Previous Senate Inquiry
Unfortunately, the strength of the
AMA lobby has curtailed reform in Australia. A classic example is the
Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry on access to medical
records in 1996/97. This attracted considerable community response and in
June 1997, the Senate Committee recommended Australia implement
comprehensive national legislation to enshrine a patient's rights to
access medical records. Yet today, three years later, the Federal
Government has failed to implement those recommendations.
Specific Deficiencies of the Privacy Bill
(a) The Inadequacy of a Voluntary Code
The Privacy Bill supports an
inappropriate framework for dealing with medical records. This
includes >a new national voluntary code that does not offer any new
rights for patients.
At least four voluntary codes
already exist.(1) Further, as the AMA and other medical
bodies have been publicly unsympathetic to providing patients access to
medical records, such a code is only likely to reinforce professional
attitudes rather than change them. Without underlying law reform, a
voluntary code of practice on patient access is unlikely to achieve any
change
Advertisement
(b) Exemptions
The list of proposed exemptions to
Clause 6.1 of Schedule 3 (National Privacy Principles) effectively means
that access to personal information will be denied more often than
granted. APLA considers the phrases used in the exemptions such as
"frivolous or vexatious" will be given a broad meaning by
organisations and result in frequent denials of access. The ‘Access
Principle’ described in the Key Provisions also includes a list of ten
reasons a doctor may use in order to justify a refusal of access.
Further, while it is proposed
that an organisation must provide reasons for denial of access or refusal
to correct personal information, there appears to be no sanction for
either the failure to provide such reasons or the actual denial of access.
(c) Third Party Access to
Medical Information
It is categorically unfair to
enhance the access of a third party to medical records when the proposed
provisions deny patients satisfactory access to their own medical records
at the same time. But the Bill does this too – allowing government
agencies and researchers increased access to the medical records of
others.
Conclusion
The Federal Privacy Bill may at
first appear to enhance rights to privacy, yet this is clearly not the
case. The Bill supports a manifestly inappropriate framework for dealing
with medical records, particularly given the attitude of the medical
profession to patients’ rights.
The AMA lobby is well
resourced and, as the past demonstrates, strong enough to prevent the
implementation of Senate Committee recommendations for federal
legislation. But patients’ rights and community support on the issue are
worth continuing the fight. APLA encourages your support in its campaign
on access to medical records in Australia, and leaves you with an extract
from its submission to LACA:
By way of summary, APLA:
-
Opposes the inclusion of
medical records in the Bill. Medical records should be dealt with
through a different framework.
-
Submits that a new
national voluntary code does not offer any new rights for patients
and, as a result, will reinforce professional attitudes rather than
change them.
-
Opposes the list of
proposed exemptions to clause 6.1 of Schedule 3 (National Privacy
Principles)
-
Considers the phrases
used in the exemptions such as "frivolous or vexatious" will
be given a broad meaning by organisations and result in frequent
denials of access.
-
Opposes third party
access to medical information under the Bill. It is unfair to enhance
the access of a third party to medical records when the proposed
provisions deny patients satisfactory access to their own medical
records.
Advertisement
-
The four voluntary codes
in existence are: the draft Royal Australian College of General
Practitioners Code of Practice for Computerised Medical Records
(1993); the NHMRC Guidelines for Medical Practitioners on Providing
Information to Patients (1993); the Australian standard — Personal
Privacy Protection in Health Care Information Systems (1995); and
the Australian Medical Association’s Guidelines on Access to
Medical Records (1997)
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.