 pm

Well, you haven't have you? The: A doctor’s duty of confidentiality extends to a responsibility to ensure that written patient information is kept securely and protected against improper disclosure at all times. is now being superseded by this, and all the information your doctor has is going to be handed over.

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:41 pm

Sassy wrote:Well, you haven't have you? The: A doctor’s duty of confidentiality extends to a responsibility to ensure that written patient information is kept securely and protected against improper disclosure at all times. is now being superseded by this, and all the information your doctor has is going to be handed over.

This extends to companies and employees, again I used to work for a private company with all medical records on the NHS, of which you had to sign declarations over, this information has been available to many people for sometime, guess it is you that on this topic really has not a scooby doo as again the laws have not changed

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:44 pm

The records, with your date of birth and postcode on, are going to be freely available to be bought for commericial reasons. If you don't see how easy that is to trace from that you are dimmer than I thought.

by Clarkson Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:45 pm

Sassys argument isn't just moot it is mendacious. All drug companies are private sector. Health care delivery is Public sector primarily.

She suggests that they be denied data which is vital to research. Ridiculous!!

Truly stupid.

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:48 pm

I think you will find that most of the country is extremely angry now they have found out about this, and there is going to be a hell of a row. GPs are already up in arms at being bullied from above to do it. Even a GP saying that in the Daily Mail today.

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:48 pm

Clarkson wrote:Sassys argument isn't just moot it is mendacious. All drug companies are private sector. Health care delivery is Public sector primarily.

She suggests that they be denied data which is vital to research. Ridiculous!!

Truly stupid.

Of course it is utterly stupid Drinky, all the claims she is making can also be done now, this is an absurd argument being brought forth.

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:50 pm

Sassy wrote:I think you will find that most of the country is extremely angry now they have found out about this, and there is going to be a hell of a row. GPs are already up in arms at being bullied from above to do it. Even a GP saying that in the Daily Mail today.

What 77,000 people, about 1 in a thousand, that is the whole country now or just some?

Wow a GP said that? How many of the other thousands of GP's said the same?

Great argument sassy, not!

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:52 pm

GPs revolt on patient records: Growing anger at NHS plan to harvest private data

Confidential records will start to be extracted next month by health officials
NHS insists data is to identify poor care - but it could also reach insurers
One GP said 'bullying' to co-operate with officials is akin to Stalinist Russia

By Sophie Borland and Andy Dolan and Mario Ledwith

PUBLISHED: 23:09, 5 February 2014 | UPDATED: 09:05, 6 February 2014

Defiance: Dr Gordon Gancz, pictured, said pressure from above is akin to that in Stalinist Russia

Growing numbers of GPs are joining a rebellion against an NHS scheme to harvest millions of medical records.

Unless patients object, officials will start to extract confidential data from their files next month.

The information will be used to improve care and assist research work, health chiefs say. But some family doctors fear the data will be misused by insurers and businesses.

At least four GPs – with thousands of patients between them – are defying orders to hand over their patients’ records. Many more are known to share their concerns.

Gordon Gancz, who has a practice in Oxford, had been told by NHS officials his decision not to co-operate may cost him his job.

In an article in today’s Mail, he compares these ‘bullying’ tactics to those used by camp guards in Stalinist Russia.

‘What I am vehemently opposed to is that the medical records of every man, woman and child in the country will be passed on automatically,’ he says.

Another GP, John McCormack, from South Woodham Ferrers in Essex, has written to his 2,800 patients to ask them if they are happy for their data to be used. Nearly all said no and Dr McCormack has handed over only the files of those who gave consent.

Another GP in central London and one in the North West have taken a similar stance. Neither wishes to be named for fear of reprisals from NHS bosses.

More...

NHS 'bullies' threaten to axe GP for keeping his patients' records private: He opts his entire practice out of scheme to harvest medical data
DAILY MAIL COMMENT: City's conmen should be brought to justice

The doctors believe patients may refuse to reveal sensitive information about their lifestyle – drinking habits or smoking – if there is a chance it will be sold on and potentially used against them.

And if patients do not reveal what is wrong with them, such as lumps or aches, doctors will find it harder to diagnose conditions such as cancer.
Medical files in a doctor's office (file photo)
+6
GP talks to a patient in a surgery (file photo)
+6

Under orders: Next month GPs will be obliged to hand over medical records to a central database, but some are refusing, citing concerns they could end up in the hands of third parties like insurance firms (file photos)

NHS England insists the data – stored on a massive, central database accessed by officials – will mainly used mainly to improve care by identifying areas with long waiting times, poor services or substandard treatment.

But it has admitted the data could be passed on to private organisations – including insurers – who may use it to hike up premiums for certain patients.

The way in which patients can object to the plans differs between surgeries. Some practices have told them they must do so in writing – by a letter or email – while others are allowing them to phone up or tell their doctor during a routine appointment.

But millions are simply receiving leaflets by post which some doctors say are confusing and easy to dismiss as junk mail.

Neil Bhatia, a GP from Yateley in Hampshire, said: ‘Many patients will be very angry in a few months when they realised their information has been handed out to organisations for purposes they are not happy about.’
Revolt: Four GPs' views on the new scheme. Many wanted to remain anonymous for fear of losing their jobs
+6

Revolt: Four GPs' views on the new scheme. Many wanted to remain anonymous for fear of losing their jobs

Database: Private medical records will be held on a central computer system by NHS England. Officials insist the move is to spot trends in poor care and improve aspects of treatment like hospital waiting times
+6

Database: Private medical records will be held on a central computer system by NHS England. Officials insist the move is to spot trends in poor care and improve aspects of treatment like hospital waiting times

Despite his objections, Dr Bhatia has stopped short of opting out all of his patients automatically as he fears he will be breaking the law.

Instead, he is making it as easy as possible for them to object and has been distributing simple forms they can fill in to avoid having to come to the surgery. Last month a poll of 400 GPs by Pulse magazine found that 40 per cent planned to opt out of the scheme individually.

An electronic marker is inserted on to files of those who object – telling officials not to mine the data.

Dr Matthew Stead, 57, who runs a practice with 11,000 patients in Bodmin, Cornwall, said the cash-strapped NHS would end up selling the data.

He added: ‘Patient consent is the crunch point for me. Where you have got a patient’s own clinical details being used for something not directly associated with their own clinical care then that patient should have the right to say: “Yes, I want this to happen”.
Confidentiality: Some GPs are concerned the move will break the trust between doctor and patient
+6

Confidentiality: Some GPs are concerned the move will break the trust between doctor and patient

‘Five years ago the CIA would have said: “Don’t worry, we are completely happy – there’s no chance our security could be breached”. Then we had the Wikileaks incident.’

A spokesman for NHS England said GPs who did not hand over patients' data would be in breach of the Health and Social Care Act.

But they confirmed no action would be taken against these doctors until the project gets under way next month.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2552651/GPs-revolt-patient-records-Growing-anger-NHS-plan-harvest-private-data.html#ixzz2sZr0qOlS
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:53 pm

://?roflmao?/:

Four GP's

://?roflmao?/:

Wow

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:54 pm

Those are the ones who have had the guts to speak up, many more support them. Mine for one thank goodness.

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:58 pm

4 out of 200,000, blimey, call the Police

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:05 pm

yeah, and like....you can trust private companies....really you can...no I mean it :<:i}:

insurance for 90% of the population is about to be massively increased...watch this space

not that there is a NEED, merely that access to this data will provide an excuse for the bstards to hike up already over inflated prices...

FOR INSTANCE...atm I have diet and tablet controlled diabetes....there is NO legal need to tell my car insurance....
once they can buy this PRIVATE information however...watch em lay into folks with this and other similar conditions....more profiteering and rip off by the greedy fat cats.....

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:06 pm

and just watch the bstards go crying cap in hand for govt bailouts over the cost of the flood damage....

