PAGES

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Database on doctors is public again after pressure, but with questionable strings attached

After pressure from lawmakers, journalists and advocacy groups, the Health Resources and Services Administration this week restored a data file it removed from public view in September, reports Abby Henkel for the Society of Professional Journalists. Pia Christensen of Covering Health reports that HRSA first removed the Public Use File of the National Practitioner Data Bank, a resource for journalists and the public to learn about malpractice and disciplinary cases against doctors, because "the agency believed it was used to identify physicians inappropriately . . . after the urging of a Kansas neurosurgeon with a long history of malpractice payouts" who became the subject of a story in the Kansas City Star. Removal of the file was protested as an attack on the public's right to know, and a coalition led by the Association of Health Care Journalists publicly objected the removal.

Henkel writes there is a "huge caveat" attached to restoring public posting of the data: "Users of the data set must agree not to repost or share the data on other websites, and cannot use it to identify an entity or individual (such as a doctor) by name." Previously, the law made doctors' names confidential, and the Public Use File identified doctors only by numbers. Also, journalists will have to return data from the Public Use File to HRSA upon request. She adds that "violating the rules could result in having to return the data and being barred from receiving it in the future."

This is a troubling to AHJC president Charles Ornstein, who said in a news release: "How can the government say data is public but then say it's only public with strings attached? I am troubled that HRSA is overstepping its legal authority with these new rules and may be imposing unconstitutional prior restraints on reporters." Christensen reports that journalists have used the Public Use File in the past "to fill in information about particular physicians whom they have identified through other records and means." Such use of the file will arguably be illegal under the new rules. (Read more)

No comments:

Post a Comment