Category Archives: health

care.data, change management, communications, engagement, ethics, genomics, health, human rights, politics, privacy, research, transparency, trust

OkCupid and Google DeepMind: Happily ever after? Purposes and ethics in datasharing

This blog post is also available as an audio file on soundcloud.

What constitutes the public interest must be set in a universally fair and transparent ethics framework if the benefits of research are to be realised – whether in social science, health, education and more – that framework will provide a strategy to getting the pre-requisite success factors right, ensuring research in the public interest is not only fit for the future, but thrives. There has been a climate change in consent. We need to stop talking about barriers that prevent datasharing  and start talking about the boundaries within which we can.

What is the purpose for which I provide my personal data?

‘We use math to get you dates’, says OkCupid’s tagline.

That’s the purpose of the site. It’s the reason people log in and create a profile, enter their personal data and post it online for others who are looking for dates to see. The purpose, is to get a date.

When over 68K OkCupid users registered for the site to find dates, they didn’t sign up to have their identifiable data used and published in ‘a very large dataset’ and onwardly re-used by anyone with unregistered access. The users data were extracted “without the express prior consent of the user […].”

Are the registration consent purposes compatible with the purposes to which the researcher put the data should be a simple enough question.  Are the research purposes what the person signed up to, or would they be surprised to find out their data were used like this?

Questions the “OkCupid data snatcher”, now self-confessed ‘non-academic’ researcher, thought unimportant to consider.

But it appears in the last month, he has been in good company.

Google DeepMind, and the Royal Free, big players who do know how to handle data and consent well, paid too little attention to the very same question of purposes.

The boundaries of how the users of OkCupid had chosen to reveal information and to whom, have not been respected in this project.

Nor were these boundaries respected by the Royal Free London trust that gave out patient data for use by Google DeepMind with changing explanations, without clear purposes or permission.

The legal boundaries in these recent stories appear unclear or to have been ignored. The privacy boundaries deemed irrelevant. Regulatory oversight lacking.

The respectful ethical boundaries of consent to purposes, disregarding autonomy, have indisputably broken down, whether by commercial org, public body, or lone ‘researcher’.

Research purposes

The crux of data access decisions is purposes. What question is the research to address – what is the purpose for which the data will be used? The intent by Kirkegaard was to test:

“the relationship of cognitive ability to religious beliefs and political interest/participation…”

In this case the question appears intended rather a test of the data, not the data opened up to answer the test. While methodological studies matter, given the care and attention [or self-stated lack thereof] given to its extraction and any attempt to be representative and fair, it would appear this is not the point of this study either.

The data doesn’t include profiles identified as heterosexual male, because ‘the scraper was’. It is also unknown how many users hide their profiles, “so the 99.7% figure [identifying as binary male or female] should be cautiously interpreted.”

“Furthermore, due to the way we sampled the data from the site, it is not even representative of the users on the site, because users who answered more questions are overrepresented.” [sic]

The paper goes on to say photos were not gathered because they would have taken up a lot of storage space and could be done in a future scraping, and

“other data were not collected because we forgot to include them in the scraper.”

The data are knowingly of poor quality, inaccurate and incomplete. The project cannot be repeated as ‘the scraping tool no longer works’. There is an unclear ethical or peer review process, and the research purpose is at best unclear. We can certainly give someone the benefit of the doubt and say intent appears to have been entirely benevolent. It’s not clear what the intent was. I think it is clearly misplaced and foolish, but not malevolent.

The trouble is, it’s not enough to say, “don’t be evil.” These actions have consequences.

When the researcher asserts in his paper that, “the lack of data sharing probably slows down the progress of science immensely because other researchers would use the data if they could,”  in part he is right.

Google and the Royal Free have tried more eloquently to say the same thing. It’s not research, it’s direct care, in effect, ignore that people are no longer our patients and we’re using historical data without re-consent. We know what we’re doing, we’re the good guys.

However the principles are the same, whether it’s a lone project or global giant. And they’re both wildly wrong as well. More people must take this on board. It’s the reason the public interest needs the Dame Fiona Caldicott review published sooner rather than later.

Just because there is a boundary to data sharing in place, does not mean it is a barrier to be ignored or overcome. Like the registration step to the OkCupid site, consent and the right to opt out of medical research in England and Wales is there for a reason.

We’re desperate to build public trust in UK research right now. So to assert that the lack of data sharing probably slows down the progress of science is misplaced, when it is getting ‘sharing’ wrong, that caused the lack of trust in the first place and harms research.

A climate change in consent

There has been a climate change in public attitude to consent since care.data, clouded by the smoke and mirrors of state surveillance. It cannot be ignored.  The EUGDPR supports it. Researchers may not like change, but there needs to be an according adjustment in expectations and practice.

Without change, there will be no change. Public trust is low. As technology advances and if we continue to see commercial companies get this wrong, we will continue to see public trust falter unless broken things get fixed. Change is possible for the better. But it has to come from companies, institutions, and people within them.

Like climate change, you may deny it if you choose to. But some things are inevitable and unavoidably true.

There is strong support for public interest research but that is not to be taken for granted. Public bodies should defend research from being sunk by commercial misappropriation if they want to future-proof public interest research.

The purpose for which the people gave consent are the boundaries within which you have permission to use data, that gives you freedom within its limits, to use the data.  Purposes and consent are not barriers to be overcome.

If research is to win back public trust developing a future proofed, robust ethical framework for data science must be a priority today.

Commercial companies must overcome the low levels of public trust they have generated in the public to date if they ask ‘trust us because we’re not evil‘. If you can’t rule out the use of data for other purposes, it’s not helping. If you delay independent oversight it’s not helping.

This case study and indeed the Google DeepMind recent episode by contrast demonstrate the urgency with which working out what common expectations and oversight of applied ethics in research, who gets to decide what is ‘in the public interest’ and data science public engagement must be made a priority, in the UK and beyond.

Boundaries in the best interest of the subject and the user

Society needs research in the public interest. We need good decisions made on what will be funded and what will not be. What will influence public policy and where needs attention for change.

To do this ethically, we all need to agree what is fair use of personal data, when is it closed and when is it open, what is direct and what are secondary uses, and how advances in technology are used when they present both opportunities for benefit or risks to harm to individuals, to society and to research as a whole.

The potential benefits of research are potentially being compromised for the sake of arrogance, greed, or misjudgement, no matter intent. Those benefits cannot come at any cost, or disregard public concern, or the price will be trust in all research itself.

In discussing this with social science and medical researchers, I realise not everyone agrees. For some, using deidentified data in trusted third party settings poses such a low privacy risk, that they feel the public should have no say in whether their data are used in research as long it’s ‘in the public interest’.

For the DeepMind researchers and Royal Free, they were confident even using identifiable data, this is the “right” thing to do, without consent.

For the Cabinet Office datasharing consultation, the parts that will open up national registries, share identifiable data more widely and with commercial companies, they are convinced it is all the “right” thing to do, without consent.

How can researchers, society and government understand what is good ethics of data science, as technology permits ever more invasive or covert data mining and the current approach is desperately outdated?

Who decides where those boundaries lie?

“It’s research Jim, but not as we know it.” This is one aspect of data use that ethical reviewers will need to deal with, as we advance the debate on data science in the UK. Whether independents or commercial organisations. Google said their work was not research. Is‘OkCupid’ research?

If this research and data publication proves anything at all, and can offer lessons to learn from, it is perhaps these three things:

Who is accredited as a researcher or ‘prescribed person’ matters. If we are considering new datasharing legislation, and for example, who the UK government is granting access to millions of children’s personal data today. Your idea of a ‘prescribed person’ may not be the same as the rest of the public’s.

Researchers and ethics committees need to adjust to the climate change of public consent. Purposes must be respected in research particularly when sharing sensitive, identifiable data, and there should be no assumptions made that differ from the original purposes when users give consent.

Data ethics and laws are desperately behind data science technology. Governments, institutions, civil, and all society needs to reach a common vision and leadership how to manage these challenges. Who defines these boundaries that matter?

How do we move forward towards better use of data?

Our data and technology are taking on a life of their own, in space which is another frontier, and in time, as data gathered in the past might be used for quite different purposes today.

The public are being left behind in the game-changing decisions made by those who deem they know best about the world we want to live in. We need a say in what shape society wants that to take, particularly for our children as it is their future we are deciding now.

How about an ethical framework for datasharing that supports a transparent public interest, which tries to build a little kinder, less discriminating, more just world, where hope is stronger than fear?

Working with people, with consent, with public support and transparent oversight shouldn’t be too much to ask. Perhaps it is naive, but I believe that with an independent ethical driver behind good decision-making, we could get closer to datasharing like that.

That would bring Better use of data in government.

Purposes and consent are not barriers to be overcome. Within these, shaped by a strong ethical framework, good data sharing practices can tackle some of the real challenges that hinder ‘good use of data’: training, understanding data protection law, communications, accountability and intra-organisational trust. More data sharing alone won’t fix these structural weaknesses in current UK datasharing which are our really tough barriers to good practice.

How our public data will be used in the public interest will not be a destination or have a well defined happy ending, but it is a long term  process which needs to be consensual and there needs to be a clear path to setting out together and achieving collaborative solutions.

While we are all different, I believe that society shares for the most part, commonalities in what we accept as good, and fair, and what we believe is important. The family sitting next to me have just counted out their money and bought an ice cream to share, and the staff gave them two. The little girl is beaming. It seems that even when things are difficult, there is always hope things can be better. And there is always love.

Even if some might give it a bad name.

********

img credit: flickr/sofi01/ Beauty and The Beast  under creative commons

change management, genomics, health, human rights, politics, privacy, surveillance, Tech, transparency

On the Boundaries of Being Human and Big Data

Atlas, the Boston Dynamics created robot, won hearts and minds this week as it stoically survived man being mean.  Our collective human response was an emotional defence of the machine, and criticism of its unfair treatment by its tester.

Some on Twitter recalled the incident of Lord of The Flies style bullying by children in Japan that led the programmers to create an algorithm for ‘abuse avoidance’.

The concepts of fairness and of decision making algorithms for ‘abuse avoidance’ are interesting from perspectives of data mining, AI and the wider access to and use of tech in general, and in health specifically.

If the decision to avoid abuse can be taken out of an individual’s human hands and are based on unfathomable amounts of big data, where are its limits applied to human behaviour and activity?

When it is decided that an individual’s decision making capability is impaired or has been forfeited their consent may be revoked in their best interest.

Who has oversight of the boundaries of what is acceptable for one person, or for an organisation, to decide what is in someone else’s best interest, or indeed, the public interest?

Where these boundaries overlap – personal abuse avoidance, individual best interest and the public interest – and how society manage them, with what oversight, is yet to be widely debated.

The public will shortly be given the opportunity to respond to plans for the expansion of administrative datasharing in England through consultation.

We must get involved and it must be the start of a debate and dialogue not simply a tick-box to a done-deal, if data derived from us are to be used as a platform for future to “achieve great results for the NHS and everyone who depends on it.”

Administering applied “abuse avoidance” and Restraining Abilities

Administrative uses and secondary research using the public’s personal data are applied not only in health, but across the board of public bodies, including big plans for tech in the justice system.

An example in the news this week of applied tech and its restraint on human behaviour was ankle monitors.  While one type was abandoned by the MOJ at a cost of £23m on the same day more funding for transdermal tags was announced in London.

The use of this technology as a monitoring tool, should not of itself be a punishment. It is said compliance is not intended to affect the dignity of individuals who are being monitored, but through the collection of personal and health data  will ensure the deprivation of alcohol – avoiding its abuse for a person’s own good and in the public interest. Is it fair?

Abstinence orders might be applied to those convicted of crimes such as assault, being drunk and disorderly and drunk driving.

We’re yet to see much discussion of how these varying degrees of integration of tech with the human body, and human enhancement will happen through robot elements in our human lives.

How will the boundaries of what is possible and desirable be determined and by whom with what oversight?

What else might be considered as harmful as alcohol to individuals and to  society? Drugs? Nictotine? Excess sugar?

As we wonder about the ethics of how humanoids will act and the aesthetics of how human they look, I wonder how humane are we being, in all our ‘public’ tech design and deployment?

Umberto Eco who died on Friday wrote in ‘The birth of ethics’ that there are universal ideas on constraints, effectively that people should not harm other people, through deprivation, restrictions or psychological torture. And that we should not impose anything on others that “diminishes or stifles our capacity to think.”

How will we as a society collectively agree what that should look like, how far some can impose on others, without consent?

Enhancing the Boundaries of Being Human

Technology might be used to impose bodily boundaries on some people, but tech can also be used for the enhancement of others. retweeted this week, the brilliant Angel Giuffria’s arm.

While the technology in this case is literally hands-on in its application, increasingly it is not the technology itself but the data that it creates or captures which enables action through data-based decision making.

Robots that are tiny may be given big responsibilities to monitor and report massive amounts of data. What if we could swallow them?

Data if analysed and understood, become knowledge.

Knowledge can be used to inform decisions and take action.

So where are the boundaries of what data may be extracted,  information collated, and applied as individual interventions?

Defining the Boundaries of “in the Public Interest”

Where are boundaries of what data may be created, stored, and linked to create a detailed picture about us as individuals, if the purpose is determined to be in the public interest?

Who decides which purposes are in the public interest? What qualifies as research purposes? Who qualifies as meeting the criteria of ‘researcher’?

How far can research and interventions go without consent?

Should security services and law enforcement agencies always be entitled to get access to individuals’ data ‘in the public interest’?

That’s something Apple is currently testing in the US.

Should research bodies always be entitled to get access to individuals’ data ‘in the public interest’?

That’s something care.data tried and failed to assume the public supported and has yet to re-test. Impossible before respecting the opt out that was promised over two years ago in March 2014.

The question how much data research bodies may be ‘entitled to’ will be tested again in the datasharing consultation in the UK.

How data already gathered are used in research may be used differently from it is when we consent to its use at colllection. How this changes over time and its potential for scope creep is seen in Education. Pupil data has gone from passive collection of name to giving it out to third parties, to use in national surveys, so far.

And what of the future?

Where is the boundary between access and use of data not in enforcement of acts already committed but in their prediction and prevention?

If you believe there should be an assumption of law enforcement access to data when data are used for prediction and prevention, what about health?

Should there be any difference between researchers’ access to data when data are used for past analysis and for use in prediction?

If ethics define the boundary between what is acceptable and where actions by one person may impose something on another that “diminishes or stifles our capacity to think” – that takes away our decision making capacity – that nudges behaviour, or acts on behaviour that has not yet happened, who decides what is ethical?

How does a public that is poorly informed about current data practices, become well enough informed to participate in the debate of how data management should be designed today for their future?

How Deeply Mined should our Personal Data be?

The application of technology, non-specific but not yet AI, was also announced this week in the Google DeepMind work in the NHS.

Its first key launch app co-founder provided a report that established the operating framework for the Behavioural Insights Team established by Prime Minister David Cameron.

A number of highly respected public figures have been engaged to act in the public interest as unpaid Independent Reviewers of Google DeepMind Health. It will be interesting to see what their role is and how transparent its workings and public engagement will be.

The recent consultation on the NHS gave overwhelming feedback that the public does not support the direction of current NHS change. Even having removed all responses associated with ‘lefty’ campaigns, concerns listed on page 11, are consistent including a request the Government “should end further involvement of the private sector in healthcare”. It appears from the response that this engagement exercise will feed little into practice.

The strength of feeling should however be a clear message to new projects that people are passionate that equal access to healthcare for all matters and that the public wants to be informed and have their voices heard.

How will public involvement be ensured as complexity increases in these healthcare add-ons and changing technology?

Will Google DeepMind pave the way to a new approach to health research? A combination of ‘nudge’ behavioural insights, advanced neural networks, Big Data and technology is powerful. How will that power be used?

I was recently told that if new research is not pushing the boundaries of what is possible and permissible then it may not be worth doing, as it’s probably been done before.

Should anything that is new that becomes possible be realised?

I wonder how the balance will be weighted in requests for patient data and their application, in such a high profile project.

Will NHS Research Ethics Committees turn down research proposals in-house in hospitals that benefit the institution or advance their reputation, or the HSCIC, ever feel able to say no to data use by Google DeepMind?

Ethics committees safeguard the rights, safety, dignity and well-being of research participants, independently of research sponsors whereas these representatives are not all independent of commercial supporters. And it has not claimed it’s trying to be an ethics panel. But oversight is certainly needed.

The boundaries of ownership between what is seen to benefit commercial and state in modern health investment is perhaps more than blurred to an untrained eye. Genomics England – the government’s flagship programme giving commercial access to the genome of 100K people –  stockholding companies, data analytics companies, genome analytic companies, genome collection, and human tissue research, commercial and academic research,  often share directors, working partnerships and funders. That’s perhaps unsurprising given such a specialist small world.

It’s exciting to think of the possibilities if, “through a focus on patient outcomes, effective oversight, and the highest ethical principles, we can achieve great results for the NHS and everyone who depends on it.”

Where will an ageing society go, if medics can successfully treat more cancer for example? What diseases will be prioritised and others left behind in what is economically most viable to prevent? How much investment will be made in diseases of the poor or in countries where governments cannot afford to fund programmes?

What will we die from instead? What happens when some causes of ‘preventative death’ are deemed more socially acceptable than others? Where might prevention become socially enforced through nudging behaviour into new socially acceptable or ethical norms?

Don’t be Evil

Given the leading edge of the company and its curiosity-by-design to see how far “can we” will reach, “don’t be evil” may be very important. But “be good” might be better. Where is that boundary?

The boundaries of what ‘being human’ means and how Big Data will decide and influence that, are unclear and changing. How will the law and regulation keep up and society be engaged in support?

Data principles such as fairness, keeping data accurate, complete and up-to-date and ensuring data are not excessive retained for no longer than necessary for the purpose are being widely ignored or exempted under the banner of ‘research’.

Can data use retain a principled approach despite this and if we accept commercial users, profit making based on public data, will those principles from academic research remain in practice?

Exempt from the obligation to give a copy of personal data to an individual on request if data are for ‘research’ purposes, data about us and our children, are extracted and stored ‘without us’. Forever. That means in a future that we cannot see, but Google DeepMind among others, is designing.

Lay understanding, and that of many climical professionals is likely to be left far behind if advanced technologies and use of big data decision-making algorithms are hidden in black boxes.

Public transparency of the use of our data and future planned purposes are needed to create trust that these purposes are wise.

Data are increasingly linked and more valuable when identifiable.

Any organisation that wants to future-proof its reputational risk will make sure data collection and use today is with consent, since future outcomes derived are likely to be in interventions for individuals or society. Catching up consent will be hard unless designed in now.

A Dialogue on the Boundaries of Being Human and Big Data

Where the commercial, personal, and public interests are blurred, the highest ethical principles are going to be needed to ensure ‘abuse avoidance’ in the use of new technology, in increased data linkage and resultant data use in research of many different kinds.

How we as a society achieve the benefits of tech and datasharing and where its boundaries lie in “the public interest” needs public debate to co-design the direction we collectively want to partake in.

Once that is over, change needs supported by a method of oversight that is responsive to new technology, data use, and its challenges.

What a channel for ongoing public dialogue, challenge and potentially recourse might look like, should be part of that debate.

deregulation, health, human rights, privacy, scope creep, surveillance, Tech, trust

Destination smart-cities: design, desire and democracy (Part two)

Smart cities: private reach in public space and personal lives

Smart-cities are growing in the UK through private investment and encroachment on public space. They are being built by design at home, and supported by UK money abroad, with enormous expansion plans in India for example, in almost 100 cities.

With this rapid expansion of “smart” technology not only within our living rooms but my living space and indeed across all areas of life, how do we ensure equitable service delivery, (what citizens generally want, as demonstrated by strength of feeling on the NHS) continues in public ownership, when the boundary in current policy is ever more blurred between public and private corporate ownership?

How can we know and plan by-design that the values we hope for, are good values, and that they will be embedded in systems, in policies and planning? Values that most people really care about. How do we ensure “smart” does not ultimately mean less good? That “smart” does not in the end mean, less human.

Economic benefits seem to be the key driver in current government thinking around technology – more efficient = costs less.

While using technology progressing towards replacing repetitive work may be positive, how will we accommodate for those whose skills will no longer be needed? In particular its gendered aspect, and the more vulnerable in the workforce, since it is women and other minorities who work disproportionately in our part-time, low skill jobs. Jobs that are mainly held by women, even what we think of as intrinsically human, such as carers, are being trialed for outsourcing or assistance by technology. These robots monitor people, in their own homes and reduce staffing levels and care home occupancy. We’ll no doubt hear how good it is we need fewer carers because after all, we have a shortage of care staff. We’ll find out whether it is positive for the cared, or whether they find it it less ‘human'[e]. How will we measure those costs?

The ideal future of us all therefore having more leisure time sounds fab, but if we can’t afford it, we won’t be spending more of our time employed in leisure. Some think we’ll simply be unemployed. And more people live in the slums of Calcutta than in Soho.

One of the greatest benefits of technology is how more connected the world can be, but will it also be more equitable?

There are benefits in remote sensors monitoring changes in the atmosphere that dictate when cars should be taken off the roads on smog-days, or indicators when asthma risk-factors are high.

Crowd sourcing information about things which are broken, like fix-my-street, or lifts out-of-order are invaluable in cities for wheelchair users.