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:10 pm

grumpy old git wrote:yeah, and like....you can trust private companies....really you can...no I mean it :<:i}:
We already do and have done for sometimes
insurance for 90% of the population is about to be massively increased...watch this space
assumption based on nothing, as it could be done already this information given out, moot argument

not that there is a NEED, merely that access to this data will provide an excuse for the bstards to hike up already over inflated prices...
assumption based on nothing, as it could be done already this information given out, moot argument

FOR INSTANCE...atm I have diet and tablet controlled diabetes....there is NO legal need to tell my car insurance....
once they can buy this PRIVATE information however...watch em lay into folks with this and other similar conditions....more profiteering and rip off by the greedy fat cats.....

assumption based on nothing, as it could be done already this information given out, moot argument and again absurd

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:18 pm

Well didge...you being like drinky little more than an NHS pen pusher, I have to wonder just how deep your knowlege goes....I mean how is it already going on.....I dont trust private companies...

how has it already been given out?

since when...

have YOU got vested interests in allowing and encouraging this...I wonder....

by Clarkson Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:20 pm

Braindead lefties telling us how much they care about people and the NHS except they don't really.

Sassy explain how Pharma companies can get this data and why they shouldn't.

Let me help you understand something. It costs hundreds of millions to develop a new drug.

Making it more difficult to do so costs lives and money. Any extra costs will be paid for by the NHS you burke. Instead the NHS get money and the Pharma companies save time. A win win. Your is lose lose.

Is dumb a valuable commodity in your part of the world?

I've told you many times I think you are as kosher as a nine pound note in your pretence to care about people this proves it in spades.

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:22 pm

grumpy old git wrote:Well didge...you being like drinky little more than an NHS pen pusher, I have to wonder just how deep your knowlege goes....I mean how is it already going on.....I dont trust private companies...
Well more unimportant reflections about me and now Drinky which off nothing to the debate, and that is your choice not to trust companies, as stated this has been available to many private companies already

how has it already been given out?

since when...

have YOU got vested interests in allowing and encouraging this...I wonder....

I don't work for that company anymore but know companies do have access being as I worked for one If your argument was about having access to these details then the argument has long since be an issue, as stated this practice of having private companies with access to your files goes back sometime now, hence it is a moot argument

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:24 pm

but why should insurance companies be able to access it?
especially as is said..it is EASY to identify THE INDIVIDUAL from it with a bit of cross referencing.

by Clarkson Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:25 pm

I worked in the NHS at a very senior level in Purchasing for years for the record. I worked with those who worked on the drugs portfolio and many others.

This reaction of lefty anti business rhetoric has nothing to do with caring of that I am sure.

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:27 pm

grumpy old git wrote:but why should insurance companies be able to access it?
especially as is said..it is EASY to identify THE INDIVIDUAL from it with a bit of cross referencing.

All I see is a central computing system being run by a company, they still have to abide by confidentiality on this, something you and sassy keep neglecting, of which this applies to the companies who already have access to these files

Anyway until tomorrow, have a good evening!

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:34 pm

I wonder how long it will be before someone gets an insurance renewal notice like this

dear Sir,
we have just acessed your medical details and note that 20 years ago, you were treated for an STD, namely chlamydia. Does your wife know? It would be unfortunate if a mix up were to occur and your records were accidently sent to your wife. We suggest the best way to prevent this would be to continue to purchase our over inflated insurance which of course will cover you for absolutley nothing due to your past risky behaviour

yours faithfully

A.FAT CAT

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:53 pm

grumpy old git wrote:I wonder how long it will be before someone gets an insurance renewal notice like this

dear Sir,
we have just acessed your medical details and note that 20 years ago, you were treated for an STD, namely chlamydia. Does your wife know? It would be unfortunate if a mix up were to occur and your records were accidently sent to your wife. We suggest the best way to prevent this would be to continue to purchase our over inflated insurance which of course will cover you for absolutley nothing due to your past risky behaviour

yours faithfully

A.FAT CAT

excellent post.

by Clarkson Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:04 pm

All I see is a bunch of anti business luddites.

Good night as well

by Guest Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:36 pm

Police will have 'backdoor' access to health records despite opt-out, says MP
David Davis says police would be able to approach central NHS database without a warrant as critics warn of catastrophic breach of trust

The database that will store the entire nation's health records has a series of "backdoors" that will allow police and government bodies to access people's medical data.

