Medical data must stay secure, but connect properly when needed
Translated from Korean and summarized by DistantNews. Read the original for the full story.
At a glance
- Eric Sutherland says healthcare systems need both robust data protection and the ability to connect patient information for care, research and policy.
- An OECD analysis estimates that diagnostic-error costs account for 17.5% of healthcare spending, rising to 28.5% when additional treatment is required, while interoperability could generate benefits equal to 2.7% to 6.6% of national health spending.
- Sutherland advocates “coopetition,” shared data infrastructure and clearer rules for secondary data use to reduce duplication, delay and mistrust.
“Strong data protection alone is no longer enough to earn public trust.” Eric Sutherland, a senior health economist at the OECD, says health systems can lose the value of connected data if privacy becomes the only consideration.
Sutherland co-authored an OECD report on interoperability, the ability of different healthcare institutions and information systems to exchange patient data accurately and interpret it in the same way. He said fragmented records can harm patients even when the information exists. If a hospital only 10 minutes away cannot access a patient’s previous records, clinicians may struggle to understand the person’s treatment history, increasing both financial and physical risks.
Strong data protection alone is no longer enough to earn public trust. If we focus only on privacy protection, we will miss the value that can be gained by connecting and using health data.
The OECD report estimates that costs linked to diagnostic errors account for 17.5% of total healthcare spending. When incorrect diagnoses lead to additional treatment, the cost can reach 28.5% of healthcare expenditure. By contrast, effective interoperability could generate economic benefits equivalent to 2.7% to 6.6% of national healthcare spending, with long-term gains potentially exceeding the initial investment.
Even if an AI tool that helps write clinical records reduces a doctor’s administrative time, the doctor will use that time again for patient consultations and more detailed care.
Sutherland identifies leadership, organizational culture and institutional behavior as larger barriers than technology. He criticizes institutions that build isolated systems and insist on their own methods, leading to repeated investment in similar tools. His proposed answer is “coopetition”: institutions should share data standards and digital infrastructure while competing on the quality of healthcare services built on that common foundation.
He also warns that disconnected AI tools may increase confusion and workload rather than cut costs. An AI tool that reduces time spent writing records may simply allow doctors to spend that time on consultations and more detailed care. Greater savings come when systems connect, such as when clinicians can immediately access another hospital’s MRI results and avoid unnecessary repeat tests. Sutherland points to a British AI stethoscope trial in which usage declined because the device did not connect to existing electronic health records. He also calls for clearer distinctions between public-interest research and commercial use, along with data stewardship to prevent repeated defensive reviews and long delays in granting access.
Healthcare institutions should build data standards and digital infrastructure together and use them as a common foundation. They can then compete to provide better healthcare services.
Originally published by Hankyoreh in Korean. Translated, summarized, and contextualized automatically by DistantNews, with a note on how the source frames the story. Not individually reviewed before publishing. How this works.