Wednesday 16 May 2018
An insider has finally admitted what any digital native would be well aware of - your personal health information entered into a national database will be no safer that having it up on Facebook
Remembering that a federal government national screening program, working with with a private entity, has already accessed personal information from Medicare without consent of registered individuals and entered these persons into a research program - again without consent - and these individuals apparently could not easily opt out of being listed as a research subject but were often only verbally offered the option of declining to take part in testing, which presumably meant that health data from other sources was still capable of being collected about them by the program. One has to wonder what the Turnbull Government and medical establishment actually consider patient rights to be in practice when it comes to "My Health Record".
Healthcare IT News, 4 May 2018:
Weeks
before the anticipated announcement of the My Health Record opt out period, an
insider’s leak has claimed the Australian Digital Health Agency has decided associated
risks for consumers “will not be explicitly discussed on the website”.
As
the ADHA heads towards the imminent announcement of the three-month window in
which Australians will be able to opt out of My Health Record before being
signed up to the online health information repository, the agency was caught by
surprise today when details emerged in a blog post by GP and member of the
steering group for the national expansion of MHR, Dr Edwin Kruys.
Kruys wrote that MHR offers “clear benefits”
to healthcare through providing clinicians with greater access to discharge
summaries, pathology and diagnostic reports, prescription records and more, but
said “every digital solution has its pros and cons” and behind-the-scenes risk
mitigation has been one of the priorities of the ADHA. However, he claimed
Australians may not be made aware of the risks involved in allowing their
private medical information to be shared via the Federal Government’s system.
“It
has been decided that the risks associated with the MyHR will not be explicitly
discussed on the website,” Kruys wrote.
“This
obviously includes the risk of cyber attacks and public confidence in the
security of the data.”
The
most contentious contribution in the post related to the secondary use of
Australians’ health information, the framework of which has yet to be announced
by Health Minister Greg Hunt.
Contacted
by HITNA, the agency moved swiftly to have Kruys delete the paragraph
relating to secondary use.
In
the comment that has since been removed, Kruys wrote, “Many consumers and
clinicians regard secondary use of the MyHR data as a risk. The MyHR will
contain a ‘toggle’, giving consumers the option to switch secondary use of
their own data on or off.”
Under
the My Health Records Act 2012, health information in MHR may be
collected, used and disclosed “for any purpose” with the consent of the
healthcare recipient. One of the functions of the system operator is “to
prepare and provide de-identified data for research and public health
purposes”.
Before
these provisions of the act will be implemented, a framework for secondary use
of MHR systems data must be established.
HealthConsult
was engaged to assist the Federal Government in developing a draft framework
and implementation plan for the process and within its public consultation
process in 2017 received supportive submissions from the Australasian College
of Health Informatics, the Australian Bureau of Statistics and numerous
research institutes, universities, and clinicians’ groups.
Computerworld, 14 May 2018:
Use of both de-identified
data and, in some circumstances, identifiable data will be permitted under a
new government framework for so-called “secondary use” of data derived from the
national eHealth record system. Linking data from the My Health Record system
to other datasets is also allowed under some circumstances.
The Department of Health
last year commissioned
the development of the framework for using My Health Record data for
purposes other than its primary purpose of providing healthcare to an
individual.
Secondary use can
include research, policy analysis and work on improving health services.
Under the new framework,
individuals who don’t want their data used for secondary purposes will be
required to opt-out. The opt-out process is separate from the procedure
necessary for individuals who don’t want an eHealth
record automatically created for them (the government last year
decided to shift to an opt-out
approach for My Health Record)……
Access to the data will
be overseen by an MHR Secondary Use of Data Governance Board, which will
approve applications to access the system.
Any Australian-based
entity with the exception of insurance agencies will be permitted to apply for
access the MHR data. Overseas-based applicants “must be working in
collaboration with an Australian applicant” for a project and will not have
direct access to MHR data.
The data drawn from the
records may not leave Australia, but under the framework there is scope for
data analyses and reports produced using the data to be shared internationally……
The Department of Health
came under fire in 2016 after it released for download supposedly
anonymised health data. Melbourne University researchers were able to
successfully re-identify a range of data.
Last month the Office of
the Australian Information Commissioner revealed that health
service providers accounted for almost a quarter of the breaches reported
in the first six weeks of operation of the Notifiable Data Breach (NDB) scheme.
