It should be My Health Record

Harry Nespolon

15/08/2018 11:07:16 AM

RACGP President-elect Dr Harry Dr Nespolon looks at the current debate about privacy and medical records, which he says extends far beyond My Health Record.

News teaser
Dr Nespolon said he has started to see patient concern regarding privacy creeping into consultations.

The controversy around the privacy provisions, or the lack of them, has raised some fundamental issues regarding medical records.
While many have characterised this debate as solely about My Health Record, it is much broader.
One of the fundamental unspoken contracts that exists every time a patient sees a doctor is that all of the information obtained and recorded during a consultation will be kept confidential, unless the patient decides to release this information to a third party. This is the basis of the doctor–patient relationship.
Any breach of this confidential relationship can have devastating consequences on the way doctors and patients work together.
I have started to see this concern creep in, with an increasing number of patient’s saying, ‘Please don’t record this’.
These requests will become even more common as, for example, the use of genomics becomes more mainstream. How doctors deal with these situations can be confusing and place you in a difficult situation. Do you support the patient’s request while, at the same time, putting yourself at risk of not having sufficiently recorded the consultation?
Section 70 of the My Health Record Act 2012, ‘Disclosure for law enforcement purposes, etc’, was written in 2012 and represents a clear over reach – and it has been called out as such. It may have been copied from the Medicare legislation, but these are fundamentally different pieces of legislation.
One of the fundamental principles of privacy, especially in medicine, is that the information should be only collected for the purpose that it was intended. A pregnant patient who is seeing a doctor for her antenatal care would never presume that Centrelink could be viewing her record.
The difficult-to-understand decision by this government to make My Health Record an opt-out record was based on ‘participation trials’ involving thousands of participants. To me, this was always no better than a very elaborate focus group test.
In politics and in business, the ultimate retort to any failures is that ‘It tested well in focus groups’.  However, the opt-out for My Health Record should have failed the ‘pub test’.
The Federal Minister of Health Greg Hunt should be genuinely congratulated for listening to our lobbying on the changes that he intends to make to the legislation. The changes involve removing section 70 and the 130-year retention, neither of which will in any way limit the potential usefulness of the My Health Record. This will help to restore some trust in a system that was designed to assist the Australian public.
The lack of privacy provisions should never have been put in the original legislation. While only historical, it would be instructive to understand why such a provisions were included.
The RACGP has supported an eHealth record that will help to coordinate the healthcare of patients, and these changes get us closer to an acceptable electronic record.

medical records My Health Record privacy provisions

Megan Prictor   1/10/2018 3:59:38 PM

In relation to the comment "The lack of privacy provisions should never have been put in the original legislation. While only historical, it would be instructive to understand why such a provisions were included", the author may find our paper helpful: https://theconversation.com/if-privacy-is-increasing-for-my-health-record-data-it-should-apply-to-all-medical-records-102654 The provisions in the MHR Act were drawn almost verbatim from the Privacy Act, which permits GPs to disclose records for a range of law enforcement purposes.


 Security code