Advertisement

Comparing Medical Record Ownership and Access: Australia, Canada, UK, USA

  • Chris Dwyer
Reference work entry

Abstract

Attitudes regarding medical record ownership and access have changed over recent times. As greater degrees of patient autonomy are embraced, questions regarding ownership and access to records have come before the courts.

This chapter considers the “traditional” ownership regimes that related to medical records in four common law jurisdictions. It then reviews recent legislative changes, introduced as part of the modernization of existing privacy legislation. It details the manner in which modern privacy concepts now operate to provide patients with greatly expanded rights, with regard to their medical records. It notes that patients in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States now enjoy broad rights to access and – on occasion – modify the contents of their medical record.

Keywords

Healthcare Provider National Health Service Protect Health Information Privacy Rule Enforcement Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Brebner J. Breen v Williams: a lost opportunity or welcome conservatism? Deakin Law Rev. 1996;3:237.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carter M. Should patients have access to their own medical records? MJA. 1998;169:596–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Australian Law Reform Commission. Development of current Australian privacy principles, for your information: Australian privacy law and practice (ALRC Report 108), Chapter 18. structural reform of the privacy principles, 2008 Aug 12. http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/18.%20Structural%20Reform%20of%20the%20Privacy%20Principles/development-current-australian-privacy. Accessed 167 Nov 2011.
  4. 4.
    Office of the Federal Privacy Commissioner. Guidelines on privacy in the private health sector. Sydney: Office of the Federal Privacy Commissioner; 2001. http://www.privacy.gov.au/materials/types/guidelines/view/6517. Accessed 16 Nov 2011.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Curtis K. Privacy Commissioner, to the Clayton Utz Breakfast Seminar, Parkes, Canberra; 2007 Nov 8 setting out the need for further reform. http://www.privacy.gov.au/materials/types/speeches/view/6310. Accessed 16 Nov 2011.
  6. 6.
    Australian Privacy Principles, Companion Guide, June 2010. http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fapa_ctte/priv_exp_drafts/guide/companion_guide.pdf. Accessed 16 Nov 2011.
  7. 7.
    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, The OECD Health Project. Private health insurance in OECD Countries, 2004. http://books.google.com.au/books?id = oUM39nDp2s4C. Accessed 21 Nov 2011.
  8. 8.
    Canadian Bar Association. Getting your medical records. http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/health/421.aspx. Accessed 26 Nov 2011.
  9. 9.
    Information Commissioner’s Office (UK). Subject access requests and health record requests by members of the public. http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/∼/media/documents/library/Data_Protection/Detailed_specialist_guides/subject_access_requests_for_health_records.ashx. Accessed 26 Nov 2011.
  10. 10.
    Selden TM, Sing M. The distribution of public spending for healthcare in the United States, 2002. Health Aff. 2008;27(5):w349–59. Epub 2008 Jul 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    United States Census Bureau. Income, poverty and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2007. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census; 2008. http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf. Accessed 26 Nov 2011.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wilson J. Health insurance portability and accountability act privacy rule causes ongoing concerns among clinicians and researchers. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145(4):313–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Armstrong D, Kline-Rogers E, Jani S, Goldman E, Fang J, Mukherjee D, Nallamothu B, Eagle K. Potential impact of the HIPAA privacy rule on data collection in a registry of patients with acute coronary syndrome. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(10):1125–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wolf M, Bennett C. Local perspective of the impact of the HIPAA privacy rule on research. Cancer. 2006;106(2):474–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ko H, Turner T, Jones C, et al. Patient-held medical records for patients with chronic disease: a systematic review. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19:e41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Steinbrook R. Personally controlled online health data – the next big thing in medical care? N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1653.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Carey P. Data protection: a practical guide to UK and EU Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  2. Drapeau M. Fundamentals of privacy and freedom of information in Canada. Toronto: Carswell Legal Publishing; 2010.Google Scholar
  3. Li J, Shaw MJ. Electronic medical records, HIPAA, and patient privacy. In: Rodrigues J, editor. Health information systems: concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications. Hershey: Medical Information Science Reference; 2010. p. 1795–804. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-988-5.ch116.Google Scholar
  4. National Health and Medical Research Council. The regulation of health information privacy in Australia. Canberra: The Council; 2004. Available at http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/nh53.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Junior Medical OfficerLiverpool HospitalSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations