Re: Master Patient Index systems and Public Health

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Hi Tim,

Comments in the text.

Regards!

-Thomas Clark

Tim Churches wrote:

[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 

How about additional UPIs for specirfic areas of Healthcare? For
example,
1)for those involved in for to be involved in clinical trials
2)mental health
3)public health
4)the military
5)substance abuse
6)prison communities (whether acknowledged or not by the government)
7)refugees
8)disabilities
9)hazardous occupations
10)long-term, unresolved conditions
11)dental
12)vision
   

Sure, but I would subdivide those much more finely.
 

Agreed!!!

This short list can be extended. It may seem strange now but there
can 
be justifications
built for each category.
   

Easily - and a lot more besides.

 

The underlying issue is whether one  secure UPI can or should cover
the 
entire healthcare field.
   

Sorry, what is a "secure UPI"?

 

Information protection required (includes access and usage protection).

Personally, it would be a nice umbrella and usable as such. 
Drilling done into the various
specialities might result in the need for competing UPIs.
   

Competing? Do numbers fight with each other?
 

Number associated with  a variety of Healthcare related activities and 
support
activities. Home Help have different requirements than hospitals and 
related Providers.
However, their functions and tasks performed have to be interfaced and 
integrated
to some extent. Prefer Home Help be given a number that gets them 
connected to
the proper Providers and visa versa and its use is restricted to proper 
activities.

Tim C

 

The companion issue of administration, or which country controls the 
UPIs is interesting.
One or more cooperative, supportive countries might be a better 
solution. My preference is to
avoid situations where governments can exercise control over people 
abusively as you
indicate. Find a different solution.

Regards!

-Thomas Clark

Tim Churches wrote:

   

On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 18:39, Horst Herb wrote:

     

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:21, Tim Churches wrote:
        
       

Unique identifiers with braod scope are a real threat to personal
         

privacy.
   

Unique identifiers with narrow scope aren't so bad, and can be
         

linked by
   

proxies with other narrow-scope unique identifiers to acheive most
         

aimsunderstand).
   

	   

         

I would rather go to the trouble of giving 5 or 6 numbers, names,
addresses,
phones to identify myself, than have a "unique" identifier.
	      

           

Me too.
	   

         

Tim,

if you would have lived in a country that looks after its citizens
       

as well as 
   

Norway did (does?), you wouldn't hesitate a  second *demanding* a
       

unique 
   

identifier.
        
       

I have lived in a country (and my better half is from that country)
which does not look after its citizens, the government of which has
     

a
   

history (in our memory) of actively persecuting its citizens who
     

dissent
from its views. Such countries are common, and far outnumber
countries
   

like Norway.

But as I have said, I am not against unique identifiers. But the
     

scope
   

of each unique identifier must be very narrow, and the ability to
     

link
   

them into broader scopes very tightly controlled by an independent
     

body.
   

The ability to link must not be available to everyone by default.



     

When we immigrated in Norway, I had to sign two A4 forms. That was
       

all. From 
   

then on, virtually anything bureaucratic was handled automatically,
       

no sweat, 
   

no forms any more. I *never* wrote my address/d.o.b./etc anywhere
       

when 
   

dealing with government etc. in two years, not a single time!

My tax return for > $250,000 p.a. income involved perusing 2
       

pre-printed A4 
   

sheets, and putting a tick of approval along with my signature.
       

That was all. 
   

The tax I paid was ~30% of my income, which is considerably less
       

than I pay 
   

in Australia for a comparable income. Why? Because the Norwegian
       

government 
   

doesn't waste buckets of money for entirely superfluous
       

bureaucrazy.
   

	

       

But at least the climate is better in Australia...except if you like
skiing, ice skating or curling.


     

In "form countries" without PID like Australia however the most
       

uneducated 
   

underprivileged are twice disadvantaged, because they aren't even
       

capable to 
   

fill in the forms that would give them some public assistance.
        
       

This is a valid point, but a gloabl UPI is not the only solution.



     

Trust me: all we need is constitutional embedding of civil rights
       

INCLUDING 
   

privacy, and a PID is the passport to freedom. The only ones
       

disliking it 
   

(once proper privacy protection is in place) are criminals or
       

social 
   

parasites.
        
       

Or people who disagree with their (repressive) governments.



     

WE NEED A UNIQUE PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM. Now. All of 
       

us.
 

	

       

I agree, but we don't need a single, broad-scope Unique Personal
Identification number. It is a recipe for abuse, just as the Social
Security Number has been in the US. Instead we need lots of
     

separate,
   

narrow-scope UPIs, which are linkable, but only for good reasons and
only through the auspices of an independent body charged with
     

carefully
   

balancing privacy against the public good, and/or with individual
consent to link.