The Sydney Morning Herald,
14 May 2018:
Australians who don't
want a personal electronic health record will have from July 16 to October 15
to opt-out of the national scheme the federal government announced on Monday.
Every Australian will
have a My Health Record unless they choose to opt-out during the three-month
period, according to the Australian Digital Health Agency.
The
announcement follows the release of the government’s secondary use of data
rules earlier this month that inflamed concerns of patient privacy and data
use.
Under the framework,
medical information would be made available to third parties from 2020 -
including some identifying data for public health and research purposes -
unless individuals opted out.
In other news.......
The
Sydney Morning Herald,
14 May 2018:
A cyber attack on Family
Planning NSW's website has exposed the personal information of up to 8000
clients, including women who have booked appointments or sought advice
about abortion, contraception and other services.
Clients received an
email from FPNSW on Monday alerting them that their website had been hacked on
Anzac Day.
The compromised data
contained information from roughly 8000 clients who had contacted FPNSW via its
website in the past 2½ years to make appointments or give feedback.
It included the personal
details clients entered via an online form, including names, contact details,
dates of birth and the reason for their enquiries….
The website was secured
by 10am on April 26, 2018 and all web database information has been secure
since that time
SBS
News, 14 May
2018:
Clients were told Family
Planning NSW was one of several agencies targeted by cybercriminals who
requested a bitcoin ransom on April 25…..
The not-for-profit has
five clinics in NSW, with more than 28,000 people visiting every year.
The most recent Digital
Rights Watch State of Digital Rights (May 2018) report can be found here.
The report’s
8 recommendations include:
Repeal
of the mandatory metadata retention scheme
Introduction
of a Commonwealth statutory civil cause of action for serious invasions of
privacy
A
complete cessation of commercial espionage conducted by the Australian Signals
Directorate
Changes
to copyright laws so they are flexible, transparent and provide due process to
users
Support
for nation states to uphold the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child in the digital age
Expand
the definition of sensitive information under the Privacy Act to specifically
include behavioural biometrics
Increase
measures to educate private businesses and other entities of their
responsibilities under the Privacy Act regarding behavioural biometrics, and
the right to pseudonymity
Introduce
a compulsory register of entities that collect static and behavioural biometric
data, to provide the public with information about the entities that are
collecting biometric data and for what purpose
The
loopholes opened with the 2011 reform of the FOI laws should be closed by
returning ASD, ASIO, ASIS and other intelligence agencies to the ambit of the
FOI Act, with the interpretation of national security as a ground for refusal
of FOI requests being reviewed and narrowed
Telecommunications
providers and internet platforms must develop processes to increase
transparency in content moderation and, make known what content was removed or triggered an account suspension.
Tuesday 15 May 2018
It doesn't pay to tell outright political lies on national television....
.... because there are bound to be old election campaign warriors watching.
Australian
Treasurer and Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison, ABC Insiders
interview, 13 May 2018, telling an untruth:
“You tell me when a
government in their budget has ever provided detailed costings, post the
forward estimates up to the medium term. It’s never happened….
..we don't provide within-year
estimates …on the cost of expenditure items”
Hawker
Britton Managing Director Simon Banks,
Twitter, 13 May 2018, showing
Coalition Government costings in 2014-15 Budget:
It is amusing to note that Scott Morrison was a member of the Coalition Government when that 2014-15 Budget was handed down.Angry @scottmorrisonMP claiming government's have never provided year by year costings over the medium term of policy changes— Simon Banks (@SimonBanksHB) May 12, 2018
Simply untrue #insiders
And here's one example - the LNP's 2014 cuts to schools and hospitals pic.twitter.com/b8MMdrI8eG
In fact he was a Cabinet Minister being then the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, so he would have more than a passing understanding of what went into those particular budget papers.
The reason Peter Dutton is looking so smug lately
Peter Dutton, 4 May 2016
Photo: Stephanie Peatling
Already a sitting member in a predominately 'white bread', somewhat politically disengaged Queensland electorate with a relativley large workforce and a stable employment rate, Liberal MP for Dickson, Minister for Home Affairs & Minister for Immigration and Border Protection Peter Dutton is exuding confidence bordering on arrogance.
Well he might - the Liberal Party having strongly lobbied the Australian Electoral Commission in last year's redistribution thereby slightly increasing the slim margin by which he holds the seat of Dickson,
with $650,000
pledged to his 2018-19 election campaign chest, legislation transferring ASIO into the Home Affairs portfolio having received royal assent on 10 May 2018, on track to gain unprecedented control over the
criteriagoverning citizenship acquisition, the time it takes for a person to
gaincitizenship after their application has been approved, and even
the circumstances in which citizenship can be revoked and, exercising his political muscle within his own party, he looks to be firmly in the driver's seat.
The people of Kurwongbah, Petrie, Strathpine, Albany Creek, Ferny Hills, Everton Hills, Murrumba Downs, parts of Kallangur, Lake Samsonvale, Lake Kurwongbah and the rest of Dickson need to take a good hard look at their sitting member and ask themselves; do they really want to be responsible for re-electing Peter Dutton who is on his way to be the next far-right, authoritarian 'Trump' to head a federal government?
Monday 14 May 2018
Here we are on the NSW North Coast living amid remnants of the splendor that was Australia in 1788.....
....and it is fading and dying before our very eyes, while the Turnbull Coalition Government follows in the footsteps of the Abbott Coalition Government by turning its back on us and our concerns.
North Coast Environment Council, media
release, 7 May 2018:
… SCIENTISTS ARE
THE NEXT CASUALTIES …
Malcolm Turnbull's
Government has launched yet another offensive on the environment, with the
announcement it was sacking dozens of scientists.
“The rivers of cash that
the government has to splash around don't extend to environmental protection,”
said Susie Russell, North Coast Environment Council Vice-President.
“This will have a
significant impact on north coast forests. We have been relying on the Recovery
Planning process to guarantee some protection for nationally endangered
species. Only last month, NCEC was a signatory (with NEFA, the National Parks
Association and the South East Region Conservation Alliance) to a letter to
federal Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg. We pleaded for Canberra to take
its environmental responsibilities seriously. We pointed out that the NSW
Government was not abiding by Federal Recovery Plans for threatened species.
The Greater Glider is one of the species where a Recovery Plan is required,
but nothing gets produced.
Photo by Jasmine Zeleny.
Aboriginal elders calling for NSW Berejiklian Government to commit to expanding the youth Koori court program
The Guardian, 7 May 2018:
Aboriginal
elders have called for the NSW government to commit to expanding the youth
Koori court program after an evaluation found it halved the amount of time
young people spent in detention. The court began as a pilot project at
Parramatta children’s court in February 2015 but has not received ongoing
funding. A University of Western Sydney evaluation has found it cut the average
number of days spent in youth detention, as well as helping address underlying
issues such as unstable accommodation, lack of engagement in education and employment, and disconnection from Aboriginal
culture. Elders said it reached children who had little family
support and were isolated from the community.
Sunday 13 May 2018
Growing older in Australia is becoming fraught with financial risk
The Guardian, 4 May 2018:
Half of the 51,300 older
Australians affected by an increase in the age pension age would move on to
Newstart or the disability support pension in the first year alone, new figures
suggest.
The Coalition has
long proposed increasing the age pension
age from
67 to 70, kicking in from 2025-26. The change is likely to make Australia’s pension age the highest in the
developed world.
Government estimates
show the move would affect 51,300 people in the first year alone, according to
a response to questions asked in Senate estimates.
The government also
predicts 12,934 people would move from the age pension to the disability
support pension and 12,825 to the Newstart Allowance unemployment payment.
The changes have not yet
been legislated, but the pension changes remain Coalition policy after being
first proposed in 2014.
They would follow Labor’s
increase of the pension age from 65 to 67 when it was last in government – a
change that is being gradually implemented from July 2017 until July 2023.
The opposition has
pledged to fight any further increase to the pension age.
The shadow social services
minister, Jenny Macklin, said the data showed increasing the pension age would
not necessarily keep older Australians in work, as the government intends.
“Many Australians won’t be able to work for
longer like Mr Turnbull wants them to. Instead they’ll just be forced to live
on Newstart or the DSP,” Macklin said.
“Labor understands how
hard it is for older Australians to find work, particularly when their job has
taken a toll on their body and where there is age-based discrimination in the
workforce.”
Safer Pathway program becomes third government-led domestic violence initiative to be found ineffective by BOCSAR
The NSW Government domestic violence program rolled out between September 2014 and July 2015......
The safety and
protection of victims and their children lies at the heart of It Stops
Here: Standing Together to End Domestic and Family Violence, the NSW
Government’s Domestic and Family Violence Framework for Reform.
Safer Pathway proposes a
fundamental change in how agencies and organisations support victim’s safety in
NSW. Through Safer Pathway, the right services are provided to victims when
they need them, in a coordinated way.
