Nudging Consent and the New Opt Out System to the Processing of Health Data in England

Overview

• The paper examines the challenges of the revised opt-out system and the secondary use of health data in England.
• The analysis of this data could be valuable for science, medical treatment, and drug discovery.
• The UK government established the care.data program in 2013 to build a central nationwide database for research and policy planning.
• However, the processing of personal data was planned without proper public engagement.
• Research has suggested that IT companies, such as in the Google DeepMind deal case, had access to sensitive data and failed to comply with data protection law.

Plain English Explanation

The paper discusses the issues around how England handles the use of people's health data for purposes beyond their direct medical care. The government wanted to create a central database of this data to help with research and planning, but they didn't get enough public input on how to do this properly. Some tech companies like Google have also been able to access sensitive health data, which raised concerns about data protection.

Since 2018, the government has tried to address these problems with a new "national data opt-out" system. However, the paper suggests this system hasn't led to significant changes in how the data is actually used or the choices patients can make. The main difference seems to be in how the options are presented to patients.

One key issue is that the "type 1 opt-out" - which completely stops data from being shared outside of direct care - will be removed in 2020. This is concerning because research shows people tend to stick with the default option presented to them, even if it's not the one they would choose if they had more information.

Technical Explanation

The paper analyzes the implementation of the revised opt-out system for the secondary use of health data in England. This system, introduced in 2018, was intended to restore public trust after concerns arose about the initial care.data program's lack of public engagement and the sharing of sensitive data with private companies like Google DeepMind.

However, the analysis suggests there have been no significant changes in the actual use of secondary health data or the choices available to patients. The main difference appears to be in how the options are framed and communicated to the public.

Crucially, the paper notes that the "type 1 opt-out" - which fully stops data from being shared beyond direct care - will be removed in 2020. This is concerning given the behavioral economics principle of "nudge theory," which shows that default rules strongly influence people's choices, even if those choices don't align with their preferences if they had more information.

Critical Analysis

The paper raises important questions about whether it is desirable for the UK government to stop promoting the type 1 opt-out option, which provides the strongest protection for patient data. This could be seen as a form of "hard paternalism," where the government is making decisions on behalf of citizens that override their autonomy.

While the paper acknowledges the potential benefits of utilizing health data for research and policymaking, it highlights the need for robust public engagement and consent processes. The issues around the Google DeepMind case and the lack of substantive changes in the revised opt-out system suggest there are still significant trust and transparency concerns that need to be addressed.

Further research could explore how other countries have approached the balance between data use for the public good and protecting individual privacy and consent. Comparisons of different opt-out models and their impact on patient behavior would also help inform the debate around the desirability of the UK's revised system.

Conclusion

This paper critically examines the challenges of the revised opt-out system for secondary use of health data in England. While the government aimed to address public concerns, the analysis suggests the new system has not led to significant changes in data usage or patient choices.

The pending removal of the "type 1 opt-out" option is particularly concerning, as it could be seen as a form of paternalistic nudging that undermines patient autonomy. Maintaining public trust and ensuring meaningful consent processes are crucial as governments seek to leverage health data for research and policymaking. Ongoing dialogue and further research in this area will be essential.