UK: Guess who's working on a health data-slurping digital tool? DWP, 2019, Hill

Andy

Andy

Retired committee member
Bzzt! Nope, it's the UK Department for Work and Pensions

The UK's Department for Work and Pensions is drawing up plans for an internal service that allows it to automate slurps of medical data on claimants to dole out health-related benefits.

In an ad posted on the UK's Digital Marketplace, DWP said the work was currently in alpha and it now wanted a supplier to deliver a technical proof of concept to expose NHS data to the department's systems.

The aim, it said, is to cut down the time and cost involved in gathering information the department needs to make a decision about "the right support" for someone with a health condition or disability.
Click to expand...
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/02/19/dwp_health_data_tool/

Also a blog on the subject
It has emerged that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) have already started development of an digital tool that will automatically trawl claimants NHS medical records. Health professionals have raised fears that the doctor patient relationship could be at risk as claimants will be less likely to be completely open about their condition in fear of the DWP using it against them.

This story was first picked up by the tech news site The Register and has since been covered by other news sites.

The Register discovered an online advert asking for developers to help with a designing a proof of concept tool to expose NHS data to the department’s [DWP] systems.
Click to expand...
https://universalcreditsuffer.com/2019/02/26/dwp-designing-tool-to-trawl-claimants-medical-records/
 
One of the things that doesn't get mentioned publicly very often is that medical records can be stuffed with absolutely shocking mistakes, evasions, omissions and lies. Some people have been told that their records were lost in a fire or a flood or have been lost for unknown reasons. These problems add another layer of terror on to the idea of the DWP slurping up our health data, because decisions will be made on the basis of quite a lot of fiction, or data that just isn't there.
 
There is also the issue that people with more severe ME may be effectively excluded from health care because there are not suitable domiciliary services, or people with ME may withdraw from medical care because of negative experiences of or inappropriate advice from doctors.

On the simple measure of contact with my GP, for me the number of times I see my GP is [inversely] proportial to the severity of my ME, because of the extreme difficulty in getting home visits.
 
Last edited:
As the DWPs decision makers are not medically qualified it will just mean either they will just ignore the medical evidence (as they often do anyway), or pick up on things like people being able to attend a hospital appointment as 'proof' that they are able to travel.

But you can be sure it will have nothing to do with helping the 'client' get the correct support.
 
Hang on! What about medical data confidentiality here? When we opted to allow our data to be centrally stored, the clear message was that it would be used so that any medical institution in the country will have access to your data, which can be potentially life saving if urgent treatment is required. But I don't recall it saying I was opting to allow outside organisations to access it for the purpose of snooping.
 
Barry said:
Hang on! What about medical data confidentiality here? When we opted to allow our data to be centrally stored, the clear message was that it would be used so that any medical institution in the country will have access to your data, which can be potentially life saving if urgent treatment is required. But I don't recall it saying I was opting to allow outside organisations to access it for the purpose of snooping.
Click to expand...
When you apply for benefits they will ask your permission for them to access your medical data, solely for your benefit, obviously.
 
Barry said:
Hang on! What about medical data confidentiality here? When we opted to allow our data to be centrally stored, the clear message was that it would be used so that any medical institution in the country will have access to your data, which can be potentially life saving if urgent treatment is required. But I don't recall it saying I was opting to allow outside organisations to access it for the purpose of snooping.
Click to expand...

I opted out! I didn't want my data put into NHS databases. And yet my data was available to a hospital A&E when they looked me up last year. I'd never set foot in the place in my life, and yet they had info about me.

Don't ever trust the NHS with anything to do with data.
 
Barry said:
for the purpose of snooping.
Click to expand...
Yes, well, not having snooping might be ok for regular people, although because Facebook, it's clearly not needed anymore.

But people who get benefits, well, that's a different case and it's necessary to have a lot of snooping, to make sure there's not a lot of benefits cheats. Or to make sure every single one of the many, many benefits cheats get caught. I mean, there has to be a lot of benefits cheats to justify the huge organizational apparatus meant to catch the cheats. Much bigger effort than spent catching tax cheats. Am I right or am I right?

(post laced with sarcasm, in case not evident)
 
WillowJ said:
Yes, well, not having snooping might be ok for regular people, although because Facebook, it's clearly not needed anymore.

But people who get benefits, well, that's a different case and it's necessary to have a lot of snooping, to make sure there's not a lot of benefits cheats. Or to make sure every single one of the many, many benefits cheats get caught. I mean, there has to be a lot of benefits cheats to justify the huge organizational apparatus meant to catch the cheats. Much bigger effort than spent catching tax cheats. Am I right or am I right?

(post laced with sarcasm, in case not evident)
Click to expand...
I think one of the huge problems for pwME is that a great many doctors believe they are faking :(.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom