Moti­on Vre­ni Hub­mann (07.3468): Data pro­tec­tion in the heal­th­ca­re sec­tor (writ­ten off)
Writ­ten on 12.6.2009

Sub­mit­ted text:

Rapid tech­no­lo­gi­cal pro­gress and the digi­tizati­on of pati­ent data are incre­a­sing­ly threa­tening pati­ent con­fi­den­tia­li­ty. We ins­truct the Fede­ral Coun­cil to pre­sent the legal basis for com­pre­hen­si­ve pro­tec­tion of pati­ent data. In par­ti­cu­lar, the fol­lo­wing are­as are to be considered:
– E‑health;
– elec­tro­nic pati­ent records;
– Insu­rance card;
– gene­tic data;
– new tech­no­lo­gies (RFID chip).

In par­ti­cu­lar, it should be spe­ci­fi­ed who is respon­si­ble for this data, who has access to it (espe­ci­al­ly to sen­si­ti­ve pati­ent data) and how pati­ents can check the data rela­ting to them. The prin­ci­ple set out in the Data Pro­tec­tion Act (Art. 4 FADP, Prin­ci­ples) that data pro­ce­s­sing must be “pro­por­tio­na­te” must also be spe­ci­fi­ed with regard to pati­ent data.

Justi­fi­ca­ti­on

At an event on pati­ent pro­tec­tion, the data pro­tec­tion offi­cer of the Can­ton of Zurich issued an urgent war­ning against a “cree­ping dis­mant­ling of pati­ent con­fi­den­tia­li­ty” as a result of the gro­wing volu­me of pati­ent data and the increa­se in data exch­an­ge. Accor­ding to him, the­re is an urgent need for legis­la­ti­ve action.

State­ment of the Fede­ral Council

The revi­si­on of the Data Pro­tec­tion Act, which has alre­a­dy been adopted by Par­lia­ment, pro­vi­des for increa­sed trans­pa­ren­cy in the coll­ec­tion of per­so­nal data. In par­ti­cu­lar, it pro­vi­des that the owners of data coll­ec­tions are obli­ged to actively inform the data sub­ject about the acqui­si­ti­on of per­so­nal data requi­ring spe­cial pro­tec­tion. This also inclu­des the health data of pati­ents. Thus, at a mini­mum, it must be com­mu­ni­ca­ted who the owner of the data coll­ec­tion is, what pur­po­se is being pur­sued with the pro­ce­s­sing and who any data reci­pi­en­ts may be. The Fede­ral Coun­cil alre­a­dy sta­ted on June 15, 2007 in its state­ment on the Heim moti­on “Pro­tec­tion of pati­ent data” (07.3114) that the imple­men­ta­ti­on of this legis­la­ti­ve revi­si­on should first be awai­ted and initi­al expe­ri­ence gathe­red befo­re fur­ther legal foun­da­ti­ons are considered.

Accor­ding to the Data Pro­tec­tion Act, the pro­ce­s­sing of data requi­ring spe­cial pro­tec­tion, which also inclu­des pati­ent data, requi­res a basis in a for­mal law. This requi­re­ment is met in the are­as men­tio­ned in the moti­on. The fol­lo­wing should be noted in detail:

Pati­ent dos­sier and “eHe­alth”: The Fede­ral Coun­cil adopted the “eHe­alth Switz­er­land Stra­tegy” on June 27, 2007. The elec­tro­nic pati­ent dos­sier is a com­po­nent of this stra­tegy. The Fede­ral Coun­cil is awa­re of the sen­si­ti­vi­ty of this deve­lo­p­ment and has the­r­e­fo­re given the hig­hest prio­ri­ty to infor­ma­ti­on secu­ri­ty and data pro­tec­tion in “eHe­alth”. For this rea­son, the first pha­se of imple­men­ta­ti­on will invol­ve an in-depth ana­ly­sis of how the­se are­as need to be regu­la­ted by law.

Insu­rance card: The intro­duc­tion of an insu­rance card plan­ned for 2009 is gover­ned by Artic­le 42a of the Health Insu­rance Act (KVG). In addi­ti­on, the Ordi­nan­ce on the Insu­rance Card for Man­da­to­ry Health Care Insu­rance (VVK) spe­ci­fi­es data pro­ce­s­sing in detail. Thus, the insu­red per­sons them­sel­ves deci­de whe­ther and, if so, which medi­cal infor­ma­ti­on they want to have stored in a stan­dar­di­zed data record on the insu­rance card. Insu­red per­sons can also deci­de on read access at the doctor’s office or hos­pi­tal on a case-by-case basis.

Gene­tic data: The Fede­ral Law on Human Gene­tic Test­ing (GUMG; SR 810.12), which ente­red into force on April 1, 2007, sub­jects the pro­ce­s­sing of gene­tic data to pro­fes­sio­nal sec­re­cy in accordance with Artic­les 321 and 321bis of the Cri­mi­nal Code and the data pro­tec­tion pro­vi­si­ons of the Con­fe­de­ra­ti­on and the can­tons in Artic­le 7. Artic­le 19 and other pro­vi­si­ons regu­la­te the com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on of gene­tic data by the phy­si­ci­an, the com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on to the employer, which is only per­mis­si­ble in excep­tio­nal cases, and the hand­ling in the area of insu­rance and lia­bi­li­ty. With regard to the per­for­mance of gene­tic exami­na­ti­ons abroad, Artic­le 6 of the Fede­ral Act on Data Pro­tec­tion (FADP; SR 235.1) applies.

RFID tech­no­lo­gy: On May 18, 2005, the Fede­ral Coun­cil respon­ded to the Hol­len­stein inter­pel­la­ti­on “Does the use of Radio Fre­quen­cy Iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on RFID threa­ten data pro­tec­tion?” (05.3067), the Fede­ral Coun­cil expres­sed the opi­ni­on that the­re is no need for action in terms of data pro­tec­tion legis­la­ti­on. Ope­ra­tors of RFID systems must com­ply with the legal requi­re­ments of the Data Pro­tec­tion Act. If per­so­nal data is pro­ce­s­sed, the data sub­jects must be infor­med trans­par­ent­ly and com­pre­hen­si­ve­ly, in par­ti­cu­lar about the data pro­ce­s­sing, the pur­po­se of the pro­ce­s­sing and the right to infor­ma­ti­on and rectification.