Surprising High Court ruling on privacy

[John R T Brazier]

Dear All,

But the Pharmaceutical companies actually don't want patient data. Pharma
companies want a lot more information on Doctors' prescribing habits, as
they can then measure the effectiveness of their marketing and selling.
Historically, this data has been impossible to get hold of.

IMS, which has steadily been absorbing other medical/pharmaceutical
information companies, started developing a system to try and produce this
data across the UK. Because they and the pharma companies are actually
relatively ethical, this was all done with the help/advice of the medical
profession and its bodies. The result was that IMS were to implement a
system that anonymised both patients and Doctors, and any purchasing
pharmaceutical company has to agree to abide by the rules. IMS were also to
be explicitly responsible for any information leakage.

Then the NHS leapt in ...

It seems a bit sad. Assuming IMS could guarantee the security of the system
(Xponent), then everyone had something to gain: IMS and the pharmacists
directly, the pharmaceutical companies indirectly as they improved their
sales and marketing, the doctors as they wouldn't get badgered by
inappropriate representatives, and possibly patients overall as a large
database on the demographics of prescriptions built up. What isn't clear is
why the NHS are trying to stop it, although the suspicion is that they think
the data is 'theirs' - and perhaps they'll sell it in future.

I believe IMS are appealing.

JB

-----Original Message-----
From:	owner-ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk
[mailto:owner-ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk] On Behalf Of David Swarbrick
Sent:	14 June 1999 17:12
To:	ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk
Subject:	Re: Surprising High Court ruling on privacy

It seemed to me to be a welcome addition to the growing volume of case
law establishing the right of confidence.

The NHS seemed to think it wrong to allow the transfer of data. The
court agreed, and asserted the right of the original owners of the
confidence - the patients - not to have that confidence breached. Unless
I have misread it, or the report misses out something, it seems a
welcome decision.

For a court to say that a patient's rights are to be respected seems
straightforward enough. It does not say he NHS s to be trusted - only
that in this case, their wish to 'discourage' such data transfers was
not unlawful.