An affidavit filed with the Federal Court's Trial Division says a ruling by the federal privacy commissioner violates physicians' privacy rights and “could have significant social repercussions and negatively impact on the physician–patient relationship.”
The affidavit was sworn by CMA Past President Victor Dirnfeld to support the association's application for intervener status in the court challenge of a 2001 ruling by the federal privacy commissioner, George Radwanski (CMAJ 2003;168[3]:327). The ruling dismissed a complaint concerning information on physicians' prescribing habits that was being collected by IMS Health (Canada) without doctors' consent. The company buys the information from pharmacies and sells it to clients, including drug companies. The process, often called data mining (see CMAJ 2000;163[9]:1146-8), is outlawed in British Columbia.
Radwanski ruled that no privacy rules are being breached because the data being gathered do not consist of personal information about physicians. “The prescription is not, in any meaningful sense, ‘about’ the physician. It does not tell us how he goes about his activities, whether he is casual or formal, whether he works mornings or afternoons, whom he meets, where he goes, what views he holds, or any of the other myriad details that might constitute personal information.”
Radwanski ruled that the information “is really a work product, which is distinct from information about the individual.”
Dirnfeld disagrees. In his affidavit, the Richmond, BC, internist warned that the distribution of information about physicians' prescribing habits for some drugs, such as methadone or emergency contraception products, “could have ramifications for the personal safety and well-being of the physician in question.”
He is also concerned about the effect on the physician–patient relationship. “Contemplate Patient X, who asks her physician, ‘Who would know or want to know that you as my physician write so many prescriptions for this type of medication?’ … The physician in this scenario would have to answer, ‘I do not know and I have no right to know or control who has access to my prescribing pattern.’ ”
The 13-page affidavit states that “this perceived and indeed actual loss of control by physicians over information that they create could very well shatter” patients' confidence in doctors' ability to safeguard other health information.
If intervener status is granted, the CMA would be allowed to present these and other arguments in court. — Patrick Sullivan, CMAJ