All posts by jenpersson

deregulation, legislation, NHS England

The Deregulation Bill – Episode III : Regulate, what with?

Regulation, the use of regulatory powers and the authority to oversee them, are in flux in England.

Some will have lesser discussed, but long term, wide ranging effects such as the regulatory framework and requirement for profit in almost all public bodies.

A significant amendment [1] appears to have been proposed by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 9th Jan, 2015 in the Deregulation Bill [2]. The next discussion date of which seems to be provisionally scheduled for February 3rd and 5th.

The amendment proposes the removal of ten regulatory functions in health and care, from the requirement to exercise the clause of considerable concern, renamed from clause 83 to clause 88: the statutory duty towards a desirability to promote economic growth.

My last post in November on this clause was after the debate in which Lord Tunnicliffe concluded:

”if our fears comes to pass, these three clauses could wreak havoc in a regulatory regime within this country.”

Later  he asked:

“are these new clauses a licence for regulators to approve regulations that kill people to save money?”

Clause 88: background on the clause to ‘promote economic growth.’

Almost a year ago, in February 2014, [3] MPs had discussed this same clause in its passage in the House of Commons.

MPs were asked to support a reasoned amendment tabled by Caroline Lucas, Jonathan Edwards, John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn MPs.

They proposed the removal of the clause, requiring the desirability for economic growth, and they had concerns:

…”that this Bill represents a race to the bottom and an obsession with GDP growth at any cost which is not in the public interest.”

(my underlining):

[…]”the Health and Safety Executive, which is irresponsible and risks undermining their core roles; further considers that this Bill is another illustration of a Government which is embarking on a deregulatory path without due consideration of warnings, including from businesses, that effective regulation is essential to create jobs and innovation and that ripping up vital green legislation risks locking the UK into polluting industrial processes for decades to come, jeopardising future competitiveness, damaging the UK’s attractiveness for green investment, and undermining new industries.”

This clause must be reviewed thoroughly and transparently from scratch. If indeed these ten bodies are to be considered for exclusion from the clause there must be a detailed case of why. This leads automatically to ask for the benefits to justify the inclusion of others. If this has not been made transparent to the Lords debating the clause by now, then the bill should not pass as is without reasonable justification.

Is there an MP or Lord who will gladly take the responsibility to say:

“I agreed to a new law, the consequences of which I was not clear, but I did not ask the questions I should have done. I ignored that Lord Tunnicliffe asked: “are these new clauses a licence for regulators to approve regulations that kill people to save money?” And I did not examine why this might be for each and every function of regulation it affects.”

Based on what decision criteria and based on what measures or public interest test has this department area been selected for exclusion and others, such as the environment, been omitted?

Considering the reported opinion of the Bill’s proponent Oliver Letwin MP to the NHS it sould seem wise to ask, what kind of National Health Service do our MPs expect to see in future under this new model of statutory requirement to seek profit.

In conclusion:

Is the bill designed to future-proof regulatory common sense or set it up for widespread failure from the start?

In the words of Lord Tunnicliffe:

“The problem is the clauses themselves. Clause 83(2) states that:

‘the person must … consider the importance for the promotion of economic growth of exercising the regulatory function in a way which ensures that … regulatory action is taken only when it is needed, and … any action is proportionate”.

“Those words by themselves seem a pretty high test for a regulator. As I tried to illustrate, our lives are made acceptable and benign by regulators acting pretty well as they do at the moment to protect us. So are these new clauses a licence for regulators to approve regulations that kill people to save money?”

It should be made very transparent what bodies will be affected, why, how the decision making in each function will be carried out and what with? At national or local level ruling authority?

Clearly there is still work to be done to ensure that the implications in the public interest. That ethic seems to have been lost at the back of the vast cupboard of all that the deregulation bill has in store.

Alongside the changes to the sale of liqueur chocolates and weights and measures for knitting yarn we have lost something much greater in the Deregulation Bill.

However this amendment suggests there is new hope coming for the proposed change to regulatory powers and their profit making; that in fact, some significant bodies may be made exempt of this duty on a statutory footing.

Now the case should be made why any public bodies should not be.

Simply, the wider Public Interest must come first, above profit.

Perhaps when one hears calls to ignore criticism of these proposals of deregulation in this bill and in TTIP one would do well to ask why.

Anything else could be as disastrous for society, as the Poll Tax is now accepted to have been for Margaret Thatcher.

But perhaps, some would maintain, there is still no such thing?

*********

For those with more in depth interest:

Further detail; below I continue and review the amendment,  wider implications at local authority level, changes in the future landscape of health and social care and why it could be of significant negative impact on political and social trust.

This is my update on two previous posts; Part one: October 4th, Deregulation Bill Clause 47 and the back door access to journalist sources and Part two: the Deregulation Bill Clause 83 from 6th Nov with additional notes on Nov 21st.

It continues with Part four to follow: The Deregulation Bill: Part IV New Hope for Regulatory powers?

*****

The amendment

Here is what it looks like:

 Page 70, line 29, at end insert—“( )     This section does not apply to the following—
 

(a)   Care Quality Commission,

(b)   Human Tissue Authority,

(c)   Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency,

(d)   Professional Standards Authority,

(e)   General Medical Council,

(f)   Nursing and Midwifery Council,

(g)   Health and Care Professions Council,

(h)   General Chiropractic Council,

(i)   General Dental Council,

(j)   General Pharmaceutical Council,

(k)   Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, and

(l)   any persons exercising a regulatory function with respect to health and care service that the Secretary of State specifies by order.

( )     An order under this section must be made by statutory instrument.

( )     A statutory instrument containing an order under this section may not be  made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of,  each House of Parliament.”

What would the amendment change, if they become law?

These exceptions are specific to healthcare and, it remains to be seen if they will be adopted.

There is also some provision, to make further special cases for the health and care service more broadly, that the Secretary of State specifies by order.

This addresses some organisations in the regulation of health and care.

But it opens up the question more clearly why should other bodies be included? Where is the benefit – and where is the cost and risk analysis?

That would be a most welcome discussion in the public interest. Some professionals and professional bodies have already flagged their concern.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is one example, that was discussed in the last debate andthe ECHR response to it. [4]

Nov 21st update:  see Column GC229 < and whilst verbal assurances were made, it appears nothing changed in the Bill, and that the EHRC said in response:

“While we welcome this undertaking we understand that this doesn’t mean that we’ll be removed on the face of the Bill”.

The ECHR clearly sees it as detrimental and asks for change. Will the government ride roughshod over professional opinion without transparent and thorough justifications of the need for this?

If so, it seems an extraordinary dismissal of democracy.

Other bodies should take the lead from the EHRC and make their positions clear in the public domain now, or risk future backlash once the impacts become clear.

What wider impact will this amendment have?

At first the effect appears to be that a significant number of health related bodies could be freed from the duty to make a profit.

At national level this seems a welcome and sensible step.

To decide which bodies should and which bodies should not be exempt it must be very clear exactly what impact these changes will have.

 

For each body involved, an impact assessment table should be drawn up – what do they regulate, how, why and what would change under the deregulation bill and the effects of its clauses, especially 88. Risks and benefits.

 

That would help understand today’s position.

 

The next step is to understand the future implications. Identify which bodies will be deregulated by it in future, why and how they will be affected by other aspects of the bill.

However it’s not the whole story.

How these bodies perform their tasks at national level and how far down their powers reach will affect the organisations below them.

These lower branches of organisational structure also need to be understood for any regulatory implications. How that function is carried out under what powers needs to be clear at what point the removal of the requirement would have an effect.

These ten bodies are in health and social care. The future of health seems to be bound to social care and in Simon Stevens’ vision, with ever more physical, as well as financial mergers.

 

In an interview with the Financial Times: he predicted ‘a blurring of the [lines] that exist between different public services’.He said:

“You’re not going to have, in the future, a separate police station, ambulance station, schools, health service buildings and so on”, he said. [Jan 4th 2015, FT]

Basing my understanding on CCG meeting attendance, reading ADASS minutes and general media news. it appears pooled budgetary responsibility will call for a shift in more responsibility to local authorities.

 

Is it therefore logical to assume that will include the responsibility for regulatory functions?

 

Any changes therefore at national level in terms of organisational structure or regulatory responsibility will have an affect at lower levels.

 

So for an organisation of the amendment ten, taking the Care Quality Commission for example, it is not unthinkable that change is inevitable regardless whether they are in or out of this clause.

 

The CQC has come in for some criticism in recent months with media stories repeating failings. Mistakes were made, with significant media coverage, on the calculations of quality ratings of GP practices.

Questions were raised in November as to the extent of the reach of the CQC surveillance powers at practice level, reviewing individual patient medical records ‘to assess the quality of care provided by the practice’ without individual consent. Professionals on social media raised their electronic eyebrows and lamented the breach of confidentiality.

What deeper impact will this have?

What happens should the CQC powers be broken up at national level and carried out at local level instead needs to be examined.

The body having been made exempt at national level from this commercially driven clause, may find that the regulatory functions would be required to comply with it again at Local Authority level.

The reasons why the CQC should be made exempt, would therefore be lost in the transition, unless the special orders and special provision were made before any organisational restructure.

The timing therefore of new regulations would need to become integral to any departmental organisational change at any and every level of regulatory governance.

Instead of removing ‘red tape’ and bureaucracy in this bill, I foresee it adding a burden of analysis and requirement to assess and document responsibilities; determining whether or not the clause to promote economic growth should apply or not.

Its definition is so vague and its responsibility to be ‘proportionate’ so open, that in fact it is not assigned to anybody; which everybody knows,  means it ends up being done, by nobody.

Every time some any reorganisation is planned, the impact of this regulatory clause may need considered and not only in health and social care but in every aspect of regulatory function across government.

Every action a regulatory body takes, is by default ‘regulatory action.’ So any time the function should do its job, each and every time, every decision, every ruling, would need to consider the need for economic growth and if they need to act at all.

(a) regulatory action is taken only when it is needed,

and

(b) any action taken is proportionate.

Surely this is what they do already in every decision, and therefore why make it a statutory requirement at all – for any regulatory body?

If we don’t need it, why write it in. And if we do need it, what precisely is it intended to do, how and why?

I would encourage anyone who has not yet done so, to have a good look over the contents of the bill. It’s like an end of year sale and there is definitely something in there for everyone. The likelihood is high that some unforeseen damage will be done to the public interest in the rush to get it through in this term by government, akin to a Black Friday panic. The bills lined up to rush through the  last minute doors of parliament, seem to be queueing in droves.

For bodies which have regulatory functions today in health and social care at Local Authority level already, the hoped for reduction in harm through this amendment affecting their national level body, could fail to materialise.

The high-level  health and social care bodies may get “let off” the duty in explicit terms in the bill, but if the function is performed at another level, “on the ground”,  the requirement of the function will in effect still happen under-the-radar.
  
An example may be public health functions now held at the LA.[5]
Here is at least a starting point to go deeper into who regulates what at local authority level. [6] Imagine each and every regulatory function trying to consider the importance for the promotion of economic growth of exercising  the regulatory function in a way which ensures that —

(a) regulatory action is taken only when it is needed,

and

(b) any action taken is proportionate.

How will as another example, the local government ombudsman make a profit but not put that before the people it serves?
In this case their role is managing complaints about councils and some other authorities and organisations, including education admissions appeal panels and adult social care providers. How does one justify exploiting that, for profit?

 

With purdah and the general election drawing near,  this may be a question with an unpredictable answer for many organisations if their future structural model is uncertain.

 

The backdrop

 

There are various other bills in progress to do with regulation, which involve communications and data, and by implication, potentially journalists’ sources. They are also affected by clause 47 in the deregulation bill which the NUJ protested in 2014. [more in my next post].
A press free from political control and undue regulation is something to be held dear, and indeed Guido Fawkes has experienced this week. attempts to control it, by the Electoral Commission:

 

“Guido has no intention of registering with the Electoral Commission or reporting a penny of spending or anything else to them. This authoritarian law is a nonsense. If you read the guidance it should apply to newspapers. We haven’t just rejected statutory control of the printed press by one regulator for political control of digital media by another.”

Here we arrive at the nub of the issue: what is to be deregulated and why and by whom are fundamental to understand what effects these changes will require, and the demands the duty for economic growth will create.

I question: “Can this dramatic change, really be a wise and throroughly thought out course of action, when the only certainty in the affected organisations’ governance duties is that in fewer than five months, it may all change?”
Had all the background and assessments been done already, one would think it could be understandable to press on and complete. But the fact that this significant amendment has been proposed now, surely shows that an adequate cost benefit and risk assessment does not exist. Does it not exist only for these ten, or for all?

 

All sorts of areas of public interest are affected, with questions being asked on private tenancy changes to the very Electoral Commission itself.

 

In the run up to the election, will it be asked to become a profit driven  entity? – instead of prioritising its key focus, the regulation of our democratic processes:

 

“These roles and responsibilities outline much of the work we do in order to meet our objectives of:

  • well-run elections, referendums and electoral registration
  • transparency in party and election finance, with high levels of compliance”

How will the Electoral Commission  maintain neutrality if profit must drive the function as the regulator of political funding and spending?

