Prescription data

Most developed countries are in the midst of a debate concerning data privacy. At stake is our ability to study a variety of health outcomes and to assemble data that will help us to assess new technologies and to optimize our use of approved interventions. We urgently need standards and codes of conduct that will be accepted in most countries so that data can “travel” across international boundaries.

The recent CMAJ article by Dick Zoutman and colleagues¹ is unlikely to prove helpful in this debate. Beginning with a title that uses the pejorative term prescription data mining, the authors have encouraged paranoia about pharmacoepidemiology practice in general and the activities of IMS HEALTH in particular. Much of the analysis appears to be inaccurate with respect to the extraordinary efforts made in the past 4 years by IMS to protect physician and patient privacy while making aggregate data available for scientific, regulatory and commercial purposes.

In calling for “enforceable regulations” to control prescription data mining, the authors seem to undervalue the contribution of such data to hypothesis generation. They offer faint praise that sounds more like scorn regarding the contribution of IMS data to research, yet 31 papers and 125 projects over 4 years represent a sizeable pro bono input to science.

Enforceable regulations would raise jurisdictional disputes internationally and between the national and provincial governments within Canada and would plague us with logistical issues to the detriment of science. A code of conduct as already initiated by the CMA deserves expansion and refinement and is much more likely to serve our future needs.

It is time to recognize IMS as an ally rather than as an antagonist in our efforts to improve the quality and efficiency of Canadian health care. At this time, the aspersions of Zoutman and colleagues are misdirected.

Signature

Stuart M. MacLeod
Director Father Sean O'Sullivan Research Centre McMaster University Hamilton, Ont.