California SSN and Encryption

[Mary Hawking]

In article <Eh7lv6CfPaQ9EA$7@rub-al-khali.uninhabited.net>, Roger Hayter 
<roger@hayter.org> writes
>In message <0207261359140Q.00797@osborne>, Adrian Midgley 
><akm@92tr.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>
>>
>>9 digits plus a 10th produced by a checksum calcualtion involving modulo 11
>>arithmetic.  If you wnat the code to either create consistent ones or check
>>ones presented, I published it a few years ago on GP-UK.
>>
>
>It's perhaps worth pointing out that this new NHS number, which was to 
>provide an ID number for everone, available to any government 
>department, is entirely different from the one that used to grace 
>medical cards, and was apparently not used at all by anyone (except 
>perhaps the department in charge of storing GP records for 6 months and 
>throwing 20% of them away every time you change GP).

That number held a lot of information if you knew how to interpret it, 
and was *very* computer unfriendly!
Usefulness also decreased by the semi-official practice of inventing a 
number if one got lost and a lot of duplication...

> I for one would be interested to know what is happening to the new NHS 
>numbers, we certainly don't seem to have them locally.  This is, I 
>think, actually on topic.

The new NHS number was installed in, if I recall correctly, 1997-8, and 
the method was to install it in GP surgeries: since then all babies are 
allocated their own new NHS number.
Hospitals were obliged to use the new NHS number from 1.4.99 - but most 
seem to insist on using their own numbers exclusively.

The NHS tracing service was set up to provide a means of identifying the 
current address and GP registration of every patient. It is updated by 
changes in registration being recorded in GP surgeries and notified 
electronically if the GP practice is on Registration Links: I think the 
vast majority are.
(If the practice doesn't have the system to change a patient's 
registered address, that's a different problem!)

Access to the system is supposed to be confined to those with a need to 
know. For instance, my practice can check whether a patient is 
registered with us, and the registered address, by logging on to "Open 
Exeter".[1] This access is supposed to be confined to specific views. 
e.g. a practice can only look at the patients registered with the 
practice, a PCT at the patients in the PCT area, and a Trust could, I 
think, send in a query about the address and registered GP of a patient 
under treatment.
The information held in Open Exeter includes details of item of service 
payments - cervical smears, immunisations and vaccinations, etc. - i.e. 
more than simple location and registration.

The fact remains that in theory (and largely in practice) everyone 
registered with a GP has an NHS number, and that the system should show 
their current address (and others registered at that address), with a 
mechanism for keeping it up to date - and no other database does this.

How long will it be before someone thinks of the usefulness of this 
existing system when issuing identity - sorry, "entitlement" - cards?
The IPU document on sharing information between government departments 
doesn't suggest they are concerned about keeping databases separate!

Mary Hawking

[1] we were alarmed to find we had access to the whole of Bedfordshire 
when we logged on for the first time.. seems we had been entered under 
the wrong category. Rapidly corrected when reported.


-- 
K.Mary Hawking
Kingsbury Court Surgery Church Street Dunstable Beds LU5 4RS
tel 01582 663218
fax 01582 476488
email Mary.Hawking@gp-E81045.nhs.uk