That decision could have almighty and lasting effect on public confidence and our trust in the wake of the MP expenses scandals.

Without a publicly available clear cost benefit analysis, the overwhelming drive for profit in every sector of UK regulatory reach remains at best unclear.  The intended benefits or whether they will even create any efficiencies, never mind public gain, lacking.

At worst, “are these new clauses a licence for regulators to approve regulations that kill people to save money?”

****

Key references:

[1] Proposed amendment by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath in the Deregulation bill.

[2] The Deregulation Bill

[3] Hansard, February 3 2014, MPs propose removal of clause

[4] Hansard, November 20th 2014, ECHR comments included in Lords’ debate

[5] Public Health functions under Local Authority

[6]  Local Authority regulatory functions

********

List of The National Regulators – the ten bodies  above are those explicitly mentioned in Lord Hunt of King’s Heath’s amendment:

Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA)

Animals in Science Regulation Unit

Architects Registration Board (ARB)

British Hallmarking Council (BHC)

Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Charity Commission for England and Wales

Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)

Claims Management Regulation Unit

Coal Authority

Companies House

Competition Commission

Professional Standards for Health and Social Care (PSA)

Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS)

Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI)

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA)

Driving Standards Agency (DSA)

Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate (EAS)

English Heritage (EH)

Environment Agency

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Financial Reporting Council (FRC)

Fish Health Inspectorate (FHI), Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas)

Food and environment research agency (plant and bee health) and (Plant Variety and Seeds)

Food Standards Agency (FSA)

Forestry Commission

Gambling Commission

Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA)

General Medical Council

General Chiropractic Council

General Dental Council

General Pharmaceutical Council

Health and Safety Executive (HSE)

Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)

Highways Agency (HA)

HM Revenue and Customs (Money Laundering Regulations and National Minimum Wage)

Homes & Communities Agency (HCA)

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Association (HFEA)

Human Tissue Authority (HTA)

Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)

Insolvency Service including Insolvency Practitioner Unit

Intellectual Property Office (IPO)

Legal Services Board (LSB)

Marine Management Organisaton (MMO)

Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA)

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)

Monitor

National Measurement Office (NMO)

Natural England

Nursing and Midwifery Council

Office of Communications

Office for Fair Access (OFFA)

Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR)

Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (OFSTED)

Office of Fair Trading

OFQUAL

Office of Rail Regulation (ORR)

Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies

OFGEM

Pensions Regulator

Rural Payments Agency (RPA)

Security Industry Authority (SIA)

Senior Traffic Commissioner

Sports Grounds Safety Authority (SGSA)

Trinity House Lighthouse Service (THLS)

UK Anti-Doping (UKAD)

Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA)

Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA)

Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD)

***

Please feel free to comment below or find me on twitter @TheABB

#caredata, care.data, health, HSCIC, NHS England

care.data related December news you may have missed in the holiday

January looks like it’s going to be a busy NHS news month and December set out a very information rich programme.

Do you need a catch up from the holidays time? I know I could do with going back to September really, I blinked and missed the last quarter. But lots of news came in at the end of year, in typical holiday time, which is relevant to care.data, health data sharing and its backdrop:

[1] December 18th:  The Independent Information Governance Oversight Panel report raises questions about the preparation for a pilot stage of the care.data programme.

A very thorough and  most significant report. I considered this is more detail here.

[2] December 22nd: The Primary Care Support (PCS) Services procurement. Launched in November 2014 interested suppliers were asked to respond to a Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ).

“Members of our Stakeholder Group, staff from the PCS Service and experts in the procurement team have been evaluating the responses received from the PQQ. We have now produced a short list of suppliers to invite to the next stage of the procurement. We will be announcing the shortlisted suppliers in January 2015.”

How will this affect primary care records’ management and is that unknown being factored into current decision making?

[3] December 28th The Guardian reported the delayed Rose Report would be out in January and say the NHS is hampered by poor management structure.

[4] December 30th Poulter announces DWP prescription check “The government is planning to give High Street pharmacists access to Department of Work and Pensions IT systems to check whether patients in England are entitled to free prescriptions.”

This raises a raft of questions on data protection with implications for patient confidentiality, expected purposes, informed consent and data linkage.

[5] December: a New HSCIC Code of Confidentiality

A longer read and leaves not everyone content it addresses all the needed questions. Opt outs and technical solutions on anonymisation remain two areas of undefined detail relevant for care.data.

[6] January 2nd: IIGOP annual report How health and social care organisations are implementing recommendations about sharing information.

This is a key publication on data sharing as a whole [not only care.data] – snuck in on one of the quietest days of the year perhaps? Some points of particular mention are those which set expectations for legislation change:

“During a debate in the House of Lords in May 2014, in the face of criticism of the care.data programme, the Government said it was sympathetic to calls for IIGOP to be placed on a statutory footing.”

One can only expect then it is a question of when, not if, the IIGOP role will become enshrined in law. Before the next major data sharing step for care.data, the planned pathfinders perhaps?

The second piece of law needing defined and actioned goes back almost a year to February 2014 and Mr. Hunt’s promise of a statutory opt out, which would seem fundamental to any next step step and pilots.

On opt out IIGOP said:

“It is the view of IIGOP that progress at a nationwide level in achieving appropriate sharing of information for direct care will not be satisfactory until core building blocks are in place, including agreement on terminology, clarity on consent and consistency of arrangements for objection and “opt out.”

That opt out refers to all medical data sharing, not only that for care.data, which comes in for criticism but notes some positive side effects:

“The unintended consequence of care.data was a positive cycle of change.”

Most positively, the report notes the changed attitude to public awareness and expectations around personal data management:

“Over the past year, the subject of information governance has moved from the backwaters of organisational management into the mainstream of public discussion. Debate about when it is right to share people’s care data is no longer restricted to policymakers, technical experts and medical ethicists.”

[7] January 5th: The Health and Social Care Information Centre will launch a secure data lab for viewing sensitive patient data in March, allowing it to support the pathfinder stage of NHS England’s controversial care.data programme.

What about opt out – technical feasibility and the Ministers promises to put it into legislation, still not done yet?

[8] Public health commissioning in the NHS 2015 to 2016 plan

Everything connected to everything in the market matters in the bigger picture. See [2], [4] and consider commercial data uses.

[9] Predictions from professionals for 2015 via EHI Insider: A clear direction for NHS IT was set in 2014; but could be disrupted by the general election due on 7 May, according to experts asked for their predictions for healthcare IT in 2015.

So, this quarter is getting off to an information-rich start with the December releases of reports and news having laid an interesting foundation for the coming quarter. And election purdah at the end of March…

[10] My own care.data wish list – no more surprises please  – what will care.data plans hold for 2015?

 

****

References:

[1] IIGOP care.data report https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/iigop-report-on-caredata

[2] Primary Care support services outsourcing / transformation http://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2014/12/Final_Stakeholder_Update_December_2014-.pdf

[3] The Rose Report http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/28/nhs-management-system-complex-rose-report

[4] www.ehi.co.uk/news/EHI/9813/poulter-announces-dwp-prescription-check

[5] HSCIC code of confidentiality http://systems.hscic.gov.uk/infogov/codes/cop/code.pdf

[6] IIGOP Annual Report: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/iigop-annual-report-2014

[7] HSCIC secure data lab news: http://www.ehi.co.uk/news/primary-care/9815/hscic-data-lab-to-launch-in-march

[8] Commissioning plans: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-health-commissioning-in-the-nhs-2015-to-2016

[9] 2015 Predictions: http://www.ehi.co.uk/news/primary-care/9800/coming-up-in-2015

[10] My own wish list fior care.data in 2015:  https://jenpersson.com/care-data-2015-list/

Oh, and my New Year’s Resolution, I’m cutting my posts in half. Nothing over 1000 words.

#caredata, care.data, commercial, communications, engagement, genomics, NHS, NHS England, politics

A review of NHS news in 2014, from ‘the Spirit of the NHS Future’.

Respectful of all the serious, current news and that of the past year, this is a lighthearted look back at some of the stories of 2014. ‘The Spirit of the NHS Future’ looks forwards into 2015 & at what may still be changed.

***

The Spirit of the NHS Future  visits the Powers-at-be
(To the tune of The 12 Days of Christmas)

[click to open music in another window]

On the first day of Christmas
the Spirit said to me:
I’m the ghost of the family GP.

On the second day of Christmas
the Spirit said to me: a
two-tiered system,
in the future I foresee.

On the third day of Christmas
the Spirit said to me:
You told GPs,
merge or hand in keys,
feder-ate or salaried please.

On the fourth day of Christmas
the Spirit said, I hear:
“Save our surgeries”,
MPIG freeze,
partners on their knees,
blame commissioning on local CCGs.

On the fifth day of Christmas
the Spirit said to me:
Five Ye-ar Plan!
Call it Forward View,
digital or screwed.
Let’s have a new review,
keep ‘em happy at PWC.

On the sixth day of Christmas
the Spirit said to me:
Ill patients making,
out-of-Ho-urs-rings!
Callbacks all delayed,
six hours wait,
one one one mistakes.
But must tell them not to visit A&E.

On the seventh day of Christmas
the Spirit said, GPs:
see your service contract,
with the QOF they’re trimming,
what-will-this-bring?
Open Christmas Eve,
New Year’s no reprieve,
please don’t cheat our Steve,
or a breach notice will you see.

On the eighth day of Christmas
the Spirit said to me:
Population’s ageing,
social care is straining,
want is pro-creating,
obe-si-ty’s the thing!
Cash to diagnose,
statins no one knows,
indicator woes,
and Doc Foster staff employed at CQC.

On the ninth day of Christmas
the Spirit said to me:
Cash for transforming,
seven days of working.
Think of emigrating,
ten grand re-registration.
Four-teen hour stints!
DES and LES are fixed.
Called to heal the sick,
still they love the gig,
being skilled, conscientious GPs.

On the tenth day of Christmas
the Spirit said to me:
Many Lords a-leaping,
Owen’s not been sleeping,
private contracts creeping,
Circle’s ever growing.
Care home sales not slowing.
Merge-eve-ry-thing!
New bidding wars,
tenders are on course
top nine billion, more,
still you claim to run it nation-al-ly.

On the eleventh day of Christmas
the Spirit said to me:
Patient groups are griping,
records you’ve been swiping,
listening while sharing,
data firms are buying,
selling it for mining,
opt-out needs defining,
block Gold-acre tweets!
The care dot data* board
minutes we shall hoard,
troubled pilots loom.
Hi-de Partridge’s report behind a tree?

On the twelfth day of Christmas
the Spirit said to me:
disabled are protesting
sanctions, need arresting,
mental health is failing,
genomes we are trading,**
staff all need more paying,
boundaries set for changing,
top-down re-arranging,
All-this-to-come!
New hires, no absurd,
targets rule the world,
regulation first.
What’s the plan to save our service, Jeremy?

– – – – – –

Thanks to the NHS staff, whose hard work, grit and humour, continues to offer the service we know. You keep us and our loved ones healthy and whole whenever possible, and deal with us & our human frailty, when it is not.

Dear GPs & other NHS staff who’ve had a Dickens of a year. Please, don’t let the system get you down.

You are appreciated, & not just at Xmas. Happy New Year everyone.

“It is a fair, even-handed, noble adjustment of things, that while there is infection in disease and sorrow, there is nothing in the world so irresistibly contagious as laughter and good humour.”
– Charles Dickens,   A Christmas Carol, 1843

– – – – –

*New Statesman, Dr Phil Whitaker’s Health Matters column, 20th March 2014, ‘Hunt should be frank about the economic imperative behind the urgency to establish the [care.data] database and should engage in a sensible discussion about what might be compromised by undue haste.’

**Genomics England Kickstarting a Genomics Industry

#caredata, care.data, NHS England

A care.data Christmas carol

“Marley was dead: to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that.” [A Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens, 1843]

“Is care.data dead?” I was asked after our children’s nativity today, “what happened to that GP record sharing project?”  The local priest, you may think of all people, wondered what had become of the news stories we had discussed at Easter.

Not dead, I assured him, though it was suggested recently that the Caldicott led Independent Information Governance Oversight Panel (IIGOP) report [1], would be the final nail in the coffin of the past approach [2], and would spell doom ahead in any care.data future were the programme not to follow its recommendations.

I told him the story of the care.data year.

So, are you sitting comfortably? For Christmas is a time of storytelling. At its heart, the story of a birth, which has been handed down through generations.

But here, I borrow from the most famous of all English Christmas stories, a Christmas Carol, by Charles Dickens from 1843. Let us begin.

“Come in!” exclaimed the Ghost. “Come in! and know me better, man!”

The ghost of care.data past rattled its chains and brought no joy in 2014, haunting the current programme with news of past data sharing practices.  At the start of the year, much was made of the 25 years of past use of our health records with third parties about which the public had never been told nor asked for permission, we were told there had never been breaches [3], and there was surprise expressed by NHS England leadership at why care.data, the plan to extract GP records now in addition, should have struck such a nerve in the public. Then they actually ran an audit that told the full story.