Innovative thinking and building things through technology can create things which solve simple problems and add value to the person using the tool.

But what of the people that cannot afford data, cannot be included in the skilled workforce, or will not navigate apps on a phone?

How this dis-incentivises the person using the technology has not only an effect on their disappointment with the tool, but the service delivery, and potentially wider still even to societal exclusion or stigma.These were the findings of the e-red book in Glasgow explained at the Digital event in health, held at the King’s Fund in summer 2015.

Further along the scale of systems and potential for negative user experience, how do we expect citizens to react to finding punishments handed out by unseen monitoring systems, finding out our behaviour was ‘nudged’ or find decisions taken about us, without us?

And what is the oversight and system of redress for people using systems, or whose data are used but inaccurate in a system, and cause injustice?

And wider still, while we encourage big money spent on big data in our part of the world how is it contributing to solving problems for millions for whom they will never matter? Digital and social media makes increasingly transparent our one connected world, with even less excuse for closing our eyes.

Approximately 15 million girls worldwide are married each year – that’s one girl, aged under 18, married off against her will every two seconds. [Huff Post, 2015]

Tinder-type apps are luxury optional extras for many in the world.

Without embedding values and oversight into some of what we do through digital tools implemented by private corporations for profit, ‘smart’ could mean less fair, less inclusive, less kind. Less global.

If digital becomes a destination, and how much it is implemented is seen as a measure of success, by measuring how “smart” we become risks losing sight of seeing technology as solutions and steps towards solving real problems for real people.

We need to be both clever and sensible, in our ‘smart’.

Are public oversight and regulation built in to make ‘smart’ also be safe?

If there were public consultation on how “smart” society will look would we all agree if and how we want it?

Thinking globally, we need to ask if we are prioritising the wrong problems? Are we creating more tech that we already have invented solutions for place where governments are willing to spend on them? And will it in those places make the society more connected across class and improve it for all, or enhance the lives of the ‘haves’ by having more, and the ‘have-nots’ be excluded?

Does it matter how smart your TV gets, or carer, or car, if you cannot afford any of these convenient add-ons to Life v1.1?

As we are ever more connected, we are a global society, and being ‘smart’ in one area may be reckless if at the expense or ignorance of another.

People need to Understand what “Smart” means

“Consistent with the wider global discourse on ‘smart’ cities, in India urban problems are constructed in specific ways to facilitate the adoption of “smart hi-tech solutions”. ‘Smart’ is thus likely to mean technocratic and centralized, undergirded by alliances between the Indian government and hi-technology corporations.”  [Saurabh Arora, Senior Lecturer in Technology and Innovation for Development at SPRU]

Those investing in both countries are often the same large corporations. Very often, venture capitalists.

Systems designed and owned by private companies provide the information technology infrastructure that i:

‘the basis for providing essential services to residents. There are many technological platforms involved, including but not limited to automated sensor networks and data centres.’

What happens when the commercial and public interest conflict and who decides that they do?

Decision making, Mining and Value

Massive amounts of data generated are being mined for making predictions, decisions and influencing public policy: in effect using Big Data for research purposes.

Using population-wide datasets for social and economic research today, is done in safe settings, using deidentified data, in the public interest, and has independent analysis of the risks and benefits of projects as part of the data access process.

Each project goes before an ethics committee review to assess its considerations for privacy and not only if the project can be done, but should be done, before it comes for central review.

Similarly our smart-cities need ethics committee review assessing the privacy impact and potential of projects before commissioning or approving smart-technology. Not only assessing if they are they feasible, and that we ‘can’ do it, but ‘should’ we do it. Not only assessing the use of the data generated from the projects, but assessing the ethical and privacy implications of the technology implementation itself.

The Committee recommendations on Big Data recently proposed that a ‘Council of Data Ethics’ should be created to explicitly address these consent and trust issues head on. But how?

Unseen smart-technology continues to grow unchecked often taking root in the cracks between public-private partnerships.

We keep hearing about Big Data improving public services but that “public” data is often held by private companies. In fact our personal data for public administration has been widely outsourced to private companies of which we have little oversight.

We’re told we paid the price in terms of skills and are catching up.

But if we simply roll forward in first gear into the connected city that sees all, we may find we arrive at a destination that was neither designed nor desired by the majority.

We may find that the “revolution, not evolution”, hoped for in digital services will be of the unwanted kind if companies keep pushing more and more for more data without the individual’s consent and our collective public buy-in to decisions made about data use.

Having written all this, I’ve now read the Royal Statistical Society’s publication which eloquently summarises their recent work and thinking. But I wonder how we tie all this into practical application?

How we do governance and regulation is tied tightly into the practicality of public-private relationships but also into deciding what should society look like? That is what our collective and policy decisions about what smart-cities should be and may do, is ultimately defining.

I don’t think we are addressing in depth yet the complexity of regulation and governance that will be sufficient to make Big Data and Public Spaces safe because companies say too much regulation risks choking off innovation and creativity.

But that risk must not be realised if it is managed well.

Rather we must see action to manage the application of smart-technology in a thoughtful way quickly, because if we do not, very soon, we’ll have lost any say in how our service providers deliver.

*******

I began my thoughts about this in Part one, on smart technology and data from the Sprint16 session and after this (Part two), continue to look at the design and development of smart technology making “The Best Use of Data” with a UK company case study (Part three) and “The Best Use of Data” used in predictions and the Future (Part four).

change management, choice, deregulation, health, National Pupil Database, politics, privacy, pupils, transparency

Breaking up is hard to do. Restructuring education in England.

This Valentine’s I was thinking about the restructuring of education in England and its wide ranging effects. It’s all about the break up.

The US EdTech market is very keen to break into the UK, and our front door is open.

We have adopted the model of Teach First partnered with Teach America, while some worry we do not ask “What is education for?”

Now we hear the next chair of Oftsed is to be sought from the US, someone who is renowned as “the scourge of the unions.”

Should we wonder how long until the management of schools themselves is US-sourced?

The education system in England has been broken up in recent years into manageable parcels  – for private organisations, schools within schools, charity arms of commercial companies, and multi-school chains to take over – in effect, recent governments have made reforms that have dismantled state education as I knew it.

Just as the future vision of education outlined in the 2005 Direct Democracy co-authored by Michael Gove said, “The first thing to do is to make existing state schools genuinely independent of the state.”

Free schools touted as giving parents the ultimate in choice, are in effect another way to nod approval to the outsourcing of the state, into private hands, and into big chains. Despite seeing the model fail spectacularly abroad, the government seems set on the same here.

Academies, the route that finagles private corporations into running public-education is the preferred model, says Mr Cameron. While there are no plans to force schools to become academies, the legislation currently in ping-pong under the theme of coasting schools enables just that. The Secretary of State can impose academisation. Albeit only on Ofsted labeled ‘failing’ schools.

What fails appears sometimes to be a school that staff and parents cannot understand as anything less than good, but small. While small can be what parents want, small pupil-teacher ratios, mean higher pupil-per teacher costs. But the direction of growth is towards ‘big’ is better’.

“There are now 87 primary schools with more than 800 pupils, up from 77 in 2014 and 58 in 2013. The number of infants in classes above the limit of 30 pupils has increased again – with 100,800 pupils in these over-sized classes, an increase of 8% compared with 2014.” [BBC]

All this restructuring creates costs about which the Department wants to be less than transparent.  And has lost track of.

If only we could see that these new structures raised standards?  But,” while some chains have clearly raised attainment, others achieve worse outcomes creating huge disparities within the academy sector.”

If not delivering better results for children, then what is the goal?

A Valentine’s view of Public Service Delivery: the Big Break up

Breaking up the State system, once perhaps unthinkable is possible through the creation of ‘acceptable’ public-private partnerships (as opposed to outright privatisation per se). Schools become academies through a range of providers and different pathways, at least to start with, and as they fail, the most successful become the market leaders in an oligopoly. Ultimately perhaps, this could become a near monopoly. Delivering ‘better’. Perhaps a new model, a new beginning, a new provider offering salvation from the flood of ‘failing’ schools coming to the State’s rescue.

In order to achieve this entry to the market by outsiders, you must first remove conditions seen as restrictive, giving more ‘freedom’ to providers; to cut corners make efficiency savings on things like food standards, required curriculum, and numbers of staff, or their pay.

And what if, as a result, staff leave, or are hard to recruit?

Convincing people that “tech” and “digital” will deliver cash savings and teach required skills through educational machine learning is key if staff costs are to be reduced, which in times of austerity and if all else has been cut, is the only budget left to slash.

Self-taught systems’ providers are convincing in their arguments that tech is the solution.

Sadly I remember when a similar thing was tried on paper. My first year of GCSE maths aged 13-14  was ‘taught’ at our secondary comp by working through booklets in a series that we self-selected from the workbench in the classroom. Then we picked up the master marking-copy once done. Many of the boys didn’t need long to work out the first step was an unnecessary waste of time. The teacher had no role in the classroom. We were bored to bits. By the final week at end of the year they sellotaped the teacher to his chair.

I kid you not.

Teachers are so much more than knowledge transfer tools, and yet by some today seem to be considered replaceable by technology.

The US is ahead of us in this model, which has grown hand-in-hand with commercialism in schools. Many parents are unhappy.

So is the DfE setting us up for future heartbreak if it wants us to go down the US route of more MOOCs, more tech, and less funding and fewer staff? Where’s the cost benefit risk analysis and transparency?

We risk losing the best of what is human from the classroom, if we will remove the values they model and inspire. Unions and teachers and educationalists are I am sure, more than aware of all these cumulative changes. However the wider public seems little engaged.

For anyone ‘in education’ these changes will all be self-evident and their balance of risks and benefits a matter of experience, and political persuasion. As a parent I’ve only come to understand these changes, through researching how our pupils’ personal and school data have been commercialised,  given away from the National Pupil Database without our consent, since legislation changed in 2013; and the Higher Education student and staff data sold.

Will more legislative change be needed to keep our private data accessible in public services operating in an increasingly privately-run delivery model? And who will oversee that?

The Education Market is sometimes referred to as ‘The Wild West’. Is it getting a sheriff?

The news that the next chair of Oftsed is to be sought from the US did set alarm bells ringing for some in the press, who fear US standards and US-led organisations in British schools.

“The scourge of unions” means not supportive of staff-based power and in health our junior doctors have clocked exactly what breaking their ‘union’ bargaining power is all about.  So who is driving all this change in education today?

Some ed providers might be seen as profiting individuals from the State break up. Some were accused of ‘questionable practices‘. Oversight has been lacking others said. Margaret Hodge in 2014 was reported to have said: “It is just wrong to hand money to a company in which you have a financial interest if you are a trustee.”

I wonder if she has an opinion on a lead non-executive board member at the Department for Education also being the director of one of the biggest school chains? Or the ex Minister now employed by the same chain? Or that his campaign was funded by the same Director?  Why this register of interests is not transparent is a wonder.

It could appear to an outsider that the private-public revolving door is well oiled with sweetheart deals.

Are the reforms begun by Mr Gove simply to be executed until their end goal, whatever that may be, through Nikky Morgan or she driving her own new policies?

If Ofsted were  to become US-experience led, will the Wild West be tamed or US providers invited to join the action, reshaping a new frontier? What is the end game?

Breaking up is not hard to do, but in whose best interest is it?

We need only look to health to see the similar pattern.

The structures are freed up, and boundaries opened up (if you make the other criteria) in the name of ‘choice’. The organisational barriers to break up are removed in the name of ‘direct accountability’. And enabling plans through more ‘business intelligence’ gathered from data sharing, well, those plans abound.

Done well, new efficient systems and structures might bring public benefits, the right technology can certainly bring great things, but have we first understood what made the old less efficient if indeed it was and where are those baselines to look back on?

Where is the transparency of the end goal and what’s the price the Department is prepared to pay in order to reach it?

Is reform in education, transparent in its ideology and how its success is being measured if not by improved attainment?

The results of change can also be damaging. In health we see failing systems and staff shortages and their knock-on effects into patient care. In schools, these failures damage children’s start in life, it’s not just a ‘system’.

Can we assess if and how these reforms are changing the right things for the right reasons? Where is the transparency of what problems we are trying to solve, to assess what solutions work?

How is change impact for good and bad being measured, with what values embedded, with what oversight, and with whose best interests at its heart?

2005’s Direct Democracy could be read as a blueprint for co-author Mr Gove’s education reforms less than a decade later.

Debate over the restructuring of education and its marketisation seems to have bypassed most of us in the public, in a way health has not.

Underperformance as measured by new and often hard to discern criteria, means takeover at unprecedented pace.

And what does this mean for our most vulnerable children? SEN children are not required to be offered places by academies. The 2005 plans co-authored by Mr Gove also included: “killing the government’s inclusion policy stone dead,” without an alternative.

Is this the direction of travel our teachers and society supports?

What happens when breakups happen and relationship goals fail?

Who picks up the pieces? I fear the state is paying heavily for the break up deals, investing heavily in new relationships, and yet will pay again for failure. And so will our teaching staff, and children.

While Mr Hunt is taking all the heat right now, for his part in writing Direct Democracy and its proposals to privatise health – set against the current health reforms and restructuring of junior doctors contracts – we should perhaps also look to Mr Gove co-author, and ask to better understand the current impact of his recent education reforms, compare them with what he proposed in 2005, and prepare for the expected outcomes of change before it happens (see p74).

One outcome was that failure was to be encouraged in this new system, and Sweden held up as an exemplary model:

“Liberating state schools would also allow the all-important freedom to fail.”

As Anita Kettunen, principal of JB Akersberga in Sweden reportedly said when the free schools chain funded by a private equity firm failed:

“if you’re going to have a system where you have a market, you have to be ready for this.”

Breaking up can be hard to do. Failure hurts. Are we ready for this?
******

 

Abbreviated on Feb 18th.

 

#caredata, care.data, change management, choice, consent, engagement, genomics, health, HSCIC, NHS England, transparency

Thoughts since #UKHC15. UK health datasharing.

The world you will release your technology into, is the world you are familiar with, which is already of the past. Based on old data.

How can you design tools and systems fit for the future? And for all?

For my 100th post and the first of 2016, here is a summary of some of my thoughts prompted by . Several grains of thought related to UK heath data that have been growing for some time.

1000 words on “Hard things: identity, data sharing and consent.” The fun run version.

Do we confuse hard with complex? Hard does not have to mean difficult. Some things seem to be harder than necessary, because of politics. I’ve found this hard to write. Where to start?

The search to capture solutions has been elusive.

The starting line: Identity

Then my first thoughts on identity got taken care of by Vinay Gupta in this post, better than I could. (If you want a long read about identity, you might want to get a hot drink like I did and read and re-read. It says it’ll take an hour. It took me several, in absorption and thinking time. And worth it.)

That leaves data sharing and consent. Both of which I have written many of my other 99 posts about in the last year. So what’s new?

Why are we doing this: why aren’t we there yet?

It still feels very much that many parts of the health service and broader government thinking on ‘digital’ is we need to do something. Why is missing, and therefore achieving and measuring success is hard.

Often we start with a good idea and set about finding a solution how to achieve it. But if the ‘why’ behind the idea is shaky to start with, the solution may falter, as soon as it gets difficult. No one seems to know what #paperless actually means in practice.

So why try and change things? Fixing problems, rather than coming up with good ideas is another way to think of it as they suggested at  #ukhc15, it was a meet-up for people who want to make things better, usually for others, and sometimes that involves improving the systems they worked with directly, or supported others in.

I no longer work in systems’ introductions, or enhancement processes, although I have a lay role in research and admin data, but regular readers know, most of the last two years has been all about the data.  care.data.

More often than not, in #ukhc2015 discussions that focused on “the data” I would try and bring people back to thinking about what the change is trying to solve, what it wants to “make better” and why.

There’s a broad tendency to simply think more data = better. Not true, and I’ll show later a case study why. We must question why.

Why doesn’t everyone volunteer or not want to join in?

Very many people who have spoken with me over the last two years have shared their concrete concerns over the plans to share GP data and they do not get heard. They did not see a need to share their identifiable personal confidential data, or see why truly anonymous data would not be sufficient for health planning, for example.

Homeless men, and women at risk, people from the travelling community, those with disabilities, questions on patients with stigmatising conditions, minorities, children, sexual orientation – not to mention from lawyers or agencies representing them. Or the 11 million of our adult population not online. Few of whom we spoke about. Few of whom we heard from at #ukhc15. Yet put together, these individuals make up not only a significant number of people, but make up a disproportionately high proportion of the highest demands on our health and social care services.

The inverse care law appears magnified in its potential when applied to digital, and should magnify the importance of thinking about access. How will care.data make things better for them, and how will the risks be mitigated? And are those costs being properly assessed if there is no assessment of the current care.data business case and seemingly, since 2012 at least, no serious effort to look at alternatives?

The finish line? We can’t see what it looks like yet.

The #ukhc2015 event was well run, and I liked the spontaneity of people braver than me who were keen to lead sessions and did it well.  As someone who is white, living in a ‘nice’ area, I am privileged. It was a privilege to spend a day with #UKHC15 and packed with people who clearly think about hard things all the time. People who want to make things better.  People who were welcoming to nervous first-timers at an ‘un’conference over a shared lunch.

I hope the voices of those who can’t attend these events, and outside London, are equally accounted for in all government 2016 datasharing plans.

This may be the last chance after years of similar consultations have failed to deliver workable, consensual public data sharing policies.

We have vast streams of population-wide data stored in the UK, about which, the population is largely ignorant. But while the data may be from 25 years ago, whatever is designed today is going to need to think long term, not how do we solve what we know, but how do we design solutions that will work for what we don’t.

Transparency here will be paramount to trust if future decisions are made for us, or those we make for ourselves are ‘influenced’ by machine learning, by algorithms, machine learning and ‘mindspace’ work.

As Thurgood Marshall said,

“Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men’s minds.”

Control over who we are and who the system thinks we are becomes a whole new level of discussion, if we are being told how to make a decision, especially where the decision is toward a direction of public policy based on political choice. If pensions are not being properly funded, to not allocate taxes differently and fund them, is a choice the current government has made, while the DWP seeks to influence our decison, to make us save more in private pensions.

And how about in data discussions make an effort to start talking a little more clearly in the same terms – and stop packaging ‘sharing’ as if it is something voluntary in population-wide compulsory policy.

It’s done to us, not with us, in far too many areas of government we do not see. Perhaps this consultation might change that, but it’s the ‘nth’ number of consulations and I want to be convinvced this one is intentional of real change. It’s only open for a few weeks, and this meet up for discussion appeared to be something only organised in London.

I hope we’ll hear committment to real change in support of people and the uses of our personal data by the state in the new #UkDigiStrategy, not simply more blue skythinking and drinking the ‘datasharing’ kool-aid.  We’ve been talking in the UK for far too long about getting this right.

Let’s see the government serious about making it happen. Not for government, but in the public interest, in a respectful and ethical partnership with people, and not find changes forced upon us.

No other foundation will be fit for a future in which care.data, the phenotype data, is to be the basis for an NHS so totally personalised.

If you want a longer read, read on below for my ten things in detail.

Comment welcome.

########

Hard things: The marathon version, below.
 Continue reading Thoughts since #UKHC15. UK health datasharing. →

#caredata, care.data, engagement, health

The nhs.uk digital platform: a personalised gateway to a new NHS?

In recent weeks rebranding the poverty definitions and the living wage in the UK deservedly received more attention than the rebrand of the website NHS Choices into ‘nhs.uk.‘

The site that will be available only in England and Wales despite its domain name, will be the doorway to enter a personalised digital NHS offering.

As the plans proceed without public debate, I took some time to consider the proposal announced through the National Information Board (NIB) because it may be a gateway to a whole new world in our future NHS. And if not, will it be a  big splash of cash but create nothing more than a storm-in-a-teacup?

In my previous post I’d addressed some barriers to digital access. Will this be another? What will it offer that isn’t on offer already today and how will the nhs.uk platform avoid the problems of its predecessor HealthSpace?

Everyone it seems is agreed, the coming cuts are going to be ruthless. So, like Alice, I’m curious. What is down the rabbit hole ahead?

What’s the move from NHS Choices to nhs.uk about?

The new web platform nhs.uk would invite users to log on, using a system that requires identity, and if compulsory, would be another example of a barrier to access simply from a convenience point of view, even leaving digital security risks aside.

What will nhs.uk offer to incentivise users and offer benefit as a trade off against these risks, to go down the new path into the unknown and like it?

“At the heart of the domain , will be the development of nhs.uk into a new integrated health and care digital platform that will be a source of access to information, directorate, national services and locally accredited applications.”

In that there is nothing new compared with information, top down governance and signposting done by NHS Choices today.  

What else?

“Nhs.uk will also become the citizen ’s gateway to the creation of their own personal health record, drawing on information from the electronic health records in primary and secondary care.”

nhs.uk will be an access point to patient personal confidential records

Today’s patient online we are told offers 97% of patients access to their own GP created records access. So what will nhs.uk offer more than is supposed to be on offer already today? Adding wearables data into the health record is already possible for some EMIS users, so again, that won’t be new. It does state it will draw on both primary and secondary records which means getting some sort of interoperability to show both hospital systems data and GP records. How will the platform do this?

