Page 1081 - Week 03 - Thursday, 18 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In our debate, there has not been compelling reason presented to me that would justify leaving a right of access unqualified to the extent that a consumer can request possession of an original of their health record. On the contrary, I have been presented with strong arguments that enabling consumers a right to request originals of health records runs a public health risk that could compromise the provision of health care. There is too much risk associated with records going missing once they leave the possession of health record keepers, such as health professionals. With the joint requirement that health service practices and record keepers notify their movements to ACT Health and ACT Health then being required to pass that on to the notification of the Health Services Commissioner, a health record will always be able to be tracked so that care can continue to be provided, despite the movements of consumers or health service providers.
Consequently, this bill seeks to clarify that consumers cannot request that an original be provided to them. While the bill does not enable a consumer to request possession of an original of their health record, they are still able to view their original health record and request a copy or a summary of the health record. I believe the approach adopted in this bill strikes a good balance between meeting the interests of the health record keeper, consumers and an overarching public interest.
The GP task force also alluded to a need to compile and maintain an ACT general practice directory for disaster and emergency management and planning purposes. By requiring practices to notify authorities of changes to the physical location of practices, this bill will assist in the maintenance of an up-to-date directory of general practices that could potentially save lives in the case of disasters or emergencies.
The GP task force and the Health Services Commissioner made it quite clear that there was a need to ensure appropriate prioritisation of urgent requests for health records, and this specifically was an issue that came up in particular with one closure last year. It is not just good policy but common sense that, when a person who is threatened with a disability, severe pain, suffering or even death if medical care is not provided urgently seeks a copy of their health record, a request made under such circumstances be treated as a priority. Although this presently occurs in practice, we have taken the extra step of ensuring that this position is reflected in our legislation.
This bill will ensure that when an urgent request is made by a consumer, the request is not only given priority but the record must be provided within seven days of the request being made, not the usual 30. A GP practice receiving an urgent request for record access can either agree to the request if the circumstances are obvious or ask that it be verified by the treating doctor.
I would like to emphasise that the amendments proposed in the bill, which reflect many of the health records recommendations made by the GP task force, have come about from considerable and significant community and industry consultation. It represents not just the sentiments of stakeholders but a balanced view of the interests of the community and the primary healthcare industry. I have also given commitments to communicate broadly with health professionals regarding the changes no later than one month following the passage of this bill. There is more work to be done, but I
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video