Various reports have since tried to vanquish those ghosts which have haunted the rollout of care.data in the past year. Sir Nick Partridge in May led the Review of Data Releases by the NHS IC which looked back at health data sharing of the existing HSCIC held data, and in November, he examined the progress up to the present.[4]  The extent of third party releases including actuarial firms, organisations in the US and China, and commercial re-use was a complete surprise to the public and, his report appeared to suggest to many like him in management as well.

The IIGOP Report published last week on the care.data Programme Board looks to the future. It sets out a thorough set of specific recommendations, questions and tests to meet before it could be reasonable to proceed to a data extraction in the care.data pilot.

The first independent report on care.data, prepared and released under the oversight of the new Data Guardian, Dame Fiona Caldicott, it also captures many sensible and practical questions raised by patients at events all year.

In some ways, whilst sad to see what so many have said was needed has only come to be addressed by an independent body rather than NHS England, recognising the current weaknesses can only be seen as positive to bring about changes. It may have a hope of restoring public and professional trust.

What next steps will come from this for a care.data relaunch by NHS England, and when in future, remain to be seen. [Updates may be here, or here or sometimes here].

Perhaps if the current course of actions is averted, we may not ‘see a vacant seat’ if it all falls apart in 2015 after all.

The CCGs have been given a huge responsibility which is not of their making, if NHS England continues to pilot under CCG-steered rollouts.[5]

One would hope that given the right amount of time needed to manage this change process, and  with the right supporting skills and tools for the practicalities, the care.data programme will take a changed form in the year ahead. It may yet be saved.

But it does seem often that timing is of the essence, and we move from one artificial deadline to the next. The public and GPs wait without the security and confidence of a realistic schedule.  Waiting we wonder if we will reach the next chime due, or the next ghost to haunt the programme will arrive and cause new fright.

It’s no cure all, but it appears the IIGOP has given the programme the gift of one last wonderful opportunity to get this right. It’s requirements are sizeable and will take time to execute sensibly. The report illuminates a future path for progress and shows what must be altered today, to avoid the future it predicts otherwise.

The outcome of care.data rests in the hands of the DH and NHS England. Dependent on the public and professions seeing change.

As Scrooge learns:

“But if the courses be departed from, the ends will change.” [A Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens, 1843]

Ignore the wisdom of the ghosts at your peril. For a changed future outcome,  the actions of the present must change first.

So, humour me awhile, and let’s consider some of the bigger themes in the care.data Christmas carol that CCGs may wish to consider as it deals with preparing for pathfinder pilots…

Chapter 1. “This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased…” [A Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens, 1843]”

What information is getting through from listening events? [6]

There should be no excuse for poverty in the world today, and whilst in my bigger picture wish list, to deal with want would come first, in my care.data Christmas carol list, it is ignorance which cannot be tolerated.

There is no excuse for ignorance, for lack of information, or wondering what questions needed answers to date at the care.data programme board of NHS England.

“How do we explain care.data vs SCR”, “Can you tell me exactly who will access my data?”, “If future purposes change and I want the opportunity to withdraw & opt out, how will I get told?”

The IIGOP report states clearly the current gaps in knowledge and what must be done to fill them, for various parties.

Together with two other major reports this year on health data sharing and care.data: Partridge, and the November 2014 APPG report [7], professional bodies have provided plenty of information and asked plenty of questions which no one now can ignore.

Misplaced statements that there have been no breaches do nothing for public confidence, when later reports show that is ignorant or inaccurate. Big Brother Watch published its report into NHS Data Breaches in November. It found that data security is an ongoing problem, and that over the last four years patient confidentiality had been breached at least 7,255 times.[8]

Facts and answers now need to address the IIGOP report in depth, and meet patients’ past questions, to lay to rest some of the issues which have haunted the programme in the press; unexpected commercial uses, and re-use of data through commercial data licenses, for example.

Adequate time must be given to the CCGs, GPs and patients to be fully informed of the programme and the choice(s) on offer. This is not an IT rollout, but a series of process changes, which need human understanding and acceptance. “What’s in it for me?” versus “What risks may harm me?” need thinking time to be fairly presented and the patient choice collected.

To avoid potential doom whether it be significant opt out or failure to meet fair processing leaving GPs at risk [9], to adequately communicate through effective education, will take effort.

Chapter 2. “Every one of them wore chains like Marley’s Ghost; some few (they might be guilty governments) were linked together; none were free.” [A Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens, 1843]

Understand the links of who, why and what, of data sharing: 

The decision making, the process steps, how patients are told of changes in the programme today and will be in future, how the public perceives their data is exploited, are all linked together by very simply: who stores and uses the data, and for what purposes.

For the programme, it would be wise to understand the importance of the interaction of these parts of the process. Linked appropriately together, and working well, trust will keep the system together.  It fails, and no matter how good the technology is, without trust, the system will fail to deliver its expectations. If too many may opt out, or opt out disproportionately in certain population segments it would harm data quality.

When at the HSCIC data sharing discussion in July it was clear some data recipients were yet to grasp this interdependency, and the effect their attitudes to data use have on each other.

If one [class of] data recipient in future receives or uses data inappropriately, it will harm public faith in all users.

For patients, to have true transparency I believe care.data should be explaining exactly how the data linkage system [10] works, and all the other silos of data it already holds. The personal demographics service, stores a whole set of personal data of which the public maybe unaware, and yet may find used to link data collected from all sorts of parts of health and social care. If NHS data sharing is to be explained, do it all. To avoid doing this, will merely store up a future risk of yet more surprises for patients and damage trust further.

Chapter 3: “I have seen your nobler aspirations fall off one by one, until the master-passion, Gain, engrosses you.” [A Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens, 1843]

Commercial use of data will be detrimental to public confidence.

By looking ahead to see what the ghost of care.data future might bring, the forecast doom of the present course, may yet be avoided.

As patients told NHS England at the Open House event [11], we’re fed up with commercial data mining, and the same was reflected by a representative group of citizens in various polls this year.[12]

How is the non-NHS data world changing? What of the upcoming EU data legislation?  How does commercial data industry itself perceive legislation in the UK?

In the 2013 Experian keynote address the Nectar Head of Customer Marketing noted, “legislation has not kept up to speed with where we are going’ [16:57] [13]

Perhaps it is opportune to reflect on one of the oldest Biblical themes at Christmas, choose which master you serve.

Back at NHS England and the IC, discussions in April 2013 seek to ‘create a vibrant market of data intermediaries , for example.

Which purposes should this serve? The health of the nation, or the wealth of the nation? Can one justly serve both equally?

“You fear the world too much,” she answered, gently. “All your other hopes have merged into the hope of being beyond the chance of its sordid reproach. I have seen your nobler aspirations fall off one by one, until the master-passion, Gain, engrosses you.” [A Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens, 1843]

It would appear to patients that by  mixing commercial purposes in with legitimate health, and health research purposes,  the data commissioning system has created its own downfall.[14]

The purposes whilst amended in the Care Act 2014, are so broad as to leave too much commercial use open under ‘purposes of health’. How would that rule out pharmaceutical marketing for example?

For many patients, use outside their own healthcare and its provision and planning is a real hot chestnut.

If patients are in disagreement over commercial uses for example, they have no choice but to opt out of research uses as well. This multi-option choice, or the removal of commercial use needs addressed.

If research wants more data, we would do well to define and restrict commercial use in legislation, much more specifically.

Chapter 4 : “You wish to be anonymous?” [a Christmas Carol, 1843]

There has been much disagreement and misunderstanding of how data will be used, anonymous or what non-identifiable really means.

Media reporting at the start of the year frequently focused on the collection of care.data as ‘anonymous data.’  Bah, humbug! that is factually incorrect.

CCGs need to make sure that their own staff understanding is correct, as well as passing on information if they are to be intermediaries on behalf of NHS England. At CCG meetings I attended, many staff confused care.data with direct care/SCR.

The default position if patients do nothing is the sharing of date of birth, full postcode, gender and ethnicity, and the NHS number is a unique identifier. Plus all the other codes and conditions.

It is still unclear how the data which has already been extracted without consent or fair processing, can be controlled by patients who may not wish to share identifiable data from their hospital visits, mental or community health.

bbc_notdentifiable

If patients can’t control data already held at HSCIC, why will they want to share more additional data, from primary care?

Learning from looking back on 2014

My own looking back on my care.data journey in 2014 is here.

medConfidential has a rather good summary of the year here. [15]

“Spirit,” said Scrooge submissively, “conduct me where you will. I went forth last night on compulsion, and I learnt a lesson which is working now. To-night, if you have aught to teach me, let me profit by it.” [A Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens, 1843]

From past lessons learned in 2014, one would hope the future rollout will profit from them and take the time, and use the tools it needs, to get to a brighter future.

Looking ahead: news for 2015 came at the end of the year.

Sir Partridge in the Telegraph, November 27 he said:

“We must make sure there are no surprises for the public about how their information is being used, that they have a choice in this and that we are honest about the balance of risk. Every single one of us has a part to play in making sure we get this right…

“The HSCIC is still improving its practices. It is also endeavouring to increase its transparency.”

The November 2014 APPG report said, what everyone appears to agree on:

“the public had been inadequately consulted in the early stages of the Care.data programme and that it was therefore correct to halt the programme to allow further public consultation.” [APPG report]

It goes on to say, “Organisations providing health or social care services must succeed in both respects [examining the Public Interest] if they are not to fail the people that they exist to serve,” and with that in mind a Public Benefits Plan should be drawn up, to support public transparency.

Public transparency would be improved by publishing the public’s questions from multiple listening events at which attendees were promised answers and follow up. The conversations did not always ask easy questions, but all the more reason to address them publicly for all; it will make the programme better.

So, if the care.data programme learns from that which has haunted care.data in the past year, and NHS England now grapples with all the questions and criteria of the IIGOP report, and increases its public transparency, stakeholders can look to the future with a renewed hope. But only if there is change made to the present course of actions.

“Scrooge was at first inclined to be surprised that the Spirit should attach importance to conversations apparently so trivial; feeling assured that they must have some hidden purpose.” [A Christmas Carol]

 What must surely happen now, is to use the IIGOP report as a basis of lessons learned. To see gaps in knowledge, and to build processes and procedures which set up the future. Some of these must be at national level, such as ‘How patients will be informed of future scope change’ so CCGs will need answers from NHS England even if pilots should be ‘co-produced’.
Quite frankly, only muppets would not want to wait and do all this in all the appropriate time needed. The coming General Election is perhaps seen as a key reason to artificially rush it through. But at what cost? Who is the programme for, party politics or the public good?

“What do you think of the show so far?”

Clearly the National Data Guardian and IIGOP, the APPG and others making many wise recommendations, find the approach so far lacking. To carry on as is, will bring predictable doom. But by using the IIGOP report insights, there is the hope that the outcomes of the current path may yet be avoided.

Which version of the care.data future will the NHS England Patients and Information Directorate choose to follow, and invite the CCGs to join them on, writing the next chapter of the care.data story in 2015?

“No space of regret can make amends for one life’s opportunity misused.” [A Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens, 1843]

***

Let’s hope 2015 is a good year, that the wish list of questions finds answers, and let’s hope there are no more care.data surprises.

Thank you for all the kind blog comments and questions I’ve received over the last year. I hope it helps keep patients’ voice heard. For all those or their representatives I have met and spoken with in the last year who have no voice at the table; the homeless, the travellers, the women and children in refuges, those concerned with public stigma, we must continue to challenge so their datasharing is, in the words of others; safe, consensual and transparent.

“I HAVE endeavoured in this Ghostly little book, to raise the Ghost of an Idea, which shall not put my readers out of humour with themselves, with each other, with the season, or with me. May it haunt their houses pleasantly, and no one wish to lay it.
Their faithful Friend and Servant,
C. D.“

Now; let’s get back to the present today:

“What’s to-day, my fine fellow?” said Scrooge.

“To-day!” replied the boy. “Why, Christmas Day.”

“Merry Christmas,  and so, as Tiny Tim observed, God bless Us, Every One!”

  [A Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens, 1843]

***

Image from a Muppets Christmas Carol, 1992

References:

[1] The IIGOP report https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389219/IIGOP_care.data.pdf

[2] EHI ‘Care.data Review Raises Questions‘ http://www.ehi.co.uk/news/ehi/9808/care.data-review-raises-questions

[3] BBC Radio 4, February 4 2014 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01rmpdy

[4] Nov 2014, Progress of HSCIC data sharing review by Sir Nick Partridge https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/380042/HSCIC_Report_Summary_of_progress_261114_FINAL.pdf

[5] 7 Oct 2014, CCGs to help deliver care.data pilots http://www.england.nhs.uk/2014/10/07/ccgs-care-data-programme/

[6] What information is being heard at Listening events? https://jenpersson.com/pathfinder/

[7]The APPG Report – Nov 2014 – http://www.patients-association.com/Portals/0/APPG%20Report%20on%20Care%20data.pdf

[8] Report into NHS Data breaches http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/EMBARGO-0001-FRIDAY-14-NOVEMBER-BBW-NHS-Data-Breaches-Report.pdf

[9] on GP indemnity: care.data MPS advice to members http://www.medicalprotection.org/uk/membership-indemnity-updates/care.data

[10] The data linkage service http://www.hscic.gov.uk/media/12443/data-linkage-service-charges-2013-2014-updated/pdf/dles_service_charges__2013_14_V10_050913.pdf

[11] The Open House June 2014, public questions https://jenpersson.com/care-data-communications-core-concepts-part-two/

[12] Privacy and Personal Data IPSOS Mori poll https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3407/Privacy-and-personal-data.aspx

[13] 2013 Experian keynote address the Nectar Head of Customer Marketing

[14] care.data downfall parody http://paulbernal.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/tim-kelsey-discovers-care-data-is-in-trouble/

[15] medConfidential bulletin https://medconfidential.org/2014/medconfidential-bulletin-19-december-2014/

 

#caredata, care.data, engagement, HES, NHS England, trust

Rebuilding trust in care.data

In response to a care.data feature in the November Pharma Times Magazine,  I wrote a brief reader letter which was published, slightly abbreviated, on p.13 in the December issue.[1]

The November article had given me the impression that legislation in the Care Act from July was considered to have ironed out most patient concerns.