David Davis MP, a former shadow home secretary, told the Guardian he has established that police will be able to access the health records of patients when investigating serious crimes even if they had opted out of the new database, which will hold the entire population's medical data in a single repository for the first time from May.

In the past, Davis said, police would need to track down the GP who held a suspect's records and go to court for a disclosure order. Now, they would be able to simply approach the new arms-length NHS information centre, which will hold the records. "The idea that police will be able to request information from a central database without a warrant totally undermines a long-held belief in the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship," he said.

The records will include mental health conditions, drugs prescribed, as well as smoking and drinking habits – and will be created from GP records and linked to hospital records. Ministers have defended the incoming system – which supporters say could bring huge benefits to care and research – saying it has mechanisms to de-identify records and a series of committees which will consider requests from thinktanks, businesses, universities and government bodies, as well as offering opt-outs for patients concerned about the use of their data.

But opting out of data sharing outside the NHS will not prevent records being sucked up and state agencies in some cases will be able to get access to them.

In the case of the police, officers will be able to request all of the medical data held for specific suspects with their correct identities, regardless of whether they had opted out.

With a national database in place, the request only has to be considered by officials at the information centre, who will not know the patient personally.

Davis, who established the existence of these "backdoors" in a parliamentary question answered by health services minister Dan Poulter, said he had "no problems with the data being used for licensed medical research, but when we have police accessing from a database that people have opted out from, and companies being able to buy this data, I think we need to have a debate about whether my property, which are my patient records, can be sold and used".

Advocates say that sharing data will make medical advances easier and ultimately save lives because it will allow researchers to investigate drug side-effects or the performance of hospital surgical units by tracking the impact on patients. But privacy experts warn there will be no way for the public to work out who has their medical records or to what use their data will be put.

The extracted information will contain a person's NHS number, date of birth, postcode, ethnicity and gender. Once live, organisations such as university research departments – but also insurers and drug companies – will be able to apply to the new Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) to gain access to the database, called care.data.

Last year it emerged that the private health insurer Bupa was among four firms that had been cleared to access "sensitive" patient data.

If an application is approved then firms will have to pay to extract this information, which will be scrubbed of some personal identifiers but not enough to make the information completely anonymous – a process known as "pseudonymisation".

Speaking generally about the new system, Davis said that medical records were a person's "fingerprint".

"I have had my nose broken five times. Once you know that, I am probably in a group of 100 people in England. Then you figure out when I had my diptheria jab, usually done at birth, and bang you got me. Let me be clear: people can be identified from this data."

This week, the Information Commissioner's Office warned that information provided to patients on care.data was not clear enough about how to opt out of the programme.

Brian Jarman – the co-founder of Dr Foster, the healthcare information provider, and professor of health economics at Imperial College – said the system should be "opt in, not opt out". He said: "There is simply too much data and the risks that something leaks are too great. We need to slow this process down to ensure we have the right checks in place."

Phil Booth of medConfidential, which campaigns on medical privacy, told the Guardian: "This is precisely the danger when you create a giant database of highly sensitive information about people – all sorts of other people want to go rifling through it, including the government." There's always another good reason to go digging, but no one thinks of the catastrophic breach of trust this represents."

"The lack of independent oversight and transparency is what's most worrying. People trust their GP, but who's heard of the Health and Social Care Information Centre or the four people who sign off on access to all our medical records?"

A Department of Health spokesperson said: "There are strong legal safeguards in place to protect patients' confidentiality. If people do not want their data to be shared, they can speak to their GP and information will not leave the surgery. Any release of identifiable data without consent would only be in a very limited number of exceptional circumstances, where there is a clear basis in existing law – such as for the police to investigate a serious crime."

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/06/police-backdoor-access-nhs-health-records

by Clarkson Fri Feb 07, 2014 2:28 pm

The police can backdoor all sorts of records you numpty. Clearly you are so anti business you would rather hold up the advancement of medical science. You are not a Luddite you are a Neanderthal anti human race and a witch.

by Sponsored content