Skip header and navigation
CMA PolicyBase

Policies that advocate for the medical profession and Canadians


2 records – page 1 of 1.

Amendments to PIPEDA, Bill S-4

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy11194
Date
2014-06-09
Topics
Health information and e-health
Ethics and medical professionalism
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Date
2014-06-09
Topics
Health information and e-health
Ethics and medical professionalism
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is pleased to make submissions on Bill S-4. CMA has followed the history of PIPEDA and participated in the studies of various Standing Committees, most notably and recently in 2007 to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. CMA is pleased that amendments to PIPEDA are once again being considered. The Canadian Medical Association represents over 80,000 physicians in Canada. Privacy is an important value to physicians and the patients to whom they serve. This is reflected in our Code of Ethics and policies, in particular, Principles for the Protection of Patients' Personal Health Information and Statement of Principles: The Sale and Use of Data on Individual Physicians' Prescribing. Physicians are also required to abide by privacy and confidentiality standards of practice. Thus, the CMA has a strong interest and valuable insights into the topic of personal information and privacy with respect to health information. We thank the Standing Committee for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to PIPEDA. Our key comments are outlined below: Issue 1: CMA supports the existing legislative framework on the collection, use and disclosure of personal information produced by an individual in the course of their employment, business or profession ("work product") and suggests further amendments focus on strengthening it further. CMA supports the current standing of work products, that work products are considered to be personal information. That is, we support the framework defining personal information as information about an identifiable individual and that there is no carved out definition or exemption for "work product". CMA supports the position of the Office of Privacy Commissioner's following its 2007 investigation on work products, that they should not be exempted for two main reasons: * The exemption is not needed, and it would be inconsistent with the balanced approach in the current definition of personal information. The current definition of personal information and the approach to deciding issues based on that definition have worked well. They have promoted a level of privacy protection that balances the right of privacy in personal information with the needs of organizations for the reasonable and appropriate collection, use and disclosure of personal information. ...Because the concept of "work product" is ambiguous, excluding it from the definition of personal information could have unpredictable consequences that would diminish privacy unnecessarily. * (http://www.priv.gc.ca/parl/2007/sub_070222_03_e.asp) It is the CMA's position that work products should be considered personal information and given the section 7 amendments, work products should only be collected, used or disclosed without consent only if it is consistent with the purposes for which the information was produced. In the case of physicians, a prime example of a physician's work product is prescribing information. Prescribing information is a synthesis of assessing patients - by probing into their health, familial, social and sometimes financial background - infused with medical knowledge, skill and competencies resulting in a diagnosis and treatment plan, which often includes prescribing a medication or test. Not only is the physician's prescribing information a product of physicians' work but would not exist but for a trusting physician-patient relationship wherein the patient's private and personal information are shared under circumstances of vulnerability and trust. The outcome is that this is personal information. Prescribing information is about an individual: it includes the name of the patient, the name of the prescribing physician, and the drug name, dosage, amount and frequency; giving major clues as to what the patient's health issue(s) are. For further clarity, however, CMA recommends that physician information, and physician work products, should be specifically recognized within the legislation as personal information. To this end, we would propose that the following addition be made to the definition section under personal health information: Section 2.(1) "personal health information", with respect to an individual, whether living or deceased, means .....(d) information that is collected or is the outcome of collecting information in the course of providing health services to the individual; CMA supports the amendments to subsections 7(1)-(3) of the Act that any subsequent collection, use and disclosure of work products without consent must be related to the original purpose (of collection, use and disclosure). This relationship reflects the government's understanding and faithfulness to privacy principles. This is particularly critical when dealing with health information, and is even more critical in today's world given the ease of linking information through advancements in technology. In the absence of a causal relationship, personal information should not be used for system performance, commercial enterprise, data brokering, research, assessment or other purposes. CMA recommends that the legislation should go further and allow persons who believe that protection cannot be afforded under the legislation that they have the authority to refuse to communicate the information. This is the conceptual approach taken in Quebec's Act Respecting the Protection of Personal Information in the Private Sector wherein persons have an opportunity to refuse that professional information (as defined therein) be used for commercial purposes. Physicians are constantly writing prescriptions and such information should only be used for other purposes in the interests of patients and the health care system, and not to serve commercial interests or marketing strategies. If physicians do not feel that such protection is afforded patients, then they should be permitted to refuse that such information be collected, used or disclosed. Patient privacy should be primary. And finally, addressing work products in legislation clears up past differences of interpretation by Privacy Commissioners thus, providing certainty and clarity to the public. Recommendation 1: That Section 2. (1) "personal health information", be amended to read as follows: "personal health information", with respect to an individual, whether living or deceased, means .....(d) information that is collected or is the outcome of collecting information in the course of providing health services to the individual; Issue 2: CMA is pleased to see a section on breaches of security safeguards and recommends greater specificity. As noted above, physicians have responsibilities as data stewards and custodians of health information. As such, CMA supports breach notification measures that would enhance and protect patient privacy. In principle, we support the proposed amendments of breach disclosures to the Privacy Commissioner, to individuals and to organizations. However, CMA is concerned that meeting the requirements may be confusing. For example, in the health care context, it is easy to surmise that all health information is "sensitive". A far more difficult matter is determining whether the risk reaches the threshold of "significant harm" and the "probability" that the information "will be misused". The result being that incidental disclosures will be reported causing unnecessary concern and confusion in the patient population. Further specificity is recommended and we suggest something akin to Ontario's Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (PHIPA). The PHIPA is an act specifically dealing with personal health information. One of its purposes is "to establish rules for the collection, use and disclosure of personal health information about individuals that protect the confidentiality of that information and the privacy of individuals with respect to that information, while facilitating the effective provision of health care" (section 1a ). The PHIPA notification provision states that the individual shall be notified "...at the first reasonable opportunity if the information is stolen, lost or accessed by unauthorized persons", [section 12(2)]. CMA is unaware of any concerns with this approach. The language of PIPIEDA is one of reasonable belief of real risk of significant harm to an individual. The issue is the test for required notification of patients for incidental inadvertent breaches and decreasing "notification fatigue". To illustrate the issue, if physicians were told today that patient data could be retrieved from the drums of discarded photocopiers and printers, it would be inappropriate for legislation to suggest that the entire patient population during the life of the photocopier or printer be notified. To this end, we recommend that there be acknowledgement that in some circumstances notification may not be required. The probability of misuse under PIPEDA is more ambiguous than the PHIPA test. Under PHIPA, the approach is more objective in that the data must be stolen, lost or accessed by unauthorized persons. To our knowledge, the Ontario model has been in place for almost a decade with no significant issues and thus we submit is one that works. In other jurisdictions (eg., Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick) with health privacy legislation, there is acknowledgement of trying to balance notification and those breaches unlikely to result in harm by directly indicating when notification is not required. Recommendation 2: CMA recommends that the statute move towards a more objective test and acknowledge that there are situations when notice is not required. Issue 3: CMA supports disclosure without consent under limited circumstances, but finds the current list of disclosures overly inclusive. Health information is considered highly sensitive information and is initially collected for the purpose of individual patient health care. It should only be disclosed with consent and in only some exceptions without consent. The PIPEDA amendments for disclosure without consent have been broadened. Privacy, confidentiality and trust are the foundations of the patient-physician relationship. Without these fundamental values in play, open and honest communications cannot occur and patients would not receive the care they require. Both the patient and the physician have significant investment in the relationship. CMA respects the requirements to disclose information without consent under certain premises, such as required by court order or statute. However, any kind of activity requiring physicians to disclose patient's information without consent for the purposes of advancing a government or institution's goal could jeopardize the relationship. Both the patient's consent and the physician's consent should be required if there is potential to disturb this relationship. The physician is fiduciary of the relationship and is appropriately situated to assess and determine whether disclosure will disturb the relationship. While CMA acknowledges that certain situations may require that disclosure occur without consent (eg. purposes of investigating fraud, national security, abuse or as legally required), disclosure for less malicious activities (e.g., breaches of an agreement, insurance claims) ought to require a court order or warrant. For example, under the proposed section 7(3)(d.1) if a physician were in default of a contract with a technology company supplying electronic medical record software or app to his/her clinic, the company could disclose health information without consent for the "purposes of investigating a breach of an agreement". While we appreciate that there is a caveat that disclosure without advising the patient can only occur if there is a reasonable expectation that the disclosure would compromise the investigation, we submit that leaving the determination of what is "reasonable" to an interested party to the breach is unfair to all. Another example, if a physician is a witness to a dispute between an employer and union representing an employee for denial of long term disability by an insurance company, and has filed a witness statement which includes a medical report he/she wrote to the employer's insurance company, under the proposed section 7(3)(e.1) disclosure of health information without consent is permitted in order to assess, process or settle an insurance claim. CMA is concerned that the disclosure amendments are overly broad and do not differentiate sufficiently between highly time sensitive or grossly malicious situations, and those where it is merely expedient or an administrative encumbrance to seek consent. In addition, the disclosure requirements are framed in permissive (ie., may) and not mandatory language (ie., shall). This is very problematic when the "organization" is a physicians' clinic unless the physician's own consent is made as a pre-condition. CMA believes this suggestion is a progressive one in keeping with the broadened disclosure amendments. Physicians are in a relationship of trust and take seriously the protection of patient privacy and confidentiality, for which they are trained and are ethically and legally required to protect. To place physicians in a position which might entail breaching this trust may impact the confidence of the physician and the patient in the patient-physician relationship which is required to properly formulate appropriate treatment plans; thus, negatively impacting the health of Canadians. Recommendation 3: That disclosures of health information without consent require a warrant or subpoena or court order. Furthermore, disclosures of health information require the physician's consent that in his/her opinion the disclosure does not harm the patient-physician relationship. And, finally any broadened disclosure situations be restricted to criminal activity or that impacting national security. Conclusion Once again, CMA appreciates the opportunity to provide comment as part of the committee's study of Bill S-4. CMA is prepared to work with Parliament, governments, health professionals and the public in ensuring legislative frameworks for the collection, usage and disclosure of personal information for legitimate and reasonable purposes.
Documents
Less detail

Response to “Consultation Document – Disability Tax Credit Public Consultations” CMA Submission to Canada Revenue Agency

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy14025
Date
2014-12-19
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
  1 document  
Policy Type
Parliamentary submission
Date
2014-12-19
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Physician practice/ compensation/ forms
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) submits this response to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) as part of its public consultation on the Disability Tax Credit. The CMA has long-standing and significant concerns pertaining to the Disability Tax Credit. Most notable is the recent legislative development that resulted in physicians being captured in the definition of “promoter”. In light of the significant concern with physicians being captured in the definition of “promoter”, this submission will focus exclusively on the regulatory development following the enactment of the Disability Tax Credit Promoters Restrictions Act. However, the CMA will follow up at a later date with feedback and recommendations to CRA on how the Disability Tax Credit form and process can be improved. Prior to providing the CMA’s position for consideration as part of the regulatory consultation, relevant background respecting the CMA’s participation and recommendations during the legislative process is reviewed. 2. Background: CMA’s Recommendations during the Legislative Process The CMA actively monitored and participated in the consultation process during the legislative development of Bill C-462, Disability Tax Credit Promoters Restrictions Act. During its consideration by the House of Commons, the CMA appeared before the House of Commons Finance Committee and formally submitted its recommendations.1 The CMA’s submission to the Finance Committee is attached as an appendix for reference. Throughout this process, the CMA consistently raised its concern that the bill proposed to include physicians in the definition of “promoter”, to which the response was consistently that physicians would not be captured. The Member of Parliament sponsoring the bill conveyed this message at the second reading stage in the House of Commons: 1 Canada. Parliament. House of Commons. Standing Committee on Finance (2013). Evidence, May 7, 2013. 41st Parliament, 1st Session. Retrieved from www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6138958&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1 “Mr. Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker…[in] her bill, she says that the definition of a promoter means a person who directly or indirectly accepts or charges a fee in respect to a disability tax credit. Who is a promoter exactly? Is a doctor, or a lawyer or an accountant considered a promoter? Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question from my colleague opposite. We are looking at third party promoters quite apart from the regular tax preparers and accountants. It is a new cottage industry that sprung up once the 10- year retroactive provision was made. It recognizes that there are volunteer organizations and even constituency offices that do this type of work. They help constituents fill out applications for tax credits. There is a provision for exemptions so people who volunteer their time at no charge or doctors do not fall into this.”2 In contradiction to this statement, during the Senate National Finance Committee’s study of Bill C-462, CRA Assistant Commissioner Brian McCauley confirmed the CMA’s concerns, stating explicitly that physicians would be captured in the definition of “promoter” and explained “they have to be captured because, if they weren't, you leave a significant compliance loophole”.3 As will be explained further below in this submission, this statement reveals a lack of understanding of the implications of capturing physicians in the definition of “promoter”, in that it has established duplicative regulatory oversight of physicians, specific to the Disability Tax Credit form. 3. Priority Issue: Identify Physicians as an Exempt Profession in Regulation The CMA has been consistent in our opposition to the approach that resulted in physicians being included in the definition of “promoters”. The definition of “promoter” captures physicians who may charge a fee to complete the disability tax credit form, a typical practice 2 C. Gallant. (2013 Feb. 5) Parliament of Canada. Debates of House of Commons (Hansard). 41st Parliament, 1st Session. Retrieved at www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=5962192#Int-7872066 3 Canada. Parliament. Senate. Standing Committee on National Finance (2014). Evidence, April 2, 2014. 