And it said that GPs opting patients out at practice level ‘would be illegal’.

I suggested three things.

1. The importance that legislation would be seen and enacted before the pathfinders to:

a) shore up trust of the broad definition of purposes to rule out commercial [re]use

b) enact an opt out

c) lend any legal weight to the role of National Data Guardian

Public and professional scrutiny and consultation on these changes will be required to ensure much talked of transparency is seen to be meaningful

2. Pathfinders must not only as the article stated intend to “test all aspects of communication and extraction”  in the pilot, but have a watertight plan for managing the planned broadening of both scope and access [2]

after all, how can communications be tested and considered effective which tell patients only part of the story how their data is planned to be used in future? Its merger with social care data, just one example.

and

3. a clarification was worth noting on the GP position regards opt out; that with certain conditions, the ICO had said that GPs opting out patients at practice level would be lawful regards their Data Protection obligations.

Data protection laws do not prevent doctors from adopting the approach recommended by the group Patient Concern, practice-wide opt out and offering opt-in at local level, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) had said, providing certain conditions are met.

“If GPs choose to opt out all of their patients, then that is an issue for them and NHS England – the Data Protection Act does not prevent it,” said strategic liaison group manager at the ICO, Dawn Monaghan, according to a report in GP Online and Pulse. [3]

“However, the Data Protection Act would still require patients to be given a full explanation of the options open to them, and why the GP has chosen to opt them out.”

The Health and Social Care Act however requires GPs to release data to the HSCIC so would practices be in non-compliance with the Health and Social Care Act by doing so?

NHS England threatened one practice in November 2013 with penalties for doing just that a year ago. In fact, it was that position and article [4] which first prompted me to join the twitter social media debate, and my very first tweet on care.data.

caredata twitter

 

A full year on, and here we are, still unclear on opt out.

A full year on and our HES and other data is still being released without our consent, or fair processing.

Whilst the GPs may remain unclear if they would be sanctioned for practice wide opt out of care.data even if they maintain data protection compliance, it seems the penalty for data misuse after release is unchanged.

Whilst there was talk of new penalties for data misuse by companies and organisations, no ‘one strike and out’ ever materialised.

Whilst legislation by the Secretary of State promised patients a statutory right to opt out, it hasn’t happened.

On February 25th 2014, he said in Parliament:

“people should be able to opt out from having their anonymised data used for the purposes of scientific research.” [col 148]

“When they extended the programme to out-patient data in 2003 and to A and E data in 2008, at no point did they give people the right to opt out. We have introduced that right, which is why we are having the debate.” [5]

However until that opt out for our GP care.data and our A and E, HES, and other data for secondary purposes is on a legal footing, the opt out has no value for patients compared with the weight of the Health and Social Care Act.

When will the Secretary of State follow through on his word?

Right now, our HES/other secondary data is being released even if we have indicated our opt out to GPs for secondary uses, 9nu4. [6]

It appears to date, we lack both legislation and the technical tool to operate the opt out.

This position seems to be in urgent need of clarification for patients to have our opt out rights confirmed for both GP held data and the existing data held by HSCIC. As well as needing clarified for the GPs and HSCIC as data controllers to be clear on their responsibilities.

When the system has proven so flawed in the past we need change to show why it is different now.

It’s not enough to tell patients things will be different. We want to see that they are.

We can only trust a system which is underpinned in law particularly at a time when, ahead of a General Election, many promises may have been made and will be made. Ministers move roles. Their word alone is frankly, going to be of little value to many. Experience tells us, promises may not always turn out as expected in practice.

I asked one of my local community leaders what he thought of the current position on the programme and what his reaction would be if in fact the opt out came to naught and health data was to be extracted and used for research without consent. “We’d be out on the streets,” [in protest] was his prompt reply. Whilst many are happy for data to be used in research, the majority want to know about it first; who will access it and for what purpose. Not everyone is happy for their data to be used in research. And over half were happy only with active consent or not at all, according to a survey carried out by Ipsos MORI in June 2014.[7]

The Data Guardian role [8] too, should be a positive addition to underpin the importance of ethical practice in data management but again, can only be truly meaningful with legislative weight behind it.

The recent DH November announcement said this would happen, ‘at the earliest opportunity.’

How much longer will it be before that opportunity?

When can we expect to see the rules around uses, opt out and the oversight role of the Data Guardian published for public and professional consultation and scrutiny?

If we are to rebuild trust in the programme, it must first offer a foundation for doing so.

*

In the same Pharma Times December issue [2] there is also a feature on George Freeman MP and on EU Data sharing. Well worth a read.

My submitted reader letter:

Your November article ‘Taking care of our data’ states proposed changes to the Care Act 2014 will be laid before Parliament in the new year.

It is imperative this is done before the care.data pilots’ launch. Only meaningful changes underpinned in law will provide patients the basis on which to rebuild their trust in the programme.

Data use purposes remain overly broad, the newly appointed role of National Data Guardian has no legal teeth, and the Health Secretary’s word that a patient’s objection will be respected, is not enough.

The rules around access, oversight and opt out must be pinned down.

And parliamentary scrutiny of these changes, open to professional and public consultation, will be fundamental to public confidence.

Pathfinders must not only ‘‘test all aspects of the communication and extraction process” ready for an imminent rollout. New communications must present real improvements and a watertight plan for managing the planned broadening of the future scope and access.

And finally, one clarification worth noting; under certain conditions, the ICO ruled that GPs opting out patients at practice level would be lawful regards their Data Protection obligations.

Refs:

[1] December Pharma Times p 13

[2] care.data expansion roadmap

[3] GP Online October 22, 2014

[4] Pulse, November 2013

[5] Hansard, February 25th 2014

[6] HSCIC DARS releases

[7] Ipsos MORI poll of almost 2000

[8] National Data Guardian appointed  November 13, 2014

#caredata, care.data, confidentiality, engagement, NHS, NHS England

care.data programme questions remain unanswered – what should patients do now?

care.data programme questions remain unanswered [1] and opportunities to demonstrate better transparency have to date, been turned down.

For anyone interested in the care.data rollout, professionals, patients and public alike, it is worrying to see the continued secrecy which shrouds the programme. We’ve been told online (but most in the public will still not know) an initial rollout in 4 CCG areas is now planned [2], but at which GP practices remains unclear.

On October 12th I asked that the care.data programme board minutes should be made public. The request is still open.[3]

“They seem hell bent on going ahead. I know they listened, but what did they hear?”

Questions asked by hundreds of people at multiple listening events remain unpublished and unanswered. Risks need resolved.

It is ironic that for a programme whose stated aim is to gather patient information in order to answer open questions about care,  it is so unwilling to give information back to answer the questions we, the ‘data subjects’ have about the programme.

I believe it is important to ensure that the questions are transparent, criticisms addressed and clarified, open issues solved and questions answered ahead of the pathfinder rollout to ensure the greatest success of the programme.

If the programme proceeds on an opt out basis, the risk is increased that it will not meet Data Protection regulation[4], which requires informed use of personal data. This puts GPs at risk. [5]

All the people who made the effort to attend these events for the benefit of the programme and the public good deserve answers. This would minimise the risks the public raised, which remain unresolved.

It is also important for maintaining trust in the integrity and value of user participation and engagement at other NHS events, and in this programme in particular.

Public and Transparent Feedback was Promised

I wrote to Mr. Tim Kelsey, Director, at the Patients and Information Directorate, NHS England today to ask, once again, for the release of public feedback.

Now two months ago, when I spoke with him after the NHS AGM in London on September 18th about care.data, the public questions have still not been put into the public domain.

He agreed that the raw feedback from all the care.data listening events, which included all the open questions asked by participants, would be published, “Shortly.”

This feedback includes questions from the NHS Open Days on June 17th  (4 locations), the stand-alone care.data events since, and those from the care.data advisory sessions hosted in Peterborough and Coin Street, London [6].

NHS England claims there have been hundreds of events. The website says some took place in my county, though I haven’t heard of any and neither has my CCG. Those of which I am aware and six attended, all generated a huge number of participant questions on paper, post-its and electronically, which participants were told would be published and answered, including put on the Open Day website ‘later in the summer'[7]:

“Feedback from this session is being incorporated into the overall report from the care.data listening phase which will be published later in the summer and linked to from this site.”

This is still to happen, and now nearing the end of November, is somewhat overdue.

My own questions at four events were on process and I believe it is important to get these clarified BEFORE the pathfinder:

  • How will you communicate with Gillick competent children [8], whose records may contain information about which their parents are not aware? [note also RCGP online roadmap p.15][9]
  • How will you manage this for elderly or vulnerable patients in care homes and with diminished awareness or responsibility?
  • When things change in scope or use, how will we be informed of changing plans for use or users, on an ongoing basis? [Data protection principle 2] [10]
  • For any future changes, how will we be given the choice to change our opt out or opt in? Consent is not a one-time agreement  but needs managed on a continual, rolling basis – how will this be achieved?

Campaigners have also raised remaining, unresolved issues.

Key legal questions remain, including on Opt Out

I am starting to become concerned that the opt out is STILL not on a statutory footing. Will the Secretary of State make good his verbal agreement in law?

What legal changes will be made that back up the verbal guarantees given since February? If none are forthcoming, then were the statements made to Parliament untrue? [11]

“people should be able to opt out from having their anonymised data used for the purposes of scientific research.”

I am yet to see this legal change and to date, the only publicly stated choice is only for identifiable data [12], not all data, as stated by the Minister.

So too the promised extra governance on a legal basis has not yet happened.

It is worth a note that although the Health and Social Care Act 2012 may have steamrollered the legal position of the patient and GP, and that confidentiality no longer comes first, informed consent even if assumed, is still in other circumstances to be obtained fairly:

“Consent obtained under duress or on the basis of misleading information does not adequately satisfy the condition for processing.” [ICO]

Should this principle not also apply even if GPs are legally obliged to release data without patient consent? [I feel that needs more discussion, so will write about consent in my next post.]

There is much made of ‘new legal protection’ of our data but in fact it is impossible to see it provides any such thing, and yes, I have read it. The Care Act 2014 did not get amended with any binding or truly clear provisions to make data more confidential or secure.

Concerns of many people centre on commercial use, and re-use of data, and these are not addressed by the loose terms for the benefit of adult health and social care’ or the ‘promotion of health’. [part 4 p.120] Data sold all year may have met this criteria, but is this how we expect our health records to be used without our express permission?

“We will use Mosiac, appended to the ICD10 code diagnoses, to create national Mosaic profiles. These estimates and propensities will be sold to public and commercial organisations to enable them to target resources more effectively and efficiently…Other data characteristics that are also linked to Mosiac can then be used to understand broader lifestyle characteristics of those most at risk to ensure that messages and communications are appropriate and well targeted.” [July register]

“Question from Leicester: “Are we saying there will be only clinical use of the data – no marketing, no insurance, no profit making? This is our data.”[13]

So I hope it is clear, that these concerns are not only mine, but remain unanswered for the broader participants of listening events, gathered throughout the last year.

Questions from others

I’m publishing here the filtered and NHS England written, summary response of the 26th June event [14], I received as an attendee. (40 people, of whom ca 10 NHS England and HSCIC staff).

I disagreed with one of the statements made at our table at the meeting, and pointed out it was not factual. History as I understand, and has been stated by HSCIC in FOIs, will not be deleted. Yet this was allowed to be included in the notes sent to all:

“communicate that identifiable information can be deleted.”

The workshop was about how to access ‘hard-to-reach’ groups, so focused on communications methods. You will see that many statements are about how to market the programme, and do not clarify questions of substance, although many were asked on the day about scope definition, and future data changes.

Questions have not yet been addressed, such as Gillick, on children in care, young offenders, the forces, avoiding ‘propaganda-ish’ sounding and bias in the materials, to ensure the ‘adequate requirements’ for data processing.

You can see from this, that although the listening events may be deemed to have been a success, the answering part is still missing.

How are NHS England measuring success? What does good look like? I guarantee from a public perspective, it’s not there yet.

Long term benefit must not be harmed in the rush for a pilot tick-box

Since the programme is heralded as so vital for the NHS, I believe we should not be making the best of a bad job, but shaping process, security and communications to be world class, worthy of our NHS.[15]

We also need to see a long-term cost benefit plan – if we don’t know how some of these future processes are to be managed, how will we know what they will cost, and are they worth it?

The project should not aim for a quick and dirty pilot rollout. Perhaps there is a need to tick the ‘on time’ box for an NHS England target or meet a job description appraisal, as I would have had when I was responsible for project implementations in my past commercial industry role?

As it stands it is not NHS England/DoH who has the most to lose if this goes ahead as is. They must look at the big picture and accept their responsibility for this project, decide not to rush it and not expect the public and GPs to carry its risk.

At the weekend, in a speech about TTIP I heard the phrase, it’s “a classic case of socialising the risk and privatising the profit.”

So too it feels for me on care.data. NHS England wants all the benefit of our information, including from its sale, but it is we, individual patients and GPs who will be harmed if its security, commercial use [16], or everyday trust & confidentiality are compromised.

The Department of Health must look beyond party political aims pre-election. This is for the good of the NHS, which belongs to us all.

We must see open questions on process and content openly answered, for professionals and public alike.

Only then, can we trust that the infrastructure and promises made behind the scenes have set the foundation for this scheme to be worthy of our most intimate and confidential data.[17]

What can Patients do now?

“The policy and practical answers we need to ensure success, will not fit on a flyer or SMS.”

I have spoken with some of my fellow attendees since these events, including for example Stan Burridge, the Research Lead on Service User Involvement at Pathway London. (A charity providing healthcare to the homeless and which works with others on policy and best-practice approach sharing. Their recent work on dentistry outreach achieved a 0% no-show rate – getting the vital care needed for their clients and saving ££ for NHS dentist provision.)

His comments are a good summary of what has happened since:

“In the events, opinions could be expressed, questions asked, and I was made to feel they were valid questions, but they’re doing very little to answer them so that it makes a difference.

“I feel I was engaged with the process, but it’s doing nothing for the people on the margins.

“They should be given an informed choice to opt in, an uninformed choice not to opt out is not the same.

It is unclear what patients can now do, to get the answers we have asked for. We want to make a positive difference to make the project better.

The listening events seem to have been a one way process, and participation for PR purposes, rather than real engagement. The policy and practical answers we need to ensure success, will not fit on a flyer or SMS. They can’t be communicated as part of the pilot rollout. We need them published, addressed and ironed out up front.

Stan summed up exactly what I feel and what I have heard from many others:

“They seem hell bent on going ahead. I know they listened, but what did they hear?”

 

****

[1] A patient’s open letter to NHS England

[2] CCG pathfinder announcement

[3] care.data programme board minutes and materials FOI

[4] ICO Guide to Data Protection

[5] Medical Protection and care.data concern

[6] Coin Street care.data advisory group public event, Sept 6th

[7] NHS England Open House event 17th June

[8] Gillick and data protection for children

[9] RCGP Online Roadmap, includes concern on accessing data by those at risk of domestic abuse and children

[10] ICO Data Protection guidelines

[11] Hansard, Parliament 25th February 2014

[12] Parliamentary briefing note on care.data

[13] Questions from the Open House, incl. Leicester

[14] NHS England summary of feedback and statements from public event at Mencap, June 26th 2014

[15] Post from July 21st HSCIC roadmap event, future data use

[16] Commercial use of data with brokers – call for consumer data transparency

[17] Code list prepared by medConfidential and open issues

#caredata, activism, care.data, empowerment, engagement, health, NHSEngland, politics, privacy, transparency, trust

On Being Human – moral and material values

The long running rumours of change afoot on human rights political policy were confirmed recently, and have been in the media and on my mind since.

Has human value become not just politically acceptable, but politically valuable?

Paul Bernal in his blog addressed the subject which has been on my mind, ‘Valuing the Human’ and explored the idea, ‘Many people seem to think that there isn’t any value in the human, just in certain kinds of human.’

Indeed, in recent months there appears to be the creation of a virtual commodity, making this concept of human value “not just politically acceptable, but politically valuable.” The concept of the commodity of human value, was starkly highlighted by Lord Freud’s recent comments, on human worth. How much a disabled person should earn was the focus of the remarks, but conflated the price of labour and human value.

European Rights undermined

Given the party policy announcements and the response by others in government or lack of it, it is therefore unsurprising that those familiar with human rights feel they will be undermined in the event that the policy proposals should ever take effect. As the nation gears up into full electioneering mode for May 2015, we have heard much after party speeches, about rights and responsibilities in our dealings with European partners, on what Europe contributes to, or takes away from our sovereignty in terms of UK law. There has been some inevitable back-slapping and generalisation in some quarters that everything ‘Europe’ is bad.

Whether or not our state remains politically within the EU may be up for debate, but our tectonic plates are not for turning. So I find it frustrating when politicians speak of or we hear of in the media, ‘pulling out of Europe’ or similar.

This conflation of language is careless,  but I fear it is also dangerous in a time when the right wing fringe is taking mainstream votes and politicians in by-elections. Both here in the UK and in other European countries this year, far right groups have taken significant votes.

Poor language on what is ‘Europe’ colours our common understanding of what ‘Europe’ means, the nuances of the roles organisational bodies have, for example the differences between the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice, and their purposes are lost entirely.

The values imposed in the debate are therefore misaligned with the organisations’ duties, and all things ‘European’ and organisations  are tarred with the same ‘interfering’ brush and devalued.

Human Rights were not at their heart created by ‘Europe’ nor are they only some sort of treaty to be opted out from, [whilst many are enshrined in treaties and Acts which were, and are] but their values risk being conflated with the structures which support them.

“A withdrawal from the convention could jeopardise Britain’s membership of the EU, which is separate to the Council of Europe whose members are drawn from across the continent and include Russia and Ukraine. Membership of the Council of Europe is a requirement for EU member states.” [Guardian, October 3rd – in a clearly defined article]

The participation in the infrastructure of ‘Brussels’ however, is convenient to conflate with values; a loss of sovereignty, loss of autonomy, frivoulous legislation. Opting out of a convention should not mean changing our values. However it does seem the party attitude now on show, is seeking to withdraw from the convention. This would mean withdrawing the protections the structure offers. Would it mean withdrawing rights offered to all citizens equally as well?

Ethical values undermined

Although it varies culturally and with few exceptions, I think we do have in England a collective sense of what is fair, and how we wish to treat each others as human beings. Increasingly however, it feels as though through loose or abuse of language in political debate we may be giving ground on our ethics. We are being forced to bring the commodity of human value to the podium, and declare on which side we stand in party politics. In a time of austerity, there is a broad range of ideas how.

Welfare has become branded ‘benefits’. Migrant workers, ‘foreigners’ over here for ‘benefit tourism’. The disabled labeled ‘fit for work’ regardless of medical fact. It appears, increasingly in the UK, some citizens are being measured by their economic material value to contribute or take away from ‘the system’.

I’ve been struck by the contrast coming from 12 years abroad, to find England a place where the emphasis is on living to work, not working to live. If we’re not careful, we see our personal output in work as a measure of our value. Are humans to be measured only in terms of our output, by our productivity, by our ‘doing’ or by our intrinsic value as an individual life? Or simply by our ‘being’? If indeed we go along with the concept, that we are here to serve some sort of productive goal in society on an economic basis, our measurement of value of our ‘doing’, is measured on a material basis.

“We hear political speeches talking about ‘decent, hardworking people’ – which implies that there are some people who are not as valuable.”

I strongly agree with this in Paul’s blog. And as he does, disagree with its value statement.

Minority Rights undermined

There are minorities and segments of society whose voice is being either ignored, or actively quietened. Those on the outer edge of the umbrella ‘society’ offers us, in our collective living, are perhaps least easily afforded its protections. Travelers, those deemed to lack capacity, whether ill, old or young, single parents, or ‘foreign’ workers, to take just some examples.

I was told this week that the UK has achieved a  first. It was said, we are the first ‘first-world’ country under review by the CPRD for human rights abuse of the disabled. Which cannot be confirmed nor denied by the UN but a recent video indicated.

This is appalling in 21st century Britain.

Recently on Radio 4 news I heard of thousands of ESA claimants assigned to work, although their medical records clearly state they are long term unfit.

The group at risk highlighted on October 15th in the Lords, in debate on electoral records’ changes [col 206]  is women in refuges, women who feel at risk. As yet I still see nothing to assure me that measures have been taken to look after this group, here or for care.data.{*}

These are just simplified sample groups others have flagged at risk. I feel these groups’ basic rights are being ignored, because they can be for these minorities. Are they viewed as of less value than the majority of ‘decent, hardworking people’ perhaps, as having less economic worth to the state?

Politicians may say that any change will continue to offer assurances:
“We promote the values of individual human dignity, equal treatment and fairness as the foundations of a democratic society.”

But I simply don’t see it done fairly for all.

I see society being quite deliberately segmented into different population groups, weak and strong. Some groups need more looking after than others, and I am attentive when I hear of groups portrayed as burdens to society, the rest who are economically ‘productive’.

Indeed we seem to have reached a position in which the default position undermines the rights of the vulnerable, far from offering additional responsibilities to those who should protect them.

This stance features often in the media discussion and in political debate, on health and social care. DWP workfare, JSA, ‘bedroom tax’ to name but a few.


How undermining Rights undermines access

So, as the NHS England five year forward plan was announced recently, I wonder how the plan for the NHS and the visions for the coming 5 year parliamentary terms will soon align?

There is a lot of talking about plans, but more important is what happens as a result not of what we say, but of what we do, or don’t do. Not only for future, but what is already, today.

Politically, socially and economically we do not exist in silos. So too, our human rights which overlap in these areas, should be considered together.

Recent years has seen a steady reduction of rights to access for the most vulnerable in society. Access to a lawyer or judicial review has been made more difficult through charging for it.  The Ministry of Justice is currently pushing for, but losing it seems their quest in the Lords, for changes to the judicial review law.

If you are a working-age council or housing association tenant, the council limits your housing benefit claim if it decides you have ‘spare’ bedrooms. Changes have hit the disabled and their families hardest. These segments of the population are being denied or given reduced access to health, social and legal support.

Ethical Values need Championed

Whilst it appears the state increasingly measures everything in economic value, I believe the public must not lose sight of our ethical values, and continue to challenge and champion their importance.

How we manage our ethics today is shaping our children. What do we want their future to be like? It will also be our old age. Will we by then be measured by our success in achievement, by what we ‘do’, by what we financially achieved in life, by our health, or by who we each are? Or more intrinsically, values judged even, based on our DNA?

Will it ever be decided by dint of our genes, what level of education we can access?

Old age brings its own challenges of care and health, and we are an aging population. Changes today are sometimes packaged as shaping our healthcare fit for the 21st century.

I’d suggest that current changes in medical research and the drivers behind parts of the NHS 5YP vision will shape society well beyond that.

  • We have a universal human right to healthcare  for all
  • We have a free-at-the-point-of-provision National Health Service in England, how will the plan maintain that and at the same time,
  • We expect science and technology in medicine to drive forward improvements in life quality, care and treatments.

What restrictions do we place on value and how are moral and material values to play out together? Are they compatible or in competition?

Because there is another human right we should remember in healthcare, that of striving to benefit from scientific improvement.

This is an area in which the rights of the vulnerable and the responsibilities to uphold them must be clearer than clear.

In research if Rights are undermined, it may impact Responsibilities for research

I would like to understand how the boundary is set of science and technology and who sets them on what value basis in ethics committees and more. How does it control or support the decision making processes which runs in the background of NHS England which has shaped this coming 5 year policy?

It appears there are many decisions on rare disease, on commissioning,  for example, which despite their terms of reference, see limited or no public minutes, which hinders a transparency of their decision making.

The PSSAG has nothing at all. Yet they advise on strategy and hugely significant parts of the NHS budget.

Already we see fundamental changes of approach which appear to have economic rather than ethical reasons behind them. This in stem-cell banking, is a significant shift for the state away from the absolute belief in the non-commercialisation of human tissue, and yet little public debate has been encouraged.

There is a concerted effort from research bodies, and from those responsible for our phenotype data {*}, to undermine the coming-in-2015, stronger, European data protection and regulation, with attempt to amend EU legislation in line with [less stringent] UK policy. Policy which is questioned by data experts on the use of pseudonymisation for example.

How will striving to benefit from scientific improvement overlap with material values of ‘economic function’ is clear when we hear often that UK Life Sciences are the jewel in the crown of the UK economy? Less spoken of, is how this function overlaps with our moral values.

“We’ve got to change the way we innovate, the way that we collaborate, and the way that we open up the NHS.” [David Cameron, 2011]

In this five year period ahead, in which the coming parliamentary and NHS Forward Plan will coexist, the Genomics England Ltd. plan mentioned in the 5YP is due to conclude in 2017 having mapped 100,000 genomes, of about 35K patients and 40K of their relatives.

We should be both optimistic and ambitious for the further advances that lie within our reach. Medicine is becoming more tailored to the individual.”

These medical advances will demand we make wise ethical decisions, and to do that we must be informed. I’ll consider this more in another post, On Being Human : Part Two.

Consider the current changes in Rights underway and changes in UK regulation together, and factor in what change any further changes in European legislation may mean.

