http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272166/Big-brother-log-drinking-habits-waist-size.html#axzz2JhXYhdJ3

Wern’t the coalition supposed to be against this kind of thing?

It’s in your best interest. 😉

Wern’t the coalition supposed to be against this kind of thing?

Which kind of thing? Improving efficiency and data flow across the NHS? I don’t think so. Or do you mean understanding the indicators/risk factors for diseases so we can develop better treatment and manage patient health better? Its only about 20 years after it should have been done… …but thats quite quick for NHS/Government IT.

So none of you are concerned about the ever more intrusive and obsessive govt interest in your bodies? You’re not bothered about being graded, sifted and targeted? One day you will be…

Don’t worry lads I’ll give them mine and that’ll screw with their numbers.

The government already has all the data.

At the moment it’s held by my GP.

It’s now also being copied to a central server.

It’s the same data in both locations, what’s the problem?

I have no particular objection to the government deriving statistical data from the best possible point of collection. We might actually see some evidence based policy as a result, rather than the policies of appeasing that horrible rag that you’ve just linked to the website of

What ormondroyd said.

My problem with the data is who gets to see it, and what to what purpose is it used for, who ELSE gets to see it, and what purposes do they use it for? That and the contempt implied by the lack of an opt-out. I suppose that they were surprised by how many people refused a Summary Care Record.

Evidence based policy???

WTF is that

Beware of Big Pharma.

What do we want?
Evidence based change!
When do we want it?
After peer review!

ps. statistical analysis of health data is sensible and forward thinking. There should of course be safeguards separating individual identifying information from the analysis.

It’s pretty small fry compared to the sale of personal data from the electoral register or the dvla database that the state does on a daily basis.

Does anybody have a link to an article not in the DM which might give a more balanced perspective? Until such time I shall assume it’s a good thing if the DM is complaining about it.

statistical analysis of health data is sensible and forward thinking. There should of course be safeguards separating individual identifying information from the analysis.

Fully agree but given the Governments past history on protecting sensitive data, it wont be long before insurance companies start using the data to identify individuals ‘at risk’ and load their policies with excess charges whilst their other customers policy renewal costs remain unchanged.

The core issue is not that better analysis of health data is bad, it’s that there is currently no trust in either the NHS or the government to do this without breaching confidentiality or being tempted to use personal data in a more invasive way.

We accept risk based pricing for motor insurance, why not health?

Whose data is it? Mine or theirs?

Your waist measurement and cholesterol levels are your own – it’s just collected and held by your GP with your consent, for the purpose of delivering healthcare to you.

When the purpose of the NHS holding the data changes – perhaps to make money for the NHS by helping insurers deny you cover, or to get you bombarded by unwelcome health messages at home or work (all hypothetical at present), then it could be argued your original consent is invalid.

I tend to take the approach that once anything about me is in a computer it’s not ‘my’ data any more.

It might be ‘our’ data in that I share ownership with whoever I gave the info to and I might expect them to take some care or ask if they want to share it with a third party but I would, at some point, have every expectation it would be copied to a thrid party database in some form.

unless they are asking landlords and our partners to do it, i’m not sure I’m that bothered. also reading the place you sourced this gem from I really DGAS

Indeed, or if the data is used to target you for state sponsored bullying…

We accept risk based pricing for motor insurance, why not health?

Now that’s a dangerous road to go down. Driving is an option, healthcare isn’t. Should parents with children with genetic issues or disabilities be charged more for their healthcover?

Should parents with children with genetic issues or disabilities be charged more for their healthcover?

tricky one.

I believe in a State funded healthcare system so, in that respect, I want everyone to pay based on income and to receive care appropriate to their needs regardless of contributions.

If I go to a private company and say “I’d like somethign better/different to the state funded scheme” and they say “Well it will cost you more because;

a) there’s a history of breast cancer in your familuy
b) you have a bmi of 50
c) you smoke 60 a day
d) genetically you are predisposed to developing ‘X’ despite no previous family history
etc etc

then I have a choice to pay the premium or elsewhere and see what the alternatives are.

But underlying it needs to be a base level of cover that isn’t based on abaility to pay.

Having said that I do have some sympathy for those that say ‘You spent 40 years drinkign yourself into this condition why should the state fund a new liver for you so you can keep doing it?’.