AGPA calls for privacy impact assessment for PIP QI

The Australian General Practice Alliance (AGPA) has called for a privacy impact assessment to be undertaken on the government's new Practice Incentive Program Quality Improvement incentive (PIP QI) to clarify concerns it has with the use of third party data extraction software and the handling of data by primary health networks (PHNs).

It has also called for a rethink of the use of PHNs to store the data rather than a single national data repository, a national sign-on contract for general practices uploads to this repository, and competitively neutral choices regarding the upload tools available.

AGPA, which represents privately owned general practices, raised an alarm about the PIP QI two weeks ago and has been consulting with the Department of Health and the PIP advisory group (PIPAG) about its concerns.

Posted in Australian eHealth

Tags: PIP QI

Comments  

# Craig Barnett 2019-08-23 23:30
Wow - Impressive effort from the AGPA. The list of items makes sense and looks to reduce any monopolistic commercial interests as well as consider the professional requirements of the Dr Patient relationship. How or why the RACGP signed off on the debacle of the 1_8_2019 released PIP-QI remains a mystery. The RACGP recent newsletter looks to craft an impression of responsibility with the Dept of Health and thanking a rethink. Maybe the RACGP should have thought of "life long learning" before signing off. As a RACGP member the monumental failures of the College to consider commercial interests, freedom of software choice, respect of our patients, consideration of patient consent (including HOW the patient opts out when they are awkward or do not want to "disappoint" their doctor) is truely astounding. Well done AGPA for attempting to put forward something which appears to consider the kernel of many of the inherent deficiencies. It is truely pleasing to see this!
For me though the duplication of some new "standard" to transmit "some bits" of one off use data to a new national database seem to all but duplicate a MyHR but does so outside of the appropriate legislative protection. MyHR has requirements for de identification / encryption and data custodians - do we really need another set of this stuff (in both cost and bureaucracy ?) cheers Craig

You need to log in to post comments. If you don't have a Pulse+IT website account, click here to subscribe.

Sign up for Pulse+IT eNewsletters

Sign up for Pulse+IT website access

For more information, click here.

Copyright © 2019 Pulse+IT Magazine
No content published on this website can be reproduced by any person for any reason without the prior written permission of the publisher.