In the mean time, I ask that you consider the changing political landscape in which current changes to legislation are affecting the market, the commercialisation of different areas of activity and the desirability of ‘the promotion of economic growth.’

What moral rights citizens rights will have, may be about to come into direct conflict with material values, and the balance weighted in favour of the material, strengthened a statutory footing.

Today, I suggest whilst we hear so often of material values, we must also consider our own moral values and those of the collective decision making parliamentary and regulatory bodies. We must pay attention to how language is presenting and packaging the discussion, whether in health, politics and economics.

How are certain individuals treated or their needs catered for as a certain part of society, and are all to be treated equally, with access to their rights? If not, where do you draw the line?

What value do we place on being human?

We must find our own moral compass to find a State standpoint on whether we see human worth as a commodity, or whether it should be.

Where will the future balance lie between material and moral rights?

Because the current direction of travel is clear. Everything has a price.

But at what cost?

**** Relevant for research background {*}:

The last six months of  my blog ‘thinking to some purpose’ has been spent doing my best to raise concerns from the public on care.data, in the hope of making a positive difference.

For anyone less familiar with it, this is the initiative to extract and use our confidential GP records for purposes other than direct care. Those concerns remain unanswered, so for my summary,  see here, my six month round up.

Whilst care.data announced that the CCGs had been selected in which GP practices will pilot care.data, but further facts remain unclear what exactly what they will pilot [communications or going also to extraction] or when. For both the public in those locations and elsewhere, we can only wait and see, how long, is an unknown.

care.data, human rights, leadership, NHS, NHS England, politics

Deregulation – the UK Bill and the Titanic TTIP

The Deregulation Bill will go to the Lords Committee stage on 6th November. [For ongoing progress, see here.]

Deregulation Bill

 [graphic added Nov 21st: This was the concluding statement by Lord Tunnicliffe on November 20th.]

I write this in follow up to a previous post of because it’s a big bill with one very important little clause, amongst much detail which needs careful review in the public interest:

What is it? Clause 83: Exercise of regulatory functions, economic growth:

(1) A person exercising a regulatory function to which this section applies must,  in the exercise of the function, have regard to the desirability of promoting  economic growth.

(2) In performing the duty under subsection (1), the person must, in particular,  consider the importance for the promotion of economic growth of exercising  the regulatory function in a way which ensures that—

(a) regulatory action is taken only when it is needed,

and

(b) any action taken is proportionate.

This section of the Deregulation Act which is currently passing through Parliament, suggests the removal of any regulation that conflicts with the interests of a profit-maker.

 

There are domestic and regulatory bodies for which we should carefully consider this implication.

The Deregulation Bill surely creates an ethical conflict or at least challenge, when in law it must consider commercial gain on a statutory footing above other factors?

The clause is openly worded, that regulatory action should be taken only when it is needed and that any action taken should be ‘proportionate’.

That suggests that regulatory interventions should be reduced. Who and how will it be decided when and what is proportionate?

The Bill provides that a person exercising a regulatory function specified by the Minister:

In detail, what does that mean? If it’s not important why include it at all? If it is important, why have we heard so little about it?

That Lord Tunnicliffe would make such a forceful statement should not be taken lightly: …”if our fears comes to pass, these three clauses could wreak havoc in a regulatory regime within this country.”

Which bodies will this affect?

Functions to which section 83 applies:

There is a long list of regulatory organisations at the end of this post.
Click on the organisation’s name below to read about each one.

The implications for them are unclear but should be examined for public bodies whose function today is not for profit.

For one area in particular, and close to my heart, we should understand its impact on  regulation of the NHS; Monitor and CQC, the MHRA and HFEA (Fertility and Embryology) and how about the Human Tissue Authority? A body whose purpose is to:

“manage the interests of the public and those we regulate at the centre of our work. It aims to maintain confidence by ensuring that human tissue is used safely and ethically, and with proper consent.” [Ref: HTA]

It is unclear how this profit aim will be helpful for these bodies in healthcare, especially considering some of the issues in state social care .

A different body where others share a concern about the impact of clause 83 is for the EHRC.

 

The Joint Committee Reported on Human Rights, June 14th 2014 has concerns about the impact of this, listed in this report:

The Government intends this economic growth duty to apply to the EHRC. We believe that applying this growth duty to the EHRC poses a significant risk to the EHRC’s independence, and therefore to its compliance with the Paris Principles and the Equal Treatment Directives as implemented by the Equality Act 2010. The Government is therefore risking the possibility of the EHRC’s accredited “A” status being downgraded and of putting the UK in breach of its obligations under EU equality law. Unless the continuing discussions between the Government and the Commission satisfy the Commission that the growth duty will not in any way impact upon its independence, we recommend that this duty not be applied to the EHRC.

[Nov 21st update: this clause was specifically debated >  see Column GC229 < and whilst verbal assurances were made, it appears nothing has changed in the Bill, and that the EHRC said in response:

“While we welcome this undertaking we understand that this doesn’t mean that we’ll be removed on the face of the Bill”.

So what value the assurances from  the Minister who will have left his post long before the Bill may be in effect?]

A large number of organisations play a part in securing compliance with the law. They include national regulators, local authorities, and bodies independent of Government, some of which have statutory regulatory functions.  The list below of the main national regulators is not exhaustive, but long. Clause 83 will have a very wide reach.

We should understand just how wide ranging this apparently small function in the Bill may turn out to be.

I believe this clause will serve to mop up the real or imagined economic leakage that the government seeks to collect from all these bodies. Resources that are as yet, untapped.

How will these regulatory bodies promote economic growth?

I wonder how, in the best public interest at all times, economic interest should come first in bodies responsible for oversight?

Will they be compelled to consider [further] cost cutting, selling assets, or charging for services?  Or how about entering into commercial partnerships?

Will the Drinking Water Inspectorate under DEFRA stay entirely independent?

What about the Gambling Commission – in its remit is ‘to protect children and vulnerable people from being harmed or exploited by gambling’?

How will the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) hope to promote economic growth? Or the Forestry commission?

The consequences of such widespread promotion of deregulation and the requirement to actively promote profit seems ill-thought through and given little public attention.

Could it be that under austerity, and desperate to squeeze every drop of monetary gain from our state bodies, that this clause will open the gateway to increased fees, or the start of fees for some current non-charging access by the public to services?

Or will they be encouraged as schools were once, to sell off land and assets? Many of these bodies hold little land. The assets they both produce and hold, is data. It is clear from current practice and the direction of travel across government departments, that information is seen as a commodity and an untapped resource for sale. Perhaps this is an area each body will look at selling?

What about authorities which charge the public fees for services or could do so – the CAA for airspace regulation, the DVLA or the ICO? Will we see an increase in service charges – it is perhaps almost inevitable if the desirability  to promote economic growth is to be given statutory footing.

In addition to looking at what may actively promote commercial growth by direct sale or raising fees, rather than imaginary direct marketing concepts, in order to promote economic growth, will we simply find it more likely that indirect growth is encouraged through change in regulatory practices?

Most importantly perhaps, will we see regulations slackened which cost money to oversee?

Will the organisations which are to be regulated, permitted to do more which promotes commercial interest over other policies, or ethics?

I wonder if a future state aims to deregulate the market in almost every field of activity to enable profits for private commercial businesses, and if the intent is not desirable economic growth for the state directly, but indirectly?

If so, will the ideology that once deregulated, somehow private business interests will contribute more to the economy than they do today, be realised in practice? How has the deregulation of trains, postal services, water and utilities benefited the public interest over economic growth?

If the benefit is to be state economic growth,  whether through revenue direct or indirect, and whether or not it is achieved in the way it may be hoped, there will be other consequences.

Have we learned lessons from other areas in which oversight of regulation has been slackened in recent times, such as banking?

What happened since Banking was deregulated?

Anyone who can look back at the deregulation of the financial markets and say it was all, without any doubt a good thing, should say subprime mortgage deregulation and wash their mouth out.

“Regulation did not keep pace and became mismatched with the risks building in the economy. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) tasked with investigating the causes of the crisis reported in January 2011 that: “We had a 21st-century financial system with 19th-century safeguards.” [FCIC report]

“It found widespread failures in financial regulation; dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance; excessive borrowing and risk-taking by households and Wall Street; policy makers who were ill prepared for the crisis; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.” **[FCIC]

In summary,  has any cost risk benefit analysis has been done on the impact of what this widespread cross-market promotion of deregulation and the desirability of economic growth in a regulatory function will mean?

Why may this be seen as a desirable course of action?

Deregulation is tacking its way to its destination through the Lords in the UK. Whether it will reach it before the end of this parliamentary term is perhaps unclear.  But let’s not forget deregulation is the course on which we are set globally, at full steam ahead.

This UK Bill is simply a sponge on the deck of the Titanic of deregulation, the TTIP.

The purpose of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is to remove the regulatory differences between the US and European nations. Its plan to cross the Atlantic at break neck speed has been somewhat slowed. But its purpose remains steadfast. There are effectively no tariff restrictions in place any more, so the barriers left to lift are those of regulatory intervention:

“The US and the European commission, both of which have been captured by the corporations they are supposed to regulate, are pressing for investor-state dispute resolution to be included in the agreement.” [The Guardian, Nov 4 2014]

This peer-reviewed  paper looks at the imagined trade and its consequences, “leaving the investment component of TTIP on the sidelines. Going forward, valuable insights could be drawn by further extending the analysis of TTIP’s financial effects.”

[Update Nov 13, letter today in the FT: quotes the same research paper and notes, “Even the most vocal proponents of free trade admit that there’s nothing irrational about opposing such big issues of public policy being traded off behind closed doors.” Nick Dearden, Director, World Development Movement]

Whilst much is made, with some confusion, around the potential for impact on the NHS, TTIP is indisputably very real for the rest of industry and wider market. And any deregulation as a whole touches many NHS bodies.

Despite wide professional and public criticism the TTIP discussions continue with little transparency. Deregulation appears to have become the UK government’s mantra for achieving economic growth, though in coalition not everyone may agree it is right.

In conclusion:

There should be detailed analysis and an impact assessment made for this Deregulation Bill clause 83 as it stands alone.

It must also be seen in conjunction with proposals for deregulation under TTIP,  and the impact analysed for the vast number of regulatory bodies and functions we have under the State wing, for the public good.

I sincerely hope our legislators in the Lords are taking this into account and not as a stand-alone Bill, but in the wider picture of current TTIP trade negotiations, and that the failures created in part through deregulation twenty years ago in banking, are not recycled now across the board.

Can society afford “dramatic breakdowns in governance, risk taking, learning by mistakes, or systemic breaches in accountability and ethics?” ** as we saw as a consequence in banking?

Oversight serves an important purpose.

It is often to ensure a balance between the needs of people, and search for profit. Whilst it is an accepted practice in our market economy, to seek to  make a profit,  oversight and regulation can ensure it’s not at the expense of the greater good.

Some of these public services that the regulatory bodies oversee in England will be harmed if they are not free to all at the point of their delivery. The independence of their ethical decision making will be challenged if it competes with promoting economic growth.

Who will help the public understand what this Deregulation Bill clause really will mean and complete proper and transparent public analysis of its impact for each regulatory authority?

I hope that those responsible for scrutiny of the Bill see value in maintaining first and foremost, independent oversight and ethics, in the Public Interest.

Or will the band continue to play as TTIP sails on? And will the Deregulation Bill pass as is, to promote the desirability of economic growth at all costs?

———

[Update November 21st:

Significant concerns raised in yesterday’s discussion by Lord Tunnicliffe and others on this Clause 83: The promotion of Economic Growth for Regulatory Bodies.

Social Care:
On a previous day of debate (Nov 18th) it appears regulation of Social Care staff is to be scrapped without proper consultation or scrutiny, in Clause 71.

Column GC116: “This is despite the fact that there was no clear support for removing regulation in the original consultation responses.

“The Government did not consult on this issue as part of the consultation in April 2014 on extending outsourcing in children’s social work. During the debate in Committee in the House of Commons on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, the Deputy Leader of the Commons, Tom Brake MP, acknowledged that there had been no clear support for removing the registration requirement.”

“The Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England raised concerns and stated: “We consider all delegated social care services should be required to have formal registration with Ofsted in addition to an expectation that they will be held to account by rigorous and expert inspection, just as local authorities currently are”.

Scrutiny and Bill quality and clarity:
In particular concerns are raised in the Lords on lack of proper documentation and new legislation included which has not had scrutiny by the HoC or Scrutiny Committee.

Column GC142 “it is inefficient for Parliament to try to scrutinise line by line material which is obscure and possibly not very well expressed in terms of the material we are given and the notes.”
“One is that without a Keeling schedule relating to the particularities of the Bills being amended, it is almost impossible to work out what they are.”

Column GC144 “… that we are discussing now was not discussed in the Commons. It was not discussed by the Pre-Legislative Scrutiny Committee, as we have heard, and there has been no real opportunity to call those who drafted it to account. A blow for better government.”

Lord Tunnicliffe concluded on November 20th:

“We are all on the same side, but if our fears comes to pass, these three clauses could wreak havoc in a regulatory regime within this country that, generally speaking, is doing pretty well.” [Hansard]

My concerns seem founded, supported by many of these comments in recent debate in the Lords. I feel this Bill is a disaster lying in the future path of the Public Interest.  “Iceberg, right ahead!”

