It's just another asset to be sold
Patient data will be sold, even if there will be some more wriggling first. Just like council houses, playing fields, water, power, rail, GPO...
NHS England has kicked off the formal competition for its Federated Data Platform, giving suppliers just one month to bid for the increased contract value of up to £480 million ($581 million) over seven years, as rights groups threaten legal action. Promised as a data store for NHS operational and population health analytics, …
Not only that it'll be sold in a way that any new governement in a year or twos time can't do anything about it as the contract will definately be biased to the company not the NHS or the people of this country.
Wonder which Tories/NHS England directors end up on Palantir's board in a minor but well paid role when they get kicked out of power (or even befor)?
The only possible thing that may help us as citizens is that it all appears to be a gross breach of data protection rules - taking data that is necessary for one thing, and then doing something else with it, without a proper change in law to allow it seems to fall foul of the rules.
So, if the govt don't legislate on the matter before going ahead, then a future govt could be forced to back out of it, even with the risk of being sued by the people the system sold data to etc...
>The only possible thing that may help us as citizens is that it all appears to be a gross breach of data protection rules - taking data that is necessary for one thing, and then doing something else with it, without a proper change in law to allow it seems to fall foul of the rules.<
And who do you expect to enforce data protection law and act upon breaches of it? I hope you're not going to say the ICO and they really don't give a damn as they've proven to me recently!
After having 2 separate health-organisation data protection complaints open with the ICO for more than 20 months each the ICO finally delivered "outcomes" for both cases and basically they're taking no action against the 2 organisations: the ICO have ignored several potential *criminal* offenses committed by both organisations (and the data processor of one of them), ICO have refused to investigate any aspects of the complaints that occurred when the previous law was in effect (i.e. prior to May 2018), and have basically told me if I want something done I'll have to take the orgs to court myself. The ICO have ignored both orgs admitting to the ICO multiple ways that they have being breaching data protection law regarding personal health data.
Strangely enough the ICO's department that handles FOI enforcement seems more competent and interested in enforcing the law: one of the above mentioned organisations has had a Information Notice raised by ICO against them for failing to adequately response to a FOI Request, has also had a Decision Notice raised against them for failing to respond to a 2nd (different) FOI Request within the statutory response timeframe, and the ICO is about to (hopefully this week) raise a 2nd Decision Notice against them for failing to respond to a 3rd (different) FOI Request within the statutory response timeframe, and there is a 3rd Decision Notice (following on from the Information Notice for the 1st FOI Request) likely to be raised by ICO in the very near future.
I wonder if this orgisation is trying to get a "high score" for ICO decisions against them? One Information Notice and three Decisions Notices is certainly not a "good look" for a health service body.
Private prosecutions can be brought, civil cases can be brought, and judicial reviews sought. If the ICO doesn't enforce, then that would be part of the case as well.
Individually, this doesn't particularly help. But when you've got national groups who are involved, funding can often be found and cases brought with it.
Judicial reviews are all fine and well but...
We were told as a Parish that we had a very good case to take our new Unitary Authority to Judicial Review, as it changed rules pertinent to a parishes ability to object to planning applications without telling parishes. (The Unitary rules had previously been used in two of the now conjoined Districts, but not the third - ours.)
Previously a highly contentious Planning Application, that the Parish vehemently objected to on behalf of the residents, would have automatically gone to the Planning Committee, because of the Parishes objection.
We only found out about the changes later, (when we asked why the application was not on the Planning meeting agenda), that this application was waved through by a Planning Officer, as we had not followed the new procedure that we had not been informed about.
Said Planning Officer could see that there had been no objections (in the new system that nobody had told us about) and based their decision on 'an expert' report of someone the Unitary had employed, but who admitted on page 1 that they had not actually been to the site.
However, as a Parish our precept is £15,000 and it costs £90,000 to even start the JR process, so there is no way that we could go down that route.
> Private prosecutions can be brought, civil cases can be brought, and judicial reviews sought. If the ICO doesn't enforce, then that would be part of the case as well. <
I've been quoted at least 25,000 pounds to bring the 2 organisations to the High Court. That would be for the non-criminal-offences data protection aspects of my complaints. The solicitor indicated even if I won I would be lucky to get a fraction of my costs covered. Indeed I'd expect my actual costs to, in reality, be far greater that 25K pounds, especially once the solicitor factors in how many hours it would take him to just read all the evidence I've collected (probably 1000+ pages) over the past almost 3 year period.
