Lack of an industry standard for storage and transfer of personal health data complicates provision of primary health care, giving data storage companies leverage in maintaining existing contracts.
Patient data does not fit into one tidy computer file. Linked to a patient identifier can be doctors’ notes, specialist reports, scans, x-rays, allergy alerts and a list of medications prescribed.
If this data were stored in the cloud, any authorised medical professional could access records held on an individual patient.
The norm is for competing private sector data management companies to provide bespoke storage and access for health sector clients. It is not in their commercial interest to allow easy transfer of these records; an issue faced by Waikato primary healthcare provider Te Whare Hauora O Raungaiti Trust, based in Waharoa.
The High Court was told Hamilton-based Health Support Systems Ltd provided a practice management system for Te Whare. In 2021, Te Whare gave notice, terminating the contract. It has been battling ever since to have patient data transferred.
No agreement has been reached over a format for data transfer. Health Support says data transfer is available only in ‘flattened’ format. This potentially cuts links to individual patient files, damaging the utility of information transferred.
Transfers in any other format would breach intellectual property rights held in the ‘indici’ trademarked file management system it is licensed to use, Health Support says.
It came out in evidence that Health Support uses an indici data management system provided by Dublin-based Valentia Technologies. Ironically, Valentia touts its indici data storage system as being a world-leading cloud-based system.
Health Systems told the court Te Whare is using Medtech Ltd as its new provider; a direct competitor to Valentia, it says.
Associate Judge Sussock declined Te Whare’s application for fast-track summary judgment ordering that Health Systems copy across all Te Whare’s data in native format without modification.
A full court hearing is necessary, she ruled. Interpretation of data transfer rules in their contract requires a detailed investigation as to what would be the understanding of a reasonable person having all the relevant background knowledge available at the time their contract was entered into, she said.
Te Whare Hauora O Raungaiti Trust v. Health Support Systems Ltd – High Court (1.04.25)
25.097