The key components of
Safer Pathway build on the existing service response. These are:
* a Domestic Violence
Safety Assessment Tool (DVSAT) to better and consistently identify the level of
domestic violence threat to victims
* a Central Referral
Point to electronically manage and monitor referrals
* a state-wide network
of Local Coordination Points that facilitate local responses and provide
victims with case coordination and support. By the end of March 2018, Safer
Pathway will be operational at the following 43 sites: Albury, Armidale,
Ashfield/Burwood, Bankstown, Bathurst, Blacktown, Blue Mounatins, Bourke,
Broken Hill, Campbelltown, Coffs Harbour, Deniliquin, Dubbo, Far South Coast,
Goulburn, Gosford, Griffith, Hunter Valley, Illawarra, Lismore, Liverpool,
Moree, Mt Druitt, Newcastle, Newtown, Northern Beaches, Nowra, Orange,
Parramatta, Penrith, Port Macquarie, Queanbeyan, St George, Sutherland,
Tamworth, Taree, Toronto, Tweed Heads, Wagga Wagga, Walgett, Waverley,
Wollongong and Wyong.
* Safety Action Meetings
in which members develop plans for victims at serious threat of death,
disability or injury as a result of domestic and family violence
* information sharing
legislation that allows service providers to share information about victims
and perpetrators so that victims do not have to retell their story multiple
times, to hold perpetrators accountable and promote an integrated response for
victims at serious threat.
The outcome at Year 4 of the program......
Clare Ringland, The
Domestic Violence Safety Assessment Tool (DVSAT) and intimate partner repeat
victimisation, April 2018
Wai-Yin Wan, Hamish Thorburn, Suzanne Poynton and Lily Trimboli, Assessing
the impact of NSW’s Safer Pathway Program on recorded crime outcomes – an
aggregate-level analysis, February 2018
The
Sydney Morning Herald,
2 May 2018:
A signature NSW
government program to reduce domestic violence rates is failing to protect
women from further harm, a new report reveals, casting doubt over the
Premier’s target of reducing reoffending by 25 per cent by 2021.
The Safer Pathway
program, a key feature of state government's 2014 domestic violence reforms,
"has only had a limited effect on the incidence of domestic
violence", according to two reports released today by the NSW Bureau of
Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR).
It is the third
government-led domestic violence initiative to be found ineffective by
BOCSAR in recent months.
Dr Don Weatherburn,
BOCSAR's director, said the Premier's goal of reducing the number of
perpetrators who reoffend within 12 months to 10.7 per cent by 2021 was
now out of reach.
"Judging from what
we've seen there's no way we are going to have a 25 per cent reduction in
domestic violence reoffending by 2021," he said.
Under the Safer Pathway
program, police are required to assess all victims who report domestic violence
using a questionnaire known as the Domestic Violence Safety Assessment Tool.
Victims assessed as
having a "serious risk" are then referred to a Safety Action
Meeting (SAM), where a team of experts develop an "action plan"
for the victim.
BOCSAR tracked more than
24,000 cases of domestic violence between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2016,
and found that the questionnaire was a "very poor instrument for
measuring the risk of repeat domestic violence victimisation, often performing
little better than chance".
As part of the
questionnaire, victims are required to answer 25 questions designed to assess
their risk-level. A police officer then performs a further assessment,
including whether there are children at risk of harm. Victims are considered at
"serious risk" if they respond "yes" to at least 12
questions, and if the officer's assessment also concludes there is a legitimate
threat.
However, BOCSAR's report
found that 90 per cent of those who experienced repeat victimisation had
responded ‘'yes'’ to fewer than 12 items in the questionnaire.
“Large numbers of women
who are at serious risk aren't being identified as such and aren't being
given the support of a safety action meeting,” Dr Weatherburn said.
He said the questionnaire also
failed to ask critical questions, such as whether the victim intended to live
with the perpetrator.
"We were shocked to
discover how bad that instrument was. You might as well guess who is at
serious risk,” Dr Weatherburn said…..
Dr Weatherburn said the
program's ineffectiveness was partly a byproduct of the inadequacies of the
screening process, which he said resulted in women who were not at serious risk
being referred to the safe action meetings.
A spokeswoman for Pru
Goward, the minister for the prevention of domestic violence, said the NSW
government was currently working with BOCSAR to develop "a revised and
improved risk assessment tool for domestic violence victims."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)