End Nov 21st update.]

Please feel free to comment below or find me on twitter @TheABB

*********

List of The National Regulators

Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA)

Animals in Science Regulation Unit

Architects Registration Board (ARB)

British Hallmarking Council (BHC)

Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Charity Commission for England and Wales

Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)

Claims Management Regulation Unit

Coal Authority

Companies House

Competition Commission

Professional Standards for Health and Social Care (PSA)

Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS)

Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI)

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA)

Driving Standards Agency (DSA)

Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate (EAS)

English Heritage (EH)

Environment Agency

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Financial Reporting Council (FRC)

Fish Health Inspectorate (FHI), Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas)

Food and environment research agency (plant and bee health) and (Plant Variety and Seeds)

Food Standards Agency (FSA)

Forestry Commission

Gambling Commission

Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA)

Health and Safety Executive (HSE)

Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)

Highways Agency (HA)

HM Revenue and Customs (Money Laundering Regulations and National Minimum Wage)

Homes & Communities Agency (HCA)

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Association (HFEA)

Human Tissue Authority (HTA)

Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)

Insolvency Service including Insolvency Practitioner Unit

Intellectual Property Office (IPO)

Legal Services Board (LSB)

Marine Management Organisaton (MMO)

Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA)

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)

Monitor

National Measurement Office (NMO)

Natural England

Office of Communications

Office for Fair Access (OFFA)

Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR)

Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (OFSTED)

Office of Fair Trading

OFQUAL

Office of Rail Regulation (ORR)

Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies

OFGEM

Pensions Regulator

Rural Payments Agency (RPA)

Security Industry Authority (SIA)

Senior Traffic Commissioner

Sports Grounds Safety Authority (SGSA)

Trinity House Lighthouse Service (THLS)

UK Anti-Doping (UKAD)

Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA)

Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA)

Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD)

Water Services Regulation Authority (OFWAT)

#caredata, activism, care.data, choice, engagement, family, HSCIC, leadership, leaflet, privacy

Patient questions on care.data – an open letter

Dear NHS England Patients & Information Directorate,

We’ve been very patient patients in the care.data pause. Please can we have some answers now?

I would like to call for greater transparency and openness about the promises made to the public, project processes & policies and your care.data communication plans.

In 2013, in the Health Service Journal Mr. Kelsey wrote:

“When patients are ignored, they are most at risk; that was the central conclusion of the report by Robert Francis into Stafford hospital.

Don Berwick, in his safety review, said the NHS should be “engaging, empowering and hearing patients and their carers all the time.

“That has been my mission since I started as National Director for Patients and Information: to support health and care services transform transparency and participation.“

HSJ, 10th December 2013

It is time to walk-the-talk for care.data under this banner of transparency, participation and open government.

Response to the Listening exercises

The care.data listening phase, introduced by the pause announced on February 18th, has captured a mass of questions, the majority of which still remain unaddressed.

At one of these sessions, [the 1-hr session on June 17th Open House, linking ca. 100 people at each of the locations in Basingstoke, Leicester, London, and York] participants were promised that our feedback would be shared with us later in the summer, and posted online. After the NHS AGM on Sept 18th I was told it would happen ‘soon’. It is still not in the public domain.

At every meeting all the unanswered questions, on post-it notes, in table-group minutes or scribbled flipcharts, were gathered ‘to be answered at a later date’. When will that be?

To date, there has been no published information which addresses the unanswered event questions.

Transparency of Process, Policies and Approach

The care.data Programme Board has held meetings to plan the rollout process, policies and approach. The minutes and materials from which have not been published. I find this astonishing when one considers that the minutes of the care.data advisory group, NIB (new), CAG, GPES advisory or even NHS England Board itself are in the public domain. I believe the care.data Programme Board meeting materials should be too.

It was acknowledged through the Partridge Review of past use of our hospital records that this HES data is not anonymous. The extent of its sale to commercial third-parties and use by police and the Home Office was revealed. This is our medical data we gave to hospitals and in our wider medical use for our care. Why are we the last to hear it’s being accessed by all sorts of people who are not at all involved in our clinical care?

Even for commissioning purposes it is unclear how these datasharing reasons are justified when the Caldicott Review said extracting identifiable data for risk stratification or commissioning could not be assumed under some sort of ‘consent deal’?

“The Review Panel found that commissioners do not need dispensation from confidentiality, human rights and data protection law…” [The Information Governance review, ch7]

The 251 approval just got extended *again* – until 30th April 2015. If you can’t legally extract data without repeat approvals from on high, then maybe it’s time to question why?

The DoH, NHS England Patients and Information Directorate, HSCIC, and indeed many data recipients, all appear to have normalised an approach that for many is still a shock. The state centralised and passed on our medical records to others without our knowledge or permission. For years. With financial exchange. 

Amazingly, it continues to be released in this way today, still without our consent or fair processing or publicised way to opt out.

“To earn the public’s trust in future we must be able to show that our controls are meticulous, fool-proof and solid as a rock.”  said Sir Nick Partridge in his summary review.

Now you ask us to trust in care.data that the GP data, a degree more personal, will be used properly.

Yet you ask us to do this without significant changes in legislation to safeguard tightly defined purposes who can access it and why, how we control what future changes may be made without our knowledge and without a legally guaranteed opt out.

There is no information about what social care dataset is to be included in future, so how can we know what care.data scope even is yet?

Transparency cannot be a convenient watch word which applies with caveats. Quid pro quo, you want our data under an assumed consent process, then guarantee a genuinely informed public.

You can’t tell patients one approach now, then plan to change what will be said after the pilot is complete, knowingly planning a wider scope to include musculoskeletal or social care data and more.  Or knowing you plan to broaden users of data [like research and health intelligence currently under discussion at IAG ] but only communicate a smaller version in the pilot. That is like cheating on a diet. You can’t say and do one thing in public, then have your cake and eat it later when no one is looking. It still counts.

In these processes, policies and approach, I don’t feel my trust can be won back with lack of openness and transparency. I don’t yet see a system which is, ‘meticulous, fool-proof or solid as a rock’.

‘Pathfinder’ pilots

Most recently you have announced that four areas of CCGs will pilot the ‘pathfinder’ stage in the rollout of phase one. But where and when remains a  mystery. Pathfinder communications methods may vary from place to place and trial what works and what fails. One commendable method will be a written letter.

However even given that individual notice intent, we cannot ignore that many remaining questions will be hard to address in a leaflet or letter. They certainly won’t fit into an SMS text.

Why pilot communications at all which will leave the same open questions unanswered you already know, but have not answered?

For example, let’s get a few of the missing processes clarified up front:

  • How will you communicate with Gillick competent children, whose records may contain information about which their parents are not aware?
  • How will you manage this for elderly or vulnerable patients in care homes and with diminished awareness or responsibility?
  • What of  the vulnerable at risk of domestic abuse and coercion?
  • When things change in scope or use, how will we be given the choice to change our opt out decision?

I ask you not to ignore the processes which remain open. They need addressed BEFORE the pilot, unless you want people to opt out on the basis of their uncertainty and confusion.

What you do now, will set the model expectations for future communications. Patient online. Personalised medicine. If NHS health and social care is to become all about the individual, will you address all individuals equally or is reaching some less important than others?

It seems there is time and effort in talking to other professionals about big data, but not to us, whose data it is. Dear Patients & Information Directorate, you need to be talking to us, before to others about how to use us.

In March, this twelve point plan made some sensible suggestions.

Many of them remain unaddressed. You could start there. But in addition it must be clear before getting into communications tools, what is it that the pathfinders are actually piloting?

You can’t pilot communications without clearly defined contents to talk about.

Questions of substance need answers, the ten below to start with.

What determines that patients understand the programme and are genuinely informed, and how will it be measured?

Is it assumed that pilots will proceed to extraction? Or will the fair processing efforts be evaluated first and the effort vs cost be taken into account whether it is worth proceeding at all?

Given the cost involved, and legal data protection requirements, surely the latter? But the pathfinder action plan conflates the two.

Citizen engagement

Let’s see this as an opportunity to get care.data right, for us, the patients. After all, you and the rest of the NHS England Board were keen to tell us at the NHS AGM on September 18th, how valuable citizen engagement is, and to affirm that the NHS belongs to us all.

How valued is our engagement in reality, if it is ignored? How will involvement continue to be promoted in NHS Citizen and other platforms, if it is seen to be ineffective? How might this negatively affect future programmes and our willingness to get involved in clinical research if we don’t trust this basic programme today?

This is too important to get wrong. It confuses people and causes concern. It put trust and confidence in jeopardy. Not just for now, but for other future projects. care.data risks polluting across data borders, even to beyond health:

“The care.data story is a warning for us all. It is far better if the industry can be early on writing standards and protocols to protect privacy now rather than later on down the track,” he said. [David Willets, on 5G]

So please, don’t keep the feedback and this information to internal departments.

We are told it is vital to the future of our NHS. It’s our personal information.  And both belong to us.

During one Health Select Committee hearing, Mr. Kelsey claimed: “If 90 per cent opt out [of care.data], we won’t have an NHS.”

The BMA ARM voted in June for an opt in model.

ICO has ruled that an opt in model by default at practice level with due procedures for patient notification will satisfy both legal requirements and protect GPs in their role as custodians of confidentiality and data controllers. Patient Concern has called for GPs to follow that local choice opt in model.

I want to understand why he feels what the risk is, to the NHS and examine its evidence base. It’s our NHS and if it is going to fail without care.data and the Board let it come to this, then we must ask why. And we can together do something to fix it. There was a list of pre-conditions he stated at those meetings would be needed before any launch, which the public is yet to see met. Answering this question should be part of that.

It can’t afford to fail, but how do we measure at what cost?

I was one of many, including much more importantly the GPES Advisory Group, who flagged the shortcomings of the patient leaflet in October 2013, which failed to be a worthwhile communications process in January. I flagged it with comms teams, my MP, the DoH.

[Sept 2013 GPES Advisory] “The Group also had major concerns about the process for making most patients aware of the contents of the leaflets before data extraction for care.data commenced”.

No one listened. No action was taken. It went ahead as planned. It cost public money, and more importantly, public trust.

In the words of Lord Darzi,

“With more adroit handling, this is a row that might have been avoided.”

Now there is still a chance to listen and to act. This programme can’t afford to pilot another mistake. I’m sure you know this, but it would appear that with the CCG announcement, the intent is to proceed to pilot soon.  Ready or not.

If the programme is so vital to the NHS future, then let’s stop and get it right. If it’s not going to get the participation levels needed, then is it worth the cost? What are the risks and benefits of pressing ahead or at what point do we call a halt? Would it be wise to focus first on improving the quality and correct procedures around the data you already have – before increasing the volume of data you think you need? Where is the added intelligence, in adding just more information?

Is there any due diligence, a cost benefit analysis for care.data?

Suggestions

Scrap the ‘soon’ timetable. But tell us how long you need.

The complete raw feedback from all these care.data events should be made public, to ensure all the questions and concerns are debated and answers found BEFORE any pilot.

The care.data programme board minutes papers and all the planning and due diligence should be published and open to scrutiny, as any other project spending public funds should be.

A public plan of how the pathfinders fit into the big picture and timeline of future changes and content would remove the lingering uncertainty of the public and GPs: what is going on and when will I be affected?

The NHS 5 year forward view was quite clear; our purse strings have been pulled tight. The NHS belongs to all of us. And so we should say, care.data  can’t proceed at any and at all costs. It needs to be ‘meticulous, fool-proof and solid as a rock’.

We’ve been patient patients. We should now expect the respect and response, that deserves.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours sincerely.

 

Addendum: Sample of ten significant questions still outstanding

1. Scope: What is care.data? Scope content is shifting. and requests for scope purposes are changing already, from commissioning only to now include research and health intelligence. How will we patients know what we sign up to today, stays the purposes to which data may be used tomorrow?

2. Scope changes fair processing: We cannot sign up to one thing today, and find it has become something else entirely tomorrow without our knowledge. How will we be notified of any changes in what is to be extracted or change in how what has been extracted is to be used in future – a change notification plan?

3. Purposes clarity: Who will use which parts of our medical data for what? a: Clinical care vs secondary uses:

Given the widespread confusion – demonstrated on radio and in press after the pathfinders’ announcement – between care.data  which is for ‘secondary use’ only, i.e. purposes other than the direct care of the patient – and the Summary Care Record (SCR) for direct care in medical settings, how will uses be made very clear to patients and how it will affect our existing consent settings?

3. Purposes definition: Who will use which parts of our medical data for what?  b) Commercial use  It is claimed the Care Act will rule out “solely commercial”purposes, but how when what remains is a broad definition open to interpretation? Will “the promotion of health” still permit uses such as marketing? Will HSCIC give its own interpretation, it is after all, the fact it operates within the law which prescribes what it should promote and permit.

3. Purposes exclusion: Who will use which parts of our medical data for what?  c) Commercial re-use by third parties: When will the new contracts and agreements be in place? Drafts on the HSCIC website still appear to permit commercial re-use and make no mention of changes or revoking licenses for intermediaries.

