Article Preview
Top1. Introduction
In April 2011, the plan to introduce legislation for a nationwide Electronic Patient Record (EPR) communications system in the Netherlands failed. It was a close call – the letters informing civilians about the new EPR were already sent. The Lower Chamber of Dutch Parliament had passed the legislation. The Senate (Upper Chamber) usually agrees with the Lower Chamber, although sometimes minor adjustments are required. But this time, the minister of health, Schippers (VVD1, a conservative-liberal party), saw her law proposal unanimously rejected, mainly over concerns over data security and privacy2. One of the leading Senate senators vocally rejecting the proposal was Dupuis, also member of the VVD. This disagreement within one political party already hints at the unconventional political cleavages separating people on this issue.
The unanimous rejection of the EPR law does not reflect the finding of most opinion reseach surveys that hint to a strong public support for digitalised health records – see table 1. As much of the political debate was over privacy concerns, a better understanding of health pricacy might help to understand why the Dutch Senate rejected the proposal.
Table 1. Public popularity of health databases by country
Country | Year | Perc. | Support in favour of | Source |
Canada | 2003 | 78% | genetic research database |
Pollara and Earnscliffe, 2003
|
Sweden | 2005 | 80% | shared, national HER |
Rynning, 2007
|
USA | 2005 | 72% | health information network |
Public Opinion Strategies, 2005
|
USA | 2008 | 79% | electronic PHR |
Westin, 2008
|
Australia | 2008 | 82% | individual HER | UMR Research, 2008 |
Netherlands | 2009 | 63% | electronic EPR |
de Hond, 2009
|
Netherlands | 2009 | 85% | electronic EPR |
TNS NIPO, 2009
|