The Federal Privacy Bill and access to medical records

Previous Senate Inquiry

Unfortunately, the strength of the AMA lobby has curtailed reform in Australia. A classic example is the Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry on access to medical records in 1996/97. This attracted considerable community response and in June 1997, the Senate Committee recommended Australia implement comprehensive national legislation to enshrine a patient's rights to access medical records. Yet today, three years later, the Federal Government has failed to implement those recommendations.

Specific Deficiencies of the Privacy Bill

(a) The Inadequacy of a Voluntary Code
The Privacy Bill supports an inappropriate framework for dealing with medical records. This includes >a new national voluntary code that does not offer any new rights for patients.

At least four voluntary codes already exist.⁽¹⁾ Further, as the AMA and other medical bodies have been publicly unsympathetic to providing patients access to medical records, such a code is only likely to reinforce professional attitudes rather than change them. Without underlying law reform, a voluntary code of practice on patient access is unlikely to achieve any change

(b) Exemptions
The list of proposed exemptions to Clause 6.1 of Schedule 3 (National Privacy Principles) effectively means that access to personal information will be denied more often than granted. APLA considers the phrases used in the exemptions such as "frivolous or vexatious" will be given a broad meaning by organisations and result in frequent denials of access. The ‘Access Principle’ described in the Key Provisions also includes a list of ten reasons a doctor may use in order to justify a refusal of access.

Further, while it is proposed that an organisation must provide reasons for denial of access or refusal to correct personal information, there appears to be no sanction for either the failure to provide such reasons or the actual denial of access.

(c) Third Party Access to Medical Information
It is categorically unfair to enhance the access of a third party to medical records when the proposed provisions deny patients satisfactory access to their own medical records at the same time. But the Bill does this too – allowing government agencies and researchers increased access to the medical records of others.

Conclusion

The Federal Privacy Bill may at first appear to enhance rights to privacy, yet this is clearly not the case. The Bill supports a manifestly inappropriate framework for dealing with medical records, particularly given the attitude of the medical profession to patients’ rights.

The AMA lobby is well resourced and, as the past demonstrates, strong enough to prevent the implementation of Senate Committee recommendations for federal legislation. But patients’ rights and community support on the issue are worth continuing the fight. APLA encourages your support in its campaign on access to medical records in Australia, and leaves you with an extract from its submission to LACA:

1. The four voluntary codes in existence are: the draft Royal Australian College of General Practitioners Code of Practice for Computerised Medical Records (1993); the NHMRC Guidelines for Medical Practitioners on Providing Information to Patients (1993); the Australian standard — Personal Privacy Protection in Health Care Information Systems (1995); and the Australian Medical Association’s Guidelines on Access to Medical Records (1997)