On mercredi, juillet 17, 2002, at 08:20 PM, Tim Churches wrote: > > Denny, > > By "authentification data" do you mean the patient's private encrypt and > signing keys, > or do you mean a signed digital certificate which holds information > about the cardholder's > identity?
Tim, After chiding another poster for lack of precision, I am guilty of same. My statement should have read Sesam Vitale v.1 smartcards hold identification (ie soc. sec. #, family relationship if under 16) and basic demographic data. There is no authentification function at present. >> Version 2 is intended to be read-write but >> seems to be on hold because doctor's here are worried about the Secu >> using it as a basis for spying on their medical decisions. > > Well, here in Australia, the HIC (Health Insurance Commission), is > promoting a PKI system based on smart devices (dongles) in which they > generate all the private keys... The HIC is also responsible for > detecting fraud and regularly visits doctors to ask them to explain > their billing patterns. Fair enough, but the fraud detection algorithms > they use are quite blunt, and many doctors who are not guilty of fraud > feel quite persecuted by them. My point being that some separation of > powers between medical data collection and those responsible for > oversight of medical practice is probably desirable. In France, it went far further than that 5 years ago, when the then Minister of Emploi and Solidarit�, Martine Aubry, decided that an effective way to limit rising health costs would be to require doctors whose billings exceeded regional averages (as determined by an incomprehensible complexified algorithm) to 'pay back' the excess to the government. Didn't exactly fly with the medical community, and more importantly created a lingering FUD event among computer novices toward creating computerized care networks. Denny Adelman