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. Retrieved at www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/412/nffn/09ev-51313-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=41&Ses=2&comm_id=13. for uninsured physician services. As indicated on page 4 of the CRA’s consultation document, the Disability Tax Credit Promoters Restrictions Act includes the authority to “identify the type of promoter, if any, who is exempt from the reporting requirements under the Act.” Two questions are included on page 7 of the consultation document in relation to this regulatory authority. It is the CMA’s recommendation in response to Question 12 (“Are there any groups or professions that should be exempt from the reporting requirements of the new Act?”) that physicians licensed to practice are identified in regulation as an exempt profession. Specifically, the CMA recommends that CRA include an exemption in the regulations for “a health care practitioner duly licensed under the applicable regulatory authority who provides health care and treatment” from the reporting requirements of the Disability Tax Credit Promoters Restrictions Act. As explained below, this exemption will not introduce a potential loophole that may be exploited by third party companies to circumvent the new restrictions and will mitigate the legislative development that has introduced duplicative regulatory oversight of physicians. 4. Exemption Required to Avoid Duplicative Regulatory Regime; Not a Loophole By capturing physicians in the definition of promoters, the Disability Tax Credit Promoters Restrictions Act has introduced a duplicative regulatory body for physicians: a development which the CMA has fundamentally opposed. As CMA understands it, the CRA’s key concern in capturing physicians in the definition of promoter is with respect to the possibility that third party companies may circumvent these limitations by employing a physician. As previously noted, this issue was raised by CRA’s Assistant Commissioner Brian McCauley in his appearance before the Senate National Finance Committee during its study of Bill C-462. A) CMA’s Recommendation Respects Existing Regulatory Oversight Regime of Physicians The CMA’s recommendation and regulatory proposal limits the exemption of physicians as a profession to those currently licensed under the regulatory authority of provincial/territorial medical regulatory colleges. In Canada, medical practice is the regulatory purview of provinces and territories. Charging a fee for the completion of a form is a typical practice for uninsured services – these are services that fall outside of provincial/territorial health insurance coverage. The practice of charging a fee for an uninsured service by a licensed physician is an activity that is part of medical practice. Such fees are subject to guidelines by provincial and territorial medical associations and oversight by provincial/territorial medical regulatory colleges. The regulatory oversight, including licensing, of physicians falls under the statutory authority of medical regulatory colleges, as legislated and regulated by provincial and territorial governments. For example, in the Province of Saskatchewan, the Medical Profession Act, 1981 establishes the regulatory authority of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan. This regulatory authority is comprehensive and captures: medical licensure, governing standards of practice, professional oversight, disciplinary proceedings, and offences. In Ontario, this authority is established by the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991; in British Columbia, by the Health Professions Act, 1996, and so on. B) CMA’s Recommendation Does Not Introduce a Loophole The exemption of physicians as a profession that is “duly licensed under the applicable regulatory authority who provides health care and treatment” would not constitute a loophole. Firstly, any concerns regarding the practices of a physician that is exempted based on this definition could be advanced to the applicable regulatory college for regulatory oversight and if appropriate, discipline. The CMA’s proposed regulatory exemption would not be applicable in the case of a physician not licensed to practice; in this case, the individual would not be under the regulatory authority of a medical regulatory college and would fall under the CRA’s regulatory purview, as established by the Disability Tax Credit Promoters Restrictions Act. With regard to the example raised by CRA’s Assistant Commissioner Brian McCauley in his remarks before the Senate Committee of a retired doctor hired by promoter, retired physicians can retain their licence. If this was the case for this particular physician, as noted above, when CRA had concerns regarding this physician’s actions, his or her regulatory college could have taken appropriate disciplinary action. If, on the other hand, this retired physician’s licence had lapsed, both the individual and the promoter who hired him or her would be potentially liable for fraud (assuming that the term “medical doctor” used in Form T2201 refers to an actively licensed physician) which would convey more serious consequences than those proposed by the Disability Tax Credit Promoters Restrictions Act. 5. Conclusion The CMA strongly encourages the CRA to identify physicians as a profession that is exempt from the reporting requirements of the Disability Tax Credit Promoters Restrictions Act. This exemption is critical to ensure that possible unintended consequences, specifically duplicative regulatory oversight of physicians, are avoided.
Documents
Less detail