Ministers Mull Allowing Private Firms to Make Profit From NHS Data In AI Push 29
UK ministers are considering allowing private companies to profit from anonymized NHS data as part of a push to leverage AI for medical advancements, despite concerns over privacy and ethical risks. The Guardian reports: Keir Starmer on Monday announced a push to open up the government to AI innovation, including allowing companies to use anonymized patient data to develop new treatments, drugs and diagnostic tools. With the prime minister and the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, under pressure over Britain's economic outlook, Starmer said AI could bolster the country's anaemic growth, as he put concerns over privacy, disinformation and discrimination to one side.
"We are in a unique position in this country, because we've got the National Health Service, and the use of that data has already driven forward advances in medicine, and will continue to do so," he told an audience in east London. "We have to see this as a huge opportunity that will impact on the lives of millions of people really profoundly." Starmer added: "It is important that we keep control of that data. I completely accept that challenge, and we will also do so, but I don't think that we should have a defensive stance here that will inhibit the sort of breakthroughs that we need."
The move to embrace the potential of AI rather than its risks comes at a difficult moment for the prime minister, with financial markets having driven UK borrowing costs to a 30-year high and the pound hitting new lows against the dollar. Starmer said on Monday that AI could help give the UK the economic boost it needed, adding that the technology had the potential "to increase productivity hugely, to do things differently, to provide a better economy that works in a different way in the future." Part of that, as detailed in a report by the technology investor Matt Clifford, will be to create new datasets for startups and researchers to train their AI models.
Data from various sources will be included, such as content from the National Archives and the BBC, as well as anonymized NHS records. Officials are working out the details on how those records will be shared, but said on Monday that they would take into account national security and ethical concerns. Starmer's aides say the public sector will keep "control" of the data, but added that could still allow it to be used for commercial purposes.
"We are in a unique position in this country, because we've got the National Health Service, and the use of that data has already driven forward advances in medicine, and will continue to do so," he told an audience in east London. "We have to see this as a huge opportunity that will impact on the lives of millions of people really profoundly." Starmer added: "It is important that we keep control of that data. I completely accept that challenge, and we will also do so, but I don't think that we should have a defensive stance here that will inhibit the sort of breakthroughs that we need."
The move to embrace the potential of AI rather than its risks comes at a difficult moment for the prime minister, with financial markets having driven UK borrowing costs to a 30-year high and the pound hitting new lows against the dollar. Starmer said on Monday that AI could help give the UK the economic boost it needed, adding that the technology had the potential "to increase productivity hugely, to do things differently, to provide a better economy that works in a different way in the future." Part of that, as detailed in a report by the technology investor Matt Clifford, will be to create new datasets for startups and researchers to train their AI models.
Data from various sources will be included, such as content from the National Archives and the BBC, as well as anonymized NHS records. Officials are working out the details on how those records will be shared, but said on Monday that they would take into account national security and ethical concerns. Starmer's aides say the public sector will keep "control" of the data, but added that could still allow it to be used for commercial purposes.
they don't have HIPPA? (Score:1)
they don't have HIPPA?
Re: they don't have HIPPA? (Score:3)
I don't think HIPPA applies to anonymized/I> data.
Re: they don't have HIPPA? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No kidding. Which is why this is just another case of corpo interests trouncing consumer interests.
But as long as the individual datasets are anonymized, the government will be calling no-foul.
Data Protection Act (Score:5, Informative)
The nearest equivalent in the UK would be the data protection act and that applies to all data you hold about someone, not just medical data.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure it really works like that, though. Each Trust (or whatever the current form of organisation within the NHS is) has its own record system, and they pass information between them on an as-need basis. When I wanted to get a complete copy of my medical history I had to send multiple subject access requests because my GP only had summaries of my history from when I'd previously lived in a different county. It turned out that the previous county had destroyed my records without notifying me after I'd
Re: (Score:2)
No, because the UK has a national health service so there is no need for a US-style Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA - which is what I assume you meant?) because the NHS covers you everywhere in the UK and so health insurance only really exists to jump queues and provide nicer care, like private hospital rooms etc. so it does not need to be highly portable since the consequences of not having it are no where near as severe as in the US.
The nearest equivalent in the UK would be the data protection act and that applies to all data you hold about someone, not just medical data.
Quite, the DPA and GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) already serve the same function as HIPAA would but protect more than just medical data. HIPAA was created precisely because the US lacked something like the UK's Data Protection Act.
No don't (Score:2)
Offer better care or funding.
Re: No don't (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
They can always re-apply for a Breentry. They'll have to go in behind Serbia and Northern Macedonia, but they can probably fast-track a lot.
Tried to have my patient record deleted (Score:2)
When I first found out about the (now) not-so-secret agreement between Government and Google to harvest patient data [newscientist.com], I tried to have my patient record deleted for this reason. Most of the doctors weren't aware, but still declined my request :(
Is there anything else one can do to "opt-out" or ideally have ones personal health history wiped?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Try to find any patient data of tom hanks, tom cruise, peter thiel, elona, taylor swift, billg or that oracle allegedly from Omaha.
Do you see a pattern?
Re: (Score:2)
I understand exactly what you're saying ;)
However, to be fair, we can't access each other's patient data, so we wouldn't have theirs.
Whether Google already has that data, that's where the question lies.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember that at one time or another years ago both one of Google's founders and the padishah-emperor of Mars went apeshit after some people pointed at data they thought were private as an example of the lost data privacy.
I'm sure that since then the billionaire community has had people on hire whose job is to try hard to remove what's out there, and that these people are partly successful. Of course, it is them who now have this data. And you know how it is anyway, going through any security is a matter
They're just looking for money (Score:1)
Then government is in a supermassive budget black hole left behind by the Tories at the moment. Inflation is high, Pound is weak, borrowing expensive. They're just desperately looking for money - that's all it is. Once they realised how much they can make from selling medical data, they announced that they would push for AI all the way. That's all it is. Money.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, it is the money and searching for a distraction.
Yeah, right (Score:2)
... considering allowing private companies to profit from anonymized NHS data
SURE it'll be "anonymized" - maybe. I suspect it won't be properly / completely anonymized. Even if it is, combining it with location data, browsing history, social media, and data collected from any of dozens of data-raping apps will make a lot of it clearly identifiable.
I'm not sure that truly anonymized data can even exist anymore. If it does exist - how much longer will it last?
Politicians better be careful! (Score:2)
Do not want (Score:1)
Every time they try this (it's usually the tory scumbags) there is a huge public backlash. I'm surprised the Palantir contract is still going ahead. No one in this country wants tech companies or foreign military contractors having access to their most personal and private information.
Already done for tube travelers (Score:2)
I remember a few years ago the Mayor of London allowed data collection on tube travelers.
Did any of the money made off the travelers' data go towards improving the service ?
Since then ticket prices have doubled over Covid and the strikes and cancellations continue apace.