MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W262880753

Submission to Standing Committee on Health Bill 52, Health Information Amendment Act, 2009 April 24, 2009

2009· article· en· W262880753 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Tracey M. Bailey, Karin L. Kellogg, Gergely Hegedus

Notice bibliographique

RevueHealth law review · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueEthics in Clinical Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLegislationConfidentialityLawPrivacy lawFreedom of informationPolitical scienceBill of rightsFTC Fair Information PracticeInformation privacyPrivacy policyHuman rights
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The Health Law Institute, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta The Health Law Institute is an academic institute of the University of Alberta established in part to promote positive reform of law and associated policy. Based upon previous work in the area of law and the handling of information, we are pleased to have the opportunity to comment on Bill 52. We look forward to providing further comments and explanation in person if requested to do so by the Standing Committee on Health. In this submission, we outline aspects of Bill 52 which provide improvements over the current legislation, and comment upon amendments that, in our respectful opinion, tip the balance too far in favour of non-explicit uses of without sufficient detail regarding the related mechanisms and duties. There is little weight left on the side of protection of the rights and privacy of individuals respecting access to their information. We conclude with recommendations regarding next steps. Purposes of the Health Information Act Alberta's Health Information Act (HIA) was enacted in 2001 with certain explicit purposes in mind (as set out in s. 2 of the legislation). All of those purposes are relevant to the amendments that have been introduced in the form of Bill 52. Those purposes are as follows: a) to establish strong and effective mechanisms to protect the privacy of individuals with respect to their and to protect the confidentiality of that information, b) to enable to be shared and accessed, where appropriate, to provide services and to manage the system, c) to prescribe rules for the collection, use and disclosure of information, which are to be carried out in the most limited manner and with the highest degree of anonymity that is possible in the circumstances, d) to provide individuals with a right of access to about themselves, subject to limited and specific exceptions as set out in this Act, e) to provide individuals with a right to request correction or amendment of about themselves, f) to establish strong and effective remedies for contraventions of this Act, and g) to provide for independent reviews of decisions made by custodians under this Act and the resolution of complaints under this Act. 1999 cH-4.8 s2 It is clear from a review of such purposes that the task for the legislature is the striking of an appropriate balance between competing purposes such as protection of individual privacy and the use of to provide better care to Albertans, for example. We respectfully submit that Bill 52, The Health Information Amendment Act, 2009 will significantly undermine the achievement of an appropriate balance between these important aims if enacted in its current form. The amendments tip the scale in favour of the use, as government sees fit, for any number of purposes (not only to improve the care system or to provide care services) without adequate consultation, oversight by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta, consideration of the wishes of individuals, or appropriate accountability to individuals for the collection, use and/or disclosure of their information. Expanded Scope of HIA We support the amendments in Bill 52 aimed at expanding the scope of health service and, as a result, that will be treated as health information under the HIA. We make this submission based on the predication that other concerns as set out in our submission are addressed. It has been unwieldy for care providers that deliver care services to be subject to more than one piece of provincial legislation depending upon method of payment for those care services. Expansion of services regardless of source of payment will enable care providers to deal with of individuals in a consistent manner. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,020
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,619
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0200,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,463
Tête enseignante GPT0,602
Écart entre enseignants0,139 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2009
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHealth law reviewMême sujetEthics in Clinical ResearchTravaux en français237 207