To have the potential criminal offences (as per UK DPA 1998 and GDPR/UK DPA 2018) aspects considered I believe that would require Crown Court action which would involve a far higher level of costs which I believe I couldn't personally afford.
I don't believe I could take action against ICO's failure to enforce in the High Court, wouldn't that require a Judicial Review? PHSO won't investigate ICO decisions, only whether ICO followed ICO's defined procedures for investigations (i.e. did ICO investigate correctly or not, regardless as to whether they reaching a "wrong" decision).
Among the five "initial" use cases for the new Federated Data Platform and associated services include elective recovery, that is reducing the backlog of vital, but not urgent, operations, which are currently at record highs.
No, just no!
Paying NHS front-line staff the money they've lost over the last 14 years rather than the Government handing it to their chums AND paying medical and nursing students a living wage while they are getting qualified would do a helluva lot more good than handing the money to NHSdata's chums.
I strongly suspect, too, that it would play well with the UK public if the aggregate of the pay rises MP's have received while denying them to NHS staff was clawed back and paid to NHS workers as a bonus.
 But excluding management levels in the NHS. I have a rather strong suspicion that the more senior members of the NHS hierarchy and, for that matter, also the top levels of management in HMG's Civil Service, since they may have been swinging the lead too. Consequently, it would be a good idea for them to be required to defend their work record too, and have the appropriate penalties applied if they prove to be deficient. After all, this happens all the time in commercial outfits when management fails (except in certain US airlines, apparently) so it would seem to be high time the Civil Service are brought into line with standard commercial practice.
“Promised as a data store for NHS operational and population health analytics, the repository is seen as vital to the health system's post-Covid recovery and reform to the NHS — one of the world's largest health providers.“
… the health systems post-Conservative Government recovery is how it should read. COVID (and Brexit) are just a multiplying factors exacerbating an already creaking system.
A conversation related to me, had me checking a few facts.
Firstly, the term ‘Junior Doctor’ refers to someone who has:
* completed the minimum 5 years of University education,
* is completing the next 2 years compulsory foundation training,
* is completing the next 3+ years of compulsory specialty training,
* or has completed all the training but is not a consultant.
(At least 10 years training – more that 3 times a standard degree in say, PPE that our politicians all seem to study.)
Claim: "There has been a 30% salary cut for Junior Doctors since 2008"
https://www.bma.org.uk/.../bma-ia-pay-restoration... shows this to be 26.1%, but with rounding in conversation this is not too much of an exaggeration.
https://www.imgconnect.co.uk/.../nhs-doctors-pay.../59 shows a basic salary after finishing University of £29,384 for a 40 hour week.
Claim: “Junior Doctors used to have paid accommodation.”
This was withdrawn in 2008 and is most likely why that year is used in the statistics above.
Claim: “All students have to pay back tuition fees for the years of University education.”
Many intercalate extra courses within that initial 5 years to get a broader education. E.g. my daughter did an MSC in Nutrition (with diet being a major contributory factor in so many health conditions) taking that to 6 years – double the costs of a standard 3 year degree in other subjects. With current students’ tuition fees of £9,250 per year for 6 years that is £55,500 in debt, before accommodation, food or any other living costs are taken into account.
So, if a Doctor finished their training in 2008 they would be better off than someone finishing their training in 2022 to the tune of:
* At least £45,000 in tuition fees
* At least 10 years of free accommodation
* 26.1% more real terms wages
Rather depressing when as the general public, we want the best people to become Doctors, as our life in literally in their hands.
Yup, same here. Mine's too busy flying backwards and forwards to Northern Ireland to answer himself and his minions just answer with the standard bureaucratic lines of "just think of the children", "if you have nothing to hide", "security is our primary concern", etc. to everything.
Our Unitary vehemently objects to weight limits and speed limits. I know because I have been trying for years to get them in our village, whose narrow roads are used as a rat run by Artic's. However, one has just been placed in our MPs village, contravening at least 2 of the Unitary's main opposition points!