Until care.data many people didn’t know their hospital record was stored anywhere outside the hospital. In all the care.data debates the public was told that HES/SUS was not like a normal record in the sense we think of it. So what system will secondary care records come from? [Some places may have far to go. My local hospital pushes patients round with beige paper folders.] The answer appears to be an unpublished known or an unknown.

What else?

nhs.uk will be an access point to tailored ‘signposting’ of services

In addition to access to your personal medical records in the new “pull not push” process the nhs.uk platform will also offer information and services, in effect ‘advertising’ local services, to draw users to want to use it, not force its use. And through the power of web tracking tools combined with log in, it can all be ‘tailored’ or ‘targeted’ to you, the user.

“Creating an account will let you save information, receive emails on your chosen topics and health goals and comment on our content.”

Do you want to receive emails on your chosen topics or comment on content today? How does it offer more than can already be done by signing up now to NHS Choices?

NHS Choices today already offers information on local services, on care provision and symptoms’ checker.

What else?

Future nhs.uk users will be able to “Find, Book, Apply, Pay, Order, Register, Report and Access,” according to the NIB platform headers.

platform

“Convenient digital transactions will be offered like ordering and paying for prescriptions, registering with GPs, claiming funds for treatment abroad, registering as an organ and blood donor and reporting the side effects of drugs . This new transactional focus will complement nhs.uk’s existing role as the authoritative source of condition and treatment information, NHS services and health and care quality information.

“This will enable citizens to communicate with clinicians and practices via email, secure video links and fill out pre-consultation questionnaires. They will also be able to include data from their personal applications and wearable devices in their personal record. Personal health records will be able to be linked with care accounts to help people manage their personal budget.”

Let’s consider those future offerings more carefully.

Separating out the the transactions that for most people will be one off, extremely rare or never events (my blue) leaves other activities which you can already do or will do via the patient online programme (in purple).

The question is that although video and email are not yet widespread where they do work today and would in future, would they not be done via a GP practice system, not a centralised service? Or is the plan not that you could have an online consultation with ‘your’ named GP through nhs.uk but perhaps just ‘any’ GP from a centrally provided GP pool? Something like this? 

That leaves two other things, which are both payment tools (my bold).

i. digital transactions will be offered like ordering and paying for prescriptions
ii. …linked with care accounts to help people manage their personal budget.”

Is the core of the new offering about managing money at individual and central level?

Beverly Bryant, ‎Director of Strategic Systems and Technology at NHS England, said at the #kfdigi2015 June 16th event, that implementing these conveniences had costs saving benefits as well: “The driver is customer service, but when you do it it actually costs less.”

How are GP consultations to cost less, significantly less, to be really cost effective compared with the central platform to enable it to happen, when the GP time is the most valuable part and remains unchanged spent on the patient consultation and paperwork and referral for example?

That most valuable part to the patient, may be seen as what is most costly to ‘the system’.

If the emphasis is on the service saving money, it’s not clear what is in it for people to want to use it and it risks becoming another Healthspace, a high cost top down IT rollout without a clear customer driven need.

The stated aim is that it will personalise the user content and experience.

That gives the impression that the person using the system will get access to information and benefits unique and relevant to them.

If this is to be something patients want to use (pull) and are not to be forced to use (push) I wonder what’s really at its core, what’s in it for them, that is truly new and not part of the existing NHS Choices and Patient online offering?

What kind of personalised tailoring do today’s NHS Choices Ts&Cs sign users up to?

“Any information provided, or any information the NHS.uk site may infer from it, are used to provide content and information to your account pages or, if you choose to, by email.  Users may also be invited to take part in surveys if signed up for emails.

“You will have an option to submit personal information, including postcode, age, date of birth, phone number, email address, mobile phone number. In addition you may submit information about your diet and lifestyle, including drinking or exercise habits.”

“Additionally, you may submit health information, including your height and weight, or declare your interest in one or more health goals, conditions or treatments. “

“With your permission, academic institutions may occasionally use our data in relevant studies. In these instances, we shall inform you in advance and you will have the choice to opt out of the study. The information that is used will be made anonymous and will be confidential.”

Today’s NHS Choices terms and conditions say that “we shall inform you in advance and you will have the choice to opt out of the study.”

If that happens already and the NHS is honest about its intent to give patients that opt out right whether to take part in studies using data gathered from registered users of NHS Choices, why is it failing to do so for the 700,000 objections to secondary use of personal data via HSCIC?

If the future system is all about personal choice NIB should perhaps start by enforcing action over the choice the public may have already made in the past.

Past lessons learned – platforms and HealthSpace

In the past, the previous NHS personal platform, HealthSpace, came in for some fairly straightforward criticism including that it offered too little functionality.

The Devil’s in the Detail remarks are as relevant today on what users want as they were in 2010. It looked at the then available Summary Care Record (prescriptions allergies and reactions) and the web platform HealthSpace which tried to create a way for users to access it.

Past questions from Healthspace remain unanswered for today’s care.data or indeed the future nhs.uk data: What happens if there is a mistake in the record and the patient wants it deleted? How will access be given to third party carers/users on behalf of individuals without capacity to consent to their records access?

Reasons given by non-users of HealthSpace included lack of interest in managing their health in this way, a perception that health information was the realm of health professionals and lack of interest or confidence in using IT.

“In summary, these findings show that ‘self management’ is a much more complex, dynamic, and socially embedded activity than original policy documents and technical specifications appear to have assumed.”

What lessons have been learned? People today are still questioning the value of a centrally imposed system. Are they being listened to?

Digital Health reported that Maurice Smith, GP and governing body member for Liverpool CCG, speaking in a session on self-care platforms at the King’s Fund event he said that driving people towards one national hub for online services was not an option he would prefer and that he had no objection to a national portal, “but if you try drive everybody to a national portal and expect everybody to be happy with that I think you will be disappointed.”

How will the past problems that hit Healthspace be avoided for the future?

How will the powers-at-be avoid repeating the same problems for its ongoing roll out of care.data and future projects? I have asked this same question to NHS England/NIB leaders three times in the last year and it remains unanswered.

How will you tell patients in advance of any future changes who will access their data records behind the scenes, for what purpose, to future proof any programmes that plan to use the data?

One of the Healthspace 2010 concerns was: “Efforts of local teams to find creative new uses for the SCR sat in uneasy tension with implicit or explicit allegations of ‘scope creep’.”

Any programme using records can’t ethically sign users up to one thing and change it later without informing them before the change. Who will pay for that and how will it be done? care.data pilots, I’d want that answered before starting pilot communications.

As an example of changes to ‘what’ or content scope screep, future plans will see ‘social care flags added’ to the SCR record, states p.17 of the NIB 2020 timeline. What’s the ‘discovery for the use of genomic data complete’ about on p.11?  Scope creep of ‘who’ will access records, is very current. Recent changes allow pharmacists to access the SCR yet the change went by with little public discussion. Will they in future see social care flags or mental health data under their SCR access? Do I trust the chemist as I trust a GP?

Changes without adequate public consultation and communication cause surprises. Bad idea. Sir Nick Partridge said ensuring ‘no surprises’ is key to citizens’ trust after the audit of HES/SUS data uses. He is right.

The core at the heart of this nhs.uk plan is that it needs to be used by people, and enough people to make the investment vs cost worthwhile. That is what Healthspace failed to achieve.

The change you want to see doesn’t address the needs of the user as a change issue. (slide 4) This is all imposed change. Not user need-driven change.

Dear NIB, done this way seems to ignore learning from Healthspace. The evidence shown is self-referring to Dr. Foster and NHS Choices. The only other two listed are from Wisconsin and the Netherlands, hardly comparable models of UK lifestyle or healthcare systems.

What is really behind the new front door of the nhs.uk platform?

The future nhs.uk looks very much as though it seeks to provide a central front door to data access, in effect an expanded Summary Care Record (GP and secondary care records) – all medical records for direct care – together with a way for users to add their own wider user data.

Will nhs.uk also allow individuals to share their data with digital service providers of other kinds through the nhs.uk platform and apps? Will their data be mined to offer a personalised front door of tailored information and service nudges? Will patients be profiled to know their health needs, use and costs?

If yes, then who will be doing the mining and who will be using that data for what purposes?

If not, then what value will this service offer if it is not personal?

What will drive the need to log on to another new platform, compared with using the existing services of patient online today to access our health records, access GPs via video tools, and without any log-in requirement, browse similar content of information and nudges towards local services offered via NHS Choices today?

If this is core to the future of our “patient experience” of the NHS the public should be given the full and transparent facts  to understand where’s the public benefit and the business case for nhs.uk, and what lies behind the change expected via online GP consultations.

This NIB programme is building the foundation of the NHS offering for the next ten years. What kind of NHS are the NIB and NHS England planning for our children and our retirement through their current digital designs?

If the significant difference behind the new offering for nhs.uk platform is going to be the key change from what HealthSpace offered and separate from what patient online already offers it appears to be around managing cost and payments, not delivering any better user service.

Managing more of our payments with pharmacies and personalised budgets would reflect the talk of a push towards patient-responsible-self-management  direction of travel for the NHS as a whole.

More use of personal budgets is after all what Simon Stevens called a “radical new option” and we would expect to see “wider scale rollout of successful projects is envisaged from 2016-17″.

When the system will have finely drawn profiles of its users, will it have any effect for individuals in our universal risk-shared system? Will a wider roll out of personalised budgets mean more choice or could it start to mirror a private insurance system in which a detailed user profile would determine your level of risk and personal budget once reached, mean no more service?

What I’d like to see and why

To date, transparency has a poor track record on sharing central IT/change programme business plans.  While saying one thing, another happens in practice. Can that be changed? Why all the effort on NHS Citizen and ‘listening’, if the public is not to be engaged in ‘grown up debate‘ to understand the single biggest driver of planned service changes today: cost.

It’s at best patronising in the extreme, to prevent the public from seeing plans which spend public money.

We risk a wasteful, wearing repeat of the past top down failure of an imposed NPfIT-style HealthSpace, spending public money on a project which purports to be designed to save it.

To understand the practical future we can look back to avoid what didn’t work and compare with current plans. I’d suggest they should spell out very clearly what were the failures of Healthspace, and why is nhs.uk different.

If the site will offer an additional new pathway to access services than we already have, it will cost more, not less. If it has genuine expected cost reduction compared with today, where precisely will it come from?

I’d suggest you publish the detailed business plan for the nhs.uk platform and have the debate up front. Not only the headline numbers towards the end of these slides, but where and how it fits together in the big picture of Stevens’ “radical new option”.  This is public money and you *need* the public on side for it to work.

Publish the business cases for the NIB plans before the public engagement meet ups, because otherwise what facts will opinion be based on?

What discussion can be of value without them, when we are continually told by leadership those very  details are at the crux of needed change – the affordability of the future of the UK health and care system?

Now, as with past projects, The Devil’s in the Detail.

***

NIB detail on nhs.uk and other concepts: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/437067/nib-delivering.pdf

The Devil’s in the Detail: Final report of the independent evaluation of the Summary Care Record and HealthSpace programmes 2010

#caredata, care.data, empowerment, engagement, health, leadership, Tech

Digital revolution by design: infrastructures and the world we want

1. Digital revolution by design: building for change and people
2. Digital revolution by design: barriers by design
3. Digital revolution by design: infrastructures and the fruits of knowledge

This is Part 4.  Infrastructures and the world we want

At high level physical network infrastructures enable data transfer from one place to another and average users perceive little of it.

In the wider world Internet infrastructure today, this week might be looked back on as, to use a horrible cliché, a game changer. A two-tier Internet traffic system could be coming to Europe which would destroy a founding principle of equality – all traffic is created equal.

In other news, Facebook announced it will open an office in the toe of Africa, a foothold on a potential market of a billion people.

Facebook’s Internet.org initiative sees a further ‘magnificent seven’ companies working together. Two of whom Ericsson and Nokia will between them have “an effective lock down on the U.S market,” unless another viable network competitor emerges.  And massive reach worldwide.

In Africa today there is a hodge podge of operators and I’ll be interested to see how much effect the boys ganging up under the protection of everybody’s big brother ‘Facebook” will have on local markets.

And they’re not alone in wanting in on African action.

Whatever infrastructures China is building on and under the ground of the African continent, or donating ludicrous showcase gifts, how they are doing it has not gone unnoticed. The Chinese ethics of working and their environmental standards can provoke local disquiet.

Will Facebook’s decision makers shape up to offer Africa an ethical package that could include not only a social network, but physical one managing content delivery in the inner workings of tubes and pipes?

In Europe the data connections within and connecting the continent are shifting, as TTIP, CETA and TISA shape how our data and knowledge will be shared or reserved or copyrighted by multinational corporations.

I hope we will ensure transparency designed it these supra-national agreements on private ownership of public firms.

We don’t want to find commercial companies withhold information such as their cyber security planning, and infrastructure investments in the name of commercial protectionism, but at a public cost.

The public has opportunities now as these agreements are being drawn up, we may not get soon again.

Not only for the physical constructions, the often networked infrastructures, but intangible infrastructures of principles and power, co-dependencies around a physical system; the legal and ethical infrastructures of ownership, governance and accountability.

The Open Data institute has just launched a call for the promotion of understanding around our own data infrastructures:

“A strong data infrastructure will increase interoperability and collaboration, efficiency and productivity in public and private sectors, nationally and internationally.”

Sounds like something we want to get right in, and outside, the UK.

Governance of data is physically geographical through country unique legislation, as well as supra national such as European-wide data protection.

In some ways outdated legal concepts in a borderless digital age but one way at least over which there is manageable oversight and citizens should be able to call companies and State to account.

Yet that accountability is questionable when laws seem to be bypassed under the banner of surveillance.

As a result people have somewhat lost trust in national bodies to do the right thing. We want to share data for public good but not for commercial exploitation. And we’re not sure who to trust with it.

Data governance of contractual terms is part of the infrastructure needed to prevent exploitation and enable not restrict sharing. And it needs to catch up with apps whose terms and conditions can change after a user has enrolled.

That comes back down to the individual and some more  ideas on those personal infrastructures are in the previous post.

Can we build lasting foundations fit for a digital future?

Before launching into haphazard steps of a digital future towards 2020, the NIB/NHS decision makers need to consider the wider infrastructures in which it is set and understand under what ethical compass they are steering by.

Can there be oversight to make national and supra-national infrastructures legally regulated, bindingly interoperable and provider and developer Ts and Cs easily understood?

Is it possible to regulate only that which is offered or sold through UK based companies or web providers and what access should be enabled or barriers designed in?

Whose interests should data and knowledge created from data serve?

Any state paid initiative building a part of the digital future for our citizens must decide, is it to be for public good or for private profit?

NHS England’s digital health vision includes: “clinical decision support to be auto populated with existing healthcare information, to take real time feeds of biometric data, and to consider genomics data in the future.”  [NIB plans, Nov 2014]

In that 66 page document while it talks of data and trust and cyber security, ethics is not mentioned once.  The ambition is to create ‘health-as-a-platform’ and its focus is on tech, not on principles.

‘2020’ is the goal and it’s not a far away future at all if counted as 1175 working days from now.

By 2020 we may have moved on or away in a new digital direction entirely or to other new standards of network or technology. On what can we build?

Facebook’s founder sees a futuristic role for biometric data used in communication. Will he drive it? Should we want him to?

Detail will change, but ethical principles could better define the framework for development promoting the best of innovation long term and protect citizens from commercial exploitation. We need them now.

When Tim Berners-Lee called for a Magna Carta on the world wide web he asked for help to achieve the web he wants.

I think it’s about more than the web he wants. This fight is not only for net neutrality. It’s not only challenging the internet of things to have standards, ethics and quality that shape a fair future for all.

While we shape the web we want, we shape the world we want.

That’s pretty exciting, and we’d better try to get it right.

******

1. Digital revolution by design: building for change and people
2. Digital revolution by design: barriers by design
3. Digital revolution by design: infrastructures and the fruits of knowledge
4. Digital revolution by design: infrastructures and the world we want

 

#caredata, care.data, change, empowerment, engagement, health, NHS England, privacy, trust

Driving digital health, revolution by design

This follows on from: 1. Digital revolution by design: building for change and people.

***

Talking about the future of digital health in the NHS, Andy Williams went on to ask, what makes the Internet work?

In my head I answered him, freedom.

Freedom from geographical boundaries. Freedom of speech to share ideas and knowledge in real time with people around the world.  The freedom to fair and equal use. Cooperation, creativity, generosity…

Where these freedoms do not exist or are regulated the Internet may not work well for its citizens and its potential is restricted, as well as its risks.

But the answer he gave, was standards.

And of course he was right.  Agreed standards are needed when sharing a global system so that users, their content and how it works behind the screen cooperate and function as intended.

I came away wondering what the digital future embodied in the NHS NIB plans will look like, who has their say in its content and design and who will control  it?

What freedoms and what standards will be agreed upon for the NHS ‘digital future’ to function and to what purpose?

Citizens help shape the digital future as we help define the framework of how our data are to be collected and used, through what public feeling suggests is acceptable and people actually use.

What are some of the expectations the public have and what potential barriers exist to block achieving its benefits?

It’s all too easy when discussing the digital future of the NHS to see it as a destination. Perhaps we could shift the conversation focus to people, and consider what tools digital will offer the public on their life journey, and how those tools will be driven and guided.

Expectations

One key public expectation will be of trust, if something digital is offered under the NHS brand, it must be of the rigorous standard we expect.

Is every app a safe, useful tool or fun experiment and how will users [especially for mental health apps where the outcomes may be less tangibly measured than say, blood glucose] know the difference?

A second expectation must be around universal equality of access.

A third expectation must be that people know once the app is downloaded or enrolment done, what they have signed up to.

Will the NHS England / NIB digital plans underway create or enable these barriers and expectations?

What barriers exist to the NHS digital vision and why?

Is safety regulation a barrier to innovation?

The ability to broadly share innovation at speed is one of the greatest strengths of digital development, but can also risk spreading harm quickly. Risk management needs to be upfront.

We  assume that digital designs will put at their heart the core principles in the spirit of the NHS.  But if apps are not available on prescription and are essentially a commercial product with no proven benefit, does that exploit the NHS brand trust?

Regulation of quality and safety must be paramount, or they risk doing harm as any other treatment could to the person and regulation must further consider reputational risk to the NHS and the app providers.

Regulation shouldn’t be seen as a barrier, but as an enabler to protect and benefit both user and producer, and indirectly the NHS and state.

Once safety regulation is achieved, I hope that spreading benefits will not be undermined by creating artificial boundaries that restrict access to the tools by affordability, in a postcode lottery,  or in language.

But are barriers being built by design in the NHS digital future?

Cost: commercial digital exploitation or digital exclusion?

There appear to be barriers being built by design into the current NHS apps digital framework. The first being cost.

For the poorest even in the UK today in maternity care, exclusion is already measurable in those who can and cannot afford the data allowance it costs on a smart phone for e-red book access, attendees were told by its founder at #kfdigital15.

Is digital participation and its resultant knowledge or benefit to become a privilege reserved for those who can afford it? No longer free at the point of service?

I find it disappointing that for all the talk of digital equality, apps are for sale on the NHS England website and many state they may not be available in your area – a two-tier NHS by design. If it’s an NHS app, surely it should be available on prescription and/or be free at the point of use and for all like any other treatment? Or is yet another example of  NHS postcode lottery care?

There are tonnes of health apps on the market which may not have much proven health benefit, but they may sell well anyway.

I hope that decision makers shaping these frameworks and social contracts in health today are also looking beyond the worried well, who may be the wealthiest and can afford apps leaving the needs of those who can’t afford to pay for them behind.

At home, it is some of the least wealthy who need the most intervention and from whom there may be little profit to be made There is little in 2020 plans I can see that focuses on the most vulnerable, those in prison and IRCs, and those with disabilities.

Regulation in addition to striving for quality and safety by design, can ensure there is no commercial exploitation of purchasers.  However it is a  question of principle that will decide for or against exclusion for users based on affordability.

Geography: crossing language, culture and country barriers

And what about our place in the wider community, the world wide web, as Andy Williams talked about: what makes the Internet work?

I’d like to think that governance and any “kite marking” of digital tools such as apps, will consider this and look beyond our bubble.

What we create and post online will be on the world wide web.  That has great potential benefits and has risks.

I feel that in the navel gazing focus on our Treasury deficit, the ‘European question’ and refusing refugees, the UK government’s own insularity is a barrier to our wider economic and social growth.

At the King’s Fund event and at the NIB meeting the UK NHS leadership did not discuss one of the greatest strengths of online.

Online can cross geographical boundaries.

How are NHS England approved apps going to account for geography and language and cross country regulation?

What geographical and cultural barriers to access are being built by design just through lack of thought into the new digital framework?

Barriers that will restrict access and benefits both in certain communities within the UK, and to the UK.

One of the three questions asked at the end of the NIB session, was how the UK Sikh community can be better digitally catered for.

In other parts of the world both traditional and digital access to knowledge are denied to those who cannot afford it.

school

This photo reportedly from Indonesia, is great [via Banksy on Twitter, and apologies I cannot credit the photographer] two boys on the way to school, pass their peers on their way to work.

I wonder if one of these boys has the capability to find the cure for cancer?
What if he is one of the five, not one of the two?

Will we enable the digital infrastructure we build today to help global citizens access knowledge and benefits, or restrict access?

Will we enable broad digital inclusion by design?

And what of  data sharing restrictions: Barrier or Enabler?

Organisations that talk only of legal, ethical or consent ‘barriers’ to datasharing don’t understand human behaviour well enough.

One of the greatest risks to achieving the potential benefits from data is the damage done to it by organisations that are paternalistic and controlling. They exploit a relationship rather than nurturing it.

The data trust deficit from the Royal Statistical Society has lessons for policymakers. Including finding that: “Health records being sold to private healthcare companies to make money for government prompted the greatest opposition (84%).”

Data are not an abstract to be exploited, but personal information. Unless otherwise informed, people expect that information offered for one purpose, will not be used for another. Commercial misuse is the greatest threat to public trust.

Organisations that believe behavioural barriers to data sharing are an obstacle,  have forgotten that trust is not something to be overcome, but to be won and continuously reviewed and protected.

The known barrier without a solution is the lack of engagement that is fostered where there is a lack of respect for the citizen behind the data. A consensual data charter could help to enable a way forward.

Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?

Once an app is [prescribed[, used, data exchanged with the NHS health provider and/or app designer, how will users know that what they agreed to in an in-store app, does not change over time?

How will ethical guidance be built into the purposes of any digital offerings we see approved and promoted in the NHS digital future?

When the recent social media experiment by Facebook only mentioned the use of data for research after the experiment, it caused outcry.

It crossed the line between what people felt acceptable and intrusive, analysing the change in behaviour that Facebook’s intervention caused.

That this manipulation is not only possible but could go unseen, are both a risk and cause for concern in a digital world.

Large digital platforms, even small apps have the power to drive not only consumer, but potentially social and political decision making.

“Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?” asks the words of T S Elliott in Choruses, from the Rock. “However you disguise it, this thing does not change: The perpetual struggle of Good and Evil.”

Knowledge can be applied to make a change to current behaviour, and offer or restrict choices through algorithmic selection. It can be used for good or for evil.

‘Don’t be evil’ Google’s adoptive mantra is not just some silly slogan.

Knowledge is power. How that power is shared or withheld from citizens matters not only today’s projects, but for the whole future digital is helping create. Online and offline. At home and abroad.

What freedoms and what standards will be agreed upon for it to function and to what purpose? What barriers can we avoid?

When designing for the future I’d like to see discussion consider not only the patient need, and potential benefits, but also the potential risk for exploitation and behavioural change the digital solution may offer. Plus, ethical solutions to be found for equality of access.

Regulation and principles can be designed to enable success and benefits, not viewed as barriers to be overcome

There must be an ethical compass built into the steering of the digital roadmap that the NHS is so set on, towards its digital future.

An ethical compass guiding app consumer regulation,  to enable fairness of access and to know when apps are downloaded or digital programmes begun, that users know to what they are signed up.

Fundamental to this the NIB speakers all recognised at #kfdigital15 is the ethical and trustworthy extraction, storage and use of data.

There is opportunity to consider when designing the NHS digital future [as the NIB develops its roadmaps for NHS England]:

i making principled decisions on barriers
ii. pro-actively designing ethics and change into ongoing projects, and,
iii. ensuring engagement is genuine collaboration and co-production.

The barriers do not need got around, but solutions built by design.

***

Part 1. Digital revolution by design: building for change and people
Part 3. Digital revolution by design: building infrastructures

NIB roadmaps: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/384650/NIB_Report.pdf

#caredata, care.data, choice, commercial, health, HES, NHS England, privacy, transparency, trust

The Economic Value of Data vs the Public Good? [1] care.data, Concerns and the cost of Consent

They say ‘every little helps’.  care.data needs every little it can get.

In my new lay member role on the ADRN panel, I read submissions for research requests for any ethical concerns that may be reflected in wider public opinion.

The driving force for sharing administrative data research is non-commercial, with benefits to be gained for the public good.

So how do we quantify the public good, and ‘in the public interest’?

Is there alignment between the ideology of government, the drivers of policy [for health, such as the commissioning body NHS England] and the citizens of the country on what constitutes ‘the public good’?

There is public good to be gained for example, from social and health data seen as a knowledge base,  by using it using in ‘bona fide’ research, often through linking with other data to broaden insights.

Insight that might result in improving medicines, health applications, and services. Social benefits that should help improve lives, to benefit society.

Although social benefits may be less tangible, they are no harder for the public to grasp than the economic. And often a no brainer as long as confidentiality and personal control are not disregarded.

When it comes to money making from our data the public is less happy. The economic value of data raises more questions on use.

There is economic benefit to extract from data as a knowledge base to inform decision making, being cost efficient and investing wisely. Saving money.

And there is measurable economic public good in terms of income tax from individuals and corporations who by using the data make a profit, using data as a basis from which to create tools or other knowledge. Making money for the public good through indirect sales.

Then there is economic benefit from data trading as a commodity. Direct sales.

In all of these considerations, how does what the public feels and their range of opinions, get taken into account in the public good cost and benefit accounting?

Do we have a consistent and developed understanding of ‘the public interest’ and how it is shifting to fit public expectation and use?

Public concern

“The importance of building and maintaining trust and confidence among all stakeholder groups concerned – including researchers, institutions, ethical review boards and research participants – as a basis for effective data sharing cannot be overstated.”  [Wellcome blog, April 2015]

If something is jeopardising that public good it is in the public interest to say so, and for the right reasons.

The loss of public trust in data sharing measured by public feeling in 2014 is a threat to data used in the public interest, so what are we doing to fix it and are care.data lessons being learned?

The three biggest concerns voiced by the public at care.data listening events[1] were repeatedly about commercial companies’ use, and re-use of data, third parties accessing data for unknown purposes and the resultant loss of confidentiality.

 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.” [NHS Open Day, June 2014]

While people are happy for the state to use their data without active consent for bona fide research, they are not for commercial purposes.

Much of the debate and upset caused by the revelations of how our hospital episode statistics were managed in the past centred on the sense of loss of ownership. And with that, the inability to consent to who uses it. This despite acknowledgment that patients own their data.

Significant concern centres on use of the information gleaned from data that patients consider commercial exploitation. For use segmenting the insurance markets. For consumer market research. Using data for individual targeting. And its utter lack of governance.

There is also concern about data being directly sold or exchanged as a commodity.

These concerns were raised meeting after meeting in the 2014 care.data “listening process.”

To read in Private Eye that commercially sensitive projects were discussed in various meetings between NHS England and supermarket giant Tesco throughout 2014 [2] by the Patients and Information Director, responsible for care.data, is therefore all the more surprising.

They may of course be quite unrelated.

But when transparency is the mother of trust, it’s perhaps a surprising liason while ‘listening’ to care.data concerns.

It could appear that greater confidentiality was given to the sensitivity of commercial meetings than citizens’ sensitive data.

Consent package deals may be a costly mistake

People are much more aware since care.data a year ago, that unknown third parties may access data without our consent.

Consent around secondary NHS data sharing and in wider fora is no longer an inconvenient ethical dilemma best left on the shelf, as it has been for the last 25 years in secondary use, dusted off in the care.data crisis. [3]

Consent is front and centre in the latest EU data protection discussions [4] in which consent may become a requirement for all research purposes.

How that may affect social science and health research use, its pros and cons [5] remain to be seen.

However, in principle consent has always been required and good practice in applied medicine, despite the caveat for data used in medical research. As a general rule: “An intervention in the health field may only be carried out after the person concerned has given free and informed consent to it”. But this is consent for your care. Assuming that information is shared when looking after you, for direct care, during medical treatment itself is not causes concerns.

The idea is becoming increasingly assumed in discussions I have heard, [at CCG and other public meetings] that because patients have given implied consent to sharing their information for their care, that the same data may be shared for other purposes. It is not, and it is those secondary purposes that the public has asked at care.data events, to see split up, and differentiated.

Research uses are secondary uses, and those purposes cannot ethically be assumed. However, legal gateways, access to that data which makes it possible to uses for clearly defined secondary purposes by law, may make that data sharing legal.

That legal assumption, for the majority of people polls and dialogue show [though not for everyone 6b], comes  a degree of automatic support for bona fide research in the public interest. But it’s not a blanket for all secondary uses by any means, and it is this blanket assumption which has damaged trust.

So if data use in research assumes consent, and any panel is the proxy for personal decision making, the panel must consider the public voice and public interest in its decision making.

So what does the public want?

In those cases where there is no practicable alternative [to consent], there is still pressure to respect patient privacy and to meet reasonable expectations regarding use. The stated ambition of the CAG, for example, is to only advise disclosure in those circumstances where there is reason to think patients would agree it to be reasonable.

Whether active not implied consent does or does not become a requirement for research purposes without differentiation between kinds, the public already has different expectations and trust around different users.

The biggest challenge for championing the benefits of research in the public good, may be to avoid being lumped in with commercial marketing research for private profit.

The latter’s misuse of data is an underlying cause of the mistrust now around data sharing [6]. It’s been a high price to pay for public health research and others delayed since the Partridge audit.

Consent package deals mean that the public cannot choose how data are used in what kids of research and if not happy with one kind, may refuse permission for the other.

By denying any differentiation between direct, indirect, economic and social vale derived from data uses, the public may choose to deny all researchers access to their all personal data.

That may be costly to the public good, for public health and in broader research.

A public good which takes profit into account for private companies and the state, must not be at the expense of public feeling, reasonable expectations and ethical good practice.

A state which allows profit for private companies to harm the perception of  good practice by research in the public interest has lost its principles and priorities. And lost sight of the public interest.

Understanding if the public, the research community and government have differing views on what role economic value plays in the public good matters.

It matters when we discuss how we should best protect and approach it moving towards a changing EU legal framework.

“If the law relating to health research is to be better harmonised through the passing of a Regulation (rather than the existing Directive 95/46/EC), then we need a much better developed understanding of ‘the public interest’ than is currently offered by law.”  [M Taylor, “Information Governance as a Force for Good? Lessons to be Learnt from Care.data”, (2014) 11:1 SCRIPTed 1]

In the words of Dr Mark Taylor, “we need to do this better.”

How? I took a look at some of this in more detail:

Part two: The Economic Value of Data vs the Public Good? [2] Pay-for-privacy and Defining Purposes.

Part three: The Economic Value of Data vs the Public Good? [3] The value of public voice.

Update note: A version of these three posts was combined into an opinion piece – care.data: ‘The Value of Data versus the Public Interest?’ published on StatsLife on June 3rd 2015.

