For Sale: NHS Records. Condition, morally dubious

Should we be worried about the monetization of access to NHS records?

It’s finally upon us. In what many will argue is a victory for science, but a blow to privacy, this September will see the launch of Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), the controversial database that will make NHS records available for research – at a price.

Scientifically, there’s a lot to celebrate. The CPRD will offer researchers in the health sciences unheard of access to the life records of 52 million English NHS users and, in time, will be connected to other databases, such as those that deal with genetics and mental health. What this will provide is a resource for huge scale and easily longitudinal studies that researchers could previously only dream of. To understand the benefits one only need consider the important findings of previous studies that have used NHS records, notable examples of which include the revealing of a link between power lines and leukaemia, dismissing the proposed link between autism and the MMR vaccine, and uncovering disastrous effects of overdoses of thalidomide.

David Cameron was right to argue that it’s "simply a waste" for the NHS data not to be used “to make new medical breakthroughs". Yet the current setup only makes sense if the CPRD's main interest is monetary, rather than scientific, profit. Note, for instance, the emphasis in the first paragraph of the Department of Health website about the project's launch.

In March 2011, The Government launched its ‘Plan for Growth’ which details steps needed to enable the British economy to become more internationally competitive. As part of this initiative The Government pledged to build a consensus on using e-health record data to create a unique position for the UK in health research.

Though scientific rationales are mentioned later it’s quite clear that the economic benefits are the first on their mind. Taken in this light, perhaps the CPRD should be seen as nothing new. From education, to transport to policing, the government is surveying the welfare state with sparkly pound signs in their eyes. Yet there’s a subtle difference between such asset striping and what has happened with the CPRD, in which that hungry look has fallen on the population itself. There's new and radical idea here - the possibility that one of England’s most lucrative asset is us. This isn’t mere speculation, the life sciences industry is currently worth £50bn a year and the CPRD, with its unparalleled mass of data, is an irresistible honey pot that will entice global pharma back to our shores.

Yet nothing ever comes for free, and the price we are set to pay is an infringement, however slight, on our privacy and rights. Though there is the opportunity to opt out of system, despite huge protest, MPs intend to rewrite the NHS constitution to presume patient consent. There have also been grave concerns over anonymity. Though no names will be included with records, post codes and age profiles will remain attached, meaning that in some cases publicly known information will make it possible to trace anonymous records to individuals. As a report from the Royal Society in June stated:

It had been assumed in the past that the privacy of data subjects could be protected by processes of anonymisation such as the removal of names and precise addresses of data subjects. However, a substantial body of work in computer science has now demonstrated that the security of personal records in databases cannot be guaranteed through anonymisation procedures where identities are actively sought.

And this isn’t even taking human error into consideration. Consider the furor in June last year when a laptop with 8.6 million medical records went missing. Centralisation projects like the CPRD only make incidences like this more common and problematic.

Perhaps it should be taken as a sign of the times that an egalitarianism institution, which arose from post-war ashes on the belief that every individual should be valued and given the right to health, is now becoming one in which those same individuals are being increasingly valued as profitable data points. It’s the type of ideology and practice we are more used to in the likes of Social Media, but that are rapidly permeating society.

By practice, I am, of course, talking about data-mining. Since the word popped up as an innocuous 90s buzzword, the subtle statistical craft has become a dominant, and highly lucrative, marketing force. Simplistically, it’s the process of running algorithms on huge amounts of data to reveal powerful associations from seemly irrelevant information and grant the investigators immense inferential power. Worst of all, data-mining is insatiable. As people have finite pockets, there is a threshold at which a population can’t consume any more and data-mining leads to an arms race in which companies are pressured to paw through our psyches for more and more invasive information in a scrabble to regain their edge. Admittedly, as faceless, nameless, number crunching, data-mining doesn’t infringe upon personal privacy, but it could be argued that it is an assault on our personal integrity.

I’m therefore always surprised at how ambivalent, even welcoming, people tend to be to the idea. ‘Surely advertising tailored to me is a good thing’, the reasoning goes. Yet this argument is based on a conception of people as completely rational agents. I speak as a Psychology graduate when I say, trust me, we’re really not. Massive amounts of private scientific research is devoted to unpicking consumer behaviour and mapping the subconscious, emotional and impulsive driving factors behind our buying habits. What's more, the influence is so subtle they individuals aren’t even conscious of its impact upon their actions. Yet we should never forget that knowledge is power. What data-mining sells is access to the inner workings of a population, and what is bought is the ability to manipulate behaviour. If you don’t believe this, then ask yourself why so many big corporations are flinging their best minds and resources after the practice.

So should we be worried about the data-mining that the CPRD will facilitate? Admittedly, it isn’t dealing in anything as candidly invasive as kidneys out of a piss reeking back alleys, but one doesn’t need much imagination to see that were CPRD to give too much access to the likes of drug companies and other private industries this would be a very troubling state of affairs. Of course, there are limits to the use of the database, under the current framework data can only be used for medical research and all projects must publicly publish their results. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, the governmental agency running the scheme, will also charge private companies double the academic rate. Yet the pockets of drug companies are very deep and giving them any kind of access opens up opportunities for manoeuvre. Not to mention that once such resources become monetised it’s an easy step to start loosening the conditions under which data can be used.

Even the information commissioning office itself has suggested applications such as the creation of an encryption key to be shared by the NHS and supermarkets, which would allow for the diabetic status of individuals to be correlated with supermarket purchases. Big Brother issues aside, the idea that supermarkets, or any business could have this sort of access is terrifying. As any marketer worth their salt knows, two of the most effective sellers are fear and sex, both of which are heavily rooted in health.

Despite such arguments, it’s important not to lose track of the fact that in principle the CPRD is an excellent humanitarian project. Though there are significant dangers involved, standing in the way of scientific progress is never the responsible answer to controversy. As with nearly all modern technology, morality lies in the application and ideology and this is where we should execute caution, especially as the economic motivation of the government is far from reassuring. Vigilance is needed.

David Cameron speaking on NHS reforms (Image: Getty)

Emma Geen is a freelance writer. She tweets @EmmaCGeen and blogs at www.emmageen.com

Getty
Show Hide image

Donald Trump vs Barack Obama: How the inauguration speeches compared

We compared the two presidents on trade, foreign affairs and climate change – so you (really, really) don't have to.

After watching Donald Trump's inaugural address, what better way to get rid of the last few dregs of hope than by comparing what he said with Barack Obama's address from 2009? 

Both thanked the previous President, with Trump calling the Obamas "magnificent", and pledged to reform Washington, but the comparison ended there. 

Here is what each of them said: 

On American jobs

Obama:

The state of our economy calls for action, bold and swift.  And we will act, not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.  We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.  We'll restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost.  We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.  And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.

Trump:

For many decades we've enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry, subsidized the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military.

One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores with not even a thought about the millions and millions of American workers that were left behind.

Obama had a plan for growth. Trump just blames the rest of the world...

On global warming

Obama:

With old friends and former foes, we'll work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet.

Trump:

On the Middle East:

Obama:

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. 

Trump:

We will re-enforce old alliances and form new ones and unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the earth.

On “greatness”

Obama:

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned.

Trump:

America will start winning again, winning like never before.

 

On trade

Obama:

This is the journey we continue today.  We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth.  Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began.  Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week, or last month, or last year.  Our capacity remains undiminished.  

Trump:

We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our product, stealing our companies and destroying our jobs.

Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength. I will fight for you with every breath in my body, and I will never ever let you down.

Stephanie Boland is digital assistant at the New Statesman. She tweets at @stephanieboland