The article Legal loophole: Can the state access the electronic patient file? by Fabian Peters first appeared on BASIC thinking. You can always stay up to date with our newsletter.
From February 15, 2025, the electronic patient file is to be introduced for all people with statutory health insurance in Germany. In contrast to the health card, the ePA is not anchored in the law in the bans on confiscation. So can the state access the e-medical record?
What is the electronic patient record?
The electronic patient record (ePA) is a digital file folder for personal health data. Doctors, hospitals, therapists and medical facilities can post and access medical records. Insured persons themselves can also save health data in the e-patient file.
The ePA was developed for use on digital devices. Specifically, this means that health data should be accessible via laptop, smartphone and PC. It is scheduled to be introduced for all those with statutory health insurance in spring 2025. However, it is possible to object to the health insurance company. Use therefore remains voluntary.
A decision against electronic patient records must not have a negative impact on healthcare. People with private insurance can also use the ePA – provided their health insurance company offers the option. The e-patient file is intended to make it easier to exchange medical documents, avoid unnecessary double examinations and make it easy to change doctors.
Prohibition of confiscation: ePA does not enshrined in law
The main criticism of electronic patient records is the issue of data protection, as personal health information is stored digitally. Although the ePA is protected by security measures, there is always a certain residual risk that data could be stolen or misused.
Technical errors, a slow internet connection or system failures can make it difficult to access the e-medical record. In the event of technical malfunctions, sensitive health data that provides information about the physical, mental and mental state could fall into the wrong hands.
Loud Federal Constitutional Court Medical information used to assess the state of health is “highly personal matter”. These are subject to the protection of general personal rights. It is intended to protect insured persons “from the collection and disclosure of findings about their state of health, mental state and character” against public access.
Doctors are also subject to confidentiality. The Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) § 97 Prohibitions on confiscation regulates that health information about patients may not be confiscated without further ado. The prerequisite: These must be “in the custody of those entitled to refuse the certificate”.
However, because the electronic health card is usually not in the custody of a doctor, a GKV modernization law was passed. Since “health data is usually in the custody of doctors authorized to refuse to give evidence,” they would according to law subject to confiscation protection.
The problem: What applies to the electronic health card does not apply by law to the electronic patient file. To date, there is no clear rule to protect the ePA from access by law enforcement authorities. There have already been attempts to adapt Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and supplement it with the e-patient file. However, these have so far been in vain.
Can the state access the electronic health record?
The seizure ban currently assumes that sensitive health data is in the custody of a doctor. A legal supplement applies to the electronic health card. However, when it comes to electronic patient files, the health insurance companies are responsible. However, unlike doctors, they have no right to refuse to give evidence.
The federal government is of the opinion that the ban on confiscation also applies to the ePA. She believes that special legal regulations are unnecessary. The background: According to Section 53a Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 StPO, a “participating person” can also be entitled to refuse to give evidence.
Whether health insurance companies fall under this definition is among experts however controversial. Critics are of the opinion that the health insurance companies provide a service for insured people with regard to electronic patient files and not for the healthcare system. The management of a data storage infrastructure is not directly related to medical treatment,
According to this view, health insurance companies would not be involved and therefore would not have the right to refuse to provide evidence. However, it is still unclear whether and to what extent the ePA has a lack of legal regulation regarding seizure bans. Since the e-patient file is not due to be introduced until February 15, 2025 at the earliest, there are currently no precedents or judicial decisions.
Also interesting:
- Sleep Apnea on Apple Watch: Get notifications about breathing problems
- Real-time transfers are now mandatory for banks – that is now changing
- Energy consumption: How much electricity do electric cars really use?
- Report fake shops online – this is how it works
The article Legal loophole: Can the state access the electronic patient file? by Fabian Peters first appeared on BASIC thinking. Follow us too Google News and Flipboard.
As a Tech Industry expert, I believe it is crucial to address any legal loopholes that may allow the state access to electronic patient files without proper consent or authorization. Patient confidentiality and privacy are paramount in healthcare, and any breach of this could have serious implications for both patients and healthcare providers.
It is important for laws and regulations to be clear and comprehensive in terms of who can access electronic patient files and under what circumstances. Patients should have control over who has access to their medical information, and any access should be strictly limited to those with a legitimate need for it, such as healthcare providers directly involved in their care.
It is also important for healthcare organizations to have robust security measures in place to protect electronic patient files from unauthorized access. This includes encryption, access controls, and regular auditing to ensure that only authorized individuals can access patient information.
In conclusion, it is essential for legal and technological safeguards to be in place to prevent any unauthorized access to electronic patient files by the state or any other entity. Patients’ privacy and confidentiality must be protected at all costs in order to maintain trust in the healthcare system.
Credits