4a. Opt out: It is said that patients who opt out will have this choice respected by the Health and Social Care Information Centre (i.e. no data will be extracted from their GP record) according to the Secretary of State for Health  [col 147] – but when will the opt out – currently no more than a spoken promise – be put on a statutory basis? There seem to be no plans whatsoever for this.

Further wider consents: how patients will know what they have opted into or out from is currently almost impossible. We have the Summary Care Record, Proactive care in some local areas, different clinical GP systems, the Electronic Prescription Service and soon to be Patient Online, all using different opt in methods of asking and maintaining data and consent, means patients are unsurprisingly confused.

4b. Opt out: At what point do you determine that levels of participation are worth the investment and of value? If parts of the population are not represented, how will it be taken into account and remain valuable to have some data? What will be statistically significant?

5. Legislation around security: The Care Act 2014 is supposed to bring in new legislation for our data protection. But there are no changes to date as far as I can see – what happened to the much discussed in Parliament, one strike and out. Is any change still planned? If so, how has this been finalised and with what wording, will it be open to Parliamentary scrutiny?  The Government claim to have added legal protection is meaningless until the new Care Act Regulations are put in front of Parliament and agreed.

6. What of the Governance changes discussed?

There was some additional governance and oversight promised, but to date no public communication of changes to the data management groups through the HRA CAG or DAAG and no sight of the patient involvement promised.

The Data Guardian role remains without the legal weight that the importance of its position should command. It has been said this will be granted ‘at the earliest opportunity.’ Many seem to have come and gone.

7. Data security: The planned secure data facility (‘safe setting’) at HSCIC to hold linked GP and hospital data is not yet built for expanded volume of data and users expected according to Ciaran Devane at the 6th September event. When will it be ready for the scale of care.data?

Systems and processes on this scale need security designed, that scales up to match in size with the data and its use.

Will you proceed with a pilot which uses a different facility and procedures from the future plan? Or worse still, with extracting data into a setting you know is less secure than it should be?

8. Future content sharing: Where will NHS patients’ individual-level data go in the longer term? The current documentation says ‘in wave 1’ or phase one, which would indicate a future change is left open, and indicated identifiable ‘red’ data is to be shared in future?  “care.data will provide the longer term visions as well as […] the replacement for SUS.”

9.  Current communications:

    • How will GPs and patients in ‘pathfinder’ practices be contacted?
    • Will every patient be written to directly with a consent form?
    • What will patients who opted out earlier this year be told if things have changed since then?
    • How will NHS England contact those who have retired or moved abroad recently or temporarily, still with active GP records?
    • How will foreign pupils’ parents be informed abroad and rights respected?
    • How does opt out work for sealed envelopes?
    • All the minorities with language needs or accessibility needs – how will you cater for foreign language, dialect or disability?
    • The homeless, the nomadic,  children-in-care
    • How can we separate these uses clearly from clinical care in the public’s mind to achieve a genuinely informed opinion?
    • How will genuine mistakes in records be deleted – wrong data on wrong record, especially if we only get Patient Online access second and then spot mistakes?
    • How long will data be retained for so that it is relevant and not excessive – Data Protection principle 3?
    • How will the communications cater for both GP records and HES plus other data collection and sharing?
    • If the plan is to have opt out effective for all secondary uses, communications must cater for new babies to give parents an informed choice from Day One. How and when will this begin?

No wonder you wanted first no opt out, then an assumed consent via opt out junk mail leaflet. This is hard stuff to do well. Harder still, how will you measure effectiveness of what you may have missed?

10. Pathfinder fixes: Since NHS England doesn’t know what will be effective communications tools, what principles will be followed to correct any failures in communications for any particular trial run and how will that be measured?

How will patients be asked if they heard about it and how will any survey, or follow up ensure the right segmentation does not miss measuring the hard to reach groups – precisely those who may have been missed?  i.e. If you only inform 10% of the population, then ask that same 10% if they heard of care.data, you would expect a close to 100% yes. That’s not reflective that the whole population was well informed about the programme.

If it is shown to have been ineffective, at what point do you say Fair Processing failed and you cannot legally proceed to extraction?

> This list doesn’t yet touch on the hundreds of questions generated from public events, on post-its and minutes. But it would be a start.

*******

References for remaining questions:

17th June Open House: Q&A

17th June Open House: Unanswered public Questions

Twelve point plan [March 2014] positive suggestions by Jeremy Taylor, National Voices

6th September care.data meeting in London

image quote: Winnie The Pooh, A.A. Milne

care.data, politics, privacy, surveillance, trust

Human Rights – real threats today vs theories of tomorrow

Theories on Thursday, furore on Friday. By Saturday the social media had hit the fan.

What we must remember whilst caught up in the recent Human Rights fuss, is that this is discussing a future theory. In practice, we are at risk of missing three* current and upcoming human rights threats, which are very real.

Whilst future policy change may already be doing harm to the spirit of the human rights law and those ideals today, current policies are having effect today in practice.

The Deregulation Bill, and other current policies and projects.

Regular readers will know, I have followed closely the care.data plans [see past posts] to extract our confidential GP medical records and centrally store, sell and share the information.

I hadn’t realised until recently why I care so strongly about doing this the right way. It simply felt wrong that the original plan was not to inform patients at all, and not ask for consent to remove the foundation stone of our confidentiality. The delayed plan, had a terrible junk-mail leaflet drop.

The current extraction plan is pending [roadmap end of page], but details unknown.

I have concerns about how it will harm the trust in the patient-GP relationship, potentially discriminate and segment certain groups and  I’m still unhappy how open the records will be for use by third parties, not for clinical care. There needs work done to make it done well, and to be transparent and trustworthy for patients.

But I’ve realised now, it feels wrong, simply because it impinges on one of our basic human rights. Our right to privacy.

This post is not about care.data per se, but the recent Bill of Rights debate made me take a closer look at the bigger picture.

There are many discussing this, far better informed on human rights than me. But perhaps it’s time the ordinary public pay more attention to our rights, and where they fit into our lives in the UK. Rights which are easily eroded if we don’t pay attention.

I’ve had a look at the current Bill proposal [my notes & comment at the end], but at least for now, I’m more concerned about the actual plans already underway, which will in  practice,  affect the application of our human rights today, and we may not know it.

There are at least three real changes in legislation right now which I believe should command our attention.

First, the Deregulation Bill.

This Bill will go to the Lords Committee stage on October 21st.

This is a real and present threat to human rights, as stated in the Joint Committee Report on Human Rights, June 14th 2014:

The Bill provides that a person exercising a regulatory function specified by the Minister:

 

The Government intends this economic growth duty to apply to the EHRC. We believe that applying this growth duty to the EHRC poses a significant risk to the EHRC’s independence, and therefore to its compliance with the Paris Principles and the Equal Treatment Directives as implemented by the Equality Act 2010. The Government is therefore risking the possibility of the EHRC’s accredited “A” status being downgraded and of putting the UK in breach of its obligations under EU equality law. Unless the continuing discussions between the Government and the Commission satisfy the Commission that the growth duty will not in any way impact upon its independence, we recommend that this duty not be applied to the EHRC.
Sections of the Deregulation Act currently passing through Parliament suggest the removal of any regulation that conflicts with the interests of a profit-maker. There are other domestic and regulatory bodies for which we should carefully consider this implication, not least from my perspective, in the NHS.

 

The Deregulation Bill creates a conflict when a law must consider commercial gain above human rights.

Further;

“The Bill would remove the power conferred on employment tribunals by the Equality Act to make wider recommendations in discrimination cases.”

 

The EHRC regards the power [conferred on employment tribunals] as useful, both for the employer to whom the recommendation is made and to the Commission itself for following up tribunal decisions, and it does not consider that sufficient evidence has been gathered to make out the case for abolition. We therefore recommend that the power of employment tribunals to make wider recommendations in discrimination cases should be retained.”

 

 

 

The Deregulation Bill also poses some concern for those interested in the requisition process for information, and press representation groups spoke out, worried it offers a back-door for seizing journalists’ material.

 

Seen all together, aspects of the Bill which is a mish-mash of all sorts of subjects, which was derided in some reports as being about knitting yarn, means it may well be a wolf in sheep’s clothing when it comes to human rights.

 

Second and Third, the recent changes in legislation & access

Other real threats to our universal human rights in the UK, I consider as points two and three, are already having an effect.

Recent legal changes to both a) the legal aid and b) the judicial review processes mean it is harder for many people to use the available processes due to cost.

(current consultation closing October 15th here and anyone can write to their MP for support, guidance at end of page.)

This results in inequality to use rights, which should be human rights for all by creating:

1. restrictions of individual access  (who can get a fair trial, the ability to appeal)

 

and

 

2. reducing the universality of application to human rights law (limiting the circumstances and reasons ‘the how and when’ under which rights may be applied)

 

 

These are the changes in progress right now. So what of the actual projects underway or recently effected?

 

Current threats in practice to our UK Human Rights

Mr. Grayling said this week that any future policy change will continue to ensure to promote the values of individual human dignity, equal treatment and fairness as the foundations of a democratic society. Many disagree.

The whole debate of this future policy change may already be doing real harm to the spirit of the law and those ideals today.

In my opinion, current actions are having real effect today in practice which risk undermining rather than strengthening our position towards universal human rights.

Current government policies and projects sign-post current thinking on the value of universal human rights and future direction.

Consider three things:

1. the recent changes which undermine access to use our rights, [access and universal applicability for all]
2. what value rights are given within current policies and practices,
3. the direction of travel in recent legislation, such as in surveillance, affecting universal rights for all.

It should come as no surprise then to hear of a more wholesale move towards the removal of rights in the proposal to repeal the Human Rights Act, and more. Steps have been taken on this path for some time.

A current sample of some areas with flaws in their approach to human rights include from my lay perspective:

If we in the ordinary public, in response to the proposals this week, are now concerned about about the theoretical threats to human rights by a potential future government, and care about getting it right, I’d suggest we:

don’t wait to worry about what might be in June next year. Encourage those who can, such as our MPs, to look at these real and practical human rights’ threats today. Support MPs & others who are.

Start the list, with the Deregulation Bill.  (Unless NHS England Patient & Information Directorate decide to begin care.data extractions before October 21st.) Watch this space.

************************
*there is clearly more of significance in this area, with which those better informed and active than me would say is missing, but with which I’ve not taken as close an interest. The Deregulation Bill will potentially affect NHS bodies, and I’ve looked at it before on care.data.

Notes on the proposals, and my references below:

************************

Reference sites:

The Deregulation Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 23 January 2014. It received its Second Reading in the Commons on 4 February 2014, completed its Committee Stage on 25 March and began its Report Stage on 14 May. The Bill has been carried over to the next Session of Parliament. The Bill was preceded by a draft Deregulation Bill which was subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by the ad hoc Joint Committee on the Draft Deregulation Bill.

************************
For your reference and to their credit, I’ve found the following three websites useful and kept up to date with care.data information:

Dr. Bhatia, GP in Hampshire’s care.data info site

HSCIC care.data site

medConfidential – campaign for confidentiality and consent in health and social care – seeking to ensure that every flow of data into, across and out of the NHS and care system is consensual, safe and transparent

******************

On Legal Aid – consultation responses or write to your MP: http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/stories/moj-consultation-on-duty-crime-contracts-support-pack-for-member-responses/

******************

For reference – background Bil of Rights / scrapping the HRA

The theory

The outline future proposal this week suggested, “A majority Conservative Government will scrap Labour’s Human Rights Act, and will end the ability of the European Court of Human Rights to order changes to British laws.” [Jack of Kent, October 2nd]

Some of these plans were discussed here> on the Daily Politics. From 32.30 minutes in.

The plans have been met with widespread criticism in the press and by campaigners showing where the plans are flawed.

Myths abound how human rights are applied inappropriately to whom, and how they lack common sense.

In contrast, real examples have been presented of when the Human Rights Act and ECHR have been used to enhance and protect UK citizens, not least in the Mirror.

Looking to the future, individuals have further pointed out the fundamental flaw if limits of application were to be brought in which would for example, not use the law for ‘trivial cases’.

Tim Hancock, campaigns director of Amnesty UK, said in the International Business Times of this week’s announcement: “This is electioneering on the backs of Europe’s most vulnerable.

“Under these plans human rights would be reserved for only those people the Government decides should get them.”

Whilst we may each have our own political opinions, it is valuable to stay outside them and see changes objectively.

We must also see past the UKIP defection, knee-jerk reaction which conflates everything ‘Europe’, into something from which which the UK could ‘opt out’. As long as Britain remains a signatory to the ECHR, UK citizens could still directly petition the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg to hear their case. In fact, could be more likely to, rather than go through the British courts first. These proposals conflate the 1951 Convention on Human Rights, the UK 1998 Human Rights Act and our rights under current European law, and more.

If next May, a Conservative majority were to be elected, this proposal might form a basis of proposed legislative changes.

It is highly unlikely to be as is, or without debate. It is a partisan approach which ignores the fact that cross parliamentary support would likely be needed, as was the case when Parliament voted in favour of the introduction of the UK Human Rights Act in 1998.

But that is an if, and thus far, actually moving towards this legislative change is theoretical.