****

image via Tesco media

 

[1] care.data listening event questions: https://jenpersson.com/pathfinder/

[2] Private Eye – on Tesco / NHS England commercial meetings https://twitter.com/medConfidential/status/593819474807148546

[3] HSCIC audit and programme for change www.hscic.gov.uk/article/4780/HSCIC-learns-lessons-of-the-past-with-immediate-programme-for-change

[4] EU data protection discussion http://www.digitalhealth.net/news/EHI/9934/eu-ministers-back-data-privacy-changes

[5] Joint statement on EU Data Protection proposals http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@policy_communications/documents/web_document/WTP055584.pdf

[6] Ipsos MORI research with the Royal Statistical Society into the Trust deficit with lessons for policy makers https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3422/New-research-finds-data-trust-deficit-with-lessons-for-policymakers.aspx

[6b] The ‘Dialogue on Data’ Ipsos MORI research 2014 https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/publications/1652/Dialogue-on-Data.aspx – commissioned by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to conduct a public dialogue examining the public’s views on using linked administrative data for research purposes,

[7] AdExchanger Janaury 2015 http://adexchanger.com/data-driven-thinking/the-newest-asset-class-data/

[8] Tesco clubcard data sale https://jenpersson.com/public_data_in_private_hands/  / Computing 14.01.2015 – article by Sooraj Shah: http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/feature/2390197/what-does-tescos-sale-of-dunnhumby-mean-for-its-data-strategy

[9] Direct Marketing 2013 http://www.dmnews.com/tesco-every-little-bit-of-customer-data-helps/article/317823/

[10] Personalisation in health data plans http://www.england.nhs.uk/iscg/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/01/ISCG-Paper-Ref-ISCG-009-002-Adult-Social-Care-Informatics.pdf

[11] Tim Kelsey Keynote speech at Strata November 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8HCbXsC4z8

[12] Forbes: Illumina CEO on the US$20bn DNA market http://www.forbes.com/sites/luketimmerman/2015/04/29/qa-with-jay-flatley-ceo-of-illumina-the-genomics-company-pursuing-a-20b-market/

 

deregulation, health, NHS, NHS England

Clause 88 – the bingo clause of the Deregulation Bill?

Lord Tunnicliffe asked in Parliament on November 20, 2014: “are these  new clauses a licence for regulators to approve regulations that kill people to save money?”

Imagine an unsafe care home where children or the elderly are at risk.

Imagine its staff with fewer professional registration requirements than today.

Imagine the home could legally reject a Care Quality Commission call for changes, citing that to do so would harm the home’s “economic growth”.

Could this ever be reality, if this controversial clause 88(2) of the deregulation bill becomes law? [1]

In bingo, the number 88 is outdatedly and naughtily nicknamed ‘two fat ladies.’

In the media today we often hear about ‘health’ and ‘social care’ issues, and they currently overlap on the future approach to tackling the serious societal implications of obesity.

Headlines more rarely talk about changes to law which could have equally serious implications for the future approach to how we look after our health and care system and its oversight.

However, changes that could affect each of us, are currently in the Lords for review, and my bet is that few beyond their benches and MPs, have had their eyes down on the detail.

The Deregulation Bill – What is the very big bill all about?

It has been on the go for over 18 months, and Richard Grimes addressed some of the concerns in September 2013.[2]

The Deregulation Bill, is a very large bill indeed and is as broad in its content as its title is bland, but it has the potential to be a bombshell in its impact.

Functionally it covers subjects as diverse as busking and the Breeding of Dogs Act. It will make changes to the process the police use to obtain journalistic material [3] and provide a gateway to sell information from birth, death, marriage and civil partnership records.

Some changes in law will specifically affect the NHS: the ‘Road traffic legislation: use of vehicles in emergency response by NHS’, and ‘NHS foundation trusts and NHS trusts: acquisitions and dissolutions’.

Other clauses are area non-specific, such as my ‘bingo clause’, Clause 88(2), that creates a new legal duty for regulators to give regard to promoting economic growth.

The term ‘regulators’ covers a wide range of organisations [4]; you might think of Ofwat responsible for oversight of water and sewage, or the Food Standards Agency, or Human Tissue Authority.

Ken Clarke, joint bill owner with Oliver Letwin MP, wrote in 2013 [5]: “This is the beginning of a fundamental change in the culture of government. We think Reagan would have approved.

“By putting a duty on regulators not to burden business with unnecessary red tape, it will help to ensure that every nook and cranny of Whitehall is relentlessly focussed on growth.”

Will the Deregulation Bill take a gamble with the public interest in our NHS health and  social care provision through the ‘relentless’ duty to promote profit in Clause 88(2)?

Slimming down laws and the administration processes they affect, could of course be a very good thing. Lord Hunt of King’s Heath says of the bill as a whole: “I’ve no problem trying to streamline the regulatory processes, that’s why we broadly support it.”

But what about the detail in practice? Is Letwin and Clarke’s ‘relentless focus on growth’ going to mean compromise in worker safety, or in today’s health and social care market?

Will regulators be less rigorous about requirements and imposing penalties on commercial companies, if a private provider could complain, arguing non-compliance with this clause?

Clause 88(2): a duty to promote economic growth on regulators

Lord Hunt shared his key concern with clause 88(2): “The nub of the issue is ‘will this compromise their main regulatory function?’ I think it’s very ambiguous. He said:

“The health regulators are very unkeen on all of this. It’s pretty clear to me in discussions that they worry about the impact this will have.”

One regulator that could be affected is CQC. A CQC spokesperson said:  “The Government’s response to the report of the Draft Bill Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny said the duty does not set out how economic growth ranks against existing duties as this is a judgement only a regulator can and should make.

“The quality and safety of services is the primary basis on which we will regulate, and take enforcement action where necessary to protect people who use services. We would not consider a new duty to promote economic growth to override this position.”

How these new regulatory functions will work with their existing duties is unclear.

If they conflict how will it be decided which is considered most important if the law “does not set out how economic growth ranks against existing duties”? Summary guidance [6] on the deregulation bill is that the growth duty does not automatically take precedence over or supplant existing duties held by regulators, but what will that mean in practice?

If the economic growth duty should not make any difference to the key responsibilities of the regulator, why bring in this change at all?

A Department for Business, Innovation & Skills spokesperson said:
“Regulators will be required to be transparent about how they are complying with the growth duty.

“The Government will monitor the implementation of the growth duty through existing reporting mechanisms such as annual reports, published policies and service standards.”

To ring-fence the regulatory functions of health and social care bodies from the effects of Clause 88 (2) Lord Hunt proposed an amendment to 11 of them.[7]

He said: “In earlier discussion with ministers it was made clear they have a preliminary list of 5 regulators that they consider [in health] would fall under the economic growth clause in the bill: The Care Quality Commission (CQC), the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the Human Tissue Authority (HTA), the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the Professional Standards Authority.

“I cannot for the life of me, see why the health regulators are in there. I hope that the government will be able to take some, or all of them out.”

But the amendment was not supported on February 11 by the government and instead it only promised further discussion before the next stage of the bill.

What changes will it make and are they in the Public Interest?

A year ago in February 2014 [8], MPs in the House of Commons, Caroline Lucas, Jonathan Edwards, John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn MPs proposed the removal of this same 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.”

If the aim of the deregulation bill is to streamline services and remove red tape it should be very clear what purpose will be served through the changes and what consequences will be unleashed as a result.

However it appears that the government wants to get the bill through in principle and leave the practical detail of such risk analysis to be defined by regulations set out after it is law.

Regulations are not subject to the same parliamentary scrutiny and discussion as primary legislation, and some feel they are harder to veto.

Lord Hunt said: “It’s a very unsatisfactory way of doing it, there’s no guarantees and the government can just produce and list and then change that at any time in the future.

It is not the first time that Mr. Letwin’s proposals have been open ended and could have unforeseen consequences. [9]

Lord Hunt asked: “it’s a very open ended piece of legislation and the thing to ask is will it inhibit these key health regulators in protecting the public?”

Of key concern is whether regulators will be inhibited from taking actions in the public interest because of the potential for legal challenge by private interests.

If this sounds familiar, you may have heard similar language on deregulation in discussion of the behemoth of deregulation playing in parallel internationally: the TTIP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). [10]

How the consequences of these national and international deregulation changes are inter-related is impossible to fully understand given the lack of public information available.

Public Consultation and Professional Voice given too little regard The Deregulation Bill and the effects of the duty to promote economic growth will spread across all our regulatory bodies.

Like the obesity discussion, the Bill is complex, it’s cumbersome, and whilst appearing to have good intentions, hard to understand how changes will be applied in practice.

It also appears at times to lack common sense and to ignore experienced professional opinion.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission felt 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.”

The Government therefore risks 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.

But Clause 88(2) will be applied to this body which promotes worker rights and fairness.

Social care is to become less regulated by scrapping the need to register staff with Ofsted.

Baroness King of Bow said in the Lords debate on November 18th: “There is a feeling in the [social care] sector and indeed elsewhere that there has been quite simply inadequate debate around these very serious and important issues.”

Lord Reid of Cardowan in the Lords on February 5th said: “There are occasions during a ministerial career where, on study, what seems a relatively small decision becomes an obviously profound and very risky decision […] having listened to this debate, I have the impression that this is one of them.”

The potentially harmful consequences of these changes demand greater public scrutiny.

Will this bill future-proof the regulatory protections of health, environmental, safety, and social care, and prioritise the public interest?

If instead a duty to profit should be put first, one day the words of Lord Tunnicliffe may come back to haunt us: “Are these new clauses a licence for regulators to approve regulations that kill people to save money?” [11]

We may then look back to find why failings happened, look to this bill, and shout, ‘bingo!’

Notes:

The third reading is on 4 March and Lord Hunt has submitted an amendment to take out the The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) and Professional Standards Authority (PSA) for Health and Social Care from being covered by the growth clause.

As the Bill is amended and re-written, clause numbers will change. Clause 88(2) was the number of the duty to promote growth clause on February 11 2015 in the House of Lords debate.

A version of this article was first edited, amended and published by Open Democracy on February 25, 2015.

References:

[1] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2014-2015/0058/lbill_2014-20150058_en_9.htm#pb16-l1g91

[2] https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/richard-grimes/bonfire-of-citizens-rights

[3] http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/31/secret-hearings-police-journalists-deregulation-bill

[4] List of regulators: http://discuss.bis.gov.uk/focusonenforcement/list-of-regulators-and-their-remit/

[5] http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2013/07/ken-clarke-oliver-letwin.html

[6] www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/274552/14-554-growth-duty-draft-guidance.pdf

[7] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2014-2015/0058/amend/ml058-III-Rev.htm

[8] https://www.nuj.org.uk/news/nuj-backs-reasoned-amendment-to-deregulation-bill/

[9] http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/30/downing-street-files-oliver-letwin-poll-tax

[10] https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/linda-kaucher/eu%27s-giant-and-secretive-deregulation-blitz

[11] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldhansrd/text/141120-gc0001.htm